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

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

You don't think a band with little/no talent can produce good music? How are you defining talent?

 

[AchrisK]

You don't think a band with little/no talent can produce good music? How are you defining talent?

I am defining it as technical ability on an instrument at a level where it can be played accurately (the notes/chords you mean to play), in time (the time you decide to play). If it does not involve classic instruments (noise, etc), then it is more limited to playing in time. I guess at the simplest level I would define it as being able to know what you intend, and to carry that out.

 

[Black Friday]

I don't agree that "greatness" in music is relative. That's bullshit. People can dislike a band all they want, but that doesn't necessarily change the fact that the band possesses "greatness."

Pink Floyd; people can hate them all they want, that doesn't change the fact that there's something innately remarkable about their art. There are certain things that you can't argue. A large number of people you talk to will say they love Floyd and that somehow the band changed their life. Just because some people hate the band and see nothing special about them doesn't diminish their greatness.

I really don't like that whole "art is relative" argument. Some art is clearly "great."

Agreed. There are so many bands I dislike but still respect. The fact that a band is good enough to get as many loyal fans as it does is usually a pretty good indicator of something.

 

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

Works for me. With noise it is about control of effects and getting your themes across.

 

[Dak]

I picked talent, the most important of which I feel is songwriting. I do not think a talentless band can generate great music, but I do think a talented band can produce ungreat music.

So how important is popularity in defining the level of greatness in a band? I think it is clearly not an automatic indicator, but is it more indicative than metalheads tend to think of it as? Why was quality music popular in the mid-late 60's and 70's? Was that not the "top 40" of the day? So is there a level of popularity just below "pop" that indicates greatness? Has all the music that is popular always been great?

IMO "pop" has typically not been great. Some probably has, but most is just simple enough to be the background sound of choice for the tweens/teens/young adults of the age.

Pretty much agree with exception of the popularity point. Popularity should have no bearing on a discussion over whether a piece of music was technically amazing. How many people will listen to classical music anymore? That doesn't mean that some pieces aren't amazing.
The pop music industry is driven by what sells and the same simple shit is what sells which is why it keeps getting cranked out. The large majority of at least the US population does not appreciate greatness. Thats why they eat at McDonalds listening to a repititious lineup of JayZ, the Pussycat Dolls, and Sublime and think that life just couldn't get any better.

 

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

Greatness doesn't exist objectively in art.

 

[AchrisK]

@Dakryn: Actually I was questioning the merits of using popularity to indicate, or give clues about, greatness. It obviously can't be the only thing considered, because there is plenty of great music that most people are not exposed to (including almost the entire genre of metal, for example).

 

[AchrisK]

Greatness doesn't exist objectively in art.

Can it, if it is agreed upon by the majority?

EDIT: Wait, maybe that makes no sense. That would be the collective subjective opinion.

 

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

Yes, it doesn't work that way. To objectify art is to remove what's so good about it in the first place; the opinion factor, the fact that people can openly discuss it in any form without fear of reproach (well...except sometimes, but it's usually not serious and can't be objectively qualified as "wrong").

 

[AchrisK]

I still like that I chose talent. Because if there is no objective in art, then all I have to go by is my own subjective view, and potentially, to a much lesser degree, that of those I tend to agree with. In that case, I find that talented song crafting is the thing that most often makes a piece of music great to me. Sounds put together in a way that is pleasing to me.

But then, could I argue that songwriting is always what makes any song great to any person? I think I could. Therefore I conclude that objectively, songwriting talent is the one thing that is most important in regards to the greatness of music.

 

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

You can conclude that, but there is no evidence of it at all and you can't do a study on that kind of thing because it's too abstract. That's the problem. But your first paragraph is perfectly fine.

 

[Dak]

Calling most pop music "Art" is as degrading to actually talented composing as putting a 3 year olds watercolor smears on the same level as Van Gogh, since they are both "art".

No, greatness has little to do with opinion and mostly to do with the talent involved in the creation of the piece.

 

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

No, you're wrong. Also, a lot of art work with "no talent" that people commonly cite as "degrading to art" was actually made by individuals who COULD create more easily viewable/likable pieces of art who made the inaccessible/gimmick piece on purpose to criticize. Many people in the 50s, etc. thought rock was talentless garbage; look where that got them. Art is a social and cultural aspect as tied to human life as politics and religion are. It is a very important part of our existence.

As for what you said, greatness has little to do with art in general. There is no such thing as OBJECTIVE greatness in art because nothing in art can be studied, experimented on etc. Everything in art is a concept used for artistic means to convey feelings, emotions, etc. through an almost limitless amount of media (plural of medium, not "media" as we generally know it of course).

Talent (technical skill) cannot help you if you can't compose, but this is my opinion. Many people, for instance, think artistic talent is ALL that matters. I find this to be short-sighted and, well, dumb. It turns a blind eye to brilliant abstract artists who have a different kind of talent than most people consider to be an aspect of "skill" (technical skill). Then again, most people don't understand art because they don't make it, they aren't around it all the time, etc.

In short, talent can be rationalized as ANY NUMBER of things, so, no talent doesn't determine the "greatness" of a piece. In fact, nothing can, and that's why art is so vital to us as humans. We don't NEED everything to be DEFINITIVE. We need to learn and experience things that challenge us, not be spoonfed facts and objectivity.

P.S. to ack and the others: Even if everyone agrees that "TALENT" as a blanket concept is what determines the "greatness value" of art...not everyone (in fact probably nobody) will agree on what TALENT even means.

 

[AchrisK]

....

In short, talent can be rationalized as ANY NUMBER of things, so, no talent doesn't determine the "greatness" of a piece. In fact, nothing can, and that's why art is so vital to us as humans. We don't NEED everything to be DEFINITIVE. We need to learn and experience things that challenge us, not be spoonfed facts and objectivity.

P.S. to ack and the others: Even if everyone agrees that "TALENT" as a blanket concept is what determines the "greatness value" of art...not everyone (in fact probably nobody) will agree on what TALENT even means.

Actually I rather like my earlier definition of talent and am hard pressed to find an exception to it.

 

[skeptik]

Anybody who claims that there is an objective determination of greatness in art is lying, deceived, or ignorant.

 

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

Thank you Matthew.

 

[Cythraul]

Yes, it doesn't work that way. To objectify art is to remove what's so good about it in the first place; the opinion factor, the fact that people can openly discuss it in any form without fear of reproach (well...except sometimes, but it's usually not serious and can't be objectively qualified as "wrong").

1. What does it mean to objectify art? That's a strange way of talking.

2. What does it mean to openly discuss something in any form?

Anybody who claims that there is an objective determination of greatness in art is lying, deceived, or ignorant.

That's a pretty bold claim. What's your justification for this?

 

[skeptik]

Aggravation.

 

[Cythraul]

Aggravation.

You sir, are a formidable opponent.

 

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

Objectify art = create a series of rules which define OBJECTIVELY what art is GOOD and what is BAD etc., making it FACTUAL. It can't actually happen but I was using it as a hypothetical.

There is nothing to discuss re: gravity, in the same way that art is discussed. No one has a differing opinion re: gravity because it is clearly obvious that it is one thing and cannot be other things. We can safely disregard people who say gravity does not exist if there was to be an open forum on the topic of gravity, because it's a fact that it does exist, and is a force. Don't get all metaphysical or whatever on me, because art CANNOT be talked about the same way as science can.