Prog Snobbery

rogerthat wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: The way in which music affects people is not completely subjective.  When a musician composes and performs a piece, he puts an emotion and a message into the song.  The devices used to accomplish the conveying of these emotions and messages have an impact upon the human brain, and though the responses may differ with the listener, they are going to fall within a certain range because they are triggered by the same stimuli.  Whenever a human encounters a piece of art, he interprets that art according to two "books," so to speak; the "book" of the piece of art, and the "book" of his own mind.  The "book" which the composer writes is the objective part; the "book" which the listener writes is the subjective part.  You can't do away with either. But music or any other art form is nothing without the reaction.  And how large the range of the reaction is depends on the work.  The more complex and the more abstract it gets, the more divergent the reactions.  And it's not even necessary that it has to be complex to trigger widely divergent reactions.   I find Jeff Buckley's Grace album frequently intense and melancholic but I have heard it described as polite and mannered.     Without an audience, art remains merely an outlet of self expression for the artist.  He can attempt to second guess their feelings or simply go with the flow and remain true to his ideas.  But in either event, he relies heavily on an element of chance when he presents the work to the audience.   Anyhow, long story short, my point is very simple: subjective + objective = subjective.  It cannot be objective because there's too much subjectivity involved and therefore an attempt to objectively determine the value of music is bound to be futile.

I agree with you on many counts: first, that music needs an audience (it cannot fulfill its purpose without it) and that reactions to a piece of music can be quite divergent (as I affirmed in my discussion with Logan).  Music matters because it is made for the audience, and because it can be good for the audience.  A person's enjoyment of a song is not enough to say that the song can be called good or beautiful.  The question that must be asked is: "is the effect that the music has on a person positive, negative, or neutral?"  When you listen to Kesha, it teaches you to think a certain way.  When you listen to Bach, it also teaches you to think in a certain way.  Bach is artistically superior to Kesha because 1. Bach's music teaches order and harmony, while Kesha's teaches sex and drugs and 2. Bach's music is capable of producing a profound emotional effect, while Kesha's is not.  Now, the reactions to either of these artists are going to vary from person to person.  One person may enjoy Bach, and another may not, but that doesn't diminish the objective quality of the music.  One person may associate different emotions with a different composition, but the quality of the composition comes with its capability of evoking strong emotion within a range.

The key to understanding this is that you can't have the objective or subjective without each other.  The quality of a piece of music is objective.  Each person's specific reaction is subjective.  Without the quality of a piece, the reaction can't happen.  Without the listener to react subjectively, the music fails to achieve its goal.  If you're going to objectively analyze a piece of music, you have to look past your own reaction and examine the musical qualities of the piece.  It also helps to study the reactions others have had to the piece.  I'm not saying that total objectivity is attainable (it's not) or even desirable (that would be boring).  No one can totally ignore their reaction to a piece.  If they could, they wouldn't agree on the criteria to judge it musically.  But hey, the same thing happens in politics, and no one is claiming that's subjective ("hey guys, you know it doesn't really matter who wins the election, because it's all subjective anyway...;" try telling that to someone who's lost their job and whose house is in foreclosure).  Every objective judgement anyone makes about a piece of music is colored with the subjective.  Any subjective reaction is caused and informed by the objective.  The two can be distinguished, but not separated; one can be emphasized, but it can never rule out the other.

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: I agree with you on many counts: first, that music needs an audience (it cannot fulfill its purpose without it) and that reactions to a piece of music can be quite divergent (as I affirmed in my discussion with Logan).  Music matters because it is made for the audience, and because it can be good for the audience.  A person's enjoyment of a song is not enough to say that the song can be called good or beautiful.  The question that must be asked is: "is the effect that the music has on a person positive, negative, or neutral?"  When you listen to Kesha, it teaches you to think a certain way.  When you listen to Bach, it also teaches you to think in a certain way.  Bach is artistically superior to Kesha because 1. Bach's music teaches order and harmony, while Kesha's teaches sex and drugs and 2. Bach's music is capable of producing a profound emotional effect, while Kesha's is not.  Now, the reactions to either of these artists are going to vary from person to person.  One person may enjoy Bach, and another may not, but that doesn't diminish the objective quality of the music.  One person may associate different emotions with a different composition, but the quality of the composition comes with its capability of evoking strong emotion within a range.

I am going to respond to that with a counter example from art.   What about Alex, the vile protagonist of A Clockwork Orange?  He thinks nothing of inflicting violence just for kicks but loves the music of Bach.   And I don't think that is necessarily an extreme, hypothetical example.  I see the same politicians who are embroiled in corruption scams attend classical concerts here....and not all of them are there just to get clicked for the papers.  The other day, a facebook friend of mine made what could be characterised as an anti-Islamic rant and somebody asked if all this music only taught him to be hateful.   So, imo, music can teach you something if you allow it to....and it could potentially teach you whatever.   I am not sexist just because there is a copy of Virgin Killers in my collection and I am not going to particularly respect a person who jumps to that conclusion.  I just like the riffs and the amazing solos and it's really too bad they couldn't find something else to sing about over the music but I'll take it.  In just the same way as priesthood doesn't stop a person from violating kids, music does not shape a person.  It is the person who reacts to the music from the prism of his experiences.  It is why we get something entirely different from the same composition.     

