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

to jaw: Why must motive arise from objective value?

People have their own subjective motives for writing music, which can be "just cuz" to "I want to be famous" and all in between. You can compose for no reason at all too, or not care for a reason (like I do.)

Why pretend there's "right" reason for composing? Why pretend there's a reason at all, if it can be anything (including no reason?)

Therefore, we may very well say that a composer has more knowledge about their own composition, but that he is capable of making objective value judgments of it is absurd since we have to first start climbing the proverbial mount impossible trying to find a definition that we can ALL agree to make this even possible. So, therefore, why bother? It's much easier, cleaner, more efficient, to say that the composer is acting based on conditioning imposed by the society, culture, education, etc etc he was exposed to. He's making judgments based on what he's been conditioned appreciate, to like and dislike, etc. This is easily observable, testable, and I'm sure that if you look you can find thousands of studies on precisely this.

Again, I think universality is too high a standard to be useful, that it's best to set it aside in order to further discussion.

If we focus instead on definable objective qualities, superiority/inferiority would be dispassionate measure. It could be as simple as imposing scale (length) as an objective quality: according to this criterion, longer pieces simply would be superior to shorter ones. This is a dispassionate measure.

Important process based criteria could be symmetry, spontaneity, economy, color variety, ensemble balance, etc. The composer is best equipped to objectively evaluate every single one of these criteria because he personally lived through the creative process in achieving all that. I don't think you would disagree with this concept.

The point of contention seems to be whether it is possible to put an overall value judgment based on the individual objective criterions. At this point, the discussion becomes passionate because there is strong sentiment that the 'value' of a piece of music somehow reflects the 'value' of the composer as a person.

I agree with you that perception of 'overall value' depends largely on cultural influcences. But given that, there is no need to deny that music has objective, 'definable quality' (if you don't like the term 'inherent quality').

---

For perspective: in addition to Best Picture, the Academy Awards recognize these individual achievements (from Wikipedia :p )

* Best Director: 1927 to present

* Best Original Screenplay: 1940 to present

* Best Adapted Screenplay: 1927 to present

* Best Actor in a Leading Role: 1927 to present

* Best Actress in a Leading Role: 1927 to present

* Best Actor in a Supporting Role: 1936 to present

* Best Actress in a Supporting Role: 1936 to present

* Best Art Direction: 1927 to present

* Best Cinematography: 1927 to present

* Best Film Editing: 1935 to present

* Best Visual Effects: 1939 to present

* Best Sound Mixing: 1930 to present

* Best Sound Editing: 1963 to present

* Best Original Song: 1934 to present

* Best Original Score: 1934 to present

* Best Costume Design: 1948 to present

* Best Makeup: 1981 to present

to jaw: Why must motive arise from objective value?

People have their own subjective motives for writing music, which can be "just cuz" to "I want to be famous" and all in between. You can compose for no reason at all too, or not care for a reason (like I do.)

Why pretend there's "right" reason for composing? Why pretend there's a reason at all, if it can be anything (including no reason?)

I wasn't implying a motive for writing - I was implying that by saying there is 'nothing' to measure a composition to means that one need not compose. Simply put, and rich for interpretation I think - and disagreement; but in my eyes, correct.

I wasn't implying a motive for writing - I was implying that by saying there is 'nothing' to measure a composition to means that one need not compose. Simply put, and rich for interpretation I think - and disagreement; but in my eyes, correct.

There are certainly measures for the quality of composition, just not objective ones. The composer is just one of many people who can evaluate the work, each of whom can form an opinion for himself.

There are certainly measures for the quality of composition, just not objective ones. The composer is just one of many people who can evaluate the work, each of whom can form an opinion for himself.

So, no objective measures? Then why do we have teachers to teach us compositional technique? How can one 'master' the technique if there is nothing objective to it? If we go along the lines that QC is saying by giving an example of form - let us take fugue. The usage of fugal technique is an objective usage - not a subjective usage in any sense. A composer can either master the technique or not - and there have been many fugues written throughout the years that have failed horribly. But, if we take the subjective only stance - have these fugue attempts failed?

