# The music that is better than itself **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [October 30, 2013, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-music-that-is-better-than-itself/672607 "2013-10-30T00:20:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Don\_Simus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@Don\_Simus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_Simus)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2014, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-music-that-is-better-than-itself/672607/41 "2014-05-11T01:39:12Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > [Joyce Hatto](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyce_Hatto)was a plagiarist fraudster who released [other people’s performances](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/26/opinion/26dutton.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)under her own name. > > I heard about one particular critic who gave someone’s original performance a negative review, then years later gave a rave review to the exact same recording released under Hatto’s name. Very interesting. I found a post on Pianophiles Yahoo group which gives the names of those talented critics. > **[Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos](https://www.yahoo.com/)** > > Latest news coverage, email, free stock quotes, live scores and video are just the beginning. Discover more every day at Yahoo! But for some reason the story did not make it beyond newsgroups. ---
**Author:** ![Don\_Simus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@Don\_Simus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_Simus)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2014, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-music-that-is-better-than-itself/672607/42 "2014-05-25T03:54:40Z")
> [@WordMan](#): > > What would you like to hear? I can’t speak to all the variables that might put a different slant on that set of events. So Pulitzer prizes are not just awarded for good stories? > [@WordMan](#): > > I would come at your OP a different way: let’s say the fundamental assertion is correct. What is supposed to happen differently because of it? Humans are unreliable and make mistakes and impose patterns and narratives where none exist. What’s going to change? One thing which will change is the attitude towards the famous. Previously people believed that they were famous for a reason. Now it becomes clear that they are famous by chance. ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2014, 11:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-music-that-is-better-than-itself/672607/43 "2014-05-25T11:09:30Z")
> [@Don\_Simus](#): > > One thing which will change is the attitude towards the famous. Previously people believed that they were famous for a reason. Now it becomes clear that they are famous by chance. You are painting with a broad brush. Humans are flawed; so? Critics can completely blow it; and great art can still be made that stands the test of time. And are you really expecting general attitudes to change? The Simus Rule™: NO ONE is famous for art that is worthy!!! “I used to think Shakespeare was pretty good until I understood the Simus Rule™ and now see he’s a hack. A hack, I tell you!” :smack: ---
**Author:** ![scabpicker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scabpicker/32/8268_2.png) [@scabpicker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scabpicker)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2014, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-music-that-is-better-than-itself/672607/44 "2014-05-25T11:27:24Z")
> [@Don\_Simus](#): > > One thing which will change is the attitude towards the famous. Previously people believed that they were famous for a reason. Now it becomes clear that they are famous by chance. You’re falling for the fallacy of the excluded middle. Anyone who’s famous in art is famous through a combination of of talent and chance. Instances where one could claim it is purely one or the other are very rare. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2014, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-music-that-is-better-than-itself/672607/45 "2014-05-25T15:22:54Z")
> [@scabpicker](#): > > You’re falling for the fallacy of the excluded middle. Anyone who’s famous in art is famous through a combination of of talent and chance. Instances where one could claim it is purely one or the other are very rare. Are we including having well-placed relatives in “chance” ? There are a number of actors whose big break came from having mom or dad make some phone calls. ---
**Author:** ![scabpicker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scabpicker/32/8268_2.png) [@scabpicker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scabpicker)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2014, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-music-that-is-better-than-itself/672607/46 "2014-05-25T18:21:58Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Are we including having well-placed relatives in “chance” ? There are a number of actors whose big break came from having mom or dad make some phone calls. Who you’re related to is definitely in the realm of chance. I know I had no choice in mine. ---
**Author:** ![Saintly\_Loser](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saintly_loser/32/4045_2.png) [@Saintly\_Loser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saintly_Loser)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2014, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-music-that-is-better-than-itself/672607/47 "2014-05-26T00:59:31Z")
> [@Don\_Simus](#): > > The Chicago experiment was done at noon with the same result. Besides, here is [a test where you are to tell a famous musician from an unknown one](http://reverent.org/famous_or_unknown_musician.html). You can take it this night, or can wait for Friday night. That’s kind of a different thing. All the performances in that test are by seriously competent professional musicians. And it’s completely arguable that some of the un-famous musicials (or orchestras and conductors) are actually _better_ than the famous ones. I mean, once you get to the point where everyone is playing in tune, in time, and hitting all the right notes and reading their music right, we’re talking about subjective judgments here. ---
**Author:** ![Don\_Simus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@Don\_Simus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_Simus)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2014, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-music-that-is-better-than-itself/672607/48 "2014-05-30T21:18:55Z")
> [@WordMan](#): > > You are painting with a broad brush. Humans are flawed; so? Critics can completely blow it; Don’t use euphemisms. The critics are so whimsical and capricious that they can trash and praise the same record released under different names [http://ecclesiastes911.net/music\_critics\_trash\_and\_praiese\_the\_same\_record/](http://ecclesiastes911.net/music_critics_trash_and_praiese_the_same_record/) > [@WordMan](#): > > and great art can still be made that stands the test of time. Yes, there are books that are much read long after they were written. The problem is that people can’t tell them from the books which did not pass this venerable test. In addition the average reader ratings are the same. The difference is only in the number of readers [http://literarytaste.wordpress.com/2014/05/18/great-prose-or-not/](http://literarytaste.wordpress.com/2014/05/18/great-prose-or-not/) > [@WordMan](#): > > And are you really expecting general attitudes to change? The Simus Rule™: NO ONE is famous for art that is worthy!!! “I used to think Shakespeare was pretty good until I understood the Simus Rule™ and now see he’s a hack. A hack, I tell you!” The problem is that you will not tell the pretty good writer whom a mediocre one when the writer’s names will be detached from the text. > [@scabpicker](#): > > Who you’re related to is definitely in the realm of chance. I know I had no choice in mine. If you had no choice than it must have been by chance. Perfect logic. ---
