What NOT To Do?

[nickysnd]

Too deep for me.

lol

But hey, can't be deeper than Ommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

[Kawentzmann]

But would you agree that some works have more potential value than others? If so, isn't that potential in the piece?

Until I am proved wrong (which I would love to), I remain convinced that a piece of music has only external value, the one given by the listener, and it has no internal value. So, if it has only external subjective value, and no intrinsic objective value, then there is no value inside a piece of music, neither actual nor potential.••¦

Reading Robert Jourdain••™s Music, the Brain, and Ecstasy cleared that point to me once and for all. There is indeed a value to some music that is lacking in other.

KK

[nickysnd]

Reading Robert Jourdain••™s Music, the Brain, and Ecstasy cleared that point to me once and for all. There is indeed a value to some music that is lacking in other.

And what would be that thing that the mentioned author calls value? Did he distinguish the thing called value that is common to a harpsichord minuet by Haydn and a rap song by Eminem?

The value of art is individually constructed. There may be educational, cultural, etc. influences - but I very much doubt there can be anything that could convince someone of the artistic value of a thing that he/she dislikes. The values of art objects are fundamentally personal. Can you (or Robert Jourdain) point to the thing that, if lacking, would deprive a-piece-of-music-that-I-like of its artistic value? Or, if present, would make a-piece-of-music-that-I-dislike - artistically valuable? Who is the authority to impose criteria for judging artistic values?

For example, I totally dislike the famous Fur Elise by Herr Beethoven the Titan. Can someone show me the thing called artistic value that is embedded in it? Or, to put it this way: Imagine that, like me, everybody dislikes that particular piece - what would be the thing that we will all be missing? What would convince us that we all lack artistic taste, that we are all blind to the objective value presumably embedded in that piece? Remember the Emperor new clothes...

OTOH, there are some others miniatures and bagatelles by Beethoven that I totally love, although I can hardly find them recorded.

That is how I see artistic value: if everybody likes a piece and I dislike it - then that piece does not have any artistic value. If everybody dislikes a piece that I like - then that piece does have artistic value. There is no artistic authority but each one's personal taste. And personal taste cannot be imposed to other people. No such thing as bad taste. No such thing as good taste. Only personal taste.

[Kawentzmann]

Jourdain is very basic in his explainations. He••™s not talking about art, but for example about things like melody. He explains why some melodies are appreciated by people and some are not. He is not taking into concern what bad childhood-memories might be associated with a piece for one individual, or something like that.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

That is how I see artistic value: if everybody likes a piece and I dislike it - then that piece does not have any artistic value. If everybody dislikes a piece that I like - then that piece does have artistic value. There is no artistic authority but each one's personal taste. And personal taste cannot be imposed to other people. No such thing as bad taste. No such thing as good taste. Only personal taste.

It may be time to stop wagging our egos at each other. Obviously, this is a futile argument based on your standards. A no win situation in which YOU decide the rules. But they are YOUR rules and only apply to you.

What you apparently fail to grasp is that if a work is significant and remains undiscovered, it still has value - as yet undiscovered. If there is gold buried under ground, it still has value although it has not been unearthed, processed and sold.

So what is "significant" music? Catch 22. YOU have to decide. But to say that undiscovered works of Bach have no value because they mean nothing to anyone alive is a simplistic and ego driven argument. You've set up a system of weights and balances that only YOU can decide. A bit like a puzzle without a solution and only a mind game.

Given your sense of "value" it is a wonder that anyone bothers researching and discovering ANYTHING. After all, if it doesn't have value TO YOU, what's the point?

[nickysnd]

It may be time to stop wagging our egos at each other. Obviously, this is a futile argument based on your standards. A no win situation in which YOU decide the rules. But they are YOUR rules and only apply to you.

There are no rules, no standards, and no ego involved. This is not about me, this is about artistic value - a concept whose generality everyone seems to take for granted, without questioning it. I am questioning it: can there be such a thing like general/universal artistic value? From what I have seen so far, my answer is - no, there is no such thing. I have presented my opinion about what I think that would be rational to think about artistic value. As I see it, the only rational thing about artistic value is that it is a concept with no general applicability. Only personal. Artistic value can be judged only by the personal taste of each of us. There is no authority above us who will impose over us what has artistic value and what has not. Also, no authority can define a generic artistic value. Therefore, until then, it does not exist.

A "no win" situation? There is everything to win in getting rid of prejudices, and in debunking myths.

What you apparently fails to grasp is that if a work is significant and remains undiscovered, it still has value - as yet undiscovered. If there is gold buried under ground, it still has value although it has not been unearthed, processed and sold.

How can we talk about the artistic value of a piece that doesn't even exist? If you think it exists, then unbury it so we can hear it, and then each person who will hear that piece will give it (or not) value.

Under ground? There are many things buried under the ground, and it is only us who grant them value or not. Gold has a socially constructed value, but I can dismiss that easily - I actually live very well without gold. I can decide to entirely dismiss gold's value and live happily in financial poverty and in spiritual richness. Gold happens to be marketable, it has exchange value, which music doesn't have. We are not talking here historical value, archaeological value, marketing value, etc. We are talking only artistic value. In this respect, and trying to see things without passion, rationally - the artistic value of a piece of music is something exclusively personal. And when I say personal I am obviously referring to each living human being, and not only to me. I do not want to impose my personal standards, values, rules. On the contrary - I am trying to think reasonably, without prejudices.

