Electronic Music mailing list archives

I think is remarkable how this discussion tends to veer into jokes, irony, and the like instead of actual argument. By any ordinary rules of debate, this kind of move is -- a joke.

There is definitely an agreement on what "objectivity" is in esthetics. In spite of my use of the word "objective," I recognize that esthetic judgment is subjective. I am not entering concert halls armed with a music thermometer. 

However, it is generally agreed that esthetic judgments are "normative." There is some sense in which this or that work of art is "better" or "worse" (or some other word such as "enjoyable" that turns out to have the exact same extension). 

The disagreement comes in whether esthetic norms are relative or absolute. In this context that means, true for everyone, or only true for me and my tribe. What I mean by "objective" in esthetic judgment is that I am sure that esthetic judgments tend towards universality, that "good" is not just good for me, or for you, but for all adequately prepared judges.

Again, I don't for a minute deny that much in musical judgment is culturally conditioned. I don't for a minute doubt that some education, training, and exposure is required to adequately judge musical quality.

I don't think "adequately prepared judges" is such a mystery either. It just means exposure to the norms of the art, like being able to play an instrument, lots of listening to standards of the genre, or a conservatory education in the style being judged. Anyone can gain this preparation whether not they like the style or pieces in question. The preparation itself can definitely be objectively defined.

Ok, now I am prepared to put forward what I believe is a good argument for the existence of objective norms in music. We are living in a time of extreme ferment, musically. Thanks to the vast store of written and sound records, thanks to the dissemination of higher education, thanks to mechanical means of transportation and foreign education and emigration of peoples and globalization and what all, musical practice and style are under enormous pressure. Genres multiply and divide, combine, influence each other, die and are reborn.

If musical norms are purely relative, this is a meaningless play of events, in which my personal taste or your personal taste will assert itself, or be ground down, for purely extrinsic reasons that have nothing to do with music.

If musical reasons have any part to play in this dialectic of music history that we are living through -- as I am sure they do -- these reasons transcend any personal or tribal taste by necessity, because it is this very taste that is evolving. If any norm is guiding or judging this evolution, it is a super-personal norm. An objective, universal norm.

Regards,
Mike







It is fact that, in ordery

-----Original Message-----
>From: Eldad Tsabary 
>Sent: May 16, 2008 12:37 PM [EMAIL REMOVED] >Subject: Objectivity (Was maybe we can discuss the definition of)
>
>I know this is a little late and this discussion already died, but it 
>always recurs anyways. I wanted to add a few words to support Kevin's.
>
>Before asking whether "objectively good music" is possible, or even 
>whether objectivity is possible, we cannot even find an agreement of 
>what "objectivity" is.
>Put simply, the positivist concept of objectivity is that it's a feature 
>of the individual who is able to put aside his own biases in order to 
>discover the objective (external) "truth."
>Post-positivist thought regards objectivity as a feature of society.  It 
>is never attainable but it is approachable by means of triangulation of 
>many fallible individual perspectives.  Some post-positivists (critical 
>realists) believe that an external truth (reality) exists, while some 
>(the subjectivists) don't.
>Post-modernists rejects all of it (the "real" reality, objectivity, the 
>methods of obtaining it, etc.) In fact, extreme post-modernists reject 
>any method except their own deconstructivism)  
>
>So now... let's ask the question again.. .is it possible to have an 
>objectively good music?
>No doubt!
>In your mind!
>
>Cheers
>Eldad
>
>
>Kevin Austin wrote:
>>
>> Ah ... an objective historian. Ask the American what year World War II 
>> began in. Ask a Chinese historian the same thing. Ask a Taiwanese and 
>> a Beijing historian if the 1949 revolution was won or lost.
>>
>> Objective science ... you may recall that the United States, during WW 
>> II, kept two blood supplies with the Red Cross, one for white soldiers 
>> and one for blacks. The question is, if Barack were in desperate need 
>> of a transfusion, which would he receive. The answer is ... if he has 
>> a Democrat doctor, black, if he had a Republican doctor, none.
>>
>> These are not isolated examples, the so-called "weasels". The history 
>> of science is filled with resistance ... consider the discovery of 
>> germs, or the impossibility of radiation.
>>
>> But, I'm not asking you to change your point of view. I think the 
>> questions about objectivity keep hitting the wall of belief. I don't 
>> need to explain it as it is a belief system and no one tries to 
>> explain belief systems "objectively".
>>
>>
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Kevin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2008, May 11, at 11:04 AM, Michael Gogins wrote:
>>
>>> Some humans make an attempt to be objective... scientists, 
>>> historians, critics, judges, teachers, and such. You want them to 
>>> stop? You don't care what they do?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Mike
>>>
>>
>