**Author:** ![scabpicker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scabpicker/32/8268_2.png) [@scabpicker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scabpicker)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2014, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-music-that-is-better-than-itself/672607/49 "2014-05-30T22:23:25Z")
> [@Don\_Simus](#): > > If you had no choice than it must have been by chance. Perfect logic. Are you saying there’s someone planning my network of relatives? Because that’s the creepiest idea I’ve heard all week if you are. ---
**Author:** ![Don\_Simus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@Don\_Simus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_Simus)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2014, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-music-that-is-better-than-itself/672607/50 "2014-05-31T18:49:30Z")
> [@Saintly\_Loser](#): > > That’s kind of a different thing. All the performances in that test are by seriously competent professional musicians. And it’s completely arguable that some of the un-famous musicials (or orchestras and conductors) are actually _better_ than the famous ones. I mean, once you get to the point where everyone is playing in tune, in time, and hitting all the right notes and reading their music right, we’re talking about subjective judgments here. It’s the same thing. The street musicians can also be seriously competent professionals. That’s why the famous musicians did not attract attention when playing in the street. They just were no better than many other musicians playing there. > [@scabpicker](#): > > Are you saying there’s someone planning my network of relatives? Because that’s the creepiest idea I’ve heard all week if you are. You are genetically related to your relatives. The abilities are genetic. If you assume that the position in the society is determined by the abilities, than the placement of you relatives is related to your abilities. ---
**Author:** ![scabpicker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scabpicker/32/8268_2.png) [@scabpicker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scabpicker)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2014, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-music-that-is-better-than-itself/672607/51 "2014-06-01T01:08:23Z")
> [@Don\_Simus](#): > > You are genetically related to your relatives. The abilities are genetic. If you assume that the position in the society is determined by the abilities, than the placement of you relatives is related to your abilities. So, are you talking about a genetic ability to make good music or something? Because you’ve totally lost me here. ---
**Author:** ![Don\_Simus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@Don\_Simus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_Simus)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-music-that-is-better-than-itself/672607/52 "2014-06-20T20:54:48Z")
> [@scabpicker](#): > > So, are you talking about a genetic ability to make good music or something? Because you’ve totally lost me here. This is a common belief that musical abilities are inherited. I just used it as an example to explain to you that if you do not control something it does not mean that this is due to chance. Consider another example. There are no dogs among your relatives, and you have no control of this. Does this mean that you do not have a dog uncle just by chance? ---
**Author:** ![Maserschmidt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/maserschmidt/32/18829_2.png) [@Maserschmidt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maserschmidt)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-music-that-is-better-than-itself/672607/53 "2014-06-20T21:00:16Z")
> [@Don\_Simus](#): > > This is a common belief that musical abilities are inherited. I just used it as an example to explain to you that if you do not control something it does not mean that this is due to chance. > > Consider another example. There are no dogs among your relatives, and you have no control of this. Does this mean that you do not have a dog uncle just by chance? Three weeks of consideration did not make your response any easier to understand. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-music-that-is-better-than-itself/672607/54 "2014-06-20T22:12:53Z")
I’m still not getting why this is a big deal. Reception is affected by paratext. This is not surprising. It feels like this thread is a long wind-up for some other argument. Something like “Ha ha … connoisseurs are just poseurs!” When is the other shoe going to drop? ---
**Author:** ![Don\_Simus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@Don\_Simus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_Simus)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2014, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-music-that-is-better-than-itself/672607/55 "2014-06-25T20:21:03Z")
> [@Maserschmidt](#): > > Three weeks of consideration did not make your response any easier to understand. It is not my fault. In [another thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=725378) I posted a link to a picture of myself. And you will not be able to come anywhere close. Not in three weeks, not in three years. And, similarly, you do not grasp what I say, because your mind gets wobbly. ---
**Author:** ![scabpicker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scabpicker/32/8268_2.png) [@scabpicker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scabpicker)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-music-that-is-better-than-itself/672607/56 "2014-06-26T01:04:50Z")
I’ll just note that the linked thread was closed for incoherence, and call it a day. ---
**Author:** ![Don\_Simus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@Don\_Simus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_Simus)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-music-that-is-better-than-itself/672607/57 "2014-06-26T18:29:01Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > I’m still not getting why this is a big deal. Reception is affected by paratext. This is not surprising. > > It feels like this thread is a long wind-up for some other argument. Something like “Ha ha … connoisseurs are just poseurs!” When is the other shoe going to drop? Is it a little issue that the experts can’t tell something they themselves proclaimed to be great from something they judged to be mediocre? I think it is big. And the evidence is piling up. See [Philistines rejected John Milton’s Samson](http://ecclesiastes911.net/philistines_reject_miltons_samson/) > [@scabpicker](#): > > I’ll just note that the linked thread was closed for incoherence, and call it a day. And [another thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=725750) was closed because a moderator decided that it belongs to Debates sub-forum, not Questions. However I initially posted it in Debates and a moderator moved the thread to Questions. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-music-that-is-better-than-itself/672607.md?page=2)