How do you judge your system's neutrality?

Hi Bryon - first, the performance discussion. All music MUST be performed, otherwise it has no function or purpose (some would even argue that it has no existence without performance, though I am not sure if I would go that far). Even a completely electronic composition of the type you describe (and which I have hands on experience with myself), despite being composed and entered into the computer over a long period of time, IS eventually played back in real time in it's entirety, and this act does constitute a performance of the work. Otherwise, what is the point of creating the work in the first place, if no one is ever going to hear it? The main difference is that there are no human "performers," only a computer. Another big difference is that all performances of the work are exactly the same, unless the composer edits the work. Some composers are very attracted to the idea of having no human error messing up their performance, and the idea of being the sole interpreter of the work as well. There is no third party between them and their audience. But most certainly they are considering an audience listening to a performance when they create the work.

As for the truthfulness/transparency thing, I think we were indeed using the terms differently. I could state a bit more about how I would use some of these terms differently from you, but this is your thread, and it will keep things much simpler to use your terms. After reading your last post a few times, I think I understand what you mean by all of your terms. I think before I was also confused sometimes about whether your real/virtual discussion referred to the recording or to the live event, though I should hasten to add that this confusion was mine, not yours. My remaining confusion still lies in exactly what you mean by truthfulness, as you say that your transparency definition is only a part of it (which, if I have understood correctly, I certainly agree with). Again, if you are speaking only about transparency as the correspondence between your 1) and 2), and not overall truthfulness, then I think your 5a is correct, and we are in agreement there.

My confusion lies in what you mean by truthfulness overall, then, especially with regard to 6a. Are you saying that a Subjectivist cannot evaluate the truthfulness of a recording?? If you mean by this that a Subjectivist believes a recording can never be completely truthful, then I agree. It seems quite clear that there certainly is not now and never will be a recording made that anyone would mistake for a live event, for many different reasons. I would disagree strongly, however, that a Subjectivist would be unable to judge how close a recording comes to the live, real event it is a representation of. In fact, this would also ultimately be a subjective judgement, I believe, despite some objectivist measures being needed. For example, two different sets of microphones in different set-ups recording the same live event. Which one is closer to the truth? Perspective would matter greatly here.

wow, what an academic series of discussions which have not been proven relevant to the satisfaction accruing from listening to music.

the key word is "proof". can someone offer up a study which shows as one approaches a neutral presentation of recorded music, one's enjoyment increases ?

Learsfool, I don't think I can be as accommodating as Bryon on your definition of "performance" to include playback. A performance is an event, unique in time and space, and as such, can never be repeated. The performance can be recorded and played back, but that is (to use Bryon's terminology) a representation of the performance, not the performance itself. (Unless you are considering your audio system's speakers, for example, as participating in the performance, in which case I think you are conflating the terms "performance" and "playback," and our disagreement is more semantic than philosophical.) If, as you suggest, musicians consider playback to be performance, then I submit that that belief is idiosyncratic to that group, and not consistent with the ordinary understanding and usage of the term "performance."

Are you saying that a Subjectivist cannot evaluate the truthfulness of a recording??

A Subjectivist can evaluate the truthfulness of a recording, but he is acting as an Objectivist when he does so.

Cbw, the example I gave in my last post was of computer music being played back to a live audience, not someone listening to it on their own on their own system. I thought this was clear from the context, I apologize.

However, I think most people would agree that any recording of music meant to be listened to, whatever the context, is a performance; it is just not a live performance. In fact, this thread is the first time I have ever seen that concept disputed. Let me rephrase my statement as a question: if music is not performed, what is it?

Learsfool – Regarding the issue of what counts as a performance, my thoughts are similar to Cbw’s. But I must reiterate that this issue is tangential, at best, to the issue of Objectivism vs. Subjectivism. Because of that, this is one of the few times I will say that I have no dog in this fight. So, moving on...

My remaining confusion still lies in exactly what you mean by truthfulness, as you say that your transparency definition is only a part of it…

Almost. I didn’t say that transparency is a PART of truthfulness, but I did say that transparency is a KIND of truthfulness. I know that probably sounds like I am splitting hairs, but there is a genuine difference. To say that transparency is a PART of truthfulness would be to say that there is ANOTHER PART to truthfulness, in which case I would need to say what that other part is. To say that transparency is a KIND of truthfulness is to say that there are OTHER KINDS of truthfulness, which there most certainly are.

