Europe before WWI produced classical music so good that no one has been able to compete with it (for classical music, not music in general) since then.
Classical music is the art music produced in, or rooted in, the traditions of Western liturgical and secular music, encompassing a broad period from roughly the 11th century to present times.[1] The central norms of this tradition became codified between 1550 and 1900, which is known as the common practice period.
Also, “classical music” is a terrible term, due to collision with the Classical period in music). The proper (and insider-signaling) term is “Western art music”.
This is actually something I want to take care to avoid in this particular context. I do, after all, openly rate Weird Al as aesthetically superior to the greatest classical masterpieces. Also: cheap wine is usually better wine, caviar tastes terrible, those hats look stupid, peacock’s tails are largely pointless and I’ve never read Wittgenstein or that book with the whale in it.
(There are other groups that I would of course take efforts to signal insiderhood.)
Do you really use the same model for judging Genius in France and judging the Waldstein Piano Sonata?
My model of the universe is kinda big but I don’t actively try to compartmentalize it because it then I could not answer the question “Hey wedrifid, do you want me to play my Weird Al playlist or the my classical music playlist?”. A model so crippled would be strictly inferior.
My model of the universe is kinda big but I don’t actively try to compartmentalize it because it then I could not answer the question “Hey wedrifid, do you want me to play my Weird Al playlist or the my classical music playlist?”. That would be strictly inferior.
Not really. You can have different models and still be able to make strict decisions like that.
Especially with Weird Al, considering part of the aesthetic is the fact that it’s hilarious. Do you use the same model with Weird Al and Queen? Iron Maiden? Elvis? Do you put those on a strict 1-Dimensional spectrum as well, or do you prefer different things for different times and different purposes? Practically speaking, do you prefer the same music you normally listen to the same music that is the soundtrack to a film?
I’m not convinced you only have one model, and I’m also not convinced that your model actually says that classical music is strictly inferior to weird al.
Not really. You can have different models and still be able to make strict decisions like that.
No, you can’t. If you can make distinctions like that then they are in the same model! And your whole point was based around the fact that I was making such a distinction anyway!
Do you put those on a strict 1-Dimensional spectrum as well
That seems a tad disingenuous. That I consider one to have less aesthetic merit than the other does not in any way indicate that I would be unable to make other comparisons between them.
and I’m also not convinced that your model actually says that classical music is strictly inferior to weird al.
Wow. What can you say to someone if they make that sort of declaration? Maybe:
Oh, you caught me. Yes, I’m a dirty liar and I was only saying Weird Al is aesthetically superior to classical music.
I stand corrected. I trust your judgement of how I really rate music aesthetically based on blog comments over my own based on listening to it.
Oh yeah? Well your model says you like to eat dirt! So there.
Just tell me I am unsophisticated, naive, uncool, banal and tasteless or even that my claim about Weird Al superiority is outright offensive. Those are at least a mix of accurate (unsophisticated in this respect) and subjective. Trying to convince me (or even anyone else) that I don’t really have the aesthetic ratings that I do is just absurd!
Just tell me...that my claim about Weird Al superiority is outright offensive
It is somewhat, because it suggests that some of us should have our status lowered for failing to meet an optimization target we weren’t even aiming for.
“Not as good as Weird Al!” sounds a bit like “you fail!”. Whereas you could instead have said: “with all due respect to the impressive achievements of art composers, my personal interests lead me to want to spend somewhat more of my time enjoying clever parodies of popular songs than exploring the complexities of ‘classical masterpieces’, however great the latter might be on their own terms.”
I think your model of someone who enjoys “classical masterpieces” as much as I do is wrong to the extent that it suggests they can’t enjoy Weird AI as much as you do. And you invoke this model when you claim to have an aesthetic disagreement with them.
That’s a little surprising. It was the basis for any agreement I had with you regarding how having a different aesthetic evaluation of art could be offensive.
I think your model of someone who enjoys classical masterpieces as much as I do is wrong to the extent that it suggests they can’t enjoy Weird AI as much as you do.
Not something I’ve said (or something that can be derived from what I’ve said.)
It can be derived with the additional assumption that the only reason a person would have for explicitly comparing things as different as “classical masterpieces” and Weird AI would be that aesthetic enjoyment is held by the person to be fixed-sum and uncompartmentalizable (i.e. they in effect had no choice but to make a comparison to Y when expressing enthusiasm for X). An assumption which in turn follows from the assumption that the person understands the signaling value of explicit aesthetic comparisons, and wouldn’t want to send such a signal unless logically forced.
