Is classical music really better?

[davejonescue]

Music that has no words one is going to be hard-pressed to call immoral. Regardless if it is classical or any other type of instrumental. By the presence of words enters in the immorality or moral nature of the music, taking it from neutral (or instrumental only), to either or.

 

[Ploutos]

Music that has no words one is going to be hard-pressed to call immoral. Regardless if it is classical or any other type of instrumental. By the presence of words enters in the immorality or moral nature of the music, taking it from neutral (or instrumental only), to either or.

So what would you think of a Wagner opera? It's wonderful music, the lyrics are in German, and I'm listening to the music, not watching the staging. Are any moral considerations thereby removed?

 

[davejonescue]

So what would you think of a Wagner opera? It's wonderful music, the lyrics are in German, and I'm listening to the music, not watching the staging. Are any moral considerations thereby removed?

I dont know? I guess that would be a question as to if you knew the lyrics to be immoral or not if even in another language? And then you have to ask the question if so, why you would be choosing that piece of music over others that have no words? For instance, it is just as raunchy to listen to an adult film as it is to watch it. On the other hand, I believe your innocence would be preserved, if you did not know what they were saying in German, if immoral, until, if when, if ever, you came to find out. There is some music that really isnt immoral, nor moral; meaning, it doesnt intend to propagate any sense of overt morality, yet, it refrains from promoting or displaying outright immorality. I have never listened to Wagner, nor would understand German, so I cant tell you what they are saying, or if it does the latter. But for instance, cussing someone out in a foreign language may not offend the one who hears; but may be an offense to the one who does so knowing what they are saying are cursings. Basically, if you know, you are no longer guiltless.

 

[Ploutos]

I have listened to Wagner extensively and have some idea of what's going on in the Ring Cycle. I don't know German well enough to understand every word as I'm listening, but I have and do sometimes listen with English translations or synopses in front of me.

But I won't listen to Lady Gaga or most rap. (Mind you, I used to: I was an avid fan of Lady Gaga's first two albums back in the late 2000s.)

So, am I being inconsistent?

 

[davejonescue]

I have listened to Wagner extensively and have some idea of what's going on in the Ring Cycle. I don't know German well enough to understand every word as I'm listening, but I have and do sometimes listen with English translations or synopses in front of me.

But I won't listen to Lady Gaga or most rap. (Mind you, I used to: I was an avid fan of Lady Gaga's first two albums back in the late 2000s.)

So, am I being inconsistent?

Only if you are aware that the lyrics are similar; regardless of what language or medium they may be in. A pig dressed as a princess, is still a pig none the less.

 

[Pomopu]

My take, again, is that beauty properly considered has an aesthetic element that can be disconnected from element of "right" or "wrong." Ave Maria is glorious, but breaks a number of commandments in its being totally off on the theology of Mary. Is Ave Maria beautiful? Yes; the melody is beautiful, the instrumentation is beautiful, the voices are beautiful--aesthetically considered. Is it beautiful, in terms of "right" or "wrong?" No, it is quite ugly in that regard.

Is a worldly, pagan, God-hating runway model beautiful? Yes. I mean, why else is she a runway model--in an aesthetic sense. Is she beautiful, in terms of "right?" Hardly, not having been cleansed by the blood of Christ, she is quite ugly.

Since Christ is Beauty Incarnate, since Jesus Christ is Beauty with a capital B, since all creation finds its end in Him, since he sustains Creation, since he partook Himself in Creation, since as it were the Father created by refracting all things through the eternal begotten Son, (think, Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon album cover), we find laws of beauty. Because Jesus= Beauty, there is objective beauty. This is why, presently, only one person on earth is the most beautiful person on Earth, and only known to God (it isn't me, that I know. Beside the point.) As I said, the circle of fifths, the Hz frequency between notes, the fact that a Major chord must lower the pitch of the third note in the chord to ensure it sounds in tune, that is to say, in God's providence, a major chord with three notes perfectly in tune sounds dissonant, but strangely, one must slightly lower the third pitch of the chord. This shows, it just has to show, that there is an objectivity to beauty, but we know that all beauty is straining to glorify the Son and finds it basis in the sustaining of the Son. If a pagan were to change the lyrics to Amazing Grace to be horrifying, we have to say from a musical standpoint, according to the laws of music, it is beautiful. Yet, it falls fall short of glorifying the Son and in this sense it is ugly.

In Christ, the "aesthetic" realm of beauty and the "moral" realm of beauty perfectly coalesce. Ultimately, what has precedence is the "moral/spiritual" realm of beauty. And yet, there is a very close connection between the two realms of beauty. Heavy metal music tends to dissonance, discord, walls of sound pulsating but without direction, without tonality. Is it a coincidence the lyrics tend to be dark, hateful, spiteful, etc? But while there is a close connection, there is a separable connection. Heavy metal music might have Christian lyrics to the core. But we sense the ill-fittedness of this arrangement. The aesthetic realm is not fitted to the moral realm.

And so any judgment by a Christian of art must be nuanced. First, 1) How does this glorify the Son in terms of revelatory content of the piece (is it painting of a couple copulating? Likely, "Ugly," in the moral sense. Do the lyrics uplift Satan? Burn that trash) 2) How does this accord with the principles of beauty known since the ancient Greeks: proportion, symmetry, etc, which have analogues from architecture, to painting, to photography, to interior design, to music to the principles of tragedy outlined by Aristotle and of good narrative, etc.

