Jim Tobin replies to me:

>>Of course, the assumption behind this is that your taste points somehow
>>to an aesthetic universal.  What about someone who doesn't like Brahms
>>for the exact same reason you cite -- that is, his harmonies aren't
>>interesting enough, too predictable, etc.?
>
>Well, that would tend to support the notion that there is some kind of
>aesthetic universal, wouldn't it?

I think we're using "universal" in two different ways.  I meant that
there's no "universally correct" application of aesthetic criteria to
evaluate a work.  In other words, the question "Is Brahms a great
composer?" has no right answer in the sense that the area under the curve
y=x**2 with x ranging from 1 to 2 does.  You seem to mean that something
along the lines of harmonic predictability might be a universally
applicable criterion.

I'd qualify that very heavily.  First, there is some music that makes
no use of harmony at all, in the sense that we know it -- medieval music,
Renaissance music, lots of Asian and Middle Eastern music, and dodecaphony.
Second, "predictability" implies a predictor, which implies subjectivity.
For example, I may be able to predict fairly closely Beethoven's harmonies.
Someone else may not.  Does this mean Beethoven's a lesser composer?  I
say this because, when I was a lad, I was highly attuned to harmony and
felt a strong animus against composers who didn't surprise me often
enough: Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn, Brahms, Bruckner, among others.  I've
since realized there are things other than unpredictable harmony that
might make or break a piece.  Furthermore, what happens when you listen
to the piece more than once?  Certainly, as you know the piece more
completely, you can more closely predict its events.  Does the Beethoven
Fifth Symphony, for example, become less good as you know it better?

>But I suspect that Bob would settle
>for an explanation of why he finds some works interesting and exciting
>while he finds other works dull and boring.  Probably this is less complex
>than why we all find some people interesting or boring; but that is
>complicated by the fact we differ in whom we would apply those terms to.
>And mitigating that is the fact that there are probably some people and
>some musical works that nearly all of us would find dull and some of
>which we would all agree at least that some people would find them
>exciting--even if personally we cannot stand them.

But this is really a modified form of "vox populi." I don't know what
to do with it myself, except to leave it at "some people don't like
vanilla, although most people do." I can't envision making any stronger
statement than that.

>That said, the passage that Bob quotes does seem to offer an explanation--
>within the limits and conventions of tonal music--why many people find
>some music more interesting than other music.  (BTW, Steve, aren't you
>on record as not finding Mozart terribly exciting?)

I find some works by Mozart very exciting indeed.  What I don't
particularly care for is Mozart's classical idiom.  However, I don't
deny that he often puts it to powerful use.

Steve Schwartz