I suppose in retrospect the great-grandparent could be interpreted as a denial of the latter assumption. Alas.
I suppose in retrospect the great-grandparent could be interpreted as a denial of the latter assumption
It took me a while to realise what you were saying there—I wasn’t expecting an indirect insult!
In that case I’m not sure I was clear: the comment could be interpreted as a denial specifically of the “and wouldn’t want to send such a signal” part. In other words, it conveyed that you didn’t mind being insulting. (Perhaps you consider “I suppose you were willing to be insulting after all” to be itself an insult, in which case the parent is consistent with my having communicated successfully.)
Let’s just say we are in complete disagreement about both the subject and about the validity of the arguments used and leave it at that, shall we?
At this point I really don’t know exactly what we are in disagreement about, if anything, and more to the point I’m not sure I actually want to know. So “leaving it at that” may indeed be optimal for now.
No, you can’t. If you can make distinctions like that then they are in the same model! And your whole point was based around the fact that I was making such a distinction anyway!
What? Of course you can. If model allows for time and purpose, then you can just say “Weird Al is superior for the current time and purpose to all of classical music.” Bam. Done. Everything can be in multiple models but the comparison operator is different.
So in order for Weird Al to be strictly superior to classical music then it must be superior for all times and purposes. So when you watched Star Trek (2009), did you like Giacchino’s score, or would you have preferred Weird Al? Do you watch figure skating? If you do, then according to yourself, you would prefer Weird Al over whatever they skate to.
Wow. What can you say to someone if they make that sort of declaration?
Well if I’m going to contradict you about yourself, I might as well just say it.
Do I have a choice of the different responses? Because I think I’ll choose the first one :D
Just tell me I am unsophisticated, naive, uncool, banal and tasteless or even that my claim about Weird Al superiority is outright offensive. Those are at least a mix of accurate (unsophisticated in this respect) and subjective. Trying to convince me (or even anyone else) that I don’t really have the aesthetic ratings that I do is just absurd!
But I’m not doing that. I’m saying you are stating incorrect things about your own tastes. If anything, I would be trying to claim that you are more sophisticated and intelligent than you yourself will admit.
So in order for Weird Al to be strictly superior to classical music then it must be superior for all times and purposes.
'
I do, after all, openly rate Weird Al as aesthetically superior to the greatest classical masterpieces.
The second of the above quotes is something I have claimed. The first one is a response to something I have not claimed. There is a straw man at play.
Well if I’m going to contradict you about yourself, I might as well just say it.
On something so straightforward as this doing so makes you look ridiculous and tends to be considered rather rude. Far better to not say it.
I would be trying to claim that you are more sophisticated and intelligent than you yourself will admit.
Valuing Weird Al over classical does not make me less intelligent (albeit certainly less sophisticated). It speaks more about my general aesthetic preference for melding a conceptual meaning in closely with the melody, rhythm, tone, etc. For me the concepts themselves seem to be a part of music to a far greater extent than for most people I have compared myself to. I do not consider this to be a weakness of mine.
The second of the above quotes is something I have claimed. The first one is a response to something I have not claimed. There is a straw man at play.
Well yes, I was using an incorrect model of you.
Valuing Weird Al over classical does not make me less intelligent. It speaks more about my general aesthetic preference for melding a conceptual meaning in closely with the melody, rhythm, tone, etc. For me the concepts themselves seem to be a part of music to a far greater extent than for most people I have compared myself to. I do not consider this to be a weakness of mine.
I was really just commenting on the drama of the last part of your post. Valuing Weird Al over classical isn’t something bizarre to me.
The issue I have is the comparison between the two. Different music is for different things. To just say “Well if I’m gonna listen to music then I’ll always pick Weird Al over classical,” well, that’s not all there is to the aesthetics of music.
Edit: Especially with things like epic film scores. Classical music tends to fit this niche quite well, and I would be surprised if you honestly disagreed with that.
I am skeptical about your model of aesthetics. I think the model that allows you to compare so easily cross-genre is not the actual model that you use for your aesthetics. All I’m asking is that you double-check to make sure that the model you use actually fits, and you often are able to make these cross-genre comparisons (not comparing genres but comparing songs within different genres).