Back in the day, good art was that which imitated, reflected nature well. This seems a decent standard. We could also think of good art as that which evokes virtue-bringing emotions, habits, considerations. That's fine too. Ultimately, I think that beautiful art transforms, not merely imitates, nature. Just like a poem messes up syntax to raise the level of spoken word to an almost heavenly level, good visual art, for instance, takes God's beautiful creation and "disorders" it to "order it" anew. Artists reflect God by making, as God once made. But we use existing materials. But existing Creation is shot through by reflecting God's glory. The heaven's declare, do they not? That it both brings us to Jesus Christ, and does so by straining to accord with the eternal principles of Beauty inherent in all things, this is what good art should do.

Non-Christians can without knowing create amazing, God-glorifying artifacts. They have the law in their heart, natural law, and they have the God-given ability to know what is beautiful.

Finally, I want to add that there is an internal mechanism given to man by God that God uses to allow men to appreciate beauty. Man has the ability to be dazed, shocked, made speechless, by beautiful vistas in creation, but also beautiful paintings, beautiful songs, beautiful people. This can ground any theory of aesthetic judgment/taste. Having established there is a metaphysical basis for objectivity, because Jesus Christ is Beauty Incarnate, and created a beautiful Creation; and having established the obvious point that the fact we have a word "beauty" means God gave man the ability to take in that which is beautiful; so there is as it were an organ, a mechanism in each man and women to "get" that something is beautiful; THEN the category of taste comes in, as I pointed out earlier.

Sin disorders our sense of what is beautiful. Sin makes people think that what is aesthetically ugly is aesthetically beautiful, and what is morally ugly is morally beautiful. So, we rely on people trained in painting, or art, or sculpture, or photography, to train our tastes. Humbly, we must admit that our sense of what is beautiful is not the standard. Jesus Christ is the standard. And we must seek to learn, by looking at 1) concensus a) both through time and b) contemporary consensus and 2) by going to a) experts in a field and b) our own experiences .. . . Thus, one can become a gifted sommelier in a similar way one becomes a gifted critic of art.

Finally, I want to add that this "sense of the beautiful" is like "common sense." This category of common sense, commmon knowlege, has explanatory power for why certain things should be done, why certain people should think certain things, and is accepted widely. Likewise, Ploutos is searching for a ground to say this genre is better than that genre. I would appeal to the "common sense of the beautiful," and say that while sin can disorder it, and there can be objections, on the whole consensus is a fine guide to determining what is beautiful. I can say that certain tribal dances are beautiful in a restricted or limited sense, but do not attain to the sublime, ecstatic expressions of something by Mahler or Beethoven. This isn't ethnocentrism. It isn't subjectivism. I can appeal to common sense of beauty; by common experience of Mahler, in contrast to the common experience of tribal drumming. Etc.

So there is certainly a strong subjective element. But this can not stop a discussion. https://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/top-rated/ on this website, Kentucky Branch Grand Stout is the highest rated beer. This is for no other reason than that thousands of beer drinkers have evaluated all the beers, and in their trained palate, trained by tasting thousands of beers, they have collectively agreed that it is simply an amazing beer. Some people may rate this beer 1/5. This means that they have bad taste. Objectively, they need to learn that Kentucky Branch Grand Stout is a better beer than Budweiser. So too, if someone says that a certain Bach fugue is 1/5, we can train them, point them to the "beer advocate" of musical consensus, and show them by pointing out the technical expressions, the emotional evocations, the historical feeling, that Bach is superior to this or that.

 

[Charles Johnson]

So there is certainly a strong subjective element. But this can not stop a discussion. https://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/top-rated/ on this website, Kentucky Branch Grand Stout is the highest rated beer. This is for no other reason than that thousands of beer drinkers have evaluated all the beers, and in their trained palate, trained by tasting thousands of beers, they have collectively agreed that it is simply an amazing beer. Some people may rate this beer 1/5. This means that they have bad taste. Objectively, they need to learn that Kentucky Branch Grand Stout is a better beer than Budweiser.

Have you considered that people might be conditioned to review a product in a certain way based on its price, existing reviews, and presentation, and not because it's "objectively good"?

When professional sommeliers have been tested in blind tests, they have proven unable to distinguish expensive and inexpensive, or good and bad wines.

 

[Pomopu]

Have you considered that people might be conditioned to review a product in a certain way based on its price, existing reviews, and presentation, and not because it's "objectively good"?

When professional sommeliers have been tested in blind tests, they have proven unable to distinguish expensive and inexpensive, or good and bad wines.

Yes, this is why I have a room to say people make mistakes, have ill-judgements, and I am not against saying swaths of people can be misguided. Because of sin. But it should not stop a discussion, only add an element of careful rigor to it.

EDIT: Y'all all need to know my burning passion to maintain an objectivity to the world of art is because it is a necessary logical followthrough from a Christian theology, and it glorifies the Son more to operate under this assumption that to lose ourselves in the malaise of epistemological doubt "'cuz, subjective."

