Those stars in full

[Andy Lynes]

It's from all the time I spend on this site, arguing till I'm blue in the face (thangyew, thangyew, you're a fabulous auidience. And if your thinking of drinking and driving tonight, please, please... make sure you have enough for your journey.)

[Wilfrid]

Quote: from A Balic on 5:11 am on Jan. 28, 2002

We should most likely hire Wilfrid to sort all such conversations out for us.

I am happy to discuss rates either per hour or per hundred words  although on second thoughts it might encourage Messrs Shaw and Johnson to start submitting bills for legal advice.*

Warms my heart to see The Beatles compared with Herman's Hermits rather than with Beethoven.  But can't resist pointing out that lack of complexity is not necessarily a fault in an art work.  The Rolling Stones would not have improved their hit records by introducing Stravinsky-like complexity: quite the reverse.  Those pop/rock groups who have tried to make their music more elaborate in imitation of classical composers have usually produced a ghastly hybrid (Rick Wakeman, Yes, etc).   So, analogously, I am still unconvinced by the claim that French haute cuisine is better than Syrian, or Greek or Moroccan food against some abstract general standard - although personally I much prefer it.

*I know they are not giving legal advice and that Board users are not their clients, I am joking.

[A Balic]

Quote: from Andy Lynes on 8:01 pm on Jan. 28, 2002

It's from all the time I spend on this site, arguing till I'm blue in the face (thangyew, thangyew, you're a fabulous auidience. And if your thinking of drinking and driving tonight, please, please... make sure you have enough for your journey.)

I think this post would be best placed on my bio thread - with all the others......(I can't believe said "intelligent people use egullet").

[Wilfrid]

You want all the posts on e-gullet on your bio thread?  Steady, now.

[Andy Lynes]

www.eGullet.com mutates into www.aBalic.com before our very eyes.

[A Balic]

Quote: from Wilfrid on 8:16 pm on Jan. 28, 2002

You want all the posts on e-gullet on your bio thread?  Steady, now.

No, that #### thread already scares me enough thank you.

Back to the topic, Wilfrid do you think that you could define what you mean by "better"? As in "........French haute cuisine is better than Syrian.......".

[Steve Plotnicki]

[so, analogously, I am still unconvinced by the claim that French haute cuisine is better than Syrian, or Greek or Moroccan food against some abstract general standard - although personally I much prefer it.]

Wilfrid - I find that to be sort of a cop out, although one that I can understand. We can examine Syrian and Greek cuisine and sort out exactly why they aren't as complex as Haute Cuisine. Just as we can sort out why ballet is more complex than Syrian or Greek folk dancing. Or as Adam and I have used in the example about Scottish light, we can take it and put it under a microscope and determine exactly what makes it so special. And then we can examine the light in central England and learn why it's so dreary. So when you say that it wouldn't sound good for the Roilling Stones to use Stravinsky like harmonies in their music, of course it wouldn't sound good. Their milieu calls for simpler harmonies. And the end result is that their music is more about moving you emotionally, and less about it being cerebral. And it wouldn't be good for Syrian cooks to puree their hummus to the extent French chefs puree their food. The milieu calls for a little coarseness in the texture of the hummus.

But when evaluating art, or technique used in an applied art, one is stuck having to determine a common denominator to discuss things in context. So how does one compare a great hummus, with a great puree of fava beans made by a 3 star chef? I think it isn't all that difficult. You just remove milieu from the equation and examine technique and it's raw application. It reminds me of the segment with George Martin sitting in a studio discussing the Beatles when he plays the intro to Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds and where he says "I suspect Beethoven would have quite liked that melody." He has put his finger on it there because he realizes that the natural talent of the two composers is what binds them together. It's their choice of millieu that sets them apart.  But despite Lennon's choice of a popular millieu, he can't escape the results of the natural perfectness of the arpeggio in "Lucy." And although The Beatles seem more like Herman's Hermits stylistically than they do Beethoven, if you take away the affectations of their milieu, it is substantively more like Beethoven. Which is why it will last. And why Mrs. Brown You've Got a Lovely Daughter" will not. It's really more than just a matter of preference.

[yvonne johnson]

That http://www.aBalic.com/index.html home page is quite pretty.

