Difference between revisions of "Ontmusic29. Good Music: What makes it good?"

Discussion

What properties make for good music?

“In effect, it should not be too difficult to understand Wimsatt and Beardsley's own intentions in writing the essay and attacking the "intentional fallacy." From their biographical data and the essay itself wc can clearly see that they are posing as "New Critics," are positing the "objective theory" that a literary work has an independent public existence, are encouraging "intrinsic studies" while discouraging "extrinsic studies" of literature, are trying to replace a system of values (covering the ideas of sincerity, fidelity, spontaneity, authenticity, genuineness, originality, etc.) with another system (integrity, relevance, unity, function, maturity, subtlety, adequacy, etc.), and are disputing the Romantic view of the author as an important source of meaning for works and they are doing all these by arguing that the author's intentions are not the proper concern of the critic.” ^[1] (bold not in original)

What is meant by good music?

There are two different approaches for developing ways of trying to determine what counts as good music. Call these two approaches a subjective approach and an objective approach.

The subjective approach for determining good music?

A subjective approach to developing an answer for determine what makes for good music entirely depends upon the likes and personal preferences of the music perceiver(s). On this approach, it does not matter intrinsically what features the music has objectively, as for example, what key the song is in, how the music is structured internally, or what genre of music it is. None of these musical 'structural features' are deemed relevant for determining why a piece of music is goid or not since this entirely depends on the listener's preferences and beliefs, past memories and associations, and so forth; all entirely subjective by the subjects evaluating the music. The only thing that matters are the experiences and beliefs of the music perceiver(s). If the person listening to the music believes the music to have features that this person enjoys listening to then this is sufficient for the music to qualify as good music. If, on the other ear (hand), this person dislikes the music being played, then it is at least true that it is not good music for that particular person.

➢ Can it really be this simple?

No, it cannot because there remain several issues still to be investigated and what stance the subjective approach is going to take regarding them.

First, there is the question of comparisons. What does the subjective approach wish to say about two different people's preferences, especially when they are opposed to each other? Suppose that Fred likes Chopin and believes it is good music, but Biff does not. Is Chopin's music good or not? The answer has to be that it is both good and not good depending upon whom you ask. But this raises then an objection. It now no longer seems that the subjective approach is in the correct ballpark. This approach does not seem to be addressing the music itself, but only people's beliefs and attitudes towards the music. This though is not what was trying to be measured. It was not a question about people's enjoyment or about people's preferences, but rather a question about the merits of the music itself. Of course, people can have opposite beliefs about the same object without this affecting the status of the object in any way. How is it even possible that the very same piece of music, on the subjective approach, can be simultaneously both good and not good? Is this a consequence that should be acceptable to theorists? It would seem not because then the music in itself would have contradictory features and no object can have such features. The apple cannot be red and not red at the same time. The status of either state of the object logically rules out the other state as impossible. Hence, it is impossible for the very same piece of music both to have the note C and not the note C contained within it.

Second, what does the subjective approach want to say about the aggregate of people's subjective opinions? What if everybody, or a large majority of music perceivers all concur that they enjoy, like, and find to be good the same piece of music. Does this make the song in question even more good because it has a lot of support by music perceivers?

The subjective approach could go two different ways on the question of aggregate agreements that a particular song is agreed by many people to be good music that they enjoy. The subjective approach could claim that it doesn't matter how many or how few music perceivers agree. The subjectivist might wish to argue that music is only good or bad relative to observers and not about any feature regarding the music in and of itself. It will always be good music for whom. On the subjectivist approach goodness is a two place relationship that requires both a perceiver and the music.

The objective approach for determining good music?

On the objective stance towards analyzing the goodness or badness of the music

NOTES

1. ↑ Lindong Zhang, "The Intentional Fallacy" Reconsidered/LA RECONNAISSANCE DE "L'AFFECTIVE INTENTIONNELLE"," Canadian Social Science 8, no. 2, 2012. http://www.questia.com/read/1P3-2680647991/the-intentional-fallacy-reconsidered-la-reconnaissance.

</div>