3 ms·

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 standard

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
  You wrote: << 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.>> While not specifically SAYING: "Mozart's music is the best there is.", the implication gathered from your statement is that: Mozart is very popular (as per YT hits) and Popularity is connected to "standard" Hence: the conclusion: Mozart is a standard for good music (if not best, given the very high number of hits on YT.). In any case, my beef is with the original article since it blurted out "Mozart effect", thus, again, automatically and unqualifyingly placing Mozart in the pedestal of music that is good enough to make you smarter..... That they chose Mozart but no OTHER music, therefore, implies, that they consider Mozart to be the standard of good music--the best music, as it were--for improving IQ outcomes.

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
You wrote: << 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.>> While not specifically SAYING: "Mozart's music is the best there is.", the implication gathered from your statement is that: Mozart is very popular (as per YT hits) and Popularity is connected to "standard" Hence: the conclusion: Mozart is a standard for good music (if not best, given the very high number of hits on YT.). In any case, my beef is with the original article since it blurted out "Mozart effect", thus, again, automatically and unqualifyingly placing Mozart in the pedestal of music that is good enough to make you smarter..... That they chose Mozart but no OTHER music, therefore, implies, that they consider Mozart to be the standard of good music--the best music, as it were--for improving IQ outcomes.