Which music do you dislike the most?

[TeethWhitener]

I would say that there is an internal and an external motivation for art. The internal motivation is that the artist has ideas or emotions that he longs to give expression to. The external motivation is that the artist wants to evoke thought and/or emotions in his audience.

For the latter motivation, it's sort of cheating if the emotion being evoked is disgust or annoyance at having wasted your time. That's too easy. I feel the same way about art whose point is to shock or offend the audience. For one thing, the people who would be shocked or offended would tend to just avoid it in the first place (unless exposed to it by accident). So to me, for art to be externally successful, it has to reward (in some way) those who engage it. I think some art that is dismissed as crap can actually be engaging. I think there are two nearly opposite ways that it can reward engagement. One is to give a first appearance of being trash, or simple-minded, but upon closer engagement, you see patterns and themes and points of emotional resonance that were not visible on first exposure. Learning to like dissonant music, or jazz, or rap, or whatever can be like that. It can sound like noise to the newcomer, but connoisseurs see the artistry. The opposite response (that I think only works once) is for art to seem at first to be something beautiful, but on closer inspection, you find that it was created in a way that is disturbing, or that there are disturbing details that you don't notice at first.

I'm fine with different people making different value judgments about a piece of art. I was trying to highlight the difference between our judgments about a piece of art and our attempt to define what art is. It's like if you and I are arguing over whether peaches are delicious or disgusting, and someone else comes along and states that peaches aren't food. There are two issues at play.

BTW: peaches are delicious. I can state that categorically.

 

[stevendaryl]

I'm fine with different people making different value judgments about a piece of art. I was trying to highlight the difference between our judgments about a piece of art and our attempt to define what art is. It's like if you and I are arguing over whether peaches are delicious or disgusting, and someone else comes along and states that peaches aren't food. There are two issues at play.

BTW: peaches are delicious. I can state that categorically.

I wasn't talking about value judgments. I was talking about what I think art is. People can disagree about whether something is successful as art, but I think it counts as art if it either expresses emotions/ideas of the artist or is intended to evoke ideas/emotions in the audience.

 

[russ_watters]

As far as I can tell, you think the answer to "Is this art?" is simply subjective--each person decides for themselves what is and isn't art.

That is correct*. You understood the cliche correctly.

*Caveat: I choose my criteria to be objective because I find subjective value in objectivity. But others are free to choose purely subjective criteria.

It's still not clear to me. But despite your forceful responses, I'm not trying to misrepresent you, so if this is misguided, just let me know.

I'm not sure what the point of this portion of your post was, but it sounds accusatory. I assure you, I'm not trying to misrepresent you.

Fair enough. I would appreciate then some additional care in your interpretation and restating of my positions; You attributed words to me that I did not say.

Not really germane, but who decides what is and isn't engineering?

A number of governing bodies and industry organizations, depending on the specific field and locale.

If someone decided to teach a calligraphy class in the engineering department, who would step forward to say "that's not engineering?"

ABET:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABET

The point is that there are objective criteria that make engineering what it is. I can't tell for sure, but you seem to be asserting that this is not the case in art.

I choose objective criteria for defining art. You are free to/not to.

I don't think it's a particularly tenable position, and I gave you some reasons why in post 59.

Given that Post 59 badly misinterpreted/misrepresented what I said, I don't know what to make of your stated positions/reactions in it. I suggest rewriting, now that I've been explicit about my 3 positions and hopefully you now see them as they are.

I'm not sure where I did this, but again, I'm not trying to misrepresent you. I think there are a lot more nuances to these questions than people here seem to acknowledge.

Fair enough. For my part, I have thought this through and I try to use very precise wording, so please don't insert such nuances into my opinions; I'll tell you if they are there.

To be sure, there are plenty of people that assert that art is whatever a consensus view decides art is. It's somewhat circular, but it's a position that's consistent with your assertion "I am an arbiter of what is and isn't art." There are difficulties with this view as well, but I find it a little more plausible than naked subjectivism.

I don't see a need for a consensus view on art.

 

[russ_watters]

When an untrained two year old sings "Mary had a little lamb," is it music?

