On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 2:54:19 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
> On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 9:43:48 AM UTC-4, Norbert K wrote:
>
> > The fact that two experts pursued the issue suggests they knew that there was objective truth to the issue.
> What kind of logic is that?
>
> People have pursued all kinds of issues with no objective truth, like "Is there a god?" for instance.
>
> Then there's the other thing, where one singer might be more in key, but you may prefer another singer's version of the same song for other reasons, like the emotion he sings it with. An example for me would be "Penny Lane." Paul sings it technically more on key, but I prefer the Elvis Costello live at the White House version by a bit, because he sings it more emotionally.

Okay, but you recognize that McCartney's version is more in key, i.e., you acknowledge the objectivity of that.

On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 10:46:11 PM UTC-7, geoff wrote:
> On 9/06/2023 1:57 am, Norbert K wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 3:08:25 PM UTC-7, geoff wrote:
> >> On 8/06/2023 2:41 am, Norbert K wrote:
> >>> On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 6:34:41 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 1:33:06 PM UTC-4, Norbert K wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Of course some people don't appreciate the Beatles. It doesn't follow that the merit of any music is subjective.
> >>>> Of course it does. It always comes down to people's opinions of the music. And if you want to put it to a vote a record like "Honey" by Bobby Goldsboro was far more popular than a record like "I Am The Walrus." So, according to the majority "Honey" is better than "I Am The Walrus" and "The Ballad Of The Green Berets" is better than "Day Tripper."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you really believed the subjectivism you're pushing at the moment, you'd never have stated (as you have) that Frank Zappa's recordings sucked. You'd have regarded this as your private opinion that was no better than the opinions of people who like his recordings.
> >>>> In reality that's all it is, my opinion. Doesn't mean I won't express it loudly even though I know it's not gonna change the minds of the people who think Zappa's music was very good. I want people to get a sense of just how bad I think his music was. Saying sucked made you remember. If I had just said "I don't care for Zappa myself, but I know lots of people do" you would not even have noted it, let alone retain it for all of these years.
> >>>>> Is a player able to keep time and stay in tune?
> >>>> Who decides if he's in tune?
> >>>
> >>> He's in tune -- he is hitting particular notes -- or he is not. This is objective.
> >> Hitting a note though may or may not be a good thing in terms of
> >> 'expression', and is not the main criteria when done on purpose, or is
> >> part of a particular performers 'charm'. As opposed top total inability
> >> to sing in tune.
> >>
> >> Being able to keep time or not, or deliberately moving time for feeling
> >> both objectively valid. Wildly vary time because of inability to do the
> >> opposite objectively not great.
> >>
> >> And despite time and pitch challengers, some music is obviously
> >> subjectively appealing to many.
> >>>
> >>> People disagree on things; it does not follow that the issue in question is subjective. If you really believed music was subjective, you'd never challenge another person's claim about a song or a performer. To support challenges, one appeals to facts -- objective features.
> >> I feel not an objective/subjective thing - something else gain somewhere
> >> between with elements of each.
> >>>
> >>> Tempo, rhythm, melody, harmony, lyric content -- these are objective features. If "music is subjective" and every aspect of it were a matter of opinion, there would be no point in musical instruction. There would be no point in studying music books or chord charts.
> >> All music should be a grid ? Including lyrical content ? Grammar then ?
> >> Accents ? The Beatles were no good because they didn't use BBC English ?
> >>
> >> geoff
> >
> > No! I'm not saying lyrics have to be grammatically perfect. My point is that a song's lyrics -- however good they are -- are an objective feature of the song.
> >
> > My point on tempo was not that it must constant! I love hearing well-executed changes in tempo. Bands that can do that demand (especially live) have my respect for their technique. My point is that tempo, however it may fluctuate, is objectively part of the song.
> .... and can differ between performances, or with different performers.
> Generally subtly.
> >
> > A question I'd ask of purported subjectivists ("purported" because nobody really practices subjectivism) is: How do you account for transcriptions of music? If music were entirely subjective then the identification of a songs tempo(s), key(s), time signature(s), chord progressions -- all *objective* features of music -- would not be possible.
> >
> Those 'transcriptions' are interpreted by the performer. Else Siri could
> do just as well.
>
> geoff

Of course! However, the transcription -- if competent -- describes objective facts about the performance in question.

