I believe Vinteuil's point was [Kanye West] is a valuable bit of commercial property - unlike Gregorian Chant, or even Gustav Mahler, and cited him as an exemplar of cultural decline. He went on to question Trouscaillon assertions about music of the 19th and 20th century. Vinteuil clearly distinguishes between "elite" and "popular" music. Catchy zaps him, saying Kanye West is clearly lifting a Daft Punk sample, and much hoo-hah about Sexuality ensues thereafter.

You seized upon this concept of Musical Value, and ask the entirely reasonable question: by what yardstick should this value be measured? We get into some quibbling about censorship, not a wise modality for you, for Plato was nothing if not a censor and an advocate of a caste system.

What then is this question of Musical Value and by extension Artistic Value, over and against Instrumental Value, whereby it’s a means to an end? That begs the question, to what end?

The artist or musician who only thinks in strictly commercial terms produces formula art. If he’s successful, the instrumental value is Cash Money: it’s all about cliques, power, money and status. Hip-hop and rap put this point forward at its rawest form. But how different is a rapper’s jewelry from a Fabergé Egg or a marble statue at Versailles? Both are displays of ostentation. The musicians of the Sun King’s court, discreetly sitting in the balcony might not be the center of attention as they are today, but they were no less a symbolic representation of superiority. There is not one whit of difference between a box seat at Symphony Hall and a box seat at a Kanye West show. Both are displays of elite behavior, both are conformal to every stereotype surrounding displays of power and prestige.

For someone who makes art, be it music or otherwise, other forces are at work. Artists, musicians, dancers and the like are always looking to the works of others. The scruffy musician with a student discount, sitting in the nosebleed seats at Symphony Hall, longs to be Haitink or Boulez, baton in hand. He’s got his own ideas about excellence and status. He goes down to Michigan Avenue at lunch hour to play a Bach partita with his open violin case in front of him, waiting for people like me to lean up against the wall, applaud and give him five bucks. I envy the violinist, he envies Haitink, Haitink envies Bach, and Bach probably envied someone.

Say what you want to about Karl Popper: Plato talks out of both sides of his mouth. I happen to agree with Popper about Plato in principle, for Plato is dead-set against Athenian democracy, preferring some system of elites. Plato alternately mocks and praises Euthyphro, a man who takes the myths seriously. Eventually, Plato would say men can agree on matters of logic but disagree on morals. I've said this to the point of nauseating tiresomeness: we cannot insert ourselves, with all that has shaped us subsequently, into ancient times without also assuming their modes of thought.

Art can lead us in any number of directions. An illustration can inform, a political cartoon can lambaste, a Van Gogh can illuminate, Bach can inspire and Beethoven gives us greatness of spirit.

But here's my problem with all this business about Saving the Phenomenon: it must first be sold, and don’t tell me about Starving Artists. I’ve been both a paid artist and a paid musician. Artists starve because they don’t sell, or aren’t selling yet. Man does not live by bread alone, but artistic integrity won’t pay Artist’s Frame Service or get you a paying gig.

It’s always a tradeoff between formula and originality. If an artist wants to make a name for himself, for the long haul, he has to be original, an unknown for some while. There’s an inherent risk in changing a successful formula: today’s hot new artist might be persuaded to change his schtick or the lineup of his band or his producer -- and screw up. Da Vinci tried new paints which didn’t work, and now the Last Supper is a big old mess.

When my wife and I had our first exhibition, I was pleasantly boggled by the sight of strangers commenting on our art, not to us, but to each other. Art is communication and a phenomenon must first be perceived: first in the mind of the artist, then recorded with skill and technique in some medium, then presented to an audience. Ultimately, it's about communication, what the artist has to say, and to whom. Ultimately, it is not the artist, but the audience who has to do the applauding and put the five bucks in the violin case, and every artist knows it.

Intellectual satisfaction can provide an aesthetic experience in a number of ways: there are mathematicians who get freak-out excited over solving complicated equations. Or consider the case of great revenge stories: Dumas' Count of Monte Cristo, Poe's Purloined Letter, Mel Gibson's Payback.

I'd contend that revenge is a highly rarified aesthetic judgment, and what makes it satisfying is not the emotional & practical aspects (outrage & bloodlust sated, enemy defeated, dignity regained, fear transformed into triumph) but the intellectual fitness of the revenge. In these stories, payback is based on an unexpectedly apposite reversal where the enemy's trick is played against him. It isn't an exact reversal, it's more like an act of translation from one language to another: the hero's moment of greatest defeat & humiliation from Act I of the story is translated into a language of defeat & humiliation the enemy will understand. So Poe's Dupin plays the exact trick of triangulating deception against the Prefect of Police which the old conniver played against the Queen, defeating him at his own game, with the twist of exchanged roles. This judgment of the fitness of revenge, a purely intellectual act, is far more satisfying in these stories than the mere execution of the villain, which is normally saved for the denouement.

But the key is that this kind of intellectual satisfaction *does* produce emotion. You seem to be siding with Vinteuil in the idea that aesthetic experience can (and should) be separated from its instrumental value and, by implication, the highest, most artistic aesthetic experiences are those in which all instrumentality (even emotion) has been distilled away. Even Kant doesn't argue that aesthetic judgments can or should be understood without reference to their emotional products, indeed, it's the judgment of an emotional reaction (this track is da shizz, yo) plus the judgment that others will have the same reaction that makes something aesthetic. It isn't just subjective universal *anything goes*; it's subjective universal *emotion*. Emotion's not necessarily pleasure, by the way -- you changed my words.

At the end of the day, who cares if the sensus communis is happy, but you still can't dance to it? :)

Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH

there's an immediacy to music that impacts before any rational evaluation. One can intellectually appreciate the complexity or cleverness of a given piece, but it's that immediate visceral impact that sets the stage for the analysis that follows.

In other words, the value of any particular piece of music is entirely subjective. You can rationalize all you want after the fact, but you can't change that first emotional response. It's like trying to rationalize whether something smells good or not.

Forget the myths the media's created about the White House. The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand. - Deep Throat