The Arrogant Proggie

O.K., here's another attempt at a brief summary of why "superiority" is not something any music can lay claim  to on an "objective " basis.

I've been to concerts, shows, jams, where the band missed some notes, played some bum notes, but ended the night with several standing ovations and encores.
I've been to concerts, shows, jams, where the band played everything note for note perfect, no missing bits, but ended the night with a half empty hall, club or basement / garage, or simply a crowd that went on as if the group wasn't there (i.e. polite applause, or "what time is it ?")
Why ? Dunno. Whenever it didn't jibe with my enjoyment or lack thereof (in both situations), I'd give my opinion, and add a caveat emptor - "but most of the crowd didn't see it that way".\

Knowledge of music theory means you know about music theory. Theory is good in thinking. It matters not a whit when it comes to knowing what music I, you , or anyone else will find "superior". Indeed, most people, music fans included, would change the phrase to "find it enjoyable". or not.

I.E. - Bach's cycle of popularity was not due to his music being "superior" or inferior. It was because his music became more popular with music listeners. The basics of music theory did not account for any part of that change in attitude towards Bach. The basics of humanity  neither. Just that some people, then more, then enough, came to enjoy his music to the point where recognition was his.

Of course, I don't have a PHD or a masters in music theory. It could actually be that a century after Bach, a holder of a music doctorate discovered that Bach had done something musically that was never noticed by his critics, or those other ignoramuses  that had no interest in Bach's work.  And therefore was actually a great composer, not a footnote in the making of music.

Which leads to this question :

Did these so called music experts (highly educated music theorists) make up one or the other opinion (Bach is great ! or "Bach is who ? ) ?

Because if there were some of these people who were able to identify "superior" music due to this musical training, on both sides ... then the question is ... which music theorists were right ?

Point - music is something the listener enjoys or doesn't ... beauty is in the ear of the beholder . You can apply measures to it, but you cannot judge its' appeal to anyone, nor a supposed "superiority". This no reason to do so as you have no ability to do so. And the only need for such proposing such a determination is to make up for feelings of inferiority.

opinion vs fact . this understanding is what you guys lack ...


Edited by debrewguy - July 01 2009 at 20:30

debrewguy wrote: O.K., here's another attempt at a brief summary of why "superiority" is not something any music can lay claim  to on an "objective " basis. I've been to concerts, shows, jams, where the band missed some notes, played some bum notes, but ended the night with several standing ovations and encores. I've been to concerts, shows, jams, where the band played everything note for note perfect, no missing bits, but ended the night with a half empty hall, club or basement / garage, or simply a crowd that went on as if the group wasn't there (i.e. polite applause, or "what time is it ?") Why ? Dunno. Whenever it didn't jibe with my enjoyment or lack thereof (in both situations), I'd give my opinion, and add a caveat emptor - "but most of the crowd didn't see it that way".\

four legs good, two legs bad ! 

o.k. please define these measures that you would use to determine a music's superiority ...
and whether by superiority you mean better

My (X) is better than your (X). And Van Der Graaf Generator are better than Porcupine Tree.

More seriously, preference is obviously subjective, but objective understanding of a creator's use of objective ideas can increase or potentially decrease your subjective enjoyment.

So, nabbing a verse from Byron

Don Juan/Canto the First wrote: And if in the mean time her husband died,      But Heaven forbid that such a thought should cross Her brain, though in a dream! (and then she sigh'd)      Never could she survive that common loss; But just suppose that moment should betide,      I only say suppose it—inter nos. (This should be entre nous, for Julia thought In French, but then the rhyme would go for naught.)

Is incredibly funny if you get the joke. You obviously won't find it funny if you don't read it knowing vaguely the context of the poem, its running joke, a bit of really basic French and Latin pronunciation. Even if you do know those, you might not find it particularly funny, but if you do, you'll be able to better understand it and therefore give a better informed subjective judgement of it. I assume that musical knowledge works in the same way, if a bit less exactly.

Now, whether a better informed subjective judgement is actually a more objective judgement is open for debate, but I think it's at least close.

I get the joke, nice.

