Beethoven is God.

Let me get this right. You make a statement which you claim to be true and I ask you for the factual basis of such a claim. You fail to provide any (on the very sound grounds that none exist) and then ask me to provide the factual basis for a statement I never made.

I am not saying, nor have I ever said, that less complex music is better than more complex music. In fact, I am making no claim whatsoever – I am merely disputing the claim you are making, and asking you to indicate its basis. The fact that you cannot provide such a basis after being given a number of opportunities to do so, of course, can only lead to one conclusion – that you are simply spouting a series of value judgments, none of which are any more valid than anyone else’s.

- On Q 1,I imagine that any dictionary will define music if that’s what you’re looking for - but I can’t see that anyone would dispute that the Resurrection symphony, the Maple Leaf Rag or that stuff which they produce on the X Factor are all example of music. What point do you have in mind?

- You might need to give a few more tips, because this question is totally meaningless. What sort of values? Economic? Political? Monetary?  

(Incidentally, your so called tip ‘there is no subjective value, because it's not recognised by others and, therefore, has no validity’ is also meaningless. Have you been on the cooking sherry again?)

As I mentioned previously, I am not claiming anything at all - other than that the point you are seeking to make about the superiority of complex music is a personal value judgment of your which has no basis in fact. I am no more suggesting that complex and simple music are of equal value than I am suggesting that Herbert von Karajan was once a member of the Jackson Five. All I’m saying is that the complexity of music – or indeed any intrinsic or technical aspect of it – is a purely descriptive criterion and not an evaluative one. And that any attempts to claim one piece of music is superior than any other is unrelated to those descriptive criteria and is instead a matter of individual taste.

(Most people would be happy with this, but you seem to want your own personal taste to have the authority of Holy Writ.)

This is exactly the point I made above. Music has a number of elements, as any dictionary will tell you – melody, harmony, rhythm, etc. – but they tell you absolutely nothing about the quality of the music. It’s a fact that the Ketchup Song has a melody, but whether that melody is good, bad or indifferent is purely a matter of opinion. And that goes for your opinion as it does for anyone else (sorry to be the bearer of bad news).

Still not that much clearer on what the question is. If you mean does music have absolute or eternal values, then the answer is clearly not. But if you mean is the value of a particular piece of music relative to the value of any other a matter of personal taste, then the answer is yes.  

(And on a separate point, not sure where you get the idea from that art - any art - is separate from economic or politics is nonsense. If the Medici had lacked political power and wealth, they would have been unable to commission Michelangelo and Donatello. And without the vast wealth of the Guggenheim family, Jackson Pollock and Max Ernst would be total unknowns.)

If only it were your last response...

But, much as could have been anticipated, once you are pressed to justify the statements you make, you simply revert to restating them all over again. 

The behaviour of a genuine charlatan.

Hi Ted

On your first point - not at all: whether Busoni is better than Haydn is a question that really doesn't interest me. Because it's purely  a matter of opinion. 

And on your second, of course there are many technical aspects to composition and academically there are criteria against which those criteria are judged. But I'd be very surprised if a student of composition would fail an assessment because his work lacked a certian level of 'complexity' in the sense that they hadn't written enough fugues or hadn't included a quodlibet. Satie's piano music is very simple, but that doesn't mean it woud fail a composition exam.

Craig, if I was a "charlatan", I would not bother to debate with you in vain. I just thought that you may be fair enough to trace some kind of truth that might be elusive to you. The fact that I want to respect this forum from an unending and without any resolution discussion is not the response of a charlatan, at least, but, I guess, you are not capable of identifying even that.

I think you got some other responses similar to mine to show you that the evidence you cannot find in my statements is there, but you refuse to trace it, "hooked" on your preconceptions of Art and Music in particular (totally groundless and invalid, but that's not the point, at this stage of the course of the debate).

However, if you really wish to find the truth, try to learn to read a score and, then, you will be absolutely able to find any difference and make your own judgements, based on a more factual basis. The music is exactly like literature: it has its alphabet (the notes of the western diatonic scale), its grammar (how these notes are used in order: tonalities, modes, modulations), its syntax (harmony, counterpoint). So, as in literature, the one who knows and commands the language, can write a more comprehensive, consistent, poetic, beautiful work compared to one who uses limited words, makes minimal use of grammar and syntax. The same happens in music.

Of course, you will contest even this fact with a weak example of some even irrelevant nature, but, what can we do, this is who you are. I wonder what is your relationship with music and Art in general.

Finally, even if we take the politically correct (as much political or correct might be) term of "taste" as the basis of judging a work of Art (including Music), still we have to agree what this "taste" is (objective definition) and, as long as we have this definition, we will be in a position to call this is "good" taste and this is "bad" taste. Based even on this logic, the works of Art who fall on the so called "good" taste should be considered as "better" than the ones who fall in the "bad" taste. For some funny reason, all these years, in all the places I have been (including the States), I used to hear the opposite comment: when someone mentioned the artistic object of his desire, then he was told that he has a "good" or "bad" taste (accordingly) and not the other way round. Anyway, values change with time (maybe in U.K. and in some parts of US).

Good luck with your taste folks.

Parla

Brilliant syllogism, Guillaume, absolutely brilliant.

Since, however, you don't have a final definition of what "taste" is, I doubt if you can properly define what your "taste" is and, thereupon, to command it. That means, beware! Some good guys, called producers (and their likes), may manipulate, dictate, guide even fool your taste, if you don't have a basis of what is actually "good" and "bad" in Music and anything else, actually.

So, again good luck!

Parla