On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 7:32:22 AM UTC-4, Norbert K wrote:
> On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 2:54:19 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 9:43:48 AM UTC-4, Norbert K wrote:
> >
> > > The fact that two experts pursued the issue suggests they knew that there was objective truth to the issue.
> > What kind of logic is that?
> >
> > People have pursued all kinds of issues with no objective truth, like "Is there a god?" for instance.
> You are mistaken again. Questions about what exists in the world are -- like it or not -- scientific questions with objective answers.
>
> The ancient Mesopotamians believed in gods -- lots of them. Thousands of gods have been imagined throughout history. The question, "Does god exist?" is meaningless. You need to specify *which* god you're wondering about and what its attributes are. Then you can begin to assess the evidence (if there is any) for its existence; and to ask if such an entity is compatible with reality.

There is no evidence of ANY god ever existing.

On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 7:52:24 AM UTC-4, Norbert K wrote:
> On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 2:54:19 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 9:43:48 AM UTC-4, Norbert K wrote:
> >
> > > The fact that two experts pursued the issue suggests they knew that there was objective truth to the issue.
> > What kind of logic is that?
> >
> > People have pursued all kinds of issues with no objective truth, like "Is there a god?" for instance.
> >
> > Then there's the other thing, where one singer might be more in key, but you may prefer another singer's version of the same song for other reasons, like the emotion he sings it with. An example for me would be "Penny Lane." Paul sings it technically more on key, but I prefer the Elvis Costello live at the White House version by a bit, because he sings it more emotionally.
> Okay, but you recognize that McCartney's version is more in key, i.e., you acknowledge the objectivity of that.

Yes, but not every listener would agree with that assessment. I think that's actually Paul's biggest weakness as a singer.....being much more concerned with technical correctness than with just letting go with emotion the way that most black singers do.

On 10/06/2023 12:13 pm, Bruce wrote:
> On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 7:32:22 AM UTC-4, Norbert K wrote:
>> On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 2:54:19 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>>> On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 9:43:48 AM UTC-4, Norbert K wrote:
>>>
>>>> The fact that two experts pursued the issue suggests they knew that there was objective truth to the issue.
>>> What kind of logic is that?
>>>
>>> People have pursued all kinds of issues with no objective truth, like "Is there a god?" for instance.
>> You are mistaken again. Questions about what exists in the world are -- like it or not -- scientific questions with objective answers.
>>
>> The ancient Mesopotamians believed in gods -- lots of them. Thousands of gods have been imagined throughout history. The question, "Does god exist?" is meaningless. You need to specify *which* god you're wondering about and what its attributes are. Then you can begin to assess the evidence (if there is any) for its existence; and to ask if such an entity is compatible with reality.
>
> There is no evidence of ANY god ever existing.

We can agree on something ! Hallelujiah.

