Only Good and Bad Music?

It is a point of view that excludes judgments of merit on the various genres, which I agree with; in fact, I would even say that "good" and "bad" are categories pertaining to the subjectivity of taste, so I wouldn't use them at all except to express "I like it" and "I don't like it" (this mode being certainly more honest than the pretended objectivity implicit in good/bad manichaeism).

I would say, instead, "well-made" music or not, in relation to the genre.

Regarding music, I would say that it either works or it doesn't work, so I have the illusion of excluding quite a bit of subjectivity

I agree in general Carlos, but I didn't understand what the alternative adjective for "bad music" is or rather... there is Music and that which is not eligible as such, this case is out of category. I am a bit of a taliban on the matter, excuse me.

Gerardo wrote:

... there is Music and what is not eligible as such, this case is out of category.

Music is the art of sounds; we are in 2012 and, for me, if you put together the sound of a hairdryer and that of a vacuum cleaner in an artistic way, that evokes emotions, one can even speak of Music (the genre exists, it is called "environmental music").

True, music is either well-written or poorly written, but the nuances are manifold:

a piece can be technically well-written (therefore on a theoretical level) but sound bad,

conversely, one written without a particularly effective structure, but sounding good or something close to it.

If I had to classify what I write, I would include it in the category of the poorly defined; Carlos, if you remember

a few years ago you made a sort of "ranking" of music: beautiful, ugly, mediocre, and senseless; mine

you ranked at 4th place, precisely senseless; it's true that I see sense in it, at least etymologically, but I admit

that musically speaking, strictly on a musical level, I recognize that what I write suffers from a

difficulty in development, for which the consequence is that the risk is writing music that can be difficultly defined

as such, but rather attempts to put into music what one feels and thinks, like everyone else, but with

results in a 'bain-marie' style (muddled/mixed up).

Piccinesco wrote:

True, music is either well-written or poorly written, but the nuances are manifold:

a piece can be technically well-written (therefore on a theoretical level) but sound bad,

Sorry, but in my opinion, if a piece is well-written, it cannot "sound bad" (timbre aside, obviously). At most, it can be boring and pedantic, but that is another matter.

You're right, it's me using wrong or inappropriate terms sometimes; I'm importing my way of speaking into my writing as well, Zeman_Zoff style: the first takes 12 years to say something,

the second, if he had been a singer, we would have heard only hissing from the mid-high register, an absurd thing.

Ha ha... No way, what are you saying...?

For several decades now, thought has made its way into the creative act of a musical piece; if one were to look for a single term that acts as a dividing line, it wouldn't be bad to also meditate on the "shareable" and "non-shareable."

Xenakis wrote:

For several decades now, thought has made its way into the creative act of a musical piece; if one were to look for a single term that acts as a dividing line, it might not be a bad idea to also meditate on the "shareable" and the "unshareable."

If shareable is paired with discomfort, fear, anxiety, anguish, or mood swings, for me it becomes unshareable regardless; but a question that might arise is, how do we understand what lies beneath a specific piece of music? Who can say with certainty if a piece expressing irony does not actually hide strong anxiety? It is something I experience within myself; even writing lyrics is similar, combining irony and sarcasm with discomfort.

What do you mean by shareable and unshareable?

A phrase comes to mind: "I don't share" what you say or do, yet I accept it, or I respect you; but indeed, sharing can only be necessarily linked to a personal propensity, to one's own judgment, to one's own yardstick, which, although built on solid foundations as in the case of music for some, for me never excludes personal taste, and above all, one's own life experience. With this discussion, we are going very deep and won't get out easily, because no one can know what they might have thought of a specific piece of music if only their life path had taken a different course; even a single detail is enough to perceive what you perceive now in a slightly different way, contrary to it, etc... so the discussion is quite tangled from this point of view (for me); then one must see what you mean by these terms, whether underneath there are nuances that go beyond.

I will add in advance that "what could have been" is interesting in certain cases, because I expect (I say in general) in a certain sense that one will say "I don't care what could have been, but what it is now," something that would indeed confirm a deterministic view of facts, almost without any doubt regarding the fact that since the subject matter is historically constituted on consolidated foundations, the very factor that personality cannot in any way contribute with interpretations that lie outside the means of understanding provided by study, would be endorsed by those who think this way.

