What is the difference?

[Pallas_Athene]

This thread is an offshoot of the beauty thread. It is concerned with one aspect of aesthetics - namely the air vibrations, sometimes called “music”. The question:

What is the difference between Bach’s “Air”, and a fingernail scratching the blackboard?

The answer:

1. Objectively none at all. Both are the vibrations of air molecules.
2. Subjectively there is a difference.

But, for a deaf person there is no subjective difference either.

Today, we find Mozart’s music beautiful and enchanting. When he first started to compose, people found his music “unacceptable”, because he deviated from the commonly accepted norms.

Today some people find rap music horrible. Others like it a lot. Is it objectively good or not? Is there a music-meter which has a scale of “horrible = 0” and “wonderful = 10”? Of course not. There is none, and there cannot be.

Before the music world cross-polluted the continents, the Western type music-with-harmony was considered boring for the listeners in the far East. And conversely, the Indian music with its disharmonies was considered “lousy” by the Western listeners.

There is no objectively “beautiful” music.

 

[pianistclare]

And your point is???

 

[Gorgias]

The question:

What is the difference between Bach’s “Air”, and a fingernail scratching the blackboard?

The answer:

1. Objectively none at all. Both are the vibrations of air molecules.
2. Subjectively there is a difference.

Answer 1 seems untenable. Objectively – in the framework of scales and modes – there is difference. Whether one is aware of these differences (and whether one has reactions to these differences, consciously or unconsciously) is a set of different questions altogether.

But, for a deaf person there is no subjective difference either.

This, too, seems a deficient answer. A deaf person is unable to perceive the difference; that does not mean that there is no difference. To simply say “no subjective difference” is inaccurate: “no perception of the objective difference” would seem to be more accurate.

Today, we find Mozart’s music beautiful and enchanting. When he first started to compose, people found his music “unacceptable”, because he deviated from the commonly accepted norms.

The question of ‘modes’ and ‘societal norms’ seems to be a different question from the one you originally have asked.

There is no objectively “beautiful” music.

I guess you have to define ‘beautiful’ first, no? And, of course, if that definition is grounded purely in subjective (or ‘collectively’ subjective) terms – rather than in ‘objective’ terms – then I guess you’ve already answered your own question.

 

[laircy]

Actually, more beautiful music has more orderly sound waves. This goes down even to the tuning, as shown in this video: youtube.com/watch?v=6NlI4No3s0M

 

[Aloysium]

This subjective-objective dichotomy does not do much of anything other than cause confusion from what I observe.
The bottom line is that our rational mind is relational in nature. It connects with what is and makes it intelligible.
Much of what is called objective, as in the OP, is merely the outcome of a sensory relationship with the world. Extending the senses through technology, we have opened up aspects of the material world which are otherwise outside our capacity to know.
We can describe the material world more completely using models based on what is perceived in our regular world, such as balls and waves. We also have the intellectual capacity for mathematics to assist us in our understanding.
Objective may also apply to anything that is the object of our interest, such as philosophy, sociology, beauty, and subjective experience itself.
I recall that psychoanalysis used the term object to represent another person on whom we project our hopes and fears, and whom we desire or seek to destroy. The object would constitute the intrapsychic conflicts of the person in relation to a significant person in their life - a sort of emotional connection one would have with another.
Physics does not represent the only objective reality.

 

[Bradski]

What is the difference between Bach’s “Air”, and a fingernail scratching the blackboard?

The answer:

1. Objectively none at all. Both are the vibrations of air molecules.
2. Subjectively there is a difference.

I’m with you on there not being objective beauty but I don’t think your example is a good one. There is a significant difference between the two noises and if they were represented graphically then someone who was blind could easily distinguish music from random noise.

That said, if there is objective beauty, then on the assumption that not everything is equally beautiful (a nonsensical proposition), then it is objectively true that one piece of music is more beautiful than another. There is a hierarchy. It would not be illogical for this to occur:

‘I love this piece’
‘It’s quite beautiful, isn’t it’.
‘But I thought you didn’t like it’.
‘I don’t – I think it’s awful’.
‘WT…?’

