Which music do you dislike the most?

[bhobba]

I strongly disagree. John Cage once recorded 4 hours and 33 minutes of silence. Exactly what value is there in doing so? How does this compare to works of classical composers?One could say that "all branches of art have value," a statement that is falsified by such "art" as Serrano's jar of urine with a crucifix in it or another prominent piece of "artwork" displayed in London that consisted of an empty room with a light switch.

One could argue that even such obvious silliness has value in that it would make an interesting study into human nature by a psychiatrist/psychologist as to why people that are supposedly at least half sane (maybe the answer is they are insane) create such stupidity. So I wouldn't say any art or music has no value. The only exception is my neighbours who insist on playing, outdoors and right next to the granny flat I live in, AC/DC through their boom box while I am trying to listen to the TV or Diana Krall

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

Me, too. I even listen to Schönberg from time to time, free Jazz, and I very much like coloratura soprano. And I found out, that I can sleep best to techno. It's always a matter of time, occasion and mood. Dislike (and originally: forbid) is simply far too strict in my opinion.
You don't like it? Don't listen to.

My other hobby is high end Hi Fi. I am friendly with a manufacturer of speakers on the Gold Coast and get a lot of his gear. He often rings me to come down listen to some new speakers he has made or have a GTG organised from a forum he runs about his speakers and gear he sells. I have sat with people listening to all sorts of music. You would be surprised at what music appeals to what people and the lengths they will go to recreate it. Yes - some even like the Sex-Pistols - I am The Antichrist. Strange hey.

One Christmas Eve he held a Christmas do for a few regular customers like me and his staff. The rest just got drunk while I played music on his system. Totally worse for wear (ie completely inebriated) he noted I had virtually no modern music in what I played. I didn't realize it but apart from a few artists like Diana Krall, Michael Buble etc don't much like modern mucic. The speaker designer - he loves Ian Moss who I find a bit heavy for my tastes.

Thanks
Bill

 

[OCR]

Even hip-hop can be fantastic...

Lol... that would be taking Bayesian inference... almost to the extreme. .

 

[DennisN]

Here is some of my favorite Italo Disco. I think it's awesome.

I will gladly admit that I liked Scotch a lot;

 

[DennisN]

The most important aspect beside the bass and the beats is, that it's not interrupted by words of any kind, in which case my brain starts to listen to the words and I cannot sleep.

That is also what I have found out.

 

[TeethWhitener]

Let's try this in a different realm. I now present my beautiful mathematical theorem:Q.E.D.

Tada! Didn't you get all tingly with its elegance, its simplicity?

Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead once spent 300 pages proving that 1+1=2. What's the value in that?

 

[TeethWhitener]

To me, art should neither be abusive nor pornographic (and I don't just mean in terms of nudity). "Art" that is intended simply to abuse the consumers into reacting to it is not art. "Piss Christ" was just supposed to make you mad at the "artist", it wasn't intended to actually convey any meaning. And in other words: such "artists" know that what they are creating isn't art.

Since engineers are now deciding what is and isn't art, are you going to let artists decide what is and isn't engineering?

 

[TeethWhitener]

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"?

Is string theory science or not? Are interpretations of quantum mechanics science or not?

Edit: the point is that claiming that you "know" what art is when you see it (or hear it, as the case may be) is not particularly rigorous or insightful. At some point, someone has to make real arguments for and against, and that's exactly what people like John Cage do. They challenge our intuition about what art is and what it can be. You can argue that it is or isn't art, but the argument itself is useful, because it exposes the vacuousness of the notion that you simply know art when you see it.

 

[Mark44]

Is string theory science or not? Are interpretations of quantum mechanics science or not?

Do these fields adhere to the scientific method? That is, do they pose a testable hypothesis for which the results are repeatable?

Edit: the point is that claiming that you "know" what art is when you see it (or hear it, as the case may be) is not particularly rigorous or insightful.

Maybe I don't know what art is when I see it or hear it, but I know what isn't art when I don't see it (as in the blank canvas at a London gallery af few years back or the empty room containing only a light switch) or when I don't hear it (as in Cage's "performance.").

At some point, someone has to make real arguments for and against, and that's exactly what people like John Cage do. They challenge our intuition about what art is and what it can be. You can argue that it is or isn't art, but the argument itself is useful, because it exposes the vacuousness of the notion that you simply know art when you see it.

That's your opinion. My view is that some of the examples cited expose the vacuousness of some artists and the credulity of the patrons.

Further, discussions about whether Cage's performance is or isn't art remind me of the (possibly apocryphal) story of the Medieval clerics debating about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.

 

[Mark44]

Since engineers are now deciding what is and isn't art, are you going to let artists decide what is and isn't engineering?

Sure, as long as they have their PE certification.

 

[russ_watters]

Since engineers are now deciding what is and isn't art, are you going to let artists decide what is and isn't engineering?

