4 ms·

Ironically enough, I think the author did a fantastic job of demonstrating why "writing about music" is a fool's game. I love Bach as well, but what makes him t

by whack 9y ago

Ironically enough, I think the author did a fantastic job of demonstrating why "writing about music" is a fool's game. I love Bach as well, but what makes him the "ultimate", beyond reach of others like Mozart? The article paints numerous glowing tributes by Bach's fans, presents the inspiration of his life, but fails utterly in answering the ultimate question. I've always believed that art is qualitatively different from pop entertainment. The latter is purely subjective, and aims to pleasure us. Art, in contrast, is defined by its ability to inspire its audience. Its ability to elevate the way we think, act, and look upon the world. Which is more tasty, chocolate or oranges? That's an impossible question to answer in any objective manner. But which is more nutritious? Which is better for our health? That is something which can be quantified and discussed much more objectively. I look forward to the day we can have similar discussions about art.

Cyph0n 9y ago
> I've always believed that art is qualitatively different from pop entertainment. The latter is purely subjective, and aims to pleasure us. Art, in contrast, is defined by its ability to inspire its audience. So art, unlike pop entertainment, is not purely subjective? And can pop entertainment not "inspire its audience" or "elevate the way we think"? > Which is more tasty, chocolate or oranges? That's an impossible question to answer in any objective manner. But which is more nutritious? Which is better for our health? That is something which can be quantified and discussed much more objectively. If your goal was to provide an analogy for art vs. pop entertainment, I don't think it worked. > I look forward to the day we can have similar discussions about art. That might happen, but only when art, like nutritional value, can be objectively evaluated and have its "beauty" (or whatever the term is) concretely quantified.
sotojuan 9y ago
> The latter is purely subjective, and aims to pleasure us. A lot of composers of the Classical era such as Haydn would gladly say their music is made for the pleasure of all or as many people as possible ("I write my music in order that the weary and worn or the men burdened with affairs might enjoy a few minutes of solace and refreshment."). In fact, I would argue the whole point of the Classical style of the late 1700s was to move away from (in their words) "elitist" and complicated music of Bach and the opera seria, Mozart's operas being much easier to relate to as an average Joe than Monteverdi's. Yet all their works are inspiring and elevating - I think both goals can be achieved.

by whack 9y ago

Cyph0n 9y ago

> I've always believed that art is qualitatively different from pop entertainment. The latter is purely subjective, and aims to pleasure us. Art, in contrast, is defined by its ability to inspire its audience. So art, unlike pop entertainment, is not purely subjective? And can pop entertainment not "inspire its audience" or "elevate the way we think"? > Which is more tasty, chocolate or oranges? That's an impossible question to answer in any objective manner. But which is more nutritious? Which is better for our health? That is something which can be quantified and discussed much more objectively. If your goal was to provide an analogy for art vs. pop entertainment, I don't think it worked. > I look forward to the day we can have similar discussions about art. That might happen, but only when art, like nutritional value, can be objectively evaluated and have its "beauty" (or whatever the term is) concretely quantified.

sotojuan 9y ago

> The latter is purely subjective, and aims to pleasure us. A lot of composers of the Classical era such as Haydn would gladly say their music is made for the pleasure of all or as many people as possible ("I write my music in order that the weary and worn or the men burdened with affairs might enjoy a few minutes of solace and refreshment."). In fact, I would argue the whole point of the Classical style of the late 1700s was to move away from (in their words) "elitist" and complicated music of Bach and the opera seria, Mozart's operas being much easier to relate to as an average Joe than Monteverdi's. Yet all their works are inspiring and elevating - I think both goals can be achieved.