Preferences parading themselves as Opinions

[opus10no2]

Such is the case with many reviewers and most people who comment on music in general.

As secure as I am in my own taste in music, it still irritates and even occasionally hurts me when someone lays down an attack against music/musicians I hold dear.

It can be taken as a personal insult, if one loves the music so much to feel as if it is part of oneself.

Saying 'I like..' , 'I dislike...' is all fine, expressing preference.

And though we often casually call music we like 'good' and music we dislike 'bad', it is merely intended to express our preference in imperfect language.

It is when preferences are truly asserted as opinions it disgusts me.

Infering that one person's taste and love is more informed, intelligent, 'tasteful' than anothers is touchy ground.

There is so obviously uninspired, uninteresting, stock music out there, even music that could be called 'bad', but this music is mostly unheard, it doesn't survive due to disinterest.

If music survives, if some people adore this music....how dare we claim it is bad?

I am often called an 'uncritical' listener due to my perpetual openmindedness, but it isn't even my own criticism which compells me to relisten/stop listening to a recording, it is simply a feeling....a need to relisten is either felt or it isn't.

There are occasions where intellect overrides taste and I force myself to listen to something which does not immediately appeal but I trust may grow on me in time, ... this is hit and miss.

Anyway, express your opinions here, but try to not let them be informed by your wilful preferences 

[michel dvorsky]

No judgments in art are objective, and reasonable people can always disagree.  Some criticisms are inherently more reasonable than others, though. The popularity of a certain piece of music at a single point of time doesn't tell you much about it's quality.  If you try to make the case that Green Day are better than Beethoven, your argument is not likely to be taken seriously by very many reasonable people. A piece of music that remains popular, influential, and powerful for decades, even centuries after its composition, probably possesses some inherent quality that music that is popular for weeks or months does not.

that is all

[michel dvorsky]

The best judge of ideas and opinions is how well they stand up to time.

If I call a piece of music you like "crap", I am wagering that I know enough to make that judgment and am ultimately prepared to hold the same position a decade down the road. Cry all you like over hurt feelings. 

If I care about what people think of my opinion, then calling Lang Lang's Rachmaninoff 23/2 "crap" is not a costless choice on my part. I am willing to let my remarks stand up to scrutiny.

[opus10no2]

In most areas of discussion 'good'ness is defined by how well something serves its purpose.

The purpose in/of art is difficult to pin down.

Green Day succeeds in appealing to many people for whom Beethoven will remain unappealing, and vice versa.

Can we define this success by the sheer quantity of people who like something? In a way...yes.

But I'd say, even if just a small niche really like a piece of music, whole-heartedly, it has succeeded as much as other pieces with global exposure.

[michel dvorsky]

Economic value is distinct from artistic value. Green Day et al. indeed write very good music for their purposes.  I suspect the people you are talking about aren't criticizing the marketability of popular music, but rather its artistic content.

Some people get more utility out of consuming poor quality food than high quality food. That's a simple consumption preference.  True artistic quality defies such quantification, so we have to instead appeal to more abstract ideas (timelessness etc.)...refer back to my earlier posts.

[opus10no2]

I do understand your point, but I am more concerned with the timelessness in my own lifetime.

If you're talking about the fact that music survives for musics sake over generations, without the initial cultural impact of its birth, then I see that.

But...it's all about memories, I come back to a piece of music because the memory of it compells me to.

It has succeeded in standing out, making itself home in my brain.

Of course we all know that there are annoying tunes that are memorable yet we cringe at the thought of them, but largely ... memories are what we live for, the moments we will think about in times of mental rest in years to come.

But what relevance does this have to the quality of the music? It has succeeded in being memorable and beautiful for me, but perhaps not for you.

Does this make it half bad, half good? no, it is personal.

Art will always be personal, no matter the impact it has on masses.

[michel dvorsky]

You basically say that you can like something without thinking it has artistic quality. True. But a lot of people don't like music that they think doesn't have quality.  That is what offends. 

I don't see why someone should withhold their opinion out of fear of causing offense.  Even so, offending someone is not such a big deal in my opinion.

And incidentally, I have the same emotional attachment to some music that I no longer think is very good.  It conjures up memories.  If someone called it worthless, I wouldn't be offended. 

[opus10no2]

You basically say that you can like something without thinking it has artistic quality.

Where?

I say that LIKING SOMETHING in itself is the only way of defining artistic quality.

I'm also not saying that there isn't good and bad.

I'm saying that something CANNOT be bad, artistically, if someone really likes it, even if it is the artist alone.


Defining 'best' by enduring popularity is uncomfortable, but it does offer an overview of what touches the most amount of people's emotions and memories.

[Bob]

I think preferences and opinions are the same thing.

Maybe you meant 'judgment?'  Or naming?  Like naming the quality.


Otherwise everything that a person says is just their opinion unless it's more scientific. 

