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

[no country for old wainds]

sure does

 

[Omni]

Looks like we've singled one of them out.

Yeah, I'm quoting his post in this post.

 

[Omni]

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."

There are people who claim that artists like Linkin Park and Britney Spears changed their lives, too. Not to mention the devoted followers of ICP, who pretty much worship them completely. So I don't really know what your argument is trying to accomplish.

 

[cookiecutter]

i did a loooong essay on dogville a while back and i'm gonna post the intro 'cause it's totally relevant. and no i can't be bothered with tidying it up.

if you agree with this idea then the question 'what constitutes great music?' isn't implying that the essence of greatness is out there in some platonic sense waiting to be found, but rather it's another way of asking 'how does the word greatness function in human communication in this context'. we're moving away from notions of 'objectivity' because they're nonsensical, we're now talking about linguistic usage. this is the only way of discussing or communicating about 'greatness' as far as i can tell, which renders a lot of posts in this thread confused to say the least.

Good essay. I think I agree with you.

 

[Einherjar86]

You simply can't allow people to view it from their own singular, solitary perspective. Art has to be opened up to the audience. Most people don't understand art on their first glance. This is why so many people discard it as unimportant and why many people have no patience for good art. A single, solitary reader tries to read Wordsworth and says "this isn't great; and it isn't, because that's my opinion." That is ignorant and incorrect. They don't understand the poetry; why it was written, what it means, why it's important. Once viewed within its historical context, its relationship to the author, etc. it becomes meaningful and important. Furthermore, it becomes an archetype for an age. If we allow people to deem the "greatness" of art simply based on their own personal opinion we risk sacrificing the value of all art. Art has to be studied. And after is has been studied, people can still say "I don't like it." But they cannot say "It isn't great."

This liberal idea of "you bring what you want to the art" is bullshit. Artists don't make art for other people. They make it for themselves. Robert Frost was once asked, about one of his poems, "What did you mean when you wrote it?" He answered "I meant what I wrote."

People can always make of art what they will; but once it has been studied, opened up and translated (and the author's intentions revealed) its greatness cannot be denied.

 

[Zephyrus]

You simply can't allow people to view it from their own singular, solitary perspective. Art has to be opened up to the audience. Most people don't understand art on their first glance. This is why so many people discard it as unimportant and why many people have no patience for good art. A single, solitary reader tries to read Wordsworth and says "this isn't great; and it isn't, because that's my opinion." That is ignorant and incorrect. They don't understand the poetry; why it was written, what it means, why it's important. Once viewed within its historical context, its relationship to the author, etc. it becomes meaningful and important. Furthermore, it becomes an archetype for an age. If we allow people to deem the "greatness" of art simply based on their own personal opinion we risk sacrificing the value of all art. Art has to be studied. And after is has been studied, people can still say "I don't like it." But they cannot say "It isn't great."

This liberal idea of "you bring what you want to the art" is bullshit. Artists don't make art for other people. They make it for themselves. Robert Frost was once asked, about one of his poems, "What did you mean when you wrote it?" He answered "I meant what I wrote."

People can always make of art what they will; but once it has been studied, opened up and translated (and the author's intentions revealed) its greatness cannot be denied.

I don't think that can completely apply to music, though, since you don't necessarily need context or familiarity to appreciate a piece of music.

I see the aesthetics of music as something more scientifically identifiable than say literature or visual art. There's no question that certain combinations of tones, rhythms and melodic/harmonic progressions are more pleasing to the human brain than others. This is evolutionarily adaptive. That is why the warning calls of birds and such are so dissonant and "annoying". It's meant to disrupt the otherwise pleasant state of nature by introducing something unpleasant, and thus bringing one's attention to danger.

Furthermore, pleasant bird calls are also an instrument of evolution. In certain birds, the male's mating call is meant to be pleasing to the female's ear, and this pleasure invites attraction to the male, and they mate and continue their species.

So given that our brains find certain musical patterns either pleasant or unpleasant, you have a scientific basis for assuming that certain ways in which music is constructed will be more appreciated than others. And you don't need historical context for your brain to find any sonic pattern more pleasing.

 

[cookiecutter]

What is the justification for that. Is it just the volume of people who like it?

EDIT: At Einherjar

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't think that can completely apply to music, though, since you don't necessarily need context or familiarity to appreciate a piece of music.

That is a good point Zeph. And interesting about the birds too. Still, I think that certain musical works (like The Wall, among other albums) have to be awarded the quality of "greatness." People can dislike it all they want, I don't care; but the fact is there is so much social, psychological, and political commentary embedded in that record that it's almost impossible to find it "lacking" in any area. People who approach it at a purely superficial level are denying its inherent beauty, its deeper meaning. This is what I have a problem with. I think with much more recent music (and certainly some, if not most, metal) it's more difficult to judge in this way, because the lyrical content of bands like Linkin Park and Britney Spears is (let's face it) extremely lacking and void. There's nothing deeper to see, nothing to examine. I think that most metal falls into this category simply because it's more focused on music, as you said Zeph. Still, there are classically accepted tenets as to what consititutes "great" music. However, many of those aren't utilized by modern music groups.

Modern music is more immediately pleasing to the ear. It's simpler and much more appreciable than classical music. That's why you find many more classical/jazz music classes in universities than modern music. It's not valued as something that needs to be learned.

 

[cookiecutter]

I'm still not seeing any justification. You're basically saying that Pink Floyd is great because they are and you can't argue with it.