I'll make good on my "stop posting" statements now. Bi.

Claude A. Debussy walked onto the stage before the premiere, and removed all the orchestral materials for his "Fantaisie pour piano et orchestre". He withdrew this work, forbidding its performance. The score and parts were lost for years.

Samuel Barber did the same thing to his 2nd Symphony. Score and parts were lost until the late 1970s if I recall correctly.

Both of these works happen to be among my very favourites of either of these composers' output.

Were they right?

Was their decision somehow more objective than anyone else's?

And on "Survivability and the test of time", I'm sorry I just don't see how TrishTrash Polka, which definitely survived over time is in any way a "superior" work to Bach's B Minor Mass, which very nearly was lost to eternity.

Claude A. Debussy walked onto the stage before the premiere, and removed all the orchestral materials for his "Fantaisie pour piano et orchestre". He withdrew this work, forbidding its performance. The score and parts were lost for years.

Samuel Barber did the same thing to his 2nd Symphony. Score and parts were lost until the late 1970s if I recall correctly.

Very interesting. Another example of a composer forbidding performances of his work is Sorabji, but if I understand correctly it's because he doesn't want his work to be badly misrepresented by performers who couldn't do it justice.

Anyway, in the context of whether music possesses 'inherent quality' what do you guys think of composition competitions? Are we to understand that jury's decisions are objective or subjective?

Anyway, in the context of whether music possesses 'inherent quality' what do you guys think of composition competitions? Are we to understand that jury's decisions are objective or subjective?

As I mentionned a few posts back, I think there are a few "objective" criteria that can be applied. I put the word "objective" in quotes simply because I believe this is one of those contradictions of the arts - pure objectivity being impossible, we are left with a sort of simili-objectivity.

So once the jurors get through examining works and weighing them against whatever "templates" can be applied, the rest is their subjective evaluation.

This whole discussion is relatively pointless.

I believe this is your subjective opinion. What's wrong with looking at what goes into works that appear to appeal to existing audiences and finding connections? This is, at least in part, what music theorists do.

In art, there are subjective "standards" that are applied. Some remain "true" for many periods of time, others are more ephemerous.

Some standards might include subjective evaluative points such as "balance of proportion", or a series of archetypal "forms" to which the art form attempts to adhere.

Yes, and would you agree or disagree with the idea that some components of music transfer to multiple styles? Just so I'm clear, existing audiences of various types of music (say, traditional and contemporary tonal music audiences) might find both appealing in their own right, but an element of music like usage of form might be considered an underlying component that transfers to both. Just like in Atonal and Contemporary Electronic music, the absence of this same component in both cases could be argued as a global component of both (not implying either style inherently eliminates form, just as an example of a specific absence of a component applying to multiple styles, possibly indicating an underlying source of interest in the music).

For example, in music, one such form would be the sonata-allegro. There are various standards for a sonata-allegro, that have changed, been modified over time, but have superficially remained "valid".

When you evaluate a work that fits into the category of "sonata-allegro", you evaluate as objectively as is possible (which, admittedly, is not very possible) just how closely does any work fit into the "standards" regarding that particular form.

If the proportions of the work, when compared to a "standard" sonata-allegro, fall too far outside the "normal range" then we have a simili-objective point of reference.

To be perfectly clear, I'm using a single formal example, not using it as a standard against which to measure all music.

I think it's interesting that you have to indicate the bold portion. Like I said in my OP, the sensitivity to this kind of discussion just needs to be set aside. I understand people are passionate, but if there's something indicative in different styles of music as to what creates interest in those works, then I think it's worth exploring. So, my subjective opinion is that such a discussion does have a point.

However, most art DOES more-or-less fit against a template of form or structure, and to a degree can be evaluated by that single standard.

Now, all that says is "how well does it fit against the template". It doesn't objectively evaluate it for "good" or "bad". It just says how close it comes to fitting any given template.

That then becomes ONE means of evaluating ONE aspect of that work of art.