I can speak in not as much detail as I would like since I've been landed up with a thesis to copy-edit with a very short deadline to do it in (not a thesis on music).  I was speaking of evaluating music according to various criteria (say the basics of music: tone, harmony, texture, rhythm, form etc.) and building frameworks to analyse music.  Even if the framework shows biases, music can still be evaluated within it.  Different music can be seen to have different strengths, and can be analysed using many criteria as a base.  If someone says this music is better than another, then I say better in what way?  One can explore various facets of music.  If I were to say that one thing is more accomplished than another, then I would include which aspect/s indicate higher quality.  And I might very well say that the other music is more accomplished in other ways.  Again, I think trying to understand the intent of the music is important.  If someone is trying create a particular form of music without sufficiently understanding the conventions, and knowledge of compositional technique, then it is highly unlikely that they could produce a truly successful piece of music for its genre.  Add to that "performance", that that person has never picked up an instrument and is recording his playing, and one might say you have a lack of quality.  Let's say this amateur multi-instrumentalist is trying to compose and record a symphony that is imitative of Beethoven since he heard "The Ode to Joy" in a movie and thought, "This sounds kool!!! I betcxha I could compost sumthing like that, so Im goin to do it.  Then Ill sell it on wheeBay ass a lost Bateovn classik witch he had rekorded on a rekord just before he died -- I think hes dead.  Better ask my baby-sister if I can boroww her kazoo and zylo... zylothing cause mommy gets pretty angry when I take her stuff."  He even thinks in typos.

As it happens, that album is a critical success, and hailed as a masterpeice with some saying, "It may not be good for me, but I know good music when I hear it."


Edited by Logan - July 02 2009 at 17:10

O.K., but is the arguement that the word "superiority" is used to indicate "better" , or just to say that it meets certain "techinical" criteria ?

And as for the car analogy ... the Porsche would likely be what seems to be a natural answer for best car, if you compare it to a Honda Civic. But then, once you've owned a Porsche, you can tally up the actual cost of owning this vehicle, and the downtime associated with it being at the garage, and then ask why the Civic might not be the better car.

debrewguy wrote: objective measure of superiority - Construction project tenders for a piece of steel that can carry a weight of 500 lbs. Proposal one tests as being able to carry 600 lbs. Proposal # two tests at being able to carry a weight of 550 lbs. Number one is a superior piece of steel according to the measure specified.

Better is a synonym for superior.  What's important is the context of the word, and what  framework, criteria, and perspective is being used to gauge superiority.  Just because one finds something better than another (in terms of preference) does not make it of superior quality, or excel more than another/ show superior craftsmanship at what it does.  It's important to move from vague generalities to specifics when making value judgements, and to have sufficient knowledge to back-up assertions.

I don't use superior to mean that which I prefer, even if it is better for me.  One can use a framework to gauge superiority within certain parameters.  The validity of one's conclusions will depend on various factors.

I do not consider Prog to be inherently superior to other genres, and it's easier to deem excellence using a framework when comparing music of the same ilk.  One type of music can excel at one thing, while another can excel at another thing.

Using that painting example again.  People would think it daft to make a contest of superior craftsmanship/ technique between a young child's painting who has very limited experience and a very experienced adult painter.  It would make more sense to compare two children of the same age....

Some reviewers are considered better than others.  Partially that depends on taste, but some show more craft when it comes to writing and in expressing ideas.  Some have greater English language skills.  Remember that music is a language too.  How well it speaks to you is a matter of taste and experience, and if one is not familiar with the language/ learned, or knowledgeable when it comes to different modalities, then one's analysis (and forming a construct for analysis) is not likely to be of the same quality as one who has real experience/ knowledge.

I haven't read through the latest posts, but just to say something that has been bugging me lately.  I have nothing against popular music, in fact I like most of it.  The only stuff I don't listen to is when a band does not evolve at all from one album to the next because they are trying to emulate their success.  eg.: Nickelback's latest album, plus most of their other ones :P.  Anyways, i have been noticing that almost all of my freinds (except for 2) seem to only enjoy popular music, and i was wondering if anyone has any tips of how to get people to give any music that is not popular a listen... for their own sake