Yes, but the angle here is a separate question. In the context of this thread, we are discussing art for public consumption; professional art. Generally, we don't state explicitly whether something is "professional art" or "amateur art" because I think it is generally clear from the context. However, if you said "my daughter is an artist" and I didn't know your daughter, I might ask for a clarification.

 

[stevendaryl]

I don't see a need for a consensus view on art.

Well, there are two levels of lack of consensus: (1) People may disagree about whether it's good/worthwhile/valuable art. (2) People may disagree about whether it is art at all.

I think you can find the same sort of disagreements about science. So where is there a need for consensus?

 

[russ_watters]

Well, there are two levels of lack of consensus: (1) People may disagree about whether it's good/worthwhile/valuable art. (2) People may disagree about whether it is art at all.

Agreed; Whether it is art and whether it is good/valuable(professional/amateur) are different questions...though I'm still not sure I see a need for consensus.

I think you can find the same sort of disagreements about science. So where is there a need for consensus?

Maybe we are talking past each other? I do see a need for consensus with science. even more so with engineering.

The difference I see is that a rigorous application requires a consensus or governing body (often the same thing) to arbitrate. Science needs that, art doesn't.

 

[stevendaryl]

Maybe we are talking past each other? I do see a need for consensus with science. even more so with engineering.

I know. I'm asking why the difference with science and engineering.

The difference I see is that a rigorous application requires a consensus or governing body (often the same thing) to arbitrate. Science needs that, art doesn't.

But why that difference? I think it might be the "divide and conquer" approach to big projects. Advances in science or technology involve many parts that have to work together, and nobody can personally approve every piece. So there must be criteria for the pieces that make them "black boxes". Any way that you can fill in the box that satisfies the criteria works. In contrast, art cannot be reliably outsourced to unnamed minions/grad students. There are equally complex large projects (putting together a movie, for instance), but you can't really let anything be a pure black box. Somebody has to pass judgment over whether a piece is good enough.

 

[Mark44]

But why that difference? I think it might be the "divide and conquer" approach to big projects. Advances in science or technology involve many parts that have to work together, and nobody can personally approve every piece.

But individual project managers can and do approve the individual projects, passing their approvals up to some overall project manager, who relies on the expertise of the individual project managers.

In contrast, art cannot be reliably outsourced to unnamed minions/grad students. There are equally complex large projects (putting together a movie, for instance), but you can't really let anything be a pure black box. Somebody has to pass judgment over whether a piece is good enough.

In the context of movies, for perhaps the large majority of them, the primary motivation is to make a profit at the box office, and not whether the production is "art" or not. In any case, this is a sidetrack to the original discussion, which is whether a given piece performed, drawn, sung, whatever, by an individual, is "art." For much (most?) of what we're considering here, there is no governing body with established criteria to distinguish between art and what isn't art

 

[russ_watters]

I know. I'm asking why the difference with science and engineering.

But why that difference? I think it might be the "divide and conquer" approach to big projects.

For applied science, it's the risk to the clients/customers. For "pure" science, I think it's just more about being right.

Starting with the most rigorous: Engineering and other applied sciences (medicine) are done to/on the public, so you need standards to ensure health/safety, environmental friendliness and anything else that governments and clients deem important. Otherwise there is no easy way for a client/customer to know what they are getting and it will work for them and they aren't protected from bad engineering/medicine/food. That's why we have building codes, the FDA, etc. In short; nobody really gets hurt by bad art, but people do get hurt by bad [applied] science.

For pure science, there are no clients/customers (funding agents and college departments are not the same as customers), so there is less 3rd party risk in being wrong. Still, scientists want science to bear fruit, so they try hard to make it work, including creating academic organizations and governing bodies to adjudicate certain things.

For example, the definition of the meter (unit of measure) is dictated by a governing body which arrived at the definition by judging/incorporating the scientific consensus on related theories and issues of science and non-science. A physicist can't get arrested or sued for misusing a meter stick (an engineer can), but they can get ostracized from the community.

Maybe more directly, while bad science doesn't necessarily hurt anyone if it doesn't get applied, it does drain resources and harm the reputation of "science", which can affect funding and adoption.

 

[stevendaryl]

In the context of movies, for perhaps the large majority of them, the primary motivation is to make a profit at the box office, and not whether the production is "art" or not.

