The worst record covers ever

It doesn't seem unreasonable, Parla, to ask you to deal with the points that I make, not the points of others.

I have searched but can't find them.  Perhaps you will remind us where they are.  From memory the others were as fatuous as this one as an example of "objective criteria" for comparing the songs. 

But I hope you get the point I make with it.  "Objective criteria" by definition, is measurable in some way or other.   "Taste", "opinion", or other subjective criteria is not.  Your claim is based on the former.

What I don't know about these and what you do has nothing to do with the issue.  It does, however, point up your attitude in each and every subject raised on this forum, in sum amounting to a conceited contempt for the opinions of others.  Even a slight modification of tone would help obviate this view.  Your recent attempts to play the hurt victim of persecution shows some awareness of the affect you create here. 

But to the point.  All music has harmony, a "grammar" and "syntax", structure, modulations, orchestration, or whatever.   Your argument seems to be that these technical "tools of the trade" when skilfully combined constitute in themselves the source of "value" or "greatness".  You are opposed by the view that each and every one of them are subjectively evaluated in the context of the the emotional motivations of the composer, in the wider social and historical context of the genre he/she composes within, and the emotional connection we the listeners make with that creation.  

You are a musician, I am not.  So here's an analogy from my field.  Grammar can be a descriptive tool or prescriptive one.  The one describes how language is used, the other how it ought to be used.  The latter make rules and makes judgments of others' use of it.  It requires the result of academic study and uses that to evaluate for its own sake.  It can be a source of value and enjoyment for its own sake, but it is not the reason that language is used and it cares nothing for the emotional content of what the speaker means to say or feels when saying it.  Language can be crude or beautiful but it is the conduit to and from the humanity behind it not the basis of judgments about that humanity.  

I believe in this argument you are elevating the grammar above the content, the medium above the message, the "grammar" of the music above the music itself.

 Vic.

Come on, Farmer Frank Brodsky!  Am I a Stalinist or a liberal?  Make your mind up.

Vic.

How silly of me to expect you to make your mind up when can't even decide between the latest two of your six forum names.  

Personally, I'd stick with calling you the original Dr Brodsky if it wasn't for the fact that the claim to the title Doctor is so patently preposterous as evidenced by your written contributions here.   

Never mind.   Your occasional attempts at humour mitigate your reactionary ranting somewhat. But then, that's a softy liberal for you.

Vic.

Again, I think it not unreasonable to to ask you to deal with the points I raise.  

Not wanting to distinguish between criticisms suggests the problem for you lies in being disagreed with at all.

No.  If I'd made them I wouldn't want to be reminded of them either.

Exactly so.  And "quality level: poor, average, good, etc." is not subjective?  Please remember this quote of yours for later Parla.

Can there be a single reader of your posts that doesn't suspect this has everything to do with the issue?

See any subjectivite judgements here Parla? 

Indeed it is.  But in conflating it thus you seek to obscure the point I make.  Do you think that in claiming objective criteria to evaluate "quality" in this art form you must focus on the (measurable) "mechanics" (the "grammar") because the aesthetic and emotional are unquantifiable and thus purely in the subjective realm?

Do you think I have a point at all, Parla?

Vic.

First Parla, a reminder that we are only having this conversation because of your claim that one genre of music is objectively superior to others and that defining "greatness" in music does not rely on the subjectivity of taste or opinion, that, by implication, there is proof of it.

I am attempting to counter this view by getting you to identify those aspects of music that can be objectively evaluated - measured in some way.  We agree that the "grammar" of music, the "mechanics" involved in its creation and analysis, is a useful metaphor.

We further agree on eliminating the emotional and aesthetic from this discourse because they lie exclusively within the subjective realm.

I am pleased that at long, long last you have identified those aspects that provide the grounds for your claim: for you the "technical aspect", for me the "mechanics" of it, the "tools" of the composer's trade.  Whatever.  We now know what we are talking about.

However, I fail to see where you get the idea that I "eventually ... recognise that there is ... an objective way to approach [these] technical aspects..."  I certainly do not.  (Perhaps my heavy-handed irony in attributing numbers to two works of Bach and Beethoven misled you?  A crude parody of your position, I admit.  But clear enough I thought.  No?

A lovely description and I wouldn't disagree with a word of it.

But...

