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

[Einherjar86]

To Belligerent's dismay, I'm ready to call it quits as well. Thanks for continuing when you obviously didn't care much to. For what it's worth, I think it was a good argument, even if you all think my ideas to be somewhat dated.

 

[Zephyrus]

Excellent thread.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I'm quoting all this shit from the Poetry thread because I want to respond to the last part in a more relevant thread, while making sure anyone who wants to catch up on the discussion can easily do so.

i'm bored.

what, to you guys, makes 'great' poetry?

How much it can touch my mind and get it going in whatever way. If it awakens emotions within me, or it paints a picture that sends my mind floating and wandering about or is just plain clever to me.

Like these lyrics from 505 by Arctic Monkeys.

Stop and wait a sec
Oh when you look at me like that my darling
What did you expect
I'd probably still adore you with your hands around my neck
Or I did last time I checked

Not shy of a spark
A knife twists at the thought that I should fall short of the mark
Frightened by the bite though its no harsher than the bark
Middle of adventure, such a perfect place to start


This tells me about a situation with a break up, or a problem in a relationship. Regret of some sort, at getting her angry because she doesn't want to hurt him, and the offering of reassurance yet with the true uncertainty slipping through. He feels it is falling apart, but wants to hold on yet is at this time uncertain. Also, the tension of it and the fear of damaging anything more, but not wanting to do nothing. And lastly, it's a sadly sarcastic line talking about being unprepared, not being in the right mind for this series of new and complicating events that are happening.

but what makes it affect you in that way? i assume it's not simply the themes - i could tell you all those things in the dullest words and it wouldn't have anything like the impact. is there not some particular way of expressing which is conducive to good poetry?

should lyrics aspire to be poetry, or do good lyrics have different qualities from good poetry?

then there's the more overarching question, does 'greatness' go beyond personal preference in any way? can never discuss this one too many times.

It's the way it is expressed, the metaphors, the way things are put, that make it affect me in that way.

I kind of like how Aldous Huxley put it. I don't have a direct quote, but he basically described literature as an attempt to 'express the inexpressible' - to use words to convey thoughts which go beyond words.

His book Literature and Science refers heavily to a dichotomy between "public" and "private" ideas. Public ideas are those which have concrete meaning that is easily conveyed from one person to another - the purest form of this being scientific language, which essentially seeks to eliminate any possible ambiguity in language.

So on the other end of the spectrum, private ideas venture into the inexpressible, and literary language attempts to bring us as close to those ideas as possible through the use of layered or many-meaninged or highly evocative words and phrases. (An interesting question here is whether there is certain knowledge that is inaccessible to language and reason - perhaps the kind of "understanding" that spiritual gurus or hallucinogen users claim to experience.)

I'd say the same general rule applies to any form of art. Art which goes beyond 'stating the obvious' and can evoke profound, inexpressible notions is, I think, "greater" or "purer" art.

It's the way it is expressed, the metaphors, the way things are put, that make it affect me in that way.

well sure, but you're not really saying anything here. what is the way it is expressed, what makes a good metaphor, what's the best way to put things? is there any uniformity to such things or is the effectiveness of anything purely context-dependent?

I kind of like how Aldous Huxley put it.

yeah, i think along those lines. some ideas/emotions/whatever are not catered for by linguistic norms and so require an awful lot of twisting and coaxing out in order to enter the public sphere. put more simply the quality of 'originality' is implied here, as poetry is about expressing what is not - or can not - be commonly expressed. the greatest poets, i suggest, communicate wildly new perspectives with such focus and clarity that we can't help but assimilate them and become something more than we were before. this works on an individual level and a cultural level.

Yup. So as far as whether 'greatness' goes beyond personal preference, it's kind of an inherently impossible issue to resolve since the whole measure of this 'greatness' is subjective. I do think, though, that certain people are more in-tune to the realm of private experience than others, and thus can give better 'ballpark estimates' when evaluating art (though we all have limits to our perspective, so we can't really fully grasp every subjective message we encounter). I think there are also certain states of consciousness that can make one more in-tune in this way.

way i look at it, greatness quite clearly exists as a concept serving a linguistic purpose, irrespective of whether it corresponds with some transcendent and objective Greatness with a capital G. seems to me that all discussions of greatness inevitably end up discussing what qualities cause something to *pass the test of time*, and that certain people can be better at sussing out these qualities than others. this of course doesn't necessarily provide a reason for an individual to prefer whichever qualities are posited - rather, it is merely a process of describing what the majority over time (and perhaps place?) find to be of most worth.

these days i'm inclined to fight the straight up "it's all opinion" slant if only because it encourages people not to challenge themselves and look at things in different ways; if i hadn't become fascinated by an idea of greatness running through the metal community then i'd probably never have put the time and effort into, say, black metal and fallen in love with it. you get the kinds of people who don't like 'paradise lost' upon a first read, and because they aren't even the slightest bit intrigued by greatness they'll be perfectly content in never reading it again, preferring the way their initial opinion helps define them be an individual with unique tastes. problem with this is that the books that last the test of time tend to genuinely be universal, meaning that with a couple of re-reads and a bit more experience that person would more than likely have ended up really enjoying 'paradise lost'.