You have to compare like with like. Being art is analogous to being science. Nobody funds generic science. They fund science projects to do particular things---detect gravity waves, for example.

In any case, this is a sidetrack to the original discussion, which is whether a given piece performed, drawn, sung, whatever, by an individual, is "art."

That wasn't the original discussion.

 

[TeethWhitener]

Given that Post 59 badly misinterpreted/misrepresented what I said, I don't know what to make of your stated positions/reactions in it.

There's a lot in post 73 that I want to come back to, but I wanted to clear this up. I don't really think I misinterpreted anything in post 59. I gave 4 possible interpretations of "art is in the eye of the beholder," swatted down the solipsistic one, and expounded a bit on the subjectivist one, which is the one that you ultimately confirmed you adhere to. I'm not sure what about that qualifies as misinterpretation or misrepresentation.

 

[russ_watters]

There's a lot in post 73 that I want to come back to, but I wanted to clear this up. I don't really think I misinterpreted anything in post 59.

Then you still don't have a correct understanding of my original point that started our discussion:

In post #46, I said "I'm a 'beholder' so I get to tell 'artists' that what they are doing isn't art."

In post #49 you said there was something wrong with that without saying what it is: "Do I really need to go over what's wrong with this argument?

After prompting, in post #59 you said: "Do you mean to say that you, Russ Watters, are the ultimate arbiter of what is and isn't art?"

The words "the ultimate arbiter" were not in, nor were they implied by my statement in post #46. It's a really big change from "a 'beholder'" to "the utlimate arbiter" - and they contradict each other.

I request a reboot, taking into account what actually said.

 

[Mark44]

That wasn't the original discussion.

"Original" as in what we've been talking about for the past 50 posts or so.

 

[TeethWhitener]

This maybe should continue over PM, but

After prompting, in post #59 you said: "Do you mean to say that you, Russ Watters, are the ultimate arbiter of what is and isn't art?"

Yes, this was one of the four interpretations that I gave of "art is in the eye of the beholder." I responded to two of the four possibilities. At the time, I didn't know whether your view was solipsism or subjectivism, but I doubted that it had to do with freedom of opinion (the focus of the first two interpretations), so I ignored those two.

It's a really big change from "a 'beholder'" to "the utlimate arbiter" - and they contradict each other.

1) They don't contradict one another. One can behold and arbitrate simultaneously.
2) It is a change. They were two out of four possible interpretations that I mentioned in post 59.

 

[stevendaryl]

"Original" as in what we've been talking about for the past 50 posts or so.

I guess "original topic" is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[TeethWhitener]

I guess "original topic" is in the eye of the beholder.

Well, it depends on what you mean by that.

 

[symbolipoint]

The posts on this survey appear to have drifted from the survey's topic.

I gave a vote for more than one category, but this list of categories is not as complete as it might/could be. There are other choices that someone could make if they were also listed as items to pick.

 

[rbelli1]

So you're saying that even though you can't decide whether someone is performing or not performing, it has no bearing on whether such a performance/absence of performance can be considered "art"?

In the case of not performing it can't really be music. But it can still be art.

I'm a "beholder" so I get to tell "artists" that what they are doing isn't art.

You get an opinion on that. Categorically stating it is not art is just going put everyone on the defensive and derail any further discussion.

BoB

 

[Mark44]

But it can still be art.

Not as far as I'm concerned, and apparently, not as far as Russ is concerned.

You get an opinion on that. Categorically stating it is not art is just going put everyone on the defensive and derail any further discussion.

Anyone who believes that a null performance == art should be on the defensive, because they have the burden of convincing the rest of us why that is a valid statement.

Furthermore, as you admitted, "doing nothing can't really be musc." What sort of art would it be?

 

[fresh_42]

Furthermore, as you admitted, "doing nothing can't really be musc." What sort of art would it be?

It's music. Simply because it can be written as music. One does not have to invent an extra notation. For me, it's a bit like the empty set or zero. We need both to do mathematics and I regard them as among the most important findings of mankind. So why not have a music play without sound?

 

[symbolipoint]

It's music. Simply because it can be written as music. One does not have to invent an extra notation. For me, it's a bit like the empty set or zero. We need both to do mathematics and I regard them as among the most important findings of mankind. So why not have a music play without sound?