No, it's their catch-22, not mine: art is in the eye of the beholder, engineering isn't. I'm a "beholder" so I get to tell "artists" that what they are doing isn't art. And besides, I think they already know.

 

[russ_watters]

. ... I've never seen anything like it... .

Really? I produce works like that daily!

 

[TeethWhitener]

Maybe I don't know what art is when I see it or hear it, but I know what isn't art when I don't see it (as in the blank canvas at a London gallery af few years back or the empty room containing only a light switch) or when I don't hear it (as in Cage's "performance.").

Presumably, this means you could point to each individual thing and say whether it's art or not. But in doing so, you're clearly using some criterion. Which leads me to

That's your opinion. My view is that some of the examples cited expose the vacuousness of some artists and the credulity of the patrons.

You're clearly of the opinion that a thing is or isn't art based on some criterion. My point is that works like Cage's 4'33" (and before it, (now-less-controversial) works by Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Wagner, etc.) are meant to force you to confront what exactly that criterion is.

Also, given the fact that there are clearly better ways of making money than being an avant-garde artist, I'm willing to give them a little more benefit of the doubt than to assert that they're merely grifters.

 

[TeethWhitener]

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

Do I really need to go over what's wrong with this argument? Besides, I think you already know.

Here's the thing with subjective definitions, though. They cut both ways. If you were shocked at Piss Christ, you're going to hate Haydn's Surprise Symphony.

 

[Mark44]

You're clearly of the opinion that a thing is or isn't art based on some criterion.

Crap vs. not crap. More specifically, could the same work be done by an untrained two-year-old? If so, not art. Could an identical musical work be done by a computer program producing random sounds? If so, not art.

My point is that works like Cage's 4'33" (and before it, (now-less-controversial) works by Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Wagner, etc.) are meant to force you to confront what exactly that criterion is.

See above for a couple of my criteria.

Also, given the fact that there are clearly better ways of making money than being an avant-garde artist, I'm willing to give them a little more benefit of the doubt than to assert that they're merely grifters.

As my father used to say, ' "Everyone to their own tastes," said the old maid as she kissed the cow.'

 

[russ_watters]

Also, given the fact that there are clearly better ways of making money than being an avant-garde artist, I'm willing to give them a little more benefit of the doubt than to assert that they're merely grifters.

I think you have that backwards: The lack of financial success increases the motive to become a grifter

 

[Rive]

Since engineers are now deciding what is and isn't art, are you going to let artists decide what is and isn't engineering?

As an engineer I'm not really interested in deciding what's art and what isn't. (What I am interested is, is my wallet and free time.)
Kinda' like a dog's way to handle things. Apart from the 'pee' part, of course.

So my personal answer to the original question of the topic - I dislike complex audio signals which I can't just 'walk away' from if I want to...

 

[bhobba]

Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead once spent 300 pages proving that 1+1=2. What's the value in that?

Ask Godel. Their was intense discussion,on if its possible to derive all of math using logic alone. Russell tried to tackle it by doing it.. But Godel showed it was a chimera. Most people find Godel's result quite counter intuitive and interesting. Practical applications - well it would be very nice for a programmer to have a program that could be run to show it will terminate. But Turing showed its really equivalent to Godel's theorem which on the surface merely looks interesting and the domain of pure math/logic types. That's the strange thing about math especially and science in general. What looks totally useless can be quite important in practical work. Arts are not like that - it seems peculiar to math/science.

Thanks
Bill

 

[TeethWhitener]

More specifically, could the same work be done by an untrained two-year-old? If so, not art.

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

Could an identical musical work be done by a computer program producing random sounds? If so, not art.

Aside from the fact that there have been some pretty brilliant studies in colored noise, if we agree that there are sounds that are music and not-music, then we can also agree that the landscape of soundspace has plenty of sections which are not music. If an AI program produced a composition akin to Mozart, would it still be music? The question remains: there is some criterion that we use to judge whether something is art, and it's not valueless to try to tease out what exactly that criterion is.

 

[TeethWhitener]

What looks totally useless can be quite important in practical work. Arts are not like that - it seems peculiar to math/science.

I'm not sure you believe this. If you enjoy classical music, then you have to know it came out of experiments with Renaissance tonality. If you enjoy Romantic music, it came out of extending the classical vocabulary via chromaticism. If you think that virtually any modern movie soundtrack lends something to the film itself, you have to acknowledge the 20th century experiments in abandoning functional harmony and focusing on evoking emotions not with distinct musical themes and motifs, but directly with ambience.

 

[russ_watters]

Do I really need to go over what's wrong with this argument?

Yes, please. I try to be explicit and I appreciate the same in return.

 

[Mark44]

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

Probably not, except to the ears of the child's parents.

