[William Noble]

you know, every generation has complained about the decline of
civilization - you can find quotes from Pliny the elder about this, you can
certainly amuse yourself reading about the evils of rock and roll, or the
evils of Mozart and how society will be in Hades soon.

What you are seeing is the reaction to change, not to decline. Just because
YOU (Nietzsche) or don't like it, doesn't mean that it is bad. Tehre is
some of this in the pro/anti vinyl arguements, and there is some truth on
both sides. Let's not confuse personal preference with the long term
destiny of humankind.

wrote in message
...
Sonnova wrote:

Well, the point is that mass entertainment, of all kinds, is an indicator
of the health of society. That all forms of pop entertainment have
consistently declined since WWII shows that our society is in decline.
The
fact that YOU might like the products of that decline or that I might not
is largely irrelevant. That change is occurring, like it or not.
Nietzsche
once noted that when people's tastes change, it is rarely for the better.
I think he has something there.

Well, FN did not like Wagner either, so there is no accounting for taste.
But, to be fair, Nietzsche's criticism of Wagner was not mostly music
related, although that was a component. In the latter, he was, of course,
aesthetically wrong, inasmuch as Wagner was one of the four or five top
composers within our Western tradition. However, I know what you mean.

Michael

[Sonnova]

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:37:03 -0700, William Noble wrote
(in article ):

you know, every generation has complained about the decline of
civilization - you can find quotes from Pliny the elder about this, you can
certainly amuse yourself reading about the evils of rock and roll, or the
evils of Mozart and how society will be in Hades soon.

What you are seeing is the reaction to change, not to decline. Just because
YOU (Nietzsche) or don't like it, doesn't mean that it is bad.

I defy you to say that rap and hip-hop are "good". They're bad, and when
change results in general "bad", that's decline.

Tehre is
some of this in the pro/anti vinyl arguements, and there is some truth on
both sides. Let's not confuse personal preference with the long term
destiny of humankind.

I try not to make that mistake.

[Steven Sullivan]

Sonnova wrote:
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:37:03 -0700, William Noble wrote
(in article ):

you know, every generation has complained about the decline of
civilization - you can find quotes from Pliny the elder about this, you can
certainly amuse yourself reading about the evils of rock and roll, or the
evils of Mozart and how society will be in Hades soon.

What you are seeing is the reaction to change, not to decline. Just because
YOU (Nietzsche) or don't like it, doesn't mean that it is bad.

I defy you to say that rap and hip-hop are "good".

shrug

Some hip-hop is good. Some 'classical' is good. Some isn't.

So? I defy you to defend your position on anything other than
purely subjective-preference grounds.




--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 10:50:33 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:37:03 -0700, William Noble wrote
(in article ):

you know, every generation has complained about the decline of
civilization - you can find quotes from Pliny the elder about this, you
can
certainly amuse yourself reading about the evils of rock and roll, or the
evils of Mozart and how society will be in Hades soon.

What you are seeing is the reaction to change, not to decline. Just
because
YOU (Nietzsche) or don't like it, doesn't mean that it is bad.

I defy you to say that rap and hip-hop are "good".

shrug

Some hip-hop is good. Some 'classical' is good. Some isn't.

I'm not contrasting pop vs classical. I'm contrasting today's pop with the
pop music of earlier generations.

So? I defy you to defend your position on anything other than
purely subjective-preference grounds.

There's nothing to defend. Its just there for anyone with any perspective to
see (or rather, hear) for themselves.

[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 20, 11:08*am, Sonnova wrote:
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:37:03 -0700, William Noble wrote
(in article ):

you know, every generation has complained about the decline of
civilization - you can find quotes from Pliny the elder about this, you can
certainly amuse yourself reading about the evils of rock and roll, or the
evils of Mozart and how society will be in Hades soon.

What you are seeing is the reaction to change, not to decline. *Just because
YOU (Nietzsche) or don't like it, doesn't mean that it is bad.

I defy you to say that rap and hip-hop are "good". *They're bad, and when
change results in general "bad", that's decline. *

Yikes!

The Romans had this figured out some thousands of years ago:

Primus:

De gustibus non est disputandum.

et secundus:

Damnant quod non intellegunt.

I will leave you to find the translations.

some of this in the pro/anti vinyl arguements, and there is some truth on
both sides. *Let's not confuse personal preference with the long term
destiny of humankind.

I try not to make that mistake.

But, with respect, you just did.