 

[Einherjar86]

What is the justification for that. Is it just the volume of people who like it?

EDIT: At Einherjar

It has nothing to do with how many people like it. It cannot be denied that truly great works develop from the artist's own background; historical events, natural surroundings, personal trauma. etc. A true work of art draws from these experiences and attempts to compose a response to them in an innovative, creative, clever way. Usually this involves some form of skill or talent (i.e. metered verse, symbolism, imagery, etc.). Great works of art can be interpreted on several levels, but they aren't interpreted in these ways simply because one person chooses to see them in that way. Interpretations must be backed by evidence from the artist's life. If someone says "I don't like this," they will be asked "why?" If they say "I just don't," that's insufficient to disqualify it from greatness. They should study it, interpret it based on evidence; and once they've done that, they can choose to either like it or hate it. Furthermore, scholars who perform this task generally make the decision of whether or not the work should be appreciated as a great work of art. I know this seems elitist (the fact that we have to leave this job to the scholars); but they're the ones most qualified to judge the art based on past traditions of the same medium.

I can't agree that art is subjective. Whether or not people like art is completely separated from its level of greatness, which can only be understood from extended study and interpretation.

EDIT: as for the Floyd argument, it is difficult because it's modern and hasn't been around long enough to be subjected to lots of study. Still, you are already seeing some. Furthermore, the album The Wall is rife with symbolism, clever word-play and musical genius. However, you're right in a way cookie; it is my personal opinion. But as for art in general, it's not subjective. It can't be. I think as far as modern music goes, because you don't have many classes that study it in universities, you have to look to majority opinion. And frankly, majority opinion speaks very highly of Pink Floyd.

 

[cookiecutter]

But then I fear we're back to the debate about what criteria scholars would use to determine greatness. For some people "symbolism and clever word-play" are not attributes of greatness. Why are they wrong?

 

[Omni]

Not to mention that people have been creating music since before anyone cared about clever wordplay and whatever else, so I guess all of that music was meaningless and pointless. There is no set criteria for greatness.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well, I think there is.

Furthermore, I only used symbolism and word-play as examples. There are tons of tools writers (or artists) use.

 

[skeptik]

But as for art in general, it's not subjective. It can't be.

You cannot possibly fucking defend this and I defy you to do so.

 

[Ben_t]

Well, I think there is.

Holy shit. I'm convinced.

 

[Dak]

If we allow people to deem the "greatness" of art simply based on their own personal opinion we risk sacrificing the value of all art.

Couldn't have said it better.

 

[Einherjar86]

You cannot possibly fucking defend this and I defy you to do so.

Defy me all you want, I'm right.

Art has expectations that it must live up to. Not just anyone can create a work of art and instill greatness in it. It comes from years of work, passion, dedication, and a degree of talent. Furthermore, all art must draw inspiration from somewhere. Then the artist uses his skill (which he/she must practice at) to channel that inspiration into a work of art.

Art that is created in this way (hard work, passion, dedication, inspiration, skill) is inherently great. People can choose not to like it, but its greatness cannot be denied.

 

[skeptik]

Everything you're saying is so full of shit and not supported by anything based in reality. And honestly I mean that in a respectful way, or as respectfully as such a statement can be taken.

Where is this objective greatness in art? In what way is it objective? Is it actually objective or are you confusing it with institutional subjective objectivity? It is true that we have an institution of art that generally holds certain opinions and views certain things as great and others as not, but there is absolutely nothing about any of this to suggest that the greatness bestowed upon these works comes from some kind of objective authority, and there's certainly nothing to indicate that any work of art ever has any kind of "inherent" greatness. What the hell is inherent greatness anyway? Seriously man, the fact that this stuff is coming from you is bothering me because I feel like you should understand why what you're saying is silly.

 

[Omni]

I find that the biggest thing that lessens the value of art is people who try to define it by specific criteria and create rules that govern what is and isn't artistic.

 

[Einherjar86]

Everything you're saying is so full of shit and not supported by anything based in reality. And honestly I mean that in a respectful way, or as respectfully as such a statement can be taken.

Where is this objective greatness in art? In what way is it objective? Is it actually objective or are you confusing it with institutional subjective objectivity? It is true that we have an institution of art that generally holds certain opinions and views certain things as great and others as not, but there is absolutely nothing about any of this to suggest that the greatness bestowed upon these works comes from some kind of objective authority, and there's certainly nothing to indicate that any work of art ever has any kind of "inherent" greatness. What the hell is inherent greatness anyway? Seriously man, the fact that this stuff is coming from you is bothering me because I feel like you should understand why what you're saying is silly.

I appreciate you trying to be polite (I know it's tough for you ), and I'm sorry if my opinion is upsetting you; but I don't think what I'm saying is silly. The objective greatness in art comes from the simple fact of how it is created. I don't see how you think my facts aren't "supported by anything based in reality." I should think that the simple fact that the creation of art is (or should be) a delicate, specific, difficult and tiring process makes clear the fact that it possesses inherent greatness. Art that lacks one of the primary components (that I've listed several times) falls short of being great. If you read my original opinion in this thread, I chose the "passion" option in the poll. However, I said that I would have chosen passion and talent if I could. I think that all art requires certain fundamental elements; if it lacks even one of them, its greatness is severely diminished.

Based on what you're saying, Dodens, it would be possible for someone to claim that Shakespeare's writing did not possess greatness. I find that to be an impossible claim to make, once someone has taken the time and effort to actually study and interpret Shakespeare, and learn why and how he wrote.