|
Jamie: I won't go into my opinions whether there is such a thing like "good" music, or try to define it. However, any attempt to "prove" your conviction with concrete examples is bound to fail. You said earlier: "While it may be near impossible for people to agree on what 'good' is, it certainly exists.". I can accept that and even in certain way agree. However, you then proceed by mentioning a Mahler symphony and a specific concept of a "bad piece of music" as examples to explain your point of view. That just can't work, as like you said yourself, we won't be able to agree on a definition of "good music". All listing such examples does, is convincing those who don't believe in the concept of "good music" that they are in fact right - as if they disagree with your examples, your whole point is refuted.
A question like "is there better and worse art" can, if anything, only be discussed on a very general, theoretical level and never on concrete examples. Especially as it has always been a curious feature of the arts to evade all attempts to clearly classify them. Maybe this even -is- a defining feature of art (which would be paradox of course, since this again is an attempt of a clear classification).
In short: If you want to argue your point, it will only work if you do it very theoretically and fundamentally. Examples are often helpful, but in cases like this they will ruin your argumentation.
It's a bit like in quantum mechanics: Every concrete observation about art changes art itself. So if you want to make an observation about art as a whole, you'll have to stay -extremely- general if you want to stay more or less "objective" (that still affects the "system" art, but it minimizes the changes induced by your observations). I know that sounds crazy, but I think discussions like this -must- happen on an almost "metaphysical" level to have any meaning at all. Art is just so extremely unstable and slippery, -especially- since the 20th century.
|