problem with modern pianists

[imbetter]

The problem with most modern pianists is that their playing lacks charicteristics/emotion. I'm not talking about all of them. Some of them are great pianists, such as Pletnev, Jeno Jando ect. But pianists like Lang Lang, Hamenlin zimmermann, their playing is somewhat "dried out". Who agrees?

[mad_max2024]

I don't know that many pianist's styles, but I think emotion and expression is very subjective, not only to the pianist but also to the listener
Some people find Hamelin and Lang Lang expressive, some don't
Some even hate them due to trends and social pressure rather than musical taste
Sometimes even the same pianist playing different musics can get different reactions...

My opinion is that you should just listen to whatever pianist you like...

[counterpoint]

The problem with most modern pianists is that their playing lacks charicteristics/emotion. I'm not talking about all of them. Some of them are great pianists, such as Pletnev, Jeno Jando ect. But pianists like Lang Lang, Hamenlin zimmermann, their playing is somewhat "dried out". Who agrees?

I'm a little irritated, that you classify Lang Lang, Hamelin Zimerman in the same group and name them "dried out".

Lang Lang is known for his clownesque over-interpretations

Hamelin for his effortless virtuosity

Zimerman is an excellent Chopin player, surely one of the best ever

I can't find much similarity between them.

Really great pianists are (for me) Cortot, Rubinstein, Horowitz, Schnabel, Gilels, Gould.
It's hard to find someone of this artistic level when you look at living pianists.
But nevertheless there are quite a lot living pianists, that play very, very well!

[imbetter]

I'm a little irritated, that you classify Lang Lang, Hamelin Zimerman in the same group and name them "dried out".

Lang Lang is known for his clownesque over-interpretations

Hamelin for his effortless virtuosity

Zimerman is an excellent Chopin player, surely one of the best ever

I can't find much similarity between them.

Really great pianists are (for me) Cortot, Rubinstein, Horowitz, Schnabel, Gilels, Gould.
It's hard to find someone of this artistic level when you look at living pianists.
But nevertheless there are quite a lot living pianists, that play very, very well!

i HATE zimerman's chopin ballades

[counterpoint]

i HATE zimerman's chopin ballades

Really?

Can you explain, why you don't like it?

[Mozartian]

i HATE zimerman's chopin ballades

Weirdo.

[imbetter]

Really?

Can you explain, why you don't like it?

his interpretation all together

Weirdo.

your the wierdo

[mad_max2024]

his interpretation all together

That was clarifying...
Could you elaborate on it...?

[pianowolfi]

It is not easy. Not at all. I am fully aware of the fact that Hamelin for instance is a guy who has intense feelings and intense emotions and is often being blamed for "only" stupendous virtuosity. In  fact he is a VERY intense musician and music is all that counts to him. And he is fully aware of the fact that many people call him a cool virtuoso. He seemed to me something like that too for a while. But now I think differently. Completely.

[rc]

I'd never been a big fan of Liszt's music, but one day I woke up to this amazing interpretation of a Hungarian rhapsody.  It was so clear, I wasn't aware of any difficulty or barely even the piano, it was just the music bare and beautiful.

It was Hamelin who opened my ears.

[pianowolfi]

Yeah

[mikey6]

When you put Jeno Jando in the same league as Zimerman (spell his name right!) and Pletnev, I don't think there's anymore to comment on.
Please clarify 'dried out'

[gruffalo]

i HATE zimerman's chopin ballades

Weirdo.

actually, Zimerman's chopin ballades arent that great. he doesnt seem to totally immerse in them. nevertheless, zimerman is one of my favourite pianists who does play great Chopin (im sure the ballades are better live or if he re-records them, i know he can do better) so unless you hear more from him you cannot classify him as a dried out pianist.

[opus10no2]

Lang Lang is an extremely emotional pianist, your accusation makes no sense.

[henrah]

As already mentioned in this topic, emotive playing is a subjective view given only by the audience. One pianist could play a Chopin piece completely void of rubato and significant crescendos/diminuendos and be thought of as playing emotively, where another could play the same piece full or rubato and well calculated and anticipated crescendos/diminuendos and be thought of as playing dry and unemotively.

