Do you use imitation?

In his defense, finding all the instances of "good" is pretty tricky and reasonably takes some time. I often miss many of the "hidden goods" and sometimes even some "deceptive bads." Not to mention analysis of inverted "mediocres" in complex species counterpoint. (I had a lesson on those last week. Oh boy are they hard.) My teacher is helping me get better though. Theory of the objective value of music is no child's play.

I mean.... come on. Extremes don't help. Again, maybe "objective" is more like "justified subjective?" I can sit there and say "ok this piece of noise rock isn't 'good' to me because it's only one track and one sound, compared to Smegma's last album which had multilayered tracks." Of course, what I pick up on as "good" or "bad" is subjective, subject to perception, etc. But you've heard music you aren't feeling, and music you are; and you can give reasons why, even if it's more nebulous stuff like feel or something.

No, you can't say for a fact that Ayler's better than Brotzmann, but you can compare them using a subset of generally accepted criteria mixed with criteria that may not be "generally accepted," whatever that means.

I mean....Again, maybe "objective" is more like "justified subjective?" I can sit there and say "ok this piece of noise rock isn't 'good' to me because it's only one track and one sound, compared to Smegma's last album which had multilayered tracks." Of course, what I pick up on as "good" or "bad" is subjective, subject to perception, etc. But you've heard music you aren't feeling, and music you are; and you can give reasons why, even if it's more nebulous stuff like feel or something.

No, you can't say for a fact that Ayler's better than Brotzmann, but you can compare them using a subset of generally accepted criteria mixed with criteria that may not be "generally accepted," whatever that means.

But is there a way to justify subjective inferences? I could see there being some way to do it, but overall I think it's highly unlikely that one persons justifications will be the same as another persons. And I think that you stated it eloquently enough in the second sentence (what I pick up on as "good" or bad..).

Now, taking that coming to the subjective conclusion of what is 'good' or 'bad' in a work and comparing that to other works, will net you justification of that second work ON comparison based from subjective inferences. I like one piece by x composer, I take the qualities from it that I admire and compare them with one piece by y composer and come to realize that I dislike that piece by y composer. Is that really fair to the y composer? Should I just look at his work openly and try to make an unbiased decision on whether I consider his music to be good or not? Or, should I take the work by x composer and break it down into a theory and then apply it to all pieces I come across? Should I also teach that theory to my students, so that THEY too will know what is good or bad? I hope you guys see where I'm going at here with this.

2 days later and no response :P

It's a waste of my time to argue with y'all on YC.

Now, taking that coming to the subjective conclusion of what is 'good' or 'bad' in a work and comparing that to other works, will net you justification of that second work ON comparison based from subjective inferences. I like one piece by x composer, I take the qualities from it that I admire and compare them with one piece by y composer and come to realize that I dislike that piece by y composer. Is that really fair to the y composer? Should I just look at his work openly and try to make an unbiased decision on whether I consider his music to be good or not? Or, should I take the work by x composer and break it down into a theory and then apply it to all pieces I come across? Should I also teach that theory to my students, so that THEY too will know what is good or bad? I hope you guys see where I'm going at here with this.

Just a small point, but that's not how theory developed. It developed out of musicologists analyzing general tendencies between multiple composers' music of a certain period of history. It didn't amount to "Hey, I like Bach, so I'm going to make all my theories revolve around him." Other people of the time were doing the same things Bach did, only Bach tended to do a better job of it than them.

But is there a way to justify subjective inferences? I could see there being some way to do it, but overall I think it's highly unlikely that one persons justifications will be the same as another persons. And I think that you stated it eloquently enough in the second sentence (what I pick up on as "good" or bad..).

But then how would any kind of thing come about? (Bad example alert!) We all look at a corpse decaying in slightly different ways - an entomologist would look at insect interactions, a sociologist would look at how his family felt, a taxidermist would look at the quality of the pelt, a veterinarian would look at the organs. Whatever. But they can all tell you, more or less, how long it's been since death.

Basically, we're all subjective in everything we do; appeals to subjectivity only go so far before it seems like a cop-out. I dunno -- there hits a point of consensus like every other criterion. We don't find judging a government on its ability to produce attractive women, even if some do... Which isn't to say it's not a legit way to look at things, but that it's not a way most people would find justifiable.

Just a small point, but that's not how theory developed. It developed out of musicologists analyzing general tendencies between multiple composers' music of a certain period of history. It didn't amount to "Hey, I like Bach, so I'm going to make all my theories revolve around him." Other people of the time were doing the same things Bach did, only Bach tended to do a better job of it than them.