Children are forever attempting to shock their parents. It is part of
the separation process. After the 60s, sex-drugs-rock-and-roll, free
love, tune in, turn on, drop out, we are pretty hard to shock. Imagine
what our grandchildren will need to do to shock their parents - and
what you might think of that?

Civilizations decline for any number of reasons - mostly having to do
with diminishing resources spread over a larger and larger area - be
that oil-to-population or military-to-subject-states, or water-to-more-
crops. Few (historically) have collapsed of their own weight - but two
actually have in recent times: The Soviet Union and South Africa. Both
peacefully as it happens. Cuba shows signs of a similar collapse. So,
despite the onset of hip-hop, AIDS, raves, designer drugs and apparent
terminal youthful stupidity, there are signs of "civilization"
becoming a bit more-so - at least in fits and starts.

Human progress is halting at best, with as many set-backs as steps
ahead - all in the profound hope that the steps ahead exceed the
setbacks. With now ~ 6.7+ people on the planet:

http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

The consequences of even a small setback are immense.

So, give it a rest. Music is an expression of energy - and perhaps (at
least one hopes) a certain amount of essential emotions comingled with
it. Anger, fear, love, hate, pleasure, pain et.al. - they all have a
legitimate place in it. Hip-hop is particularly good at expressing
certain emotions - and so is "good" - as good as, say... BWV 147 is of
peace and serenity - and I leave you to look that one up as well.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[[email protected]]

Sonnova wrote:

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 10:50:33 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

So? I defy you to defend your position on anything other than
purely subjective-preference grounds.

There's nothing to defend. Its just there for anyone with any perspective
to see (or rather, hear) for themselves.

Within the realm of aesthetics there is no "objective" ground in the sense
that we mean it within the empirical sciences. To demand such ground is to
get the question wrong from the beginning. There is only judgment based on
the value and recognition of one's own aesthetic sensibility. That,
however, does not mean that one opinion is as good as any other.

Value in aesthetic judgment is necessarily hierarchical, but the proof is an
internal one, an apperception, and not an external perception based upon
either logical or factual distinctions. Logically, one can simply ignore
the question (Russell), or, however important the question might be,
declare it to be nonsensical and mystical (Wittgenstein)--hence,
unsolvable. And, logically, one would be quite right. But that does not
make the problem go away, for it is not a problem with the question, it is
just the limitation of logic.

Michael

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 06:47:09 -0700, Peter Wieck wrote
(in article ):

On Sep 20, 11:08*am, Sonnova wrote:
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:37:03 -0700, William Noble wrote
(in article ):

you know, every generation has complained about the decline of
civilization - you can find quotes from Pliny the elder about this, you can
certainly amuse yourself reading about the evils of rock and roll, or the
evils of Mozart and how society will be in Hades soon.

What you are seeing is the reaction to change, not to decline. *Just
because
YOU (Nietzsche) or don't like it, doesn't mean that it is bad.

I defy you to say that rap and hip-hop are "good". *They're bad, and when
change results in general "bad", that's decline. *

Yikes!

The Romans had this figured out some thousands of years ago:

Primus:

De gustibus non est disputandum.

You spelled degustibus and disputatio incorrectly.

et secundus:

Damnant quod non intellegunt.

There are no Latin words "damnant" or "intellegunt."

I will leave you to find the translations.

It would be a lot easier, if you could actually spell the Latin words that
you are trying to use. Luckily, I know what you're trying to say. Someone
using a Latin-English dictionary to translate these two phrases is going to
find himself up against a brick wall, though because most of the words you
use are not really Latin.

But I agree that there is no arguing taste, and if I correctly translate your
second illiteracy as "damn (or condemn) the stupid", then I agree there as
well.

some of this in the pro/anti vinyl arguements, and there is some truth on
both sides. *Let's not confuse personal preference with the long term
destiny of humankind.

I try not to make that mistake.

But, with respect, you just did.

No I didn't. I can recognize something as being good and still not personally
like it. I can likewise recognize something as being very poor quality and
still like it. Conversely, I can also recognize something that is very poor
quality and not like it.

Children are forever attempting to shock their parents. It is part of
the separation process. After the 60s, sex-drugs-rock-and-roll, free
love, tune in, turn on, drop out, we are pretty hard to shock. Imagine
what our grandchildren will need to do to shock their parents - and
what you might think of that?

I am aware of that. It's irrelevant. Bad is bad, whatever the excuse.