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: The key to understanding this is that you can't have the objective or subjective without each other.  The quality of a piece of music is objective.  Each person's specific reaction is subjective.  Without the quality of a piece, the reaction can't happen.  Without the listener to react subjectively, the music fails to achieve its goal.  If you're going to objectively analyze a piece of music, you have to look past your own reaction and examine the musical qualities of the piece.  It also helps to study the reactions others have had to the piece.  I'm not saying that total objectivity is attainable (it's not) or even desirable (that would be boring).  No one can totally ignore their reaction to a piece.  If they could, they wouldn't agree on the criteria to judge it musically.  But hey, the same thing happens in politics, and no one is claiming that's subjective ("hey guys, you know it doesn't really matter who wins the election, because it's all subjective anyway...;" try telling that to someone who's lost their job and whose house is in foreclosure).  Every objective judgement anyone makes about a piece of music is colored with the subjective.  Any subjective reaction is caused and informed by the objective.  The two can be distinguished, but not separated; one can be emphasized, but it can never rule out the other.

But what ARE the musical qualities of a composition?   Suppose there are two compositions that are both organized in a fairly linear manner and have melodic/harmonic/rhythmic changes that don't jar...but one composition is much more complex than the other?  Does that necessarily make the complex composition better than the simpler one?  It may not if the simpler one has parts that are more 'attractive'.  And what is attractive is subjective.  Henry Plainview doesn't post here these days but he actually found so-called catchy parts a turn off.  

But I wouldn't therefore proceed to dismiss the very exercise of dissecting and discussing music as some subjectivists seem to.  I think it is important that we do take subjective topics and discuss them because we can't define everything in precise terms and man should learn to empathize with the feelings of the other sometimes instead of banking only on numbers.   Even though music is a subjective business, as long as the language we use to discuss it is the same, there is still some way for us to understand each other.  I love discussing singers and analyzing their technique threadbare.  But I recognize that my opinion is still a subjective one (and that is where I disagreed with you earlier in the thread; you can't make an objective statement and still say that it is ok for someone to have the polar opposite position of yours because, then, it is not very objective at all) and wouldn't impose it on another person.  It is ok if he can follow my train of thought and it is ok if he doesn't because he has his own that I don't relate to. 

Classical singing is probably the most technically demanding in Western vocal styles but I can't relate to opera because to me, that kind of overwrought projection of emotions is all 'wrong'.  It may not be so for somebody else's cultural perspective, but it certainly is for me and no matter how 'open minded' I try to be about music, I know this is one bridge I cannot cross because it revolts my sensibilities which were informed by more restrained modes of emoting and which I prefer.  It doesn't matter at the end of the day how 'objectively good' the music is because the subjective reaction overpowers it.  

menawati wrote: I guess I'm trying to say that I think you can apply objectivity to art and it isn't snobbery to claim that you have a greater understanding of its objective nature than someone else.

It is not snobbery to claim you understand the objective (which more or less means the technical/formal) aspects of an art form better than somebody else.  It is snobbery to therefore claim you understand the art form better.  

menawati wrote:  Furthermore, deeper appreciation of the objective nature of an art form can affect your subjective reaction to it.

It can in desirable and less desirable ways.   A little bit of awareness of technicalities makes people indifferent to what they perceive as not technical (and therefore, so goes the logic, not good).   Roger Waters doesn't have the range and power of some of these power metal angels but he could (IMO) convey a lot more with just the way he sings the words than the latter could hope to.   It is difficult to characterize that as 'better' but it is also a skill that could be useful in music, especially rock music.

tamijo wrote: tamijo wrote: I dont like American Film I dont watch reality telly I couldent care less if Obama win or loose I read only History or Science  books, nothing more boring than J.R. Tolkien, I cant imagine reading a Si/Fi or Fantacy novel ever again But i like all kind of music Now, am I a snob ?   The answer is no.   But Im a snob if i start saying,: I dont like American film, because i know so much about film that i can conclude they are bad. Science books are better books than novels. ect. Because that is not true, you cant claim things like that.

For the second time this week, I am in complete agreement with you.

thellama73 wrote: You don't like American film? That is a pretty sweeping claim. It is like saying "I don't like European music." American films comprise a majority of all films ever made, and encompass hundreds of styles and genres. You don't like any of them?

O yes I do, I like quite a few, and then there must be a trillion films made in US that has high class, but due to low "commercial" protential, never get to denmark.  

Edited by tamijo - October 26 2012 at 10:45

tamijo wrote: BTW : I dont think this is true : American films comprise a majority of all films ever made

It was an admitted guess on my part. You are probably right, but I think I am close. I can't find a source to confirm.

IMDB lists a total of 2,338,126 titles, but that includes shorts and TV episodes (more than half are TV episodes.)
Of these the United States has produced 489,683, or about 21%.

There are only 279,404 feature films, and while there's no way to sort those by country, I would wager that the US would do considerably better than in all categories, since we had a considerable lead in features in the early days of film, whereas now television shows and features are being more evenly produced around the world.

thellama73 wrote: rogerthat wrote: But music or any other art form is nothing without the reaction.  If a Dream Theater album plays in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it still suck?(yes)

Hey!! Be nice to DREAM THEATER. they are one with the highest art forms of music

progbethyname wrote: thellama73 wrote: rogerthat wrote: But music or any other art form is nothing without the reaction.  If a Dream Theater album plays in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it still suck?(yes) Hey!! Be nice to DREAM THEATER. they are one with the highest art forms of music

Dayvenkirq wrote: progbethyname wrote: thellama73 wrote: rogerthat wrote: But music or any other art form is nothing without the reaction.  If a Dream Theater album plays in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it still suck?(yes) Hey!! Be nice to DREAM THEATER. they are one with the highest art forms of music I'm sorry, how can a band be a form of music?

Sorry for the ambiguity there. What I mean is that because DREAM THEATER took a genre of music (PROGRESSIVE METAL) and expanded on it, which really in my opinion made it their own sound. They didnt event progressive metal of course, but they redefined and expanded the genre itself. So in a way, I feel that dream theater as a band defined a new art form of music.