Wandering Hermit Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 barney had started an interesting thread about political statements by various bands. I'm not sure that my question really belongs in this forum, as it is not a political issue, but it is related to that discussion. Anyway, the question is, can we objectively say that some music is better than other music? For example, consider Beethoven and The Spice Girls. It seems obvious to me that Beethoven is higher quality music than The Spice Girls, but how does one demonstrate this? Is it just because a bunch of music professors say so? Is it because I am biased? I will admit that I tend to think of my musical tastes as somehow "very good" and that I know what is great music and what is dreck. But I'm also willing to admit that maybe that is entirely subjective and that my opinions are not of any more worth than some teeny bopper that loved Spice Girls and hated old Ludwig van. So I'm not interested in consensus of experts, or total sales, or some way of quantifying impact on later musicians, etc. Can we set all that aside and still somehow show that Beethoven is "better"? Anybody? What say you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barney_rebel Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Everything has merit, and takes talent. Like it or not. Some music is more complex to perform than other music. To me, that doesn't make something "better". My wife says to me, "How can you listen to a band like Rush? The singer is constantly screaming, you can't understand a lot of the lyrics, and they aren't good looking people!" And you know, she is right. I play bass - I know what's involved in Geddy's playing. On the other hand, you have a band like Dream Theater - whose music is insanely complex, but people say they don't "sound good". People never argue that they don't have talent, it's just that they don't appeal to them, so the convenient thing to say is that they suck. As for Spice Girls - I hate to say it but I like that one tune they have "Viva Forever". My wife wanted that played at our wedding (not the main song, but just payed near the end of the night). It's a nice song (even Physics23 said so). As for Spice Girls and Beethoven - you can't compare the two. Sorry I think Beethoven is even better than Rush. Rock is derived from classical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nunavuter Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Objectivity in aesthetics? Ask some more easy questions, WH... There are so many components to art appreciation, but we do have some thumbnails to work with. Beauty: The classical ideas of proportion, harmony, symmetry and unity (in created or physical things) and a certain metaphysical order. Sublimity: Inspiring awe, wonder, melancholy and other strong emotions. Transcendence: The work fits into a greater whole, evoking (or connoting) an epistemological framework of belief, truth, knowledge and selfhood. In music, we also have to account for things such as lyricism, mood and all the dynamics of sound of which I am no expert. Given even the same piece of music, we could all tell the difference between a competent professional orchestra, a high-school band and a six-year-old on a toy piano playing. There is an objective difference in how the music is being performed. The 1812 Overture by the NY Philharmonic will likely be much more cohesive and stirring than the other two attempts. When comparing forms, however, we may have to focus on what a specific form is trying to achieve. We can fault the poor skills of the high school band if it fails to achieve its effect, but comparing Beethoven and the Beatles is probably akin to comparing a Dutch Master with Picasso -- the goals were not the same to begin with. And just as the goals of the artist are not the same, the expectations of the audience are not the same. Put it this way, a swinging jazz riff can be sublime. But plop that jazz riff into a piece of Chamber Music and the resulting dissonance of the forms will make for an unpleasing cacophony. Unpleasant sounds can themselves be the goal. I don't appreciate them, but then that is why i do not follow the creators of such music. I want to be inside the soundscapes of Mozart and the Beatles in large part because those creations resonate with me. The soundscape of a Spice Girls song is as emotionally satisfying as a Pepsi commercial, and will hold my attention for about as long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wandering Hermit Posted June 2, 2006 Author Share Posted June 2, 2006 QUOTE (barney_rebel @ Jun 1 2006, 09:50 PM) Everything has merit, and takes talent. Like it or not. Some music is more complex to perform than other music. To me, that doesn't make something "better". My wife says to me, "How can you listen to a band like Rush? The singer is constantly screaming, you can't understand a lot of the lyrics, and they aren't good looking people!" And you know, she is right. I play bass - I know what's involved in Geddy's playing. On the other hand, you have a band like Dream Theater - whose music is insanely complex, but people say they don't "sound good". People never argue that they don't have talent, it's just that they don't appeal to them, so the convenient thing to say is that they suck. As for Spice Girls - I hate to say it but I like that one tune they have "Viva Forever". My wife wanted that played at our wedding (not the main song, but just payed near the end of the night). It's a nice song (even Physics23 said so). As for Spice Girls and Beethoven - you can't compare the two. Sorry I think Beethoven is even better than Rush. Rock is derived from classical. I don't dispute that even something at the level of the Spice Girls requires talent. Britney Spears has talent. Performing even simple music is harder than it looks. That is not what I am driving at. So you are basically saying that both Beethoven and Spice Girls have "merit" but that we cannot compare the two. Yet you say Beethoven is "better" than Rush (I agree with this last point). So you mean you cannot compare the two because they are apples and oranges, or because the former is so obviously "better" than the latter that no comparison is warranted? See this is what I struggle with. Part of me knows Beethoven