 

[davejonescue]

My take, again, is that beauty properly considered has an aesthetic element that can be disconnected from element of "right" or "wrong." Ave Maria is glorious, but breaks a number of commandments in its being totally off on the theology of Mary. Is Ave Maria beautiful? Yes; the melody is beautiful, the instrumentation is beautiful, the voices are beautiful--aesthetically considered. Is it beautiful, in terms of "right" or "wrong?" No, it is quite ugly in that regard.

Is a worldly, pagan, God-hating runway model beautiful? Yes. I mean, why else is she a runway model--in an aesthetic sense. Is she beautiful, in terms of "right?" Hardly, not having been cleansed by the blood of Christ, she is quite ugly.

Since Christ is Beauty Incarnate, since Jesus Christ is Beauty with a capital B, since all creation finds its end in Him, since he sustains Creation, since he partook Himself in Creation, since as it were the Father created by refracting all things through the eternal begotten Son, (think, Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon album cover), we find laws of beauty. Because Jesus= Beauty, there is objective beauty. This is why, presently, only one person on earth is the most beautiful person on Earth, and only known to God (it isn't me, that I know. Beside the point.) As I said, the circle of fifths, the Hz frequency between notes, the fact that a Major chord must lower the pitch of the third note in the chord to ensure it sounds in tune, that is to say, in God's providence, a major chord with three notes perfectly in tune sounds dissonant, but strangely, one must slightly lower the third pitch of the chord. This shows, it just has to show, that there is an objectivity to beauty, but we know that all beauty is straining to glorify the Son and finds it basis in the sustaining of the Son. If a pagan were to change the lyrics to Amazing Grace to be horrifying, we have to say from a musical standpoint, according to the laws of music, it is beautiful. Yet, it falls fall short of glorifying the Son and in this sense it is ugly.

In Christ, the "aesthetic" realm of beauty and the "moral" realm of beauty perfectly coalesce. Ultimately, what has precedence is the "moral/spiritual" realm of beauty. And yet, there is a very close connection between the two realms of beauty. Heavy metal music tends to dissonance, discord, walls of sound pulsating but without direction, without tonality. Is it a coincidence the lyrics tend to be dark, hateful, spiteful, etc? But while there is a close connection, there is a separable connection. Heavy metal music might have Christian lyrics to the core. But we sense the ill-fittedness of this arrangement. The aesthetic realm is not fitted to the moral realm.

And so any judgment by a Christian of art must be nuanced. First, 1) How does this glorify the Son in terms of revelatory content of the piece (is it painting of a couple copulating? Likely, "Ugly," in the moral sense. Do the lyrics uplift Satan? Burn that trash) 2) How does this accord with the principles of beauty known since the ancient Greeks: proportion, symmetry, etc, which have analogues from architecture, to painting, to photography, to interior design, to music to the principles of tragedy outlined by Aristotle and of good narrative, etc.

Back in the day, good art was that which imitated, reflected nature well. This seems a decent standard. We could also think of good art as that which evokes virtue-bringing emotions, habits, considerations. That's fine too. Ultimately, I think that beautiful art transforms, not merely imitates, nature. Just like a poem messes up syntax to raise the level of spoken word to an almost heavenly level, good visual art, for instance, takes God's beautiful creation and "disorders" it to "order it" anew. Artists reflect God by making, as God once made. But we use existing materials. But existing Creation is shot through by reflecting God's glory. The heaven's declare, do they not? That it both brings us to Jesus Christ, and does so by straining to accord with the eternal principles of Beauty inherent in all things, this is what good art should do.

Non-Christians can without knowing create amazing, God-glorifying artifacts. They have the law in their heart, natural law, and they have the God-given ability to know what is beautiful.

Finally, I want to add that there is an internal mechanism given to man by God that God uses to allow men to appreciate beauty. Man has the ability to be dazed, shocked, made speechless, by beautiful vistas in creation, but also beautiful paintings, beautiful songs, beautiful people. This can ground any theory of aesthetic judgment/taste. Having established there is a metaphysical basis for objectivity, because Jesus Christ is Beauty Incarnate, and created a beautiful Creation; and having established the obvious point that the fact we have a word "beauty" means God gave man the ability to take in that which is beautiful; so there is as it were an organ, a mechanism in each man and women to "get" that something is beautiful; THEN the category of taste comes in, as I pointed out earlier.

Sin disorders our sense of what is beautiful. Sin makes people think that what is aesthetically ugly is aesthetically beautiful, and what is morally ugly is morally beautiful. So, we rely on people trained in painting, or art, or sculpture, or photography, to train our tastes. Humbly, we must admit that our sense of what is beautiful is not the standard. Jesus Christ is the standard. And we must seek to learn, by looking at 1) concensus a) both through time and b) contemporary consensus and 2) by going to a) experts in a field and b) our own experiences .. . . Thus, one can become a gifted sommelier in a similar way one becomes a gifted critic of art.