Then the objective evaluation comes into play. "Does the departure from the standard bring a quality to this work that enhances my appreciation of it?"

And obviously, the inverse is just as true:

"Does slavish adherence to the template create a work of art that enhances my experience of it as a work of art?"

What is interesting to me is how many (especially here at YC) value one or the other in writing music. I don't think slavish adherence to any given template is something to shoot for (who's arguing for that anyway?), but it does make sense for composers learning how composition works to understand and use the template before departing from it.

How in the world is this discussion still alive?

The Inherent Quality of Music

It has been argued that there are no inborn human tendencies or limitations that influence the quality, or likability, of a piece of music. Some who hold that position, namely the ignoramus, SSC, have proposed that culture and society are the only real influences. In defending that position, it has been argued that the diversity of music from around the world refutes the possible existence of the inherent quality of music. Here I will outline my evidence against that argument by demonstrating the commonalities between the ancient music of different cultures that did not have cultural exchange with one another.

The strongest argument for the inherent quality of music is present in the way that pitch has been implemented with striking similarities by different groups across time and space, and the way those similarities correspond to proven limitations of the human brain. There are 3 points:

1)Organization of pitch based on octaves. All people on the planet, regardless of past experiences, recognize the interval of the octave and virtually all scales and tuning systems are based upon it.

2)Organization of tuning systems based on mathematical relations between the pitches, rather than by choosing random intervals. Basically all tuning systems follow this rule.

3)The limitations to the number of pitches within a scale. Though some cultures practiced microtonality and others preferred larger intervals, practically all ancient scales--and modern scales, if we consider them based on the frequency of use--featured no less than 4 and no more than 8 notes per scale, with 5 to 7 being much more common and 7 being most common of all.

The limitations to the number of tones in a scale are in line with the limit to the average human's capability to differentiate between pitches, which is about six pitches before we begin to confuse them: we can differentiate between 3 pitches without making any errors at all, with 4 we rarely err, and with 5 and above our errors become more and more frequent. About 6 tones is the channel capacity of the listener for absolute judgments of pitch, and 7 tones is only slight above that.

The Magical Number Seven If you consult only one source, consult this one and scroll down to "Absolute judgments of unidimensional stimuli." This point is important to my argument

Evidence for the Inherent Quality of Music

A)In China, Bone flutes have been found which date back to about 6000 BC. They have between 5 and 8 holes each. One of the flutes is still playable and is capable of playing both a 5 tone and 7 tone scale, both of them known to be used in traditional Chinese music.

Music in Ancient China

Prehistoric music - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

B) The oldest surviving recorded melodies in the world, though fragmentary, come from ancient Mesopotamian tablets. Decipherments suggest that the music consisted of harmonies of 5ths, 4ths, and even 3rds, and also featured diatonic scales.

Music of Mesopotamia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

C)Indian Classical Music dates back over 3000 years and features 12-22 tones per octave. Only between 5 and 7 tones are ever used in one scale.

Raga, Tala, Octave, Aroha, Avaroha - Rhythm n Raga.org (first sentence)

Sound of India

Indian classical music - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

R?ga - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

D)Ancient Chinese music was typically pentatonic and was otherwise hex- or heptatonic

"The ancient Chinese defined, by mathematical means, a gamut or series of Shi Er Lu from which various sets of five or seven frequencies were selected to make the sort of "do re mi" major scale familiar to those who have been formed with the Western Standard notation."

"Most Chinese music uses a pentatonic scale, with the intervals almost the same as those of the major pentatonic scale."

Chinese musicology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Guqin tunings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

E)Timbila music, the ancient music of the Chopi people, features 7 notes per scale. "The Chopi timbila are typically tuned to what Hugh Tracey calls a ""minor whole-tone scale"". What is meant by this phrase is that the degrees of the scale are all the same distance apart, more or less, so that the octave is divided into 7 equal parts, instead of the twelve that Western ears are used to."

Chopi Timbila Music

F)The oldest Arabic tone system, dating back to the early 900's, though not free from outside influences, consisted of 24 tones to the octave, with only 7 of those being used in any given scale.