It is all subjective, and arguing over subjective opinions is completely useless because a mid-ground can never be achieved. All we can do is state our opinion and discover those of other people. Anyone who tries to force their opinion onto someone else saying that their opinion is completely wrong and idiotic (among other insults) isn't a nice person in my books.

Anyway, you cannot say that any pianist plays without emotion. Every single note played by a pianist contains emotion. Whether you see/feel/detect it or not doesn't matter: it's still there, and we have no right to declare it void. All we can declare is whether we detected it, or if it connected to our own emotions.
Henrah

[rc]

It is all subjective, and arguing over subjective opinions is completely useless because a mid-ground can never be achieved. All we can do is state our opinion and discover those of other people. Anyone who tries to force their opinion onto someone else saying that their opinion is completely wrong and idiotic (among other insults) isn't a nice person in my books.

I find value in stating opinions and hearing others.  Even if my own opinion only illustrates my complete ignorance in a topic - it's an invitation for somebody to enlighten me.  Opinions aren't all equal, some people have thought more or have experience to share.  If someone has a well thought opinion, I'd like to see them put an effort in getting it across.  If it comes to battle, may the better idea win.  At the very least, we can gain an understanding of different ways of looking at things.

The only thing that bothers me is when people take it personally.  When I get into a debate, I'm not attacking the other person, I'm challenging their idea because I think I've got a better one.  I may be right or I may be wrong, but I'm not trying to insult anyone.

That's when the conversation crumbles.  Once somebody takes offense, they begin to send deliberate insults - directly or cowardly.  Then what?  There's nothing left to do, the guards are up, the mind is closed.

Anyway, you cannot say that any pianist plays without emotion. Every single note played by a pianist contains emotion. Whether you see/feel/detect it or not doesn't matter: it's still there, and we have no right to declare it void. All we can declare is whether we detected it, or if it connected to our own emotions.
Henrah

There's something I don't like about the 'everything subjective' perspective...  It's vague, it tends to show everything to be more or less equal - only different.  The whole world becomes grey, the playing loses some of it's meaning.  I find it demotivating, mildly depressing.  Why even try to do something special if it's all subjective in the end?

So, I don't believe it's all subjective, that all playing is equal.  The player may be hearing vivid, colorful emotional music in his head, but unless that's also what's coming out of the physical piano, listeners will never know.  For deficient playing, a listener would have to be actively using their imagination to make it enjoyable, nobody wants to do that.  It's too much effort, it detracts from the enjoyment of the music.  It's the musicians burden to communicate the intended emotion as best they can.

[danny elfboy]

There's something I don't like about the 'everything subjective' perspective...  It's vague, it tends to show everything to be more or less equal - only different.

Why even try to do something special if it's all subjective in the end?

Because of you subjectively liking it and be proud of you and because of all the people subjectively liking it and relating to it. But if you think of ever playing/composing/creating something that would be unanymously considered universally good/special/masterpiece ... forget it; that would be against the nature of things and the individual

[rc]

Because of you subjectively liking it and be proud of you and because of all the people subjectively liking it and relating to it. But if you think of ever playing/composing/creating something that would be unanymously considered universally good/special/masterpiece ... forget it; that would be against the nature of things and the individual

Why not?

I understand the subjectivity of experience, but I don't find it a useful mindset.  If I find something good, in my mind it is universally good, a masterpiece worth sharing.  I want others to get the same enjoyment out of it as I do, for them to see what's so good about it.  I want the same conviction from any other performer - make me love the music as well, do your damnedest.  So, in a sense that could be called forcing their opinion on others.

I think the key issue must be respect.  Not getting upset if somebody doesn't like the music as much as you do.  If I'm in the audience, I don't want to feel guilty if I happen to not understand the beautiful music being played, the performer should respect that maybe the listeners aren't ready for a particular taste, maybe they need a little help, or maybe they never will experience it the same way.  But I still think the performer ought to play utterly convinced that what they're playing is the best thing in the world, if only to give it the best chance that others may agree.

