Why Unsung?

[Alan Howe]

There's nothing objective whatsoever in saying one thing is better than another.  Any measure of quality is subjective...

If that were true, all debate would be impossible. There have to be shared objective criteria otherwise I'm as good a composer as Beethoven.

[Josh]

Saying 2+2=4 is an objective statement.
Saying 4 is better than two is subjective.
Good and bad can't ever be objective, by their very nature.  The only objective criteria that could be used with regards to Beethoven would be statements of chronology or mathematical realities, and other absolute statements of fact (such as naming specific notes in a specific work).

I'm not sure why this truth would make debate impossible!

If someone listens to your music and honestly finds you are as good a composer as Beethoven, then so what?  I know someone who used to be an announcer for decades for a local radio station, and we talked about music a lot, and he liked practically nothing written before 1900 - really odd how much I loved talking music with him, though, considering his taste was very, very different from mine.  He strongly disliked and/or hated practically every work by Beethoven.  I was visiting with him at the radio station once and he made a statement regarding Wolfgang Mozart along the lines of "I have to say he's great because they say he was, but I don't like his music".  The point of all this is... unless your music is written in emulation of pre-1900s styles, then this guy probably would have honestly thought you were as good a composer as Beethoven!  Well, I don't know that for sure, and he passed away a couple of years ago so can't be asked.  And he wasn't a kook or a nut, by the way, and was extremely knowledgeable about music of all eras; he wasn't a brash kid just saying stuff for shock value, either (he was in his 60s).  He just thought the 20th century was where it was at, and that older music tended to be - even at its best - boring in comparison.

(I won't post his name publicly here, but if someone wants it I will send it via private message and you can look him up quite quickly; he was regionally very well-known.)

[Alan Howe]

BTW my Symphony No.1 for Silent Orchestra and Chorus is still awaiting its premiere. It's a highly romantic piece as the men's chorus members hold hands with the female chorus members throughout. Trouble is, I can't find a quiet enough orchestra or chorus to get it performed, which is a pity as it's clearly on a par with Beethoven's 9th.

[Alan Howe]

If someone listens to your music and honestly finds you are as good a composer as Beethoven, then so what?

So what? Well, he'd be certifiably insane. Emperor's New Clothes, and all that...

[Alan Howe]

Good and bad can't ever be objective, by their very nature.

Is murder bad? Or can't you say?

BTW, in saying 'good and bad can't ever be objective...', you are making an objective statement. In other words, you are saying that it is objectively true that good and bad can't ever be objective. Your 'truth', in other words, is that there is no truth with regard to concepts like 'good' and 'bad'. I totally disagree.

[Josh]

I am making an objective statement which seems true: value judgments are never objective by definition.  My statement does not state whether this is good or bad, or better or worse than anything else, simply that it is so.

I can say murder is bad, and will.  It's just not objectively provable.  It can't be proven one way or another that something is good or bad.  Only mathematics and other pure factual things are objective.  They are true regardless of any feelings or opinions, they are just facts.

Saying Beethoven was born in 1770 is an objective statement.
Saying Beethoven was a good composer is a subjective opinion.

Even if there were a statement declaring something as good and this view was shared by every Human being who ever lived, lives now, and ever will live, even then it is not objective.  It's still subjective.  Any statement of something being good, bad, better or worse is automatically subjective.  You can break down music as it's playing and identify all the various soundwaves, &c., but you can't look at a chart of two of these broken down side by side and prove that one set of vibrations is "better" than another.  There is no mathematical formula to prove good or bad.  Wikipedia puts it well: "sound is a mechanical wave that is an oscillation of pressure transmitted through some medium (such as air or water), composed of frequencies that are within the range of hearing."  Now you are in the position of having to prove that one set of oscillations is somehow objectively superior to another set of oscillations.  If it's objective, it's provable, or at the very least a method by which pure, irrefutable proof COULD theoretically be obtained should be available.

Let me put it another way: if Beethoven is a better composer than you, then prove it.  If it's an objective statement, it should be provable.  Is there a mathematical formula which proves "good"?

[eschiss1]

a music professor whose courses I took back in college somewhat sidestepped the question, somewhat didn't, by having his students study things about music that could be objectively considered (and to his credit, considered ideas that couldn't just be found in any 19th century music textbook; I'd never thought about precomposition preparation (though composers do, in fact, write about it), local vs. global coherence, and certain other things, or that they might actually make sense, either.)

[Alan Howe]

Let me put it another way: if Beethoven is a better composer than you, then prove it.  If it's an objective statement, it should be provable.

It's definitely provable: I can't write music. Except music which stretches the meaning of the term, e.g. my music-less Symphony No.1. If you can't say that Beethoven 9 is better than Howe 1, then the Emperor was wearing clothes after all...

