Music: Let's Debate "Survivability and the Test of Time"

When music 'survives' over hundreds of years, has it stood 'the test of time'? Does such a condition of survival exist, and is there an objective, observable phenomenon in the music that we can understand? In short, when a piece survives, is there an observable 'reason' for its survival, or is it just pure dumb luck?

Over the span of the Classical Period in music from about 1750 to 1820 (70 years), there are about 14 composers (at least according to the Wiki on the Classical Period) listed in this time period. Certainly this doesn't mean that in 70 years, only 14 composers composed music. Surely it doesn't mean that Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, C.P.E. Bach, Clementi, and others were the only composers from this period. Why don't we know the names or the music of the composers omitted from the discussion of this period? (i.e., do they not conveniently 'fit the style' of classicism, did they just write unmemorable music, etc.?) What did those composers we do remember from this period (or any, we don't have to limit this to classicism) do any differently? How did their works survive? Give examples if you have them, or just explain your position if you don't.

I know it's difficult to enter the realm of subjective valuation arguments about composers (it can be a very sensitive area for some), and it's certainly not my intent to "throw composers under the bus", so to speak. For the sake of discussion and exploration into this idea that music 'survives,' and more importantly, pointing to one or more causes for why this happens, I'd like not to spare the rod, though. Let's have an open discussion about this and behave like adults who can handle it. If you can't, or you just flat out refuse to reasonably discuss this topic, go to another thread right now and don't bother. Seriously.

In the interests of fostering discussion, I'll reserve my views for the time being and let others carry on with it if they want. If you feel strongly one way or the other, go for it.

How about NOT?!? :O

Please, not another one of these.

http://www.youngcomposers.com/forum/what-tonality-atonality-means-me-17942-8.html#post273103

Thread over.

Considering lots of good composers like Haydn were forgotten until relatively recently, and considering that if it weren't for people like Mendelssohn and Van Swieten, Bach could well have been forgotten, the 'test of time' in some ways is just dumb luck.

If it were that all good composers got remembered, then we wouldn't constantly have to fight to revive interest in some of them.

If it were that all remembered music was good then... oh yea, what's "good" again. :)

Last time we let the general public decide if something was good, Bush got elected.

No, the last time, Stephen Harper got elected. The second-to-last was Bush.

Considering lots of good composers like Haydn were forgotten until relatively recently, and considering that if it weren't for people like Mendelssohn and Van Swieten, Bach could well have been forgotten, the 'test of time' in some ways is just dumb luck.

If it were that all good composers got remembered, then we wouldn't constantly have to fight to revive interest in some of them.

If it were that all remembered music was good then... oh yea, what's "good" again. :)

Last time we let the general public decide if something was good, Bush got elected.

Yep.

I don't think there's any debate to be had on this, it's a very straightforward answer. Luck is maybe the biggest factor, as being there in the right place at the right time makes all the difference. It's not such a big factor when you can "plan for it," so to speak. Market research, good advertising and having luck are great to ensure that you get your music out, both today and back in the 18th century, regardless of what that music is.

My only complaint with this is that you used Wikipedia for your basis of 'known' composers during the Classical period. Surely, there are more reputable sources for your research. Especially when what you are doing is starting a very long and drawn out debate on a very philosophical nature.

That said, I do think there can be some argument to the survivability of one's music over another. Perhaps this argument is more a topic for musical psychologists to analyze - since most of what can be gleaned from it is one's relation to a piece in emotional terms. Most of the big composers today who have survived with massive popularity are directly resultant from the above. Take for instance Haydn, most people can relate to the simplicity and scope of Haydn's work. His surprise symphony or his various string quartets are very easily accessible to people from diverse backgrounds. His survival through the years is largely due to this. Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Shostakovitch, Prokofiev, Verdi and many others share this same quality of 'accessibility'.

Another more modern example, at least for me, is Schoenberg's Pierrot Lunaire. Despite being atonal, this piece was easily accessible to those in my Music Theory courses - and, in fact, was actually the one most wanted to spend more time on (of the modern period).

The accessibility I mention, is not the accessibility in technical terms but in subjective terms. That meaning people could easily 'feel' something in the music in personal terms (hence why I said that this is perhaps a topic better suited to music psychologists).

