What is great music and why isn't Beethoven that great after all

[Musicologo]

Finally we're getting somewhere and I can debate something tangible.

That statement is an empty shell. It poses as having an "intrinsic quality", but has nothing else to offer than a superficial intellectual pose... attributed externally, of course.

Will that do as an explanation?

Guess not, so let me illustrate your point by applying your approach to something else: "Life has no intrinsic value - everything is attributed externally".

There. D'ya like that?

If I'm following you correctly, we should therefore get rid of life, right?

No it is not an empty shell. It just reminds us of the limitations of human beings and exactly what gives value to them - music is a human activity and earns meaning through cultural and social value (or whatever you call them - politics if you want).

And no, you are not following me correctly see? I never said we should get rid of anything, neither life, neither music. That is your assumption, I never said that.

Just because something has no intrinsic value it doesn't mean one should get "rid" of it, or it is "bad". I pass no judgment on that.

The opposite it is what i want to convey:
because it has no intrinsic value, all value attributed is arbitrary and is made out of a convention and it is subjective, inherent to a culture.

what I'm saying is that in the extreme, ALL music is equally valid, beautiful, good or bad, depending on who is judging it and with which criteria. So, in the extreme all should be preserved and treasured. So it's the exact opposite of what you are assuming.

Imagine someone does a music with 2 chords and 1 note. And that one spends twenty years doing that and that it has a deep emotion while doing it. You might say "he is stupid then". I might say "no, he is the greatest! He did a very simple, yet meaningful craft and had a longlasting experience doing so, in a unique way!". Which of us is wrong or right? Any of us is wrong or right? Does it even make sense?

in the end all that matters is that someone had a beautiful experience.

[Sounddigger]

That order is not universal and it is attributed externally. It is perceived by each listener individually.

What "order" are you referring to?

What is music to me might not be to you.

Almost right, but not quite. See my previous (cross) post for a version that seems more adequate of what you might intend to say.

As far as the sound we're talking about involves human activity is meant to entertain or communicate emotion, an idea, etc, then objectively and technically speaking we'd have to call that "music". Like it or not. Even if it's the most hideous music you can think of...

There is no empiric evidence of universality regarding "order" or "noise" (John Cage pushed that boundary well...)

You are talking politics again.

I can promise you that for most people, even Africans, if you play Beethoven to them they will like it, if you play Cage, they won't (he even has some "music" that doesn't have any noise at all!).

There IS something universal about that. If you can't figure that out, then you're a lost case... and you have my compassion.

[FLWrd]

Guess not, so let me illustrate your point by applying your approach to something else: "Life has no intrinsic value - everything is attributed externally".

There. D'ya like that?

As I hinted in an early reply: the guy is probably full of post-modern and cultural relativism, perhaps with a dash of feminist theory. That also explains his admiration of Zappa, since he's easy to interpret as deconstructing western music. It's also the foul taste you had in your mouth: Musicologo's intellectual stance is Kant, Sartre, Derrida to the extreme. We don't know anything for sure, therefore all is equally useless. You can't argue with that. And even if you think you can, you will not change his attitude, since he (inferring gender from the -o suffix) is just going to oppose any contradiction, a psychologically well-understood reaction.

TL;DR? He's trolling.

[nix808]

I think Musicologo's stance has something to do with the subjective interpretation of the stuff.
I like that u value our sounds ML, our art is equally of worth as any art IMO. Sculpting sensory experiences is cool, and the aural matters in that.

Objective values of quality music,
are unnecessary,
but if u want to play it that way u can--
like a sport.

I will argue my point though,
and if music is essentially anything-
it is sound, and IMO-ordered->
edit:- I see I said the same thing twice, and that doesn't help my argument.
The root of the word involves musing, which I guess you could do to the sound of a river. So it could be considered music to your ears. So I won't say generally speaking it is ordered then. But to me I love the variation on repetition. Hmm, and I like how we have both rhythm and tune to order.
-:end of edit
Then the listener can define it & the creator,
more subjectively

Gotta read both of ur posts a couple more times,
and I will look up John Cage,
the only one I know was in Mortal Kombat hehe

[Sounddigger]

Finally we're getting somewhere and I can debate something tangible.