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Answer 1 seems untenable. Objectively – in the framework of scales and modes – there is difference. Whether one is aware of these differences (and whether one has reactions to these differences, consciously or unconsciously) is a set of different questions altogether.

It all depends on the level of abstraction. When we observe a thunder, the chirping of a cricket, the roar of a lion or an aria sung by Maria Callas, all of them are vibrations of air. As everything, they carry certain amount of information. And the perceived information is dependent upon the recipient, not the originator.

The roaring of a lion is important information for a gazelle, the aria of Callas is simply noise as far as the gazelle is concerned.

This, too, seems a deficient answer. A deaf person is unable to perceive the difference; that does not mean that there is no difference. To simply say “no subjective difference” is inaccurate: “no perception of the objective difference” would seem to be more accurate.

If you had actually read what I wrote, you could have seen that the wording was: “for a deaf person there is no subjective difference”. I recall a sign in a bookstore: “Those who do NOT read, are not better off than those who CANNOT read”. For the deaf person there is no information, not even noise.

I guess you have to define ‘beautiful’ first, no? And, of course, if that definition is grounded purely in subjective (or ‘collectively’ subjective) terms – rather than in ‘objective’ terms – then I guess you’ve already answered your own question.

Beauty is the emotional response to some informational stimulus. And since emotions are subjective… beauty is subjective, too.

 

[Gorgias]

It all depends on the level of abstraction. When we observe a thunder, the chirping of a cricket, the roar of a lion or an aria sung by Maria Callas, all of them are vibrations of air.

At some level of abstraction, all things are identical; at that level, you’ve abstracted out any ability to say anything interesting. At the level of abstraction you’ve chosen, we can state that all of creation is simply ‘vibrations’; therefore, at that level of abstraction, all creation is identical. In other words: try a little less abstraction, if you want to get to any interesting observation.

As everything, they carry certain amount of information. And the perceived information is dependent upon the recipient, not the originator.

You’ve just made a huge leap! You’ve gone from ‘information qua information’ to ‘information in transit’ to ‘information received by a recipient.’ (In fact, your whole construction fails to distinguish between ‘data’ and ‘information’, which would be a highly relevant distinction in this context.)

In any case, that’s like asking “is there any difference between a man, a woman, a tiger, and a glass of water?” and then answering, “nope: they’re all clumps of organic molecules.” More hopelessly, you answer further “the only difference is how you interact with that clump of molecules.”

If you had actually read what I wrote, you could have seen that the wording was: “for a deaf person there is no subjective difference”.

I did read what you wrote; but I found it an insufficient distinction. To choose an agent incapable of perception, and using that example to demonstrate lack of difference, is simply poor logic. Let’s extend your example: let’s have three people listening: a deaf adult, a hearing-abled baby, and a hearing-abled musician. Is there a subjective difference between the blackboard scratching and the Bach piece in this group? Yes, of course there is. The extent of the subjective difference, of course, differs between the baby and the musician; and there is no perception in the case of the deaf person, so for him, there is not the opportunity to perceive the (name removed by moderator)uts. So, is there a subjective difference? Yes, of course there is; but, to say ‘no difference’ – even ‘no subjective difference’ – because of a lack of ability to perceive on the part of one person, is an analysis so over-simplified that it is of limited value.

Beauty is the emotional response to some informational stimulus. And since emotions are subjective… beauty is subjective, too.

That’s what I thought. OK – so, you hold to a definition that, at its core, asserts subjectivity; and yet, you ask, “is this subjective?” In other words, you’re begging the question.

 

[thinkandmull]

You can’t prove that some music is more beautiful a priori because of some math. You first hear the beauty, then you notice the different beautiful pieces have something in common mathematically. However, it can depend on when you hear the music. Age has a lot to do with it.

