Dave Lampson in reply to me:

>>>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.

Give me that time too, and in a few years I may very well agree with you.

>>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.

Sorry, I wasn't very clear.  I meant that parallel 5ths/8ths aren't by
definition muscally ineffective.  To my ears, they usually are, but that
is not a "law".  They can be either effective or ineffective, depending
on the context.

>>...  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.

Don't you contradict yourself here? 'They are for the most part subjective'
implies that there are some (albeit very few) objective criteria.

Jan

 [I said for the most part because I can imagine agreeing on some
 objective even quantifiable assessment of complexity, for instance,
 though that wouldn't tell us anything about quality, etc. and the other
 entirely subjective aspects.  -Dave]