Jan Templiner replies to Dave Lampson's:

>>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.
>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.  I am by no means an expert on this, and know only very
>little.  But pointing out parallel fifths or octaves in a fugue is
>something objective.  The music may be "effective", but it's badly
>written.

The parallel fifths or octaves are objective.  The assertion that their
presence marks a badly-written piece is not.  Bach has parallel fifths
and octaves in fugal texture (works supplied on request).  It usually
startles you when you hear it, but so far I've not heard anyone try to
argue that the works in which they appear are badly written.  These little
objective markers are really something akin to the "No split infinitives"
schoolmasterisms one usually got from teachers who wrote very badly
themselves.

>Parallel octaves are forbidden in strict contrapuntal writing

Who forbids them? Why? I could surmise why, but I'm amazed In This Day
and Age that anyone takes such strictures seriously, especially real,
honest-to-gosh working composers, and not just modern composers, either.

Steve Schwartz