6 ms·
hehehe. what a bundle of hogwash. IQ test = flawed. effect of music on intelligence = dubious. Whether Mozart qualifies as good music = dubious.
by wawjgreen 4y ago
hehehe.
what a bundle of hogwash.
IQ test = flawed.
effect of music on intelligence = dubious.
Whether Mozart qualifies as good music = dubious.
- Barrin92 4y agothe first two are indeed dubious. But if anything qualifies objectively as good music it's Mozart. Together with Beethoven and Bach he's up there as the most important classical composer and unlike the latter I think easy to appreciate by people who don't listen to a lot of classical music.
- wawjgreen 4y agoaccording to what standard? subjective taste do not a standard make.
- hilbert42 4y agoPerhaps not. But the word standard has many meanings and inflections - and I can say that as someone who has served on technical standards committees. So what's your definition of the word? Perhaps when mulling over the question you should keep in mind that Mozart's music has been at or near the top of both the listening and performance repertoire since 1791 and there isn't any hint of his popularity diminishing any time soon. 231 years at the top requires some some beating. If popularity and the word standard are in anyway connected then with Mozart's music it's no contest. Type 'Mozart' into YouTube and see how may hits you get. Now, exactly what is your definition of the word standard?
- Gordonjcp 4y ago> ... you should keep in mind that Mozart's music has been at or near the top of both the listening and performance repertoire since 1791 Why is that? Is that because it is objectively good, or is that because we *think* it's good because everyone tells us it's good?
- spoiler 4y agoWhy not just assume there's a category of people that think this genre of music is good? Nothing needs to be objective about it for it to be true either! People try to spread things they like (ie fanbases). Mozart is just one of the first... Uh, well, not rock stars, but you get what I mean!
- wawjgreen 4y agoThat is exactly what I said and why i said that assertion was dubious; why should a scientist claim that EVERYBODY thinks Mozart is good music? Or pretend to imply that it is objectively good without for EVERYBODY?
- ordu 4y agoI doubt that there can be objectivity in music. It seems that even the basic notion of consonance is an acquired one, and people learn it from others. But when all the people got the idea of consonance as a pleasant sound, this idea becomes a very real thing. One can even say an objective thing. A social reality, where the choice between two hypotheses in your question dissolves because both hypotheses become essentially the same. It is objectively good because we were told it is good. And we were told it is good because it is objectively good. It is just like other phenomena of social reality. Money is valuable because people believe they are valuable, and people believe that money is valuable because money is valuable.
- bsza 4y agoBy that logic, Baby Shark is the greatest masterpiece of all time, with over 11 billion views on YouTube.
- gjm11 4y agoLet's see how its viewing rates hold up over the next 200 years and then decide.
- wawjgreen 4y agoThanks for your reply. But isn't this argument ad populum? While we are talking about music, it is about tastes that the real debate is. I think naive standardization is a problem. You don't need standards when it comes to tastes and preferences. What is the best fruit in the world? According to your comment, the most popular fruit should be, right? Different people like different fruits, and they may like many different fruits at the same time, without exactly knowing the numeric values of their derived utilities (as suggested by economists). The same applies to music. Hence, the assertion that Mozart is the best music there is dubious at best.
- hilbert42 4y ago"...the assertion that Mozart is the best music there is dubious at best." I've had a great deal to say about this story in my comments and replies and at NO time have I ever said Mozart's music was the best. In fact, I have been assiduously careful in choosing my words to the extent of being excessively prolix to ensure that no one could reasonably accuse me of making that claim - for the very reason that in previous discussions on this and related topics it's common for people who don't like Mozart or 'classical' music or both to make this accusation even though these stores never actually make such a claim. The case is the same here with this story. It too is about the dubious-at-best claim that listening to Mozart improves IQ, it's not about claiming Mozart's music is the best per se - and I even make the specific point in one comment that my IQ never changes an iota whenever I listen to Mozart. This is an old story so there are many other instances of it and comments about it are numerous. It's a curious observation that so many people have claimed and continue to claim these stories are about Mozart's music being the best when they're not. One can only speculate the reasons are that they're annoyed or upset that their favorite composer wasn't the center of attention. The only other reason that's likely is that when the original authors of this story singled out Mozart by claiming that listening to his music improves one's IQ is that those claimants who don't like Mozart's music or never listen to it have misinterpreted the story and or read into it the implication that they're less intelligent beings than those who do. Any such notion, of course, is sheer utter nonsense.
- wawjgreen 4y ago
- joeamroo 4y ago> and I can say that as someone who has served on technical standards committees. Covid has shown me the fragility of society, and that you never appeal to authority, especially one that is objective in name and subjective in essence.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- hilbert42 4y agoThe matter of what constitutes formal technical standards is clearly and precisely defined, and standards documents usually comprise of very carefully crafted text some of which constitutes the most precisely accurate documentation ever written. Simply, in standards documents definitional precision and information/data accuracy are everything, there being absolutely no room for ambiguity or error. For that to occur, a necessary prerequisite is for those involved in the standards process must know and understand the meaning and definition of the word standard in all of its broader contexts so that a new much more accurate and narrowly-honed definition is agreed upon before it can be applied to standards work. How you can claim standards are 'subjective in essence' is beyond my comprehension, as in fact they are the antithesis of any such notion. Clearly, you've had nothing whatsoever to do with the matter of standards. In effect, what you are saying is that the hundreds of years' worth of precision science and engineering work that's gone into say ISO standards such as the definitions and concomitant standards which comprise the SI System of Units and Measurements is essentially poppycock nonsense. So presumably it would be alright with you if say on a whim that Planck's constant and the Speed of Light were to take on different values on weekdays than they would do at weekends. Sorry, but that's utter nonsense, it's postmodernist thinking at its worst. I actually agree with you on the matter of COVID and the fragility of society, but from your comments it's pretty certain that I do so for opposite reasons.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- hilbert42 4y agoWhether Mozart qualifies as good music = dubious. Obviously, you've never listened to any.
- headsoup 4y agoWhether internet commenters are to be trusted = dubious :D
- wawjgreen 4y agoWhether someone can be trusted or not depends on you as well; everybody understands only as much as they know. (or sees what they understand). My assertions of flaws and dubiousity of the above three propositions are irrefutable, whether you trust me or not. A quick google search will cure you of your distrust. :)
- headsoup 4y agoYou sure about google searches curing distrust?...
- wawjgreen 4y agoWhen I say "google search" I mean it in the Platonic, IDEA of THINGS type of way--generically speaking, that is. IOW, distrust is cured when you search information (by whatever means) and satisfy yourself. Sure beats a mere opinion by someone (or by some skeptic), no?
- headsoup 4y agoI get what you mean, but it comes with the assumption that the information found is reviewed critically by the searcher, rather than just naively accepting whatever result agrees or disagrees with the opinion comment...
- wawjgreen 4y ago<<but it comes with the assumption that the information found is reviewed critically by the searcher>> who brings this assumption?
- 4y ago