there is no relativism in musical taste: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of the Arts » there is no relativism in musical taste » there is no relativism in musical taste

there is no relativism in musical taste
Why I think there is an Ideal kind of "good" music.

Page: 1 2 3

there is no relativism in musical taste

Pill17
ignorant truth-seeker

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 29, 2007
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 21

Posted 12/02/07 - 04:27 PM: Subject: there is no relativity in musical taste	#1
The other day, I was driving with some of my friends when one put on "Panic at the Disco". I instantly said " Woah, turn off that crap!" my friends responded by with "stop being close minded. people have different musical tastes." Am I being close minded by calling bands like "Panic at the Disco" bad music? I don't think so. Musical taste has nothing to do with relativity; only with emotional needs and prejudice or lack thereof. Why did so many preteen girls like Nsync? It's not because they are as talented as Mozart or Cream! That's why I think teens listen bands like "My Chemical Romance." Listening to them satisfies something emotionally, though I can't tell you exactly what is satisfied because I am not a psychology professor. If I banged on pots and pans, and said the "music" I made was in the same tier as every other band, most people would call me crazy. So why do mainstream bands gain the immunity to criticism that my pot banging doesn't? All of this leads me to believe that there is an ideal sound of music. I don't even think it's limited to one genre either, although we will probably never know what that "perfect" sound truly is because everyone has prejudice formed from emotional needs. Edited by Pill17 on 12/02/07 - 05:23 PM

Mashy
I own you like yeh.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 02, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 7

Posted 12/03/07 - 10:41 AM:	#2
I don't think it's fair to say that any particular style of music is 'bad', only that one does not enjoy listening to it.
Man would rather have the void as his purpose than be void of purpose.

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 3067

Posted 12/03/07 - 11:01 AM:	#3
Well, clearly The Beatles were the best band ever.
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein [This is included for the irony.]

Reformed Nihilist
Oblong

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jul 15, 2004
Location: The mighty fortress of the north
Total Topics: 68
Total Posts: 7930

Posted 12/03/07 - 11:15 AM:	#4
Pill17 wrote: The other day, I was driving with some of my friends when one put on "Panic at the Disco". I instantly said " Woah, turn off that crap!" my friends responded by with "stop being close minded. people have different musical tastes." Am I being close minded by calling bands like "Panic at the Disco" bad music? I don't think so. Musical taste has nothing to do with relativity; only with emotional needs and prejudice or lack thereof. Why did so many preteen girls like Nsync? I'm in my late thirties and I have had exposure to music history and theory (studied but didn't major), as have a broad tase in music. I like Panic at the Disco!. If music has to do with emotional needs and prejudices, doesn't that make it inherently relativistic? It's not because they are as talented as Mozart or Cream! I don't like Mozart. He did things in a perfect, but perfectly boring way. Is that previous statement an absolute truth, or is it "relativistic"? Give me Beethoven or Chopin any day. They were interesting. That's why I think teens listen bands like "My Chemical Romance." Listening to them satisfies something emotionally, though I can't tell you exactly what is satisfied because I am not a psychology professor. Why does anyone listen to music? Isn't it almost always to "satisfy something emotionally"? If I banged on pots and pans, and said the "music" I made was in the same tier as every other band, most people would call me crazy. So why do mainstream bands gain the immunity to criticism that my pot banging doesn't? Well, some would say that Tom Waits is pretty close to pot banging, but he is acclaimed by critics, and the best musicians seem to admire him. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMt5t1dG2cg&fe... All of this leads me to believe that there is an ideal sound of music. I don't even think it's limited to one genre either, although we will probably never know what that "perfect" sound truly is because everyone has prejudice formed from emotional needs. I don't follow. Because teenagers like bands with hunky boys, QED there must be an ideal music? How do you get from one to the other?
Nobody ever became a famous philosopher by being a champion of ecumenical hybridism Daniel Dennett Freedom Evolves

CypressMoon
Otherness binds bounds

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 16, 2007
Location: in between you and me
Total Topics: 78
Total Posts: 1138

Posted 12/03/07 - 05:34 PM:	#5
Reformed Nihilist wrote: Why does anyone listen to music? Isn't it almost always to "satisfy something emotionally"? I listen to music as a form of escapism. Abstract istrumentalisation is a powerful way to escape the linguistic "mnumonic devices" that bring to mind regrettable memories - memories of shame and humiliation - that cause bodily anxiety. The experience of listening, to say fusion jazz-funk, is a trip into content-less abstractions, where the forms immerse you in an emotional landscape divorced from the potency of social word-play. In short, it's a fantastic trip away from the unpleasantries of social meaning.
"IN THE spring, Tipasa is inhabited by gods and the gods speak in the sun and the scent of absinthe leaves, in the silver armor of the sea, in the raw blue sky, the flowercovered ruins, and the great bubbles of light among the heaps of stone." - Albert Camus, Lyrical and Critical Essays Serve the Gods of language by ignoring their rules and seizing its wholeness. The mind is both a mirror and a map, where the things in the mirror are mapped into concepts.

killerofgod
Travelling Journeyman

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 01, 2006
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 46

Posted 12/04/07 - 12:09 PM:	#6
If I write your "perfect sound" but it fulfills no emotional needs whatsoever, have I written good music? Would this perfect sound come as a result of perfect formal logic and structure? Babbitt wrote some music that is very structered, but emotionless. Is he better than Schoenberg in his "Expressionist" phase of almost complete formlessness and concentrated expression? Lastly, can you think of any way this argument can be made for any of the other arts? A perfect novel, painting, etc.?
Just my own meaningless thoughts and opinions.

ugx2000
.............

