Best time in history to be a classical music listener

75 posts / 0 new
Last post
tjh212 wrote:If the notion

tjh212 wrote:

If the notion that taste is subjective can be accepted, I don't see a firm ground for it to be a vehicle to reach an objective value.

The idea is that the faculty of taste operates much as any other faculty of perception. It perceives qualities that are actually there. I expect you have no problem with any of the other five senses (subjective inlets for sensations) to serve as the foundation for objective judgements. Anyway, whether you agree or not, I am just saying that this is a big area of "investigation" in contemporary philosophy. 

You have to ask yourself if your conception of "objectivity" is such that it already rules out what I am claiming here. If by objective you mean "exists in space and time, has three dimensions, can be observed and measured etc" then you aren't going to find objectively existing aesthetic properties. If, however, you take "objective" in a broader sense - i.e. are open to the possibility that there are other kinds of property out there - then you can begin to see my side of the case.......

parla wrote:

parla wrote:

With this last phrase of your post, Jane, you accept that there is a "real value" of the work (of music) itself, which is independent and irrelevant as for the "developing and refining taste" of any listener. It is there and whether one can get it through any sort of taste or any other means (appreciation through research and study) is another question......

You are rather missing the point. You are right that this value is there independently of any given person's ability to appreciate it. That is the core essence of "objective". It is taste, however, which allows people to make judgements about this: to perceive it.

You are also missing the point when referring to melody, structure etc. It may well be those elements that the person of taste appreciates when they form a judgement. They are relevant, of course. 

BUT.......you are wrong about there being "rules". (You can't even give one!) Your confusions comes from this: you know that structure, melody etc - i.e. real features of the composition - help determine the greatness of a work, so you believe there must be "rules". However, this assumes that the criteria here are "codifiable". Almost everyone in the history of philosophy and aesthetics believes this is not the case. Rather, the person of taste - through experience and comparisons etc - develops the ability to judge a "good" melody from a bad one. You cannot put this into words. You cannot lay out a rule: A good melody is one which possesses the following features...........a, b, c. It cannot be expressed. (That's what codifiable means.) 

Finally........

Finally........

We aren't simply talking about "liking" and not "liking" when we talk about "taste". The word, as it has been used in philosophy and aesthetics for hundreds of years, means something like a capacity for making judgements in a particular (sensory) field. So the person of developed taste doesn't have to "like" what they judge to be good! 

Sunglasses I!

Perhaps, your "taste" does not help you in this "particular field".

I'll respond to your multiple posts separately.

Parla

Finally...but not a final judgement.

If, "finally", the "developed taste" is the "capacity for making judgements..." about something that we don't have to "like", then what other capacity makes us "like" or "dislike" an object of Art? Perhaps, the primitive archetypal sense of taste?

And how, on which grounds, this "developed taste" can lead us to make our judgement about what is good or not, provided that there are no rules whatsoever?

In any case, if the outcome of your capacity to make a judgment of the Fifth leads you to call Beethoven's Fifth a masterpiece, what value does this judgement have for anybody else, if it is not based on commonly accepted criteria/rules?

The rest of your posts (along with those to follow, most probably) tomorrow. It's getting late here.

Parla

Okay, Parla.......but next

Okay, Parla.......but next time you reply: how about giving us one of these "rules"?If you are so certain of your position, it must be possible to provide one........You must know them, too, since you evidently believe they form the basis of your own judgements. 

The taste of sound

Jane,

Can be "measured" may be the closest of your statements of what I was referring to as objective; "incontestable fact", or "with proof" are other valid substitutes. Thus, I subscribe to your claim that one can't find objective elements in "aesthetic properties" (assuming you are not referring to the features of the score).

To me, it follows then, that the judgment you describe as incontestable can only be limited to the score itself, and not the value it has (which would presumably be subjective per my previous paragraph). But then, you claim that the features of a score can't be codified (which I fully agree). For what purpose, then, is the judgment?

Perhaps, as you imply, I have pre-emptively ruled out the scope of this discussion.

history rather than universal values

I am a bit puzzled by this digression into the nature of art and beauty. The original posts were about the historically unprecedented avaibility of recorded music, and about social changes in the demand for music. Those are not philosophical issues, but issues of historical sociology: the world has changed, and so has the place of music. Rather than deplore the demise of good taste and the decline of the social relevance of 'our kind of people', I enjoy the new opportunities and greater inclusiveness.

Willem

Perhaps you are right about

Perhaps you are right about this digression, Willem. It is a bottomless pit, anyway. I don't have the time to keep up with it right now........

Willem wrote:Rather than

Willem wrote:

Rather than deplore the demise of good taste and the decline of the social relevance of 'our kind of people', I enjoy the new opportunities and greater inclusiveness.

That's not exactly what has happened here. It was never about "our kind of people" - something of a misrepresentation of what has been said - but about the collapse of a particular kind of culture. You either think it is a fact or you don't.

As for celebrating the technology: it is a good thing, of course. It is easier and cheaper to listen to music of all kinds. But hardly worth debating, since there is not much to be said about it.

Pages

Log in or register to post comments

Gramophone Subscriptions

From£67/year

Gramophone Print

Gramophone Print

no Digital Edition
no Digital Archive
no Reviews Database
no Events & Offers
From£67/year
Subscribe
From£67/year

Gramophone Reviews

Gramophone Reviews

no Print Edition
no Digital Edition
no Digital Archive
no Events & Offers
From£67/year
Subscribe
From£67/year

Gramophone Digital Edition

Gramophone Digital Edition

no Print Edition
no Reviews Database
no Events & Offers
From£67/year
Subscribe

If you are a library, university or other organisation that would be interested in an institutional subscription to Gramophone please click here for further information.

© MA Business and Leisure Ltd. 2019