Emotion is the core of music

"What makes a man turn neutral ... Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?"

Nah, I ain't neutral. I like my music the way I like my music - check out what I write. But that doesn't mean that there aren't valid points that stem from alternate opinions.

It's surely all prejudice and taste. In an art form, which music is, prejudice is what one uses to create. It is taste and other frivolities that makes one place each note. So, it would make sense to rationalize and root oneself in one style or another. There are more liberal and conservative styles, but no one can get hurt with music, so it doesn't really matter what you choose to advocate.

no one can get hurt with music, so it doesn't really matter what you choose to advocate.

http://www.youngcomposers.com/forum/musical-injuries-14719.html

Reminds me of:

"What makes a man turn neutral ... Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?"

:thumbsup: One of my absolute favourite quotes.

...I just don't buy this relativist view of yours, which puts all music on the same level.

Fair enough...I don't care whether you 'buy it' or not - it's my opinion, not yours.

According to your view, no music has any value or quality of its own, but if someone likes it, it is good for them. If quality is only in the eye (or ear) of the beholder, then a Britney Spears fan's claim that "Britney's music is better than Bach's" is equally valid as my claim that "Bach's music is better than Britney's." It doesn't take much to see that such a point of view leads to a catastrophic levelling down and hence a slide into cultural death.

You're failing to understand that to a fan of Britney Spears, her music is in fact better than Bach. To me, Duke Ellington is better than Bach. To you, Bach is the best. It's all relative - it's relevant ONLY TO YOU, as the listener.

Give it up...you can't win. ;)

I do believe there are certain more or less objective standards by which the quality of a piece of music can be judged. These standards relate to how much originality, complexity, sophistication and invention are put into the piece with respect to melody, harmony, rhythm, timbre/instrumentation, structure/form, emotional depth, etc. This is how we can justify the claim that Bach's or Beethoven's music was so much greater than that of their contemporaries.

None of those qualities you mentioned are quantifiable or measureable in ANY objective way. You might like a melody, I may hate it. You might think the rhythms enhance the forward motion of a piece; I may feel it detracts from the overall energy. Please, I beg you - show me something that is actually objective and I'll rethink my position.

I think it is kind of silly to say that there are no objective criteria in music. You can describe music in words - it is how we think about music critically.

Again, Ferk, there's still nothing that we can all step back from and evaluate without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations. We can't agree that Piece X is good, Piece Y is bad. It's not possible...

So, Gianluca, heed SSC's advice and STOP POSTING (don't really...I like reading your fanatical nonsense)

None of those qualities you mentioned are quantifiable or measureable in ANY objective way. You might like a melody, I may hate it. You might think the rhythms enhance the forward motion of a piece; I may feel it detracts from the overall energy. Please, I beg you - show me something that is actually objective and I'll rethink my position.

Again, Ferk, there's still nothing that we can all step back from and evaluate without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations. We can't agree that Piece X is good, Piece Y is bad. It's not possible...

Totally agree with you here. It's not objective, but it is the closest we can get, and I feel that the definitions would fall within a really small range - like the discussion on dissonance, there's accepted norms that a reliable amount of people would agree with in general, and they would have to explain their deviances from that.

As long as you explain the reasoning for saying "x was y in this piece," there's little to do other than bring up points, but that's the name of the game, so...

The fact is that we CAN be objective to some degree about music. We can talk about harmony, rhythm, melody, etc. That's the correct meaning of discussing music objectively. If everything in music was only relative, the whole point of this forum as an educational tool would be useless.

There aren't any set in stone rules of course, but there are general trends and ideas that we apply objectively to music all the time. On this forum you could say there are varying levels of quality in the music - almost everyone would agree to that. Maybe some wouldn't, but for practicality's sake it would be true that the music on this forum is of varying levels of quality and experience.

But it is a more complicated issue than that. What we can say is that different pieces of music have different levels of quality - what we can't determine however is the exact quality and value any particular composition has because of what has been mentioned before in regards to personal bias.