Civilizations decline for any number of reasons - mostly having to do
with diminishing resources spread over a larger and larger area - be
that oil-to-population or military-to-subject-states, or water-to-more-
crops. Few (historically) have collapsed of their own weight - but two
actually have in recent times: The Soviet Union and South Africa. Both
peacefully as it happens. Cuba shows signs of a similar collapse. So,
despite the onset of hip-hop, AIDS, raves, designer drugs and apparent
terminal youthful stupidity, there are signs of "civilization"
becoming a bit more-so - at least in fits and starts.

Again, irrelevant. Nobody is talking about a society collapsing, all we are
talking about is the erosion of standards in popular music as an indicator of
the overall health of the society on an intellectual level - not economic,
not militarily, not even socially.

But like I said, we have flogged this deceased equine enough.

[Peter Wieck]

You did not try very hard nor look very far back nor answer the last
point.

a) There is no accounting for taste.
b) They condemn what they do not understand.

The first is from about 380AD, the last from about 980AD - and latin
by then was the first cousin of Vergil, at best. But it was Latin-as-
practiced nonetheless. Again - I leave you to find the references.

And, with all due respect, you are taking a rigidly subjective
viewpoint without reference to the world as exists and as it has
existed for (at least) all of recorded history. I very strongly
suggest that you look up the much more recent works of Don Marquis -
and one of his smaller characters, "Probably Arboreal". It will do
much towards granting you the power of insight.

The Horse ain't nohow dead unless and until you describe clearly and
cogently where and why *this* generation is any different, or any less
hopeful or any more threatening to "civilization' than its parents
generation, our generation, or those that produced us.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Steven Sullivan]

Sonnova wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 10:50:33 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:37:03 -0700, William Noble wrote
(in article ):

you know, every generation has complained about the decline of
civilization - you can find quotes from Pliny the elder about this, you
can
certainly amuse yourself reading about the evils of rock and roll, or the
evils of Mozart and how society will be in Hades soon.

What you are seeing is the reaction to change, not to decline. Just
because
YOU (Nietzsche) or don't like it, doesn't mean that it is bad.

I defy you to say that rap and hip-hop are "good".

shrug

Some hip-hop is good. Some 'classical' is good. Some isn't.

I'm not contrasting pop vs classical. I'm contrasting today's pop with the
pop music of earlier generations.

So? I defy you to defend your position on anything other than
purely subjective-preference grounds.

There's nothing to defend. Its just there for anyone with any perspective to
see (or rather, hear) for themselves.

In other words, with the right 'perspective', it's a self-evident
truth?


I've been a music lover for some 35 years now. My pop music collection
goes back to the days of Louis Armstrong's Hot 5s. I enjoy pop from all
eras and genres, including rap, as well as 'classical', jazz, showtunes,
avant-garde. I still sample what;s new in pop music (it's easier now than
it ever was). I've played in bands and pit orchestras since the 1970s. So
I think I've got plenty of perspective. Who are you to assert a priori
that I, or anyone, lacks perspective? If anything,I'd bet good money *you*
haven't the 'perspective' to judge the worth of any given example of rap,
since you probably no know nothinfg of the genre.



--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 18:46:06 -0700, Peter Wieck wrote
(in article ):

You did not try very hard nor look very far back nor answer the last
point.

a) There is no accounting for taste.
b) They condemn what they do not understand.


The first is from about 380AD, the last from about 980AD - and latin
by then was the first cousin of Vergil, at best. But it was Latin-as-
practiced nonetheless. Again - I leave you to find the references.

You misspelled Virgil. And the saying "They condemn what they do not
understand" is attributed to Cicero (106-43 BCE), hardly 980AD.

And, with all due respect, you are taking a rigidly subjective
viewpoint without reference to the world as exists and as it has
existed for (at least) all of recorded history. I very strongly
suggest that you look up the much more recent works of Don Marquis -
and one of his smaller characters, "Probably Arboreal". It will do
much towards granting you the power of insight.

The Horse ain't nohow dead unless and until you describe clearly and
cogently where and why *this* generation is any different, or any less
hopeful or any more threatening to "civilization' than its parents
generation, our generation, or those that produced us.

