Is music subjective?
C3
there are only two songs, out of thousands, that I love to listen to
on the radio. It's a little different than movies, but it's like
saying there are very few movies that are Oscar worthy. Or sort of
like saying there are very few truly good-looking people in the world.
Why is there such a dearth of talent and beauty in the world?
C3
Peter T. Daniels
Aesthetics is a branch of philosophy. You might want to look into the
work of the philosophers Suzanne K. Langer and Nelson Goodman, and the
musicologist-philosopher Leonard B. Meyer.
C3
Thanks for the names. Have a Merry Christmas season.
C3 +
David Oberman
>What makes good music?
Complexity, beauty, nobility, truth, wit, humanity. But that's my
subjective judgment.
>As far as rock and roll goes, I've noticed
>there are only two songs, out of thousands, that I love to listen to
>on the radio. It's a little different than movies, but it's like
>saying there are very few movies that are Oscar worthy.
I'd say that virtually all movies are Oscar-worthy--i.e., suitably
trashy & stupid for the Oscars. But that's my subjective judgment.
>Why is there such a dearth of talent and beauty in the world?
That's your subjective judgment. Wink wink.
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
Perhaps you are seeking it in the wrong place? "Rock and roll" is
hardly the Mecca for either talent or beauty!
Peter T. Daniels
But (s)he came _here_ to ask the question!
If you'd ever actually _listened_ to the Beach Boys, you'd have heard
vocalism comparable to that of your idol M. van Dam.
Likewise, for a different era, Bing Crosby, Mel Torme, Frank Sinatra.
(How well does Jose know how to use the microphone, which Crosby made
into a musical instrument -- replacing Rudy Vallee's megaphone?)
Not to mention Julie Andrews and Barbara Cook. Maybe Barbra Streisand,
but her interpretations are so idiosyncratic they're hard to separate
from technique.
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
But none of the above (not even the Beach Boys) are considered "Rock &
Roll" performers, are they? I have no quarrel with "pop" singers per
se, have even expressed admiration for most of those you cite. You
should read other people's posts more carefully, Mr. Daniels, not reply
to what you mistakenly THINK they are saying, as you so frequently do!
John W Kennedy
> But none of the above (not even the Beach Boys) are considered "Rock &
> Roll" performers, are they?
"Rock & Roll" has at least three definitions in actual use.
1) The specific 4/4 beat pattern:
___ / . . / _ _ / . _
2) Music dominated by electric guitars, especially by the classic
lead/rhythm/bass trio and variants.
3) Nearly all popular music since the mid-1950s.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
Peter T. Daniels
Certainly the Beach Boys are; they formed a Mutual Admiration Society
with the Beatles.
And if _you_ would read other people's posts more carefully, Mrs.
Gamble, you would see that I prefaced my mention of other artists with
"for a different era" -- different, that is, from the only era
theretofore mentioned, namely, rock and roll.
I don't know where Mr. Kennedy got his "three definitions." None of
them seems to fit what actually receives the label.
C3
What do you think about the possible options, among others, of making
believe, believing, and this may seem impossible to you, knowing.
I've noticed there are some people in society who, for God knows what
reason, are unwilling to make believe. There are others, who make the
leap of faith of believing, and there are still others, who simply
know.
An example of making believe would be the character Randle Patrick
McMurphy, played by Jack Nicholson, in the movie "One Flew Over the
Cuckoo's Nest." It should be noted that the character had been
accused
of statutory rape, something people almost totally overlook and don't
notice all together. It made the movie all the more sad. He made
believe the television was actually turned on and the world series
was
playing.
Father George Matanic is someone who takes it a step further When in
Mass, you can see him actually believing that what *appears* to be a
piece of bread is in fact the eternal + Body of Christ.
And then you have someone who is truly a saint, like Saint John
Vianney, who in fact *knows* that what *appears* to be bread and wine
is in fact the + Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. What's hunky dorky
about this is that some knowledge is convincing. Like if I know
Winona Ryder is beautiful then *YOU* know Winona Ryder is beautiful.
If I only "make believe" or "beleive" that Winona Ryder is beautiful
then it tends to have the opposite effect, you'll "know" she's
"ugly."
What's interesting about this, is that it makes it seem as though a
good priest (really one of the best) like Father George Matanic,
brings the + Eucharist to life when in fact it's the other way
around,
He (+ The Eucharist) brings Saint George to life.
Your thoughts please (as I've hinted before, that's an expression, as
most Buddhists know, don't actually *think*) (one more caveat: don't
imagine bad thoughts either).
C3 +
Peter T. Daniels
You're asking _me_? I have no idea what you're talking about, nor who
any of the people you mention are (save the fictional character played
by Jack Nicholson, and I saw that movie once, however many decades ago
it was released)
Oh, I've heard of Winona Ryder, but I certainly couldn't pick her out
of a lineup of movie stars.
The only connection I see with classical music is that in *Five Easy
Pieces*, made shortly after, Jack Nicholson played a concert pianist..
J R Laredo
"C3" <C35...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:44b5be34-79e1-40b8...@w19g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> What makes good music?
It is whatever criteria you consider to be gone and done well.