is better, but I don't know how to objectively demonstrate this - it eventually seems to just come down to a matter of taste, and nothing else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wandering Hermit Posted June 2, 2006 Author Share Posted June 2, 2006 QUOTE (Nunavuter @ Jun 2 2006, 03:58 AM) I want to be inside the soundscapes of Mozart and the Beatles in large part because those creations resonate with me. The soundscape of a Spice Girls song is as emotionally satisfying as a Pepsi commercial, and will hold my attention for about as long. But suppose our teeny-bopper personally feels that The Spice Girls are the apex of musical expression, and that their music has a sort of resonance. And that classical and Betles sounds foreign and unwholesome, for whatever reason. Could such an individual be persuaded that Mozart is "better"? Again, perhaps they might understand it from a musicologists and historians POV, they might agree that one example is far more "important" than the other, but their final decision on the matter is "but I LIKE my Spice Girls! I hate old Mozart!" Is such an opinion less valid than ours? Can we conclude that said listener's tastes are somehow immature, unsophisticated? Or are we just being snobs? Or suppose you took two CDs to a desert island and played them for a castaway that grew up there and never heard music before. If he preferred the Spice Girls, could we say his tastes were inferior, in some way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wandering Hermit Posted June 2, 2006 Author Share Posted June 2, 2006 QUOTE (Nunavuter @ Jun 2 2006, 03:58 AM) ...Beauty... Sublimity... Transcendence... Why are these important? If all little Bobby and Steffy want is something to dance to with a good beat, none of these elements are needed. To them, these are just unnecessary components that some intellectual-types have decided are important, but they are just using their prestigious positions to advance their own personal tastes and make it appear "objective." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dread Pirate Robert Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 QUOTE (Wandering Hermit @ Jun 1 2006, 09:27 PM) Anyway, the question is, can we objectively say that some music is better than other music? And the answer is: no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nunavuter Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 This is why I draw attention to the purpose the artist was working towards and the expectation of the listener. Porterhouse steak and a $1.50 cheeseburger a both beef dishes. Hemingway and Danielle Steel are both novelists. The Chrysler Building and some post-modernist slab are both structures. Audrey Hepburn and Christina Applegate were both actresses. This hardly stops with music. It isn't that I don't sometimes want a cheeseburger, but I can tell the difference between one and a fine steak. There are criteria. Whether all of them are "objective" or even can be when emotional impact is at question, I'll withhold judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
circumstantial tree Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Wasn't Beethoven deaf? And didn't he start out as a child prodigy playing at the age of 12? If either of these is true, then I can say his music is better is ultimately better than the Spice Girls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostGirl Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Moved to Music of the Spheres. Good topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wandering Hermit Posted June 2, 2006 Author Share Posted June 2, 2006 QUOTE (circumstantial tree @ Jun 2 2006, 08:47 AM) Wasn't Beethoven deaf? And didn't he start out as a child prodigy playing at the age of 12? If either of these is true, then I can say his music is better is ultimately better than the Spice Girls. What does that have to do with it? For the examples of great composers who were child prodigies or endured great hardships, there are examples of composers that lived lives of ease and were not particularly precocius as children, I am sure. Someone like Richard Wagner springs to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wandering Hermit Posted June 2, 2006 Author Share Posted June 2, 2006 QUOTE (Nunavuter @ Jun 2 2006, 08:37 AM) This is why I draw attention to the purpose the artist was working towards and the expectation of the listener. Porterhouse steak and a $1.50 cheeseburger a both beef dishes. Hemingway and Danielle Steel are both novelists. The Chrysler Building and some post-modernist slab are both structures. Audrey Hepburn and Christina Applegate were both actresses. This hardly stops with music. It isn't that I don't sometimes want a cheeseburger, but I can tell the difference between one and a fine steak. There are criteria. Whether all of them are "objective" or even can be when emotional impact is at question, I'll withhold judgement. I think it gets to the question: is beauty inherently, or objectively "better" than ugliness? Even assuming that we could agree on what is beautiful, which I don't think we can, why is it "better"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Planet X-1 Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Without scientifically scanning a 1000 brains while listening to music, it can`t be judged objectively. There is too much external stimuli and influence that affects one decision on whether one style of music is 'better' than another. Sound quality and one`s mood or receptivity come to mind. edit: bad gramma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Planet X-1 Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Just an FYI - I have heard that songs in 4/4 time are naturally more pleasing since they mimic the heart beat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