Finally, I want to add that this "sense of the beautiful" is like "common sense." This category of common sense, commmon knowlege, has explanatory power for why certain things should be done, why certain people should think certain things, and is accepted widely. Likewise, Ploutos is searching for a ground to say this genre is better than that genre. I would appeal to the "common sense of the beautiful," and say that while sin can disorder it, and there can be objections, on the whole consensus is a fine guide to determining what is beautiful. I can say that certain tribal dances are beautiful in a restricted or limited sense, but do not attain to the sublime, ecstatic expressions of something by Mahler or Beethoven. This isn't ethnocentrism. It isn't subjectivism. I can appeal to common sense of beauty; by common experience of Mahler, in contrast to the common experience of tribal drumming. Etc.

So there is certainly a strong subjective element. But this can not stop a discussion. https://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/top-rated/ on this website, Kentucky Branch Grand Stout is the highest rated beer. This is for no other reason than that thousands of beer drinkers have evaluated all the beers, and in their trained palate, trained by tasting thousands of beers, they have collectively agreed that it is simply an amazing beer. Some people may rate this beer 1/5. This means that they have bad taste. Objectively, they need to learn that Kentucky Branch Grand Stout is a better beer than Budweiser. So too, if someone says that a certain Bach fugue is 1/5, we can train them, point them to the "beer advocate" of musical consensus, and show them by pointing out the technical expressions, the emotional evocations, the historical feeling, that Bach is superior to this or that.

But I am failing to see how you can say Jesus is the epitome of both aesthetic/moral beauty, and then say that aesthetic beauty is "common sense" but then the Bible tells us there was no beauty about Jesus that would make on desire him, Isa. 53:2. Yet if Jesus is the most beautiful of all, either objective beauty is not common sense, or it is not based on aesthetics.

 

[Pomopu]

But I am failing to see how you can say Jesus is the epitome of both aesthetic/moral beauty, and then say that aesthetic beauty is "common sense" but then the Bible tells us there was no beauty about Jesus that would make on desire him, Isa. 53:2.

As the eternally begotten Son of God, he IS HIMSELF BEAUTY!! And in his glorified state HE IS HIMSELF THE EPITOME, the paragon OF THE IMAGE OF GOD!

I'm sorry for shouting. <3 If you were in a room with me, I would be gripping you by the shoulders. In his humiliation Isiah 53:2 holds, but now? All bets off, brother. It doesn't get better than the beatific vision of the SON. It is like a friendly shouting.

EDIT: because of the doctrine of the simplicity of God, by the way. That is why, I didn't explain that.

 

[davejonescue]

As the eternally begotten Son of God, he IS HIMSELF BEAUTY!! And in his glorified state HE IS HIMSELF THE EPITOME, the paragon OF THE IMAGE OF GOD!

I'm sorry for shouting. <3 If you were in a room with me, I would be gripping you by the shoulders. In his humiliation Isiah 53:2 holds, but now? All bets off, brother. It doesn't get better than the beatific vision of the SON. It is like a friendly shouting.

That is not what I am talking about. Whether in his incarnate state, his eternal state, his glorified state, Jesus is the epitome of beauty. But it is not based on common sense aesthetics, that is my point. If this were so, who would deny him?

 

[Pomopu]

That is not what I am talking about. Whether in his incarnate state, his eternal state, his glorified state, Jesus is the epitome of beauty. But it is not based on common sense aesthetics, that is my point. If this were so, who would deny him?

Oh, I see. Yes, I would have to spend a lot of effort writing about this. First, I mean, sin. Sin disrupts. Sin prevents us.

But second, get rid of our theology for a moment. Common sense of beauty has analogue's with common sense knowledge. That's the better way to consider it. Like, we just get that symmetry, on the whole, is more appealing to the eye than asymmetrical things.

 

[davejonescue]

Oh, I see. Yes, I would have to spend a lot of effort writing about this. First, I mean, sin. Sin disrupts. Sin prevents us.

But second, get rid of our theology for a moment. Common sense of beauty has analogue's with common sense knowledge. That's the better way to consider it. Like, we just get that symmetry, on the whole, is more appealing to the eye than asymmetrical things.

But this is where I am getting at. You are saying that beauty is common sense. And that we can use consensus to define what is objectively beautiful, yet, classical music hasnt been in the top 5 genres of music for a long time, even though more people have free access to it now days than ever before. This is kind of why I think there may be a starting off with a personal presupposition here, and then trying to find reasons to defend it, but all of the reasons keep going back to what seem as opinions rather than objective rules. I mean I can show this chart, and what will the excuse be? "Well those people just have immature or unrefined tastes....because a refined taste would be what I deem as superior, regardless of what the consensus is." This then begs the question is what we are claiming to be superior really superior, or by claiming it is, is this a reflection of a superior complex?

 

[Ploutos]

Likewise, Ploutos is searching for a ground to say this genre is better than that genre.

Just to clarify, I am a die-hard lifelong classical music fan, and it represents the vast majority of what I listen to. However, I am not searching for such a ground. I don't know that there is such a ground, and I'm challenging anyone who thinks otherwise to convince me. As it stands, I view my love of classical music as personal preference, and not much more.

 

[Pomopu]

Just to clarify, I am a die-hard lifelong classical music fan, and it represents the vast majority of what I listen to. However, I am not searching for such a ground. I don't know that there is such a ground, and I'm challenging anyone who thinks otherwise to convince me. As it stands, I view my love of classical music as personal preference, and not much more.

