Continuation of issues arising from most forgotten thread...

Once again vic you fail to grasp the situation. Can you not prove a point in an English argument by using a french phrase. Using the French language doesn't mean you are french, non merci rodney, it also doesn't mean that the reply has to be in French mon due.

You lack dignity Brodsky.

Vic.

OK Vic, enough nonsense. Finis!

Abusive language and logic do not make good bedfellows.

I've been fortunate to have had a civilised and interesting discussion with Mark, Parla, Uber and others, to all of whom I owe sincere thanks, and hope it may continue.  I'll just have to learn to ignore your heavy-handed interventions.

Oh, Vic, just less than half a page of my post created a reaction of two posts in almost two pages! That's "another" progress!

Well, you want to pursue the truth (let's stick to that, for the moment). What truth? The truth you believe in? How do you possibly know anything about the truth of the Art of Music, if you are not a seasoned musician/professor/scholar, etc.? How do you know that there is no "reference" (undisputable standards), incontestable rules, etc.? How even do you claim Music (or any other Art) is not a science, in having established its own rules of reference? Can you judge the rule of the diatonic scale and the inevitable use of tonalities and modulations?

When any scholar, musician, etc. examined the score of e.g. Beethoven's Fifth, they came to the conclusion that there is not a single note wrong. That was the perfect form! If the "well-informed, the very well-informed" admit that, what kind of "judgement" are we looking for and where is the room of subjectivity on any future effort for further judgement? When the experts state (as a term of reference) "Music is Bach", what is left for any other (expert or not) to "evaluate", except to state the incredible wealth of "reference" knowledge of Bach's opus.

So, of what kind of "consensus" can we talk about? The verification of the absolute correctness of the composer's scope and its materialisation? It's already happening all the time. If you wish to call it "opinion", fine. However, an opinion should be based on some kind of argumentation, an articulation of a sort of various options of consideration, out of which one has to choose the basic points of his/her opinion. Something like "great stuff", "amazing work" do not constitute an opinion, based on judgement/evaluation; it's just a statement in abstracto.

Once again, the music-making process, the value of the work itself as an artistic product (its musical value), cannot be a subjective issue, because, then, there is nothing to judge, if there is no reference, standards, laws to rely upon and to apply for. So, we have to clarify, Vic: Is there any verifiable, incontestable reference in Music, where we have to rely upon for any further consideration? If yes, then, our work/task is to follow the use of it and verify the result. If not (if every rule, etc. are only indicative elements), then, we all have the right, room to make any judgement, on any basis. In the latter, we would have noticed different evaluations of the work of the various composers. However, we haven't, so far. We notice only the validation of what we already know.

So, now, we open slowly, gradually the subject of the scientific nature of the composition, the music-making. Patience and courage.

Parla

Vic's supposed allies have not left him. What they have done is absented themselves from this debate. Unfortunately many of us don't possess the same tenacity or patience Vic has. What's the point in responding to a debate which goes endlessly round in circles, repeating the same points over and over again in exasperatingly long-winded and barely indecipherable posts?

For Vic, of course, it's about not allowing Parla to get way with a point of view which is illogical and cannot be proven. A very good question was posed when someone asked "What is at stake here?". It may have been Vic but I haven't the time, inclination or patience to trawl through this thread to find it. I guess what is at stake is Parla's and no more than a couple of others credibility in pursuing a line of argument others don't and cannot share. At this late stage of the debate can we not just beg to differ and find something else to discuss?

Gravity exists whether we are here or not. But our understanding of it is human judgment. Gravity may be concrete but our understanding of it may change in the future. Noise, bird song exists whether we are here or not, Messiaen would call that music, John Cage would call that music (even if the birds weren't singing) But our understanding of music is of a similar state to our understanding of Gravity. We know what is great, we know what direction is up and we know what direction is down, Gravity forces us down (but only in so much as it forces Australians in the opposite direction) but that is still down, Beethoven rises and Paul Simon Falls. Simple physics, simple science.