What's good?

[jkudler]

1. a piece is good when it causes me to reevaluate the conventions of its medium... in some small way, it changes the rules of the context in which it operates.

thank you! this is actually almost exactly something i had meant to say earlier. i was going to make it more specific to improv/EAI, though: i think it's hard to evaluate what's "good" in this genre (as opposed to say, really fast/precise metal solos, or "well-balanced" jazz solos) because ideally (for me, anyways), the best improvisation creates its own language as it goes. and i think a ton of things can go into that language: some people elevate technique, others quite purposefully pervert or ignore it. the placement of sounds is contextual, and formed by expectations created earlier. those expectations can be realized or subverted, etc. so i think it's hard to talk about what's "good" when we are so frequently looking for actual paradigm shifts. i think brian olewnick's blog does a good job capturing this, as i think his frequent reviews sometimes mention finding something pleasant or well-done without having an extra layer of intrigue, versus reviews where he talks about something getting deeper.

-jesse

[Wombatz]

DW: Sure, because as I wrote above, there are clear structural conventions and a there is a defined vocabulary in the music you're referring to.

Yes, the point was trying to be: the defined vocabulary is out there now as well, only of course who's to judge what it is.

DW: On the subject, would you say Hawkins' post 1949 recordings are not as good as his pre-1949 recordings? What's the cut off point? Why 1949?

Mid 1949 is where the r&b cuts begin. Then some overt attempts at the commercial that just fall short. While before that, he seems to have been motivated to make every solo a perfect piece of architecture. If you think about the lore that surrounds him, I guess he at that time just lost his ambition. For ever and good. He knew he was history after the boppers, even if he could cope. Hey, I've a weak spot for his bossa record and some of his late pairings with Eldridge, the Impulse with Ellington is great, but he just wasn't driven any more. To me that would be worthy of a seperate thread, but I don't think this is the board ...

DW: I think again it's our responsibility as "informed" listeners to try and establish some generalised system of evaluation. Imagine someone invited you to lecture at a music faculty on jazz and improvised music. Who would you include from the past ten years, and why?

20 years would be less difficult. If I had to lecture on the past ten years it would be something like Duos for Doris, something by Steve Coleman (who somebody might argue is stuck in a rut by now but still do we have processed his language), and the general topic and stuff based around field recordings. Then there's the overhyped field of sound art, but since you said I had to do a lecture ...

[jon abbey]

i agree people tend to be "easier" on locals or friends, since that friendship disposes you a certain way, and you also tend to see things in a certain context, but i think what you are describing is actually a musical distinction, informed by geography. certain trends emerge in certain localities because of various factors, and you like certain trends more than others, but i doubt you are really "biased" in that you'd be any less disposed to like someone you'd never heard before just because you saw their email ended in .ch. you just aren't really curious to see where muller/kahn are going, because you haven't liked their past work. or am i wrong?

I think you're asking me specifically, right? if you are, I think that's true, although it's somewhat hypothetical as I can't think of a swiss musician right now who I really love. of course, I also change my mind on musicians sometimes, in 2002 gunter muller was one of my favorite few musicians in the world and I had problems with annette krebs's work, now that's reversed, so nothing is necessarily forever (when it comes to my taste anyway).

[jkudler]

i agree people tend to be "easier" on locals or friends, since that friendship disposes you a certain way, and you also tend to see things in a certain context, but i think what you are describing is actually a musical distinction, informed by geography. certain trends emerge in certain localities because of various factors, and you like certain trends more than others, but i doubt you are really "biased" in that you'd be any less disposed to like someone you'd never heard before just because you saw their email ended in .ch. you just aren't really curious to see where muller/kahn are going, because you haven't liked their past work. or am i wrong?

I think you're asking me specifically, right? if you are, I think that's true, although it's somewhat hypothetical as I can't think of a swiss musician right now who I really love. of course, I also change my mind on musicians sometimes, in 2002 gunter muller was one of my favorite few musicians in the world and I had problems with annette krebs's work, now that's reversed, so nothing is necessarily forever (when it comes to my taste anyway).

yes, i was asking you specifically. i think, since most of the musicians in switzerland we can think of in "TAOMUD" work together, they form a sort of school in many people's minds, so it's not like we are really talking about isolated swiss nationals. in a place like tokyo, where there's more people and i bigger scene, i almost certainly could name several musicians you don't care about all (by guessing knowing your taste somewhat).

-jesse

[Richard Pinnell]

I don't think it is really down to personal taste. That taste will have been formed by whatever need was generated by a lack of whatever that music before has provoked.

I agree on the second part of this, but the point is its still personal taste however it was formed.

as I've explained again and again. as soon as there's overlap, it goes beyond the personal.