[henrah]

Why not?

I understand the subjectivity of experience, but I don't find it a useful mindset. If I find something good, in my mind it is universally good, a masterpiece worth sharing. I want others to get the same enjoyment out of it as I do, for them to see what's so good about it. I want the same conviction from any other performer - make me love the music as well, do your damnedest. So, in a sense that could be called forcing their opinion on others.

I think the key issue must be respect. Not getting upset if somebody doesn't like the music as much as you do. If I'm in the audience, I don't want to feel guilty if I happen to not understand the beautiful music being played, the performer should respect that maybe the listeners aren't ready for a particular taste, maybe they need a little help, or maybe they never will experience it the same way. But I still think the performer ought to play utterly convinced that what they're playing is the best thing in the world, if only to give it the best chance that others may agree.

Truth. Though in the end an opinion (on whether the performer conveyed the emotion of the piece well) cannot be successfuly forced on the closed minded, we can at least try to. But trying shouldn't result in you playing the piece over and over to someone just to get them to see it/hear it the same way you do.

Give your best, accept the rest.
Henrah

[danny elfboy]

But I still think the performer ought to play utterly convinced that what they're playing is the best thing in the world, if only to give it the best chance that others may agree.

But that's the problem. Since everything is subjective and relative there can't be a best thing in the world. Music is a language as such it conveys certain things and those things can't be "good" for everyone.

What you're saying is like an architect saying that he wants to make the "best house in the world". There can't be such a thing
Ask everyone and everyone will have a different idea of what an house has to have to be the best in the world.
Some will tell you it must have a fireplace. Others will tell the you the best house in the world is one without fireplaces. One will tell you it must be at the center of a big and famous city. Others will tell you that the best house must be in the country with lot of trees and a lake around. One will tell you it must have many floors. Other will tell you it must be just one floor and so on

People often refer to their favorite music as "travelling"
Because music not only conveys emotions and feelings but also places, images, and times. Trying to make the best music is not different than trying to make the best house; impossible. For me someone who doesn't like Bach is not someone who don't understand Bach but just someone who can't related with him. Just like someone who wants his perfect home to be in the country is not someone who don't understand the city ...  but just can't relate with it or that can related better with the country
That's why I don't think ignorance in music can exist. The only ignorance is prejudice not taste.

I had a similar debate when a friend of mine who loves to go out in the evening and spend time in the bars and clubs criticized another friend of mine that instead spend is evenings indoor reading. The friend was telling me how our other friend was "unable to have fun" and that he would like his friend to "experience the same fun he was experiencing every night"
And what I said is: "he does"
Because that's the point. Both were already masters of fun both were already having the time of their life. But for one it meant books and for the other night clubs

That's why i don't agree at all that someone who don't appreciate is someone who don't understand. If I write a piece or play something and someone doesn't appreciate the I would never think he doesn't understand me or he is closed minded. What I think instead is that he isn't relating with my music. Someone said that when we play we convey our passions, our emotions, our thoughts, our dreams. Well ... just a fraction of the inhabitants of the world can relate to my passion, my thoughts, my dreams.

That's what affinity is all about and music, being a language, is very dependent on affinity. The affinity between the author/performer and the listener. If there's no affinity is no one fault and when there's no fault there's also no absolute bad and no absolute good, no absolute masterpiece and no absolute junk. Indeed the world is grey and relative at its core

[ramseytheii]

But that's the problem. Since everything is subjective and relative there can't be a best thing in the world. Music is a language as such it conveys certain things and those things can't be "good" for everyone.

I hope that you don't mean "everything is subjective," literally, but you are just talking about it in the realm of music.  Which is still not true, but it would be a lot better then saying that for the whole world.

What you're saying is like an architect saying that he wants to make the "best house in the world". There can't be such a thing

I don't think that is necessarily what he is saying.  And he has good company in his corner: Maria Callas said that whenever you perform, you have to convince the audience that there is no other way.  You have to make them forget every other performance they have heard, every prejudice they bring into it, and make that lasting impression. 