[Josh]

Everything I was saying was under the assumption that you were a composer also!
But even in this case, it would only be objective to say:
"Beethoven was a composer.  Alan Howe is not a composer."
It has nothing to do with anything being better or worse than anything else; even saying something existent is "better" than something non-existent is still subjective.  It can't ever be proven by science or mathematics, and is still an opinion.  Even if an opinion were, as I shared, truly 100% universal amongst all Humans, it's still subjective.

[Alan Howe]

But even in this case, it would only be objective to say:
"Beethoven was a composer.  Alan Howe is not a composer."

How dare you say I'm not a composer! My Symphony No.1 lies downstream from Cage's 4'33" (except it's much more romantic). And the Emperor was wearing clothes, as anyone can tell you...

BTW my Invisible Symphony No.2 should be worth hearing. Seem to have temporarily mislaid the manuscript, though...

[Alan Howe]

Anyway, I suggest we move on as we're talking past one another. Back to 'Why Unsung?'

[Balapoel]

I think this exchange is indeed on topic, but I would like to contribute, as a scientist. Your notions of subjective and objective leads to a false dichotomy. Philosophical arguments have established quite convincingly that the situation is far more complex than exclusionary objectivity/subjectivity. In practice, we could consider subjective and objective qualities to phenomena and situations.

Such an argument of 'if an individual feels it, then it must be true,' strikes me of solipsism.

[Alan Howe]

That's beyond me, I'm afraid.

What I think in practice can happen is that a sufficient amount of shared subjective opinion with regard to a piece of music can accrue such that it comes to be regarded as something approaching objective truth. So, for example, the weight of critical and public opinion is that Beethoven 9 is great music and it's hard to imagine that not being the case in the future. However, as has been remarked, this was once the case with, say, Raff in general and Franck's D minor Symphony in particular, so the question has to be asked 'why?' Is it because the music was once thought of as better than it actually is? Have fashions changed in ways that affect composers such as Raff and Franck more than Beethoven? Or is it in fact impossible to gauge quality unless one is operating from some point in the future when issues such as fashion are no longer relevant? In other words, is the real danger perhaps that the fixing of the musical canon takes place far too quickly and actually requires much more sober reflection? (An impossibility, no doubt.)

[Josh]

Such an argument of 'if an individual feels it, then it must be true,' strikes me of solipsism.

I'm saying that saying something is good or bad can't ever be "true".  Regardless of the sheer number of individuals who share in it, an opinion never becomes an objective, mathematical reality.  It's nothing to do with solipsism, it's just pointing out that giving out grades of what is better or worse than something else cannot ever, by definition, be objective.  It's not provable by any science that Beethoven was "better" than Hummel, just as it's not objectively true to say that anything is "better" or "worse" than anything else.  These concepts are the opposite of objectivity.

Everyone seems to be using the word "objective" to simply mean "mass opinion".  I'm not saying mass, or established, opinion has no value to me; I think it has much less for me than it might for most others, but still has some.  Otherwise, why would I love reading people's thoughts and feelings on composers and works on this board so much?  Not only that, by using the "mass opinion" at times of this site I've spent quite a bit of money buying CDs and been delighted.  I'm not claiming to be completely unplugged from the system.  I only brought all this up in the hopes that people won't feel that they are obligated to feel that certain composers or works are good or bad, better or worse, based on what anyone else - or indeed everyone else - says.

I've noted a disc or two in my time that I had considered buying when first learning of it, but opinions on this board dissuaded me.  I chose to heed the opinions of people here I've come to trust quite strongly.   But it was just that: a choice.  Might I have bought these discs anyway, and possibly loved them tremendously?  Yes.  But I see there is value in choosing to heed expert opinion.  But I'm not obligated to, nor am I required to agree with what they say is good or bad, better or worse.  And when/if I do listen to those works, my eventual feelings about them will be completely unaffected by anything that anyone else says, purely by how my own nervous system and various chemicals in my body happen to react as I listen.

And I feel a lot of composers are unsung today because of a calcified composer/work hierarchy that depends largely on people never being willing to even accept the possibility that they might have a different reaction to those composers/works than that mandated from on high.  It's partially never listening, but it's also listening with a pre-judgment already in their heads.  They don't let their body react naturally, but instead set up a barrier in advance to block out what might be a purely positive experience, and artificially force it to become only lukewarm.  I've loaned people music CDs of unsung composers before and seen the look on their face, the tone of their voice clearly conveying their low expectations.  And there'd probably be a fair shaking up of this hierarchy if people would just listen with no expectations.

[Alan Howe]

I think I'll leave this discussion to others. I've got symphonies to write; I am a composer after all...