Impressions from contemporary classical music?

[aciddose]

well, I think you aren't hearing it and aren't actually qualified to critique it.

...and i don't think you're qualified to critique my critique or qualifications.

poor example of 'that' structure? *what* structure. Where did you study musical form? Please describe it as per this piece and then hip us to your examplar of "that structure".

the structure of dissonance vs. consonance in various forms, the progression of the melody and the textures involved?

if anything, this kind of proves the contention that people that have experience with certain types of material can have an appreciation for (the content, the style, the form, etc), and people that lacked that - don't kid me - won't. They will rely on the subjective impression.

oh, but you're assuming i haven't heard similar pieces in the past that i enjoyed.

also i think you have this backward. in the first post his supposition was that people who were familiar with bach wouldn't like the pieces posted while those more familiar with those styles posted wouldn't enjoy bach. also my understanding was that he referred to bach as complex and the posted pieces as "not complex" which i assumed meant "simple". my perception is the opposite, bach being simple, unique and directed and those posted being too complex, cliche and aimless.

last you checked, science was the greatest art we know.. checked where? your book of mathematical facts that prove any subjective opinion as objective fact? you're taking the piss there? it's daft.

you'd better look up the classical definition of "art".

you have 'it's a subjective impression' then a swipe at 'structure'. I don't think you glean the structure of that by impression, not even after hearing it two whole times, and talking about structure is talking about an object. You're transparently trying to fake something, argumentum ad culum.

you're incorrect. first of all it seems obvious to me you have very little comprehension of my words. now you're engaged in combat with thin air.

the topic of the thread was whether the perception of certain compositions by the "general public" (those not trained in the specific art) is debased due to a lack of knowledge about the art - or alternatively whether the perception by those familiar in the art has been debased due to that familiarity and the narrowing of focus resulting from it.

if you try to understand where i'm coming from based upon that you should understand my point is to verify and clarify this supposition.

i also pointed out that while the second piece was "ok", i simply didn't enjoy either of them.

you seem to be very confused about the line drawn between objective and subjective qualities and their critique. this is the very basis of the question posed by this thread.

[aciddose]

Nikolas;

i want to point out though that i'm not ignorant of the other supposition you mentioned - you felt that people who were not familiar with compositions by the likes of bach would feel more comfortable with the pieces you posted.

you have to be careful about drawing conclusions from this even if it is true. you have to take into account the selection bias introduced when you take those who lack familiarity with music so commonly known. it becomes more a question of the relativity of subjective judgement when the judge has no point of reference.

likewise, selection bias is included when you take those familiar with specific styles. people who most enjoy bach are more likely to be familiar with similar music because of their own selection for music that they most enjoy. people who enjoy other styles like those you posted will obviously have selected those based upon preference.

to draw a conclusion such as "those who do not enjoy X are unqualified to critique it" is ridiculous. insert other items into these places such as "dancing, shoes and makeup" or "cars, power tools and football". what changes is the ability to clearly judge the quality of a thing either subjectively or objectively.

the balance here is not completely equal in my opinion. my subjective judgements of the first piece relative to other members of it's specific sub-set or genre are certainly impaired due to the fact i haven't spent a large amount of time judging them. my ability to judge any work in general based upon my own enjoyment of that work however can not be impaired - it is completely subjective.

the ability of someone like myself to judge the objective quality of the composition based upon factors unknown to me (i'm not sure what rules apply, although i have a general idea of which rules might) is obviously completely non-existent. the ability to objectively judge it based upon it's general quality however is also not impaired - this time though it is because to make an objective judgement of the quality of a thing or it's ability to perform a particular task is entirely objective and can only be accomplished experimentally.

so it's actually fairly complex, although it seems obvious and intuitive to me.

if that post was too long here it is in a graph:

[Nikolas]

Nikolas;

i want to point out though that i'm not ignorant of the other supposition you mentioned - you felt that people who were not familiar with compositions by the likes of bach would feel more comfortable with the pieces you posted.

you have to be careful about drawing conclusions from this even if it is true. you have to take into account the selection bias introduced when you take those who lack familiarity with music so commonly known. it becomes more a question of the relativity of subjective judgement when the judge has no point of reference.