Arab tone system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Al-Farab i (872-950) wrote a notable book on music titled Kitab al-Musiqi al-Kabir (The Great Book of Music). His pure Arabian tone system is still used in Arabic music.[6]"

Arabic music - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

G) Like the Chinese bone flutes previously mentioned, many of the most ancient instruments discovered strongly suggest penta- or heptatonic musical systems.

i "The oldest known wooden pipes were discovered [...in] a woodlined pit contain[ing] a group of six flutes made from yew wood, between 30 and 50cm long, tapered at one end, but without any finger holes. They may once have been strapped together."

Prehistoric music - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ii "Chinese legend says the qin originally had five strings, but then two were added around 1000 BCE."

Ancient music - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

iii At the ruins of Nineveh (705-681B.C.) a relief of a harp player depicts the harp or lyre as having 7 strings.

Ancient music - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

iv Flutes recovered from the ancient civilization of the Indus valley have seven holes.

The Music of India - Google Book Search - page11, second last paragraph

H) Aside from the music listed, numerous other ancient music traditions follow the rule of 4 to 8 tones/scale. If any are the exception to this rule, and I know of none that are, they must surely be anomalies and most likely represent the music of a nearly stone-age people.

Beyond the point of pitch, there are other factors in music that invariably affect the level of appreciation that the listener gets out of it.

4)Rhythm. All music, with the exception of some forms of percussionless drone music, have a rhythm, whether it be mono- or poly- rhythmic. All purely percussive music has a rhythm, which is almost always complex.

5)Tempo. With the same aforementioned exception of some drone music, all music has a fixed tempo, though the tempo may change at certain points during a piece of music. It is conceivable that some form of music may feature a tempo that oscillates around a central tempo, much like vibrato involves a pitch that oscillates around a central pitch, though I am not familiar with any such music--it would be highly unusual.

Thus we conclude that music that does not contain a rhythm or tempo, in other words, a music that features sounds being presented at random intervals rather than at intervals determined by some system of organization, is either inherently displeasing, or at least less pleasing than music that does feature "organized" sound.

A final consideration as to the inherent quality of music has to do with the overall complexity of the piece. Though the effort of defending this last proposition with evidence is beyond my current resources, it is worth contemplation.

It is generally found that all music falls within a certain range of complexity. By complexity I mean the number of novel "elements" the music contains; mainly melody, harmony, rhythm, dynamic, timbre, and lyrics; and the sophistication of each element. In general, music that contains less elements will contain elements that are more complex and music that contains more elements will contain elements that are less complex. For example:

-African drum music has no melody but contains polyrhythmic drum beats that are rhythmically highly complex.

-Medieval polyphony is said to contain melodies that are rhythmically more advanced than those of the following harmonic music.

-Classical music is said to be relatively rhythmically uncomplex, and with the exception of opera music does not feature advanced or prominent lyrics (choirs tend to act more as an instrument section than as vocalists, unless performing with no or little instrument accompaniment.) Classical music is also said to "sacrifice" melody for harmony.

-Before the advent of the piano, which allowed for greater dynamics, keyboard music featured highly virtuosic melodies, which were then somewhat replaced by greater depth of dynamic when the piano arrived.

-Rock and pop music are much simpler than classic music but feature a strong emphasis on the emotional impact of lyrics.

-Jazz music features harmony that is less "powerful" but is more rhythmically, and perhaps melodically, advanced than classical music.

The aspect of complexity is also likely the reason we prefer seven note scales over 3 note scales: 7 notes is just beyond the upper limit to the complexity of pitch differentiation that our brains can handle. At the same time, 12 notes per octave is just below the point (14 tones) where our ability for pitch differentiation begins to totally fail.

The argument for complexity aside, I have established reasonable evidence for the existence of "inherent quality" in music. Just as some have attempted to argue against the existence of inherent quality by citing the diversity of world music, I have done the opposite by arguing the inverse: I have argued the commonality of world music. Not only have I argued that, but I have also presented a multitude of facts, many of which are nearly indisputable, that support my argument. Let none claim that inherent value in music does not exist lest they provide compelling evidence that people of all time periods, cultures, and backgrounds do NOT share a common criterion for the appreciation of music.