Aside from the fact that there have been some pretty brilliant studies in colored noise, if we agree that there are sounds that are music and not-music, then we can also agree that the landscape of soundspace has plenty of sections which are not music. If an AI program produced a composition akin to Mozart, would it still be music? The question remains: there is some criterion that we use to judge whether something is art, and it's not valueless to try to tease out what exactly that criterion is.

I have already listed several criteria that I use. No teasing required.

 

[fresh_42]

More specifically, could the same work be done by an untrained two-year-old? If so, not art. Could an identical musical work be done by a computer program producing random sounds? If so, not

This is basically what I think when I see a Miro. Now, am I wrong or the rest of the world? And who is it to decide this question? The only possible solution is: Allow all, whether some like it or not.

"Le droit de dire et d’imprimer ce que nous pensons est le droit de tout homme libre, don't on ne saurait le priver sans exercer la tyrannie la plus odieuse. Ce privilège nous est ... essentiel ... ; et il serait déplaisant que ceux en qui réside la souveraineté ne pussent pas dire leur avis par écrit."

"The right to say and to print what we think is the right of every free man, of whom we can not deprive him without exercising the most odious tyranny.This privilege is ... essential ... and it would be displeasing that those in whom sovereignty resides can not say their opinion in writing."

 

[TeethWhitener]

Yes, please. I try to be explicit and I appreciate the same in return.

"Art is in the eye of the beholder" is not very explicit. (In a lovely bit of irony, the meaning of "art is in the eye of the beholder" is apparently in the eye of the beholder) Do you mean to say that people are entitled to their opinion of whether something is art? is valuable? Do you mean that the question "Is this art?" is simply subjective?

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

Do you mean to say that you, Russ Watters, are the ultimate arbiter of what is and isn't art? Otherwise, this doesn't really mean anything at all. I get to tell engineers that what they're doing isn't engineering, but it is basically irrelevant to anything, because I'm not the arbiter of what is and isn't engineering.

I gave an example of why subjectivism is a thorny position with the Surprise Symphony. The main difficulty with subjectivism, though, is that it makes the whole question "What is art?" vacuous. If it's just "what I think art is," then there are no objective standards and saying something is art or isn't is arbitrary. It's not necessarily a logically inconsistent position, but it's not particularly enlightening either.

 

[bhobba]

I'm not sure you believe this

Well actually I do. However you make a persuasive argument I had not considered. There is music I would consider absolute junk that inspired music I would say has value. The problem is deciding what is absolute junk and what has actual value. Art itself can't do that - its a personal thing. Math/Science has a pure intellectual component. Dirac for example thought QM had no practical value at all - how wrong he was. That's the point I am trying to make - art is purely personal experience - it doesn't have practical applications. My view is all music has value - no music should be banned - but I do believe some of it so silly its value is in attracting the interest of professionals such as sociologists, psychologists etc as to why they engage in it and even consider it art. Still others not considering it worthless junk but groundbreaking and important. Punk Music IMHO was like that. The music IMHO was mostly atrocious - a few were actually rather interesting commentary such as Stranded by the Saints. The group many think one of the founders of Punk - The Saints - originated here in Brisbane and some guys I worked with conned me into hearing them at a pup. Not my taste but I would not classify it as junk. It was obvious they felt alienated and were trying to express it in music by really speeding up the tempo, being raucous etc. I had a chat to them and they didn't even really know why they did it - it just seemed to reflect how they at that time saw the world. They are still going but changed and are now more Jazz/Blues. I haven't heard their later stuff even though I do like some Blues and most Jazz.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Mark44]

More specifically, could the same work be done by an untrained two-year-old? If so, not art. Could an identical musical work be done by a computer program producing random sounds? If so, not art.

This is basically what I think when I see a Miro. Now, am I wrong or the rest of the world?

It's also what I think when I see some Picassos. Regarding your questions, was the man who cried, "The emperor has no clothes!" wrong, or were all the others who failed to notice the emperor's lack of raiment wrong?

And who is it to decide this question?

We do.
I like what Russ said:

art is in the eye of the beholder, engineering isn't. I'm a "beholder" so I get to tell "artists" that what they are doing isn't art. And besides, I think they already know.

The only possible solution is: Allow all, whether some like it or not.

That's not the poiht of this discussion -- it is what is art and what isn't art. The discussion has nothing to do with allowing this or not allowing that.

"The right to say and to print what we think is the right of every free man, of whom we can not deprive him without exercising the most odious tyranny.This privilege is ... essential ... and it would be displeasing that those in whom sovereignty resides can not say their opinion in writing."

Sure, but this thread isn't about the right of some to say or print whatever -- it's whether we can call it crap or not.

 

[bhobba]

Sure, but this thread isn't about the right of some to say or print whatever -- it's whether we can call it crap or not.