This generation's taste in music, film and literature is poorer than that of
the "Baby Boomers" and their (my generation's) taste in music, film and
literature is poorer that that of their parents' generation(s). It's called
entropy and it comes from within and from without. Many blame this entropic
decline of Western values on TV. I'd say that this has merit but doesn't tell
the entire story. TV has engendered short attention spans, and the insatiable
desire for "something new" that goes along with the short attention spans,
which causes the creators of pop culture to respond with ever more
abbreviated forms of "stimulus" which again, further shortens attention
spans, and creates a demand for more "new", etc. With each iteration, the
"new" becomes more and more banal due to it's need to be brief - to satisfy
the short attention spans of it's intended audience. It's an inevitability.
We see it reflected in everything from business ("... don't give me your
life's story, just the bottom line!") to pop music and mindless movies; short
on story, long on quick-changing action and violence.

You're the one who seems to have read into my criticism that this is somehow
threatening to humanity, I made no such claim. Humanity will continue in some
state or another until we either annihilate each other or nature does it for
us. It just seems to me that the utopian goal of each generation being more
enlightened and culturally astute than the one before is now thoroughly
bankrupt and discredited.

I'm through.

And that's my final word on the subject

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 06:19:40 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 10:50:33 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:37:03 -0700, William Noble wrote
(in article ):

you know, every generation has complained about the decline of
civilization - you can find quotes from Pliny the elder about this, you
can
certainly amuse yourself reading about the evils of rock and roll, or
the
evils of Mozart and how society will be in Hades soon.

What you are seeing is the reaction to change, not to decline. Just
because
YOU (Nietzsche) or don't like it, doesn't mean that it is bad.

I defy you to say that rap and hip-hop are "good".

shrug

Some hip-hop is good. Some 'classical' is good. Some isn't.

I'm not contrasting pop vs classical. I'm contrasting today's pop with the
pop music of earlier generations.

So? I defy you to defend your position on anything other than
purely subjective-preference grounds.

There's nothing to defend. Its just there for anyone with any perspective
to
see (or rather, hear) for themselves.

In other words, with the right 'perspective', it's a self-evident
truth?


I've been a music lover for some 35 years now. My pop music collection
goes back to the days of Louis Armstrong's Hot 5s. I enjoy pop from all
eras and genres, including rap, as well as 'classical', jazz, showtunes,
avant-garde. I still sample what;s new in pop music (it's easier now than
it ever was). I've played in bands and pit orchestras since the 1970s. So
I think I've got plenty of perspective. Who are you to assert a priori
that I, or anyone, lacks perspective? If anything,I'd bet good money *you*
haven't the 'perspective' to judge the worth of any given example of rap,
since you probably no know nothinfg of the genre.

I didn't say that you lacked perspective - so please don't put words in my
mouth. I said that the decline in popular musical standards from one
generation to the next is there for anyone with the perspective to see for
themselves. I've also said that there is no accounting for "taste". For
instance, I like canned chow-mien (you know, the kind that comes in the two
cans taped together?). I know that its not very good and certainly not
representative of anything even approaching chow-mien, but my mom used to
serve it for lunch sometimes when I was a kid, and I still like the taste.
That doesn't mean that I don't recognize it as the poor product it is. That's
the kind of detached perspective I was trying to engender to this discussion.
I.E. it doesn't matter whether you (or I) like or don't like something, it
must be evaluated dispassionately. Take from that little anecdote what you
will but I'm through with this thread.

[Dave]

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
\ I defy you to say that rap and hip-hop are "good". They're bad, and when
change results in general "bad", that's decline.

Using whose criteria? Yours? I defy you to illustrate how this is not
purely and entirely a subjective evaluation.

Unilaterally stating that hip-hop and rap are "bad" is akin to stating
unilaterally that homosexuality is "wrong". If someone enjoys something,
and that something is not harming anyone else, how is it "wrong"? And
please, I beg the masses, do not bring organized religion into this thread.
Just the facts, ma'am.

Why don't you just say "I don't like it" (or, as I trained my children,
"It's not my favorite"). Just because you find something distasteful or
even offensive in no way renders it devoid of value or quality.

David

[Dave]

wrote in message
...
Sonnova wrote:

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 10:50:33 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

So? I defy you to defend your position on anything other than
purely subjective-preference grounds.

There's nothing to defend. Its just there for anyone with any perspective
to see (or rather, hear) for themselves.

Within the realm of aesthetics there is no "objective" ground in the sense
that we mean it within the empirical sciences. To demand such ground is
to
get the question wrong from the beginning. There is only judgment based
on
the value and recognition of one's own aesthetic sensibility. That,
however, does not mean that one opinion is as good as any other.