Unless the commonalities between the music of peoples around the world are disproved or accounted for by some factor other than a common capacity for the processing of auditory stimuli, the only question remaining is the extent of those commonalities. Given the ignorance and closed mindedness of those who have attacked these claims in the past, and given the nature of the scientific method, let none pass judgment on the extent of those commonalities, whether for the less or the greater, unless they provide sufficient empirical evidence to support their claims.

Don't you just LOVE debates! Only problem with your argument, Matt, is that you left out music by the Native Americans (both north and south). There is a rich tradition of music that also incorporates much of what you've found in your research. (i.e. the use of highly ornamented vocal lines with a very complex percussion - for the North; and use of primitive instruments in the south - lots of archaeological support for flutes from S. America.)

...Jazz music features harmony that is less "powerful" but is more rhythmically, and perhaps melodically, advanced than classical music.

:huh: What?

[it's rhetorical, I don't want to derail this thread...but seriously. What? Does anyone around here actually listen to jazz before making bold statements like that?!]

:huh: What?

[it's rhetorical, I don't want to derail this thread...but seriously. What? Does anyone around here actually listen to jazz before making bold statements like that?!]

:o you have good eyes! I didn't see that part. Perhaps he should explain himself!

:huh: What?

[it's rhetorical, I don't want to derail this thread...but seriously. What? Does anyone around here actually listen to jazz before making bold statements like that?!]

I see exactly where you're coming from, Robin, because I had to hesitate for a moment. The simple truth about Jazz harmony as it's been conveyed to me is that it contains high levels of complexity without attempting to sound complex. So, to some degree, the rhythm and melody become more prevalent than the harmony itself.

And I think that's the general idea within Matt's schema here: forget about "complexity" and replace every instance of that with the word "prevalence" or even "focus." As opposed to Classicism where the "focus" is on harmonic content determining the form, in Jazz, the melody and rhythm are the focus in the most general sense.

As opposed to Classicism where the "focus" is on harmonic content determining the form, in Jazz, the melody and rhythm are the focus in the most general sense.

I hope to hell you mean "classicism" as in the period? and not "classical" as in concert music?

The simple truth about Jazz harmony as it's been conveyed to me is that it contains high levels of complexity without attempting to sound complex. So, to some degree, the rhythm and melody become more prevalent than the harmony itself. ...in Jazz, the melody and rhythm are the focus in the most general sense.

:huh:

The simple truth about Jazz harmony is that it is, in fact, no different from anything the "legit" cats do. Your inexperience with jazz is showing, and while your little "truth" may apply in a few situations, be careful when making vast generalizations.

"without attempting to sound complex" ...what?

[again, rhetorical - I have NO desire to open THIS can-of-worms]

:huh:

The simple truth about Jazz harmony is that it is, in fact, no different from anything the "legit" cats do.

"without attempting to sound complex" ...what?

[again, rhetorical - I have NO desire to open THIS can-of-worms]

One of the Jazz teachers at UofI is Harry Miedema, good guy - very knowledgeable about this sort of thing. He'd probably be the first to tell you that Jazz is very complex in its harmonic language - and it doesn't try to hide it either. This complexity is one of the reasons why Jazz is so popular today as it was back in the day.

I hope to hell you mean "classicism" as in the period? and not "classical" as in concert music?

Uhm, if I meant the Classical Period of music I would have said it. Jeez! Sometimes I hate the English language, because the endless amount of Semantic word games that come along with it are just annoying. No offense, QC.

"without attempting to sound complex" ...what?

[again' date= rhetorical - I have NO desire to open THIS can-of-worms]

No desire here, either. See, finding the words to explain what I mean here is just as annoying. I could say, "Jazz harmony is more laid back," but then you'd get equally irritated as this might not apply to some of the more contemporary Jazz of today. The whole language gently caresses these discussions up more than anything else, IMHO.