I was trying to make a post here, and tried to visit the first post on this topic but the page refuses to load.

Okay; now the page is loaded. This started as a survey "Which music do you dislike the most?"
I actually gave a vote on this survey, but I misread the title and therefore voted incorrectly.

Now for what I wanted to say in this post:
fresh_42,
Music is only music when it is heard, sung, or played. When in written form, it is just a transcription.

 

[fresh_42]

fresh_42,
Music is only music when it is heard, sung, or played. When in written form, it is just a transcription.

Well, yes, one needs at least one performer who will interpret the transcription.

 

[symbolipoint]

Well, yes, one needs at least one performer who will interpret the transcription.

Good point. Understood! Music is created and learned, first. Later, someone may transcribe it; and someone, maybe hopefully someone else, who is literate with that kind of notation, can play it and those who hear may enjoy the actual MUSIC.

Some very great, great, musical artists were and are illiterate; but you see, the music came first. Some transcriptions came later.

 

[BWV]

4’33” does have sound, just not from the performer:

They missed the point. There's no such thing as silence. What they thought was silence, because they didn’t know how to listen, was full of accidental sounds. You could hear the wind stirring outside during the first movement. During the second, raindrops began pattering the roof, and during the third the people themselves made all kinds of interesting sounds as they talked or walked out.
— John Cage speaking about the premiere of 4′33″[9]

Cage was inspired by Zen Buddhism and the idea of listening to sound for its own sake

 

[BWV]

"The Most Unwanted Song" is a novelty song created by artists Komar and Melamid and composer Dave Soldier in 1997. The song was designed to incorporate lyrical and musical elements that were annoying to most people. These elements included bagpipes, cowboy music, an opera singerrapping, and a children's choir that urged listeners to go shopping at Walmart.[1]
...
According to Soldier's poll, the survey of approximately 500 Dia visitors revealed that the themes, instruments and other aspects that people least wanted to hear included cowboy music, bagpipes, accordions, opera, rap music, children's voices, tubas, drum machines and advertising jingles. They then incorporated all of these elements into a 22-minute-long song, titled "The Most Unwanted Song".[5]

 

[symbolipoint]

--The Most Unwanted Song--
So far the rapping opera singer is the worst part.
The rapping screaming children also annoying.
I stopped listening at about 10:00.

 

[bhobba]

Maybe this is the issue. I consider the questions "is this valuable?" and "is this art?" separate (but both ultimately objective), and I personally think each of them are separate from the subjective "do I like it?"

I do not consider music, and art in general, objective in any way. Take that music that was just silence. For STEM people (such as us) it would be obvious to the vast majority such isn't music - and being in that group I agree. But the question remains why do some people consider it music? That can be answered scientifically and such can be quite illuminating on the human condition. I mentioned Punk Rock. I thought the Sex Pistols not only far too raucous, loud and fast to be music as how I think of music - as relaxing and maybe a bit thought provoking. But the real kicker with them is they were so obnoxious. Exactly why did they think music should be obnoxious? Its obvious they were alienated and very counter culture but the particular direction they took to express it was really worthy of investigation. Other founders of the genre were also raucous etc but expressed their views much better - and directly eg the Saints - Stranded. No need to be obnoxious - it's how they felt cutoff, alienated etc just as the title said. They at least early on were not even aware what they were doing - they developed it all in their members garages and it grew from there. Why the different reactions? I know the Saints grew up in a very typical Australian suburb here in Brisbane - Oxley - close to where I grew up. Was that the difference? And why a backwater like Brisbane - I won't go into it but there were some nasty polarizing political things going on at the time in Queensland - it was later revealed the government was basically corrupt - that could be part of it. I grew up in it and tended to side, as it turned out falsely, with the orthodoxy - some sensed something was amiss - it certainly was a very stifling environment looking back on my youth. Punk possibly was how some in that group reacted. All these are legitimate questions and why any art has value. But liking it or not, fitting into our world view etc are very personal things and while we can also investigate why that is, its not something IMHO that can be generalized.