Unlike the Beatles. What's all this talk about the Beatles? Apart from a few George Harrison tunes, I think the Beatles suck, 22/100 on my table. (And. let's be clear, my table is more objective than Parker's.) Stones: 24/100. Now, who's good? The Verve: 95/100. Even U2, 94/100, are better (in terms of complexity, depth, intelligence. I kid.  Let's not take pop too seriously) than the Beatles.

I agree, the light in Scotland is special and I think it's been well documented in art, literature and songs (e.g., songs about the gloaming). The light in New York can be exquisite also, especially twilight. Around 5PM in winter, the burnt orange rays streaming down the avenues.

Yours sincerely,

Messrs Shaw and Johnson*

*Beyond me too. Ask Wifrid...Oh, you mean ron? I thought you meant me even though my gender doesn't agree with Messrs. OK, I admit it, I just wanted to get close to Shaw.

[A Balic]

Quote: from yvonne johnson on 9:28 pm on Jan. 28, 2002

That http://www.aBalic.com/index.html home page is quite pretty.

Unlike the Beatles. What's all this talk about the Beatles? Apart from a few George Harrison tunes, I think the Beatles suck, 22/100 on my table. (And. let's be clear, my table is more objective than Parker's.) Stones: 24/100. Now, who's good? The Verve: 95/100. Even U2, 94/100, are better (in terms of complexity, depth, intelligence. I kid.  Let's not take pop too seriously) than the Beatles.

I agree, the light in Scotland is special and I think it's been well documented in art, literature and songs (e.g., songs about the gloaming). The light in New York can be exquisite also, especially twilight. Around 5PM in winter, the burnt orange rays streaming down the avenues.

Yours sincerely,

Messrs Shaw and Johnson*

*Beyond me too. Ask Wifrid...Oh, you mean ron? I thought you meant me even though my gender doesn't agree with Messrs. OK, I admit it, I just wanted to get close to Shaw.

Gloaming? As in:

"At e'en in the gloaming, nae swankies are roaming

'Bout stacks wi' the lasses at bogle to play;

But ilk ane sits drearie, lamenting her dearie, -

The Flowers of the Forest are a' wede away."

So clear now............

[Wilfrid]

Goodness, I studied that flowers of the forest thing at school (in England), and had not expected to be reminded of it today, still less of "Mrs Brown You've Got a Lovely Daughter."

Steve, I think we're almost down to the most fundamental point of this discussion.  I like your hummus example, and I think it comes to this:  it may indeed require much more skill to make an elegant puree of chickpeas, perhaps with some subtle flavor accents from other sources, and beautifully plated.  But our Syrian chef doesn't want that - any more than the Rolling Stones want a largo for French horn in the middle of 'Let's Spend the Night Together'.  The Syrian chef's hummus wouldn't be made "better" by the application of such techniques.

Okay, here's my bottom line.  I don't think there's any metaphysical validation for aesthetic/critical judgments.  In other words, I don't think there are any facts about the universe which make Beethoven better than the Beatles or French haute cuisine better than Syrian food.  The only standards we have for making judgments are standards dreamt up by humans.

At the same time, I want to avoid relativism - the position that because judgments of the kind we're discussing can't be validated by empirical observations or logical deductions, then any view expressed by anyone is just as right as any other view.  The way to avoid relativism, I suggest, is by insisting that any rational judgment reflects the application of a set of criteria, which may not be "objective" in the sense that they are based on facts, but are "objective" in the sense that a community of people interested in the subject can have a rational discussion, and come to some sort of agreement (doubtless not absolute) about what the appropriate criteria are.

(Deep breath):  It follows that, if you do insist on making judgments across sub-genres , we would have to arrive at some criteria common to those sub-genres.  Now, I never meant to imply that Beethoven and the Beatles have nothing in common - they are each, in their own ways, working with melodies, rhythms and harmonies, but I have great difficulty conceptualising a set of criteria which would allow us to judge them by the same standard.  The aims of their respective musics - even right down to modes of consumption - are so utterly different.

Where this leaves me, in the broad scheme of things, is that I can accept statements like:  Seinfield is better than King of Queens (or whatever), but not King Lear is better than King of Queens.  I know it drives some people crazy to hear it said that a play by Shakespeare cannot be considered, as a matter of absolute fact, a better piece of art than some sit com.  Believe me, I sympathise.  Philosophy doesn't always offer you the conclusion you like.  But that is where my analysis comes out.