Why on earth shouldn't someone who produces something be convinced it is the only way?  I would be suspicious of anyone who tells me otherwise.... elfenboy!

People often refer to their favorite music as "travelling"
Because music not only conveys emotions and feelings but also places, images, and times. Trying to make the best music is not different than trying to make the best house; impossible. For me someone who doesn't like Bach is not someone who don't understand Bach but just someone who can't related with him.

That presupposes that everything about Bach's music will be grasped at first encounter, and rejected because the person doesn't "relate."  That is frankly giving the person too much credit.  If this were the case, nobody would ever say, "I didn't used to like it, then it grew on me," or, "it's an acquired taste," or, as some people actually and honorably admit, "I didn't understand it at first."  What's wrong with that?

So much inspiration can come from hearing an artist perform in a certain way, and thinking to yourself, "I can do that better."  It's not a matter of, "I don't relate to their performance," it is, "this performance is inadequate for the music."  And people sense that, and they get to work, and they achieve things and produce things.

That's why I don't think ignorance in music can exist. The only ignorance is prejudice not taste.

That is another way of saying, you don't think brains exist in music.  Intelligence informs our taste, it is not an innate and unchanging principle that we are forever slaves to.  There is a lot to learn about why any piece of music is great, and a lot of that learning comes not from emotional reactions to listening but to using the mind to figure out how something came to be, and why it is unique. 

That's what affinity is all about and music, being a language, is very dependent on affinity. The affinity between the author/performer and the listener. If there's no affinity is no one fault and when there's no fault there's also no absolute bad and no absolute good, no absolute masterpiece and no absolute junk. Indeed the world is grey and relative at its core

Yikes!  When you say the world is "grey," I presume you mean there are no black and white issues.  But  you contradict yourself: grey is not possible without black and white. 

Walter Ramsey

[danny elfboy]

I hope that you don't mean "everything is subjective," literally, but you are just talking about it in the realm of music.  Which is still not true, but it would be a lot better then saying that for the whole world.

I do believe almost everything is subjective ... well perception and observation is
The physicist Max Born claimed that perception is so subjective that the observation of a researcher will always be subjective and this subjective will always influence the outcome of the observation. Hence the post-positivist arguments about ampliative logic and against empiricism or rationality as proven on themselves

I don't think that is necessarily what he is saying.  And he has good company in his corner: Maria Callas said that whenever you perform, you have to convince the audience that there is no other way.  You have to make them forget every other performance they have heard, every prejudice they bring into it, and make that lasting impression. 

Why on earth shouldn't someone who produces something be convinced it is the only way?  I would be suspicious of anyone who tells me otherwise.... elfenboy!

Because there will always be more ways that I myself will provide
A writer doesn't write a book thinking that it must be the best or better than the previous one, he just provides many different means

Also I still can't agree with this view because I don't have to attract audience by claiming that my interpretation is the best (a ephemeral concept at best) just by claiming it is difference. I choose certain performers of the CDs and LPs I have because they give me something unique that resonate will within me ... that doesn't me they're the "best" or I think they're the "best" but just the ones that communicate the better to me
Different interpretation can cohexist easily without being in competition because people is not attracted to the concept of "relative better" but to what is "better to them"
And what is better to me will never be what is better to you because of our different attitude, memories, experiences, predispositions, thoughts, philosophies ...
Music speaks to me and when it attracts me it is resonating with something inside me, there's an affinity between me and the style of the composer. That's why there's can never be a "best" style or "better" style and having different styles is just a reason good enough to have many performances and performers

That presupposes that everything about Bach's music will be grasped at first encounter, and rejected because the person doesn't "relate."  That is frankly giving the person too much credit.  If this were the case, nobody would ever say, "I didn't used to like it, then it grew on me," or, "it's an acquired taste," or, as some people actually and honorably admit, "I didn't understand it at first."  What's wrong with that?

They simply changed and now they see an affinity with that music where they couldn't find it before. It's not even an improvements, it's a neutral gathering of new concepts and mindsets.