That statement is an empty shell. It poses as having an "intrinsic quality", but has nothing else to offer than a superficial intellectual pose... attributed externally, of course.

Will that do as an explanation?

Guess not, so let me illustrate your point by applying your approach to something else: "Life has no intrinsic value - everything is attributed externally".

There. D'ya like that?

If I'm following you correctly, we should therefore get rid of life, right?

No it is not an empty shell. It just reminds us of the limitations of human beings and exactly what gives value to them - music is a human activity and earns meaning through cultural and social value (or whatever you call them - politics if you want).

You're going around in circles, and you're again talking POLITICS!!!

Your statement is merely a subjective and sad interpretation of something that could be a source of joy.

Your choice. Don't force it on us.

However, I will concede that for too many people, musical taste is largely defined by the media and/or by peer-pressure, i.e. not much of a personal choice at all.

That said, in today's world classical music is most often the underdog. So in the context of your essay, your statements about the music of Beethoven don't fly. In fact, I'd like to turn it around: YOUR taste seems very much defined by media and a certain stream at its periphery, and you're very much pressuring others to adhere to that taste, with some pseudo-intellectual ammunition.

And no, you are not following me correctly see?

Why am I not surprised that you would write such a thing?

I never said we should get rid of anything, neither life, neither music. That is your assumption, I never said that.

I never claimed that you wrote that. I wrote that you implied that. Which you did. At least, you didn't make it clear at all that Beethoven should be "praised", much less that his music should not be gotten rid of.

Just because something has no intrinsic value it doesn't mean one should get "rid" of it, or it is "bad".

Aha, right. So this discussion is basically pointless then, just as your piece...

I pass no judgment on that.

You have, by implication, and by not clearly writing how Beethoven's music is great after all (or is it actually still "not so great"?).

The opposite it is what i want to convey:
because it has no intrinsic value, all value attributed is arbitrary and is made out of a convention and it is subjective, inherent to a culture.

Let me answer this by quoting one of America's most eloquent "statesmen", D. Rumsfeld:

"There are known knowns; there are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say, we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know."

Wanna talk about politics in pseudo-intellectual and pseudo-philosophical blabber, or about music?

what I'm saying is that in the extreme, ALL music is equally valid, beautiful, good or bad, depending on who is judging it and with which criteria. So, in the extreme all should be preserved and treasured. So it's the exact opposite of what you are assuming.

So if I like chopping people's heads off for a snuff movie, that makes it "good" right?

Hey, it's "in the extreme" alright...

Duh...

Imagine someone does a music with 2 chords and 1 note. And that one spends twenty years doing that and that it has a deep emotion while doing it. You might say "he is stupid then".

No, that what YOU are saying. Don't put any words into my mouth.

Let me listen to that guy/gal, then we'll see afterwards what should be thought of this approach...

[Kriminal]

so,in one sentence

"music taste is a personal thing"

indeed. Some ppl have it, some dont

[Sounddigger]

Guess not, so let me illustrate your point by applying your approach to something else: "Life has no intrinsic value - everything is attributed externally".

There. D'ya like that?

As I hinted in an early reply: the guy is probably full of post-modern and cultural relativism, perhaps with a dash of feminist theory. That also explains his admiration of Zappa, since he's easy to interpret as deconstructing western music. It's also the foul taste you had in your mouth: Musicologo's intellectual stance is Kant, Sartre, Derrida to the extreme. We don't know anything for sure, therefore all is equally useless. You can't argue with that. And even if you think you can, you will not change his attitude, since he (inferring gender from the -o suffix) is just going to oppose any contradiction, a psychologically well-understood reaction.

TL;DR? He's trolling.

So right you are!

[nix808]

This makes me think he isn't trolling,
and he's not saying Beethoven's work is worthless(IMO)->
"in the end all that matters is that someone had a beautiful experience."
It's just that his outlook involves saying children's paintings are equally worthy of scrutiny as Dali's

PS- I am sure he's not trolling,
and pseudo intellectuality still involves it and is kinda interesting really. But I am not calling u that MusicOlogisms

[Ogg Vorbis]

I guess I see this time that we're living in as challenging all the old "institutions" such as established religion, philosophy, politics and art.

