Classical - (Jazz) - Pop

[doversoul1]

It's not a contradiction at all if you move on from thinking that taste and value are the same.

Just a thought: is there another word for ‘value’ in this sense / context? Value (in in everyday speech) tends to be associated with personal beliefs and preferences, and can be difficult to distinguish from taste.

Oh, bother. Lat’s already quoted it‼

[Lat-Literal]

Just a thought: is there another word for ‘value’ in this sense / context? Value (in non-academic English) tends to be associated with personal beliefs and preferences, and can be difficult to distinguish from taste.

Is it "standard" Doversoul?

- a level of quality or attainment

- an idea or thing used as a measure, norm, or model in comparative evaluations

[Serial_Apologist]

Is it "standard" Doversoul?

- a level of quality or attainment

- an idea or thing used as a measure, norm, or model in comparative evaluations

As regards this discussion I would have thought the term standard applied to pre-existing documented measures of attainment in any particular field, irrespective of popularity or what constitutes "success"; taste in MrGG's terms to be qualitative, but not quantifiable; and value to be its opposite, ie quantifiable as opposed to qualifiable. And value in Marxist terminology is the amount of labour time put into making something. I wouldn't have thought "values", in terms of ethical standards or morals, applied in any abstract sense to comparing jazz with classical music. But I'm mystified as to what this discussion is really about, frankly.

[Beef Oven!]

Getting back to the subject

Have you got an example yet?

A piece of music you think is great (or brilliant) but don't like?

Schubert 9

Stairway To Devon - Led Zeppelin

Brahms - take your pick

only joking

[MrGongGong]

Ok to make it a bit simpler
putting aside different understandings of the word "value"

A piece of music you think is great (or brilliant) but don't like?

Mendelssohn's Octet is a work of greatness and has huge significance in the history of Western Music
I don't "like" it
but it's still wonderful even though I don't "like" it
I've heard it played live by some of the best chamber musicians in the world in a wonderful performance
but I still don't "like" it

I don't see any contradiction

[Beef Oven!]

Ok to make it a bit simpler
putting aside different understandings of the word "value"



Mendelssohn's Octet is a work of greatness and has huge significance in the history of Western Music
I don't "like" it
but it's still wonderful even though I don't "like" it
I've heard it played live by some of the best chamber musicians in the world in a wonderful performance
but I still don't "like" it

I don't see any contradiction

There is no contradiction.

Some people love Caramac, some people don't like apples.

[teamsaint]

There is no contradiction.

Some people love Caramac.

Prog rock, weren't they ?

I would think for a lot of people, much of Wagner would pass Gongers' test.

[Lat-Literal]

As regards this discussion I would have thought the term standard applied to pre-existing documented measures of attainment in any particular field, irrespective of popularity or what constitutes "success"; taste in MrGG's terms to be qualitative, but not quantifiable; and value to be its opposite, ie quantifiable as opposed to qualifiable. And value in Marxist terminology is the amount of labour time put into making something. I wouldn't have thought "values", in terms of ethical standards or morals, applied in any abstract sense to comparing jazz with classical music. But I'm mystified as to what this discussion is really about, frankly.

Only one of the two definitions I provided specifically mentioned measurement via documentation. However, I do take your point as to some extent I feel that you are slightly agreeing with what I was suggesting. The problem with pre-existing documented measures is that there were no such measures in terms of the Third Programme. In fact, you will probably find that it is in the area of the current Breakfast Show on Radio 3 where there are huge numbers of pre-existing documented measures agreed in Californian style by hundreds of people in a Committee - "Our Mission - Sharper, Broader, Accessible". "Our Vision - To Turn Petroc Trelawney and Clemency Burton-Hill into Truly 22nd Century Chris Evanses for the Most Discriminating Listeners in the United Kingdom before the Year 2020" and so on. I think we know where there was a standard and where there isn't one.

Have to say that I never did quite grasp the key fault lines on this thread and waded into it with good intention in angular fashion. This has felt about right to me ever since!

Just a thought: is there another word for ‘value’ in this sense / context? Value (in in everyday speech) tends to be associated with personal beliefs and preferences, and can be difficult to distinguish from taste.