Other kinds of truthfulness exist because other kinds of representations exist, things like: verbal statements, photographs, and scientific theories, to name just a few. These are different kinds of representations. For example, a photograph is an IMAGISTIC representation, in that it RESEMBLES the thing it represents. But a verbal statement is not an imagistic representation, since it does not RESEMBLE the thing it represents. Because there are different kinds of representations, there are different kinds of truthfulness, but what they all have in common is “correspondence to reality.”

In addition to other kinds of truthfulness relating to other kinds of representations, there is also, I think, another kind of truthfulness that relates to music recordings, namely, ACCURACY, i.e. how much information about the music is preserved as it passes from the software to the ear. I mentioned this in my post on 1/18 only in passing, because my focus was truthfulness understood as transparency, not as accuracy.

My confusion lies in what you mean by truthfulness overall, then, especially with regard to 6a. Are you saying that a Subjectivist cannot evaluate the truthfulness of a recording?

I think Cbw’s answer to this is correct. That is, a Subjectivist can evaluate the truthfulness of a recording, but when he does, he is ACTING AS an Objectivist. Indeed, judging the truthfulness of a representation is WHAT IT MEANS TO BE an Objectivist.

I would disagree strongly, however, that a Subjectivist would be unable to judge how close a recording comes to the live, real event it is a representation of. In fact, this would also ultimately be a subjective judgement, I believe, despite some objectivist measures being needed.

Again, a Subjectivist who sets out to judge the truthfulness of a recording is ACTING AS AN OBJECTIVIST WHEN HE DOES SO. It was this observation that motivated the ecumenical ideas in my post on 1/18, where I tried to show that there are times when the attitude of Subjectivism is more warranted, and times when the attitude of Objectivism is more warranted.

As far as your comment that judging the truthfulness of a music recording is “ultimately a subjective judgment,” this is most certainly true, but does not have the consequence you seem to think. Judgments about the truthfulness of a music recording are subjective simply because ALL JUDGMENTS ARE BY DEFINITION SUBJECTIVE, since they are made by persons. Even scientific judgments are subjective, since they are made by persons. But it does not follow from the inherently subjective nature of judgments that TRUTH is subjective. Truth is not objective, which is why, in my post on 1/18, I wrote:

(4) The truth of a representation is its objective correspondence to reality.

The meaning behind the word “objective” here is that the truth or falsity of a representation depends only upon its correspondence to how things actually are. It does not depend upon OUR BELIEFS about how things actually are.

Another way of understanding these comments is to say:

(i) Truth is objective.
(ii) Judgments about truth are subjective.

This is the case whether we are talking about music recordings, scientific theories, or any representations whatsoever. Truth is always objective, and judgments about truth are always subjective. If you find that strange, you are not alone. The inherent objectivity of truth and the inherent subjectivity of human judgments is an irony of the universe. But the inherent subjectivity of human judgments does not mean we must abandon the idea of objective truth. It only means we must abandon the idea of CERTAINTY. Certainty is what is lost, and fallibility is what is acknowledged, when you understand (i) and (ii). If we had the mind of God, things would be different.

Bringing this back to music recordings: When we set out to judge the truthfulness of a recording, we are de facto Objectivists, because the belief in truthfulness of a recording is the belief in the OBJECTIVE correspondence of the recording to a real musical event. But since we are relying our own human minds in this activity, our judgments are invariably subjective. A consequence of these realities is that we must give up any ambition to be CERTAIN about our judgments about the truthfulness of music recordings. But that’s not all that bad.

Having said that, it is NOT a consequence of these realities that we are left with nothing to differentiate good judgments from bad ones. The acknowledgement that all judgments are subjective does not mean that all judgments are created equal. Some judgments are much more reliable than others. In other words, I do not advocate a Radical Subjectivism about human judgments, i.e., the idea that all judgments are equally valid. In my view, that is the height of postmodern absurdity. What rescues us from Radical Subjectivism is the concept of 'expertise.' In your recent posts, you cited several times your own expertise as a musician as relevant to your judgments about the truthfulness of a recording, and I quite agree with you. It is precisely your expertise that makes your judgments more reliable than those of a naive listener, which is a point I made at length in a previous post.

So, in judging the truthfulness of music recordings, we are left with judgments that are always uncertain, always fallible, and always subjective, but sometimes expert. This isn't so bad. The situation is precisely the same for scientists, and look how much they have accomplished.