@ Daniel: So, Mendelssohn and Van Swieten taking interest in Bach is the only reason Bach is studied today? Is it just impossible that another pair of individuals might have come along later, taken interest in Bach, and revived the interest in his music? What of interest does Bach have that any of the hundreds of other composers from that period don't have? Why Bach? Why not the contemporaries of his time period?

@ SSC: I think I more than clearly requested that if you weren't willing to discuss this topic rationally not to post. If you don't think a debate is to be had, you're not approaching this topic rationally. There are people posting and discussing the topic.

@ JW: If it's simply an issue of accessibility (I'm assuming from your Schoenberg example), how did these works become accessible? If it's an issue of simplicity (according to your Haydn example), surely there are simpler works of music or better examples of simplicity. Why Haydn and not one of a hundred of his contemporaries?

That said, I do think there can be some argument to the survivability of one's music over another. Perhaps this argument is more a topic for musical psychologists to analyze - since most of what can be gleaned from it is one's relation to a piece in emotional terms. Most of the big composers today who have survived with massive popularity are directly resultant from the above. Take for instance Haydn, most people can relate to the simplicity and scope of Haydn's work. His surprise symphony or his various string quartets are very easily accessible to people from diverse backgrounds. His survival through the years is largely due to this. Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Shostakovitch, Prokofiev, Verdi and many others share this same quality of 'accessibility'.

Another more modern example, at least for me, is Schoenberg's Pierrot Lunaire. Despite being atonal, this piece was easily accessible to those in my Music Theory courses - and, in fact, was actually the one most wanted to spend more time on (of the modern period).

The accessibility I mention, is not the accessibility in technical terms but in subjective terms. That meaning people could easily 'feel' something in the music in personal terms (hence why I said that this is perhaps a topic better suited to music psychologists).

OK, but to talk of accessibility, invariably leads us into asking why certain music is "more accessible" to certain people. To say Haydn's music is accessible to someone who was never exposed to western culture at all is absurd, for example, as the there is no ground for that music to be appreciated, as this appreciation (or accessibility as you call it) requires certain conditions for it to exist (knowledge of western culture, to say the least.)

Likewise, someone living in the 18th century would've thrown fits at Schoenberg or Penderecki's music. Sadly, a great deal of people still do (which falsely leads into thinking something is wrong with the music, rather than with the people.) This context, or accessibility (predisposition to certain aesthetic standards, if you will,) is precisely what I mean with the other factors which have really nothing to do with the music.

Why are you posting?

Why are YOU posting? lolz.

OK, but to talk of accessibility, invariably leads us into asking why certain music is "more accessible" to certain people. To say Haydn's music is accessible to someone who was never exposed to western culture at all is absurd, for example, as the there is no ground for that music to be appreciated, as this appreciation (or accessibility as you call it) requires certain conditions for it to exist (knowledge of western culture, to say the least.)

Likewise, someone living in the 18th century would've thrown fits at Schoenberg or Penderecki's music. Sadly, a great deal of people still do (which falsely leads into thinking something is wrong with the music, rather than with the people.) This context, or accessibility (predisposition to certain aesthetic standards, if you will,) is precisely what I mean with the other factors which have really nothing to do with the music.

Yes, good points. I think it is also good to add here that even in this day and age, there are people who cringe at the more avant garde styles of music AS well as people who cringe at the more traditional styles. Such a diversification is evident in many facets of all arts. And in reference to my last post, for SSC, I am going to say again - my statements are geared towards solely the western tradition of music and not non-western traditions. I am not trained in non-western music in the least and am not qualified to put my views on those traditions - so please, do not take what I say and apply them to non-western schools of music.

Yes, good points. I think it is also good to add here that even in this day and age, there are people who cringe at the more avant garde styles of music AS well as people who cringe at the more traditional styles. Such a diversification is evident in many facets of all arts. And in reference to my last post, for SSC, I am going to say again - my statements are geared towards solely the western tradition of music and not non-western traditions. I am not trained in non-western music in the least and am not qualified to put my views on those traditions - so please, do not take what I say and apply them to non-western schools of music.