Value in aesthetic judgment is necessarily hierarchical, but the proof is
an
internal one, an apperception, and not an external perception based upon
either logical or factual distinctions. Logically, one can simply ignore
the question (Russell), or, however important the question might be,
declare it to be nonsensical and mystical (Wittgenstein)--hence,
unsolvable. And, logically, one would be quite right. But that does not
make the problem go away, for it is not a problem with the question, it is
just the limitation of logic.

It's difficult to disagree with a logical discourse such as that rendered
above. And yet...

If you have read the discourse on quality as set out in Robert Pursig's "Zen
and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" evidence is presented as to a
non-objective, non-subjective entity called Quality. Perception of quality
preceeds objective and subjective recognition. Some things are immediately
perceived as good (having quality) WITHOUT any a priori knowledge which
might color one's judgement, and some are perceived as not good, or lacking
quality.

One could argue the good/bad-ness of rap music indefinitely. I chalk it up
to the old adage "there's no accounting for personal taste".

David

[Steven Sullivan]

Dave wrote:

It's difficult to disagree with a logical discourse such as that rendered
above. And yet...

If you have read the discourse on quality as set out in Robert Pursig's "Zen
and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" evidence is presented as to a
non-objective, non-subjective entity called Quality. Perception of quality
preceeds objective and subjective recognition. Some things are immediately
perceived as good (having quality) WITHOUT any a priori knowledge which
might color one's judgement, and some are perceived as not good, or lacking
quality.

These are statements of fact, backed up by.....what?

It's easy to marshall experimental data to show that perception 'quality' is hardly
self-evident and self-generating, and is more likely to be highly influenced by 'a priori
knowledge'.

--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)

[[email protected]]

Dave wrote:

wrote in message

Within the realm of aesthetics there is no "objective" ground in the
sense...(redacted)

Some things are
immediately perceived as good (having quality) WITHOUT any a priori
knowledge which might color one's judgement, and some are perceived as not
good, or lacking quality.

I'm trying to understand your statement, and I think I know what you are
trying to say. My only point is that aesthetic judgment, if authentic, is
based upon something internal--a valuation of "the good" or "quality." It
is undoubtedly hierarchical and demands a ranking; at the same time, it is
not objective in the normal sense. If aesthetic judgment was not
hierarchical, anything would be as good as any other thing, and judgment
would not be necessary.

Empirical knowledge will help you build an amplifier, and help one decide
which amplifier represents good value, or quality. However, empirical
knowledge is really not so helpful when deciding the music one plays
through the amplifier.

Michael

[Dave]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:

It's difficult to disagree with a logical discourse such as that rendered
above. And yet...

If you have read the discourse on quality as set out in Robert Pursig's
"Zen
and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" evidence is presented as to a
non-objective, non-subjective entity called Quality. Perception of
quality
preceeds objective and subjective recognition. Some things are
immediately
perceived as good (having quality) WITHOUT any a priori knowledge which
might color one's judgement, and some are perceived as not good, or
lacking
quality.

These are statements of fact, backed up by.....what?


Read the book. If you enjoy exploring the issues touched on in this thread,
you will enjoy it immensely. I'm not a philosopher, and quite frankly am
not skilled enough to properly construct a logical treatise on quality or
lack thereof as related to a priori effects. I can only say it's been
attempted, and that there are conflicting opinions or philosophies (for lack
of a better word) regarding the successfulness of such proof(s).

The book is several hundred pages long. As I alluded to in my original post
"evidence is presented as to...". It's in there.

Dave

[Steven Sullivan]

Dave wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:

It's difficult to disagree with a logical discourse such as that rendered
above. And yet...

If you have read the discourse on quality as set out in Robert Pursig's
"Zen
and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" evidence is presented as to a
non-objective, non-subjective entity called Quality. Perception of
quality
preceeds objective and subjective recognition. Some things are
immediately
perceived as good (having quality) WITHOUT any a priori knowledge which
might color one's judgement, and some are perceived as not good, or
lacking
quality.

These are statements of fact, backed up by.....what?


Read the book.

I did, years ago. IIRC it was a lot of groovy 70's style East/West fusion
philosophizing. I found it tiresome in its assumptions.

Meanwhile, there are plentiful experimental data about the effects of a
priori knowledge on perception of quality. Pirsig's book is not the type
of tome that could pretend to argue against such data.

--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)