[Prog Rock Man]

My preferred definition of good music is what I enjoy, whether it is popular or not. I would differentiate good music from well recorded music and skilled musicians. The three can combine in any way.
 
There are some very skilled musicians who, if not employed by an orchestra will do session work, music for adverts and background for the latest pop hit. All can be very good earners.

 

[bigshot]

the general public out there has an extremely limited scope and knowledge of good music from bad music other than their simple interpretation of whether they like it or not.  In most cases they won't devote the time or patience to explore anything new. 

That's true of a lot of people who claim to be music enthusiasts too. Having an opinion on *why* you think one kind of music is better than another is part of the thought process that leads you to other forms of music.

 

[WisdomListens]

Quote:

There is no correlation between popularity of music and how good it is other than to say it is "catchy".  Think of Miley Cyrus and Brittney Spears.
 
Plus, without trying to sound snobby, the general public out there has an extremely limited scope and knowledge of good music from bad music other than their simple interpretation of whether they like it or not.  In most cases they won't devote the time or patience to explore anything new. 

How about Beethoven and Mozart? I thought they were very popular in their time.

 

[WisdomListens]

Quote:

Quote:

the general public out there has an extremely limited scope and knowledge of good music from bad music other than their simple interpretation of whether they like it or not.  In most cases they won't devote the time or patience to explore anything new. 

That's true of a lot of people who claim to be music enthusiasts too. Having an opinion on *why* you think one kind of music is better than another is part of the thought process that leads you to other forms of music.

I like to use the term 'different' instead of 'better'. Its not a competition.

 

[bigshot]

I would differentiate good music from well recorded music and skilled musicians. The three can combine in any way.

Musicality is the ability to be creative and express yourself through music. Musicianship is the skill at playing an instrument. Emerson and Wakeman are examples of musicianship without musicality. Brian Eno is the epitome of musicality without musicianship.

When you hear both musicality and musicianship working together hand in hand, you are experiencing the highest level of music making. A lot of modern creativity has gone the direction of worshipping creativity and making excuses for lack of skill... Think Andy Warhol. Personally, I prefer to have both. It was like that in the first half of the 20th century, and it can be like that today if listeners demand it. But unfortunately, the trend is toward "none of the above" like Lady GaGa.

If there was more high quality music making, people wouldn't be accepting "half a loaf" and pretending that is "good enough". The bar would be set higher and to compete, you would have to play better and think more creatively than the next guy. That's how a musical culture grows and flourishes.

 

[bigshot]

I like to use the term 'different' instead of 'better'. Its not a competition.

In the greatest musical form created in recent times- Jazz, competition is one of the key ingredients that made it grow and blossom so fast.

In Harlem in the 30s, pianists would have "cutting contests" where they would take turns playing mind blowing solos on songs like "Handful of Keys". They would push themselves to outdo the other until the crowd declared a victor. The give and take between soloists in jazz bands is a form of competition too. And the big bands would regularly participate in "battles of the bands".

Cartoons like the Smurfs have convinced a whole generation that rugged individualism and competition is a bad thing, and conformity and cooperation is the "nice" way to do things. American culture was built by coming up with a better mousetrap and trying to create a better product. It's being destroyed by the concept that individuals can't achieve anything themselves- that we're all powerless unless we are part of a group.

It's ironic that a lot of young people champion the scientific method for science and abandon logical analysis when it comes to creative pursuits.

 

[bigshot]

How about Beethoven and Mozart? I thought they were very popular in their time.

Popularity is pretty much irrelevant to musical quality. The greatest composer who ever lived, J S Bach, was totally unknown a few miles outside of the general vicinity of the church he composed for. And the work of the greatest American composer, Charles Ives was not even performed until he was in his 80s and had ceased composition for nearly 30 years.

 

[Prog Rock Man]

What bigshot thinks is also pretty much irrelevant to musical quality......

 

[bigshot]

In audio quality terms, some popular albums have so so recording quality which won't be revealed unless you try it with a decent gear.

That may be true of the close up "inside the head" presentation of headphones, but I've found the exact opposite is true of speakers. Once you are able to achieve a flat response in a room large enough for the music to open up and form a natural soundstage, the latitude for forgiveness of limited recordings becomes much better. Really good speakers make everything sound better because they are reproducing sound the same way it was created in the first place.

 

[scompton]

There are very few genres I don't have at least something of, and listen too.  I have around 3500 CDs.  About half are various subgenres of classical.  The other half is mostly various forms of rock, jazz, world, and electronica.  I have a few dozen albums each of country, folk, and R&B.  I listen to almost no modern pop and only have a handful of metal and rap/hip-hop albums.  I think that there's probably quite a bit of rap/hip-hop that I would like, but I dislike most of what I've heard.  It makes me leary of shelling out money for it without hearing it first.  I've liked quite a bit of metal that I've heard, until they start singing.

