Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site lasspvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!vax135!cornell!lasspvax!gtaylor From: gtaylor@lasspvax.UUCP (Greg Taylor) Newsgroups: net.music.classical Subject: Re: discussion Message-ID: <158@lasspvax.UUCP> Date: Wed, 26-Dec-84 12:17:49 EST Article-I.D.: lasspvax.158 Posted: Wed Dec 26 12:17:49 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 28-Dec-84 04:58:57 EST References: <> <61@lanierrnd.UUCP> <> Reply-To: gtaylor@lasspvax.UUCP (Greg Taylor) Organization: Theory Center (Cornell University) Lines: 86 Summary: In article <> greg@olivej.UUCP (Greg Paley) writes: >To say that there is no such thing as good, bad, great, and inferior >music, that it is ultimately a matter of personal taste, is the kind >of thing that people don't really believe themselves when they say >it. They say these things so as not to offend and anger others. At >least, I'm convinced that this is the case with anyone who really >loves music, rather than considering it a trifling amusement. I have no objection to talking about the idea of good, bad, or indifferent music at all. What I am not sure I share with you is the suggestion that anyone who would claim otherwise is being disingenuous. It would be quite simple to hold to a number of aesthetic schemes in which the notions of "good" "bad" and "great" are not nearly so simple as you would claim (which I think you understand to mean "anyone with sufficient x will believe that y is truly a great piece of music"). How about beginning with simple recognition that the relative status that any individual or culture would ascribe to a piece of music like any piece of art is itself subject to often radical shifts in the individual or institution's grasp of what constitutes "great" music. That runs every gamut from critical statements like "Richard Wagner is the Laurie Anderson of the Nineteenth Century" to trying to convince Mendelssohn's contemporaries that Bach does indeed deserve the greatness that you would, I imagine, ascribe to him. Unless you're right up front about the possibility that your diagnosis of greatness is potentially fraught with cultural (possibly political) and ethnocentric biases, I'm suspicious of such a statement. Further, the suggestion that "anyone who loves music..." or that "anyone with enough exposure..." contains within it the standard bias that any elitist or "insider" uses to suggest that their *taste* (read idiosyncratic choice) is *actually* a recognition of some objective quality of the work in question. Again, I don't so much mind that viewpoint-it's just that you should be more upfront about the biases your judgements are salted with. >My own belief is that there are very real, tangible levels of >greatness in musical composition just as there are varying degrees >of talent in performers, and in all of the arts. Likewise, the >ability to differentiate these, to perceive the differences, is >ultimately what one means by referring to "taste" and is, in >itself, a talent which not everyone possesses to the same degree. >I realize that this sounds snobbish and elitist since I'm saying >that some people will be inherently unable to reach the same levels >of artistic perception that others will, but I feel that, however >unfortunate it may be, this is the truth. > Uh... what can I say here? Talent exists only in relation to some task. It would be foolish to assume that some composers are *not* better at acheiving some end than others. I think, though, that my difficulty lies in two areas: First, methinks that you're pushing for a rather Romantic version of talent that elevates *some* forms of ability above others....the artist who communes with the spheres vs. the lowly workman who slogs away. Certainly, if you believe that, then *taste* would certainly have a certain charm or appeal attached to it. Likewise, you could certainly argue for a sort of "natural aristocracy" to use Burke's term--that are "born" to appreciate this communion. I think you'd have a hard time getting someone like, say, Bach to agree with the ontological status you ascribe to the artist and his/her work. Art is a form of human work, and that is all. It has certain distinguishing features that allow one to separate it from "craft" or "folk art" (How do you handle that stuff?) So it seems to me that I can construct a number of alternative aesthetics that don't have quite such an elitist taint, and might conceivably do everything your aesthetic claims *without* being bourgeois and exclusivist. But secondly, I think I have some more general problems with what you refer to as taste. It seems to me that it looks a little like one of those nasty sense that can be explained only in terms of itself. Why not discuss the notion of making choices in terms of something other than an appeal to cultural supremacy? Say, in terms of every evaluative discourse? *Why* are choices about art different than any other sort of choice? >I would say, further, that in great art there is a moral statement >that has to do with the honesty and integrity of the composer and >performer. This honesty and integrity, however, are strictly with >regard to the relationship between the composer/performer and his >art, and have nothing to do with the non-artistic personal life >of the artist. I have absolutely no argument with you there. That was *very* well put. However, it would seem to me that you may at some point be called upone to say something evaluative about Hitler's architecture, or the wake of damaged sould that trail along behind the Romantic profligate composer of your choice. Appeals to the cultural purity of their art may serve your poorly, so be prepared to be able to talk about the terms of separation of art and life once you argue in its favour (ask one who has run aground on this a few times :-) ) Regards, Greg