Oh, bother. Lat’s already quoted it‼

Prog rock, weren't they ?

I would think for a lot of people, much of Wagner would pass Gongers' test.

[Quarky]

Of possibly some relevance / irrelevance to this discussion, who said:

All art of the past must be destroyed.

We need to restore the spirit of irreverence in music.

The function of pop music is to be consumed.

The aim of music is not to express feelings but to express music?

[Beef Oven!]

Of possibly some relevance / irrelevance to this discussion, who said:

All art of the past must be destroyed.

We need to restore the spirit of irreverence in music.

The function of pop music is to be consumed.

The aim of music is not to express feelings but to express music?

Boulez, of course.

[Beef Oven!]

I shall be the first composer in history not to have a biology.

[NatBalance]

It's not a contradiction at all if you move on from thinking that taste and value are the same.

I've been repeating this sentence over and over in my mind trying to get my head around it, and also your initial 'homework' request and lots of attempts at answering but then scrubbing them. Haven't got time at the moment. More time tomorrow.

[NatBalance]

Actually, I've got time to pop this in:-

Mendelssohn's Octet is a work of greatness and has huge significance in the history of Western Music
I don't "like" it
but it's still wonderful even though I don't "like" it
I've heard it played live by some of the best chamber musicians in the world in a wonderful performance
but I still don't "like" it

I don't see any contradiction

It seems to me that what you are referring to is the difference between a popular piece and one that you don't like. There are many pieces individuals will hate but the population in general will think are brilliant (still can't think of a piece of music I don't like). You state above ".. but it's still wonderful even though I don't "like" it" - I can't understand what you mean. How you can think it wonderful but yet not like it? What is it about the piece that you don't like and what that you consider wonderfull?

[doversoul1]

Actually, I've got time to pop this in:-



It seems to me that what you are referring to is the difference between a popular piece and one that you don't like. There are many pieces individuals will hate but the population in general will think are brilliant (still can't think of a piece of music I don't like). You state above ".. but it's still wonderful even though I don't "like" it" - I can't understand what you mean. How you can think it wonderful but yet not like it? What is it about the piece that you don't like and what that you consider wonderfull?

Mr GG meets his match. I can’t wait to read Master G’s next post.

[MrGongGong]

It seems to me that what you are referring to is the difference between a popular piece and one that you don't like. There are many pieces individuals will hate but the population in general will think are brilliant (still can't think of a piece of music I don't like). You state above ".. but it's still wonderful even though I don't "like" it" - I can't understand what you mean. How you can think it wonderful but yet not like it? What is it about the piece that you don't like and what that you consider wonderfull?

Ok to be specific about the Octet

1: I can hear how it's wonderfully written, how the 8 parts work together to create a unified whole
2: I can appreciate the skill in it's creation and how wonderfully well written it is
3: Having watched Misha Maisky and his chums play it I can see what a great experience it was for the players and audience
4: I don't like the harmonic language
5: I don't "hate" it but I wouldn't be sad if I never heard it again
6: I find it a bit tedious

Whether I "like" it has very little to do with whether it is "significant, great, good, valuable" etc etc personal taste isn't always the only thing to take into account.

Another example... there's a well known piece by Elgar that I really don't like. NOT because of the orchestration, vocal writing or anything BUT because central to it's essence is a text that I find hideous doggerel. Now many people LOVE this piece (which is fine) the fact that I think it is totally ruined by the text really doesn't matter much.... which is fine.

An emerging idea?
I have an emerging idea that the way in which folks place personal taste above everything else when thinking about music is, I think, a relatively new phenomena. When I was a choirboy in the 1970's we sang different music all the time, most of which I have completely forgotten. When people went to churches and heard this music I don't think most of them "liked it" (they "liked" to watch Chicory Tip on TOTP rather than explore the music of Stanford, Karg Elert, Bairstow et al). BUT I do think they would describe it using words like "significant, great, good, valuable" etc.

Music has many functions

It seems to me that what you are referring to is the difference between a popular piece and one that you don't like.

No i'm not
It has nothing at all to do with popularity

Les McKeown is more "popular" than Ligeti, Stanford or Biber etc