And most definitely, for that very reason, no music should be banned - it illuminates the human condition. You may not like it, it can be confronting and challenging, but it is part of understanding who we are and how we fit in the wider society around us. Some people in this thread mentioned some utter stupidity like a stick in some urine as art. Its utter rubbish in my view and I would even question the sanity of its creator. But the question remains - why? Was it just publicity, a challenge to prevailing norms - you can undoubtedly think of others - that's the real issue. Its answer is important in understanding us as a society. Just like why do people totally distrust nuclear energy to the point of rejecting it without even having a chat to an expert such as we have here. They simply reject it. Why? These are important questions some of which are on topic here - some not.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

"The Most Unwanted Song" is a novelty song created by artists Komar and Melamid and composer Dave Soldier in 1997. The song was designed to incorporate lyrical and musical elements that were annoying to most people. These elements included bagpipes, cowboy music, an opera singerrapping, and a children's choir that urged listeners to go shopping at Walmart.[1]
...
According to Soldier's poll, the survey of approximately 500 Dia visitors revealed that the themes, instruments and other aspects that people least wanted to hear included cowboy music, bagpipes, accordions, opera, rap music, children's voices, tubas, drum machines and advertising jingles. They then incorporated all of these elements into a 22-minute-long song, titled "The Most Unwanted Song".[5]

Brilliant! I was expecting not to like this. But less than one minute into this one I was laughing hysterically. I listened to the whole song. One of my favorite parts is the megaphone lady. During the final bit I laughed hysterically again. Now that's entertainment.

Actually this is one example of hip-hop that is entertaining. The only others I can think of are "Double Dutch Bus" and some songs from the TV program "Hip Hop Harry." The latter featured kids' voices, which of course made it even better. If only they had an accordion player on that show.

For those who do like accordion, here is something for you. The girls are not children, but they are still fairly young. What's more, they are on roller skates, and they sing in German. It's all very "corny" as they say in America. The lyrics are very entertaining. It's about how everyone all over the world loves the young ladies from Bavaria. To me, this is great music.

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

4’33” does have sound, just not from the performer:

They missed the point. There's no such thing as silence. What they thought was silence, because they didn’t know how to listen, was full of accidental sounds. You could hear the wind stirring outside during the first movement. During the second, raindrops began pattering the roof, and during the third the people themselves made all kinds of interesting sounds as they talked or walked out.
— John Cage speaking about the premiere of 4′33″[9]

Cage was inspired by Zen Buddhism and the idea of listening to sound for its own sake

Speaking of Buddhism ... this video is not Zen, with which I am unfamiliar, but Pure Land. I am not Buddhist, but sometimes I listen to this sort of music. They are chanting repetitively to the Amitabha Buddha.

 

[HAYAO]

I appreciate all forms of music.

I first started out classical, then got into rap, soon after that pop-rock, and then death metal, and later into late 80's heavy metal, and then these days...well...everything.

 

[stevendaryl]

It's music. Simply because it can be written as music. One does not have to invent an extra notation. For me, it's a bit like the empty set or zero. We need both to do mathematics and I regard them as among the most important findings of mankind. So why not have a music play without sound?

It's the French Horn part from Beethoven's 5th. It's rarely performed on piano, though.

 

[rokytnji]

Finding out that Capt Beefheart is a musical genius. While most folks could not stand his art because of pre-programmed taste buds in their brain.

I kinda equate this thread to flavors of icecream, versions of linux, type of motorcycle, bicycle, or car. Druthers.

Me? I can listen to Taureg Nomad desert muscians. Rock and Roll. Rap. Country. Bluegrass. Big Band. Classical. Opera. You name it. I play it in my motorcycle shop to make the work go easier and faster. It does something to my body to calm tension and get into a flow. My inner emotions that day will determine the play list. I keep a 200 watt per channel Linux streaming computer with a ton of .pls and .mtu files on hand that hook up to worldwide streaming radio stations. Here is a example

http://www.radionovak.com/

But then. I don't over think these things.
You can guess, I guess, my vote goes on the last choice under " Heavy Metal "

 

[NTL2009]

4’33” does have sound, just not from the performer:

They missed the point. There's no such thing as silence. What they thought was silence, because they didn’t know how to listen, was full of accidental sounds. You could hear the wind stirring outside during the first movement. During the second, raindrops began pattering the roof, and during the third the people themselves made all kinds of interesting sounds as they talked or walked out.
— John Cage speaking about the premiere of 4′33″[9]

Cage was inspired by Zen Buddhism and the idea of listening to sound for its own sake

Good to see a bit more background on 4' 33''. Now I'm not going to defend it, anyone who feels it is stupid/silly or a scam is entitled to their view, but since this is a scientific group, it might be interesting to realize that the 'composition' was inspired by science (years before Thomas Dolby!).

