Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Objective quality of music

Re: Objective quality of music
August 26, 2009, 02:00:10 AM
Quote
Humans may make value but it is purely a human idea that does not exist in nature.

So animals are just disorganized creatures that don't have any values? Ever read about ants or bees?

Quote
Our values have been created over the millions of years of our evolution to allow us to survive.

Lulz, the oldest homo sapiens found is about 200,000 years old. That's not "millions of years." Sorry bro but it had to be said.

Morality has changed much over the centuries and is different with each culture. Morality is just a sign of the times, much like fashion is. That today Britney Spears is supposedly valued more than Beethoven is simply related to the time we live in, not to their music. But Britney Spears doesn't have as many streets named after her and never will, so what exactly is this thread trying to prove anyway? It's no mystery that Beethoven has contributed far more to western culture than Britney Spears has and anyone ignorant about that is obviously stupid. The anthem of the EU is Beethoven's "Ode to Joy" conducted by Herbert Von Karajan. Sorry for you Americans who have to deal with R&B singers messing up your national anthem in overcrowded baseball stadiums but that's why America isn't considered to be very cultural in the first place. Analyzing Beethoven for retards won't help, what you need is a cultural enema.

Re: Objective quality of music
August 26, 2009, 02:40:47 AM
So animals are just disorganized creatures that don't have any values? Ever read about ants or bees?

I think he was referring to consciously held values, abstract values unrelated to survival in particular. Ants and bees don't know they're organized, they are just responding to instincts to work together.

Morality is just a sign of the times, much like fashion is.

I wouldn't say morals are completely made up. Much of what you might call traditional morality is fairly consistent across cultures and across history. Honesty is an example I like to use, as I can't imagine a culture where honesty wasn't a virtue, except ours of course. It's not working out too well. Some morals come and go, but some come to be because they are necessary for a functioning community.

That today Britney Spears is supposedly valued more than Beethoven is simply related to the time we live in, not to their music.

True. Few people will contend that classical music is better than pop music, because that's what we're told by academics. The issue should be more about convincing people to take the time to appreciate the classics.

Re: Objective quality of music
August 26, 2009, 09:42:27 PM
Quote
Our values have been created over the millions of years of our evolution to allow us to survive.

Lulz, the oldest homo sapiens found is about 200,000 years old. That's not "millions of years." Sorry bro but it had to be said.

I was not implying that we as a species were millions of years old. I was talking about the lifeforms that we had come from, not just us as we are now.

Re: Objective quality of music
August 30, 2009, 06:11:55 AM

Man may make value and it may be tested, debated, argued and falsified but it is not a value system that is inherent to the universe but only relative to the human. You are right man's values are based upon reality or at least a facet or particular element of reality. However these values are only meant to allow man to survive and to feel good.  Even such emotions as empathy and pity only serve to allow man to live. As we leave the lifestyle that these values were crafted for and we enter pursuits that are beyond ideas of survival because it is assured we find that morality becomes a problem. In the end our societies are simply an agreement between people to try and survive and be happy in a safer environment.


So, would you define the most replicated genes and their respective, superstructural values as the best, given the fact that they multiplied in greater numbers and thus with more efficiency?

Britney Spears is a sign of decline, an excessive and numerically "successful" replication of these genes: Crowdism.

Let's decode Spears: "Love me, because I'm a star made of individualistic pleasure, dream me and consume me"

Let's decode Beethoven: "Life is struggle and dance, between the might and the subtlety, in the gathering of the skies and the entrails".

Now, it's clearer how destructive and poisonous is crappy music and its companying perception of the world for the spirit and for the environment. Why not recognize Beethoven as a voice of romanticism? Why not recognize romanticism to be objectively superior than the self-wanking [post]postmodernism?


Re: Objective quality of music
September 04, 2009, 01:53:26 AM
With the ongoing Ritual flame fest at the other domain, personal motives bubble to the surface. The band's rep has alluded several times to two central ideals: popularity and money. These motives, the processing within the musician, must influence if not essentially shape the artistic or entertainment output the individual offers us. Can a producer of work reveal for everyone, via third party analysis or interrogation, an objective quality of their output? I'm seeing it for myself as a non-participant.

Re: Objective quality of music
September 07, 2009, 02:45:51 PM
1. All things have quality; if not physical, quality of organization and truthfulness (correspondence to reality).
2. If Beethoven were played on a kazoo, it would still be good; thus, aesthetic surface qualities are irrelevant (production, voice, etc).
3. We can measure the degree of complexity, complexity of phrase, use of musical elements, etc., and finally derive artistic meaning.
4. Complexity and aesthetics in art are driven by this expression of artistic meaning.
5. Therefore, that which has artistic meaning is going to have quality.

1.  Complexity and logicity of organization is of course secondary to the underlying, less tangible, spirit of a work.  Otherwise Boulez would be a better composer than Beethoven.  Of course trying to discuss non-tangibles in other forums will end in tears.
2.  The structure of a work includes timbre, the sound of an instrument is determined by mathematical relationships between frequencies, therefore instrumentation is not irrelevant.
3, 4 ,5.  To my mind artistic meaning is immediate, whilst complexity of structure is an academic concern.  Sure there is good music which is structurally intricate, and all good music is structurally coherent, but the complexity of organization on the surface does not in my opinion make the piece valid.  There are many underlying factors which go to make up the artistic character of a piece of music, and although all music based on traditional melodic modes has an inbuilt mathematical coherence, these factors are still not evident except to the ear. 

Sorry if my last point was slightly convoluted, shouldn't post when I'm drinking :)

Re: Objective quality of music
September 16, 2009, 05:39:07 PM
Quote
My inner refinement is revealed by my altogether genuine and natural pleasure in Brahms while your innate vulgarity is inevitable and unavoidably revealed by your unthinking joy in Coldplay.

http://www.popmatters.com/pm/post/ideology-and-aesthetics/

In praise of "unconscious tastes." For example, while I identify with metal, if not guided by some other force (social interaction, Asphyx withdrawal) I will probably select classical music for my listening pleasure.