We can say, for example, that "Bach was a more experienced fugue writer than Scott Joplin." We could also say that Scott Joplin had more rag writing under his belt than Bach. Aside from splitting hairs - I'm sure most would agree with me on that point. What we can't say is that "Bach's fugue writing skills elevate him to a level greater than Scott Joplin" without also agreeing that "Joplin's rag writing skills elevate him to a greater level than Bach". You would then have to proceed to judging the fugue against the rag.... how would you do that? And furthermore, what will that have accomplished? Wouldn't your time be better spent.... I don't know, writing music, hanging out with your friends, doing something meaningful with your limited time on earth!?

The fact is that we CAN be objective to some degree about music. We can talk about harmony, rhythm, melody, etc. That's the correct meaning of discussing music objectively. If everything in music was only relative, the whole point of this forum as an educational tool would be useless.

What you're talking about is the field of musicology which is worried about facts and statistics, analysis and accounting for many possible interpretations within reasonable, provable deductions based on historical facts and context.

It's stuff you can prove and disprove depending on what information is discovered through analysis, comparison, etc. So it indeed quite objective for a lot of things, not so objective for others (possible interpretations of certain things are generally founded in actual facts though, so they're not without basis or good well-researched reasons.) But overall the idea is to keep things on a level away from taste or opinion and more into study and understanding. The word in German for it is Musikwissenschaft which literally means "music science" and that's what it's all about.

This is as objective as you can get with music and anything that doesn't belong there is completely and utterly subjective as opinions and taste are. Yes, this includes our notion that "playing piano" means using our hands rather than our butts and any other thing in music taken for granted. There's nothing that says that you can't play a violin with your feet or write a concerto for truck & dog whistle, it's all taste and cultural influence, but not empirical fact or anything truly objective.

So, really, objectivity means that whatever you say is founded on facts and empirical data which is observable and provable. We can say Bach wrote a lot of fugues, and Joplin not as many, but what that MEANS or can be interpreted as is not something that can ever be really objective, as it's speculation. We can, however, find out objective reasons why Joplin would not write as many fugues (or any at all) and Bach wrote so many. This would be music history, context, etc that would play a role in how it influenced the composer. But again, this tells us nothing about "quality" or any of that, it's simply statistics, history and conclusions drawn from data.

Likewise, we can find evidence for a lot of people thinking that Bach's music was boring, and a lot of people thinking it was brilliant but none of this really tells us much about Bach's music being really brilliant or boring. It simply tells us the statistics for public reception, and since these vary wildly it's not an accurate measurement for anything other than public opinion. It can also work as a sort of trend barometer.

The biggest problem is people making leaps of logic and then assuming it makes any sense. It's as if, because many people think Bach's music is boring, we declared empirically that his music was boring. We don't really need to see or even know any of his music for this to work, we can just base our entire deduction on what others say. That's not how it works, lol. A more correct deduction would be that a large portion of a given demographic thinks Bach's music is boring, but again it tells us absolutely nothing about the actual music.

And then if we actually look at Bach's music, we can't combine things, analysis and statistics, without a sort of context. Therefore, if our statistic is WITHIN A historical context we can make the following statement: "During his lifetime, statistics show that many people thought that Bach's music was boring as it was written in a style which was at the time considered old-fashioned." Now it's something entirely different, we not only know WHY the music may be considered boring, but we also know that it's because of a cultural trend.

Can we prove the above statement? Sure we can! It's a matter of researching history, looking up quotes and sources and the trends at the time, the things he published and so on. Then, we can match it with the analysis (which is compared to other pieces to determine it's "style" and therefore how we should view it in this context) and deduce based on all of these factors that this was MOST LIKELY the reason that the above statistic exists as such.

But even then, it says nothing about how "good" the music is or not, it simply says that a percentage of people didn't like it in the 1730s (for example.) For us to really talk about quality or any of that we'd have to make an assertion that our data can be extrapolated to mean something according to the definitions of "good" or "quality" that we're using.

In other words, we can speculate that his music isn't good because a large portion of people in this time didn't like it. So, good in this case would be acceptance by the public in the 1730s.

But at this point, does the above speculation really have any weight to it? Can we really say it's something that improves our knowledge of music history or anything of the sort? OR is it simply an opinion?

