puntiniCAZpuntini

Music is sound, therefore by defining objective music, you also define sounds as objective. I repeat, I fully agree that a musician can and SHOULD be categorized by innovation and importance. But for you to tell me that one musician is more important or more innovative and thus more beautiful than another, absolutely not. What strikes me about all these discussions is just the phrase "music is objective"; the rest is merely a matter of perspective.

But come on, tell us the truth: you're having fun messing with us. I can understand all your talks about OBJECTIVE MUSICAL IMPORTANCE (always relative to the field in question), and I can get all your discussions about OBJECTIVE MUSICAL INNOVATION; those are perfectly feasible and demonstrable arguments, no doubt about it. Who could argue with that? But the idea that you can prove that ONE SOUND is OBJECTIVELY MORE BEAUTIFUL than another just makes me laugh. Do you realize? It's been "de gustibus" since the Romans, and now you come along to explain that a Farfisa E Minor is objectively better than a Trombone G? Come on...

You're delusional… considering that you are the ones who conform, clouded by ignorance and obscured by this stupid, idiotic relativism… let’s do this: prove to me that the A note of the guitar is better than the A note of the piano, go ahead. I like the sound of the piano less than that of the guitar: explain, come on, why? Go on, for a luminary like you it should be simple, you are enlightened by knowledge, go on, tell us.

Ah, you narrow-minded people: music is music, it's not just Jazz. You’re stuck in a terrible mindset; we’re no longer in the 50s.

Basentini, how can you say first that a discipline is objective, and then talk about open-mindedness? Either you don't know the meaning of the two terms in Italian, or you have unclear ideas. You see, none of us are saying that we are right and you are wrong; we are all repeating that everyone is free to voice their opinions, and everyone perceives things in their own way and taste. You insist on being right, while others are wrong. This is mental closure. It’s the first time I’ve engaged in a serious discussion on this site, but seriously, it seems to me that you lack contact with reality. Everything you have studied is not proven in the real world: because it cannot be done. You repeat words and structures that you have read from someone who read them from another... without practical demonstration. You’re just a small pawn in a closed circle of conformists; you are part of a uniform mass that thinks the same way and believes they are correct, like a Nazi. Just as the Nazi insinuated that the Aryan race was superior without any practical evidence, you insinuate that your music is better than others, without any practical demonstration. And I repeat, I don't say that mine is better, I only say that I cannot prove it just as you cannot. You have studied music, but the human brain is far more complex than the four scores you’ve memorized. Your stance, your arrogance in knowing and believing you are right, cracks me up. You talk about hot air with a starting discussion that is "music." The only thing to base fixed rules on is sound engineering, but even the greatest expert in this field can never prove that Charlie Parker is better than Eminem. You can demonstrate that a certain sound elicits specific reactions in the ear... but you can never prove that one thing is more beautiful than another. Damn, we’re at the ABC level: "what is beautiful is not what is beautiful, but what is pleasing." You can only prove that someone is technically better than another, and that’s it. And with that, what do you achieve? You achieve the boxing in of art into a banal exercise that recycles continuously... what a load of crap.

And I reiterate that I absolutely do not want to say that I have a better taste than yours; on the contrary, I want to say that you have your own, and I have mine. And they are equally valid. Then, it’s undeniable that if we talk about pure technique, you are light-years ahead of me; surely you can deconstruct a piece you’ve heard just once and play it backwards after 5 minutes, but... so what? What can you prove with that? Sound is perceived differently by everyone; for example, I love low frequencies. I could listen to 2 hours of bass without getting tired, while after 2 minutes of scales on the guitar, I yawn. After studying for months, I could say, "technically, scales are better than bass," but then I go home, I feel like listening to music... and I put the bass back on.

Sign up for a musicology course after reading the standardized mindset you have? God save me from that, you sound like a soldier from the SS.

Music has NO rules, and if it does, show them to me. Undoubtedly, you play like a god, but that doesn't mean you can place yourself above the tastes of others. The best chef in the world can never convince someone that a potato is better than a cucumber, even if he has studied for millennia. Even recipes have rules and timings, but that doesn't mean there are recipes that are undoubtedly better than others. Seriously, do you realize the absurd argument you're making? On what basis do you calculate that you are better than Squarepusher? You are different, incomparable; it's all a matter of taste.

Ah Basentì, what is the square root of Charlie Parker?

<<< You deluded ones, you who listen, lobotomized, to what propaganda imposes on you, without being able to choose... >>> But what the hell do you know about what I listen to? Look, fixed laws exist in Physics & Mathematics. You are just a puppet who speaks what you read; what you call culture is the brainwashing your teacher did to you, and you do the same with your students. Realize that you are just an idiot like many others, who can only move their fingers better than others. You are not a scientist, you have no physical evidence to appeal to, you can't prove jack, you can only chatter. Give me a scientific demonstration of what you say, prove to me that music is objective. In short: make us laugh.