Ohk. For sure. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Ploutos]

Ohk. For sure. Thanks for the clarification.

Don't get me wrong: if there were such a ground, that would be highly convenient for me.

But, I have long suspected that there isn't such a ground, and that's okay. Personal preferences are allowed, and I believe there is wisdom in making a distinction between "favorite" and "best".

 

[Pomopu]

But this is where I am getting at. You are saying that beauty is common sense. And that we can use consensus to define what is objectively beautiful, yet, classical music hasnt been in the top 5 genres of music for a long time, even though more people have free access to it now days than ever before. This is kind of why I think there may be a starting off with a personal presupposition here, and then trying to find reasons to defend it, but all of the reasons keep going back to what seem as opinions rather than objective rules. I mean I can show this chart, and what will the excuse be? "Well those people just have immature or unrefined tastes....because a refined taste would be what I deem as superior, regardless of what the consensus is." This then begs the question is what we are claiming to be superior really superior, or by claiming it is, is this a reflection of a superior complex?

View attachment 11500

Yes, beauty is common sense. The fact pop music is so listened to proves this. This chart supports my argument. It is literally a very beautiful genre of music. Period. No doubt. Pop music is lovely. So is rock, and dance/electric. So, by the way, McDonalds is literally tasty. And if you put a chart of how many people eat McDonald's versus 5 star cuisine, it would be no contest. Does this mean 5-star cuisine is less tasty? No. But the "concensus" im talking about is in terms of expert consensus, trained consensus, critical consensus.

What I am saying is that, if someone exclusively listened to pop, and exclusively claimed pop is the best, I would have very strong grounds to disagree, based on a common sense of beauty, and experts could instruct them to begin to appreciate Bach.

I think we need a superior complex. We need a hierarchy of goods, beauty, and things that glorify God. We need 5 star beer, and 1 star beer like Budweiser which is consumed far more than craft beer. But barriers exist; culturally, monetarily, etc. We need a sense that pop music is good, but there is even better music that exists.

 

[Pomopu]

Don't get me wrong: if there were such a ground, that would be highly convenient for me.

But, I have long suspected that there isn't such a ground, and that's okay. Personal preferences are allowed, and I believe there is wisdom in making a distinction between "favorite" and "best".

Sad. I haven't convinced you yet

I think there is, I think critical consensus is hugely important. Someone could say, "Frank Lloyd Wright made ugly houses." They are wrong. Why? Something intangible, is why. But other reasons; 1) principles of proportion, symmetry, color 2) critical expert consensus 3) Wright standing the test of time 4) the intangible "common sense of beauty" God gave us.

So that person who thinks Wright made ugly houses is a victim of the noetic effects of sin, as it were. Their sense of what is beautiful is not trained well. Broken, as it were. They need people to show them that the placement of shape, the materials, the shadow and light, the movement of the structure, is genuinely beautiful.

 

[Charles Johnson]

Sad. I haven't convinced you yet

I think there is, I think critical consensus is hugely important. Someone could say, "Frank Lloyd Wright made ugly houses." They are wrong. Why? Something intangible, is why. But other reasons; 1) principles of proportion, symmetry, color 2) critical expert consensus 3) Wright standing the test of time 4) the intangible "common sense of beauty" God gave us.

So that person who thinks Wright made ugly houses is a victim of the noetic effects of sin, as it were. Their sense of what is beautiful is not trained well. Broken, as it were. They need people to show them that the placement of shape, the materials, the shadow and light, the movement of the structure, is genuinely beautiful.

Hold on, you're an adherent to classical music, but modern architecture?

In spite of all the criteria you're pushing favoring classical architecture? ("proportion, symmetry, color, expert consensus, the test of time, the intangible")

It really just seems like you're defending your own preferences as "self-evidently beautiful."

And I say that as someone who appreciates both classical music and FLW.

 

[Pomopu]

Hold on, you're an adherent to classical music, but modern architecture?

In spite of all the criteria you're pushing favoring classical architecture? ("proportion, symmetry, color, expert consensus, the test of time, the intangible")

It really just seems like you're defending your own preferences as "self-evidently beautiful."

And I say that as someone who appreciates both classical music and FLW.

Uh, I mean I've never claimed classical purism, as it were. And no, I've been constantly and annoyingly referring people to critical expert consensus, not "pompu's" consensus.

I mean my favorite song is Weird Fishes by Radiohead. Most of my playlist is Tame Impala inspired electro-dance-punk-indie-psychedelic stuff. But that doesn't mean that stuff is better than Bach. It just isn't. I'm just wrong to have my affections placed in inferior songs.

 

[Charles Johnson]

Uh, I mean I've never claimed classical purism, as it were. And no, I've been constantly and annoyingly referring people to critical expert consensus, not "pompu's" consensus.

You've only been referring people to "critical expert consensus" insofar as that consensus allegedly supports the superiority of classical music.

Here are the top-rated albums on Metacritic, an aggregator of music reviews by professions critics. How many are classical?

Now are you going to stick to that criteria, or is the criteria going to change again to support the conclusion that classical music is better?

 

[Pomopu]

You've only been referring people to "critical expert consensus" insofar as that consensus allegedly supports the superiority of classical music.