CromaDiBrera wrote:

Ha ha... No way, what are you saying...?

For some time now, besides seeing (for example on a label) a word that has nothing to do with it but is actually constructed with the same letters, I get tongue-tied when writing and speaking,
it's a glaring example of how stress affects you; of course, if I put myself (though it might be that deep down they are doing poorly) in Zeman's or Zoff's shoes, I would have peace in my body, and above all in my mind. :ph34r:

Carlos wrote:

«music is either well written (therefore it is good music) or poorly written (therefore it is bad music)». I am not entirely convinced even of this, but I am more convinced of this than the contrary. What do you think?

I don't feel the need to divide music into these two segments. If I can, I implement different divisions, such as "music I like - music I don't like", and then more technical divisions, such as "innovative music - non-innovative music", "music of one genre - music of another genre", "historically important music - historically less important music" etc.

There are things well written that I do not like, see all of Massenet, and things written "badly" that I like, see the themes of some cartoons. Furthermore, the idea of objectively and globally dividing all music scares me because I always see an ethical intent in this desire to divide; because unlike Croma, in the definition "well-written music and poorly-written music" I see a judgment, not only of aesthetic value but of ethical value, at least latently. This does not mean that the possibility of judging a piece in technical terms does not exist, but if one wants to go into the technical side, one must strive to be precise (the piece is poorly written because...), to circumscribe the field (the piece is poorly written if we take 1700s classical instrumental music as the reference landscape...), and not to attach ethical judgments to those who wrote or listen to that piece.

I was hoping for a multiplicity of voices; it consoles me, because it at least partially justifies the fact that we are not convinced by the uniqueness of any of the possible classifications. Therefore, for now, thank you. I will take a couple of your statements here and there to reflect on and tell you what I think, so we can compare notes.

I'll start with CromaDiBrera, who says it is a point of view that excludes judgments of merit regarding various genres, and says they agree; indeed, my definition was heading in exactly that direction, namely, if it is "well-written music" it can be a symphony or a commercial jingle, but if it is well-written, it is well-written. At this point I will supplement, borrowing from Valchiria, who says that it either works or it doesn't: exactly! This allows us to avoid like the plague different judgments that would bring into play the legitimacy or lack thereof of a certain type of music compared to another. So, naturally, even though I understood what Piccinesco meant when stating that a piece can be technically well-written (therefore at a theoretical level) but sound bad, in reality for "well-written" I would mean well-written "tout court," meaning that, besides being correct, it sounds good, etc. (I'll open a parenthesis regarding my classification from a while ago, which I didn't remember, when I said that Piccinesco's music "made no sense"; well, aside from the fact that I hope I at least justified such a slap, in this case, probably, one of the elements that could make me say it was "well-written" was missing. Parenthesis closed, with apologies for my sometimes overly blunt frankness...).

I do not feel like embracing Xenakis's choice when they say it wouldn't be bad to also meditate on the "shareable" and "unshareable," because this definitely puts objectivity in the cellar and brings subjective evaluations into the field, with many implications, certainly, but very far from being as objective as possible. For example, I could say that I do not share (perhaps for ethical reasons?) Ushikawa's music, but this would not automatically mean that it is "badly written" music, nor that Ushikawa is a poor composer.

Thallo says that, if they can, they implement different classifications like "music I like - music I don't like," and understandably so, but this type of classification is precisely what I thought to avoid when trying to establish the validity of the one in question. However, naturally, it is a classification we all make, despite it being the furthest from objectivity of them all. When you say there are well-written things that I don't like (you see all of Massenet) and badly written things that I do like (you see the themes of some cartoons), you are combining two evaluation criteria. To put it this way (since I know you are sensitive to the subject), there are well-cooked dishes that I don't like (like "I-don't-know-what") and badly cooked dishes that I do like (like McDonald's hamburgers): we are combining a technical judgment with a subjective one. No one can say that McDonald's does haute cuisine. That doesn't stop anyone from gorging themselves on that stuff... While I don't think you hit the mark (at least regarding the meaning I give to the proposed assumption), when you say that in the definition "well-written music and badly written music" you see a judgment, not only of aesthetic value but of ethical value, at least latently, because it is anything but that. Schönberg's «Musikbegleitung für eine lichtspielszene» is a very well-written piece. The fact that it is liked or not (and it absolutely horrifies me) does not change the fact that I find it a piece written with absolutely astounding mastery. Therefore, no aesthetic judgment, let alone an ethical one. The ethical judgment lies more in Xenakis's "shareable"/"unshareable," so, as I said above, it is far from my goal, which is to identify the possibility of being as objective as possible (provided that is possible, of course).

