|
Music Lane It's all about the music, dude! Sit down, relax and listen to some tunes. |
|
|
|
Music Lane It's all about the music, dude! Sit down, relax and listen to some tunes. |
|
In Reply to: RE: Seriously? posted by josh358 on September 2, 2012 at 11:21:59:
>>>OK I will remind you of what you said on the subject.
"Yuja Wang's rhythms are wrong, and where they aren't wrong, they're unsophisticated.">>>
>> Scott, I know what I said. I'm just not sure why that has anything to do with the URL I provided, since I didn't make that post until later.>>
You claimed it supported your assertion of objective "wrongness" of Yuja Wang's rhythms.
>>>"If you are going to assert that your claims on these alleged 'rhythmic anomalies' are valid based on your familiarity with the genre you can't claim logical fallacy when an opposing position is presented by someone who is clearly more familiar with that genre.">>>
>>You've made a logical error here, confounding "one must be familiar with a genre to make judgments" with "familiarity with a genre confers the ability to make judgments." Do you question the former? I certainly question the latter.>>
excellent argument! Almost. The problem is you can't exclude yourself from the scope of "the former" It is entirely possible that both musicians whose opinions I cited are actually incapable of making such judgements. And of course this would be quite ironic since Art Tatum is one of Sasha Masakowski's favorite jazz pianists. Then the re is the degree of "familiarity" that we are talking about here. You and I are familiar with jazz as fans of music. Indeed that does not show an ability to make judgements on jazz music. OTOH Sasha Masakowski is a professional jazz musician whose livelyhood depends on her ability to make judgements when she records and performs jazz music. Also, she has a degree in jazz studies from the university of New Orleans. I think it is pretty safe to say that her knowledge of jazz runs much deeper than your garden just a basic familiarity. And as such it is quite reasonable that if there were objective "rhythmic anomalies" that you claim are "obvious" that someone with Sasha Masakowski's training, knowledge and experience would recognize it.
>>[Tchaikovsky] Tchaikovsky did make such objective assertions about Brahms, and about Bach as well. I disagree with them, just as I disagree with the judgment of these two jazz musicians.>>
He made objective claims of "wrongness?" I'd like to read up on those claims. Do you have any references?
>>>"I think you lose the argument if that is the criteria.">>>
>>I think it has no effect on the argument one way or the other. It is merely an observation about the nature of judgment, and why professionals don't necessarily have judgment that's superior to non-professionals.>>
This isn't judgement on something subjective. Your claims about "wrong rhythms" are quite objective. In such matters training, knowledge and experience do play very heavily in one's ability to make such judgements. Who do you trust in objective assessments of law, a law professor or someone who watches the People's Court?
>> You keep personifying this when neither ad hominems nor argument from authority -- which as I think about it are flip sides of the same thing -- have any validity.>>
I have not engaged in any ad hominem here. You have made objective claims about the performance in question and I have cited testimony from two musicians one of which has a degree in jazz studies that clearly run contrary to your objective claims. Your only support for your claims is your familiarity with jazz. it is not ad hominem to point out that your familiarity with jazz clearly takes a back seat to that of Sasha Masakowski's in assessing objective claims about "right" or "wrong" rhythms in jazz. I really don't think you are going to be picking up on "obviously wrong rhythms" that are being missed by a working musician with a degree in jazz studies. it is ever so slightly possible but ever so unlikely.
>>>"If that is your position I think you are plainly wrong. One can not excel at anything without the ability to evaluate the success of their en devours and the en devours of others. There is no way a musician as well versed in jazz as Sasha Mazakowski is going to miss objectively 'wrong rhythms' or 'rhythmic anomalies'.">>>
>>If that were true, all professional musicians would have equal interpretive skills.>>
That is a non sequitur. Interpretive skills are as much if not more subjective than objective. You made objective assertions of wrong rhythms. You claimed they were obvious. Such obvious errors are not going to be missed by two different musicians one of which has a degree in jazz studies and makes her living as a musician. If they are wrong then please point them out and explain how they are wrong. you can not rely on your familiarity with jazz as support of this assertion now that we have testimony of two musicians that run contrary to your claims.
>> Furthermore, you persist in oversimplifying style, supposing that it is something that a musicologist could describe. Except in the most basic degree, we aren't able to do that.>>
How have I oversimplified style and how is it relevant to your assertions of obvious objective wrongness of rhythms?
>> What makes Schnabel's performance of the Hammerklavier so compelling?>>
1. There is no consensus that is compelling
2. Claiming one finds it "compelling" is not making objective claim of "rightness" so the point does not relate
>> Certainly not technical virtuosity -- there are many pianists who have fleeter, more reliable, fingers.>>
But technical accomplishment is something that can be discussed in objective terms and in most cases better discussed by folks with training, experience and knowledge when it comes to the technical side of classical piano. And as such one would expect that if Schnabel's performance of Hammerklavier were so objectively technically flawed that it could be described as "obviously wrong" it would be something that his fellow musicians would pretty much universally recognize.
>> Can what makes his performance be described in entirely mechanistic terms?>>
Doesn't matter. If it could accurately be described as "rhythmically wrong" and "obviously" so by a layman there is little doubt that trained pianists and musicologists would see that as plain as the noses on their faces.
>> Not of course because there's no logic to it, but because we lack the analytical tools to do so.>>
There is plenty of logic behind and means of analysis of the objective measure of rhythms. If one is going to make such objective claims then one needs more than citation of their familiarity with jazz to support them. This is especially true when these alleged "obvious" "rhythmic anomalies" are going undetected by trained, experienced and knowledgeable jazz musicians.
Again, I have no issue with your taste. That is entirely subjective. If you had stopped at "I don't like it" or "it doesn't work for me." We would have never had this discussion. I don't argue taste. It is one thing not to like a particular tempo or phrasing. It's another to say it is "wrong."
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Seriously? - Analog Scott 13:25:51 09/02/12 (1)
- RE: Seriously? - josh358 14:57:48 09/02/12 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
