We've had favourites threads, what about the hates?

[Robert Newman]

The difference is that I grasp what you are asking and have answered your question, several times. But you seem not to grasp what I am saying, though it has been repeated as you can see.

Shall we start again ? Minus Britney Spears greatest hits, that is ?

 

[Andrew Roussak]

Hi Robert and Art Rock,

I want to raise my faint voice in this discussion too!

First, Robert, you refer to octave as to a general measure, so to say. Do you mean actually the overtone row herewith? That is, the octave is the first harmonic, the fifth will be the second one etc., so ( as commonly known ) all natural scales will be derived from the overtone row. The basical construction "root-dominant-subdominant" has therefore its physical/acoustical basis, it is in no way subjective, as well as the consonant /dissonant intervals are not subjective as well. European tonal music ( not only classical ) is of course based herewith on physics.

Is this your point?

 

[Robert Newman]

Yes Andrew,

Music is based on the discovery, the observation, the understanding of the natural phenomenon that is the octave. From this simple, profound and wonderful physical reality we are justified to say there really is a science of music. The significance of the octave has given rise to many different theories and practices over centuries, some good, others less good. Some valid and others less so. That is, some which are consistent with nature and others which are less so.

And yes, the science aspect of music is not subjective at all. The great composers, instinctively and/or by reason of their understanding, create excellent music in conformity to the orderly lessons of nature.

That is my point.

Regards

Robert

 

[Art Rock]

The difference is that I grasp what you are asking

I very much doubt that.

Let me try once more, simple example, clear answer please.

Take any piece you regard as great music. Your choice. But be specific.

Take any piece you regard as not great music. Your choice. But be specific.

Explain to me why the first one is great and the second one not.

You claim that there are laws governing this, that it is even science. That subjectivity (my claim) does not come into it.

So you should be able to explain then objectively why there is a difference.

 

[Robert Newman]

Art Rock,

May I invite you to do the same ?

Yes, there are laws governing music as a science, the chief of which is the octave. The octave is not simply a musical interval. The law related to music is applied artistically and produces musical sounds.

But you have so far avoided answering my question of whether the fundamentals of Music are a science based on real, objective evidence ? Would you confirm this or otherwise in your next post ?

I promise on receipt of your reply to answer your last post in detail.

Thanks

Robert

 

[Art Rock]

I thought I had made it clear in my posts that I do not consider music a science. There are underlying scientific principles in generating sounds (acoustics and so on), but music as such is not a science in my book. Let alone that I think as you claim that great music can be defined by laws akin to science.

My choice:
Great music: Mahler - Kindertotenlieder
Not so great music: Mahler - Symphony 8

There you are. The same well respected composer, roughly the same performing material (voices and symphony orchestra). Both compositions highly respcted by many people.

I can listen to the Kindertotenlieder from here until eternity.
If I never hear the 8th again, that would suit me fine.

Why?
All subjective. I love one, the other leaves me cold, no emotional reaction at all.

Maybe for me the key word in deciding whether music is great is whether it provokes emotion. And that - again - is highly subjective.

 

[Robert Newman]

I'm surprised you write of music -

'I do not consider music a science'

And also -

'There are underlying principles in generating sounds (acoustics and so on) but music as such is not a science in my book'.

Well, we are talking here about music and not all sounds, aren't we ? I assure you there really are laws at a fundamental level in music as you seem to agree. Objective realities. Such as the octave. The octave really exists. There is simply no doubt about it. And it's why Music really IS a Science. A science founded on this indisputable fact. From it others may be obtained. Which, I must repeat, is why Music IS indisputably a science. It (like all the sciences) justifies theories on itself. Without such objective realities there would be no science of music nor any theories of music. These theories are artistically expressed as Music. Theory and practice combined. In Mahler's music as in that of other composers.

Great music is in conformity to the laws that apply to itself. Other music less so.

As for myself, I will shortly post here an example of what I consider to be excellent music.

Regards

 

[Art Rock]

Please also an example of not excellent music and an objective analysis why the difference.

 

[Andrew Roussak]

I very much doubt that.

Let me try once more, simple example, clear answer please.