Uh, your plea isn't really necessary, since I'm pretty sure that cultural clashes can be understood even if you don't have intrinsic knowledge of that particular example. It's just a way of saying that without the cultural context, it becomes very hard for people to have anything to "grab on to" when they hear something that has nothing to do with what they're used to in their own tradition. Nowadays, if you've studied there's very little that can really surprise you (sadly,) and with the globalization thing going on, we can get a much better picture of what other cultures sound like and what they were like.

From that, I think I can safely say that there's a lot of very different musical cultures, and that by itself is proof enough that survivability and accessibility are factors ruled not by the music itself, but by a great deal of other things. This accounts perfectly for the variety of world music we can witness, and also for all the western avant-garde and 20th century tendencies, etc etc.

OK, but to talk of accessibility, invariably leads us into asking why certain music is "more accessible" to certain people. To say Haydn's music is accessible to someone who was never exposed to western culture at all is absurd, for example, as the there is no ground for that music to be appreciated, as this appreciation (or accessibility as you call it) requires certain conditions for it to exist (knowledge of western culture, to say the least.)

Likewise, someone living in the 18th century would've thrown fits at Schoenberg or Penderecki's music. Sadly, a great deal of people still do (which falsely leads into thinking something is wrong with the music, rather than with the people.) This context, or accessibility (predisposition to certain aesthetic standards, if you will,) is precisely what I mean with the other factors which have really nothing to do with the music.

Problem being, among the various factors that can be considered (that you like to point out), almost none of them are relevant to the music itself. Your argument, instead of addressing the music, addresses everything BUT the music. Interestingly enough, there's a logical fallacy for this as well.

Negative proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let's do a simple analysis:

Criteria for selecting the best explanation in this case could involve Occam's razor, which states that the best explanation tends to be the one requiring the fewest additional assumptions. Such an explanation invokes the fewest intermediate factors while maintaining its predictive power; that is, its ability to explain current data and to predict future data.[1'] However, according to the scientific method, the relationship is not formally proven in this instance, and to assert that it is so until disproven is fallacious.

And SSC's position...

Music is not like a scientific theory which can be "proven wrong" by subsequent tests (as usual I cite newton's laws for their amazing survivability' date=' as they're actually fantastic at withstanding all sorts of scrutiny and tests,) so therefore the only thing you need to create a frame where you have something as famous as Bach, etc etc, is to ensure that the actual music survives and have a cultural/political/philosophical/etc context which favors its appreciation, that's all.

You can do the same thing for ANY piece of art, and it works just the same in spite of what the actual piece of art may be. In fact, haven't we seen this already from Duchamp's "ready mades," Cage's questioning of music itself, etc?

THAT is the real formula, it has almost nothing to do with the piece of art, no matter if it's Bach or a toilet seat, you can make it famous. You can make it "worth studying," and you can make it affect society at large. All you need is knowing what it takes to do it, what the conditions are, and you're set. In a sense, it's like market research indeed, with very similar goals.[/quote']

Yes, this is the formula isn't it? Simplify the hundreds of years of music down to market research of the era - because that's what none of these composers actually did. And all of this simplifies further to your "pure dumb luck" position. Like Occam's Razor and its relationship to the scientific method, the burden falls on you to prove that "pure dumb luck" is all it boils down to. Negative proof, indeed.

NOTE: See, and this is also why I have no time to actually discuss my position because I'm too busy pointing out all the logical fallacies you rely on with your positions. Like I said, if you're not willing to discuss this rationally, logically, or otherwise reasonably, then you don't need to post.

I don't quite agree with your last sentence - and nor do I think my plea is unnecessary, despite the globalization you mention - which I will address later, I don't quite see this 'proof' your talking about. I think it is safe to say that in most cultures there is a 'standard' repertoire much as there is in the Western Tradition. If anything, when you bring in other cultures you are merely bringing another topic to the discussion instead of addressing the question of Survivability of certain music over another. And, if we can be frank on this, is exactly why I said we should limit ourselves to only discussing things we know. And the diversity of musical cultures really is not 'proof' that accessibility and survivability are factors ruled not by music itself. That's is quite an extraordinary stretch and requires a great deal of support and reference. If anything, what the diversity of musical cultures really shows is mankind's need for a musical language. The only role that culture plays is in the evolution of music within that cultures boundaries. I will back this up with reference:

