>What's the "absolute sense?" Who decides what criteria are used to judge
>a painting/book/game/whatever?
The standard question!
Well, the reader/reviewer does, initially. Ultimately, the public at
large. At this point one can only predict that _HIStory_ will be unknown
in 2500 while _Messiah_ will still be cherished. We certainly don't know
for sure. But we *do* know the answers to the analogous question for Bach
vs. (say) Telemann. So whether or not you or I can quantify this "absolute
sense," it exists --- in the colective mind of the public.
>And one computer "competes" with another. Bach (classical
>music) isn't in competition with Michael Jackson (pop music).
This seems to be the crux of the relativistic view of art --- that HIStory
is just as good as (or not comparable to) _Messiah_ because they're
fundamentally different things, and that each is as good at what it tries
to be as the other. I think this is a cop-out.
>But the problem with comparing Bach to Michael Jackson, using the criteria
>that make Bach excellent classical music, is that the contest is rigged.
I don't think it's rigged if you look at the *fundamental* things that make
Bach's music great. Look at form and content. Bach's music is intricate;
it rewards extended study. It's also (in most cases) *about* something.
HIStory is technically simple (i.e., in terms of the mechanics of the
music; the craft) and isn't about anything compelling either.
HIStory doesn't lose because we view good music in terms of what Bach did.
It loses because it's neither interesting from a technical point of view
nor a thematic point of view. It's catchy, perhaps. Great. That gives it
about 10 years of life. Maybe 50 if it's *really* catchy.
(I'll admit that it's a bit of an unfair example, though, because the
public has already ruled on Bach's music, so there's no question about its
status.)
>I fully agree, and I'm not saying all things are equally good.
You didn't say that, I know, but my point is that this kind of relativism
degenerates into the view that all things might as well be equal, because
we can write off any absolute statements as differences in context, or
intent, etc.
>Now, is Bach better than, say, Handel? That's worth discussing.
But it's still a pointless discussion, isn't it? Because you can convince
yourself that since Bach was writing music for religious purposes alone
while Handel was earning the public's affection and cash, that they were
writing in different contexts, and that comparisons aren't fair.
Dave Baggett
__
dmb@ai.mit.edu
"Mr. Price: Please don't try to make things nice! The wrong notes are *right*."
--- Charles Ives (note to copyist on the autograph score of The Fourth of July)