Here are the top-rated albums on Metacritic, an aggregator of music reviews by professions critics. How many are classical?

Now are you going to stick to that criteria, or is the criteria going to change again to support the conclusion that classical music is better?

There is certainly value in Metacritic, and people should seriously consider their opinions, moreso than the guy off the street. It is appropriate and good to refer to communities making decisions on music. However, it isn't really the point. They aren't comparing Bach to the Beetles, they don't even have a category for classical music that I saw. They aren't making timeless judgements, they aren't trying to. The question Metacritic is asking is not the question we are asking on this forum.

I don't really get the pushback. I've established Christologically that things are either more or less beautiful insofar as they reach to him or are far from him. It is a short step to say God gave us a sense to parse out what is more or less beautiful, and that people more experienced than us help us reach these conclusions.

 

[Ploutos]

This thread isn't really about Frank Lloyd Wright, but I'll bite, briefly.

Florida Southern College, in central Florida, houses what I believe is the largest collection of FLW architecture in one place. I've been there a number of times, and I'm not impressed. The guy imported his complex about being short into everything he built, with the result that and this day and age of trigger warnings and safe spaces, claustrophobics could probably file a class-action lawsuit against the college. The buildings are not, to my eye, particularly beautiful, and I have been told by people who work at the college that the buildings are notoriously challenging and expensive to maintain, and that basic common sense practices were overlooked in construction in favor of the vision. Thanks, but pass.

@Pomopu - you've set out a premise that no one disagrees with: that beauty is found where something reaches toward the divine. But you haven't provided a convincing link - or really any sort of link - from that premise to your arguments about the superiority of classical music. Every argument that you've put forward has been countered. Classical music is deemed superior by a small number of culturally conditioned classical music snobs; not really much surprise there. I think @greenbaggins aptly laid out the closest point of approach - that classical music more often presents the listener with a greater degree of intellectual and emotional depth than some other genres. Provided, of course, one has been culturally trained and conditioned to understand the world of classical music and thereby obtain from it the intellectual and emotional content put into it by the composer.

Now you said, "I'm just wrong to have my affections placed in inferior songs" - and I don't think I agree with you here. For starters, if you believe that the music you're listening to is inferior, then in the words of Bob Newhart - STOP IT!

Without totally discounting the presence of objective beauty (though no one in this thread has yet provided a convincing method for reconciling that with the subjectivity of individual tastes), I will say that I think a more interesting avenue of discussion - rather than asserting that this or that genre of music is objectively superior - would be to ask people why they listen to what they listen to, and what they get out of it.

Case in point #1
My wife listens to music that reflects the mood she wants to be in. As a result, she strongly gravitates toward music that is relatively easy to listen to. Bach, Mozart, Schubert. Bill Evans, Vince Guaraldi. Andrew Petersen. Indelible Grace. She likes Handel's Messiah and Bach's Christmas Oratorio at this time of year.

I can do this, or I can choose a music selection based on a mental list, or curiosity, or just a desire to hear something I think I should value but haven't heard in a while. But, just as often, I'll listen to music that reflects where I am mentally, instead of where I want to be. And since I can be a rather stormy person, I listen to a lot of Bruckner, Mahler, Shostakovich, and Rachmaninoff. I like a lot of brass and percussion. When I'm out of sorts, I listen to Sibelius or Hindemith or Durufle. On a sunny cool spring day, I gravitate toward Bach's keyboard music. I've always been conservative in my tastes by nature, but within those parameters I can really push the envelope in looking for the most headbanging (but still generally tonal) art music I can find. Needless to say, a lot of this listening occurs through headphones or when my wife is out of the house!

Case in point #2
I've been on a Bruckner kick (again - this happens once or twice a year) for the last few weeks. I think Bruckner is a great composer but he's far from the greatest. It would be ludicrous to put him on the level of Bach, Handel, Beethoven, or Chopin. But I'm not sitting around bemoaning my sinfulness for choosing "inferior" music. Why not? Because no one composer has everything to offer, and all the great composers have something unique that no one else has. Bruckner had a great gift for harmony - try to analyze his music with the Roman numerals of freshman music theory and you'll see that he normalizes some pretty wild harmonic progressions. His music has an inexorable and elemental sweep that at points exceeds even Beethoven's 9th. And he has some of the most interesting counterpoint of the Romantic and modern eras - such as the fugue that closes the Gloria movement of his F minor mass, or the fugue slipped into the last movement of his 8th symphony. But at a more basic level than that, his music is dark, emotionally intense, and resonates with me, so I want to listen to it. Back-to-back with Bach's Art of Fugue, or anything by Brahms, I'm conscious of Bruckner's inferiority and weaknesses - but I'm not sinning by listening to it.

I think that idea can be extrapolated to other genres of music. Of course, sin can enter into a person's reason and goals in listening to a particular piece of music - but in that case it could provide a fruitful opportunity for witnessing (to unbelievers) or exhortation (to other believers), all without falling into the trap of trying to defend an untenable thesis of objective superiority for a specific genre.

 

[Pomopu]

This thread isn't really about Frank Lloyd Wright, but I'll bite, briefly.

