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

[Einherjar86]

Bullshit. I grew up listening to classical music having no idea of context, and I loved it and still do.

You can train your ear to hear the depth of music, but again, you don't need context to focus in on it.

You enjoyed it. That doesn't mean you understood its greatness.

 

[skeptik]

What the fuck is its greatness, Einherjar? You have yet to explain yourself, you're just repeating what you're saying, thinking that's an argument. What is objectively great about a work of art understanding its historical tradition and why is a work of art ignorant of historical tradition not great? You haven't answered these and so many other questions that you need to.

 

[Ben_t]

Yes it does, because it is the historical tradition that instills the greatness in art.

Edit: Also, this:

"Someone who creates something without any (or with very little) knowledge of the art is not creating art."

is very wrong.

Well, that's very nice that you think so; but I don't know why you think so...

All artists fit into a movement within their tradition. They cannot succeed in doing so without having knowledge of their tradition.

Honestly, I can't even remember reading as much crap as the stuff you wrote in this thread trying to justify your point of view.

It's beyond laughable.

 

[Zephyrus]

Wrong. You enjoyed it. That doesn't mean you understood its greatness.

I don't think we're on the same page. Same for you Dodens.

Of course I take context and tradition into account when determining the "greatness" of any artistic medium. That's assuming "greatness" is this collective-objective view and not a matter of what is pleasing to the human brain.

I appreciate music more in context, don't get me wrong. But the degree to which it raised my appreciation is not nearly as high as the level of enjoyment I got from the music when still out of context. And that is why I picked the last option.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Again, you're fooling yourself if you let any "theory" take precedent over your personal subjectivity.

So anyone who does an evaluative music review is just constructing an elaborate hoax which is ultimately meaningless to everyone? I think not.

I'd say there's definite value in listening to bands which are reknowned for talent or influence. If nothing else, it gives more insight into the art form and its history than listening to a derivative, no-name band does. Whether you actually like the band in the end is not always the most important thing.

 

[Zephyrus]

Einherjar, please give your definition of artistic "greatness" in one simple statement.

 

[Einherjar86]

What the fuck is its greatness, Einherjar? You have yet to explain yourself, you're just repeating what you're saying, thinking that's an argument. What is objectively great about a work of art understanding its historical tradition and why is a work of art ignorant of historical tradition not great? You haven't answered these and so many other questions that you need to.

Gods, I don't know what the fuck else to do. Answer my previous question first, I say. Why do you think that people who have no knowledge of their tradition can produce art? I think that's bullshit. An artist produces great work by learning, studying, understanding, and expanding upon his tradition's history. Why can't that be fucking "great?" Why can't that be my answer? What the fuck more do you want?

EDIT: I'm going to take a shower now, so give me a few minutes.

 

[skeptik]

People are making the mistake of making a false connection between the lack of objective greatness and the lack of any true and meaningful value in art. It's not the case that the former necessitates the latter. The institution of art is still highly important for most people.

 

[Zephyrus]

So anyone who does an evaluative music review is just constructing an elaborate hoax which is ultimately meaningless to everyone? I think not.

I think there's definite value in listening to bands which are reknowned for talent or influence. If nothing else, it gives more insight into the art form and its history than listening to a derivative, no-name band does. Whether you actually like the band is not always the most important thing.

As recently stated, there are sub-groups of people whose subjective tastes match, such as those who prefer Black Metal over Power Metal. When I write for The Metal Observer, it's assumed I have a genre-specific audience. That's why one of the first things you see on the page for a review on TMO is the genre of the album being reviewed.

 

[skeptik]

Gods, I don't know what the fuck else to do. Answer my previous question first, I say. Why do you think that people who have no knowledge of their tradition can produce art? I think that's bullshit. An artist produces great work by learning, studying, understanding, and expanding upon his tradition's history. Why can't that be fucking "great?" Why can't that be my answer? What the fuck more do you want?

You're not even answering, that's the problem.

Art is not necessarily bound within the confines of a rigid history. A work of art that intentionally fails to acknowledge a historical legacy is an artistic action in and of itself. I would like you to explain why it is impossible for a work such as this to be great, and why you put so much importance on tradition. But more importantly I want you to explain why you think a traditional legacy makes something objectively great. This is the fundamental question to your argument, and you haven't given an answer for it. What is it about a historical legacy that corresponds to a work of art that grants it objective greatness? If a work of art was objectively great, I fail to see why it would need history to prove it to be the case.

 

[Omni]

If the greatness of music or any other art is determined by history, the very first art must logically have been totally meaningless.

 

[Zephyrus]

It was meaningless until it was looked upon in retrospect.

 

[Omni]

By the logic you just presented, any new music or art that isn't largely influenced by the supposed historically great art has the potential to be considered great as well if people look back on it, which is a fallacious and stupid line of reasoning anyway. The amount of people who remember something doesn't determine its artistic value unless that was the artist's specific intention.

 

[Einherjar86]

People are making the mistake of making a false connection between the lack of objective greatness and the lack of any true and meaningful value in art. It's not the case that the former necessitates the latter. The institution of art is still highly important for most people.

What proof do you have of this, and what evidence to justify this claim: false connection between the lack of objective greatness and the lack of any true and meaningful value in art. It's not the case that the former necessitates the latter.

If art is important to people, they will take the time and effort to study it. They won't simply try and create something, because they will have no idea what they're doing. And if they do create something it will not pertain to anything of value to others. The personal can be (and is) an extremely important part of art; but it's important that the artist express the personal in an interesting way. This means practicing, learning from predecessors, finding new and innovative ways to create. Not just anyone can create a work of art.

 

[Zephyrus]

By the logic you just presented, any new music or art that isn't largely influenced by the supposed historically great art has the potential to be considered great as well if people look back on it, which is a fallacious and stupid line of reasoning anyway. The amount of people who remember something doesn't determine its artistic value unless that was the artist's specific intention.

You took it too far. The first examples of art were made for utilitarian or religious purposes, which in retrospect are significant to understanding the past.

So I disagree that the first art was meaningless, BUT IF IT WAS then it would still gain significance to an archaeologist or cultural historian.

 

[Omni]

Not all art is created with the intention of remembering the past or gaining wide appreciation, nor does it have to be created for or even achieve that purpose in order to be considered art, so I'm still correct.

Much of what can be considered art is created with a direct irreverence of what came before it, such as avant-garde art and musical expressions.

 

[Omni]

There is absolutely no criteria for what makes art great, nor has anyone in this thread who is claiming that there is so far successfully presented and explained one in any kind of fashion that's more than subjective.

 

[Zephyrus]

The definition of art wasn't always the same, yet we are putting all the art ever made in history under the same microscope. That cannot accurately yield a definition of how our present culture defines art.

 

[The Butt]

I don't feel like reading this entire thread, so I'm just gonna chime in with my opinion.

I, personally, don't believe that it is possible for a work of art to become "objectively good". Mainly because, everybody is going to have a different idea, a different set of criterion that must be met, in order for them to consider a piece good. This is even proven, by the poll at the very top of this page.

 

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

No, a different criterion must NOT be met, because that would ruin art.