Of course it's simply an opinion, because the opposite can be said: his music was unappreciated and the listeners of his time didn't understand his genius. By the point where we're defining our own criteria depending on the argument, it stops being objective by default. We can just define "good" in this case to make the objective data "prove our point" or we can as well modify it to "disprove" someone else's. It's absurd, pointless and gets us nowhere.

So, there you go.

I think Nightscape has touched on the key issue here: quality is not value.

Even discussing quality objectively is fraught with danger, and probably only possible to an extent within a certain defined context, but it's certainly a safer bet than trying to assess value.

We can also assign value to various music, but based on whose criteria? That becomes the issue.

So: perhaps a Bach fugue is higher quality than a Britney Spears song (or perhaps only within a certain context), but it is definitely not of higher value, intrinsically.

You would then have to proceed to judging the fugue against the rag.... how would you do that? And furthermore, what will that have accomplished? Wouldn't your time be better spent.... I don't know, writing music, hanging out with your friends, doing something meaningful with your limited time on earth!?[/i']

Listen to this guy.

If we can't apply 'good' and 'bad' to historical topics in an objective fashion, then we can at least apply 'true' and 'false' to historical topics. That's the difference between subjectivity and objectivity. Galileo's views on the Earth were true, even though he was in the minority with his beliefs and likely considered 'bad' by his generation.

Objective:

Bach wrote X fugues. He used X devices in said fugues.

(delving a little further from safe waters) He assimilated many styles over the years into his own personal compositional voice.

Subjective:

Bach's fugues are intellectually and spiritually complex.

A good musicologist will focus more on objective facts when discussing music - They won't base their conclusions on statements like "This music is so emotional". That's not to say a musicologist can't be subjective at times - they are not robots, but people. By using subjective judgment they make a stronger case for their conclusions - to some extant. Certainly we've all seen in a history text a something along the lines of, "So and So was one of the most influential and important of Baroque composers." The use of the subjective keywords 'influential' and 'important' may subtly influence our perception of the objective facts that follow causing us to believe in them more strongly.

Fair enough...I don't care whether you 'buy it' or not - it's my opinion, not yours.

You're failing to understand that to a fan of Britney Spears, her music is in fact better than Bach. To me, Duke Ellington is better than Bach. To you, Bach is the best. It's all relative - it's relevant ONLY TO YOU, as the listener.

Give it up...you can't win. ;)

Just to piggyback on Robin's post -

The reason you can't win is that Robin's point of view encompasses yours. His relativism holds your opinions relevant (at least to you). Your absolutist view holds his relativism to be wrong. And now you're faced with the difficult, if not impossible, task of proving him wrong.

Good luck with that.

In fact, I do believe there are certain more or less objective standards by which the quality of a piece of music can be judged. These standards relate to how much originality, complexity, sophistication and invention are put into the piece with respect to melody, harmony, rhythm, timbre/instrumentation, structure/form, emotional depth, etc. This is how we can justify the claim that Bach's or Beethoven's music was so much greater than that of their contemporaries.

On that basis then, if i write a piece that has more 'complexity' than Mozart that makes it 'better' does it? Or if i write a piece using computer sound synthesis to create an aural impression that has probably never been heard before, it's instantly more 'original' than Beethoven (who sounded quite similar to plenty of other composers of that era), and therefore is 'better'? And where do you even start with judging things based on their level of 'sophisitication'?

None of these ideas work. You can't provide 'objective' criteria to judge art, it's simply impossible as everything you experience as an individual is just that - your subjective experience.

Now people can get together and agree on things along the same lines, based on their own subjective experiences. But that doesn't make it any more factual or 'objective'. It's all just conjecture.

All you're left with is a load of opinions. And a lot of people don't like that idea, because it takes away their little crutch that the music they like or the music they write has something inherent to it that makes it superior to stuff other folks like. But just because the idea makes some people uncomfortable and takes away their comfort zone doesn't make it any less true.

You're failing to understand that to a fan of Britney Spears, her music is in fact better than Bach. To me, Duke Ellington is better than Bach. To you, Bach is the best. It's all relative - it's relevant ONLY TO YOU, as the listener.