Science in the 20th century removed Newton from his institutional throne and said, "the universe is not static, perfect and immutable. It is volatile, flexible, stretchable and not very "universal."

Now that our statues to our intrinsically perfect gods have been toppled down and we stand in the rubble, everything looks about the same in the landscape...no monument appears taller or more permanent than any other. Everything is of the same value apart from its institutional "marketing and promotion" mechanism.

I think this is all a good thing. We should look at the "institutionalized" statues of Beethoven and Mozart and pull them down, grab the bits and shake them to see if there's anything really "there" or not. After all, if there is anything intrinsically "great" about these guys and their music, then it ought to be able to stand up to such deconstruction, shouldn't it?

In order to try to evaluate something, I believe it's important to knock it down, piss on it, laugh at it and stack the rubble arbitrarily and call it our new art.

In the end, maybe in another 100 years, I think that the essence of the experience of Beethoven's music can be rediscovered. Only this time, without the statues and the institutional fetishizing and cummerbunds. Perhaps our great grandchildren will thank us for helping them build new artistic traditions and philosophies?

[Sounddigger]

I think this is all a good thing. We should look at the "institutionalized" statues of Beethoven and Mozart and pull them down, grab the bits and shake them to see if there's anything really "there" or not. After all, if there is anything intrinsically "great" about these guys and their music, then it ought to be able to stand up to such deconstruction, shouldn't it?

In order to try to evaluate something, I believe it's important to knock it down, piss on it, laugh at it and stack the rubble arbitrarily and call it our new art.

Like these?







Had to do without the piss, but you got the idea how "successful" your approach could be at looking things the way "they should be"...

In the end, maybe in another 100 years, I think that the essence of the experience of Beethoven's music can be rediscovered. Only this time, without the statues and the institutional fetishizing and cummerbunds. Perhaps our great grandchildren will thank us for helping them build new artistic traditions and philosophies?

THAT is "Frankfurt School" / "Frankfurter Schule"

It's a con. And it doesn't work! By the time you think you got your answer, it will ALL be gone, and it will be too late to try to find back what you so gleefully pissed all over...

[Musicologo]

You're going around in circles, and you're again talking POLITICS!!!

Your statement is merely a subjective and sad interpretation of something that could be a source of joy.

I'm losing you right here.
And that's part of our communication problem.

I'm not talking politics. I don't exactly understand what you call "politics".
I use a sociological and cultural approach - methods coming from ethnomusicology that study everything (music, art, whatever) and can't detach the human from the environment where he lives!!

It's humanism. Noone lives in a void.

That said, I ask you then:

Where does your taste comes from?
When you make music where does that comes from?
Why do you compose? Why do you make music?
Why you do what you do the way you do it and not differently?

My approach comes from answering these kind of questions. As simple as that. I don't know what this has to do with politics. It has to do with anthropology and sociology and even biology and neurophysiology.

[FLWrd]

PS- I am sure he's not trolling

Definition: trolling is the act of purposefully antagonizing other people on the internet, generally on message boards.

Quote: People often assume Mozart and Beethoven to be examples of greatness. What's so great about them? I can see thousands of people nowadays writing equally great to them.

I rest my case.

[JumpingJackFlash]

The invention of symbolic notation in europe around 1300 was a cultural paradigm and a new way to conceive, produce and consume music.

You may be interested to know that written notation existed at least as far back as 1200 BCE.

That's one of the great things about notation, it means that we can play things that existed over three thousand years ago (albeit with a large margin of error of course). I find that rather incredible.

I wonder if anyone will play Frank Zappa's music in 3000 years time?

if you play Cage ... he even has some "music" that doesn't have any noise at all!

This isn't quite true.

for most people, even Africans, if you play Beethoven to them they will like it

I'm not sure that's true either.
And are you talking about all of Beethoven or one piece in particular?

that doesn't mean that there aren't fairly objective criteria by which one can identify that some music is "great", and some "not so great", on various levels.

I would be very interested to read your objective criteria as to what constitutes "great" music.

[Meffy]

@OP: Well trolled / flamebaited / whatever you want to call it. You caught a bunch.