But in Jazz, are you saying that harmony is the focal point of Jazz? If so, then I was completely misled, being under the impression that the melody and rhythm in the head are the most important features. That's not to say that the harmony is any less important, but it doesn't determine what the melodic or rhythmic content will be like Bach figured-bass or something, right? If that's wrong, then I'm going to piss myself.

But in Jazz, are you saying that harmony is the focal point of Jazz? If so, then I was completely misled, being under the impression that the melody and rhythm in the head are the most important features. That's not to say that the harmony is any less important, but it doesn't determine what the melodic or rhythmic content will be like Bach figured-bass or something, right? If that's wrong, then I'm going to piss myself.

Although not being a serious jazzer, having dabbled in it I think I would say in my experience that the three aspects are generally considered very equal to one another in importance. Though I think harmony is often what really establishes rhythmic and harmonic content. If you listen to people talk who are into jazz haven't you noticed that almost all they ever talk about are chords? (if you don't mind me making this generalisation)

I think if we say "Jazz focus on x" as a blanket statement, then we have to say "Orchestral music focuses on x" as a blanket statement regarding everything written for the orchestra, ever.

It just seems to me that Jazz as a genre is so diverse that there is no set way to describe it.

...finding the words to explain what I mean here is just as annoying. I could say, "Jazz harmony is more laid back," but then you'd get equally irritated as this might not apply to some of the more contemporary Jazz of today. The whole language gently caresses these discussions up more than anything else, IMHO.

I agree, language presents a major roadblock in discussing this stuff...it's hard to translate I know! Also, I'm far from irritated - I'm just pushing buttons ;)

But in Jazz, are you saying that harmony is the focal point of Jazz? If so, then I was completely misled, being under the impression that the melody and rhythm in the head are the most important features. That's not to say that the harmony is any less important, but it doesn't determine what the melodic or rhythmic content will be like Bach figured-bass or something, right? If that's wrong, then I'm going to piss myself.

1) "Is" is such a final and definitive word...we can't say it always is or isn't. Harmony certainly can be the focal point - and often is.

2) Harmony can also dictate melodic content (there ARE wrong notes in jazz too, y'know) ;)

I think (not a dig, but an observation) your inexperience with jazz is steering you to conclusions, which you're applying to the whole genre. You use the term "head" which to me, means you're thinking specifically of "bebop" when speaking of "jazz". It's a little funny, because the bop guys were the ones who REALLY pushed harmony to the forefront and greatly expanded the harmonic vocabulary.

Either way, with a little digging, I suspect you'll come to realize that you're a little off-base with your thinking...

It may well be that I erred in my comments about jazz music, though I did not claim that jazz harmony was less complex, just that it was less "powerful", even though the argument was in reference to complexity.

While my knowledge of harmony, and especially jazz harmony, is surely less than that of anyone reading this, I do think that the consideration of harmony necessarily complicates the theory.

What I was thinking when I included jazz in the list is generally along the lines of what Antiatonality stated in regards to harmony being secondary to rhythm and melody in Jazz music. I was also referring to the captivating force that "classical" chord progressions have on the listener as compared to Jazz progressions.

For example, many popular songs are based on simply strumming a basic progression of triadic chords (along with lyrics and the rich timber of a guitar of course). Those songs can be very moving and satisfying, and appeal to many people. I know of no equivalent with jazz harmony and that is what I meant when I referred to the relative "power" of jazz harmony.

I suspect that if we examined the nature of harmony and the way that it interacts with the brain, we would find that, though jazz harmony is certainly more complex in one sense, it is less complex in another. For example, if classical triadic chord progressions are found to evoke greater emotion than jazz chord progressions, then classical harmony could be said evoke a more complex emotional response.

The Inherent Quality of Music

TL;DR.

Next time remember that if your argument starts with a fallacy, who is going to bother?

At least you apologized in pm for calling me.. uh, that. There. Though, of course, calling me names is no way to make me actually give a scraggy about what you're saying, I hope you understand that.