An objective, descriptive account of the technique.  But how are you going to prove the use of "brilliant"?  You think it is.  I think it is.  Most would think it is, I guess.  But my, your, others' thought/opinions are not proof.   My whole point is, if you/we can't prove it in Schubert, how can you/we disprove it in Paul Simon (or Lady Ga Ga or the Dixie Chicks (!) for that matter?  I exaggerate outrageously, but I trust you get my point!

Further:

Some grammar, but not all, Parla.  More on this later.

By the very meaning of those words, they are subjective.  However could they not be? They are descriptive of your opinion of the use of the grammar of music - in the cases you want to apply them to.

This is so patently a false dichotomy Parla.  Everyone reading this - every one - will appreciate and evaluate both.  Each will attribute a greater or lesser value to each, but all will bring their subjective, emotional faculties to bear, either to the individual aspects of what makes up the music (that which seems so important to yourself - and fair enough) or to the work as a whole.

In applying these descriptors as a statement of fact, to the music you choose to attach them to, and not to others, what does that say about your attitude to those who disagree?  Logically, to disagree with a fact puts you in the wrong, right?  There is no other way of reading this than: "When Parla says xxx is amazing, splendid, superb, it is a matter of fact so if you disagree with him you are wrong."

We are back where we began: no convergence here Parla.  Though no loss of personal respect either, I assure you. 

Vic.

None to suggest, JAH.  Sorry.  Do you have an opinion on the subject of this (admittedly hijacked) debate?

Vic.

So, Vic, we start annoying JAH and others instead of entertaining them. We have to find a way out soon. By the way, I have an extremely heavy week-end, then, I have to travel and... So, I doubt I can keep responding the same way for days to come.

So, another attempt:

I didn't eliminate the "aesthetic". I separate it into two. It is affected by both the technical and other non musical factors. However, the structure, orchestration and Harmony contribute greatly to the aesthetic value of the work.

My understanding of your consent to the objective technical value of the music work came from my question that when we all (at least the concerned ones) say Mozart is a greater composer than Salieri and Dvorak's Cello Concerto is a better concerto than Schumann's, regardless of whether we like him or the work in question (so we say that as a fact), we should be able to prove it.

There is nothing to "disagree" in the description of the fourth movement of the "Trout" Quintet. It's a fact. The only thing is to be aware of and comprehend it.

The use of "brilliant" is descriptive; it's not a value judgement. The description of such clever, artistic and smooth use of the modulations can only be described as "brilliant", along with excellent, intelligent, very musical. There is nothing for me or anybody (who knows about modulations and how they work), to think otherwise. In other words, the description of the technique reveals the so in demand "proof". In this way, you can say whether P. Simon's modulations (if any, in any songs he has composed) are bright, musical, smooth, in full command, etc. As for Lady Ga Ga, she is not a composer herself and I doubt if she is aware of what a modulation is or how it works. So, despite I cannot trust, I hope you may start getting the (not my) point.

The words "amazing", "splendour" etc. are descriptive as for the substance of the meaning of what technically happens in the music work. The only subjective thing is my limitation in English. So, I agree a native one might choose the word magnificent instead of amazing. However, what is going on in the composition is as great as it can be described.

There is no "fasle dichotomy". Every thing in this world has its own "technical" (based on the ingredients, materials and technique, method of construction, etc.) value and any other value (emotional, aesthetic, of taste, opinion etc.). The first one is objective (it has to do with the actual value of the product) and should be separate from the other, which is subjective by nature. If one has to combine both, only confusion can create, first to himself and, then, to the others. As I have quite a few times have said, I fully appreciate Bruckner's music (how magnificently it has been conceived and composed), but I don't like it (emotionally, it leaves me cold and neutral). I love Puccini's music (it gives me thrills), but I don't find great compositional skills, consistency in the musical structure of his works, or a brilliant and consistent orchestration.

So, it not when "Parla says xxx is amazing, etc., it is a matter of fact". It is rather, when a work has these and these features (structure, orchestration, etc.), it is a great composition and we have simply to comprehend its elements of construction.

I don't think we are where we began. We have made some progress. You need to comprehend the objective nature of the "technical" (or musical, or artistic) aspect of the composition. If you can accept this fact, we don't need practically anything else to converge our views. However, if you believe that the "technical" is subjective too, then, there is no point to go further. We will repeat ourselves.

Parla