The worst record covers ever

FW said it all in two lines.

Vic, you suggest, based on the "laws" (?) of physics, that we have to strive for the "probable" and the "correct" instead of the "true". Is that the case? However, even in the physics, the mathematics, we start with an axiom to build the rest of the "laws". In Faith (and Politics), we start with a dogma (or, in a more polite form, with a credo). So, in Arts, there is no starting point and no "laws"?. Is it just the opinion (taste, etc.) that lead us to compose what?

And Troyen, till we reach..."the end of the day, the final countdown", there is a long way to go...

JAH, maybe, you have to suggest (or initiate a new thread on) the ramifications of the worst record covers in our listening experience, in purchasing a specific CD, DVD, etc., so that we may have a new impetus for further discussion about not only the "worst" but also how the "best" covers (and packages) affect our listening experience and purchasing habits.

Parla

Unfortunately once Parla has hijacked a thread, there appears to be no going back.

So, JAH, covers matter! That's the question! So either the "worst" or the "best", we are at the hands of some manipulative producers who can change the course of a recording performance. So, enjoy the "cover" issue.

As you may see, JAH, I simply respond to questions "my friends" (?) keep raising over and over. So, your suggestion to start another thread is predominantly addressed to them. I can stop responding, if they cease revisiting the same areas of an annoying stalemate.

Vic, creationist or not (inventive perhaps), I still have to respond:

If you "suggest no such thing", what exactly do you suggest?

In mathematics (e.g. algebra), we start with certain axioms. But, even if we start with "a hypothesis", do you suggest that we may treat music-making on the basis of "a hypothesis" and which one?

Regardless of the difference (or not) of "dogma" and "credo", can they apply to Music and Arts and, if yes, in which way? If no, why?

"The are conventions, not laws".  Is this a fact or an opinion? If it is the former on which criteria, objective basis do you make such a claim? And how can you objectively define which is "great art"? And in which way can you identify that "the great art" always (?) breaks The conventions and which ones exactly?

I'm not asking you about "what the impulse to create is". I'm asking you on which basis (musical, technical, structural, etc.) a composer should rely upon to start writing his works. "Subjective" cannot be only the taste or an opinion in random; could be a dogma, a credo and some more.

The "waffle" is not mine only; it belongs to all who participate in this repetitive debate. If you want an "exit policy", I may have some suggestions to make, but don't keep asking the same question, which, when I gave detailed answers, you dismissed them either as invalid or not making sense (to you). However, what kind of leap of logic is that objective absolutist assertion of yours "because they don't exist" (not even they might not exist)? So, if, tomorrow, somebody more lucid and bright than me comes with a better argumentation than mine and, somehow, sound convincing, are you going to accept that they might exist and you simply do not know them?

I really do not expect or wish to prolong the debate that, obviously, is at the detriment of quite a few other members. Do we have to consider of an exit policy, at least of this thread (for the sake of our pal JAH)? At least for me, FW, with his last post, has said it all and, actually, he has closed the matter.

Parla

Oh, I see, you listen to music not because you like it but because you feel you have to because people, like Parla, perhaps, say you ought to.

You must lead a very unhappy life doing things that others say you should rather than follow your own desires or...taste.

On the cother hand you have no idea what it is or have none...taste that is.

Now provide me with an argument to contradict that simple fact.

Troyen1, you misunderstood me. I wasn’t taking the objectivists stand. I was merely saying that both view points of the issue can be thoroughly argued – thus, as a result, neither the subjectivist nor the objectivist stances can be said to be an absolute fact.  This issue of tastes did not start on this website, it has been going on for centuries and will continue to do so. It is not going to end now with you saying “It is, surely, an absolute fact that, at the end of the day, at the final countdown, etc, etc, it all boils down to one's personal taste”. I truly believe that we simply do not understand art enough to begin with to say with certainty that it is subjective or objective.

With that said, let’s suppose I were taking the objectivist stance [which I’m not]. Believing that there is such a thing as high art, does not mean that that person does not still possess tastes or personal preferences. One may recognize the genius of Mozart, but that composer’s music still may not be to that individual’s likings. That person’s disliking of Mozart does not drive him to declare that art is all a matter of tastes, which would then, as a result, reduce Mozart to be the exact equivalent of Justin Bieber. But rather, instead of taking the subjectivist stand, he simply confesses that not all great art are in alignment with his tastes.

Troyen1 says “Now provide me with an argument to contradict that simple fact.” As I’ve stated, I wasn’t taking the objectivists stand. If you’d like to read a good objectivist argument, then read "Of the Standard of Taste" an essay by philosopher David Hume. It’s one of the most significant essays ever written on this issue:

http://www.bartleby.com/27/15.html

Thanks a lot, fw, for your excellent post. It practically gives us an "exit policy" (or a sort of it) to this endless argument. The essay by the philosopher David Hume is a brilliant one that, at least, can make you wander at the certainty of the "subjectivist's" point of view.

Vic, I start realizing that there is no hope to communicate. You don't answer my questions, while you keep repeating the same old stuff.

The funny thing is that both the subjectivists and (obviously) the objectivists claim that their views are the absolute fact (or the truth: a forgotten word). In both cases, however, the claim of one side appears as an opinion to the other. However, the subjectivists make their statements and they do not bother to provide any argument to that effect. It's self-evident, they say and we are done! Their main argument (or weapon) is that they cannot find any merit in any argument from the side of the objectionists. And how can they? If you treat their statement as an opinion, you will treat their arguments the same way. In opinions, we don't need explanations: those who agree with the statement, they don't need any explanation and those who don't agree, they don't bother to listen to any.

The only way to find a possible "exit" is to consider that there is an objective way to "measure" the compositional skills of a composer and a work, at least at the level of the composition (the creation, the music-making), like any creation in any field (not only in Arts). This is measured, as it is taught in the appropriate schools, by the rules and laws which have been established by years of such creative work. So, if we may simply contemplate that, only in technical matters, there is a "measurable" way to evaluate the work in question, there is enough room to say after that, at our personal (or even collective) level, we might not like it at all.

In other words, at least as far as I am concerned, I don't try to deprive anyone's taste, choices, opinions etc. I just try to say that, in technical matters (they way the different works are composed), there is a way to appreciate Art beyond our limitations. There are people who have studied, done researche, know anything they should know about music and they have indulge in it for a lifetime. These are the composers themselves, the performers, the producers, the scholars, the professors, etc. who have to say something about why Beethoven's compositional writing is more skillful than Puccini's, despite the latter was more able in orchestration. And why Puccini's arias are more elaborated than the songs of Paul Simon and so on.

Think about it.

Parla

It seems as though the original subject of the this thread is now lost in the fog of distant memory - well, at least mine - so apologies if this has been mentioned before. Cecilia Bartoli's Sacrificium must surely be in the Premier League of Tasteless Covers.