You can call anything you like crap or groundbreaking genius be it science, music art - anything. Its just in math/science facts not personal judgement have a lot to do with the validity of such opinions. Music art etc is simply in the eye of the beholder.

Thatks
Bill

 

[fresh_42]

Sure, but this thread isn't about the right of some to say or print whatever -- it's whether we can call it crap or not.

I think that is exactly the discussion. I've read early in the thread about someone who dislikes opera singing. I love coloratura sopranos, the higher the better. So whose crap is it? There is simply no ruler for it, so it comes down to an absolute measurement made by someone.

 

[Mark44]

I think that is exactly the discussion. I've read early in the thread about someone who dislikes opera singing. I love coloratura sopranos, the higher the better. So whose crap is it? There is simply no ruler for it, so it comes down to an absolute measurement made by someone.

What you're describing is one-dimensional, and I'm saying it's at least two dimensional. I'm making distinctions between "crap art" and actual art on the one hand, but also distinctions between art that I prefer versus art that I don't care much for. I don't care much for opera of any kind, but I recognize and appreciate the abilities that opera singers possess. In a completely different arena, my feelings are similar with golf -- I can appreciate the skills that good golfers have, but I otherwise have no interest in the game.

 

[russ_watters]

"Art is in the eye of the beholder" is not very explicit. (In a lovely bit of irony, the meaning of "art is in the eye of the beholder" is apparently in the eye of the beholder)

It's a common saying and I'm a bit surprised you don't find it clear, but...

Do you mean to say that people are entitled to their opinion of whether something is art? is valuable? Do you mean that the question "Is this art?" is simply subjective?

...apparently you do; yes.

Do you mean to say that you, Russ Watters, are the ultimate arbiter of what is and isn't art?

Certainly not. That would contradict my previous statement!

Otherwise, this doesn't really mean anything at all.

I don't see that at all. It looks perfectly consistent to me. Please note: you changed your wording between the two statements to create a contradiction where none exists. Untangle the wording and the contradiction goes away (I will below).

I get to tell engineers that what they're doing isn't engineering, but it is basically irrelevant to anything, because I'm not the arbiter of what is and isn't engineering.

No, you DON'T get to decide what is engineering because you are not the/an arbiter. There are no twists here - just keep it straight! I do because I am, you don't because you are not. Here's how it works, and please pay attention to the exact wording:

-I am an arbiter of what is and isn't art.
-I am not "the ultimate" arbiter of what is and isn't art.
-You are not an arbiter of what is and isn't engineering.

See the difference now?

 

[TeethWhitener]

I'm making distinctions between "crap art" and actual art on the one hand, but also distinctions between art that I prefer versus art that I don't care much for.

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?"

 

[stevendaryl]

You can call anything you like crap or groundbreaking genius be it science, music art - anything. Its just in math/science facts nor personal judgement have a lot to do with the validity of such opinions. Music art etc is simply in the eye of the beholder.

I'm not so sure that the distinction between art and science/math is that sharp. Yes, there are objective criteria for whether mathematics is correct or not. You can look at a proof and see if every step logically follows from the axioms or from previous theorems or definitions. So that's objective. However, the vast majority of valid proofs are completely boring and uninteresting to anyone. If I randomly generate a syntactically well-formed statement in the language of ZFC, and then prove it, that's not going to be something that anyone is going to be interested in. On the flip side, a mistaken proof can be enormously valuable if it spurs interest in figuring out exactly where the mistake is, what can be done to fix it, are there models for which the statement is true (even if not in the intended model), etc. The notion of good/worthwhile mathematics has a fair amount of subjectivity to it, as well.

 

[TeethWhitener]

...apparently you do; yes.

I was asking what you meant by it. These were three separate questions. See my post 66 above. 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. 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.

This response is confusing to me because you said you were confused about something you actually understood, then interpreted something else backwards, then somehow stuck them together to generate something meaningles. I think if you untangle these things it will make more sense -- particularly if you stop adding and subtracting words to change the meanings of the statements.

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.

-I am an arbiter of what is and isn't art.
-I am not "the ultimate" arbiter of what is and isn't art.
-You are not an arbiter of what is and isn't engineering.

No, you DON'T get to decide what is engineering because you are not the/an arbiter.

Not really germane, but who decides what is and isn't engineering? If someone decided to teach a calligraphy class in the engineering department, who would step forward to say "that's not engineering?"

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

Please note: you changed your wording between the two statements to create a contradiction where none exists.

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.

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.

 

[stevendaryl]

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 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.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not so sure that the distinction between art and science/math is that sharp. Yes, there are objective criteria for whether mathematics is correct or not...

The notion of good/worthwhile mathematics has a fair amount of subjectivity to it, as well.

Not just a fair amount; value judgements are essentially completely subjective. And you can always overlay subjective judgements on top of objective ones. They are, as others have said, different questions.