Musical aesthetics - a rant

Following on the theme of using this blog as a way of dumping some stuff that has no other natural home, here's a rant I wrote in response to my good friend Big Jim's view that there is no objective 'good' in music, and we each have our own 'good' - a dangerous view, in that it suggests that musical discussion and "musical education" are redundant.

The problem (a problem which is as old as aesthetics itself) is the widespread disagreement between people about which music is good. How could someone claim to get the 'right answer' when there is so much disagreement in the world and no obvious way of arbitrating it? My answer is one germinated in both Plato and Hume: I might not be able to explain why the music *I* listen to is better than the music *you* listen to, but I can explain why I'm better placed to judge than you are. Anyway, here's what I wrote:

Faced with a world in which what the supposed 'experts' and the alleged 'masses' say is 'good' seems neither good, pleasant, effective, worthwhile, or any other positive adjective you might throw at it, we have OPTIONS, to whit:
1. decide there is no such thing as 'good'; there is only each person's own preference
2. decide that the 'experts' and/or media are right about what is the good stuff, while we are sadly mistaken.
3. decide that, largely, there is such a thing as the difference between good and bad product, and moreover we're right about it more often than not.

When I think about it like that, it seems that option 3 is clearly the right explanation of the situation. After all, I can tell a pretty good story about why the people who disagree with me approve of what they approve of - to whit, they're either paid to talk it up, or they have never experienced anything better. (If they have even HEARD anything better, they probably haven't taken the time to get inside it in the way you need to with proper music.)

Whereas, I can't imagine that any of the gurning frogs at the NME who try to tell the world that 'The Jisms' are the best band ever could point to any cognitive deficiency on our part which makes us prefer mid-period Miles. (Moreover, I wonder how anyone can take seriously a magazine's claim to have found 'the best X ever' unless they think the editor is possessed of impressive precognition or are sure that the End is Near.)

That's not a manifesto for musical absolutism, by the way. It can also force me to revise my opinions and listening behaviour - for example if someone who I know to have a superior range of experience in music starts telling me about some killer recording I haven't heard, or have only listened to without paying attention, the same logic will force me to give it a go. On that count alone, it seems like a better account of our behaviour as listeners. After all, it's pretty clear that an theory of aesthetics which justifies our habit of deference to other peoples' opinions is preferable to one which leaves it a mystery why I should ever listen to anyone else...