8 ms·

according to what standard? subjective taste do not a standard make.

hilbert42 4y ago
Perhaps 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 ago
    Why 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 ago
      That 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 ago
    I 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.
    - wawjgreen 4y ago
      Everybody agrees that money is valuable; not everybody agrees that Mozart is good music. No?
      - Gordonjcp 4y ago
        I don't entirely agree that money is objectively valuable. It's valuable if you can use it usefully.
        wawjgreen 4y ago
        Because you can use it usefully, it is objectively valuable; it derives its value from its utility--that is why it is CALLED money. :)
  - hilbert42 4y ago
    That's good question and we don't know for sure. No doubt being told that a piece of music is good and that one should learn to appreciate it is influential in developing one's appreciation but it seems that things are more complex than just that. For instance, take Beethoven's Symphony No 5 in C minor, you know the one with the famous opening that repeatedly taps out 'V' for victory in Morse code. Not only are we told that it's by the famous deaf composer Beethoven but also we've become very familiar with it because it's played so often. That's further reinforced when we're told the sad story about how Beethoven 'overcame' his deafness and became the greatest of great composers. It's a well-known story steeped deep within our culture. However, as one becomes more familiar with the work and or as one's knowledge of music increases something else happens. One begins to see there's something very cleaver and unusual about how Beethoven modulates his themes across and between different instruments. Instead of, say, giving the melody or main theme to just one instrument or a group of them to play in unison one notices that he often breaks it up and shares it across numbers of seemingly disparate instruments in a somewhat illogical fashion; that is until one realizes the remarkable sounds and effects he's produced by doing so. The first time one picks up a full orchestral score of a Beethoven symphony or piano concerto it'll drive one a little crazy, one's jumping all over the page trying to follow what he's done. It's only when one begins to get the full gist of what he's on about that one begins to realize and appreciate the true genius of the man - and that what he's done is far from being illogical and contorted - but instead his arrangement has turned out to be about as cleaver as is possible. In fact, what one's witnessing is genius at work. Eventually, one comes across a composition by Beethoven that one's never been told about let alone one's ever heard before, one's opinions thus have to be made made in comparative isolation. When one again recognizes similar techniques and traits of genius here too then one comes to the inevitable conclusion that there's something very special about the works of this man that no else has ever successfully duplicated. What happens is that the more one becomes involved with and knowledgeable about music the more one becomes familiar with the reasons for why certain composers and or why certain compositions of theirs have become famous and why they have been repeatedly deemed so over many, many decades. In the grand schema of things, throughout history these composers and their works have been singled out by many different people from many different cultures and backgrounds and with varying degrees of expertise and for whatever reason they all come to commonly similar conclusions that there's something special about these composers and their works. The fact that many people from disparate origins have come to similar conclusions and have done so over such a long time suggests there's something more at work than people just thinking these works are good for no particular reason. Clearly, for whatever reason, these works possess some quality that sets them apart; nevertheless, despite that, it's my understanding there's still no general agreement about what that property actually is. Discovering and quantifying that 'essence' ought to be worthy of a Nobel prize, I reckon. To illustrate the point let's again take Beethoven's Fifth Symphony. During the height of WWII, the British singled out this symphony because its opening bars dramatically and repeatedly rang out 'V' for Victory, it was a great rallying call to British citizens and their allies. Yet nevertheless at no time was Beethoven's German heritage brought into question. Simply, the music spoke for itself, not the background and culture from which it came. Similarly, Zadok the Priest, a famous British anthem, was composed by the German composer George Frideric Handel, yet in 1953 with WWII still fresh in British minds, it didn't stop it being performed at the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II. Music is mostly valued for what's perceived as its 'intrinsic' quality, its roots and cultural origins play little part in that perception.
- bsza 4y ago
  By that logic, Baby Shark is the greatest masterpiece of all time, with over 11 billion views on YouTube.
  - gjm11 4y ago
    Let's see how its viewing rates hold up over the next 200 years and then decide.
- wawjgreen 4y ago
  Thanks 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 ago
    The 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]

