Jan Templiner wrote:

>One sentence in Dave Lampson's much longer posting triggered my interest:
>
>>There is no objective truth about the quality of music because it's all
>>based on subjective perception.
>
>I find this too categorical.  Yes, I'm afraid you're right about it.

It's not a very attractive or satisfying idea, I admit.  I've been
kicking it, hitting it, trying to knock it down for some time now,
to no avail.

>But at least there is a certain extent to which it can be objectively
>determined.  The "craftsman" quality of the music can be judged
>objectively.

But only if we agree on the subjective criteria for measuring
craftsmanship.  If one accepts the common criteria, then detailed arguments
can be made for the quality, or lack thereof, in a certain piece.  But what
if this subjective criteria is not accepted?

>But pointing out parallel fifths or octaves in a fugue is something
>objective.  The music may be "effective", but it's badly written.
>Usually it therefore is very "ineffective", too.

Effective and ineffective at the same time?  You lost me.

>...  I believe there is a considerable difference between 'music can't
>be judged since it's something subjective' and 'there are no generally
>accepted objective criteria, but they exist'.  However, if you deny the
>existance of these criteria, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I never said we can't judge music (using whatever criteria you like:
quality, complexity, effectiveness, etc.), it's that we must understand
that these judgements are, for the most part, subjective.  A large number
of us my concur on a given judgement, but that's doesn't make it any less
subjective.

Dave
[log in to unmask]
http://www.classical.net/