Dafterward, I will close by borrowing one last statement from Thallo, which I share and which was, as far as I am concerned, implied: namely, if one wants to be technical, one must strive to be precise (the piece is badly written because...), to circumscribe the field (the piece is badly written if we take [this] as the reference landscape). I repeat: I agree. This is the exact purpose of the statement. What I mean is: is it possible to state that Shostakovich's Seventh Symphony and «Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band» are two "well-written tracks"? In my opinion, yes, and this is only possible because 1) we avoid giving an aesthetic judgment, 2) we avoid emphasizing our preference for one or the other of the two tracks or musical genres, 3) we place each of the two tracks in its respective order of belonging and, based on that, establish that they are well-written.

I look forward to hearing from you. Until next time, if you wish.

Carlos wrote:

I do not feel like agreeing with Xenakis's choice when he says that it wouldn't be bad to also meditate on the "shareable" and "unshareable," because this definitely puts objectivity in the cellar and brings subjective evaluations into play, with many implications, certainly, but very far from being as objective as possible.

I understand your point, Carlos, but you have forgotten my premise (and perhaps Piccinesco's as well). There is a century of music that is no longer narrative; it is based on artistic thought. Thought creates concepts... that you can more or less share. As Thallo reminds us, there is no longer a reference model with which to compare and say "it works" or "it doesn't work," as Valchiria also tells us.

Or rather, I gave a Like for her statement, because conceptual work does not exclude craftsmanship... but the form of craftsmanship depends precisely on the subjectivity of the composer and not on their way of expressing themselves within a "pre-defined" grid.

Faced with great subjectivity, one cannot respond in an objective way—objective to whom? Or with respect to what?

These are just questions that I think everyone should ask themselves, and it is not easy to answer.

Xenakis wrote:

There is a century of music that is no longer narrative, it is based on artistic thought. Thought creates concepts… that you can more or less share.

Ok, give me some examples, because this is too vague for me. But I would point out to you that you are talking about shareable concepts and not about shareable music, whereas I am talking about music written well or poorly. But I await your reply.

...I must use hyperbole, I hope it is read between the lines.

If I find the farts that a trombone can emit interesting and, through a great work of craftsmanship that I do with the instrumentalist, I manage to propose something that "works" (objectively a trombone can also make farts); in the model you proposed, how would this work be evaluated?

Ultimately, I must agree with the fact that it is music (and it is, written for traditional instruments, performable). What could say that it doesn't "work"? That it isn't music? That it isn't well-written?

Could you tell me what "well-written" means?

If it is performable and holds up from a conceptual point of view... only subjectivity regarding the sharing of the idea could leave it out.

I hope it is clear what I mean, or rather, what I am asking myself... because mine is not intended to be an answer

Ok, it's very clear... , but I don't know how to answer you. I have to think about it.

I understand Carlos's point. But I am moving forward with some points of my own, not necessarily going "against" others, but to take my reasoning to its extreme consequences.

McDonald's is "badly written" but people like it. In reality, from many technical points of view, McDonald's is very well written. They have a production system that runs like clockwork, they manage to handle many requests in a short time, they keep prices low while buying most products in the countries where they sell (for example, Italian stores sell Italian meat), they are specially monitored by health authorities, and in fact, they tend to be as clean as other establishments (neither more nor less), and nothing is precisely disgusting. Let's say they give you what you pay for. So, you can say that McDonald's is badly written if you compare it to other types of establishments, i.e., if you give a LIMITED technical judgment to a specific field. But if your argument is of another kind, McDonald's becomes an example to follow. These days I am doing a consultancy in a venue where I am trying to improve the lunch break production line, and my reference model is McDonald's (in a broad sense... )

Ultimately, I think that in music many pieces, repertoires, and compositions have different values compared to the discussions we want to have. I think that many "badly written" pieces would reveal other potential just by changing the frame of reference

Thallo, probably McDonald's works. The next question is: "if it works (term typically related to technique) is it automatically also art"?