From wiki ( https://goo.gl/Xzaizv ) bold mine... :

In 1951, Cage visited the anechoic chamber at Harvard University. An anechoic chamber is a room designed in such a way that the walls, ceiling and floor absorb all sounds made in the room, rather than reflecting them as echoes. Such a chamber is also externally sound-proofed. Cage entered the chamber expecting to hear silence, but he wrote later, "I heard two sounds, one high and one low. When I described them to the engineer in charge, he informed me that the high one was my nervous system in operation, the low one my blood in circulation."[14] Cage had gone to a place where he expected total silence, and yet heard sound. "Until I die there will be sounds. And they will continue following my death. One need not fear about the future of music."[15] The realization as he saw it of the impossibility of silence led to the composition of 4′33″.

The 'point' was to hear the environment around us, and force us to be quiet to listen and concentrate and ambient sounds. I'm not convinced that I should call that 'art', but it gives me tiny, teen-sy, smidgen of respect for it, where I had none before reading that a few years back.

I don't like most modern art, even to the point of reviling it, because it seems like they are trying to scam me, and that's insulting. We went through a temporary modern art exhibit at the Art Institute of Chicago (a wonderful place) a few years back, and one of the pieces of 'art' was some cardboard boxes stacked, liked you'd find in my attic. Give me a break. Another was a small room with several videos looping, one was a clown on a toilet, ripping pages out of a book, and laughing like a mad man. I don't even want to know.

But another, was hard to call 'art' but it made a connection and made me smile and feel good, but still had me kind of shrugging my shoulders at the same time, like 'huh?'. It was a collection of old post cards and photos with handwritten notes on the back, turned so you only saw one side. So you'd see this note on the back of a snapshot "Me and Sis laughing it up with Uncle Billy at the Lake", or something. Hard to explain why these were entertaining, but it just sort of was like holding up a mirror to every day experiences and memories, and with some of it missing, you had to fill in with your imagination. You just wanted to see what Sis and Uncle Billy were up to! OK, I (just me personally) am not going to call it art, but I thought it was clever, and entertaining. I don't care where we draw (no pun intended) the line.

 

[NTL2009]

...
Music is only music when it is heard, sung, or played. When in written form, it is just a transcription.

So many viewpoints in this thread, but I think I can even disagree with that statement (mostly for the 'fun' of it)!

I'm not a very capable musician, I don't have a very developed ear, but for some fairly simple written music, I can read the transcription and experience the music in my head. It is music. But it can't be 'heard', there are no sound waves produced. I'm not singing it or playing it. I'm only experiencing it.

If you want to say I 'hear' it in my head, OK. But that doesn't fit a physical model of 'hearing' - that requires sound waves and ear/nerves/brain to perceive it.

 

[NTL2009]

Another thought on all the 'art' stuff. When I see Picasso's cubism, I just shake my head. What's the point? Some lady's(?) head, with eyes, and nose out of place? So supposedly we are viewing from different angles at the same time? So, it just looks stupid to me.

But I love some his works from the Blue Period, and especially "The Old Guitarist" which is at the aforementioned Art Institute in Chicago. And it makes me wonder - is it me? Should I see something in his later cubism period? And I am moved by his abstractions in "Guernica". Though it looks like a jumbled mess, since it depicts a bombing, that makes a level of sense to me.

I know lots of people can't appreciate some jazz or classical, but I know enough to know there is something of value there (even the stuff I don't care for). So I wonder, am I missing something in modern art? I kind of don't think so. I just can't take it seriously. I can understand that someone might not 'get' John Coltrane's "A Love Supreme", but for me there is a clear distinction between the level of 'art' in " 4' 33" " and "A Love Supreme".