circumstantial tree Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 QUOTE (Wandering Hermit @ Jun 2 2006, 10:18 AM) QUOTE (circumstantial tree @ Jun 2 2006, 08:47 AM) Wasn't Beethoven deaf? And didn't he start out as a child prodigy playing at the age of 12? If either of these is true, then I can say his music is better is ultimately better than the Spice Girls. What does that have to do with it? For the examples of great composers who were child prodigies or endured great hardships, there are examples of composers that lived lives of ease and were not particularly precocius as children, I am sure. Someone like Richard Wagner springs to mind. Because he could compose music without hearing. That's a talented gift that is rare. The Spice girls could never accomplish anything on that level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Planet X-1 Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Ok after thinking (hahaha) I think an objective way to measure the aesthetics of music is to meausure the length of time a particular peice, style or band has been around (which give classical a head start and bubble-headed drones 0 zero chance). Perhaps another way is how much influence one genre has on another (rap+rock). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
circumstantial tree Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 For me, I often look at from the point of view as to how much talent and/or hard work is put into something. If you are a musician, then I tend to be drawn towards those who work and perfect their craft as much as possible, even if I don't like their particular type of music. Somewhat on and off subject, I had a design professor tell me once that if Picasso had scribbled just a few lines (quick and easy) on a coffee napkin then that napkin would be worth thousands (perhaps millions). It's not based on his talent or anything but rather his reputation as a world-renowned artist. If I had done the same scribbles, it would be worth nothing to anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barney_rebel Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Like some photo-contests I've seen - I don't know how the hell the first prize is won sometimes. I've seen photos which I think are much better (follow the fundemental rules of photography) and still not make it in the top 100. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 As much as I'd like to think that the music I listen to is the greatest in the world, that most people's musical tastes are a morass of mediocrity and that country music is the epitome of evil and the first sign of the apoclypse, it's all completely and utterly subjective. Then again, there is something to be said for consensus opinion. For example, I'm very into late 60's psychedelic music, and in the circles where 60's psych music fans congregate, there are albums that are almost universally loved by all and others that are almost universally considered to be inferior by all. Could it be that the more universally loved material is superior? I'm tempted to say so, but then I look at some of the music that is popular today that sells millions of copies, and I think it's completely vomitous. It makes it very difficult to say anything is better just because it's popular, even material that seems to endure over time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Der Trommler Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Music is subjective. It is as good as the listener likes....One man's poison is another man's beer.....We are all entitled to what we think. That's what makes it great yet....also can cause trouble as one states what they think & apparently upsets another & causes arguments. So, all music is great as it soothes the savage beast....I will from time to time put my two cents in & get a nickel..... That's my story & I'm sticking to it..... BTW-Beethoven ROCKS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feelingwithyourskin Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 QUOTE (Planet X-1 @ Jun 2 2006, 10:46 AM) Without scientifically scanning a 1000 brains while listening to music, it can`t be judged objectively. There is too much external stimuli and influence that affects one decision on whether one style of music is 'better' than another. Sound quality and one`s mood or receptivity come to mind. as do miniscule differences in ear and brain physiology that would lead to certain people being more receptive to particular frequencies than others. humans aren't all identical so i don't think there's any objective way to "judge" music Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PuppetKing2112 Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Wow, this has to be the most interesting thread I've seen on here in a LONG time. Everyone has pretty much said what I would say...if I can think of something interesting to add, I will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barney_rebel Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 I am listening to some nice, relazing jazzy, electronica right now. I don't know anyone in their right mind can't find this soothing and relaxing. Damn this stuff is good shit. There is a time and place for hard rock and Rush, but now is not the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quantum Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 I think it's ultimately a subjective determination. There's no way of decisively predicting for everyone what bit of art is better than another bit. At best, you might argue that one bit is better than another based on how many people as a whole say so. Nuna's post described really well the dimensions of experience for individuals as they hear a song or view a painting or read a novel. But it's impossible to say for certain that a particular song or painting or novel will always affect everyone to the same extent across all dimensions. So if we are to determine which bits of art are great and which bits are crap, we can only turn to "the majority view." But even this is not so simple. There are layers of depth cutting through time. You could argue that the longer people say that a given piece of art is "great," the greater it is. So greatness of art is measured by how many people say so and for how long. Hence the glaring difference between things like Beethoven's 5th symphony, which has stood the test of time, versus that one song by what's their name back in the 1980's , which perhaps was once a big hit but is now faded into the void of "bleh." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nunavuter Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 Interpretation is subjective. i don't se reality in toto that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.