geoff

On 9/06/2023 11:54 pm, Norbert K wrote:
> On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 10:46:11 PM UTC-7, geoff wrote:
>> On 9/06/2023 1:57 am, Norbert K wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 3:08:25 PM UTC-7, geoff wrote:
>>>> On 8/06/2023 2:41 am, Norbert K wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 6:34:41 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 1:33:06 PM UTC-4, Norbert K wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course some people don't appreciate the Beatles. It doesn't follow that the merit of any music is subjective.
>>>>>> Of course it does. It always comes down to people's opinions of the music. And if you want to put it to a vote a record like "Honey" by Bobby Goldsboro was far more popular than a record like "I Am The Walrus." So, according to the majority "Honey" is better than "I Am The Walrus" and "The Ballad Of The Green Berets" is better than "Day Tripper."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you really believed the subjectivism you're pushing at the moment, you'd never have stated (as you have) that Frank Zappa's recordings sucked. You'd have regarded this as your private opinion that was no better than the opinions of people who like his recordings.
>>>>>> In reality that's all it is, my opinion. Doesn't mean I won't express it loudly even though I know it's not gonna change the minds of the people who think Zappa's music was very good. I want people to get a sense of just how bad I think his music was. Saying sucked made you remember. If I had just said "I don't care for Zappa myself, but I know lots of people do" you would not even have noted it, let alone retain it for all of these years.
>>>>>>> Is a player able to keep time and stay in tune?
>>>>>> Who decides if he's in tune?
>>>>>
>>>>> He's in tune -- he is hitting particular notes -- or he is not. This is objective.
>>>> Hitting a note though may or may not be a good thing in terms of
>>>> 'expression', and is not the main criteria when done on purpose, or is
>>>> part of a particular performers 'charm'. As opposed top total inability
>>>> to sing in tune.
>>>>
>>>> Being able to keep time or not, or deliberately moving time for feeling
>>>> both objectively valid. Wildly vary time because of inability to do the
>>>> opposite objectively not great.
>>>>
>>>> And despite time and pitch challengers, some music is obviously
>>>> subjectively appealing to many.
>>>>>
>>>>> People disagree on things; it does not follow that the issue in question is subjective. If you really believed music was subjective, you'd never challenge another person's claim about a song or a performer. To support challenges, one appeals to facts -- objective features.
>>>> I feel not an objective/subjective thing - something else gain somewhere
>>>> between with elements of each.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tempo, rhythm, melody, harmony, lyric content -- these are objective features. If "music is subjective" and every aspect of it were a matter of opinion, there would be no point in musical instruction. There would be no point in studying music books or chord charts.
>>>> All music should be a grid ? Including lyrical content ? Grammar then ?
>>>> Accents ? The Beatles were no good because they didn't use BBC English ?
>>>>
>>>> geoff
>>>
>>> No! I'm not saying lyrics have to be grammatically perfect. My point is that a song's lyrics -- however good they are -- are an objective feature of the song.
>>>
>>> My point on tempo was not that it must constant! I love hearing well-executed changes in tempo. Bands that can do that demand (especially live) have my respect for their technique. My point is that tempo, however it may fluctuate, is objectively part of the song.
>> .... and can differ between performances, or with different performers.
>> Generally subtly.
>>>
>>> A question I'd ask of purported subjectivists ("purported" because nobody really practices subjectivism) is: How do you account for transcriptions of music? If music were entirely subjective then the identification of a songs tempo(s), key(s), time signature(s), chord progressions -- all *objective* features of music -- would not be possible.
>>>
>> Those 'transcriptions' are interpreted by the performer. Else Siri could
>> do just as well.
>>
>> geoff
>
> Of course! However, the transcription -- if competent -- describes objective facts about the performance in question.

And subjective aspects which may appeal to some listeners, and not to
others.

geoff

On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 5:13:18 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
> On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 7:32:22 AM UTC-4, Norbert K wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 2:54:19 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
> > > On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 9:43:48 AM UTC-4, Norbert K wrote:
> > >
> > > > The fact that two experts pursued the issue suggests they knew that there was objective truth to the issue.
> > > What kind of logic is that?
> > >
> > > People have pursued all kinds of issues with no objective truth, like "Is there a god?" for instance.
> > You are mistaken again. Questions about what exists in the world are -- like it or not -- scientific questions with objective answers.
> >
> > The ancient Mesopotamians believed in gods -- lots of them. Thousands of gods have been imagined throughout history. The question, "Does god exist?" is meaningless. You need to specify *which* god you're wondering about and what its attributes are. Then you can begin to assess the evidence (if there is any) for its existence; and to ask if such an entity is compatible with reality.
> There is no evidence of ANY god ever existing.

