Quote:
Originally posted by Vertigo-1
A very strong no from me. The day I ever think there is such a thing as bad or crappy music is the day I need to get a life. I may not agree with somebody else's music tastes, but I will never point at someone and tell them "that music sucks". Anybody that does that needs a serious attitude re-adjustment and needs to bring their nose back down to earth a little.
I seriously could care less if you only listen to Tchaikovsky's 1812 SACD on repeat, or Britney Spears on repeat. As JMT's sig says, "If it sounds good, it is good." And that's all that an individual should care about. |
What about scholarly criticism of music, art, or literature? Does that make no sense either? If you read Harry Potter and enjoy it, does that mean that it's good? Who are you to tell me what I should and shouldn't care about? That's the same as telling me that I should not enjoy this or that kind of music.
I assume that when we label music "good" or "bad" for the purposes of this debate, we do so in judging the music's artistic value. The valuation of art is a highly subjective pursuit, but that doesn't mean that one can't frame the debate in such a way that there are substantiated arguments to be made but enough room for contradiction that the debate is worthwhile.
Now that we have that PC ******** out of the way, here is what I consider the single criterion for music that is successful as art. It must successfully emulate and convey a piece of life, so to speak. It is a definition so commonly used that it is almost cliched, but I'll stand by it nonetheless. There are several reasons why classical music dominates the artistic realm of music, not the least of which is that classical music has been composed and played in the highest strata of society for over 200 years. Large endowments are given to opera houses and symphony orchestras by private donors in some countries and by governments in others (such as the Italian government's support of La Scala in Milan); classical musicians generally start at a very young age and with a much more rigorous practice schedule, thus becoming immersed in the music; and these musicians also don't get involved with the same celebrity culture as popular musicians and don't have the tendency to die at a young age because of drugs, alcohol, and STDs.
However, I would contend that this came about because of the ability of classical music as a genre to be molded into an art rather than simple pleasing sounds. Why would classical music develop to be more complex than popular forms of music? Perhaps it's because it had to appeal to a group of people who were also interested in visual and literary arts which were successful in reproducing life in a profound way.
Jazz is only about 100 years old but I feel that it's already beginning to take hold as a real valid art form. While it hasn't evolved for as long as classical music it's already seen much amazing progress. Is it because that now the European and American intelligentsia is also interested in jazz? I don't know, but it seems highly possible.
Now, what separates this "good" music from what I would consider "bad" music? Most popular music nowadays depends on repetitive musical structures which serve more to accompany lyrics which connect with the intended audience but which serve to shed no new light on the issues touched upon.
The exceptions I can think of are some of the old classic rock bands from the late sixties and early seventies like Pink Floyd. Pink Floyd, in exploring the mind of Syd Barrett as well as their relationship with their former fellow musician, expressed their emotions and explored Syd Barrett's psyche through their music and not just through straightforward and banal lyrics the way a second-grader would tell his teacher how he feels.
Some new rock bands seem to be attempting to raise rock to the level of musical art as well. Radiohead is an obvious example, though the few samples I've listened to didn't strike me as particularly good. Hopefully I'll have a chance to do some serious listening to them and form a better-informed opinion of their talent.
