Does "greatness" in music exist, and if so what defines it?

[zabu of nΩd]

For all the people who are sick of me starting debates of this nature in other threads.

Discuss.

 

[Xorv]

Music is a art form. Art is a matter of opinion. No, and no.

edit - /thread

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Whether art is a matter of opinion is also a matter of opinion, however.

 

[Xorv]

Explain.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Some people may believe that there are objective factors in the quality of art. I don't think you can't prove that art is an entirely subjective matter.

 

[tagradh]

Bottom option.

 

[Einherjar86]

I voted passion/dedication.

If I could, I would have voted passion/dedication and talent. But generally, I like to think that if an artist has passion they will take the time to work on their skill.

 

[cannibal corpse]

It's all opinions.

 

[Vossyrus]

People are far more likely to view music/art in a subjective sense than an objective one. Except I find people who are a bit more intelligent or well educated may view art with a bit more of an objective viewpoint than the average person. But yeah, art is more or less subjective/arbitrary. I voted for the last option.

Talent really isn't that relevant. There's tons of bands who aren't very skilled and are well-liked, and tons of bands who are quite skilled but are overlooked. Skill doesn't always translate to good songwriting or creativity and vice versa etc.

The passion and dedication of the artists isn't always apparent in the band's music. People are far likely to make assumptions about the band anyhow, whether they are accurate or not. If Darkthrone doesn't rehearse/practice their skill much so they purposely have a sloppy, raw sounding album then how much passion and dedication to their music do they have? And what about band like Dimmu Borgir, they're sellouts right? So they can't have any passion or dedication to the music they make. I think a collective perception, or just a single person's will dictate this. There is no real way to tell.

Influence, I personally don't think is all that significant though you can easily look back in music history and argue otherwise. But typically, people will often just accept which bands are considered classics etc. Like, a good album by a highly praised band is better than fantastic album by band not considered so - this sort of ties in with popularity/commercial success a bit. And Korn was highly influencial to the "nu-metal" scene - are they a great band? It depends on how you look at things I suppose.

Popularity and commercial success really doesn't mean anything. That has more to do with how well the band is promoted, and touring - assuming they're are a good band to begin with.

Gah, I just woke up, hopefully this makes sense.

 

[Zephyrus]

Talent - helps depending on the technical demands of the genre and what expectations the listener approaches the music with, but on the whole greater talent does not translate to quality music.

Passion and Dedication - I don't quite understand this one. Anyone can be passionate and dedicated to creating absolute garbage music that appeals to only a handful of people. Being "inspired" is too vague a concept to grasp.

Influence - the fact that other bands take influence is a clear sign of the original band's positive quality. However this is not the rule, as all influential bands are equally influenced by those preceding them. Influence may be the paramount factor for those who create music, but to the audience it is not.

Popularity - liking a band purely for its popularity is more of a placebo effect to validate one's conformity to the majority who likes a certain band. Certain bands, like The Beatles, are universally popular but are also great music in terms of the other factors such as passion and influence. We can distinguish The Beatles from Britney Spears because the former's popularity has transcended the lifespan of superficial catchy pop music to quite a degree.

Relativity - this is what I voted for because, while the other factors certainly play a role, none of them can fully dictate that any person will absolutely enjoy a certain band. There are plenty of people who hate The Beatles. That fact alone discredits the factors of Influence, Popularity and Dedication. One cannot truly enjoy a band because of any of the above factors, rather it is all up to their subjective experience. Each person's appreciation for those factors vary exclusively from each other.


If anyone says they enjoy bands for any other reason more than that the music causes them pleasure, then they are fooling themselves.

 

[Vossyrus]

I sort hinted at this earlier, but I think the measure of influence is tied into the exposure/success of the band. In metal for example, the most influential bands to the genre are bands like Iron Maiden, Slayer, Metallica etc. However, I think as times goes on you are less likely to have "idols" in metal. Genres are a bit saturated at this point, and I don't really see much on the horizon for new styles of metal so there won't be nearly as many influencial, pioneering bands. Also for example, it used to be that most people got into black metal through the Norwegian bands but with filesharing especially, more and more people aren't. So, I think if these trends continue, then you're less likely going to have bands with the unmeasurable influence of those bands I mentioned earlier.

 

[Blind Guardian]

Some people may believe that there are objective factors in the quality of art. I don't think you can't prove that art is an entirely subjective matter.

Those who think so are wrong. If we compare it to a lemon, we can say a lemon definitely has more c-vitamins than a potatoe, that's how it is. For us to be objective there can't exist anything between 0-100%, in Picasso's case some people like his work and some don't so 0% or 100% can't be established, thus excluding the chance of Picasso being universally good.

 

[Zephyrus]

And some people only like a couple of Picasso's paintings, while hating the rest. The same applies to bands and albums.

 

[no country for old wainds]

people don't seem to realise 'greatness' is just a word defined by the way people apply it in communication. 'greatness' derives its definition from common usage of the word 'greatness'. i suggest that if you want to know what 'greatness' in music is, you must look at beethoven and mozart, i doubt any other artist has been labelled as great so widely and unanimously. there's simply no other way of understanding the word in this context. the idea of some objective contextless absolute greatness is ridiculous because it necessitates the possibility of stepping outside the self.

 

[Vossyrus]

I think there are some objective factors in art.

To some people, taking a bucket of paint and splashing it against the wall is art, and perhaps the frustration that the 'artist' underwent while doing so represents their pure artistic expression - and whatever bs. Also, how about art that is completely unoriginal? In cases like these, I think some objective consideration is needed. Not to whether the person likes it or not, but I don't see how either represents something of quality.

 

[Blind Guardian]

But quality is a word we use for things that gain us, how could something other than that be quality? Britney Spears music is quality to people because they like it. If no one liked Britney Spears music it wouldn't be quality since it didn't gain anyone, no matter how much heart and soul she'd put in it.

 

[cookiecutter]

As I said in the other thread I have recently become a relativist because I cannot justify deeming one thing as artistically worse than something else based purely on my likes and dislikes, and that's pretty much the only way to evaluate art.

 

[no country for old wainds]

But quality is a word we use for things that gain us, how could something other than that be quality? Britney Spears music is quality to people because they like it. If no one liked Britney Spears music it wouldn't be quality since it didn't gain anyone, no matter how much heart and soul she'd put in it.

very true, but then how do you explain people who have their preferences and then have separate standards for objectivity? personally i think these people (and all of us are like this, or at least start out like this, to some extent) are so indoctrinated by the majority view that it seems as though it has some objective grounding, when in actuality it doesn't at all. im fact i'd extend that to ethics as well but that's a different thread.

 

[Thoth-Amon]

Music is a art form. Art is a matter of opinion. No, and no.

edit - /thread

I think there clearly are some standards of greatness in music... it's just not clear on how to define them. For example one could say that Beethoven's 9th is clearly greater than say a guy farting into a microphone and calling it a musical masterpiece.
I think that while there will always be dissension the more an individual explores and learns about music the more he or she is attracted to certain qualities in music. For example you play piano and study it intensely for years and learn all about music theory, etc. chances are you are going to have some appreciation and enjoyment of classical music... over and above the average person who only hears such pieces in movies.
So yes there are standards in music that make certain things great... its simply very difficult to define what they are. Just like its very difficult to define what music is at all.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

It is socially relative. Art is a cultural and social phenomenon that has NEVER and will NEVER ever be objectively definable within the context of "quality" value judgments. And if it EVER somehow becomes objectively discussable, it's just lost the only thing that ever made it such a spirited, passionate force of human existence.

Fuck off objectivity!