I agree. So why, in your previous post, did you pronounce that the issue of gods' existences was subjective?

You're all over the map, Bruce.

On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 6:06:25 AM UTC-4, Norbert K wrote:
> On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 5:13:18 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
> > On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 7:32:22 AM UTC-4, Norbert K wrote:
> > > On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 2:54:19 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 9:43:48 AM UTC-4, Norbert K wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The fact that two experts pursued the issue suggests they knew that there was objective truth to the issue.
> > > > What kind of logic is that?
> > > >
> > > > People have pursued all kinds of issues with no objective truth, like "Is there a god?" for instance.
> > > You are mistaken again. Questions about what exists in the world are -- like it or not -- scientific questions with objective answers.
> > >
> > > The ancient Mesopotamians believed in gods -- lots of them. Thousands of gods have been imagined throughout history. The question, "Does god exist?" is meaningless. You need to specify *which* god you're wondering about and what its attributes are. Then you can begin to assess the evidence (if there is any) for its existence; and to ask if such an entity is compatible with reality.
> > There is no evidence of ANY god ever existing.
> I agree. So why, in your previous post, did you pronounce that the issue of gods' existences was subjective?
>
> You're all over the map, Bruce.

It's the same with the singing on key thing. According to many many supposed experts, there is tremendous evidence of god's existence. It can never be proven either way unless the god decides to suddenly show himself to the world.

On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 6:46:59 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
> On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 6:06:25 AM UTC-4, Norbert K wrote:
> > On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 5:13:18 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
> > > On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 7:32:22 AM UTC-4, Norbert K wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 2:54:19 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 9:43:48 AM UTC-4, Norbert K wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > The fact that two experts pursued the issue suggests they knew that there was objective truth to the issue.
> > > > > What kind of logic is that?
> > > > >
> > > > > People have pursued all kinds of issues with no objective truth, like "Is there a god?" for instance.
> > > > You are mistaken again. Questions about what exists in the world are -- like it or not -- scientific questions with objective answers.
> > > >
> > > > The ancient Mesopotamians believed in gods -- lots of them. Thousands of gods have been imagined throughout history. The question, "Does god exist?" is meaningless. You need to specify *which* god you're wondering about and what its attributes are. Then you can begin to assess the evidence (if there is any) for its existence; and to ask if such an entity is compatible with reality.
> > > There is no evidence of ANY god ever existing.
> > I agree. So why, in your previous post, did you pronounce that the issue of gods' existences was subjective?
> >
> > You're all over the map, Bruce.
> It's the same with the singing on key thing. According to many many supposed experts, there is tremendous evidence of god's existence. It can never be proven either way unless the god decides to suddenly show himself to the world.

You're contradicting yourself yet again. You stated in your previous post that "There is no evidence of ANY god ever existing."

Here's where I suspect you're getting lost. You're mistaking *dispute* for subjectivism. They are two entirely different things. Some (mentally ill and/or extremely stupid) people insist that the earth is flat, or that the universe is geocentic, or that Covid is a hoax. These screwups cling to these delusions with religious fervor. Do you believe those issues are subjective?

On 11/06/2023 1:46 am, Bruce wrote:
> On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 6:06:25 AM UTC-4, Norbert K wrote:
>> On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 5:13:18 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>>> On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 7:32:22 AM UTC-4, Norbert K wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 2:54:19 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 9:43:48 AM UTC-4, Norbert K wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact that two experts pursued the issue suggests they knew that there was objective truth to the issue.
>>>>> What kind of logic is that?
>>>>>
>>>>> People have pursued all kinds of issues with no objective truth, like "Is there a god?" for instance.
>>>> You are mistaken again. Questions about what exists in the world are -- like it or not -- scientific questions with objective answers.
>>>>
>>>> The ancient Mesopotamians believed in gods -- lots of them. Thousands of gods have been imagined throughout history. The question, "Does god exist?" is meaningless. You need to specify *which* god you're wondering about and what its attributes are. Then you can begin to assess the evidence (if there is any) for its existence; and to ask if such an entity is compatible with reality.
>>> There is no evidence of ANY god ever existing.
>> I agree. So why, in your previous post, did you pronounce that the issue of gods' existences was subjective?
>>
>> You're all over the map, Bruce.
>
> It's the same with the singing on key thing. According to many many supposed experts, there is tremendous evidence of god's existence. It can never be proven either way unless the god decides to suddenly show himself to the world.
>
>

