Page or Fripp

Anderson III wrote: harmonium.ro wrote: Anderson III wrote: First of all: if I suggest that saying musical enjoyment comes down to taste is an insult to the mind, and you go and claim just that without any arguments to back it up... I take it as a direct insult and nothing else! If you weren't derogatory, I misunderstood your original comment. You come with a simple, unsupported statement that throws the whole aesthetic philosophy (a respectable discipline who had the contributions of some of humankind's greatest minds, like Kant, Hegel, Fiedler, Croce, etc.) to the rubbish but still it's you who feels offended for being contradicted. I'm sorry but that makes me smile Now back on topic... Anderson III wrote: What I disagree with is that taste is the only factor that counts. The question is: the only factor that counts... for what exactly? The term you used was enjoyment. I'm not the greatest master of the English language and will never be, so I can't feel all the nuances that might be stuffed in the semantic area of this word. I would assume enjoyment refers to pleasure; and pleasure is the expression of taste. You may think the completely opposite regarding these concepts and words, but these are the meanings which have been consecrated by almost three centuries worth of intellectual tradition. You need to adjust to the terms, not vice versa. As I said, if by enjoyment you meant more than the dual concept of pleasure/taste, then yes, I'm completely with you. Taste should actually be irrelevant to the appreciation of works. Again as I said, I even appreciate a lot works of art (of any kind) that I don't enjoy (meaning that they don't provide me with aesthetic pleasure). I'd say my original statement, in fact, was not unsupported. I tried to explain that my taste (or what I personally find beautiful) doesn't completely dominate my musical enjoyment. I feel that aesthetic philosophy, unlike music, studies only beauty. I could even describe some pieces of music as ugly, meaning that aesthetically I don't find them appealing at all. But there's plenty of other adjectives I could use: captivating, interesting, hypnotizing, awesome, impressive, powerful, stimulating, soothing, etc... Each of these things produce a positive feeling, and none of them has anything to do with beauty or aesthetic!!! This is what I meant when I said you underestimate music's potential as a communicative tool. I most definitely didn't reject aesthetic philosophy! What I actually said was: it plays a part in my enjoyment! You said that "pleasure is the expression of taste", but this is completely untrue. It's actually a positive experience of any kind. Now that we've got that corrected, I'm happy we are in agreement!

Robert Fripp

You shouldn't have slammed like that my branch of activity

also, I'm one of those people:

Frippster

thellama73 wrote: Easiest poll ever. Fripp blows Page out of the water. I never did like Led Zeppelin.

Alex, I'm almost myself again, and I'm ready to continue this fascinating conversation. I hope you're still interested... But before we take this any further, I have to check one thing:

We have discussed quite a lot about aesthetic, and now I want to make things even more confusing! In philosophy we believe there are intrinsic values, meaning that they are valuable in itself. As you know, these things include life, truth, justice, honor etc..
Do you believe there are intrinsic values in music as well, for example melody, harmony, rhythm and emotion? If you think so, shouldn't they be appreciated for what they are? If you don't think so, doesn't that mean that all the centuries people have spent practising musical theory have been futile?

I was re-reading our correspondence, and I got a bit confused. We established that any feeling a piece of music might produce is an aesthetic experience, right? Yet, you believe the feeling of appreciation is the only exception to the rule! Why do you think this one experience has nothing to do with taste?

And one further notion, actually: You said earlier that studying a work of art provides better access to the aesthetic reaction, and I couldn't agree more. But doesn't this insinuate that some people aren't qualified to create that reaction when it comes to something as complicated as a piece of music?

Fripp, of course.

Jimmy Page, definately. Fripp is damn good too, but Page is the essence of hard rock guitar playing.

To the polls question.......I don't know who is the BETTER guitarist. They both have qualities which makes them the better guitarist for their style of play.

Anderson III wrote: Things are starting to make sense! It really surprises me how many people have a nihilistic approach to music. I certainly do not, and I think our biggest disagreement originates from this fact.

I think our only disagreement was based on the interpretation of the English semantics of the word "enjoyment". Basically you were giving it a wider sense (something like positive appreciation) while I was keen on its sense as a term of aesthetic theory, which has a more restrictive use of the word. We were both correct in our views, just using the same words in different ways.

Anderson III wrote: Not trying to sound derogatory again, but I feel like you're being a bit inconsistent with your arguments. You said earlier that music is a language, and I would totally agree, but now you're saying music is just organization of sounds! I'm not sure what you actually believe...

The issue you raise is important. What I was saying is, more precisely, that music actually is, down to the bone, organized sound (and that is a way to define it, check this out), but of course it's not only that. The fact that it can be organized makes it proper to receive structure which makes it perfect for being a language... Verbal language is also organized sound, basically, painting is also organized colours and lines, etc. So I wasn't inconsistent, I just went through it without writing in too much details as I've started to feel embarrassed for hijacking this honest poll with a theoretical debate 

Anderson III wrote: I think music to people is like a mating call to a bird: sure, it's just sounds, but the message is clear! Humans are hardwired to understand musical communication. That's why a major chord sounds joyful to us, and a minor chord sounds sad. And whether you realize it or not, we all understand this phenomenon once we hear these chords. Do we automaticly enjoy them? I don't think so, because the listener's mindset, taste and a number of other things are involved.

Agreed!

Anderson III wrote: I'm struggling to shape my question about appreciation in another way... Why do you think a positive experience, in this case appreciation, caused by a rational process of dealing with a work of art needs to be separated from an aesthetic experience? I myself believe appreciation is definitely one level of enjoyment. Here's my second question transformed: If one has better access to the aesthetic reaction, doesn't it automaticly mean someone else is having worse access... basicly?

Usually the rational appreciation of a works comes naturally as an extension to the aesthetic experience with a work of art. When the aesthetic experience is not successful, one may stop and get to the next work of art, but one can also try to know the respective work of art more deeply. The first scenario applies to those who consume art strictly for personal pleasure, usually as a hobby, and the second applies to those who consume art as a way of life, like those who study and work in the fields of culture. For example, if you're a Literature student, you'll dedicate a lot of time to Universal Literature (usually split in European/Non-European/Ancient/Mediaeval/Modern/etc), you'll read an enormous amount of literature, love 5-10% of it, like 30-40%, and for the rest you'll still want/need to know what it's about because that's how you function, it interests you, you want to know it and understand it.

To the second variant of your question: well, that's really difficult to answer. I've seen many authors writing how becoming professionals (usually critics) in a certain field (especially some like theater, film, or the visual arts) has made their experience of works of art from that field to be a totally new, different one once they understand how it's done and how it works. So different that they couldn't even image, before they became "insiders", that it actually can be that different. (I hope I make sense ). However all of them say that while they wouldn't go back to be an "outsider" they sometime regret the "innocent" perception and experience they had as an "outsider". They would like to have both and to be able to switch between them. But no-one could say that the experience of art as an insider and an outsider can be opposed and judged like "which is better". They're just... different. Myself I don't regret becoming a "pro" in the visual arts and I would not ever want to get back to being an outsider to it again; being an "insider" it's now who I am.