what would make you boycott a festival?

[Dubversion]

But the trouble is that ultimately, they are. They're chemical reactions. You might not like this and I might not either. But they are real-world phenomena and hence subject to analysis and research.

Yes, but that's not my point. You were suggesting that we could pinpoint or quantify the parts of the brain that react to art. But that doesn't account for the parts of the brain that hold our experiences, our memories, our feelings, our personalities. All these come into play when we experience something, and that's why despite all the science in the world you'll still never be able to fully quantify enjoyment of a piece of music.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Yes, but that's not my point. You were suggesting that we could pinpoint or quantify the parts of the brain that react to art. But that doesn't account for the parts of the brain that hold our experiences, our memories, our feelings, our personalities.

Yet we may ultimately be able to do that too, no? Orwellian, I agree. But it is conceivably knowable.

 

[Crispy]

But, like I said, they're like the weather - too complex to predict or analyse except in general terms.

 

[poului]

Well thank you.

hehe, I didn't necessarily mean that comment to be complimentary.

Excellent. Did that make you ENJOY it any more though? Listening to music is not supposed to be a dry academic exercise.

Well it can make you enjoy it more - give it a greater contextual depth/matter of socio-historical interest. And I don't think it's fair to say music is originally "supposed" to be anything in particular.

 

[Furtwangler]

Quality in art can be ranked but no idea how it can be measured.

 

[Dubversion]

Yet we may ultimately be able to do that too, no? Orwellian, I agree. But it is conceivably knowable.

OK, i concede that i can't prove you wrong on this. But this is a diversion, it doesn't really relate to your point. Indeed, it might (if i were feeling a bit sharper) disprove it. How your brain reacts to something doesn't have much to do with the value of an education in enjoying a piece of art, or the possibility objectivity of your reaction to it.

You're coralling more and more tenous props to shore up this collapsing mineshaft of an argument donna.

and that was a really fucking laboured metaphor.

 

[Dubversion]

Quality in art can be ranked but no idea how it can be measured.

How can it be ranked? By a phone-in?

 

[Dubversion]

Well it can make you enjoy it more - give it a greater contextual depth/matter of socio-historical interest.

Not more, just differently. That's an assertion too far

 

[Donna Ferentes]

But this is a diversion, it doesn't really relate to your point

Well, it wasn't I who introduced the question of whether wine appreciation was qualitatively different from art appreciation because of the possibility of scientific knowledge in the former field.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Well it can make you enjoy it more - give it a greater contextual depth/matter of socio-historical interest.

Indeed so. To deepen one's knowledge can enable you to more deeply appreciate a work - in fact it's half the point.

 

[poului]

Not more, just differently. That's an assertion too far

Enjoying it already on an emotive/aesthetic basis and then discovering an extra "academic" way in which to enjoy it could be defined as "enjoying it more" eh? Note that this is not necessarily the same as "enjoying it more respectably" - not to me anyway.

 

[poului]

456wcxeg43

Oh dear, I think I've inadvertedly got caught up in this endless "Philosophy of Music seminar" type debate.

 

[pk]

Anyone doubting the quality of English wine should try a bottle of Surrey Gold, from the Denbies vineyards in Dorking.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Oh dear, I think I've inadvertedly got caught up in this endless "Philosophy of Music seminar" type debate.

Rock 'n' roll!

 

[poului]

5rbue s5y w

The problem with the whole "hierarchical systemising of music" line of argument though Donna is that it leads to people like Roger Scruton forwarding utterly laughable methods of distinguishing the "quality" of a piece of music with an almost algebraic formula bases on absolutely no empirical evidence whatsoever.

 

[LDR]

But do you think that sometimes you lose the ability to enjoy music on the emotive/aesthetic basis once you learn how to enjoy something in the "academic" way?

 

[poului]

But do you think that sometimes you lose the ability to enjoy it on the emotive/aesthetic basis once you learn how to enjoy something in the "academic way"?

There are different types of "academic ways" to approach a piece of music though.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

The problem with the whole "hierarchical systemising of music" line of argument though Donna is that it leads to people like Roger Scruton forwarding utterly laughable methods of distinguishing the "quality" of a piece of music with an almost algebraic formula bases on absolutely no empirical evidence whatsoever.

So it does. You also get absolute nonsense like people saying "opera must be the greatest form of art because it combines both music and theatre". Yet unless all works of art actually are equal (which nobody is arguing) what can one do?

Incidentally, devising musical hierarchies is probably rather more common among pop music fans than classical, unless people have stopped drawing up their Top Tens when I wasn't looking.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

But do you think that sometimes you lose the ability to enjoy music on the emotive/aesthetic basis once you learn how to enjoy something in the "academic" way?