Take any piece you regard as great music. Your choice. But be specific.

Take any piece you regard as not great music. Your choice. But be specific.

Explain to me why the first one is great and the second one not.

You claim that there are laws governing this, that it is even science. That subjectivity (my claim) does not come into it.

So you should be able to explain then objectively why there is a difference.

Hennie,

will you give me a try on this?

( Surely you know which example I will give for a GREAT music ).

But, my point is actually, it is not THAT subjective. The "subjectivity" is in itself a matter of education, culture, experience...

For the scientific approach - as far as I understand, this can be more likely a measure to distinguish between tonal music ( which is ultimately based on the physical properties of body producing the sound and overtones ) and atonal music ( which denies tonality, dissonant/consonant intervals etc . - you know ). In your example ( two pieces of Mahler ) - I fail to see how exactly this principle may work.

 

[Robert Newman]

Well, first an example of excellent, almost impossibly excellent music. Music so deeply derived from insight into musical fundamentals that it's beyond the reach of most ordinary musicians (let alone listeners). In my honest view one of the most astounding masterpieces of all music.

I hope to comment on what makes it so excellent by tomorrow.

J.S. Bach
Aria
From Cantata No. 216

http://www.mediafire.com/?wz1kxnzftj0

 

[Art Rock]

But, my point is actually, it is not THAT subjective. The "subjectivity" is in itself a matter of education, culture, experience...

Agree. Which makes the judgement even more bound to the person making the judgment, hence even more subjective.

For the scientific approach - as far as I understand, this can be more likely a measure to distinguish between tonal music ( which is ultimately based on the physical properties of body producing the sound and overtones ) and atonal music ( which denies tonality, dissonant/consonant intervals etc . - you know ). In your example ( two pieces of Mahler ) - I fail to see how exactly this principle may work.

I agree. That's why I do not believe a scientific approach is possible.

 

[Art Rock]

And by the way, the fact that I consider Gorecki's third an absolute masterpiece, one of the greatest symphonies ever writen, whereas two others in this thread, also very much knowledgeable on classical music, dismiss it as garbage - that alone should show you that there can not be an objective assessment.

 

[Robert Newman]

It indicates, Art Rock, (and confirmed by your own statements) that your assessment on good and bad music is not objective. First, you don't believe music at the fundamental level is a science. Nor do you believe there is good and bad music other than at the subjective level. But this (you surely agree) robs you of objectivity itself. So your judgement on music is necessarily a self-imposed subjective opinion. If that isn't a circular argument I don't know what a circular argument is !

Subjectivity is a good thing. Listeners need it. But the reason they like some works and do not like others is itself due to reasons of which they are often unaware. Even musicality comes in to it, though they are (mostly) unaware of it.

Regards

Robert

 

[Art Rock]

Surprise me. Show me objectively why you consider one work great and another not.

 

[Robert Newman]

I've already posted here on this thread (about an hour ago) an example of some excellent music. J.S. Bach. An aria from Cantata 216. Did you read that post ?

 

[Art Rock]

Yes. I agree. But that's not the point.

You were also going to explain objectively why. And give a counterexample that objectively is not great music.

 

[Robert Newman]

Well, let's see what has been done so far. I've already indicated (though you seem reluctant to admit it) that music IS a genuine science. Because it is founded on real things. On objective evidence. I've given an example of this in the octave. Haven't I ? I've also explained this science of music is the reason why theories of music are allowed. In short, I have produced evidence that the science of music exists and is based on objective reality. But you believe differently and deny its existence. But the music you have already said is excellent was written by a composer who studied music theory and who also believed that music is a science at the fundamental level. Who was, in fact, also a teacher and conductor. Will you now at least accept that music (at least at a fundamental level) IS a science ? A science founded on objective reality ? Or is this beyond you to accept ? It is the very least that you should accept.

 

[Andrew Roussak]

And by the way, the fact that I consider Gorecki's third an absolute masterpiece, one of the greatest symphonies ever writen, whereas two others in this thread, also very much knowledgeable on classical music, dismiss it as garbage - that alone should show you that there can not be an objective assessment.