 

[WisdomListens]

Quote:

Quote:

I like to use the term 'different' instead of 'better'. Its not a competition.

In the greatest musical form created in recent times- Jazz, competition is one of the key ingredients that made it grow and blossom so fast.

In Harlem in the 30s, pianists would have "cutting contests" where they would take turns playing mind blowing solos on songs like "Handful of Keys". They would push themselves to outdo the other until the crowd declared a victor. The give and take between soloists in jazz bands is a form of competition too. And the big bands would regularly participate in "battles of the bands".

Cartoons like the Smurfs have convinced a whole generation that rugged individualism and competition is a bad thing, and conformity and cooperation is the "nice" way to do things. American culture was built by coming up with a better mousetrap and trying to create a better product. It's being destroyed by the concept that individuals can't achieve anything themselves- that we're all powerless unless we are part of a group.

 
Sure, thats your opinion. I don't know much about jazz.
 
Conformity and cooperation do not go hand in hand. I believe individualism and cooperation can coexist. Even certain types of competition, I think, are beneficial to a growing person. The kind of competition I favor is when ones self is the opponent; to strive to be a better person than you were before.
 
If we are going to continue this debate I'd ask you to be open to new ideas. Your old age seems to have closed your mind to new ideas and possible compromise. Please do not be one of those old people who think the younger generation is going to hell in a hand basket. Have hope for the next generation.


Quote:

Quote:

How about Beethoven and Mozart? I thought they were very popular in their time.

Popularity is pretty much irrelevant to musical quality. The greatest composer who ever lived, J S Bach, was totally unknown a few miles outside of the general vicinity of the church he composed for. And the work of the greatest American composer, Charles Ives was not even performed until he was in his 80s and had ceased composition for nearly 30 years.

I said nothing about musical quality. I am only saying that there is a correlation with popularity and some music though not a causal relationship.
 
EDIT^^^

 

[Ynoskire]

There is absolutely no correlation between popularity and the quality of the music. If you look at John Fahey for instance, the guy wasn't really popular in the 60's/70's when he recorded all of his music. During the 80's and the 90's he didn't have any followers at all, but because a popular band (I believe it was Sonic Youth) named him one of their inspirations during an interview a lot of people became fans and music magazines even started publishing articles about him. Did the quality of his music change?
 
Also, a lot of casual producers (whom I know through other forums) produce better music then some of the best known artists in the current EDM scene, yet nobody knows them. Whilst the significantly less intresting producers have millions of fans (and really pretty faces).

 

[bigshot]

Sure, thats your opinion. I don't know much about jazz.

You should look into it. If you had a wider frame of reference, you might understand better. Jazz is the greatest creative achievement of the 20th century. No other artistic contribution to society comes close to being as important or as diverse. It's on a par with the technological milestones of putting a man on the moon and connecting the world with the Internet. Today, we value technology and science and waste time with trivialities when it comes to creativity.

The world is becoming aesthetically illiterate, which is ironic when technology is providing us with access to information like never before. Why is this? I'd venture to guess it's because many of us don't have a solid grasp on the recent history of our own culture. We don't respect the arts enough to speak about it seriously and challenge ourself to go outside the box of irrelevance placed around us by commercial media.

In order to know who we are as a society, you need to make an effort to understand music older than the Beatles and movies older than Star Wars. You need to be prepared to research and debate and THINK about our rich popular culture heritage. It's fine to limit yourself to just what's in front of you or what appeals to your ignorance if you really aren't interested in the arts. But if your frame of reference is as narrow as an inch in front of your nose, you shouldn't pretend to know the big picture. When you come across someone who has a different opinion that's based on information you don't have, that's an opportunity for learning, not an excuse to get mad at them.

 

[bigshot]

Fahey is a great and important musician. When you mentioned him, it reminded me of this great quote by Bob Dylan...

It’s only natural to pattern yourself after someone. If I wanted to be a painter, I might think about trying to be like Van Gogh, or if I was an actor, act like Laurence Olivier. If I was an architect, there’s Frank Gehry. But you can’t just copy somebody. If you like someone’s work, the important thing is to be exposed to everything that person has been exposed to. Anyone who wants to be a songwriter should listen to as much folk music as they can, study the form and structure of stuff that has been around for 100 years. I go back to Stephen Foster. -Bob Dylan

 

[falis]

Prog?  Not sure.  But just about anything by this band qualifies, Bigshot.
 
- Ed