Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxr.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mfs
From: mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON)
Newsgroups: net.music
Subject: Re: Music Kritics
Message-ID: <313@mhuxr.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 10-May-85 23:24:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: mhuxr.313
Posted: Fri May 10 23:24:39 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 11-May-85 04:39:00 EDT
References: <268@osiris.UUCP> <4148@mit-eddie.UUCP> <10517@brunix.UUCP> <231@spar.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 48

> >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
> 
>     those who would JUDGE music have
>     lost before they have even uttered a word.
> 

Quite true. However, I feel that there is a place for criticism. The critic
must simply not forget to also be a fan. Too many losers
are just concerned with remaining cool and 'with it' and forget to enjoy.

>     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'.  

I might add: how are the performers interacting with the piece and with
each other? Is there a synergy from a collection of individuals into
an inspired ensemble?

>     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.

Well said! I'll just add that except in scholarly musical discussions,
a straight description of the music will shut out all readers/listeners
who are unfamiliar with the technical language of music. In order to
reach an inexpert public, the critic will unavoidably interject
subjective commentary. That's fine, as long as the subjective 'like'
or 'dislike' (can't get away from that completely) is based on
honestly derived "standards." These standards will vary from individual
to individual, but if a given critic (such as all of us here in net.music)
sticks to them, the criticism gains in value. If you know where a guy
stands, you can gain insight from his subjective opinions, even if you
disagree with them. A side effect of critical consistency, which I have
noticed as my musical horizons expand, is that the critic will start
to dislike less and less artists, but instead accept their creations'
validity. If you see where a musician is coming from, you may or may
not agree with it, but more typically the understanding will trigger
sympathy.

Marcel Simon