Swelling Vs Fiddling

[cybertect]

There is such a thing as objectivity in aesthetics. ... He claims in fact that it needs no defending because it is "just a matter of taste." That is a naively relativistic view of art--one which incidentally would have commanded no credence whatsoever before 1960 or so.

Odd. Emmanuel Kant thought it worth setting out the idea of aesthetic subjectivity in detail in the eighteenth century.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Did he? I'm interested. What did he say?

 

[phildwyer]

Odd. Emmanuel Kant thought it worth setting out the idea of aesthetic subjectivity in detail in the eighteenth century.

Au contraire. Immanuel Kant established the *objectivity* of aesthetics through his concept of the sublime.

 

[clandestino]

But taste is something else, though not altogether different, since it changes with experience.

Not necessarily.

Taste isn't bound by logic. Sometimes it just makes its own, instinctive decisions, no matter what the experts think.

Your argument suggests that there's a set of absolute opinions on the arts, and that anyone who differs from those is doing so from a state of ignorance - ie, once they're fully educated in Mozart or Motorhead or whoever, then they'll fall into line.

That's reducing the arts to the level of science. Taste or appreciation or love isn't a mathematical equation.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Not necessarily.

Taste isn't bound by logic. Sometimes it just makes its own, instinctive decisions, no matter what the experts think.

So it is, and I have not suggested otherwise. But if you show me a single person whose tastes have remained unchanged all their life, I'll show you somebody who doesn't exist.

Because experience affects taste doesn't mean it determines it.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Your argument suggests that there's a set of absolute opinions on the arts.

No it doesn't. This is your problem, I think: that you see no middle ground between that which is absolute and that which cannot be determined at all. But there is such a thing as judgement, neither as random as a guess nor as certain as a mathemtical proof. Indeed most discusssion surely falls into this area, for if we were certain, why discuss? Nobody needs to debate (once it is learned) whether or not the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the square of the other two ssides; we understand that it is. Similarly we do not pretend that we can have a learned discussion over whether whether a die is more likely to come up three or four on the next roll, since we know we can make no progress. But most subjects for discussion come between the two poles: impossible to determine, but possible to increase one's understanding.

 

[Tricky Mickey]

can I have my five minutes back please?

Life's too fucking short.

 

[muser]

What I don't, do, Dub, is the manifestly dishonest approach of expressing firm opinions and rubbishing those of others, and then saying "oh, it's only my opinion". There's a sizeable dissonance there between the reality of what is done and the description that is applied to it.

Which, interestingly, leads us right back to the accurate use of words and why it is important.

Donna my only criticism here is that your arguments before this post were slightly too robust and erred (though no matter I have done so myself!), but this post hits the proverbial nail on the head. How can one provide a personal critque of mozart's work and find him to be "fussy" and "busy", the conclusion is a little trite to say the least.
I offer ludovico einauldi, where does the more discerning classical listener put him in the canon of composers.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Before Dwyer starts gobbing off again, i don't think i've CRITICISED Mozart as such - i'm not that arrogant - it's just not to my taste.. Even i don't have the hubris to do that.

I just find it - personally - overly detailed and fussy.

I find it clean. I prefer it to his natural competition, Ludwig Van, although Beethoven was no slouch either.

I like this idea of swelling, although I don't think B. was a big sweller. Dvorak, he might be a sweller, even though the New World Symphony is eminently listenable. Same with Smetana's Moldau.

I'm not a really big Mozart-phile: my fave is the excellent, but well known Symphony 40 in G Minor.

 

[AverageJoe]

Try some Rossini.

Or Fingals Cave by Mendelson.

Plenty of swelling going on there...

 

[Dirty Martini]

Or Fingals Cave by Mendelson.

I was going to mention that one, swells like a good un. It makes a very moving appearance in The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp, in part due to the fact that it swells.

 

[Dubversion]

ah, good to see this back on track (despite muser's barely coherent but painfully aspirational 'contribution' ) - i'll check some of these out, cheers..

 

[sam/phallocrat]

I offer ludovico einauldi, where does the more discerning classical listener put him in the canon of composers.

Classic FM derivative pop shite

(but v. nice to listen to nonetheless)

 

[Donna Ferentes]

I use it to go to sleep. Years ago I employed Echo and the Bunnymen for the same purpose...

 

[Pieface]

Yes. It is absurd to say that any art is a "just a matter of taste." There is such a thing as objectivity in aesthetics. My problem with Dubversion's argument is not so much that it is wrong (though I believe it is), but that he doesn't bother defending it. He claims in fact that it needs no defending because it is "just a matter of taste." That is a naively relativistic view of art--one which incidentally would have commanded no credence whatsoever before 1960 or so.

the whole argument has been done between them and went on for days on that festival thread - there was no change in Donna or Dub's stance. I think he was trying to avoid a re-run of that , which while interesting at the time, did pretty much derail the thread. This one was about suggestions of music.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Can we do "ones to avoid if you don't like fiddling"?

We'll kick off with JS Bach.

 

[muser]

Not necessarily.

Taste isn't bound by logic. Sometimes it just makes its own, instinctive decisions, no matter what the experts think.

Your argument suggests that there's a set of absolute opinions on the arts, and that anyone who differs from those is doing so from a state of ignorance - ie, once they're fully educated in Mozart or Motorhead or whoever, then they'll fall into line.

That's reducing the arts to the level of science. Taste or appreciation or love isn't a mathematical equation.

There is such a thing called emotional intelligence. This is obviously to do with the senses and things 'feeling' right. A child running into the living room to tell his mother about the latest kylie track, may not get a favourable response.
All I'm driving at is that there is a hierarchal taste structure, one we ignore at our peril.

 

[Dubversion]

heh

 

[muser]

Classic FM derivative pop shite

(but v. nice to listen to nonetheless)

malcolm arnold... anyone? classic did a night of his most celebrated work whilst detailing the history of the composer. The presenter said that he was very 'anti-intellectual' and could be found in his local pub at the piano, (in just his underpants), playing the popular tunes of the day.
Can you blame classic FM for trying to appeal to a younger audience. Hopefully they won't follow the route of jazz fm 4\5 years ago.

 

[muser]

heh

Come on dub, me and you got form. I don't want to derail this thread any more than necessary.

Can anyone recommend more of that "pop deriative shite" that classic fm play.

 

[Dubversion]

tit

 

[Dirty Martini]

Can classical music swell and fiddle at the same time?

 

[muser]

tit

arse
bottom
rik mayall
adrian edmonton

you love it sir

 

[muser]

Just heard John barry's 'the beyondness of things'. It is a very wistful piece. I won't presume to know what went into composing it, though it did strike a cord on a cold, wet wednesday evening.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Can we do "ones to avoid if you don't like fiddling"?

We'll kick off with JS Bach.

also Mendelsohn, Liszt, etc.