The 5 magnificent delusions regarding musical elitism

[all_sins_undone]

its not really debateable tbph, sadguru has always been slow

 

[soundave]

from http://www.unconservatory.org/articles/goodmusic.html

1. It the piece technically well executed? Regardless of the style, the performance - whether improvised, derived from notation, or electroacoustically produced - should be free of extraneous notes, sounds, effects, nuances of any kind that do not contribute to communication of the musical ideas.

2. Does it exploit a variety of elements of music, i.e. rhythm, harmony, melody, texture/timbre? Although a quality piece of music need not have all elements equally represented (in fact, many if not most fine works do not), a piece that relies solely on any one element is likely to be less than fulfilling.

3. Are the elements of the work highly integrated so that each supports the other’s function? Melody, for example, cannot exist without at least some degree of rhythm; rhythm, however, can exist without melody, as can harmony without either rhythm or melody. But it seems that most truly satisfying music exploits the elements in ways that cause the product of them to be greater that the sum of the elements, disparately.

4. Does the piece appeal on a variety of levels – intellectual, emotional, spiritual? A piece can be strong enough in any one of these areas to justify being called good, but the best music somehow seems to appeal on many levels.

5. After having been listened to many times, does the piece still have appeal, appeal that is based on some new revelations rather than solely on comfortable familiarity? Complexity in and of itself is not especially valuable, but exceptional music seems to have many facets, and holds up well and continues to interest even after many listenings.

6. Is there a good balance between familiarity and variety, appropriate for the length of the piece? Clearly, very extended pieces will need to introduce more variety than very short ones; likewise the task of maintaining coherence within greater diversity is more difficult and expected in longer pieces.

Solid post. Musical relativism sucks as much as cultural relativism does.

 

[all_sins_undone]

Solid post. Musical relativism sucks as much as cultural relativism does.

.

 

[Braighs]

There are superior and inferior music.

yes, there are.
the line is quite easy to draw once you've been cultured.
For example, millions love Kenny G. But that is because millions of people don't seriously listen to jazz. Any scholar can and will say that Kenny G. is inferior.

Of course some things can't be compared. Like Zappa and the Beatles. Because they appeal on different levels as metioned in all_sin's post.
Like you don't already know all this...

 

[daz436]

from http://www.unconservatory.org/articles/goodmusic.html

1. It the piece technically well executed? Regardless of the style, the performance - whether improvised, derived from notation, or electroacoustically produced - should be free of extraneous notes, sounds, effects, nuances of any kind that do not contribute to communication of the musical ideas.

2. Does it exploit a variety of elements of music, i.e. rhythm, harmony, melody, texture/timbre? Although a quality piece of music need not have all elements equally represented (in fact, many if not most fine works do not), a piece that relies solely on any one element is likely to be less than fulfilling.

3. Are the elements of the work highly integrated so that each supports the other’s function? Melody, for example, cannot exist without at least some degree of rhythm; rhythm, however, can exist without melody, as can harmony without either rhythm or melody. But it seems that most truly satisfying music exploits the elements in ways that cause the product of them to be greater that the sum of the elements, disparately.

4. Does the piece appeal on a variety of levels – intellectual, emotional, spiritual? A piece can be strong enough in any one of these areas to justify being called good, but the best music somehow seems to appeal on many levels.

5. After having been listened to many times, does the piece still have appeal, appeal that is based on some new revelations rather than solely on comfortable familiarity? Complexity in and of itself is not especially valuable, but exceptional music seems to have many facets, and holds up well and continues to interest even after many listenings.

6. Is there a good balance between familiarity and variety, appropriate for the length of the piece? Clearly, very extended pieces will need to introduce more variety than very short ones; likewise the task of maintaining coherence within greater diversity is more difficult and expected in longer pieces.

.

 

[Sadguru]

1. It the piece technically well executed? Regardless of the style, the performance - whether improvised, derived from notation, or electroacoustically produced - should be free of extraneous notes, sounds, effects, nuances of any kind that do not contribute to communication of the musical ideas.

How can you judge what contributes efficiently to the music and what does not? Artists themselves aren't qualified to objectively judge their work, let alone the casual listener.

2. Does it exploit a variety of elements of music, i.e. rhythm, harmony, melody, texture/timbre? Although a quality piece of music need not have all elements equally represented (in fact, many if not most fine works do not), a piece that relies solely on any one element is likely to be less than fulfilling.

Variety doesn't make music good, it makes it more varied. What makes it fulfilling or not is absolutely within the realm subjective experience.

3. Are the elements of the work highly integrated so that each supports the other’s function? Melody, for example, cannot exist without at least some degree of rhythm; rhythm, however, can exist without melody, as can harmony without either rhythm or melody. But it seems that most truly satisfying music exploits the elements in ways that cause the product of them to be greater that the sum of the elements, disparately.

It seems so because you're talking from your personnal experience. I can't blame you, we all perceive a so-called outside world according to our inner subjective luggage. And then again, there's always the question: "Who are exploiting these elements in a good way and who are those who don't?" That leads us nowhere.

4. Does the piece appeal on a variety of levels – intellectual, emotional, spiritual? A piece can be strong enough in any one of these areas to justify being called good, but the best music somehow seems to appeal on many levels.

You are assuming that the intellectual, emotional and spiritual levels are independant from one another, which isn't the case.

5. After having been listened to many times, does the piece still have appeal, appeal that is based on some new revelations rather than solely on comfortable familiarity? Complexity in and of itself is not especially valuable, but exceptional music seems to have many facets, and holds up well and continues to interest even after many listenings.

Again, all that you're saying in based on your personnal experience. Some people might enjoy an album for years where other gets bored after a week. In fact, it's usually the case.

6. Is there a good balance between familiarity and variety, appropriate for the length of the piece? Clearly, very extended pieces will need to introduce more variety than very short ones; likewise the task of maintaining coherence within greater diversity is more difficult and expected in longer pieces.

You might perceive a work as coherent where another sees only chaos and randomness. Both are equally right and wrong.

 

[all_sins_undone]

...are you kidding me? i'm not going over all of this again with you.

 

[Braighs]

You are assuming that the intellectual, emotional and spiritual levels are independant from one another, which isn't the case.

WtF?! not only was that the only point which might in some vague way support your case, but... I give up.

 

[daz436]

How can you judge what contributes efficiently to the music and what does not? Artists themselves aren't qualified to objectively judge their work, let alone the casual listener.

so if you hear some guy sneezing in the background, not even the artist himself is allowed to judge how retarded it makes his piece of soothing string music sound?

 

[all_sins_undone]

he's hopeless.

 

[Sadguru]

WtF?! not only was that the only point which might in some vague way support your case, but... I give up.

So be it...

 

[Sadguru]

so if you hear some guy sneezing in the background, not even the artist himself is allowed to judge how retarded it makes his piece of soothing string music sound?

He is allowed, but his judgement won't be factual. That's all I'm saying.

 

[all_sins_undone]

omfg... he's back to square one.

 

[illidurit]

as if we needed another reason to ignore sadguru's posts

 

[:Wreath:]

imo

 

[all_sins_undone]

imo

iyo

 

[Sadguru]

Look all_sins_undone, I don't want to start a fight with you neither I hold you some grudge. Can we investigate the matter, with open minds, without the useless flaming? I think we can get a better understanding if we let down our differences. Are you willing to do that?

 

[Sadguru]

as if we needed another reason to ignore sadguru's posts

Suggestion: Add Sadguru to Your Ignore List

 

[all_sins_undone]

where is :erkpear: when you need it?

 

[NFU]

this is merely a cry for help from someone who is tired of settling and embracing their poor taste.