So much inspiration can come from hearing an artist perform in a certain way, and thinking to yourself, "I can do that better."  It's not a matter of, "I don't relate to their performance," it is, "this performance is inadequate for the music."  And people sense that, and they get to work, and they achieve things and produce things.

We're just not honest with our words. When we think "I can do better" we're projecting that "better" in relation to our mindset. We're actually saying "I can do it more similar to myself" Even when we think the performer did it wrong "technically" or chose a wrong speed and so on we're still reasoning about relative concept, "another way" would be better for us ... not absolutely better

That is another way of saying, you don't think brains exist in music.  Intelligence informs our taste, it is not an innate and unchanging principle that we are forever slaves to.  There is a lot to learn about why any piece of music is great, and a lot of that learning comes not from emotional reactions to listening but to using the mind to figure out how something came to be, and why it is unique.

No I don't agree with this. I think music must be experience like the greek theater was experienced: suspending disbilied, judgement, analytic observation and so on and just experiencing it as in trance. Even the the cinema lovers experience a movie in that movie, the analysis, if they want to do it, just comes later ... when you're not absorbing "the whole" anymore and are focusing on the details and on the "construction" of the movie. I'm sure it's impossible to really experiencing music if you can't just get the whole and forget about its structure for the moment you listen to it. I've spoken with other people that told me that once they tried to shut their left-brain emisphere of their brain they experienced music for the first time and it was almost too much to bear.

A piece can be great because it is technically perfect and it's just stunning to think how the composer was able to write that. Or it can be great because it emotions, because it vibrates with me. I don't think they can be mixed. A movie can be boring, horrible, meaningless (for me) and still being a masterpiece of technique. If I have to analyze the technique and find the beauty in it ... that is going to be remain separate from my experiencing the movie, from my leaving the heart, forgetting I'm in a sofa and living the story first hand. It remains boring, horrible and meaningless

Yikes!  When you say the world is "grey," I presume you mean there are no black and white issues.  But  you contradict yourself: grey is not possible without black and white.

I don't think there's any black and white issue left (except that if we don't eat we die)
In fact the more our "knowledge" increases the more old-black and white issues are exposed for their relative matters they are and have always been. Ever read anything by Shrodinger? Or just pubmed ... to see that there's no universal agreement left in this world. Everyone has a different opinion because we're individuals that live in accordance to circumstances as such arbitrarity will always be wrong as will always exist under the delusion to consider "fixed" and "universal" something that is "circumstantial" and always flowing. All studies that has been done to try to show that certain things in the humans world can be "fixed" has always failed showing that the results changed according to how the circumstance changed.

[rc]

I'm not fond of picking apart arguements - it's becomes easy to lose the topic amidst details, and fall into semantic battle.

I think you may be taking this too literally Danny.

The 'everything subjective' philosophy is rational.  But anything can be rationalized.  It's just as true as saying "everything in the world is great" or the cynical "The world is a horrible dangerous place".  You can adopt any mindset and the proof will become apparent.  The mind finds what it wants, the mind can rationalize it, give reasons for its perspective.

Viewing the world through the paradigm of subjectivity is a safe perspective.  Nothing's right, nothing's wrong, only different, objectively neutral.  You described it well enough.  It's also pretty dull, and negates meaning.  Personally, I think it's a cop-out to forming an opinion (because it's all subjective ).  You have to be able to look at the subjectivity box from the outside.

A few random cases for objectivity off the top of my head:

Smile = happy.  This is true for all people of the world, animals.  I'm not sure about insects, it may be limited to creatures with the 'mammal brain'.  Maybe insects and trees only lack the faces to express it.  Anyhow, any creature that can smile, does, and it means the same thing.

Loud sounds are startling.  A gunshot, a misfiring engine...  The opening orchestral tutti of Beethovens Eroica symphony - it's has a startling type of effect.

I'm sure somebody could percieve Wilhelm Kempff playing the slow movement from the Hammerklavier as an energetic, cheerful piece...  But they would have to spend a lot of energy to delude themselves into believing that, explaining and convincing themselves, and I doubt they'd truely be convinced, it would take maintainance to hold that view because deep down they would know it's a contrivance.