It is your comparison that baffles me, not the result of the comparison.
All I’m asking is that you double-check to make sure that the model you use actually fits
And I will ask that in the future when you feel the need to challenge someone regarding knowledge of their own preferences that you at least have the grace to let it drop after one comment. In this case it has been made abundantly clear that not only is your behavior rude as a general practice and absurdly unjustifiable in terms of any intellectual merit it is also personally unwelcome.
If you don’t have tact to refrain from starting then at least take a hint to stop. If you can’t take a hint then at least take a direct request. If you can’t respond to direct requests then at least respond to operant conditioning.
Maybe instead of insiderhood, you should consider it merely as a signal of non-ignorance, specifically of the fact that “classical” is the name of a historical era.
I do, after all, openly rate Weird Al as aesthetically superior to the greatest classical masterpieces.
I didn’t realize your aesthetic resources were so scarce as to put them in competition. Personally I think the world has plenty of room for both.
and I’ve never read...that book with the whale in it
I probably wouldn’t care so much about it if it weren’t the subject of an opera by the guy who wrote my favorite book.
Maybe instead of insiderhood, you should consider it merely as a signal of non-ignorance,
I quoted the first sentence from wikipedia. That is the definition of classical music that matches what most people—most certainly including Nancy—mean when they say ‘classical music’.
specifically of the fact that “classical” is the name of a historical era.
I am well aware of the historical era. Declaring that by relaying the common usage definition of ‘classical music’ I must be ignorant of the classical era is itself a strong signal of being unaware of how human language works.
One group in which I like to signal myself an insider is ‘Science’. We still use the word atom for something that can be broken down into protons, neutrons and electrons—and even the latter is a simplification. The relevance should be obvious.
Declaring that by relaying the common usage definition of ‘classical music’ I must be ignorant of the classical era
No, it’s just that by going along with that common usage you thereby decline to give a strong signal of non-ignorance. “Weak evidence” of ignorance, if you like.
We still use the word atom
I doubt that the common usage of “classical” preceded the naming of the historical period. In fact I suspect that the former did not become widespread until after it was already (erroneously) perceived that that sort of music was “old” and “over”.
Do we just ignore Neoclassical works? Or does that not count as ‘classical’?
On the contrary the definition (from wikipedia) that you are responding to seems to go out if its way to ensure that they would be included (to the extent that the pieces did, in fact, conform to the same style.)
Europe before WWI produced classical music so good that no one has been able to compete with it (for classical music, not music in general) since then.
I don’t have any particular opinion on the subject. Classical music is ok in moderation and I’ll play it myself from time to time (trumpet). But I have absolutely no interest in identifying which pieces belong to which area and how they are ranked by those who consider themselves experts.
After all, anyone with decent taste will tell you that the best classical music has less aesthetic merit than the best Weird Al songs.
I’m not sure I know how to cash out “aesthetic merit”, but seeing Al play Yoda live, and in particular seeing him and Jim West duet on accordian and guitar, is a moment of joy unsurpassed by any I’ve experienced at classical performances.
Then the fact that the best classical music was composed in the West before 1900 is not that surprising, is it? Likewise, I guess the best Irish folk music was composed by the Irish folk, the best African American work songs by African American workers, and so on.
Wait… Define “classical”.
Classical music is the art music produced in, or rooted in, the traditions of Western liturgical and secular music, encompassing a broad period from roughly the 11th century to present times.[1] The central norms of this tradition became codified between 1550 and 1900, which is known as the common practice period.
Disputed, FYI.
Also, “classical music” is a terrible term, due to collision with the Classical period in music). The proper (and insider-signaling) term is “Western art music”.
This is actually something I want to take care to avoid in this particular context. I do, after all, openly rate Weird Al as aesthetically superior to the greatest classical masterpieces. Also: cheap wine is usually better wine, caviar tastes terrible, those hats look stupid, peacock’s tails are largely pointless and I’ve never read Wittgenstein or that book with the whale in it.
(There are other groups that I would of course take efforts to signal insiderhood.)
But, but the whale book is surely a classic!
Do you really use the same model for judging Genius in France and judging the Waldstein Piano Sonata?
My model of the universe is kinda big but I don’t actively try to compartmentalize it because it then I could not answer the question “Hey wedrifid, do you want me to play my Weird Al playlist or the my classical music playlist?”. A model so crippled would be strictly inferior.