Perhaps 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 ago
  Why 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 ago
    That 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 ago
  I 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.
  - wawjgreen 4y ago
    Everybody agrees that money is valuable; not everybody agrees that Mozart is good music. No?
    - Gordonjcp 4y ago
      I don't entirely agree that money is objectively valuable. It's valuable if you can use it usefully.
      - wawjgreen 4y ago
        Because you can use it usefully, it is objectively valuable; it derives its value from its utility--that is why it is CALLED money. :)
- hilbert42 4y ago
  That's good question and we don't know for sure. No doubt being told that a piece of music is good and that one should learn to appreciate it is influential in developing one's appreciation but it seems that things are more complex than just that. For instance, take Beethoven's Symphony No 5 in C minor, you know the one with the famous opening that repeatedly taps out 'V' for victory in Morse code. Not only are we told that it's by the famous deaf composer Beethoven but also we've become very familiar with it because it's played so often. That's further reinforced when we're told the sad story about how Beethoven 'overcame' his deafness and became the greatest of great composers. It's a well-known story steeped deep within our culture. However, as one becomes more familiar with the work and or as one's knowledge of music increases something else happens. One begins to see there's something very cleaver and unusual about how Beethoven modulates his themes across and between different instruments. Instead of, say, giving the melody or main theme to just one instrument or a group of them to play in unison one notices that he often breaks it up and shares it across numbers of seemingly disparate instruments in a somewhat illogical fashion; that is until one realizes the remarkable sounds and effects he's produced by doing so. The first time one picks up a full orchestral score of a Beethoven symphony or piano concerto it'll drive one a little crazy, one's jumping all over the page trying to follow what he's done. It's only when one begins to get the full gist of what he's on about that one begins to realize and appreciate the true genius of the man - and that what he's done is far from being illogical and contorted - but instead his arrangement has turned out to be about as cleaver as is possible. In fact, what one's witnessing is genius at work. Eventually, one comes across a composition by Beethoven that one's never been told about let alone one's ever heard before, one's opinions thus have to be made made in comparative isolation. When one again recognizes similar techniques and traits of genius here too then one comes to the inevitable conclusion that there's something very special about the works of this man that no else has ever successfully duplicated. What happens is that the more one becomes involved with and knowledgeable about music the more one becomes familiar with the reasons for why certain composers and or why certain compositions of theirs have become famous and why they have been repeatedly deemed so over many, many decades. In the grand schema of things, throughout history these composers and their works have been singled out by many different people from many different cultures and backgrounds and with varying degrees of expertise and for whatever reason they all come to commonly similar conclusions that there's something special about these composers and their works. The fact that many people from disparate origins have come to similar conclusions and have done so over such a long time suggests there's something more at work than people just thinking these works are good for no particular reason. Clearly, for whatever reason, these works possess some quality that sets them apart; nevertheless, despite that, it's my understanding there's still no general agreement about what that property actually is. Discovering and quantifying that 'essence' ought to be worthy of a Nobel prize, I reckon. To illustrate the point let's again take Beethoven's Fifth Symphony. During the height of WWII, the British singled out this symphony because its opening bars dramatically and repeatedly rang out 'V' for Victory, it was a great rallying call to British citizens and their allies. Yet nevertheless at no time was Beethoven's German heritage brought into question. Simply, the music spoke for itself, not the background and culture from which it came. Similarly, Zadok the Priest, a famous British anthem, was composed by the German composer George Frideric Handel, yet in 1953 with WWII still fresh in British minds, it didn't stop it being performed at the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II. Music is mostly valued for what's perceived as its 'intrinsic' quality, its roots and cultural origins play little part in that perception.
bsza 4y ago
By that logic, Baby Shark is the greatest masterpiece of all time, with over 11 billion views on YouTube.
- gjm11 4y ago
  Let's see how its viewing rates hold up over the next 200 years and then decide.
wawjgreen 4y ago
Thanks 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 ago
  The 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]