'Himself' ? For a start, she's black...

geoff

On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:10:50 AM UTC-4, Norbert K wrote:
> On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 6:46:59 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 6:06:25 AM UTC-4, Norbert K wrote:
> > > On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 5:13:18 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
> > > > On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 7:32:22 AM UTC-4, Norbert K wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 2:54:19 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 9:43:48 AM UTC-4, Norbert K wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The fact that two experts pursued the issue suggests they knew that there was objective truth to the issue.
> > > > > > What kind of logic is that?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > People have pursued all kinds of issues with no objective truth, like "Is there a god?" for instance.
> > > > > You are mistaken again. Questions about what exists in the world are -- like it or not -- scientific questions with objective answers.
> > > > >
> > > > > The ancient Mesopotamians believed in gods -- lots of them. Thousands of gods have been imagined throughout history. The question, "Does god exist?" is meaningless. You need to specify *which* god you're wondering about and what its attributes are. Then you can begin to assess the evidence (if there is any) for its existence; and to ask if such an entity is compatible with reality.
> > > > There is no evidence of ANY god ever existing.
> > > I agree. So why, in your previous post, did you pronounce that the issue of gods' existences was subjective?
> > >
> > > You're all over the map, Bruce.
> > It's the same with the singing on key thing. According to many many supposed experts, there is tremendous evidence of god's existence. It can never be proven either way unless the god decides to suddenly show himself to the world.
> You're contradicting yourself yet again. You stated in your previous post that "There is no evidence of ANY god ever existing."
>
> Here's where I suspect you're getting lost. You're mistaking *dispute* for subjectivism. They are two entirely different things. Some (mentally ill and/or extremely stupid) people insist that the earth is flat, or that the universe is geocentic, or that Covid is a hoax. These screwups cling to these delusions with religious fervor. Do you believe those issues are subjective?

No, but I certainly can't prove that there is no god.

On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 6:03:39 PM UTC-7, geoff wrote:
> On 11/06/2023 1:46 am, Bruce wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 6:06:25 AM UTC-4, Norbert K wrote:
> >> On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 5:13:18 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
> >>> On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 7:32:22 AM UTC-4, Norbert K wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 2:54:19 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 9:43:48 AM UTC-4, Norbert K wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> The fact that two experts pursued the issue suggests they knew that there was objective truth to the issue.
> >>>>> What kind of logic is that?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> People have pursued all kinds of issues with no objective truth, like "Is there a god?" for instance.
> >>>> You are mistaken again. Questions about what exists in the world are -- like it or not -- scientific questions with objective answers.
> >>>>
> >>>> The ancient Mesopotamians believed in gods -- lots of them. Thousands of gods have been imagined throughout history. The question, "Does god exist?" is meaningless. You need to specify *which* god you're wondering about and what its attributes are. Then you can begin to assess the evidence (if there is any) for its existence; and to ask if such an entity is compatible with reality.
> >>> There is no evidence of ANY god ever existing.
> >> I agree. So why, in your previous post, did you pronounce that the issue of gods' existences was subjective?
> >>
> >> You're all over the map, Bruce.
> >
> > It's the same with the singing on key thing. According to many many supposed experts, there is tremendous evidence of god's existence. It can never be proven either way unless the god decides to suddenly show himself to the world.
> >
> >
> 'Himself' ? For a start, she's black...
>
> geoff

LOL! However, Ella Fitzgerald departed in the 90s.

God is dead.