Yes, sure. But even in this case, if you would write a detailed review on this symphony, you would definitely try to explain, what exactly makes this music so great for you. And, the other two posters would do correspondingly.

Let us consider the music of Tchaikowsky, for example. He is regarded by many in Russia as the national composer #1, and those who say this always put forward the wonderful melodiousness of his music. There are others, who say the harmonies he used were out-dated even in his time ( the second half of 19 C.) and he was in no way innovative. Both opinions are true. So, the "overall rating" in the review would obviously depend upon , which preferences the reviewer has. It is then subjective, of course; but the reasons for this subjectiveness are still explainable, right?

Then, my other point was, there are objectively bad works. The output from the same composer is never equal, I guess, especially when the composer works under the signed agreement ( as it in the most cases is / was ) and HAS to deliver. There are, for example, some preludes of Chopin ( I am too lazy too look through the scores, but I definitely had them somewhere ), which I have never heard performed or recorded - they will be simply dismissed as mediocre in comparison to his other - obvious - masterpieces. So, poor harmony + poor melody + unconvincing transitions = bad music, right? In this case, it is not subjective.

You may also , for example, consider the most of commercial output of Rick Wakeman - the stuff which is being bought only by completists. I am a fan of Rick Wakeman, damn!!!! I don't think one can be less objective of him, as I am. But, I simply can not make myself to listen to African Bach, except for the opener and the closer!!!

 

[Art Rock]

Well, let's see what has been done so far. I've already indicated (though you seem reluctant to admit it) that music IS a genuine science. Because it is founded on real things. On objective evidence. I've given an example of this in the octave. Haven't I ? I've also explained this science of music is the reason why theories of music are allowed. In short, I have produced evidence that the science of music exists and is based on objective reality. But you believe differently and deny its existence. But the music you have already said is excellent was written by a composer who studied music theory and who also believed that music is a science at the fundamental level. Who was, in fact, also a teacher and conductor. Will you now at least accept that music (at least at a fundamental level) IS a science ? A science founded on objective reality ? Or is this beyond you to accept ? It is the very least that you should accept.

Well, I have been very very patient so far, but my patience is starting to wear thin. Sorry, but it is clear that you somehow cannot even comprehend the simplest statements I am making. Your stating that music is science ten times over does not magically make it science. The existence of your much quoted octave does not make everything based on it automatically science.

One more time, and maybe just maybe in a way that you will notice it:
NO I DO NOT CONSIDER MUSIC A SCIENCE.

And you refuse to come through with what you promised before - an objective analysis based on your claimed laws why one composition is great and another one not. I know why you do not do that - because you cannot.

Let me just try once more against my better judgement. Based on your own approach to music - would you say that painting (fine art style) is a science? If no, why not? If yes, how many people do you think agree with you?


Andrew,
Sure, both sides can make a detailed analysis. Some of them might even be objectively true (e.g.: this is the first use of a steelband in classical music, or this is the first time that someone had the idea to have the oboe backed up by a theremin). In the end though you are (well, I am) going to decide whether a composition (or a performance for that matter) is great not on some numeric evaluation of all analyses but on the impact that the whole piece has on you - which is subjective.
Is Mahler's 8th an accomplished composition? Yes. Highly original? Yes. Does it have any emotional impact on me? No. OK, not great then.

I cannot let myself to be forced to call something great when it has no impact on me. Music, like any other art, should provoke a reaction. Otherwise it is just background.

I share your observation of course that even our most loved composers and artists can create things we do not like. I consider Genesis' Selling England by the pound one of the three best rock albums of all time, an absolute masterpiece, even though it contains one track that is an absolute stinker (More fool me). Bach is my favourite composer, but some of his cantatas and many of his harpsichord works leave me cold. We already discussed Mahler a bit, and to complete my top 3: Brahms created a lot of compositions that I would unhesitatingly qualify as great - but also two string quartets which certainly do not qualify for greatness. Again, in my opinion, subjectively.

 

[Art Rock]

After thinking about this for 15 more minutes, I have decided that I already have too much stress in my life to get worked up by a discussion like this. This will be my last post in the thread - probably even on the forum.