5 ms·

> History is written by the victors. The greatest achiever of which work reached us, by the criteria that we pick, of the things we know today, and the "we" cha

by noch 3y ago

> History is written by the victors. The greatest achiever of which work reached us, by the criteria that we pick, of the things we know today, and the "we" changes from culture to culture. I know you imagine that this is a profound observation but unfortunately it isn't. We all have it in our teens and twenties then we realise (decades later if we're unlucky) that it means much less than we thought. We imagine that the work that reaches us now is so incomplete as to render present judgements about the past invalid or so inaccurate as to be misleading or useless. But culture and civilisation, are in a real sense, defined as what _endures_. When it comes to the values that endure, it is more likely than not that humans pass along "the best things". Culture, after all, is downstream of genes and evolution. There is no "better culture" hiding somewhere but hidden by our biases or by a conspiracy of victors. There are no better artists lost to the past who were so good that had they not been lost our knowledge and appreciation of art today would be far different and superior to what it is now. "Acknowledging how biased is what we know" is similarly not as valuable an idea as it sounds because acknowledging bias doesn't actually reveal better information. The worst that bias can do is impede arriving at rational logical conclusions, and that is easily corrected by debate amongst enough people over a long enough period. Another way to say this is we are always collectively evaluating stuff in the past based on the best information we have available now. To acknowledge a putative bias doesn't take you _outside_ of the sphere of our knowledge of the past in which we are making judgements because even the fact that you can think and utter that statement is a result of the cultural values that were given to you and are thus already a part of the culture. There is nothing _outside_ of culture.

wbl 3y ago
The irony is you are posting this on an article about Bach. For about 200 years if people said Bach they meant C.P.E., not J.S. It wasn't until Mendelssohn performed the St. Matthew Passion that people began to reevaluate their attitudes and Bach assumed the place in the pantheon of composers. How we evaluate music is deeply subjective. The complex harmonic and counterpunctal vocabulary of the Baroque was passe by the time Bach died, replaced by the simplicity of the Classical period. And then romanticism kept the harmony, but created sweeping emotion rather than deep craft. Then look at jazz where the relationships of chords are entirely changed. So yes, there are works that people overlook and reevaluate.
- noch 3y ago
  > How we evaluate music is deeply subjective. I understand your point. But you're missing my point in order to make a point of your own, about something different. Forest-trees.

by noch 3y ago

wbl 3y ago

The irony is you are posting this on an article about Bach. For about 200 years if people said Bach they meant C.P.E., not J.S. It wasn't until Mendelssohn performed the St. Matthew Passion that people began to reevaluate their attitudes and Bach assumed the place in the pantheon of composers. How we evaluate music is deeply subjective. The complex harmonic and counterpunctal vocabulary of the Baroque was passe by the time Bach died, replaced by the simplicity of the Classical period. And then romanticism kept the harmony, but created sweeping emotion rather than deep craft. Then look at jazz where the relationships of chords are entirely changed. So yes, there are works that people overlook and reevaluate.

noch 3y ago
> How we evaluate music is deeply subjective. I understand your point. But you're missing my point in order to make a point of your own, about something different. Forest-trees.