Florida Southern College, in central Florida, houses what I believe is the largest collection of FLW architecture in one place. I've been there a number of times, and I'm not impressed. The guy imported his complex about being short into everything he built, with the result that and this day and age of trigger warnings and safe spaces, claustrophobics could probably file a class-action lawsuit against the college. The buildings are not, to my eye, particularly beautiful, and I have been told by people who work at the college that the buildings are notoriously challenging and expensive to maintain, and that basic common sense practices were overlooked in construction in favor of the vision. Thanks, but pass.

@Pomopu - you've set out a premise that no one disagrees with: that beauty is found where something reaches toward the divine. But you haven't provided a convincing link - or really any sort of link - from that premise to your arguments about the superiority of classical music. Every argument that you've put forward has been countered. Classical music is deemed superior by a small number of culturally conditioned classical music snobs; not really much surprise there. I think @greenbaggins aptly laid out the closest point of approach - that classical music more often presents the listener with a greater degree of intellectual and emotional depth than some other genres. Provided, of course, one has been culturally trained and conditioned to understand the world of classical music and thereby obtain from it the intellectual and emotional content put into it by the composer.

Now you said, "I'm just wrong to have my affections placed in inferior songs" - and I don't think I agree with you here. For starters, if you believe that the music you're listening to is inferior, then in the words of Bob Newhart - STOP IT!

Without totally discounting the presence of objective beauty (though no one in this thread has yet provided a convincing method for reconciling that with the subjectivity of individual tastes), I will say that I think a more interesting avenue of discussion - rather than asserting that this or that genre of music is objectively superior - would be to ask people why they listen to what they listen to, and what they get out of it.

Case in point #1
My wife listens to music that reflects the mood she wants to be in. As a result, she strongly gravitates toward music that is relatively easy to listen to. Bach, Mozart, Schubert. Bill Evans, Vince Guaraldi. Andrew Petersen. Indelible Grace. She likes Handel's Messiah and Bach's Christmas Oratorio at this time of year.

I can do this, or I can choose a music selection based on a mental list, or curiosity, or just a desire to hear something I think I should value but haven't heard in a while. But, just as often, I'll listen to music that reflects where I am mentally, instead of where I want to be. And since I can be a rather stormy person, I listen to a lot of Bruckner, Mahler, Shostakovich, and Rachmaninoff. I like a lot of brass and percussion. When I'm out of sorts, I listen to Sibelius or Hindemith or Durufle. On a sunny cool spring day, I gravitate toward Bach's keyboard music. I've always been conservative in my tastes by nature, but within those parameters I can really push the envelope in looking for the most headbanging (but still generally tonal) art music I can find. Needless to say, a lot of this listening occurs through headphones or when my wife is out of the house!

Case in point #2
I've been on a Bruckner kick (again - this happens once or twice a year) for the last few weeks. I think Bruckner is a great composer but he's far from the greatest. It would be ludicrous to put him on the level of Bach, Handel, Beethoven, or Chopin. But I'm not sitting around bemoaning my sinfulness for choosing "inferior" music. Why not? Because no one composer has everything to offer, and all the great composers have something unique that no one else has. Bruckner had a great gift for harmony - try to analyze his music with the Roman numerals of freshman music theory and you'll see that he normalizes some pretty wild harmonic progressions. His music has an inexorable and elemental sweep that at points exceeds even Beethoven's 9th. And he has some of the most interesting counterpoint of the Romantic and modern eras - such as the fugue that closes the Gloria movement of his F minor mass, or the fugue slipped into the last movement of his 8th symphony. But at a more basic level than that, his music is dark, emotionally intense, and resonates with me, so I want to listen to it. Back-to-back with Bach's Art of Fugue, or anything by Brahms, I'm conscious of Bruckner's inferiority and weaknesses - but I'm not sinning by listening to it.

I think that idea can be extrapolated to other genres of music. Of course, sin can enter into a person's reason and goals in listening to a particular piece of music - but in that case it could provide a fruitful opportunity for witnessing (to unbelievers) or exhortation (to other believers), all without falling into the trap of trying to defend an untenable thesis of objective superiority for a specific genre.

I really appreciate your thoughts, Plouto. I would disagree my arguments have been countered, just debated. But otherwise I like what you say here for the most part. Very thoughtful. I disagree heartily. But I respect your position. Arguing about FLW would be fruitless; but that he can be argued about implies a standard of architectural perfection that we can know, I must add, principles that are agreed upon by a community of observers that have weight, since they ring true to our internal intuition and reason.


"Classical music is deemed superior by a small number of culturally conditioned classical music snobs." Yes, I trust these snobs. They are right, in my view. They know music better than I, better than the common person who listens to Rihanna and Taylor Swift. I want to be conditioned to appreciate culture like them. They have spent their lives studying and listening and evaluating. I'll place my bet with the elite cultural critics, and plain wrong is anyone who disagrees. More than this? Just like the sensus Divintatis of John Calvin, the sensus Beautificus, as it were, the sense of the beautiful, in my mind, can be trained to realize a superior good. It has rung so true, so true, that Bach and Chopin has something unique.

I read James Joyce Ulysses. I hated it. Every page I hated it. But eventually, as I read more commentary on the novel, I realized that Ulysses truly was something remarkable. That it deserved a rank among great literary masterpieces. And so forth.

