The McDonaldization of Music

“DE GUSTIBUS NON EST DISPUTANDUM”

According to the old Latin proverb, “There’s no disputing matters of taste.” The reason for this is that tastes contain no rational criteria, offer no objective reasons on the basis of which variations in the assessment of their value might be made. But is this true?

What about the museums of fine art which can be found in the major cities? Clearly, they contain works of art which are generally agreed to exemplify the criteria constitutive of good, even great art. But the question stll stands: What are those criteria and just how are they exemplified in such works of art? The question is even more difficult when the art under consideration is aural rather than visual, music rather than paintings and sculpture. Versimilitude, the close imitation to the reality depicted in the visual arts which is often (but not always) considered such a criterion, is no longer operative in the aural, in music. The question, of course, is one of aesthetics, the fourth branch of philosophy. Can aesthetics resolve the dilemma?

“Laurent” disputes the claim that there is no disputing matters of taste. Indeed, he claims that there exist such objective criteria in terms of which the good can be distinguished from the bad. But what are these criteria?

Laurent maintains that modern teenage music fails as a “legitimate output for expression.” But what, for Laurent, constitutes “legitimacy” in this context? It can’t be based on the teenage claim to “individuality” since, according to Laurent, they listen to “the same big labels/artists” which all sound alike. By contrast “authentic music” is produced by musicians who have “more musical training and talent.” But this, in turn, simply drives the question back a step. How, in other words, is such musical training and talent to be distinguished from those that lack it? Laurent says that the music teenagers like is “musically limited and lyrically and emotionally superficial.” But how is, oh never mind. You get the idea.

Sadly, Laurent winds up shooting himself in the philosophical foot. Repeating a hoary clichè, he says that, “Everyone is different and experiences life differently.” If that is so (which is debatable) then Laurent has engaged in a performative contradiction. His criticism of teenage preferences in music collapses. If everyone is different as Laurent self-contradictibgly claims, then he has lost the argument.

As a consequence, Montrealman awards the first round to the ancient Latins. However, Laurent might want to object. Please do Laurent, but remember, give reasons, give grounds.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

P.S. If “The Parasite” (aka Hugo Phurst) posts a critical comment immediately after this one, ignore what he says because he has no mind. He is without internal resources. He can only feed off others. That is why he is called “The Parasite.”

“The Coprophage”

Ivan (3:25PM) writes, “Isn’t it just a case of the Coprophage telling the Parasite he has bad breath?”

Well, of course, Ivan, it’s not the same case at all. Unlike Montrealman, The Parasite is without a mind. He simply attaches himself to his host to receive nourishment which, sneeringly, he proceeds to rebuke. Montrealman, on the other hand, is the originator of ideas, a locus of intelligence and action.

On reflection I’m having second thoughts about you Ivan. There’s an old saying: “All discourse is self-referential.” Your reference to coprophagy says much more about you than it does Montrealman. You must reflect on this.

Unsuprisingly, the word “coprophage” was unknown to The Parasite (aka Hugo Phurst) who had to seek independent reference. I’m sure he will use it again, unoriginally, as the occasion arises for his future sneers.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!