Incidentally (and I have this on my mind because I really started looking at these issues because of the debate in the academies about literary canons): I do not believe you can subtitute a sit-com for Shakesepare if you are going to study English Literature.  Shakespeare is an essential part of the English literature syllabus.  But I don't have an aesthetic basis for saying that English literature is a better thing to study than TV comedy (for practical reasons, it might be).

[yvonne johnson]

Adam, I thought I was fluent in Doric but this is opaque. But generally isn't it about girls wandering about in the twilight and lamenting the absence of agile young men (swankies) with whom they can play hide and seek (nudge, nudge say no more) ("bogle about the stacks"=playing hide and seek, is new to me. Bogle also means ghost. I had to consult my Scots dictionary on this one). And what else? Everyone sits by themselves, down in the dumps, grieving their beloved...........and who knows about the flowers of the forest. So like a lot of poetry, and songs, it's probably about sex.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Wilfrid - You should have been a sculptor instead of a philospher because you are very good at whittling a square of marble down to a cogent idea. Where I think we part is in your example about a Syrian chef not needing to improve his hummus. Why can't his hummus be improved? Isn't the reason that it hasn't been improved been because Syrian society doesn't demand a more refined version? You see all art including culinary arts need patrons. And if the Syrian population looked to create a culinary cultural equivelent of haute cuisine, they would encourage their chefs to do so.

I have to disagree with you about the metaphysical nature of great art. I find the greatest art is the most metaphysical. Almost all art stems from popular things. I mean Stravinsky is loaded with Russian folk music. But there is a considerable difference between the two. And it is more than just opinion that makes one art and one not. What is it about Stravinsky that makes one conclude that it is a more serious work than a folk song? Is it only a matter of opinion and being educated to think about it that way? I can't buy that. Could the Pink Panther theme music  be the music for a totally serious detective, or does it have to describe one with at least a sense of humour? And could Lilliputians dance to low bass notes, or do they need squeeky high ones? Or maybe the best example. Is The Last Supper a great painting because art historians point out it contains a textbook example of a vanishing point, or does it just draw your eye there naturally? Of course it has to be the latter. The vanishing point was painted by Da Vinci. All humans did was come up with the explanation. They didn't create the phenomenon.

It's for this exact reason that I feel comfortable saying that haute cuisine is better than a mezze. As much as I like to eat a great mezze, it doesn't offer what a 3 star meal has to offer. Even a bad 3 star meal. The technique needed to prepare a proper 3 star meal is unique in and of itself. And it transcends everyday cuisine in a way that makes it almost incomparable. And this is where we finally come to your point of context and standards. And although I can dance a mean Hora, Jig or Tarrantalla at my respective Jewish, Irish and Italian festive occassions, they are not like dancing tha Tango, something where in order to do it properly, the application of technique is at a higher standard. And as such, the tango deserves recognition as being  a higher art form than other folk dances.

[Wilfrid]

Yvonne - I seem to recall that Flowers of the Field, weeded away as the song says, refers to the young men who fell at Flodden.  Or at one of the fields where the English gave you a doubtless much-deserved hammering;)  Okay, please put that knife down.

Steve P.:  Yes, I think we have hit basement level.  Neither of us will convince the other they're wrong about the metaphysics - I don't think there are arguments to be laid out there; I would just end up repeating "But I can't see any basis for that!" and you would say, "Use your eyes, it's obvious!"  But I think we have clarified the issue considerably, which is the important thing.  And I think we agreed (at some point) about where Michelin are coming from, and the impracticality of their Guide being all things to all people.

As for me, my best dance move is the pogo, but it's becoming increasingly dangerous at my age.

[Tony Finch]

Andy,I'm back for a minute to complain about Steve LosttheplotNicki. I can sit down to dinner with a fellow who tells me that Montrachet is better than St. Veran "because it is".

I can break bread with a chap who will invoke tortuous analogies to defend the indefensible Parker.

As a Spurs fan I can even partake of wine with an American who supports Arsenal(a truly bizarre breed).