At first deviation and expression was a matter of combining brief melodic formulas in different and surprisingways, thus producing new hymn melodies. However, The immense number of hymns introduced into the service made it necessary for the ecclesiastical authorities to prohibit the addition of new hymns to the repertor, and the artisitic activity of the monks from that time onwards was concentrated upon the embellishment of the music, which, in the following centuries, and even after the fall of the Empire, became increasingly rich and elaborate, until the originally simple structure of Byzantine melodies was transformed into an ornamented sytle and the words of the text made unrecognizable by extended coloraturas. - Emotion and Meaning in Music, p. 67.

Much as in our tradition, where cultural boundaries effected music and art, in other cultures the same is true.

Globalization, however, has witnessed a fusion of many different cultures into one - witnessed by World Pop, etc. So, to say that Globalization is a way of discovering and perserving the musical diversity in the world is not a good reference to your point but instead is showing that one music is overcoming the other in real time (notice how Eastern Composers are taking up more and more Western Practice and utilizing less of their own culture in music, hmm... could it be?)

LOL.

Oh wow. The reason I'm not looking at the music is that if I did I would have an even bigger problem of trying to explain why there's such a huge diversity (all of which has survived pretty OK in other cultures and traditions, and probably will survive also for quite a while) if the actual music has anything to do with it. I'm quite literally following Occam's razor here in that if I were to try to make the music a factor, I'd only be complicating something which can be explained easily without it!

Negative proof, at that, has nothing to do with this. Negative proof, as the wiki puts it, is "X is true because there is no proof that X is false." When the hell did I say anything remotely similar? I'm simply excluding the actual qualities of the art/music subject to the formula because they are, really, irrelevant. If you can make an urinary a world-famous piece of contemporary art which WILL live on for a good length of time as it has up to now, you can do just about anything despite what the object itself is.

If the object, music or piece of art, were that relevant then, again, we would need to find that the same things start repeating themselves over and over regardless of culture or tradition (or people's tastes, for that matter!) If this were the case, we would see patterns emerging that have more to do with scientific findings, not with art. We would see not the "western tradition" but the "world tradition," yet that's not what we see. The laws of motion, for example, ignore all of the above. They exist in spite of culture, tradition or taste. They exist simply because they are true, they work, and you could've seen them being discovered anywhere.

That's the big difference here. Art is not science. In art the object itself (the piece of art) is not something that really matters so much as what decides its value, importance, etc are all determined by other things external to that object. In total contrast, a scientific theory must stand on its merits and on its merits alone for it to be worthwhile. For that there are many trials and tests to ensure that this is precisely the case. Is there an analogue in art? Of course not.

Globalization, however, has witnessed a fusion of many different cultures into one - witnessed by World Pop, etc. So, to say that Globalization is a way of discovering and perserving the musical diversity in the world is not a good reference to your point but instead is showing that one music is overcoming the other in real time (notice how Eastern Composers are taking up more and more Western Practice and utilizing less of their own culture in music, hmm... could it be?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_inheritance_theory#Mechanisms_of_Cultural_Evolution

This should explain quite a lot of what I'm saying.

The only question I have is: how can you have a discussion concerning music's survivability if you DON'T view the music as being a part of your argument? One could argue, quite well, that music doesn't have a survivability simply in pointing to the evolution of musical style itself. If music HAD an innate survivability - regardless of cultural difference - than the music we have today would be the exact same as the music we had 2000 years ago, 50000 years ago, etc. The fact that music has expanded and changed over the course of the years is direct proof that there is no inherent survivability and in regards to your argument itself that there is no 'test of time'. That is an argument solely based on the 'music' itself and nothing more - and perhaps one that you should include in your argument that there is no survivability!

The only question I have is: how can you have a discussion concerning music's survivability if you DON'T view the music as being a part of your argument? One could argue, quite well, that music doesn't have a survivability simply in pointing to the evolution of musical style itself. If music HAD an innate survivability - regardless of cultural difference - than the music we have today would be the exact same as the music we had 2000 years ago, 50000 years ago, etc. The fact that music has expanded and changed over the course of the years is direct proof that there is no inherent survivability and in regards to your argument itself that there is no 'test of time'. That is an argument solely based on the 'music' itself and nothing more - and perhaps one that you should include in your argument that there is no survivability!