Okay, so they took 'general tendencies' between multiple composers music over a specific time period and created a theory around it that then applied to several time periods after.... wait, isn't that what I eluded to in my example???? I think it is. Also, I don't quite think Bach did things better than other composers of his time period - I like his music, but there is much to his music I can't stand. I'm also not alone in that belief either.

But then how would any kind of thing come about? (Bad example alert!) We all look at a corpse decaying in slightly different ways - an entomologist would look at insect interactions, a sociologist would look at how his family felt, a taxidermist would look at the quality of the pelt, a veterinarian would look at the organs. Whatever. But they can all tell you, more or less, how long it's been since death.

Basically, we're all subjective in everything we do; appeals to subjectivity only go so far before it seems like a cop-out. I dunno -- there hits a point of consensus like every other criterion. We don't find judging a government on its ability to produce attractive women, even if some do... Which isn't to say it's not a legit way to look at things, but that it's not a way most people would find justifiable.

The only difference between art of any kind and other fields (forensics, chemistry, architecture, etc.) is that we deal with subjectively sensitive senses such as eyesight and hearing. You can't physically measure the emotions gained from seeing a work of Dali or hearing a work of Mahler in everyday circumstances. We can measure a chemical reaction or the amount of decay existent in a corpse after 30 days or the foundational support required to support a building 60 stories tall. The similarity between these fields and an artistic fields comes in the emotions gained from the experience. If a person sat and watched a corpse decompose for 30 days - what would be the emotions they would experience? Do we know this?

...what I pick up on as "good" or "bad" is subjective, subject to perception, etc. But you've heard music you aren't feeling, and music you are; and you can give reasons why, even if it's more nebulous stuff like feel or something.

No, you can't say for a fact that Ayler's better than Brotzmann, but you can compare them using a subset of generally accepted criteria mixed with criteria that may not be "generally accepted," whatever that means.

The only point I'm trying to make here, is that IF the nebulous stuff is the critera - and it's all subjective "feelings" and personal perceptions - WHY do people try and tell me what IS good.

There is no scorecard, or checklist, or ANY way of evaluating what IS or IS NOT "good" as pertains to Music or the Arts.

The WHOLE POINT (in my opinion) of being Creative, is to evoke different responses. What makes it all worthwhile is the FACT that different people will interpret a work in different ways. It's what makes art interesting and what makes humans human.

:P

It's a waste of my time to argue with y'all on YC.

I don't see why you're having so much trouble with this.

This is an interesting topic (even if it's technically off-topic). We each develop some criteria for determining what music is "good," "effective," pertinent to our lives, or agreeable to our conceptions of what music is or should be. It's a filtering mechanism. It's overwhelming for most people to think that all music is created equal. Music (like so many other things) loses it's meaning if it's all considered equal.

You can only label something as "good" if you have other, similar things to compare it to, and comparisons can be just as troubling as finding everything to be equal. I found this quote in an old thread (http://forum.youngcomposers.com/t247/what-is-true-originality-later-what-music-is/page__st__190):

Everything we can think of is defined entirely by it's relationship with other things. And these other things are defined entirely by their relationship with other things. Eventually, things start to be defined by other things which, ironically, are defined by the things we were originally trying to define. At this point, we realize that nothing is certain and that any subjectivity is founded on bold assumptions.

I think that music is relative. It appears absolute because human beings are wired similar and therefore are affected similarly. I think that an interesting question is: If all humans were wired the same, would music be absolute (all cultural and acquired differences aside)?

The definition of music must be based entirely on how humans perceive it. Why is all music sound, but all sound isn't necessarily music? Each individual human mind makes the distinction between sound and music, and that is why it is relative - because no two people are the same.

So that's a bit on musical subjectivity and relativity. There is no absolute music or musical objectivity. If there were, music wouldn't be art ("a selective recreation of reality based on an artist's metaphysical value-judgments"), in which case music wouldn't be music.

It is, however, possible to say that there are "goodness criteria" that a large sampling of people apply to music. One such vague criteria is ample cohesion or unification; a piece that adheres to its own principals evokes respect. But how much connectivity must one perceive before a composition earns the goodness label? Unless you have a rather Zen life conception, there must be some self-drawn line between good and bad. How can the steps to that line be quantified? Is a piece good if you appreciate it for its construction but can't stand listening to it? What can be said about something like Cage's 4'33", in which the art is not in producing sound but rather in drawing attention to it? Is that automatically a bad composition to some because they see no unity to measure? Would you call some performances of that piece better than others?