Gosh, YOU (and a lot of others) are still failing to get MY point. Of course I recognize that to a Britney Spears fan, Britney's music is better than Bach's. And she (the fan) is perfectly entitled to her opinion (also note that I never said that people must like what I like, as some erroneously inferred from my posts - the belief in objective quality criteria is not inconsistent with the notion that all people are entitled to their own preferences). BUT - that does not mean that her claim that "Britney's music is of a higher quality than Bach's" is equally valid as my claim that "Bach's music is better than Britney's". Like I said, I believe in objective quality criteria, so a judgement of quality can be justified to a greater or lesser degree by those criteria.

If you feel what is good is simply what you happen to like, then the whole concept of quality is meaningless, since such a position merely equates quality to personal preferences (I like X better than Y, so X is of a higher quality to me - you like Y better than X, so Y is of a higher quality to you and both claims are equally valid). It doesn't take much effort to see that such a position is inane and untenable.

None of those qualities you mentioned are quantifiable or measureable in ANY objective way. You might like a melody, I may hate it. You might think the rhythms enhance the forward motion of a piece; I may feel it detracts from the overall energy. Please, I beg you - show me something that is actually objective and I'll rethink my position.

Either you've never studied music theory or you're just terribly naive. Melodic sophistication CAN be quantified and objectively analyzed, at least to a certain extent, as can harmonic originality, formal innovation, timbral variety, contrapuntal richness, etc. But why should I even bother showing you an example if you believe everything's relative and subjective anyway?

Indeed, as some have pointed out, this is exactly what music theorists and musicologists are doing. They are objectively analyzing music in order to understand or explain its subjective experience. I think Nightscape has made some very apt comments in this respect.

So, Gianluca, heed SSC's advice and STOP POSTING (don't really...I like reading your fanatical nonsense)

And I like reading your nonsensical replies. ;)

Just to piggyback on Robin's post -

The reason you can't win is that Robin's point of view encompasses yours. His relativism holds your opinions relevant (at least to you). Your absolutist view holds his relativism to be wrong. And now you're faced with the difficult, if not impossible, task of proving him wrong.

Good luck with that.

Haha, you're completely off the mark by turning the logic around in favor of Robin's point of view. In fact, the notion that his view encompasses mine is exactly what proves his view wrong. On a logical level, Robin's relativism cannot hold, simply because on its own reckoning his view cannot have any greater claim to truth than its contrary (i.e., my view). So according to his view, my belief in objective standards must be at least as valid as his claim that there are no such standards. And now you and Robin are faced with the difficult, if not impossible, task of solving this paradox.

Good luck with that.

. . . on its own reckoning his [Robin's] view cannot have any greater claim to truth than its contrary (i.e., my view).

Uh... why?

Either you've never studied music theory or you're just terribly naive. Melodic sophistication CAN be quantified and objectively analyzed, at least to a certain extent, as can harmonic originality, formal innovation, timbral variety, contrapuntal richness, etc. But why should I even bother showing you an example if you believe everything's relative and subjective anyway?

Indeed, as some have pointed out, this is exactly what music theorists and musicologists are doing. They are objectively analyzing music in order to understand or explain its subjective experience. I think Nightscape has made some very apt comments in this respect.

NO MUSICOLOGY ANALYSIS IS (OR CAN BE) A MEASURE OF "QUALITY", "ORIGINALITY" OR "GOODNESS/BADNESS"

Musicology is a science, it's not concerned with anything other than what can be empirically and objectively analyzed and cataloged, I already went to great lengths explaining how that worked (and everyone ignored me lol) but LOL NO. A musicologist will really think long and hard about using something like "originality" in an analysis unless there is a really really good reason to do it, and even then it is supported by empirical fact and evidence. For example, we can call Beethoven's Diabelli Variations the first time a variation cycle has used as variation material the abstract musical materials rather than direct citations, so therefore we can say it's "original" in that sense, but is that distinction really necessary? A musicologist, like any real scientist, won't spell out "This is important" or "this is original" they'll let the facts do the talking.

So, what you're saying still makes no sense at all. Even if you're more careful now, all what you said before still counts as simply prejudice and taste, there's nothing else there.