Excellent argument, but is it really looking at the music itself? Or are you just comparing changes across a cultural line? Looking at the music itself is going into specifics, Bach and not Pachelbel, for example. If we take your approach, we're not really looking at the music as anything more than evidence to support the argument, which I HAVE been doing so far haven't I?

I have already said that the music itself does have a role here, but that it is downplayed by a great deal of other things. :>

Excellent argument, but is it really looking at the music itself? Or are you just comparing changes across a cultural line? Looking at the music itself is going into specifics, Bach and not Pachelbel, for example. If we take your approach, we're not really looking at the music as anything more than evidence to support the argument, which I HAVE been doing so far haven't I?

I have already said that the music itself does have a role here, but that it is downplayed by a great deal of other things. :>

It is looking at the music itself. But in this context, where we are discussing solely survivability it is the simplest answer and really one that one can not dispute in any 'real' sense.

It is looking at the music itself. But in this context, where we are discussing solely survivability it is the simplest answer and really one that one can not dispute in any 'real' sense.

Well it supports my argument so obviously I'm not disagreeing with it. I'm just saying that we can replace "music" here with any other given art, in any other given tradition, and get the same thing.

The only question I have is: how can you have a discussion concerning music's survivability if you DON'T view the music as being a part of your argument? One could argue, quite well, that music doesn't have a survivability simply in pointing to the evolution of musical style itself. If music HAD an innate survivability - regardless of cultural difference - than the music we have today would be the exact same as the music we had 2000 years ago, 50000 years ago, etc. The fact that music has expanded and changed over the course of the years is direct proof that there is no inherent survivability and in regards to your argument itself that there is no 'test of time'. That is an argument solely based on the 'music' itself and nothing more - and perhaps one that you should include in your argument that there is no survivability!

I think this is a good point as well, but if no music survives because of expansion, growth, and change, then no music should sound any similar or characteristically "of" a particular time era (like Classicism in music... or Romanticism). There should be no aural connection, even in the strictest sense. The dominant/tonic relationship or the advance of tonal hierarchies is not an indication of "no survivability" in music but just the OPPOSITE as these hierarchies grew upon each other over several hundred years. Today, our perspective is quite different as the syntax element has changed. Where there was one tonal syntax to build from, now there are many composers creating their own syntax, not building on an existing syntax. Of course there is nothing to compare what we have today to what comes before it when composers don't build on or develop from what already exists.

So, it just depends on how you're applying survivability to music, as stasis over time or as the growth and development of music - the changes that occur in something with identifiable rootedness.

I think this is a good point as well, but if no music survives because of expansion, growth, and change, then no music should sound any similar or characteristically "of" a particular time era (like Classicism in music... or Romanticism). There should be no aural connection, even in the strictest sense. The dominant/tonic relationship or the advance of tonal hierarchies is not an indication of "no survivability" in music but just the OPPOSITE as these hierarchies grew upon each other over several hundred years.

lol.

Biased Transmission

Understanding the different ways that culture traits can be transmitted between individuals has been an important part of DIT research since the 1970s. Transmission biases occur when some cultural variants are favored over others during the process of cultural transmission. Boyd and Richerson (1985) defined and analytically modeled a number of possible transmission biases. The list of biases has been refined over the years, especially by Henrich and McElreath.

Content Bias

Content biases result from situations where some aspect of a cultural variant's content makes them more likely to be adopted. Content biases can result from genetic preferences, preferences determined by existing cultural traits, or a combination of the two. For example, food preferences can result from genetic preferences for sugary or fatty foods and socially-learned eating practices and taboos. Content biases are sometimes called "direct biases."

Context Bias

Context biases result from individuals using clues about the social structure of their population to determine what cultural variants to adopt. This determination is made without reference to the content of the variant. There are two major categories of context biases: (1) model-based biases, and (2) frequency-dependent biases.

I hate to be quoting this directly from wikipedia, specially when I already gave the link, but honestly. Jeesh. There are your answers for why certain music traits prevail and others fade away over time, etc etc. I'd quote the crap you said on the shoutbox (and subsequent pwnage of it) but I'm lazy, so HA, be thankful.

lol.

