Prog Snobbery

rogerthat wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote:   You can have an opinion that one band or album or song is objectively better than another without considering yourself the ultimate arbitrator of taste, just as you can have a political opinion without considering yourself the ultimate authority on political science.  That however would contradict the very notion of objectivity, which implies a statement that has basis in facts.  It also implies impartiality, which is extremely difficult in music given that we are usually talking about the music we like.   What one can be objective about is specific aspects of music taken in isolation...is one musician more technically accomplished than another....this can be evaluated without necessarily implying that makes the music of the former better than the latter.   Music is not the sum total of its characteristics; it is a medium of expression.  Every composition is like a living, breathing entity that presents, or hopes to present, the listener with an experience that is distinct.   Music is born out of a composer's thoughts and goals and often takes shape spontaneously.  It is difficult to compare unless both compositions can be reasonably assumed to serve the same need (which more or less rules out comparing compositions of different artists).  I don't think it is snobbish to say one genre is better than the other as long as we recognize that it is a subjective statement that reflects our experiences in music.  Therefore, it does not make the person who disagrees with such a statement wrong either.

I don't think it contradicts the notion of objectivity, I just think it makes objectivity much more difficult because music is such a personal thing.  When you analyze the quality of a composition, you're dealing with facts that you have to piece together with abstract reasoning to evaluate the whole piece.  I suspect (in fact, I'm almost positive) that you and I disagree over whether value in music is objective or subjective; I think it's both, which is one of the things that makes music (and art in general) so intriguing, divisive, and appealing.  I agree with you about music as a "living, breathing entity" and about the difficulty of comparing different compositions, but I also think that there are objective standards for quality in a piece of music.  Ignoring the subjective leads to snobbery; ignoring the objective leads to absurdity (One Direction has equal artistic value to Mozart).

menawati wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote:  Ignoring the subjective leads to snobbery; ignoring the objective leads to absurdity (One Direction has equal artistic value to Mozart). I totally agree with you.

As do I. Very well put.

thellama73 wrote: A Person wrote: thellama73 wrote: progbethyname wrote: HolyMoly wrote: We Metal Machine Music fans gotta stick together. When you say METAL MACHINE do you mean Industrail sounding metal like FEAR FACTORYor something? Not sure It's a double album of nothing but horrible noise by Lou Reed, made to get out of a record contract. It's great. I happen to like listening to horrible noise :( Why the frown? Most of my favorite records are horrible noise.

Probably because of the "horrible" bit. I guess it's horrible to most people, though.

I guess I am a snob when it comes to loving my prog. When I hear music I don't like it actually puts in a bad mood. It's my kryptonite really. Ok, now everyone knows how to destroy me....lock me in a room a play sh*tty music. ;(

Atavachron wrote: ^ that actually is a technique of 'persuasion' known to have been used on terrorism suspects

well colour me devious!!!   

I'm a snob. I admit it. I can't help it. I don't even like my snobbery. I sincerely can't help hating people who love or worship certain things that disgust me. I know it is wrong but I can't help it.

Alitare wrote: I'm a snob. I admit it. I can't help it. I don't even like my snobbery. I sincerely can't help hating people who love or worship certain things that disgust me. I know it is wrong but I can't help it.

I'm the same way man. I can't hold back sometimes on the pathetic worships of sh*t music by others. It flat-out puts me in a bad mood. For instance, of I'm in the back seat of a car and one of my friends is playing god awful music from the radio station I simply have to ask nicely and say, 'please, with extra sugar on top, turn this off.' lol I don't stand a chance and it's only getting worse.

rogerthat wrote: Value in music is subjective because it is determined only by the consumers, the audience.  Pre-20th century, it  was determined by the establishment, which bestowed a lot of value on classical music.  In the recording era, popular music gained importance because it could move the most copies off the shelf.   I.e., value was being determined by the marketplace, just like any other commodity.  I don't think such value is fair and it is frequently absurd (just like stock valuations) but that can't be helped once the Frankenstein is unleashed.   It is not for me to say that society should accord maximum value to Mozart; society does what it does and I live with it and as long as I am not deprived permanently of access to the music I like I have no complaints.  In any case, determination of value in music can never be a straightforward exercise.   Westerners will find Mozart more valuable than Thyagaraja and vice versa for Indians.