I'm not really drawing any conclusions fully...

But I can really state that of all the forums I posted kvraudio stood up the most, with the greatest replies ever, the most thorough discussion and lets face it, kvr is not known for the classical music lovers it contains (unless I'm THAT ignorant of the member base of this forum).

Point is that eventually this is my favourite thread of a long time, even if it's in a different forum that I would ever consider...

likewise, selection bias is included when you take those familiar with specific styles. people who most enjoy bach are more likely to be familiar with similar music because of their own selection for music that they most enjoy. people who enjoy other styles like those you posted will obviously have selected those based upon preference.

to draw a conclusion such as "those who do not enjoy X are unqualified to critique it" is ridiculous. insert other items into these places such as "dancing, shoes and makeup" or "cars, power tools and football". what changes is the ability to clearly judge the quality of a thing either subjectively or objectively.

True. Though, as I said previously, I think, the 'theory' is just that a theory, and apart from personal experience it's hard to draw any liable conclusions really. The 'unqualified to critic anything' is not my words, nor I believe that really. I do feel that the will to be fair is essential when criticing but other than that, you certainly don't need to provide your qualifications in order to be able and be taken seriously! Not to mention that in the real world, the audience is the people who are judging eventually (even if they can be manipulated via various means). And the audience, as a package, is a bit like a flock... no?

the balance here is not completely equal in my opinion. my subjective judgements of the first piece relative to other members of it's specific sub-set or genre are certainly impaired due to the fact i haven't spent a large amount of time judging them. my ability to judge any work in general based upon my own enjoyment of that work however can not be impaired - it is completely subjective.

the ability of someone like myself to judge the objective quality of the composition based upon factors unknown to me (i'm not sure what rules apply, although i have a general idea of which rules might) is obviously completely non-existent. the ability to objectively judge it based upon it's general quality however is also not impaired - this time though it is because to make an objective judgement of the quality of a thing or it's ability to perform a particular task is entirely objective and can only be accomplished experimentally.

so it's actually fairly complex, although it seems obvious and intuitive to me.

It certainly is complex! You need to remember that apart from the things you mention (to which I don't really disagree, nor agree. I'm rather cold in the middle), there's the idea of aesthetics, which goes a bit further away from techniques, composition, even if it can taught.

I know very little about EQ and compression (first sample library was from EW, and thus it was ready made pretty much out of the box), or even reverb (for the same reason). I don't do dance music, I don't go to clubs and I live in Greece. Yet I can very much enjoy a hardcore electronica dance piece, exactly because I won't delve deeper...

[aciddose]

True. Though, as I said previously, I think, the 'theory' is just that a theory, and apart from personal experience it's hard to draw any liable conclusions really. The 'unqualified to critic anything' is not my words, nor I believe that really.

i should have phrased it a little better. i was not really talking "at" you regarding that, just mentioning it as a component of the whole issue.

i'm not sure if the audience can be described so much as a flock in some cases as a pack of hyenas. don't let them smell fear.

It certainly is complex! You need to remember that apart from the things you mention (to which I don't really disagree, nor agree. I'm rather cold in the middle), there's the idea of aesthetics, which goes a bit further away from techniques, composition, even if it can taught.

I know very little about EQ and compression (first sample library was from EW, and thus it was ready made pretty much out of the box), or even reverb (for the same reason). I don't do dance music, I don't go to clubs and I live in Greece. Yet I can very much enjoy a hardcore electronica dance piece, exactly because I won't delve deeper...

that's a very good point. that's like i said about if you were a wood-worker or welder or so on you'd find yourself critiquing the saw marks on a table top or the quality of the weld on a statue, focused much too closely to really appreciate the bigger picture.

the over-all aesthetic of a work no matter what form it comes in is certainly something that is sort of "emergent" from the whole of the components and can't easily be broken down into specific parts. what works perfectly in one place won't make any sense in another.

although i wonder a lot of the time whether certain artists are really operating by a sort of "spur of the moment" or following a well thought out and perfected method.

of course when it comes right down to it there really isn't that much difference between the two ideas. it's only really in how we perceive them. the results are emergent regardless of the method. works can be produced completely by chance, or by an extremely directed effort.