So what is "significant" music. Catch 22. YOU have to decide. But to say that undiscovered works of Bach have no value because they mean nothing to anyone alive is a simplistic and ego driven argument. You've set up a system of weights and balances that only YOU can decide. A bit like a puzzle without a solution and only a mind game.

Significant, important, value - all are exclusively personal things when it comes to a piece of music. It is not about decision - it is about personal taste. Undiscovered pieces of Hans? - they don't exist until they become discovered. Undiscovered pieces by Albert? - same. I was talking about things that do exist, not about things that do not exist. Fur Elise exists and it does not have any artistic value to me. Bagatelle op. 119 no. 9 exists and it does have artistic value to me. That is all that I can say about the artistic value of those two pieces. You may take your own examples and grant them (or not) value. That is for everyone to do. There are no artistic values but personal values. Artistic value is not socially constructed, in the sense that no group of people can impose to an individual its (the group's) artistic values.

It looks to you like a mind game? How about this mind game: taking for granted what someone else has said, without questioning/analyzing/discussing it? You know that mind game? - it is called Bamboozle Yourself.

Given your sense of "value" it is a wonder that anyone bothers researching and discovering ANYTHING. After all, if it doesn't have value TO YOU, what's the point?

Musicological research is a respectable profession. It is nice to see, now and then, some new piece by this or that composer. But the pieces themselves will only have no other artistic value but the one granted by their listeners. Historic value, scientific value, market value, these are separate things, don't you think? If so, let's keep them separate.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

Basically, this is the same argument as "What is art?" and that, too, is an unanswerable question.

[nickysnd]

Basically, this is the same argument as "What is art?" and that, too, is an unanswerable question.

No such a generic thing as unanswerable question. Only questions that one or another can't answer at some moment.

No - "what is art?" looks like a different issue to me. But that was an easy question for me: art is what I decide that is art. Good music is what I decide that is good music. Now replace my I with your/his/her own I.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

Basically, this is the same argument as "What is art?" and that, too, is an unanswerable question.

No such a generic thing as unanswerable question. Only questions that one or another can't answer at some moment.

No - "what is art?" looks like a different issue to me. But that was an easy question for me: art is what I decide that is art. Good music is what I decide that is good music. Now replace I with you/him/her.

Your argument negates the fact that making music (and listening to it) just as in theater, dance, etc., are largely communal / social activities. Clearly "the group" gets to "decide" what is art (or what art has value). It is nice for you (the individual) to be able to decide what you like or not, but "value" is a relative term and as such has virtually no meaning in your vacuumized scenario. About as useful as arguing with oneself.

[nickysnd]

Your argument negates the fact that making music (and listening to it) just as in theater, dance, etc., are largely communal / social activities. Clearly "the group" gets to "decide" what is art (or what art has value).

I know very well how music is used and abused by communities, in various ways: tribal, ritual, religious, social gatherings, restaurants, muzak, etc. Music is often looked down and taken as a sort of a Cinderella. Yes I am aware that music has social functions, and I have mixed feelings about that: it is good for those groups of people, while it is degrading for music. Music is at its best when it enlightens the spirit of one Human Being. Of each one. Of all of us, if possible, but taken separately. That enlightening is something that only happens (when it happens) only individually, never collectively. I only feel and think individually, and music is talking to me only individually, even when I listen to it from a crowded concert hall. In the moment of listening to music, I feel as separated from the herd as can be. It is a marvelous feeling. No I don't see it as vaccumized - on the contrary: it is the highest fulfillment I have encountered in all my life. Social life is lame and full of conventions, concealing and bullsh••, don't tell what you think, dissimulate this, simulate that - all those shameful things that makes a group function as a group.

"value" is a relative term and as such has virtually no meaning in your vacuumized scenario. About as useful as arguing with oneself.

Relative? Of course it is relative - that is precisely my point: everything about the artistic value of music is relative, it is entirely related to me and only to me (by me I mean anyone...) Why "no meaning"? - On the contrary, there is an universe of meanings rising in front of my mind's eyes when I listen to the music that I like. No, vacuum is definitely the opposite of that experience.

"Arguing with oneself?" I thought that I am arguing with you, didn't you have the same impression? I don't posses a split personality.

Or were you implying that the solitary experience of listening to music is something similar to arguing to oneself? If so, here is my opinion on it:

First, listening to music cannot be a collective experience, it is something deeply personal, from the moment the sound waves touch my ear drum to the world of fantasy that starts to dance to it inside my mind. Dancing to music with the body is gross. Music is something highly intellectual, spiritual, and triggers elevate emotions (as opposed to the visceral ones). That is how I experience it. As I said, the social functions of music are like various types of abuse to me, I understand their usefulness, while I deplore the way tribes and groups treat poor Cinderella.

Second, I can't see in which way listening to music can be compared to arguing (to oneself or not). What do music and arguing have in common? To me, music is all affirmation - no negation, no doubt, and no questions there. Nothing more similar to the "pure truth" than music. So I fail to see the rationale behind your metaphor with music and arguing, if that was what you meant.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

I don't know about you but there is nothing left of my dead horse to continue beating. We need more of this kind of stuff around here (IMO). Stimulating!

Thanks.

[nickysnd]

I don't know about you but there is nothing left of my dead horse to continue beating. We need more of this kind of stuff around here (IMO). Stimulating!

Thanks.

I am sorry to hear about your horse. Too much beating is not healthy for horses, eh? That is, if I may generalize. Although I wouldn't know - personally, I have never beaten one, dead or alive.

Here's to new horses!

[HCMarkus]

Here's to new horses!

You're my mane man. Giddyup!