Silverberg's Law: 90 percent of everything is crap.
>
> C3
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
Is that a pseudonym for Sturgeon?
William
<DavidO...@att.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 03:22:42 -0800 (PST), C3 <C35...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>What makes good music?
>
>Complexity, beauty, nobility, truth, wit, humanity. But that's my
>subjective judgment.
>
I agree, except for complexity. there are very simple melodic lines
and harmonies that are so good to be nearly perfect.
Humanity is something absolutely important for performers, but not
exactly appropriate for composers, except when composing for specific
performers only.
The subjective part of music appreciation is, unfortunately, very
strong. Means the connection to feelings, personal tastes and
memories.
But can we object that all music is connected to the big universal
collective memory of a populace? Like, as example, ethnic music.
--
http://shop-for-computer.com
Special prices, best deals, refurbished computers.
J R Laredo
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:188beeea-7aff-4419...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 17, 8:54 pm, "J R Laredo" <jrlaredo...@comcastREMOVETHIS.net>
wrote:
> "C3" <C35...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:44b5be34-79e1-40b8...@w19g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>
> > What makes good music?
>
>
> As far as rock and roll goes, I've noticed
>
> > there are only two songs, out of thousands, that I love to listen to
> > on the radio. It's a little different than movies, but it's like
> > saying there are very few movies that are Oscar worthy. Or sort of
> > like saying there are very few truly good-looking people in the world.
>
> > Why is there such a dearth of talent and beauty in the world?
>
> Silverberg's Law: 90 percent of everything is crap.
Is that a pseudonym for Sturgeon?
? Theodore Sturgeon? No. Different science fiction writer. And, I see.
I heard the law was Silverberg's. I am obviously mistaken.
Don Phillipson
news:em0ii55tuj2pkn8ng...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 03:22:42 -0800 (PST), C3 <C35...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >What makes good music?
>
> Complexity, beauty, nobility, truth, wit, humanity. But that's my
> subjective judgment.
The item obviously missing here is structure, convenient
because it can be measured objectively, i.e. the measure
transmitted to others in another medium (words rather than
sound, writing rather than hearing) and debated without
spending time on subjective values
> >As far as rock and roll goes, I've noticed
> >there are only two songs, out of thousands, that I love to listen to
> >on the radio.
We may agree some people rely on radio to choose the music --
but few music-lovers do this: they decide what recordings to
play, which concerts to attend, etc.
One of the distinctive (objective) characters of popular music
is that its structure is usually simply missing or very simple
(cf. importance of complexity as listed above.) One wonders
whether this is why the OP wants to rehear only two numbers
out of thousands with which he is familiar.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Don Phillipson
news:hgb8v...@news5.newsguy.com...
> . . . "Rock and roll" is
> hardly the Mecca for either talent or beauty!
This is a sign of the times. When I was a teenager in
England (1) dances were the likeliest place to hear the
new rock and roll, (2) dances were the best places to
look over the girls and (3) Mecca was the largest chain of
commercial dance halls cf.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mecca_Dance_Hall_Tottenham
Peter T. Daniels
> "David Oberman" <DavidOber...@att.net> wrote in message
32-bar AABA is a structure. It's not "missing." I-IV-V-I is a harmonic
structure. It's not "missing."
David Oberman
<e9...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
>> >What makes good music?
>>
>> Complexity, beauty, nobility, truth, wit, humanity. But that's my
>> subjective judgment.
>
>The item obviously missing here is structure ...
I consider structure a sine qua non of music, but I don't believe that
structure -- in & of itself -- "makes good music" (see the question,
above).
"Maneater" by Hall & Oates has structure (objective appraisal); but it
doesn't have beauty, nobility, truth, or wit (subjective impression).
John W Kennedy
> I don't know where Mr. Kennedy got his "three definitions." None of
> them seems to fit what actually receives the label.
The latter two are, by intention, loose, but they certainly do reflect
actual use. As to the first, I suggest you go to Wal-Mart, purchase
their cheapest synthesizer that includes a drum machine, and, when you
get it home, press the "Rock" button. Solvetur auscultando. (This is the
same beat that, when overlaid with a Samba, produces the Bossa Nova.)
John W Kennedy
> "Rock and roll" is hardly the Mecca for either talent or beauty!
You have clearly never encountered les belles Corrs.
David Oberman
<jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>On 12/16/09 1:30 PM, EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
>> "Rock and roll" is hardly the Mecca for either talent or beauty!
>
>You have clearly never encountered les belles Corrs.
Didn't they cover "Dreams" with special guest Mick Fleetwood on skins?
John W Kennedy
He's not credited on the studio track -- it was originally made for a
Fleetwood Mac tribute album by many artists -- but he appeared with them
at about that time as a guest at their legendary St. Patrick's Day
concert at the Royal Albert Hall in 1998. He performed "Dreams" with
them, and also participated in a brilliant "Haste to the Wedding".
M
>
>
> I consider structure a sine qua non of music, but I don't believe that
> structure -- in & of itself -- "makes good music" (see the question,
> above).
That's because you have a stupid view of what structure is and is for.
M.