[ramseytheii]

Unlike rc I love to pick apart arguments.  I get myself into a lot of trouble this way, but I do it anyways.  But since this thread has gone safely out of the realm just of music, it's safe to say that Elfenboy's argument is about subjective vs objective, so I hope I don't lose the big messag in my following deconstruction. 

I do believe almost everything is subjective ... well perception and observation is
The physicist Max Born claimed that perception is so subjective that the observation of a researcher will always be subjective and this subjective will always influence the outcome of the observation. Hence the post-positivist arguments about ampliative logic and against empiricism or rationality as proven on themselves

It seems like physicists in particular have been doing a lot these days to convince us that we don't really know anything in particular, and what seems sure to us, if it isn't so sure to our neighbor, it can't be true.  At least, though you are consistent, and for this I give you credit:

I do believe almost everything is subjective...

  We can thus safely dismiss your beliefs as only your particular world outlook, and no matter how many physicists try and tell us we can't perceive things and learn from them, we don't have to believe them, because that is a subjective view.

Because there will always be more ways that I myself will provide
A writer doesn't write a book thinking that it must be the best or better than the previous one, he just provides many different means

It probably depends on the writer.  It seems to me one knows the best way to do something, when one has an integral view of the whole, rather than acting on the whims of the moment.  I heard a performance of Goldberg Variations like that that seemed to last forever.  But if you watch the Gould DVD, there is a clip at the beginning or in special features where he is in the control booth, deciding which takes to use and which to omit.  For the canon in sixths, he provides a clear and direct reason for taking one over the other, even though they are both note-perfect.  Simply, it was better for his vision of the piece as a whole - even though he was able to change, and provide many different ways.

If you aren't convinced that you have found the best way, then it is arbitrary: one night could be this, another that, and if you don't care, why should anybody else?

Different interpretation can cohexist easily without being in competition

I don't disagree, but why shouldn't a person believe they are doing full justice to great music.  This is what Maria Callas said, that the performance has to be so complete, as to be the only performance.  If she didn't believe that, people would go to her concerts and think, "She's no Joan Sutherland."

They simply changed and now they see an affinity with that music where they couldn't find it before. It's not even an improvements, it's a neutral gathering of new concepts and mindsets.

Yes but with what part of the music?  The melody?  The harmony?  The timbre?  The counterpoint?  The structure?  The character?  You can't say that these are things that can't be learned about, and people just perceive them automatically, and can do nothing to improve that skill, and thus learn to appreciate music that is not so easy to appreciate immediately.  It is not simply an arbitrary emotional response when someone listens to music, even the brains are acting - hopefully.

We're just not honest with our words. When we think "I can do better" we're projecting that "better" in relation to our mindset. We're actually saying "I can do it more similar to myself"

That presupposes that there are no objective definitions to any piece of music, and that observatoin of that music is totally subjective and arbitrary.  But there frankly are objective definitions, and we are not forever trapped in this cage of our "mindset," which seems to be something that can never be altered, enlarged, or educated.  Who can live like this, without possibility of improvement?

Even when we think the performer did it wrong "technically" or chose a wrong speed and so on we're still reasoning about relative concept, "another way" would be better for us ... not absolutely better

Who was that fellow that made the hilaroius recording of Chopin Etudes and sold it on amazon.com?  There was a lot of poking fun at his CD on this forum, because he played the etudes at a phenomenally slow pace.  Here Elfenboy is right: it's "another way," unfortunately, his way is to ignore reality, and just do it on a whim!  And how can we say, well, that's not good for me, but it is for him, and still claim to love the music?  It's absurd, and it would be an insult to Chopin's legacy. 
 

No I don't agree with this. I think music must be experience like the greek theater was experienced: suspending disbilied, judgement, analytic observation and so on and just experiencing it as in trance. Even the the cinema lovers experience a movie in that movie, the analysis, if they want to do it, just comes later ... when you're not absorbing "the whole" anymore and are focusing on the details and on the "construction" of the movie. I'm sure it's impossible to really experiencing music if you can't just get the whole and forget about its structure for the moment you listen to it. I've spoken with other people that told me that once they tried to shut their left-brain emisphere of their brain they experienced music for the first time and it was almost too much to bear.