It's possible that we lose something in learning something. The accumulation of knowledge necessarily involves the loss of innocence. But I doubt that the loss is equal to the gain.

 

[LDR]

It's possible that we lose something in learning something. The accumulation of knowledge necessarily involves the loss of innocence. But I doubt that the loss is equal to the gain.

I can't argue with that.

 

[poului]

Incidentally, devising musical hierarchies is probably rather more common among pop music fans than classical, unless people have stopped drawing up their Top Tens when I wasn't looking.

Yeah but no one (including the list creators themselves) actually takes them seriously. And the few that do are likely nobs.

 

[poului]

rduyc4wey

And btw if you think all music "academics" approach music in a strictly analytical manner, then you should read what people like Susan McClary have to say about Beethoven's Ninth.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

She's a limerick waiting to happen.

 

[Hollis]

And btw if you think all music "academics" approach music in a strictly analytical manner, then you should read what people like Susan McClary have to say about Beethoven's Ninth.

Do not worry poului!!! I shall continue to turn on my radio on say "That's a bag of shite" "What a fuckin' tune, maan!!!".. that is all that is required.

 

[Furtwangler]

How can it be ranked? By a phone-in?

Well, almost. I've seen magazine features where sports pundits are asked, say, to compile individual lists of the ten greatest boxers ever. Usually there's a fair amount of overlap between the individual lists. Not in terms of the relative positions of the sportsmen, which of course usually never match between the lists, but in the simple inclusion of particular boxers in most if not all lists.

Same goes for films, although not as strongly. There are more films to choose from than boxers for a start, but also sports are designed to display the quality of individual sportsmen and teams in straightforward and agreed ways. Films can't usually be judged in the same way, unless the criteria for excellence are limited, eg. 'best special effects film ever'.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

I don't think actually forcing art works into an actual hierarchy is tremendously helpful, although it can be useful sometimes, even if only on the basis of "fifty books to read before you die". But it doesn't actually achieve much except the provocation of debate. Not that that's a bad thing.

 

[poului]

Do not worry poului!!! I shall continue to turn on my radio on say "That's a bag of shite" "What a fuckin' tune, maan!!!".. that is all that is required.

Yeah but if you dress up the language that you use to articulate your thoughts on it being a bag shite, and then discuss the reasons why you consider such a phrase to be the relevant one for the piece and then throw a few obscure references for good measure you can become a bona-fide Professor Hollis of Axe-wielding Prog Musicology.

 

[George & Bill]

Well, not quite. Firstly, I don't think the latter part is true - I don't believe training destroys spontaneity, for instance.

indeed, training can enable a spirit of spontaneity to be capitalised upon, for example.

but let me offer a specific example; anger and frustration have long been caused by various forms of disenfranchisement, as you know; what classical composer has articulated such conditions as successfully as Woody Guthrie, The Clash or Roots Manuva? The very enfranchisement and empowerment inherent in any thorough classical training would destroy the sensation that is such artists' inspiration and artistic guidance. The people whose condition is being expressed are not educated in art, so why should their poets be? Such poets are educated in the matters of which they speak and write.

The broader point, though, is that classical training, and even broader art-historical education, are only two of the countless facets of the shimmering jewel-stone p) that is education in the broadest and correctest sense of the word. It is possible for a vernacular musician to have as much education as a classical musician while sharing virtually none of his/her education at all.

Secondly, the point about pop music demanding eligibility for the same accolades is that if you insist on subjectivity and abandon the search for excellence, then it's not really reasonable to then ask to be judged on the very criteria you have refused. Is it?

you are broadly on your own regarding the existence of 'standard', afaik. Art itself has always sought to define the nature of its own value, and every revolutionary art movement has rubbished the standards of its predecessors while (generally) claiming the same - universal - accolades.

'how can one deny The Book yet claim to know God'

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

now this isn't just about glastonbury, but that is the example i'm going to use, cos it's the biggest adn easiest, and i been there a couple of times

the first one i went to was in 2000, that was the one where they reckon about 150'000 people turned up, we decided to go about a week before, filled our bags up with booze and drugs and took the national express down and hopped over the fence

that will never happen again with the super fence and increased sercurity guards, i moaned about it a lot at the time, but i have been back and had an amazing time

but what with quite a few of the people on here having gone since the 80s and/or swearing by it, i was wondering if there would be/has been some event which makes you decide it isn't worth going anymore?

mcdonalds stall by the pyramid stage, the MTV Glastonbury festival etc

am not trolling, justt curious.....

Prussian Blue headlining.

 

[Kanda]

Having to sleep in a tent