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 03, 2005
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 149

Posted 12/06/07 - 09:56 AM:	#7
Here is an idea: There is the technical skill of the art. The complexity. The consistency throughout the piece. The style. Mozart and Cream are indeed far superior (and in a different league) to Nsync. What makes things popular is a reflection on pop culture, not individual taste. The art one appreciates is a reflection of their intellect (some part there of). Is most corporate pop music technically on par with Howard Hanson's Mosaics ... not by the longest shot imaginable. Is it the equal to the technical virtuosity of the trio - Cream ... not even close. This is not unlike why people buy anything. Let's take sports cars. Most people buy a car for the image. Some buy for the technical excellence and performance. So maybe it helps to note that motivation is important. Enthusiasts vs. Popularity Seekers. The field of marketing and mass suggestion works (sometimes). Other times, highly skilled individuals get recognition. For the most part people who are more demanding will tend towards the more intricate / skilled art. That doesn't mean you might not like a catchy simple tune. It means your tendency will definitely be in favor of more complexity. Also note the marketing. Simple boy band music is not marketed to adults, but to unformed teenagers. The marketing is heavy on look / image. In visual terms comparing Nsync to Cream, is like comparing Peanuts cartoons drawings with Boris Vallejo (commercial fantasy artist). Comparing Nsync to Mozart, is like comparing Peanuts cartoons to water color artist Steve Hanks. There are levels of artistic achievment. Kind of like sports leagues. Class "C", Class "B", Class "A". So art of any kind is a reflection of the artist's intellect, and motivation (within context); as well as the intellect, and motivation, of the person appreciating the art (within context).
An absolute peg in a subjective hole From the desert that is the human intellect. Retired.

C-Bas
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 12, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 6

Posted 12/06/07 - 04:46 PM:	#8
I don't see your argument. Are you trying to suggest that there is some objective detached unemotional experience of music that we could all agree on if we could just overcome out emotional needs? What exactly would such music provide to a person? I don't see an purpose in aesthetic experience that does not serve an emotional or, in some cases, intellectual purpose. Since most peoples emotional and intellectual needs and interest differ (that tending to be what makes us individuals)I can not see how this "perfect sound" has any reasonable or useful grounds for existence. I would also like to point out that Mozart and Cream are also both rather "mainstream." I personally have a big problem with people who listen almost exclusively to ("maintstream") Classic Rock or some other non-pop yet thoroughly "mainstream" subset of music and then bash the tastes of others. (Not necessarily claiming this is you, but the comparison of Panic at the Disco and Cream reminded me).

ugx2000
.............

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 03, 2005
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 149

Posted 12/07/07 - 01:51 PM:	#9
C-Bas I am not sure who you are addressing but I would answer yes to the following: "Are you trying to suggest that there is some objective detached unemotional experience of music" First; emotions are a response to something. I this case music. Music is a set of patterns. More complex patterns require more attention. Both to write and to listen & take in. Same is true of every creative endeavor. Another analogy could be gymnastics. A somersault can be done well and appreciated, but it is not comparable in complexity or skill required to do some of the triple flips with a groin twist (sorry I do not know gymnastics well). Yet another is writing: You have one line comics, comic books, short stories, novels. The degree of difficultly increases with the complexity of the undertaking. Sometimes a writer may have to try write a novel. Other times a short story. Sometimes a reader may only have time to read a short story, but usually appreciates a full novel. Comparing the efforts of simpler expression to more complex is incorrect. As far as mainstream; it is certainly true there is great music that is not as popular. In this case it is why I mentioned Howard Hanson and his best work (though he is not unknown, he is certainly not a household name like Beethoven, Mozart etc.)
An absolute peg in a subjective hole From the desert that is the human intellect. Retired.

enkidu
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006
Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 1352

Posted 12/07/07 - 02:42 PM:	#10
ugx2000 wrote: More complex patterns require more attention. Both to write and to listen & take in. Same is true of every creative endeavor. Another analogy could be gymnastics. A somersault can be done well and appreciated, but it is not comparable in complexity or skill required to do some of the triple flips with a groin twist (sorry I do not know gymnastics well). Yet another is writing: You have one line comics, comic books, short stories, novels. The degree of difficultly increases with the complexity of the undertaking. Sometimes a writer may have to try write a novel. Other times a short story. Sometimes a reader may only have time to read a short story, but usually appreciates a full novel. Comparing the efforts of simpler expression to more complex is incorrect. While I agree with the position you expressed so far, I would just like to precise a point you seem to have overlooked. I don't think it is adequate to make too strong a parallel between the quality of a work of art and the complexity of its expression. Readers don't read short stories just because they don't have time for a full novel, some short stories are actually better than some novels. In the same way, a poem, while simpler in its construction than a novel, may actually carries more insights and artistic strength. The same is true for music, Ravel's Bolero may fairly be deemed better than some longer and more complex pieces of music. I just want to underline that there is not a purely objective way to valuate the quality of an art work, even though complete relativism is also an inadequate way to look at art.
Tight toy night, streets were so bright. The world looked so thin and between my bones and skin there stood another person who was a little surprised to be face to face with a world so alive. I fell. (Tom Verlaine)

Page: 1 2 3

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.