[ SECRET POST #4919 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4919 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 21 secrets from Secret Submission Post #704.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[meadowphoenix]

I mean, objectively his music is not mediocre. Not to your liking, boring, sure that's about you and your understanding of music. Skillfully composed. Also yes.

He is also objectively a POS (even aside from the homophobia, he dated wildly inappropriate girls and was downright abusive to them and from a professional standpoint his influence on the Minnesota music scene was that of a petty tyrant) so hate is more than appropriate.

[(Anonymous)]

Not secret maker.

Eh, I don't really think there is all that much "objective" about music. I think most of it boils down to personal taste.

[meadowphoenix]

I agree liking music is very personal and there's little use talking about objective standards. I disagree that music composition isn't objective, and I think when we make a judgment like "mediocre" we're talking about both leaning toward the more objective parts, like the composition.

[(Anonymous)]

DA - Seconding this.

[(Anonymous)]

It doesn't seem to have many of the qualities that we would associate with objective truth

For example, there doesn't seem to be any objective or inarguable or non-subjective criteria, rubric, or standards that we can use to evaluate the truth of a specific judgment about musical composition.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

How about complexity? That seems pretty straight forward. I mean, the 4th movement of the Jupiter can certainly objectively be called a better composed piece than Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm willing to accept that complexity is objective. But it doesn't seem clear that more complex is better.

[meadowphoenix]

Well we're talking about skill here, not goodness. So when you say "there doesn't seem to be any objective or inarguable or non-subjective criteria, rubric, or standards that we can use to evaluate the truth of a specific judgment about musical composition" what do you think does have that type of criteria? So I know where you're starting from. Like if you're starting from post-modernism then, I can say right now whats the point.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm enough of a post-modernist that I'm going to have reservations about the ultimate foundations of any form of knowledge, but I do think there are things that we can meaningfully call 'objective facts'. For instance, I'm fine with talking about empirical facts being objectively true. There's a clear standard for determining whether they're so - a reliable procedure which demonstrates their truth and which is consistent regardless of who is observing it. If I talk about the Mojave Desert, anyone else can go and look at the Mojave Desert and see that it's there.

I don't think that there are any such criteria that would justify talking about skill as objective. I don't think that aesthetic judgment is an objective faculty, and I don't think that assessing skill is observer-independent. I don't think there's any procedure that can establish these things with veracity.

So those are the kinds of things and the considerations that I generally have in mind.