From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Tue Feb 17 2004 - 14:35:26 GMT
Dan,
> Platt,
>
> Again, and apologies for being such a pain, the problem I am having is
> this "better" word. I mean, what IS "better"? What maybe better for you may
> not be for me. Specifically in music, I just fail to see what is "better"
> for anyone.
> I do understand that eating nutricious foods are "better" than eating
> unhealthy foods - for, say, medical purposes. But when it comes to music,
> to say that Mozart is "better" than The Rolling Stones, well, I fail to
> find what makes one "better" than the other.
> Please elaborate.
As far as your personal taste in music is concerned, no one can
legitimately argue that your taste is better or worse than anyone else's..
As my Dad used to say, " 'There's no accounting for taste,' said the old
lady as she kissed the cow." So I agree that what may be better for you
may not be better for me.
But there are people out there who have spent their lifetimes creating
informed judgments about what in the arts is good or bad, better or worse.
They are the art critics, curators and historians who get paid (and are
thus valued) to share their expertise with us. When contributors to 'The
Oxford Dictionary of Music,' 'Histoire de la Musiqkue,' 'Weltgeschichte
der Muzik,' 'Music in Western Civilization,' 'The International Cyclopedia
of Music,' 'The Bodley Head History of Western Music,' 'Musikens
Historie," and other authoritative sources all agree that Mozart ranks at
the top in musical achievement, I think their judgment is worth paying
attention to.
Of course, you can choose to ignore the judgment of the experts. But to do
so seems to me to shut off an avenue of experiencing a depth of quality
that cannot be found otherwise. It is not mere taste alone that accounts
for the staying power of Mozart and other classical composers who, if
nothing else, have passed the test of time. But, there's something going
on in their music that has attracted millions of people across cultures
and across generations. I think that "something" is the music's ability to
reveal DQ without strobe lights, sound amplification, mosh pits, drugs and
other show props without which rock groups like the Rolling Stones would
have wilted away years ago. Likewise, modern jazz groups have a long way
to go to attain the universal appeal and perseverance of the classical
composers.
Perhaps the difference between taste and informed judgment is best
illustrated by comparing the pictures I have hanging on the walls in my
home compared to what adorns the walls of the Tate Museum in London or the
Metropolitan Museum in New York. I don't think people would pay to see my
collection. :-)
Hope this answers your question. But, please don't hesitate to ask for
clarification or to give us the benefit of your views. I don't consider
those who give me the opportunity to answer questions as being "pains" at
all.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 17 2004 - 14:38:05 GMT