I think you proved again my hypothesis that you are advocating an exclusion of the intellect in music: "must be experienced... as in a trance," "suspending... analytic observation," "when you're not... focusing on the details," "shut their left-brain hemisphere," etc.  In this, again, you are being consistent, but the consequences of shutting down your judgmental faculties are suspension of observation and critical thinking.  In this mindset, there is no "reason" why something is not good or even wrong, it just "isn't."  In other words, there is no way to improve.  So why try?

A piece can be great because it is technically perfect and it's just stunning to think how the composer was able to write that. Or it can be great because it emotions, because it vibrates with me. I don't think they can be mixed. A movie can be boring, horrible, meaningless (for me) and still being a masterpiece of technique. If I have to analyze the technique and find the beauty in it ... that is going to be remain separate from my experiencing the movie, from my leaving the heart, forgetting I'm in a sofa and living the story first hand. It remains boring, horrible and meaningless

Well since we are sharing personal experiences, I wlil say that the exact joy for me in reading Henry James comes from the feeling of accomplishment when I can parse his overly complex, highly structured sentences, to get at the meaning of it.  It takes all my faculties, but I read "The Ambassadors" three times because it proved to be so enjoyable.
But then again, if everything is subjective, our own experiences with what functions and what doesn't to provide happiness in art don't go towards proving anything.

I don't think there's any black and white issue left (except that if we don't eat we die)
In fact the more our "knowledge" increases the more old-black and white issues are exposed for their relative matters they are and have always been. Ever read anything by Shrodinger? Or just pubmed ... to see that there's no universal agreement left in this world. Everyone has a different opinion because we're individuals that live in accordance to circumstances as such arbitrarity will always be wrong as will always exist under the delusion to consider "fixed" and "universal" something that is "circumstantial" and always flowing. All studies that has been done to try to show that certain things in the humans world can be "fixed" has always failed showing that the results changed according to how the circumstance changed.

I agree with you when you say, "arbitrarity will alway be wrong," though I doubt we think of it in the same way.   It's probably true that everybody has a differnt opinion.  But don't confuse "opinion" with "standard."  If you go to play Winter Wind etude in a competition, and you mess up on every page, and don't pass the first round, that frankly was not a "differenc of opinion," to name just one glaringly obvious example.

I haven't read Shrodinger but I am more interested in Elfenboy's writings than his.  I think it's perceptive when you say, the only black and white issue is if we don't eat we die.  Because how do you know that?  In finding the one objective thing you can subscribe to, you found the basic principle behind all principles, which is, we can live or die.  You didn't go so far to say it is our choice, but I am sure you know that it is.  You don't have to eat, even if you have food.  If we have a choice to live or die, then we have to have a way to know how to make choices - will this kill us, or help us survive.  If it is one or the other, than it is not subjective anymore.  But since these choices get more complicated than just "eating," - for instance, how are you going to get food - you need money - how are you going to get money, are you going to be a hitman or is that just bad for you but good for someone else? - etc., it would seem that at the root of everything there is an objective truth, and that choices have to have a standard.  We're spoiled in music because if you wish to play the second movement of Beethoven Emperor concerto like a wild scherzo you are able, but your only standard is arbitrary whim.  If you want a feast of lobster and filet mignon, nothing you can do will wish it in front of you.  The difference is we accept arbitrary whim in music but nthing will come of it in real life - but they remain the same thing!

If you feel that it is right to change the character of the piece by changing dynamic markings for instance, you actually don't go far enough.  Character is also composed of notes, and why shouldn't you be able to change the notes to support your notion?  If the melody goes to an A, but you think it is more effective to go to the C, I mean, why not?  Why not be totally consistent?  If it is sixteenths, but you think it should be thirty-seconds to better communicate that urgent drive you hear, why shouldn't you do it?  maybe you think that we should.  Nobody is going to stop you certainly, but that doesn't make it right.

Food for Thoughts!

Walter Ramsey