Also, if you only listen to Bach, you might get bored. Does that mean that his music which you didn’t listen to first was really boring music? You may say the first songs were the most beautiful, but if you had heard them in a reverse order you may so otherwise. Once you hear music do a certain thing, you may get tired with it, so something sounds beautiful because it does something different, but that new music is beautiful because of the comparison, and wouldn’t be as beautiful to you if heard as your first music. See?

 

[abucs]

Beauty may exist independent of the physical prompting.

Different promptings may allow different encounters with beauty, or none at all.

As an aside, I have never heard anyone truthfully claim that Rap Music is beautiful.

Clever yes, motivational yes, defiant yes, - but not beautiful.

Maybe I should get out more.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

This thread is an offshoot of the beauty thread. It is concerned with one aspect of aesthetics - namely the air vibrations, sometimes called “music”. The question:

What is the difference between Bach’s “Air”, and a fingernail scratching the blackboard?

The answer:

1. Objectively none at all. Both are the vibrations of air molecules.
2. Subjectively there is a difference.

But, for a deaf person there is no subjective difference either.

Today, we find Mozart’s music beautiful and enchanting. When he first started to compose, people found his music “unacceptable”, because he deviated from the commonly accepted norms.

Today some people find rap music horrible. Others like it a lot. Is it objectively good or not? Is there a music-meter which has a scale of “horrible = 0” and “wonderful = 10”? Of course not. There is none, and there cannot be.

Before the music world cross-polluted the continents, the Western type music-with-harmony was considered boring for the listeners in the far East. And conversely, the Indian music with its disharmonies was considered “lousy” by the Western listeners.

There is no objectively “beautiful” music.

As we have tried to explain to you *ad nauseam *in the other thread you mention, there are objective differences between real music and fingernails scratching a blackboard.

If you don’t hear that difference, please have your hearing tested.

The truth is that some of the best musical artists of Western music in modern times have come from the orient. Improve your knowledge of music before you make these wild generalizations.

Thank you.

P.S. Mozart was highly regarded by many in his own lifetime. His main critics were those envious souls who could not rise to his level of genius.

 

[ynotzap]

This thread is an offshoot of the beauty thread. It is concerned with one aspect of aesthetics - namely the air vibrations, sometimes called “music”. The question:

What is the difference between Bach’s “Air”, and a fingernail scratching the blackboard?

The answer:

1. Objectively none at all. Both are the vibrations of air molecules.
2. Subjectively there is a difference.

But, for a deaf person there is no subjective difference either.

Today, we find Mozart’s music beautiful and enchanting. When he first started to compose, people found his music “unacceptable”, because he deviated from the commonly accepted norms.

Today some people find rap music horrible. Others like it a lot. Is it objectively good or not? Is there a music-meter which has a scale of “horrible = 0” and “wonderful = 10”? Of course not. There is none, and there cannot be.

Before the music world cross-polluted the continents, the Western type music-with-harmony was considered boring for the listeners in the far East. And conversely, the Indian music with its disharmonies was considered “lousy” by the Western listeners.

There is no objectively “beautiful” music.

The difference between Mozart’s music and a finger nail scratch is that the music is an “Intellectual composition of all that music implies” rythym, harmony, discord, syncopation, etc. One can get many subjective and objective meanings, the subjective meanings have their roots in the objective meanings. eg. the harmony in nature, in the universe, also in an analogous way even the composition of the universe. It can express emotions, and drama. All objective things which can supply our subjective thoughts. When we can get so much from these intellectual compositions, we come to appreciate them, and that is delightful, and beautiful to the mind. Can we get this from a “finger nail scratch on a blackboard” beside a chill feeling? Even a blind person can dance with a wheel chair which is moving in sync with the music, through vibration, I have witnessed this. emotion can be transmitted through the intensity of vibration, drama too. Are you looking for the truth, or just arguing, or are you unable to understand? Without objectivity, there is no subjectivity, as even the imaginative has its roots in reality, before we can be subjective, we must have contact with objective reality. Beauty is a transcendental, universally common to all things. Subjective thoughts of beauty are not universally common to all things. They are just subject to the thinker.