I hate to be quoting this directly from wikipedia, specially when I already gave the link, but honestly. Jeesh. There are your answers for why certain music traits prevail and others fade away over time, etc etc. I'd quote the crap you said on the shoutbox (and subsequent pwnage of it) but I'm lazy, so HA, be thankful.

Where on Wikipedia, your "Cultural Evolution" page? You make me laugh, SSC.

"There is no evidence to contradict that culture decides whether music survives, so it must only be CULTURE that creates survival in music."

NEGATIVE PROOF.

Even funnier, "When talking about the survival of music, the music in question is irrelevant." I don't think they even have a fallacy for this... Leap of Logic? I think they stop naming them when the stupidity is so blatantly obvious to the point of absurd.

Now, it may not have been as clearly evident to the peanut gallery in the shoutbox, but in this thread, your (il)logic speaks volumes for your inability to grasp this in all its simplicity.

I do think there are attributes in music that affect it's "quality" regardless of the past experiences of the listener.

I believe that at a certain level music appeals to human faculties that are hardwired by genetics. In an effort to survive, our brains are constantly trying to organize stimuli from the world around us into "gestalts" that are meaningful to us. It is my understanding that that natural tendency is the fundamental cognitive process that predisposes us to appreciate music--which is, as we know, sometimes referred to simply as organized sound.

Accepting the proposition that music is appreciated without any prior exposure (logically obviously), and accepting the proposition that within a certain range our brains all share the same characteristics, and excluding for the sake of the argument the effect of the varying auditory stimuli of varying environments, let us consider a large group of individuals, say 10,000 or so, who have never been exposed to music. I believe that if we were to choose 10 different pieces of music and introduce each one to each person, separately as opposed to in a group setting, in random order we would find that some pieces ended up being more popular than others.

So I think that we can be relatively certain that there is a certain level of "quality" that is universal to each piece, even though just as our brains bend to the will of "nurture" that quality bends as well.

Now there can of course be argument as to the extent to which genetic tendencies can influence our musical taste in the face of learned preferences, and some might argue that the influence of the former is insignificant. I assert that considering scientific findings as the power of "nature vs. nurture", it would at least be foolhardy to reject the influence of nature without ample scientific evidence.

As to the question of accessibility and longevity, I believe that, apart from technical considerations, it has something to do with emotion. If we can imagine for the sake of the argument that a piece of music has at least some amount of emotional effect that is inherently specific, In other words if we can consider that a piece will, at least to some degree, evoke the same emotions for each listener, then we can consider the number of people that will appreciate such an evocation. In fact, it may be that the greatest pieces are often emotionally ambiguous, allowing greater accessibility through great breadth of interpretation.

In any case I wouldn't argue that emotion certainly is a main factor, or that it could be the only factor, but I do think it is worth considering.

To SSC:

It took me a long time to write the above and I just had a chance to read what you wrote in the continuation of your argument.

It seems to me that you believe that cultural opinions and cultural norms are the only relative forces determining the transmitting of musical pieces across generations. Though I consider it a valid point, I believe you are neglecting to look at the other side of the coin.

Taking my previous arguments into consideration, which seek to establish a certain level of inherent quality in musical pieces, consider how a culture goes about determining the musical pieces that it considers worthwhile. Is it at all possible that the quality of the music factors into it? Even if some music great music is forgotten and some mediocre music is remember, isn't quality still a very relevant force? If there are 10 exceptionally great pieces and 9 are forgotten with 1 carrying do we credit the pieces exceptional greatness or the whims of the culture that chose it over the others?

"There is no evidence to contradict that culture decides whether music survives, so it must only be CULTURE that creates survival in music."

When did I say this?

Quote me, as this is not my argument... nevermind that your best option to any of what I'm saying is some mysterious and magical "objective judgment" which sets pieces apart by inherent "merit." I guess you're beginning to realize that you have to distort what I'm saying to apply the fallacy to what I'm saying... or even flat out making scraggy up.