my attitude is that whilst i refuse to accept that something i love is bad or something i hate is great just because it has classic status, i'm also aware that some extra experience and effort will in many cases cause my opinion to change significantly, especially where classics are concerned. it's a matter of not being a dogmatic cunt about your opinions, at least until you've approached the book or poem or album in question from a number of different sides.

some new questions then:
how many chances ought a work of art be given?

if it's labelled 'great' should it be given more chances than one that isn't?

is it reasonable to say that when we pigeonhole ourselves into liking certain qualities in art and not others, we are stubbornly clinging to our identities and unnecessarily denying ourselves an array of pleasures outside our little bubbles? is there a solution to this which doesn't involve becoming totally amorphous, as in, giving things an infinite amount of chances and so never committing to a position about anything?

kind of wish id started a new thread for this now haha. maybe a mod could split it or something.

< response to no country's last post upcoming >

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Dammit, work calls. I'll get back to this.

 

[Eligos]

You're quite the necroposter, Grant.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

these days i'm inclined to fight the straight up "it's all opinion" slant if only because it encourages people not to challenge themselves and look at things in different ways

You know, I've always fought the aesthetic relativist position just because absolutism 'feels more right' to me, but you offer a tantalising possible justification for it here. It seems to me that anyone with really narrow artistic tastes, who thinks what they read/watch/listen to is great, and on the same level as great art of other styles, doesn't really have an 'argument' so to speak if they haven't actually made an honest effort to get into those other styles. Those other styles may turn out to be richer and more profound than they'd ever imagined could be if they only took the time to really understand it. Of course, not everyone looks for challenge in their art consumption habits, but surely a good art critic does.

is it reasonable to say that when we pigeonhole ourselves into liking certain qualities in art and not others, we are stubbornly clinging to our identities and unnecessarily denying ourselves an array of pleasures outside our little bubbles?

I wouldn't use the word 'pleasures' really - I think some mindsets and emotions just aren't compatible with some people - but you of course gain perspective as an art appreciator by stepping outside of that bubble, and you don't have to enjoy a work of art to become immersed in it and 'get the message'. I can listen to bands like the Beatles, Simon and Garfunkel, the Byrds, etc., and see the 'magic' in them and why people would love them, but ultimately they leave me very unsatisfied due to my personality.

is there a solution to this which doesn't involve becoming totally amorphous, as in, giving things an infinite amount of chances and so never committing to a position about anything?

Well I think it's safe to say that some artists deserve fewer chances than others; there are a lot of derivative, tasteless and/or highly predictable artists out there. In the case of artists you believe have more to them than you've currently grasped, but whose ultimate purpose continues to elude you time after time, I don't see anything wrong with accepting your limit of perspective and moving on to another specimen. It's all subjective, after all.

 

[Dak]

^ Good post.

 

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

Grant, I am kind of appalled that you take the anti-aesthetic relativist stance because the alternative (i.e. what you and Tom seem to think) "feels more right." That is not a very objective way to think at all, which doesn't do much to provide anyone with confidence in your judgment on the subject.

Also, just because someone doesn't present an argument about something does not mean they are less educated about the subject than others who relentlessly formulate and present decisive opinions are. There may be many reasons such people hold back, and generalizing does nothing to formulate any objective theory about why they may or may not stand firm in any convictions they may have re: art or judgment of art.

As far as I am concerned, it could be mere coincidence that people who take the (or "a", if you prefer) aesthetic objectivist stance on art are more apt in their explanations for such beliefs. It could also be that aesthetic relativists see little reason or purpose in arguing about what they see as subjective. I still see room for discussion if you hold the aesthetic relativist viewpoint, but I digress.

edit: as an addendum, my main problem with viewing aesthetics and their draws to human senses as "objective" effectively negates the reason and meaning of art as cultural, creative, diverse work. Humans want to categorize everything; statistics bombard people everyday, people obsessively make lists, etc. But art is, to me, the one thing that people cannot and should not ever want to be segmented into defined terms of "good" vs. "bad" as a chart or organizational tool would for everyday statistics and information. Art is the penultimate bastion of human expression, and, within this expression lies the beauty which anyone, from an infant to an elder, can recognize; yet no person recognizes all the same things as beautiful. I believe this is testament to the fact that I find aesthetic objectivity to be, in all cases, debasing and pretty much shameful. End of story (imo).

 

[skeptik]

You'll do anything to justify listening to slam death and later Soilwork, won't you? I'll make a sweet and awesome post on this subject tomorrow; this is its placeholder.

 

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

Hey, I find beauty in these things

 

[Dak]

I think there is a line though V. Kind of like how a random splattering of colors from a 4 year old is going to be cute to the parents even though it is clearly the artistic level of baby babbling.

The same thing from a grown ass man/woman is not remotely acceptable imo. It would be like me just randomly hitting a drum with 0 timing or precision or anything and calling it "music". No, it's fucking noise, and an absolute waste of anyone's time to listen.