But what I'm not sure I can manage is to share restaurant space with anyone who disses Herman's Hermits immortal "Mrs.Brown You've Got A Lovely Daughter". If we allow that we've allowed the thin end o

f the wedge and before long he'll be sneering at the likes of Joe Brown's "I'm 'Enery The Eighth I Am" and  Rolf Harris' "Tie Me Kangaroo Down,Sport" A line has to be drawn Andy,yaknowwhadimean?

[Steve Plotnicki]

Tony - When I was at Heathrow for my flight home, I popped into the HMV and picked up one of those Greatest Hits of the 60's compilations. You know like 8 CD's with 144 songs for something like 9 pound sterling. It has songs on it by Herman's Hermits I never even heard of like "No Milk Today." Know that one? Those types of complilation does not exist in the U.S. due to how our mechanical royalty rights laws are written. But they makes fantastic ones in Britain. If you're nice to me, I'll lend it to you. And then I will explain why Montrachet is better than St. Veran :). Otherwise, Go Gunners!

[Wilfrid]

I thought you'd be more upset by his dismissal of the Dave Clark Five - well known Spurs supporters.  Altogether now, "Glad all over, yes baby I'm " THUD THUD "glad all over..."

[Andy Lynes]

I have a feeling that time will tell for the Beatles. There influence has for some time been limited to bands that want to sound exactly like the Beatles. Whereas the influence of a band like Led Zeppelin is felt right across the popular musical spectrum right into dance music.

There is a lot more to the Zeppelin back catalogue than the mannered and formal song structures and rather heavy handed experimentation of something like St Pepper that make up the lovable mop tops legacy.

So to, I think, the long term influence of Hermen and his Hermits and Joe Brown and The Bruthers is yet to be fully appreciated. "Fings Aint What They Used To Be" indeed.  

[Steve Plotnicki]

Andy - Gee, what did that compilation of Beatles number one hits sell? Something like 20 million? Mostly to kids who hadn't bought it already. I would think that their appeal extends beyond bands that want to sound like them. Don't you think? As for Zeppelin, afraid I was never a fan so I'm not the right person to comment. But I did see them in Central Park in 1969 just after they released their second album, which I thought was inferior to their first.

[Tony Finch]

Actually,Andy,what Steve really means is that The Beatles are better than Led Zeppelin "BECAUSE THEY ARE"!

[Wilfrid]

Quote: from Andy Lynes on 3:56 pm on Jan. 28, 2002

So to, I think, the long term influence of Hermen and his Hermits and Joe Brown and The Bruthers is yet to be fully appreciated. "Fings Aint What They Used To Be" indeed.

Andy, I think you'll find Joe Brown spelt his "Bruvvers" thus.  "Hermen" I assume is a typo.  But more importantly, I think you are absolutely right about the Beatles.  Their importance has been vastly overstated because of their sales.  For every Crowded House (who do a very nice improved Beatles sound, especially on 'Woodface'), there are a hundred successful bands who learnt more from Led Zeppelin, the Yardbirds, Cream, and dare I say it The Stooges, than they did from the Fab Four.  And I am not a heavy metal fan.

[Andy Lynes]

You are correct about Joe Brown. I checked on his website at http://www.joebrown.co.uk/frames_other.asp, which is "dedicated to one of the world's best musicians". Well, that settles that arguement then.

You're also right about the typo, I meant Hermann's Hermits, formed by novelist Hermann Hesse. He famously went on to join Steppenwolf and is attributed to using the term "heavy metal" in a musical context first.

This has since been found to be inaccurate with the recent, and suprisingly little reported, discovery of some early unpublished Pam Ayres cut-up poems. These have also cast a doubt as to the originality of much of "The Lords and The New Creatures" by Jim Morrison.  

(Edited by Andy Lynes at 12:05 am on Jan. 29, 2002)

(Edited by Andy Lynes at 12:07 am on Jan. 29, 2002)

[Steve Plotnicki]

Wilfrid - I've been thinking through your last post. It's so easy to call it quits at that point in the conversation because it becomes difficult to start proving things in the absolute. But I wasn't sitting well with me, and I even though about while sitting through last night Rangers game at the Garden which was both boring as well as frustrating. And when I got home I gave I it a go, only to not post what I had written because it wasn't settled enough. But as is often the case, sleep does wonders for the thought process.

