Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!prls!amdimage!amdcad!decwrl!spar!ellis
From: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Newsgroups: net.music
Subject: Music Kritics
Message-ID: <231@spar.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 7-May-85 07:27:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: spar.231
Posted: Tue May  7 07:27:54 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 9-May-85 00:30:14 EDT
References: <268@osiris.UUCP> <4148@mit-eddie.UUCP> <10517@brunix.UUCP>
Reply-To: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Distribution: net
Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA
Lines: 71

>In summary, this person is saying, in effect, "If you don't like something
>that *I* like, then you are narrow-minded.  If I don't like something *you*
>like, well, hey, obviously I'm right and you're wrong.
>
>Is there any absolute way to judge music, or is quality *always* a matter
>of opinion?  And if there are any absolute standards, what are they?
> -- Rich Yampell

    Just to toss in my own opinion here, those who would JUDGE music have
    lost before they have even uttered a word. But I believe you are nearing
    an answer to your question about standards, right here:

>>   "If you don't like something that *I* like, then you are narrow-minded."

    Replace `I' with `anybody'. That's a good start. Patience helps.
    So does liking what you don't like. But judgement stinks.

    Too many people stupidly believe in the religion called Music Kriticism.
    This faith attributes meaning to the bombastic babblings of an elite
    who've somehow achieved the status of `Kritics' -- messiahs `gifted'
    with special magical Artistic Quality Perceptrons.

    People who are affected by the ravings of such dolts are mistaken, for
    they have no faith in themselves, and allow themselves to be manipulated
    by the evil forces of $$$, or established precedent, or some other 
    unknown bias.

    The best critics, to my reckoning, waste little effort egomaniacally
    placing labels like `good' or `bad' on the music they review; instead
    their proper purpose oughta be to DESCRIBE the music under
    consideration.  That way, whether they like the music or not, they are
    serving a valuable purpose -- uniting artist with audience.

    As a fair compromise, I might say that `Depeche Mode' makes me vomit
    because it sounds like disco-oriented hi-tech syntho-pop. This is useful
    criticism -- such phrasing, though it has provided me with a means of
    blowing off a bit of hot air, is actually descriptive.  Those who don't
    like such music will avoid it; those who like it will be run out to the
    store in spite of my worthless judgement.

    Part of the fun of net.music is flaming about what we like and hate, and
    I'd never suggest that people not have fun. But your opinions are BS --
    your most valuable contribution is your description, your reason why you
    like or dislike the music you review.

>Isn't this about as difficult as saying why one likes a piece of music? My
>reaction would be - I like a piece of music because it moves me
>irresistably, I dislike a piece of music because it bores me. I don't think
>that's the level of detail you were after, though...Analysis can be fun, and
>occasionally it gives insights into the whys of a piece, but more often it
>resembles an attempt at a closed form solution of a 12-body problem.
> -- Jeff Winslow

    I don't think that `analysis' is desirable at all except when addressing
    a very esoteric audience indeed. It is possible to naively listen to the
    most complex classical music without knowing the first thing about the
    technical crap usually associated with classical analysis. All one needs
    is listening experience and PATIENCE. The same goes for describing music.

    How far can such description go? One can talk about influences (with
    whom does the composer associate? who inspired the music? what led to
    the composition of this piece?), emotions (tragic? violent? ecstatic?,
    serene?, fecal?), similarities (what other music does this sound like?),
    instrumentation (do they use power tools, violins, toilet plungers),
    etc., all without using most of the techniques I usually associate with
    `analysis'.  

    Unfortunately, such articles take more time and effort than many here
    seem willing to invest. 

-michael