To a musicologist, Britney Spears is exactly the same as Bach, except for the factual differences such as time period, music style (defined by a historical context and comparison with other artists), and such other things such as popularity and influence. Nobody at any point really cares about "quality", since that's a subjective parameter that CANNOT be proven. It CANNOT be established empirically and it makes absolutely no sense to pursue it since it brings nothing.

In fact, a musicologist works with data and analysis more than anything, speculation isn't part of the deal and certainly judgment isn't either. The best you can get away with without loving up your reputation if you're talking about or comparing Britney Spears to Bach is to point out the differences and how maybe one influenced the other, or stuff like that which leave whatever opinions and judgment as far as taste is concerned out, except maybe for the occasional footnote or opinion piece (which is taken to be outside of the context of musicology.)

So, in fact, to a musicologist your claim that "Bach's music is better than Britney's" is just as retarded as "Britney's music is better than Bach's music." There's no difference since both are speculative judgments that have no basis on anything musicological at all. In fact, going by numbers I can as well say that Britney's music is a whole lot better since she has a huge statistical advantage in terms of popularity that Bach has never enjoyed, lol. I can give many many counter-arguments for both statements being wrong and I can give many arguments for both of them being right, which inevitably means that, well, neither are really either right or wrong.

Like I said before, if your claim had any real empirical evidence to back it up, rather than saying it simply "is more valid" why don't you just show the evidence and it'll speak for itself. Good'ol "Prove it."

Or you can always...

I don't know. I know it's legal in Italy, I wouldn't mind taking the trip if you pay for the hotel. ;P

Hahahaha... That's a trip for me too... all in due time.

You know...

Not this coming summer... but next summer... I'm so going to Europe. Promise me a place to stay.

Only if you behave yourself!

YouTube - Judy Dunaway: Drone Improvisation on Bass Balloon

I think it's what I think it is.....

That seems like a good idea, until something goes wrong and someone loses an eye. :/

NO MUSICOLOGY ANALYSIS IS (OR CAN BE) A MEASURE OF "QUALITY", "ORIGINALITY" OR "GOODNESS/BADNESS"

Musicology is a science, it's not concerned with anything other than what can be empirically and objectively analyzed and cataloged, I already went to great lengths explaining how that worked (and everyone ignored me lol) but LOL NO. A musicologist will really think long and hard about using something like "originality" in an analysis unless there is a really really good reason to do it, and even then it is supported by empirical fact and evidence. For example, we can call Beethoven's Diabelli Variations the first time a variation cycle has used as variation material the abstract musical materials rather than direct citations, so therefore we can say it's "original" in that sense, but is that distinction really necessary? A musicologist, like any real scientist, won't spell out "This is important" or "this is original" they'll let the facts do the talking.

So, what you're saying still makes no sense at all. Even if you're more careful now, all what you said before still counts as simply prejudice and taste, there's nothing else there.

To a musicologist, Britney Spears is exactly the same as Bach, except for the factual differences such as time period, music style (defined by a historical context and comparison with other artists), and such other things such as popularity and influence. Nobody at any point really cares about "quality", since that's a subjective parameter that CANNOT be proven. It CANNOT be established empirically and it makes absolutely no sense to pursue it since it brings nothing.

In fact, a musicologist works with data and analysis more than anything, speculation isn't part of the deal and certainly judgment isn't either. The best you can get away with without loving up your reputation if you're talking about or comparing Britney Spears to Bach is to point out the differences and how maybe one influenced the other, or stuff like that which leave whatever opinions and judgment as far as taste is concerned out, except maybe for the occasional footnote or opinion piece (which is taken to be outside of the context of musicology.)

So, in fact, to a musicologist your claim that "Bach's music is better than Britney's" is just as retarded as "Britney's music is better than Bach's music." There's no difference since both are speculative judgments that have no basis on anything musicological at all. In fact, going by numbers I can as well say that Britney's music is a whole lot better since she has a huge statistical advantage in terms of popularity that Bach has never enjoyed, lol. I can give many many counter-arguments for both statements being wrong and I can give many arguments for both of them being right, which inevitably means that, well, neither are really either right or wrong.

Like I said before, if your claim had any real empirical evidence to back it up, rather than saying it simply "is more valid" why don't you just show the evidence and it'll speak for itself. Good'ol "Prove it."

