>>36442991>Then do so.
I've shown you, by showing you that virtually every relevant academic in the last 100 years deeply disagreed with what you had to say about music criticism. Now, you can think that you're the only person who is in the right here, or just admit that art criticism is nuanced and allows different perspective, and some of them may be a bit stronger and less lenient than others.
The act of blindly accepting music is as violent as the act of blindly criticizing it.>Different strokes. It's like how I'm not interested in comparing tiramisu to spaghetti alla puttanesca. Which is not to say all is equal, because I'd still rate tiramisu over tv dinner, you feel me?
Sure, but you can say that certain plates of spaghetti alla puttanesca are better than other, and conjure very strong arguments for such a statement, in the same way you can find rotten tiramisus that are pretty much impossible to finish without ending in a hospital. Would it be fair to say that that tiramisu' was worse than those spaghetti? >The only thing required to critique music is a sense of hearing.
Sure, and the only thing required to critiquing literature is the ability to read. Please, there are different grades of sophistication which just go over the head of everyone who is not ear trained.
By the way, both Zappa and Mozart were deeply trained in this regard, and always considered these elements while composing: studying their scores will show you that most of their craft and sould is simply impossible to understand by people who have no hear for harmony (basically anyone who has not spent hundreds of hours recognizing different chords and intervals).
I disagree with what you percieve as the only prerequisite for music critique, since it's not able to notice and individuate any sort of musical element. By following dogmatically this road you'll just end up with no criticism and lots of accounts of people's feelings after having heard this or that piece of music.