Not really. You can have different models and still be able to make strict decisions like that.
Especially with Weird Al, considering part of the aesthetic is the fact that it’s hilarious. Do you use the same model with Weird Al and Queen? Iron Maiden? Elvis? Do you put those on a strict 1-Dimensional spectrum as well, or do you prefer different things for different times and different purposes? Practically speaking, do you prefer the same music you normally listen to the same music that is the soundtrack to a film?
I’m not convinced you only have one model, and I’m also not convinced that your model actually says that classical music is strictly inferior to weird al.
No, you can’t. If you can make distinctions like that then they are in the same model! And your whole point was based around the fact that I was making such a distinction anyway!
That seems a tad disingenuous. That I consider one to have less aesthetic merit than the other does not in any way indicate that I would be unable to make other comparisons between them.
Wow. What can you say to someone if they make that sort of declaration? Maybe:
Oh, you caught me. Yes, I’m a dirty liar and I was only saying Weird Al is aesthetically superior to classical music.
I stand corrected. I trust your judgement of how I really rate music aesthetically based on blog comments over my own based on listening to it.
Oh yeah? Well your model says you like to eat dirt! So there.
Just tell me I am unsophisticated, naive, uncool, banal and tasteless or even that my claim about Weird Al superiority is outright offensive. Those are at least a mix of accurate (unsophisticated in this respect) and subjective. Trying to convince me (or even anyone else) that I don’t really have the aesthetic ratings that I do is just absurd!
It is somewhat, because it suggests that some of us should have our status lowered for failing to meet an optimization target we weren’t even aiming for.
“Not as good as Weird Al!” sounds a bit like “you fail!”. Whereas you could instead have said: “with all due respect to the impressive achievements of art composers, my personal interests lead me to want to spend somewhat more of my time enjoying clever parodies of popular songs than exploring the complexities of ‘classical masterpieces’, however great the latter might be on their own terms.”
Disagreement is disrespect when it comes to aesthetics as well as ideas.
As it happens, I disagree.
I think your model of someone who enjoys “classical masterpieces” as much as I do is wrong to the extent that it suggests they can’t enjoy Weird AI as much as you do. And you invoke this model when you claim to have an aesthetic disagreement with them.
That’s a little surprising. It was the basis for any agreement I had with you regarding how having a different aesthetic evaluation of art could be offensive.
Not something I’ve said (or something that can be derived from what I’ve said.)
It can be derived with the additional assumption that the only reason a person would have for explicitly comparing things as different as “classical masterpieces” and Weird AI would be that aesthetic enjoyment is held by the person to be fixed-sum and uncompartmentalizable (i.e. they in effect had no choice but to make a comparison to Y when expressing enthusiasm for X). An assumption which in turn follows from the assumption that the person understands the signaling value of explicit aesthetic comparisons, and wouldn’t want to send such a signal unless logically forced.
I suppose in retrospect the great-grandparent could be interpreted as a denial of the latter assumption. Alas.
It took me a while to realise what you were saying there—I wasn’t expecting an indirect insult!
Let’s just say we are in complete disagreement about both the subject and about the validity of the arguments used and leave it at that, shall we?
In that case I’m not sure I was clear: the comment could be interpreted as a denial specifically of the “and wouldn’t want to send such a signal” part. In other words, it conveyed that you didn’t mind being insulting. (Perhaps you consider “I suppose you were willing to be insulting after all” to be itself an insult, in which case the parent is consistent with my having communicated successfully.)
At this point I really don’t know exactly what we are in disagreement about, if anything, and more to the point I’m not sure I actually want to know. So “leaving it at that” may indeed be optimal for now.
What? Of course you can. If model allows for time and purpose, then you can just say “Weird Al is superior for the current time and purpose to all of classical music.” Bam. Done. Everything can be in multiple models but the comparison operator is different.
So in order for Weird Al to be strictly superior to classical music then it must be superior for all times and purposes. So when you watched Star Trek (2009), did you like Giacchino’s score, or would you have preferred Weird Al? Do you watch figure skating? If you do, then according to yourself, you would prefer Weird Al over whatever they skate to.
Well if I’m going to contradict you about yourself, I might as well just say it.
Do I have a choice of the different responses? Because I think I’ll choose the first one :D
But I’m not doing that. I’m saying you are stating incorrect things about your own tastes. If anything, I would be trying to claim that you are more sophisticated and intelligent than you yourself will admit.
