Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brunix.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!wjh12!foxvax1!brunix!ry From: ry@brunix.UUCP (Rich Yampell) Newsgroups: net.music Subject: Re: Music Kritics Message-ID: <10579@brunix.UUCP> Date: Thu, 9-May-85 07:46:42 EDT Article-I.D.: brunix.10579 Posted: Thu May 9 07:46:42 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 11-May-85 23:59:57 EDT References: <268@osiris.UUCP> <4148@mit-eddie.UUCP> <10517@brunix.UUCP> <231@spar.UUCP> Reply-To: ry@nancy.UUCP (Rich Yampell) Distribution: net Organization: Brown University Computer Science Lines: 107 >>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. Bogus. From this, it follows that *all* sound of any kind is good music, since, for any sound S, I can surely find someone somewhere who thinks S is masterful. My gut feeling is that this is obviously false, though I cannot prove it (yet). You clearly think that this is true, which is fine, but you have simply stated it as if it were fact, rather than showing why it must be so. This begs the question. The point of the discussion (I had hoped), would be to try and find reasons for holding either side of this opinion. I am looking to either justify my gut feelings, or convince myself that they are wrong and should be ignored. > 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. Irrelevant. I hardily agree that anyone who would put the opinion of a critic (or *anyone* else, for that matter) above their own opinion (or even worse, never bother to have their own opinion but just parrot the critics) is a blithering idiot. [I am reminded at this time of Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead". Anyone who has not read this should do so!!] But that does not in any way show that the critics are in any way invalid in what they are saying. You have not shown why it cannot be the case that the critics are right on the mark. If it is wrong to blindly assume that the critics know what they are talking about, it is just as wrong to blindly assume that they don't. To me, it would seem that the most appropriate action would be to listen to what they say, and see if it makes sense to you. But again, all of this begs the issue. The real question is, *can* critics, or anyone else, be "right", or is it necessarily a matter of subjective opinion? Again, you have assumed an answer and proceeded from there. I am more interested in how you got your answer. > 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. Same thing. Assumption. *WHY* is your judgement worthless? How do you know that it isn't absolutely valid? > 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. Here we reach one of my problems with the subjective side of the arguement. If we take as given, for a moment, that opinions are BS, then as far as *I* can see, your reasons for holding those opinions are just as much BS. > 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. Bogus. "technical crap"?? Give me a break. Demonstrate reasons for opinions, don't just state and assume them please. I say that "technical crap" is very important. I will demonstrate why, as a means of furthering discussion. It is only in the last couple of years that I have started listening to and enjoying (avidly!) classical music. Before that, it was something kind of "esoteric", long, dull, etc. I sort of respected it, but had no real interest. The music never really managed to exert any magic on me. Then, to fulfill a fine arts requirement, I took a course on Beethoven. Changed my life. Opened up a new world to me. The course consisted almost entirely of "technical crap". But knowing that "technical crap" allowed me to make sense of the music, to see where it was coming from and where it was trying to go, to follow the drama that comes with the unfolding of the structure. To continue with Beethoven as an example, you cannot fully appreciate him without knowning some of the "technical crap". Much of what Beethoven did involved bending, stretching, and outright breaking the established rules of the day. You cannot understand what he's doing, then, unless you know just what those rules were to begin with. Not that you can't derive a lot of enjoyment from the music by listening without any of this knowledge, but the "technical crap" provides a *much* deeper insight. I am not even saying that it is *necessary*, but just that it is certainly valuable and does not deserve the label "crap". Rich Yampell