[dillonpape]

Well, in a way it is objective in that there is an objectively quantifiable difference in number of previous listenings (from 0 at the premier to increasing positive integers as they continued to listen to the song), but the change in mindset itself must be subjective. Well, I suppose that the actual change, i.e. the fact that there was a difference in mindset between the two time frames, could be objective in that one could have taken a survey of various people of the time period where one asked what the surveyed people thought of the piece at the premier and after subsequent listenings and compared the results. If the survey showed a general difference in opinion between the two times, then it can be objectively said that there was a general difference in mindset. This could be considered objective in that the scientific study would present as data what could be considered facts insofar as it is factual that these are the actual opinions of actual people. I suppose that that is very similar to how a lot of sociological experiments are carried out. However, we already established the fact that there was a general difference in mindset several posts ago. But the mindsets themselves, whether they be the mindset of the people at the premier or their mindsets after subsequent listenings, must be subjective. Even if these people offer arguably objective reasons for either liking or disliking a piece (be it analyses of the theory, or explanations of the predictability/unpredictability ratio of the piece, or whatever else) these reasons are still, at least in part, subjective in that they are based in personal opinion as to what objective measurements are acceptable or not. For example, a certain usage of chromatic tones in a melody may be fully explainable by using concepts of music theory, but one reviewer may have tighter restrictions than another reviewer as far as what he considers to be within the bounds of acceptable usage of such technique. It could also be argued that the possibility that a great portion of the audience at the premier could contrive completely objective arguments concerning a piece would be quite slim, since it was only the first listening and therefore an in-depth analysis would have been very difficult. Such analyses are only possible, for the most part, after frequent exposure to the music in question. So it seems quite clear and necessary to me that any opinion of any piece of music (or any piece of any type of art, for that matter) must be considered subjective and therefore any change in that opinion must also be considered to be a subjective change, even if any of the opinion or change had basis in any sort of arguably objective reasoning.

I understand your point that these musics were unpopular because there was no predictability. My point is, however, that the unpopularity of the music cannot be used as a reason why that music should be considered undesirable. First of all, If someone writes a piece in a particular style, there is obviously somebody who thinks it is good. And the fact that enough people were writing pieces in these styles for them to be considered "schools" of music (although possibly negligibly small) shows that there was a number of people who liked this music. So clearly there was somebody listening to it. And of course there will always be those who don't care if they are the only person in the world who listens to the music they make. But regardless, even if the people who were writing this music did not even like their own music, even if quite literally nobody was listening to this music, that does not mean that the music is bad. You said yourself that there is no "bad" or "good." It may be very true that being a part of one of those schools of music would not exactly be the best idea if one is looking to make a career out of composition (just as the great majority of math rock bands are pretty underground so they probably all have other day jobs), it seems as if you are arguing that these schools of music did not make "good" music, although you have not explicitly stated it in such a way. My point is that, if that is indeed your argument, that it is an unjustified argument, insofar as one can justify a subjective claim.

[Aurelio]

I think we agree that there is no "good" or "bad" in music or art. My only point is that (following Meyer's thinking) it can be demonstrated that there is a correlation between the predictability of a piece of music, and the size of its audience. Far more people will listen to Lady Gaga singing "Alejandro" than will listen to Pulitzer-Prize-winner serial/atonal composer Milton Babbitt's music. Babbitt himself complained while receiving the award that nobody was interested in hearing his atonal music--they only were interested in stuff he had written for Broadway! Go figure!

aurelio

[dillonpape]

haha Well, then, I think that we agree on pretty much everything. I guess just my whole point is that your point only really matters if one is in the business for the fans, money, etc. If one is just making music to put their soul into it and not really concerned with success, then they don't need to be concerned with all of this philosophical predictability/unpredictability stuff That is the main reason why I do not wish to pursue a career as a performing musician. Although the performing arts programs are much easier to find than sound engineering programs, I don't want to have to make my music responsible for putting food on the table. In order to be successful enough to consistently do that, I would have to shape my music to match what people want to hear. Even then, everyone knows the chances of really breaking through and being successful at any art form, even if one's art is what people want to hear/see/read. Not only that, but I'm just as happy playing for free on the streets . But being a music producer, there's not really much "adapting" to it. Just make the music sound good! That is what I want to do, make budding artists dreams more possible. That's my point in a nutshell, I suppose.