Yes, and you just get a common consensus made up of two or many correlating personal opinions. The whole point that I and howsthatsound are trying to get across is that without the personal you cannot have the universal, or anything in between the two. Therefore all judgements of whether something is "good" or not, however widely held are formed by personal opinion, which is itself formed by past experiences, bias, prejudice, geography, marketing, conversations here etc etc

2. I can tell a piece of music is good when i get the urge to steal its ideas.

Again, an entirely subjective, personal choice that many others will not agree with.

1. a piece is good when it causes me to reevaluate the conventions of its medium... in some small way, it changes the rules of the context in which it operates..

Although this is no more universally valid than No.2 above and is in fact just a description of something that is original or groundbreaking, this is much more interesting, because I suspect it goes some way to defining one of the several criteria that the majority of people here at IHM use to judge if something is "good" or not. The posters here are generally a little more creatively adventurous so a good number will think this way. Though I do remember a very interesting conversation here in which the "pursuit of the new" was largely dismissed, with Fearandpanic in particular having some very interesting things to say.

i think it's hard to evaluate what's "good" in this genre (as opposed to say, really fast/precise metal solos, or "well-balanced" jazz solos) because ideally (for me, anyways), the best improvisation creates its own language as it goes. and i think a ton of things can go into that language: some people elevate technique, others quite purposefully pervert or ignore it. the placement of sounds is contextual, and formed by expectations created earlier. those expectations can be realized or subverted, etc. so i think it's hard to talk about what's "good" when we are so frequently looking for actual paradigm shifts.

This is the "best" thing anyone has typed in this thread yet!

[jon abbey]

as I've explained again and again. as soon as there's overlap, it goes beyond the personal.

Yes, and you just get a common consensus made up of two or many correlating personal opinions. The whole point that I and howsthatsound are trying to get across is that without the personal you cannot have the universal, or anything in between the two. Therefore all judgements of whether something is "good" or not, however widely held are formed by personal opinion, which is itself formed by past experiences, bias, prejudice, geography, marketing, conversations here etc etc

but this is reductive to the point of being meaningless. the point of this thread is to discuss why those personal opinions overlap or don't overlap.

[Richard Pinnell]

but this is reductive to the point of being meaningless. the point of this thread is to discuss why those personal opinions overlap or don't overlap.

heh

I answered that question with my first post in this thread:

The problem lies with the criteria used to decide "good" or "bad", and for each of us this will be different as our individual tastes are made up of many different deciding factors, things we find interesting, biases we hold (both consciously and unconsciously) and past experiences we have had.

[jon abbey]

I don't think that addresses anything except in the most vague generalities, but we're going around and around in circles, so I'll stop.

[Jason Brogan]

Yeowch, I think we got into Badiou before on another thread. I'm pretty out of the cab on philosophy, I'll admit (I'm still trying to come to terms with Wittgenstein with the Cardew book review), and, given the choice between reading a page of some French maître à penser and listening to a piece of Debussy, you know which one I'll choose (I may make an exception for Roland Barthes, though )

Me too, Dan!

I'm really not interested in truth. I want to know why hairs stand up on the back of my neck when I listen to One Day and why they don't when I listen to Sweet Cuts. And, more importantly, how can I as a musician make the hairs stand up on other people's necks.

I think this is almost precisely my point, though I really don't want to write too much directly about contemporary French philosophy as this is a music forum. However, it is this kind of sensation—one never felt before, or the unknown (or not sensed) becoming known—that is close to a "truth" in Badiou. Essentially, a "truth" lies outside what is already known. This is explored in your interview with Radu Malfatti wherein he states, "What happens if we elevate the known into the realm of unknown, the unimportant into the realm of important? We sharpen the consciousness and I think we then are able to become aware of the acoustic environment surrounding the music - and: the music itself!!"

It is this opening within a known situation that marks an event wherein a truth procedure begins, and I feel that there were at least two musical events in 20th century: the first, "Schoenberg," involved the opening of the world of tonality to one of atonality (or the use of pitch without regard to a tonal hierarchy); the second, "Cage," involved the opening of the world of music to one of all sounds (or the introduction of silence as musical material). I should state, though, that it's not simply a matter of introducing something new within music. One might pursue a truth procedure in fidelity to an event (i.e., the relationships that Wandelweiser and AMM have with the Cagean event).

And so I will reiterate my original argument: it is not a matter of whether or not music is "good" or "bad" (an essentially aesthetic and subjective judgment) but whether or not it possesses truth.

[RFKorp]

but this is reductive to the point of being meaningless. the point of this thread is to discuss why those personal opinions overlap or don't overlap.

heh

I answered that question with my first post in this thread:

The problem lies with the criteria used to decide "good" or "bad", and for each of us this will be different as our individual tastes are made up of many different deciding factors, things we find interesting, biases we hold (both consciously and unconsciously) and past experiences we have had.