Or you can always...

Read more carefully what I said. Musicologists and music theorists objectively analyzing music in order to understand or explain its subjective experience. Besides, musicology is a very broad field, mind you, including philosophy of music, aesthetics of music, sociology of music. You don't need to tell me what musicology is about, I'm sorry to tell you but I have a (bachelor's) degree in musicology.

As for the rest of your post, lots of words, little content. Maybe you should consider stopping posting yourself.

Read more carefully--

PROVE IT, OR BEAT IT.

I can't say it any simpler than this, if it's simplicity that you need.

Prove what?

BUT - that does not mean that her claim that "Britney's music is of a higher quality than Bach's" is equally valid as my claim that "Bach's music is better than Britney's". Like I said, I believe in objective quality criteria, so a judgement of quality can be justified to a greater or lesser degree by those criteria.

Prove that it's not just as valid. Go ahead, I'm waiting.

He did a while ago by stating that it is HIS opinion, backed by information he has. If one is a pluralist, he is bound to admit that there is no reason why he is wrong.

For your challenge, Britney Spears's (the Matrix and her other writers, or is she masquerading to write her own now like Xtina?) music is commercial in nature, which is hierarchically ignorable with relation to artistic music.

Is commercial music worse in a general sense? Of course not; one would have to do a much deeper study than I care to of the influences of and social responses to commercial vs. art music, etc. etc. But from my biased perspective, clearly there is no question as to which is "higher."

However, gianluca pokes the single, solitary hole in pluralism - that pluralism asserts one thing as immutable truth: that pluralism is the way the world works. This assertion does in fact make the whole thing unravel if that assertion is not mentioned or discussed, since a philosophy based around a lack of biased assertion is clearly in conflict with itself with a biased assertion.

No, actually, it's all very simple.

You claim objectivity in something which is subjective. This argument ALWAYS comes up because some people feel that their opinions are "valid" enough to be held as if they're not just opinions but facts or whatever.

However, that's really absurd. Opinion and taste are one thing, empirical evidence and objectivity is something else.

He's saying he thinks, OBJECTIVELY, that X music is better than Y music. In reality, as far as all the damn research over this topic is concerned, there is no such a thing. There is taste and opinion, but there are no facts involved, just judgments.

He hasn't proved a damn thing up to now, except claim crap. Proof speaks for itself, specially when it's something like this.

Likewise, you're using a specific definition of "good" and "quality", If I challenge the definition your point is moot. Basically that's the entire problem. To say "X music is better" requires defining "better" and that's where the problem starts.

So, there's no "proof" possible because we don't have a common standard or context in which it applies, in this case. That's the entire point of something being subjective in the first place, it's flexible to the point where you can't really fix things down or really compare them properly. Even if we agree on definitions of "good" or "quality" that's still a long long way from "proving" that any of the definitions hold as facts and truths, since it would then mean the other definitions are WRONG by default.

Otherwise, you start getting paradoxes. "Britney Spears is better than Bach if "good" is popularity, but Bach is better than Britney Spears if "good" is being dead for a long time." Which is right? I can continue to redefine "good" ad nauseum, it doesn't change a thing.

It doesn't matter how many fancy words you use, it boils down to a simple "tomatos are BETTER than apples!" argument which is absurd at best, hilarious at worst. :>

Hee hee!! If only te keep Gianluca posting, I'll keep the ball rolling!

[sSC had some great comments...as did Ferkungamaboo]

But, Gianluca is more fun.... So:

Gosh, YOU are still failing to get MY point. ...I recognize that to a Britney Spears fan, Britney's music is better than Bach's. ... BUT - that does not mean that her claim that "Britney's music is of a higher quality than Bach's" is equally valid as my claim that "Bach's music is better than Britney's". Like I said, I believe in objective quality criteria, so a judgement of quality can be justified to a greater or lesser degree by those criteria.

Why is her (also, why did you assume our Briney-fan to be female :hmmm: ... perhaps another time) ...why is her opinion not as valid as yours? Ah...yes, your so-called 'objective-criteria'.

Either you've never studied music theory or you're just terribly naive. Melodic sophistication CAN be quantified and objectively analyzed, at least to a certain extent, as can harmonic originality, formal innovation, timbral variety, contrapuntal richness, etc.

