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