[kcisANDderit]

Off topic: I've heard a couple of pieces like this in the past that got my attention but didn't really chase it up.. If this was a sampler, who would I go seek out now.. Bartok? Although I quite often prefer piano, I think in this case the Quartet may be a better instrument.

whether or not it was what you heard you certainly can't miss by checking out bartok's quartets

[kcisANDderit]

when i was a teenager i read this book, Music, the Arts, and Ideas: Patterns and Predictions in Twentieth-Century Culture. it was a kind of eye-opener for me regarding how we listen and respond to music. very much related to this thread's discussion

http://www.amazon.com/Music-Arts-Ideas- ... 0226521435

[kcisANDderit]

all art is subjective. the word objective shouldn't even come into the discussion except to say that no response to art can be described as objective

we can talk about the 'science of' sound but not music (art)

[aciddose]

no, in fact everything has specific properties that may be measured and described with perfect accuracy.

we could rate the quality of a piece based upon it's relative similarity through various means to others in a group no problem at all.

what this wouldn't do though is provide any reason to think that a piece that happens to fit perfectly into that group based upon our rules would have the same effect upon the listener, that it would be identified as a member of that group via polling or that it would rate similarly as the "best" from a subjective point of view.

it's quite possible to follow exact rules for composition, if you know the rules. it's possible to write software to do so. actually it's very easy.

to look at a composition subjectively but apply specific rules such as rating it relative to several other similar compositions makes it subjective within a specific context, from which you can objectively state the result. you can for example poll listeners about five different compositions and find that 80% of listeners rated composition #3 highest.

we can also very objectively rate a composition based upon it's content. for example we can identify the distribution of various elements of rhythm or pitch and other aspects.

the important thing is not to confuse them.

[t00nz]

all art is subjective. the word objective shouldn't even come into the discussion except to say that no response to art can be described as objective

we can talk about the 'science of' sound but not music (art)

I agree. I think another way to say it is that we can talk about the science of sound and even of music objectively, but the art or experience of either is subjective.

I think whether you can define metrics around music, or form music procedurally, is irrelevant to this.


Bartok is interesting. I grabbed some stuff from Spotify last night and lost an hour to it. Also following the influences of the composer of the first piece has yielded some interesting stuff too, thanks.

[kcisANDderit]

we could rate the quality of a piece based upon it's relative similarity through various means to others in a group no problem at all.

your rating will always be subjective whether it's an individual piece or a group of pieces

check iTunes for personal ratings

[Nikolas]

LOL @ the itunes comment. Not to mentions the good old youtube itself!

t00nz: Apart from Bartok, there's also Shostakovich quartets which are worth a shot Especially the best known...

Everyone: There should be ways to judge subjectively even art. Not that it will be detached from all experience of the judge, but this is how things work, even in real life. Think of competitions (with a judge panel and I'm NOT talking about 'America you've got talent'). Think of universities and schools. Someone is FORCED to judge you based on some subjective criteria in order to give you your darn paper...

As a publisher, I'm also forced to judge some things. Some things are thrown outside the window straight away (figuratively speaking. I've never received an actual snail mail package as of yet). They are not worth one bit. Other things are kept because they might be interesting, but lack a spark or something else. Especially since we're talking about a high risk commercial project, even the lack of 'commercialness' goes into play, even in art-music! Sadly... Then there's the outmost amazing stuff! As I think I mentioned somewhere, the quartet falls into that group and did so straight away. It was summer, I was away from the studio, and I only knew Barnaby's 'A Certain Chinese Encyclopaedia'. After a short e-mail exchange he sent me the recording of the Bagatelle. First 30 secs were certainly interesting but nothing special. And then came the surprise... I was listening through my sons mp3 player, and he kept complaining for the other 30 minutes (before we got down for a long swim), since I wouldn't give him his mp3 player back!

Of course commercial thinking was put aside in this case, since it's hard enough to push it (especially since it's not solo piano, which can go down easier), but I believe it was worth it! Plus this along with most works published by us in EMF, just goes into the 'WOW MAGNIFICENT' category... Totally biased, but still...