Richard, I think the problem is you think people disagree with you. Yes, it is true that everyone has a very individual opinion that is absolutely 100% truth as far as they can see. And as far as anything matters, personal opinion is all that an individual has to think about if it is all they want to think about.

BUT, at the same time, there is also a potential to notice patterns in what larger groups of people all seem to find exciting. If a piece of music on speaks on that level to only one person, it can still be amazing to that person, but it means it isn't part of the more universal cannon of great music. And the point of this thread is to discuss the ways in which certain pieces of music become identified as "good' in this more universal manner (regardless of any single individual's opinion).

Does that make sense? I feel like I don't even know how to start contributing to this thread now that it's gone so far off track....

[Richard Pinnell]

Yes that all makes perfect sense... the only person I thought might be disagreeing with me was Jon, but I genuinely didn't understand what he was trying to say for much of this discussion to be honest.

I don't read Dan's original question to be entirely the same as this though:

the point of this thread is to discuss the ways in which certain pieces of music become identified as "good' in this more universal manner (regardless of any single individual's opinion)..

He specifically asked why two individual people have such opposing views on the same piece of music and didn't directly ask about universal opinion. My initial answer to his question was brief. The discussions that have followed here have been about other things entirely.

[RFKorp]

He specifically asked why two individual people have such opposing views on the same piece of music and didn't directly ask about universal opinion.

To me it wasn't the "why do we disagree so much about Absinth" part that mattered as it was the "why do we agree about Printer". And the specific albums weren't really important. But I see how you went there.

[joe grimm]

1. a piece is good when it causes me to reevaluate the conventions of its medium... in some small way, it changes the rules of the context in which it operates..

Although this is no more universally valid than No.2 above and is in fact just a description of something that is original or groundbreaking, this is much more interesting, because I suspect it goes some way to defining one of the several criteria that the majority of people here at IHM use to judge if something is "good" or not. The posters here are generally a little more creatively adventurous so a good number will think this way. Though I do remember a very interesting conversation here in which the "pursuit of the new" was largely dismissed, with Fearandpanic in particular having some very interesting things to say.

But of course I am not advocating anything as simpleminded as the pursuit of novelty. I am just suggesting that within any particular context, something is "good" if it sheds some light. This can happen in small ways, often involving the critique of a practice from within that practice. It's actually more difficult to make critical judgments about ultra-novel works (that involve massive ruptures away from established practices) because in the absence of any conventions/expectations, there can be little foothold for criticality.

[bedouin]

Trying to identify what makes music A critically better than B may help in getting to the technical merits, or the degree of novelty, but I feel it misses the wider appeal about music (art). Finding it requires reasoning, and reasoning (logic) doesn't play a big part in this music. In fact the lack of it is what turns most people away from it.
i rarely try to reason why i like the "improv meeting at bar aoyama", or some piece of nomadic music from senegal (the totally unrecognizable chanting, helps to make any attempt futile)

if i had to single out something that makes a piece of music stand out for me, it would probably be the depth, degree and sustain of focus that gets me in.
In turn this focus can be translated into different forms - it helps me do my work, meditate, read, drive, or whatever. Hard to use it as a comparator though, or in a music board.

[howsthatsound]

Yes, it is true that everyone has a very individual opinion that is absolutely 100% truth as far as they can see.

for the record, i have a very individual opinion that i regard as almost 100% bullshit because all it is based upon is the relative minutia of my experience. it's all i got though. however, simply because i understand it to be such, i am open to it being modified, and it is continually, and hopefully will be forever.

[Dan Warburton]

He specifically asked why two individual people have such opposing views on the same piece of music and didn't directly ask about universal opinion.

To me it wasn't the "why do we disagree so much about Absinth" part that mattered as it was the "why do we agree about Printer"

To me, it was both.

[Charon]

for the record, i have a very individual opinion that i regard as almost 100% bullshit because all it is based upon is the relative minutia of my experience. it's all i got though. however, simply because i understand it to be such, i am open to it being modified, and it is continually, and hopefully will be forever.

whenever I state a concrete opinion about something that's not absolutely fundamental especially in music, I usually end up disagreeing with it sooner or later, at least partially

[snailed]

I don't usually post here, but this is an interesting topic for me. I do think there's more to be said than "it's all subjective; the question can't be answered."

here are two ways that I personally know something is good:

1. a piece is good when it causes me to reevaluate the conventions of its medium... in some small way, it changes the rules of the context in which it operates.

2. I can tell a piece of music is good when i get the urge to steal its ideas.

i agree with the first - as far as the second, i get the urge to steal an idea when i feel the execution hasn't seen the potential the idea actually has. so that doesn't necessarily mean the original is very "good" as a whole, to me.