To a certain extent, perhaps...I'll concede that. But it's all still done in a subjective manner. There are as many methodologies and interpretations of masterworks are as there are theorists and musicologists themselves. If these criteria can be so objectively interpreted, why do we have such varying concepts of what constitutes a "good" melody, or "harmonic originality", or "rich counterpoint"? How could I even disagree with you?!

But why should I even bother showing you an example if you believe everything's relative and subjective anyway?

Because I know you can't. Please, prove me wrong - all I want is for you to find me a single measurable quality of music that can demonstrate a piece of music as "better" than another.

On a logical level, Robin's relativism cannot hold, simply because on its own reckoning his view cannot have any greater claim to truth than its contrary (i.e., my view). So according to his view, my belief in objective standards must be at least as valid as his claim that there are no such standards. And now you and Robin are faced with the difficult, if not impossible, task of solving this paradox.

Good luck with that.

Proven: Your belief IS as valid as my own. It's your belief....

;)

Musicologists and music theorists objectively analyzing music in order to understand or explain its subjective experience. ...I'm sorry to tell you but I have a (bachelor's) degree in musicology.

The thing is, as I mentioned before - every musicologist has their own "objective" views, which doesn't make them very subjective now, does it? Do you agree with Subotnik, or Adorno? Do you share the same views as Susan McClary regarding Beethoven's 9th? If it's so objective and measurable (I'll say it again) how can we have different perspectives?!

You're the only one spiraling into paradox here...

Also, I AM sorry to hear that you have a bachelor's in musicology... ;)

The thing is, as I mentioned before - every musicologist has their own "objective" views, which doesn't make them very subjective now, does it? Do you agree with Subotnik, or Adorno? Do you share the same views as Susan McClary regarding Beethoven's 9th? If it's so objective and measurable (I'll say it again) how can we have different perspectives?!

Actually, opinion pieces don't count very much towards the whole musicology thing. There's a lot of papers and interpretations which aren't simply "lol opinion" though, though the nature of the studies may as well render them opinions, they're not just ANY opinion either which is what sets it apart from whatever some guy may say on the interwebs.

Say, for example, there's a whole lot of interpretations to the famous Tristan chord by Wagner, yea? However, depends where you go there are some interpretations that are found more logical/better than others, not just cuz, but because they were found to have a "Well this includes your explanations and makes it better" factor (among other things.) De la Motte's explanation concerning Wagner's harmony for example isn't built on nothing, even though it's an interpretation, it's built on other peoples' work and research and acknowledges them to get to maybe different conclusions, etc.

Same thing for the theories of form by Schoenberg and Ratz, they're not just out of the blue. There's a certain "gray" area which is "How do we explain this" papers/books/etc, in which case there's some freedom for opinion and conclusions, though just the same you can't just say whatever you want either.

But there is certainly a pressure for picking out the best of these conclusions/etc based on a number of factors (no contradictions, accounts for all known data, is built on already accepted theories, etc) which encourages people to write stuff that is, well, presented as something which can be proven and examined (or disprove it if it's found lacking.) It never becomes a "LOL WHATEVER!" thing.

So, there is a huge degree of objectivity that IS expected out of the field by default. That there is some freedom here and there is a given too, since a lot of the more interesting things are people's interpretations and reasoning all the raw data that is mined out of history/analysis, etc. There is a standard though, and it's pretty strict even if there IS some freedom.

I'd say it's something like any other science, you have data which is observable, but you need to make sense out of it. It won't make any difference if the data you're getting out of something isn't used or reasoned with. Musicology tries to find the best, most likely explanations for things which aren't directly obvious, based on research and analysis of a whole lot of things. You need a pretty nice degree of objectivity if that's to get anywhere.

But just look how far we've come with understanding, for example, baroque improvisation practices, or pick any time period. We know more about music history now than ever before, and it's not just by accident. Furthermore, we know not only music history by itself, but how it actually works in many more detailed levels such as how harmony changed and what influences came from where, did what, and lasted how long, etc etc etc.

So, it works, I'd say.

Anyways, just clearing that up.