If anyone found it subjectivily good, you could call that person an idiot with good reason.

 

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

I disagree with you. For instance, I find immense power and beauty in the works of abstract expressionists who don't "paint" in a technical, restricted sense, such as Terry Winters and of course Jackson Pollock. So do many other people.

 

[Dak]

I disagree with you. For instance, I find immense power and beauty in the works of abstract expressionists who don't "paint" in a technical, restricted sense, such as Terry Winters and of course Jackson Pollock. So do many other people.

I am not saying all paint/model art has to be technically restricted to some sort of existant world form, but an adult "creating" something that a 4 yr old could have done by rolling on a canvas after rolling through water colors is a little ridiculous.

 

[cookiecutter]

I don't remember what I posted in this thread in its first life but now I tend to agree with Andy. I want to be able to say that a band is shitty or awesome objectively, but I struggle to find a reason why. I think about how I like music which isn't much more than guitar noise and yelling and I wonder how I can call something else bad. Everyone likes certain musical qualities and to them those qualities are good even if they are generally considered bad.

 

[Einherjar86]

I get chills coming into this thread. It's like walking onto an ancient battleground...

My views stand, for the most part. I would like to say a few things about aesthetics though. First of all, I don't look purely for aesthetics in art; the meaning/purpose behind the presence (or absence) of what is deemed aesthetically pleasing is what truly draws me in. Conventions are constantly turned on their heads and tampered with, and I don't mind that; on the contrary, in fact. I enjoy the destruction/reformation of cherished traditions, and I think it makes for interesting art.

I measure these efforts, however, against the purpose intended by the artist. Take, for example, someone who writes a completely fictional work but labels it a biography; if the artist chose to do this simply because he/she thought it would be funny or clever (without ever having read much about the idea before), it moves me much less than if someone chose to write a fictional biography because he/she was influenced by and is responding to Wilde's The Decay of Lying, and sprinkled references and hints to that body of work. I would rate the second effort as a better work of "art;" but then again, this is just my opinion.

 

[Dak]

I don't remember what I posted in this thread in its first life but now I tend to agree with Andy. I want to be able to say that a band is shitty or awesome objectively, but I struggle to find a reason why. I think about how I like music which isn't much more than guitar noise and yelling and I wonder how I can call something else bad. Everyone likes certain musical qualities and to them those qualities are good even if they are generally considered bad.

I don't think finding someone who likes (Object_A) necessarily validates it just because it gets classified as "art".

It would be like if someone made an entree from various forms of fecal matter, and someone happened to enjoy eating it. That doesn't change the fact that they are eating shit, nor does it somehow validate that it is ok. They just happen to like it.

 

[no country for old wainds]

You'll do anything to justify listening to slam death and later Soilwork, won't you?

hahaha. i'm not gonna say anything until you've posted.

 

[Nightmare_Heaven]

All of them except the one about commercial success.

 

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

hahaha. i'm not gonna say anything until you've posted.

I don't think you have any room to laugh...aren't you a gigantic Radiohead fan?

Dakryn: You're wrong. The point of art is not to be "validated" by some panel and judged objectively (especially not by someone with standards as ridiculous and unfounded as yours). Art exists to be experienced through human senses and to be taken as given, discussed/milled over/possibly remembered or forgotten, and passed on to the next person or group of people to experience all over again. I don't think you have any right to claim anything is "ridiculous" (for obvious reasons ), but I guess it is your opinion that, for instance, a Pollock piece has no aesthetic beauty to you and you find it juvenile and silly. That's fine. I, however, find beauty in Pollock's sprawling abstractions; indeed, I'd even go so far as to say that I would unequivocally (greatly) prefer a large abstract expressionist piece to experience than a picturesque, technically-competent/astounding piece. I hate photo-realistic paintings. Talent does not make good art, necessarily. These are all pretty basic concepts in the judgment and discussion of art, though.

edit, I need to address this because it's really dumb:

It would be like if someone made an entree from various forms of fecal matter, and someone happened to enjoy eating it. That doesn't change the fact that they are eating shit, nor does it somehow validate that it is ok. They just happen to like it.

First of all, since when does art have to be socially or morally acceptable? Plenty of art has been remembered and revered by people for some conception of beauty merely for its extreme scandal, lewdness or vulgarity (and I personally wouldn't have it any other way; it goes a long way to showing how art is absolutely subjective). Second of all, who are you to judge what is wrong or right? Third of all, what is your point by saying this? It's a shitty analogy (pun intended) in any case.

edit again: I'm now posting this just to pre-empt any cries that I'm just being rebellious and trying to ruin the (futile and debasing) attempt at establishing standards for beauty in art..."why should what I think concern you?"

 

[no country for old wainds]

I don't think you have any room to laugh...aren't you a gigantic Radiohead fan?

yea but not the gay shit like the bends or the boring shit like ok computer. whenever i get criticised for liking radiohead it turns out the critic hasn't heard the good stuff. fuckin' shit