The second of the above quotes is something I have claimed. The first one is a response to something I have not claimed. There is a straw man at play.
On something so straightforward as this doing so makes you look ridiculous and tends to be considered rather rude. Far better to not say it.
Valuing Weird Al over classical does not make me less intelligent (albeit certainly less sophisticated). It speaks more about my general aesthetic preference for melding a conceptual meaning in closely with the melody, rhythm, tone, etc. For me the concepts themselves seem to be a part of music to a far greater extent than for most people I have compared myself to. I do not consider this to be a weakness of mine.
Well yes, I was using an incorrect model of you.
I was really just commenting on the drama of the last part of your post. Valuing Weird Al over classical isn’t something bizarre to me.
The issue I have is the comparison between the two. Different music is for different things. To just say “Well if I’m gonna listen to music then I’ll always pick Weird Al over classical,” well, that’s not all there is to the aesthetics of music.
Edit: Especially with things like epic film scores. Classical music tends to fit this niche quite well, and I would be surprised if you honestly disagreed with that.
Just wanted to clarify before I let this go.
I am skeptical about your model of aesthetics. I think the model that allows you to compare so easily cross-genre is not the actual model that you use for your aesthetics. All I’m asking is that you double-check to make sure that the model you use actually fits, and you often are able to make these cross-genre comparisons (not comparing genres but comparing songs within different genres).
It is your comparison that baffles me, not the result of the comparison.
And I will ask that in the future when you feel the need to challenge someone regarding knowledge of their own preferences that you at least have the grace to let it drop after one comment. In this case it has been made abundantly clear that not only is your behavior rude as a general practice and absurdly unjustifiable in terms of any intellectual merit it is also personally unwelcome.
If you don’t have tact to refrain from starting then at least take a hint to stop. If you can’t take a hint then at least take a direct request. If you can’t respond to direct requests then at least respond to operant conditioning.
Maybe instead of insiderhood, you should consider it merely as a signal of non-ignorance, specifically of the fact that “classical” is the name of a historical era.
I didn’t realize your aesthetic resources were so scarce as to put them in competition. Personally I think the world has plenty of room for both.
I probably wouldn’t care so much about it if it weren’t the subject of an opera by the guy who wrote my favorite book.
I quoted the first sentence from wikipedia. That is the definition of classical music that matches what most people—most certainly including Nancy—mean when they say ‘classical music’.
I am well aware of the historical era. Declaring that by relaying the common usage definition of ‘classical music’ I must be ignorant of the classical era is itself a strong signal of being unaware of how human language works.
One group in which I like to signal myself an insider is ‘Science’. We still use the word atom for something that can be broken down into protons, neutrons and electrons—and even the latter is a simplification. The relevance should be obvious.
No, it’s just that by going along with that common usage you thereby decline to give a strong signal of non-ignorance. “Weak evidence” of ignorance, if you like.
I doubt that the common usage of “classical” preceded the naming of the historical period. In fact I suspect that the former did not become widespread until after it was already (erroneously) perceived that that sort of music was “old” and “over”.
Do we just ignore Neoclassical works? Or does that not count as ‘classical’?
The real reason we don’t produce classical music like that anymore is arguably because we produce way better music now.
On the contrary the definition (from wikipedia) that you are responding to seems to go out if its way to ensure that they would be included (to the extent that the pieces did, in fact, conform to the same style.)
Oh well then NancyLebovitz’s line:
is not correct.
I don’t have any particular opinion on the subject. Classical music is ok in moderation and I’ll play it myself from time to time (trumpet). But I have absolutely no interest in identifying which pieces belong to which area and how they are ranked by those who consider themselves experts.
After all, anyone with decent taste will tell you that the best classical music has less aesthetic merit than the best Weird Al songs.
I’m not sure I know how to cash out “aesthetic merit”, but seeing Al play Yoda live, and in particular seeing him and Jim West duet on accordian and guitar, is a moment of joy unsurpassed by any I’ve experienced at classical performances.
I saw you advertising the live performance—almost certainly what primed him as the example. I was jealous! :)
Then the fact that the best classical music was composed in the West before 1900 is not that surprising, is it? Likewise, I guess the best Irish folk music was composed by the Irish folk, the best African American work songs by African American workers, and so on.