Your post assumes that the discussion will fall apart because I am going to tell you to "see the obvious." But I don't think at all that is what I'm doing. I am pointing out to you that the obvious has already been seen by others. And that what has been codified wasn't inspired by a need to see it, the ability to see it was inspired by the unique qualities (or the meta-physical as you call it) of the creation.

So I ask you, using these non-objective examples, how you can deny that a perfectly tuned piano resonates longer and sounds "better" than one out of tune? And doesn't a well balanced wine have a longer finish? And doesn't salmon go well with pinot noir or riesling and less well with cabernet and chardonnay? Can Sympathy for the Devil not be in a minor key?* Even look at Adam's little Scottish poem, and how it transported us all to Scotland for a moment.  Isn't it a combination of the choice of words and the cadence creating something magical?

Magical is the key word here, and I'm sure I can list hundreds of examples where humans have codified art according to the feelings evoked. And at the risk of being redundant, they are moved by the art to do so, not vice-versa. That's what makes it great art. It transcends being just a bunch of notes, or words on papers, or squigggly lines. It becomes, well, special.

Writer's note - Actually upon thinking about it, Sympathy for the Devil might be in a major key. It's that special Stone's tuning that has me confused. So let's amend that to say, music that is supposed to evoke evil.

(Edited by Steve Plotnicki at 11:30 am on Jan. 29, 2002)

[magnolia]

"So I ask you, using these non-objective examples, how you can deny that a perfectly tuned piano resonates longer and sounds "better" than one out of tune?"...

Notes that are out of tune can 'resonate' just as long as those that are 'in tune'.

When you say 'non-objective' do you mean 'subjective'? if so, I'm confused about your example of a perfectly tuned piano. If the evaluation of what is 'in tune' is 'non-objective' - i.e. subjective - then what's 'perfect' to one person - or 'perfect' according to the chosen standard... may no be perfect to another...

If on the other hand you accept that there is an objective measure for whether a piano's "in tune" or not (and I'm not sure if there is, since pianos can be tuned to different keys and so on, though each note should be in tune relative to the other notes for whatever standard is chosen gnagnagna) then the example doesn't work. Anyway most people cannot tell whether a piano is out of tune - i.e. whether some of the notes are out of tune relative to the other notes on that same piano, which are in tune based on the standard that has been agreed...

[Wilfrid]

Steve, I will try to give this more thought later - today looks like a busy day.  But just to chew on:  different cultures do have different musical scales, some of which sound out of tune to me.  Later!

[Steve Plotnicki]

Magnolia - I hate to say this but, people who do not know when a piano is sufficiently out of tune do not have valid opinions about music. How could they? Music is intended to be played in tune. And to throw some fuel on the fire with Tony, taking a position that St. Veran and Montrachet are equals is hardly a position at all. The entire philosophy as to how they farm and then produce wine in Burgundy is based on the "fact" that Montrachet is better. It has nothing to do with Parker or any other reviewer. It has to do with what the Burgundians themselves felt was their best wine. And it's been that way for centuries. And to go down the road that Wilfrid said I would go down, a good St. Veran might have a 15-20 second finish while a proper Montrachet can last for 90 seconds. Where is the debate there?

And to get back to the original point, these things are beyond subjectivity and prefernce. There's a mathematical equation as to how to tune  a piano. And when you get the keys tightened "perfectly," the notes resonate the longest. If you have ever tuned a guitar by using harmonics, you would know that when the strings are out of tune, the notes vibrate in a funny way and the impact of the vibration shortens their finish. But when they are perfectly in tune, there is no vibration and the notes ring true and last longer. And their length then becomes solely dependant on the quality of the construction of the instrument and strings. In fact tuning guitars has become so scientific that electric ones now get tuned according to a meter that tells you when they are tune. This equation isn't something that humans made up, although it is something they figured out about a natural phenomenon. And to deny that an in tune piano isn't more pleasing to the ear is to deny, okay what Wilfrid said I would say, the obvious.

Wilfrid - There is a difference between something being different and being "off."  Musical scales that contain quarter or half tones are not out of tune, they are just different. And there is a difference between listening to something you aren't used to listen to and finding it unusual, and something being a failure at its art.