[opus10no2]

Opinion -

a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty

Preference -

n. A sentiment, or frame of mind, induced by the erroneous belief that one thing is better than another. An ancient philosopher, expounding his conviction that life is no better than death, was asked by a disciple why, then, he did not die. "Because," he replied, "death is no better than life." It is longer.


Do you think what you like is good and what you dislike is bad?

Do you see when other people greatly like something, that it may be good even if you dislike?

[slobone]

I'm having a little trouble following your argument. First you say you don't like people expressing opinions. I agree -- when the opinion is unsupported. Anybody can say "that sucks" or "that's awesome," but unless you can back up your opinion with specifics, I'm not that interested.

But then it sort of sounds like you're just one of those people who can't stand it when somebody doesn't love something as much as you do. Get over it -- if you're confident in your own taste, that shouldn't bother you.

As for "the test of time", that's a good start -- but it doesn't cover the whole territory. Some things, like Green Day, just haven't been around long enough to be submitted to that test. Who knows if people will still be listening to them in 100 years? It could happen -- a lot of music that has survived the centuries came originally from the common folk, and was probably the Green Day of its era.

I often find myself on the other side of this argument. It irritates me when people blindly follow the consensus and wildly praise an inferior performance by a famous artist. I'm often not that crazy about Kissin (in anything non-Russian), or Argerich (occasionally), or Gould (about half the time) or Richter (surprisingly often). To hear them over-rated offends my sensibilites as much as yours are offended when people attack something in an ignorant way.

[opus10no2]

I'm having a little trouble following your argument. First you say you don't like people expressing opinions. I agree -- when the opinion is unsupported. Anybody can say "that sucks" or "that's awesome," but unless you can back up your opinion with specifics, I'm not that interested.

But then it sort of sounds like you're just one of those people who can't stand it when somebody doesn't love something as much as you do. Get over it -- if you're confident in your own taste, that shouldn't bother you.

That isn't quite it, I like people expressing opinions, but opinions are different than preferences.

People expressing preferences is great too...

again...

I like/dislike = preference.

It's Good/Bad = opinion.


It thrills me when I see other people taking a passionate interest in neglected composers, and equally it can upset slightly when they are publicly disrespected or maligned in a serious way.
It only bothers me when these composers/musicians are already 'down', and are being kicked while trying to crawl up.

I am nowhere near as concerned about positive passion, but I do completely accept your frustration....
Consider if you knew that these people have been exposed, and have comprehended performances and performers you feel are more to your preference.
If they still prefer the performance you consider inferior....what do you think?

They have bad taste? They're stupid.

I think it infantile to think that way.

The thing is, I don't consider my musical taste to be better than anyone elses in an absolute way, it is simply better *for me*, and it only serves my functioning.

What makes a good reviewer?
Someone with a taste reflective of the masses, and a neutrality to use descriptive colourful terms and avoiding too much in the way of 'good's and 'bad's.

We can make up our own minds..

Bad reviewer - It's terrible, because it's so blue.

Good reviewer -  If you like blue, you might just love this.


How can someone argue that a piece/performance is better than another?

Better at what? Better in what way?

You can present a case as much as you want, but you wont change what an individual prefers.

[opus10no2]

For the record, I don't even consider 'Classical' and 'Popular' music superior/inferior to oneanother.

They serve different purposes, they present a different canvas to create upon.

[slobone]

If you're talking about a review in a newspaper or magazine, I generally at least consider them seriously even if I disagree. Unless I already know the reviewer is an idiot.

But on the Internet, like Youtube (or here for that matter), you can generally tell if the person knows what they're talking about or not.

As for people who are already "down", I often disagree there too. There seemed to be a lot of people here recently who thought Yundi Li was overhyped. I finally got around to hearing one of his performances and it was terrific. With Lang Lang -- well the jury is still out. He sounds a lot better if you close your eyes...

[general disarray]

As secure as I am in my own taste in music, it still irritates and even occasionally hurts me when someone lays down an attack against music/musicians I hold dear.

It can be taken as a personal insult, if one loves the music so much to feel as if it is part of oneself.

Saying 'I like..' , 'I dislike...' is all fine, expressing preference.

Infering that one person's taste and love is more informed, intelligent, 'tasteful' than anothers is touchy ground.

Your comments are thoughtful, but the truth is, we will never be successful in asking people to express what they like as a "preference" as distinct from "opinion."  Humans just love to find dichotomies -- this is "good" and that is "bad."  It's how the brain works:   by comparing and contrasting.  Does it have to work that way?  No, but that's how we are conditioned in our learning process from Day One.

It seems to me that the best solution is not to "personalize" our love for, say, Argerich or Hamelin.  They are what they are and they are not us, not matter how much we love their work.  To personalize something indicates that we have identified with it.  "It" equals "us."  That's a fallacy.  We are separate entities.

If anyone chooses to disparage Hamelin's artistry, he or she has that right.  Why should it upset us?  It just a subjective response, no more valid that our admiration of Hamelin's artistry.

We shouldn't take comments from others to heart.  Use your own intelligence.  And let the debates rage on.