How about I play the same game, then. But I'm actually going to quote you instead of making scraggy up:

as in, two works written in the same time period with the same conditions and the same odds against them, one survives and the other doesn't, it's on the merit of the music

a comparison of two pieces from the same period, one from a memorable composer and one from a forgotten one, and I'll happily make a case for it

"quality" is exactly what I'm referencing here

nah, quality in the sense that some music has greater depth in compositional technique, greater levels of cohesion and 'concinnity', and greater attention to details in the general manipulation of sound

SSC: my definition of this is simply a plausible explanation of what, in the music specifically, made it so appealing to a broader range of cultures over time

... to which, Ferkungamabooboo said:

he's basically asking (asserting?) that there is inherent quality to music

but who is to say that greater depth is better? or cohesion?

no, but you're asking for something inherent in the music that makes it better, which would imply that there is one perfect way to write music

Pwn'd.

The bit in bold kills your argument, as what you're defining here MUST be OBJECTIVE for your argument to be true at all, if it's subjective in any way (and decided by other factors) it loses all traction in favor of what I've been saying all along.

But it wasn't just him either. Anyone can see the enormous problem with your theory there, lol.

Oh and for the LAST TIME, negative proof involves "X is true because there is no proof that X is false." I'm not asserting that the other factors are relevant JUST BECAUSE there's no evidence for the actual music playing much of a role. THAT would be a fallacy. The piece being as important as you make it out to be in your "theory" would render cultural context irrelevant, much like a scientific theory based on merit is not a democracy, there is no room for opinions when things are defined like that. In other words, if you get to decide which arbitrary and objective factors decide if a piece survives, it OVERRIDES anything else by default, just like it does when scientific theories are tested and proven to work, etc etc.

So far, your system explains nothing since a fluke can ruin it entirely, and since you can't predict the occurrence of flukes or random chance elements in your theory (you don't even account for them!) it's entirely void by default since it's completely unreliable for understanding why X composer's music survived over Y. All I need to throw you off is doubt the consistency of the results when we factor in chance and random elements. Instead of a clear picture of what actually happened, we get a "maybe" and we're back where we started, with no answers or real reasons.

You create more problems than you solve by asserting "quality" and "merit" matter (nevermind that we would have to consider your definitions for "quality" and "merit" absolute for it to make any sense, which we won't as you can't prove they are objective, as in, not YOUR opinion but the actual objective truth.) Occam's razor, eh? Look it up before you use it against someone next time.

Speaking of which, this leads me back to my good'ol question vs inherent value bullshit.

If you want to "prove me wrong" or, as you so elegantly put it, "tear into my argument," you would have to prove that there is something objective in all the pieces that have, ahem, "survived the test of time" which we can measure, quantify and therefore prove that any piece containing those characteristics, by those characteristics alone should be able to therefore always survive any length of time or it's destruction.

Anyone attempting to create ANY sort of argument based on "inherent value" of music must first overcome this. Period.

You failed to answer it, just as you're failing now with everything else, AA. Give up.

---

MattRMunson:

Thing is, music is most likely just auditory cheesecake, so I'm discarding the genetic argument right away since you'd have to offer a better explanation for the diversity of music worldwide being somehow linked to a genetic-based aesthetic bias that favors certain things over others in SOUND, not just music. Since it seems that this genetic bias favors EVERYTHING (as the diversity shows,) we can safely remove this bias from the argument since it does absolutely nothing. Furthermore, any perceived bias can be easily explained through psychology/sociology means, as I've been doing so far.

If this bias does nothing or doesn't even exist, the inherent quality must come from elsewhere. Same problem as with AA's argument.

http://www.youngcomposers.com/forum/evolutionary-musicology-15946.html for more on this.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the concept of inherent quality, as you would call it.

Henri Dutilleux (1916 - ) destroyed much of his own early works because he deemed them not worthy. What do you make of this? Would you say he's not qualified to ascertain the inherent quality of his own music?

It is difficult to put value judgment on music without resorting to external factors (audience), because then there would be no criteria with which to evaluate the music.

BUT in my opinion there is a universal criterion that can be applied, that is music at the very least should exhibit intelligence, which is a testament to the composer who created it. Beyond that, perhaps the amount of intelligence (e.g. skills, scale) conveyed by the music could be a reflection of its quality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_Golden_Record