 

[Ploutos]

I really appreciate your thoughts, Plouto. I would disagree my arguments have been countered, just debated. But otherwise I like what you say here for the most part. Very thoughtful. I disagree heartily. But I respect your position. Arguing about FLW would be fruitless; but that he can be argued about implies a standard of architectural perfection that we can know, I must add, principles that are agreed upon by a community of observers that have weight, since they ring true to our internal intuition and reason.

Thank you for the kind words.

Regarding FLW - to the contrary, the fact that he can be argued about implies that this standard of architectural perfection is not so obvious or uncontested as one ight like to think.

"Classical music is deemed superior by a small number of culturally conditioned classical music snobs." Yes, I trust these snobs. They are right, in my view. They know music better than I, better than the common person who listens to Rihanna and Taylor Swift. I want to be conditioned to appreciate culture like them. They have spent their lives studying and listening and evaluating. I'll place my bet with the elite cultural critics, and plain wrong is anyone who disagrees. More than this? Just like the sensus Divintatis of John Calvin, the sensus Beautificus, as it were, the sense of the beautiful, in my mind, can be trained to realize a superior good. It has rung so true, so true, that Bach and Chopin has something unique.

But why are they right? Why do you trust these particular critics?

I read James Joyce Ulysses. I hated it. Every page I hated it. But eventually, as I read more commentary on the novel, I realized that Ulysses truly was something remarkable. That it deserved a rank among great literary masterpieces. And so forth.

That's fine. I could never finish Moby Dick, but I'm happy to acknowledge that as a me problem. And I've already outlined above that my tastes don't define what is best.

 

[Pomopu]

But why are they right? Why do you trust these particular critics?

I haven't read Moby Dick, actually. Maybe I'll skip it!

But yeah, why do I trust them. . .. At the end of the day, maybe I'm confronted with the existence of Spotify, which places everything on the same plane. Millions and millions and millions of songs. Millions! It's like, I will be lost if I don't have something to hold on to; how do I navigate this? How am I to know what is good and beautiful? And so I turn to them. Ultimately, maybe it is as simple as that. I need an answer, and they give me one! A pretty lame defense. But honest. The other half of the brutal honest is it was a Mahler symphony that made me cry and feel things deeper than I have ever felt, truly a sense of the sublime ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._3_(Mahler)). Closer to heaven than I have often been. And the final brutally honest reason, is I grew up learning classical piano (and play the oboe, which pretty much only works for classical pieces!). Pure bias, I suppose!!

 

[TheInquirer]

Since Christ is Beauty Incarnate, since Jesus Christ is Beauty with a capital B

I think you are confusing moral beauty and aesthetic beauty

"For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him." - Isaiah 53:2

 

[Ploutos]

But yeah, why do I trust them. . .. At the end of the day, maybe I'm confronted with the existence of Spotify, which places everything on the same plane. Millions and millions and millions of songs. Millions! It's like, I will be lost if I don't have something to hold on to; how do I navigate this? How am I to know what is good and beautiful? And so I turn to them. Ultimately, maybe it is as simple as that. I need an answer, and they give me one! A pretty lame defense. But honest. The other half of the brutal honest is it was a Mahler symphony that made me cry and feel things deeper than I have ever felt, truly a sense of the sublime ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._3_(Mahler)). Closer to heaven than I have often been. And the final brutally honest reason, is I grew up learning classical piano (and play the oboe, which pretty much only works for classical pieces!). Pure bias, I suppose!!

That's fine, but then you need to separate your personal preference from something objective that should be imposed on everyone else. What you've given is a great argument for personal preference, and those are allowed and right. It doesn't constitute an objective argument, though.

All that aside, it's nice to meet another classical music lover. As an oboe player, do you like Sibelius' "Swan of Tuonela"? After the New World Symphony, it might have one of my favorite oboe parts.

 

[Pomopu]

That's fine, but then you need to separate your personal preference from something objective that should be imposed on everyone else. What you've given is a great argument for personal preference, and those are allowed and right. It doesn't constitute an objective argument, though.

All that aside, it's nice to meet another classical music lover. As an oboe player, do you like Sibelius' "Swan of Tuonela"? After the New World Symphony, it might have one of my favorite oboe parts.

Yes, fair point. I just can't escape the nagging inclination that since there is some things more beautiful than others, God would gift us the ability to come to see what better accords with capital B beauty, you know? I'll think it through.

Yes, gorgeous!!! Confessedly, I have never actually played that in performance, or by myself. Time to ISMLP the sheet music. I actually love Sibelius, particularly his Karelia suite. It was my favorite thing I had played during undergrad in the orchestra.

I think you are confusing moral beauty and aesthetic beauty

"For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him." - Isaiah 53:2

During his humiliation, I will concede the possibility he was not visually the paragon of beauty. Isaiah suggests that. . .But I would be very, very cautious to say he is not now, with a glorified and transformed human body, the paragon of beauty.

 

[Ploutos]

Yes, fair point. I just can't escape the nagging inclination that since there is some things more beautiful than others, God would gift us the ability to come to see what better accords with capital B beauty, you know? I'll think it through.

I agree that there is a such thing as objective beauty. But I don't think it's as specific, or as co-terminous with a particular genre, as many people like to think.