That's a logical fallacy, an ad populum, the appeal to the masses.  I'm not talking about monetary value; that's obviously determined by the market.  I'm talking about a value intrinsic to the music itself.  In the same way, the fact that more people hire one company for a particular service does not prove that that particular company is the best; their service may be inferior to another company, but if they are more established, more visible, or have better advertising, they will most likely have more success in the market.

I would agree that determination of value in music is anything but straightforward; that doesn't mean it's merely subjective.  I also acknowledge cultural, functional, and personal differences in the way each person perceives music.  That's the subjective part.  I try to take these things into account when evaluating music; to consider that the music might affect someone else differently than me, and to appreciate the music on it's own terms rather than imposing a foreign criteria upon it.  Ultimately, artistic value has to do with what the music conveys and how it affects people; certain composition and performance techniques accomplish that goal better than others, but different techniques are prized more highly in different circles, and a musical goal can be accomplished in many ways.

thellama73 wrote: It's not quite right to view record sales as reflecting value in music. Record sales reflect value in records, not music. For example, people are less willing to pay high prices for classical records in general because most of those works are public domain, so there are lots of different recordings and increased competition. More supply = lower prices. A new record by a pop artist has a monopoly on its music, and so people pay a higher price for the recording. That doesn't mean that the music itself is more highly valued. If there was only one recording of Beethoven's Ninth, it would fetch a much higher price than the bargain basement classical CDs do, and I expect a much higher price than the latest Lady GaGa album. Who would sell more tickets to a live concert today, Justin Bieber or Paganini if he were still alive? Maybe Bieber would, but I think it's far from clear. My point is, the market for music is not the same as the market for records.

If the market for music is not the same as market for records, what IS the market for music?   How IS value in music determined?  If it is indeed not completely subjective, there must be a much more systematic way of determining it than any I have heard in several discussions on this subject.

How well Paganini would sell today would depend on how he is marketed.  If he is packaged suitably as some sort of retro virtuoso, he might just strike gold.   Perception has a lot to do with it; whether musicians can convince the audience that they deliver a different experience that might be worth their time.   I think people who listen to sophisticated music tend to look too much at skill and technique in this argument but the audience also craves a different experience.   An artist who can deliver that and is also promoted well will create 'value'.   It is after all such a craving for simpler forms that encouraged the push from baroque to classical.  It was a shift not only in musical but also architectural aesthetics.  Had nothing to do with the fact that baroque had more complex counterpoint than classical at that point of time.

rogerthat wrote: thellama73 wrote: It's not quite right to view record sales as reflecting value in music. Record sales reflect value in records, not music. For example, people are less willing to pay high prices for classical records in general because most of those works are public domain, so there are lots of different recordings and increased competition. More supply = lower prices. A new record by a pop artist has a monopoly on its music, and so people pay a higher price for the recording. That doesn't mean that the music itself is more highly valued. If there was only one recording of Beethoven's Ninth, it would fetch a much higher price than the bargain basement classical CDs do, and I expect a much higher price than the latest Lady GaGa album. Who would sell more tickets to a live concert today, Justin Bieber or Paganini if he were still alive? Maybe Bieber would, but I think it's far from clear. My point is, the market for music is not the same as the market for records. If the market for music is not the same as market for records, what IS the market for music?   How IS value in music determined?  If it is indeed not completely subjective, there must be a much more systematic way of determining it than any I have heard in several discussions on this subject. How well Paganini would sell today would depend on how he is marketed.  If he is packaged suitably as some sort of retro virtuoso, he might just strike gold.   Perception has a lot to do with it; whether musicians can convince the audience that they deliver a different experience that might be worth their time.   I think people who listen to sophisticated music tend to look too much at skill and technique in this argument but the audience also craves a different experience.   An artist who can deliver that and is also promoted well will create 'value'.   It is after all such a craving for simpler forms that encouraged the push from baroque to classical.  It was a shift not only in musical but also architectural aesthetics.  Had nothing to do with the fact that baroque had more complex counterpoint than classical at that point of time.

There is no "pure" market for music, because you can't buy music independently of some format. I think concert sales is a slightly closer approximation than record sales, but it's still not the same thing.

How is value determined? It's determined by analysis and opinion. This is the same as for any other good that is not sold in a market. The value of scientific theories is determined by peer review. The value of a free fireworks show is determined by ex-post reviews. Of course there is a lot of subjectivity, but I still think it is not 100% subjective, for reasons that I have explained before.