Emotion is the core of music

SSC, Robin, please... If you seriously believe that the statement "Bach's music has more substance and quality than Britney's" has no greater claim to truth than the contrary statement, you're in serious trouble and may want to consider a different profession.

I am fed-up with arguing against your naive relativist view that denies the power and genius of great art, puts everyone and everything on the same level and makes the whole concept of quality redundant, for there is no good or bad art, only art you like and art you don't like. Even if everyone thinks Y is better than X, except you who thinks X is better, then still the claim that "X is better than Y" is equally valid as the claim that "Y is better", eh...? Yeah rrrright.

Accept it. Quality within any art form is never completely a relative matter. That is why almost everyone would agree that Shakespeare is a better author than Dean Koontz, the Godfather is a better movie than Disaster Movie, Picasso's work is better than the drawings of my little nephew, Bach is a greater musical genius than Britney, and so on.

I don't need to prove that the claim that Bach's music has more substance and quality than Britney's is more valid than the contrary claim. It's something anyone with some musical knowledge and intelligence can tell (and if you guys can't, I feel sorry for you). Also, if you fail to see that the aspects I mentioned (harmonic complexity, melodic sophistication, formal innovation, rhythmic invention, etc.) CAN all be operationalized as objective quality criteria, that's your problem. Go study some music theory, study Bach, analyze the works of the great composers and find out for yourself why their music has stood the test of time (because it is good; there is such a thing as good art...).

I just hope that one day you will see that the extreme relativist position you seem to hold is really absurd, not to say downright foolish.

Even if everyone thinks Y is better than X, except you who thinks X is better, then still the claim that "X is better than Y" is equally valid as the claim that "Y is better", eh...? Yeah rrrright.

OK then. Even going by your faulty logic, your statement seems to be placing Britney in the lead here. Many more people would think she's better than Bach than those that think Bach's better than Britney. Of course you'd need to do a study to find that out for sure (or just look at record sales....) but it's bullshit logic anyway, and you just defeated yourself with it.

I don't need to prove that the claim that Bach's music has more substance and quality than Britney's is more valid than the contrary claim.

Yes you do!

You are missing the point so hard that it's funny.

I am fed-up with arguing against your naive relativist view that denies the power and genius of great art, puts everyone and everything on the same level and makes the whole concept of quality redundant, for there is no good or bad art, only art you like and art you don't like.

Does this mean you'll stop posting?

For your sake, I mean, it's always entertaining to see how you shoot yourself in the foot in such an Olympic manner.

I think this thread out lived the intentions of the original poster.

I think this thread out lived the intentions of the original poster.

Well that's kind of the thing, really. The thread derailed for more comedy, so it's not such a waste. Though, really, it should as well die already.

First off, great post here SSC. I kinda had that general understanding and was being obtuse just for Gianluca's sake, but you certainly cleared up some stuff from the perspective of the musicologist - I only half realized it was like that

... Now, the fun stuff! :laugh:

SSC, Robin, please... If you seriously believe that the statement "Bach's music has more substance and quality than Britney's" has no greater claim to truth than the contrary statement, you're in serious trouble and may want to consider a different profession.

And, if YOU seriously believe that there's nothing of merit or substance in popular musics, YOU'RE the one who has to reconsider his chosen career.

...your naive relativist view that denies the power and genius of great art, puts everyone and everything on the same level and makes the whole concept of quality redundant, for there is no good or bad art, only art you like and art you don't like.

Not entirely true. I don't put everything on the same level - I just get to choose who and what I want to elevate to a higher level. I'm perfectly fine with YOU placing Bach on a pedestal; why can't you accept that I prefer Charles Mingus; or that Sally in Wisconsin prefers Justin Timberlake?!

I DON'T think the concept of quality is redundant...I just believe that quality is decided and determined by the listener. I don't like the idea that someone else decides what I should think is good. [i'm pretty sure I've said all this before...perhaps someone with a degree in musicology should work on his reading comprehension skills :hmmm:]

Accept it. Quality within any art form is never completely a relative matter. that is why almost everyone would agree that Shakespeare is a better author than Dean Koontz, the Godfather is a better movie than Disaster Movie, Picasso's work is better than the drawings of my little nephew, Bach is a greater musical genius than Britney, and so on.

Anyone who agrees with those statements is a fool who needs to think a little more. I expect Shakespeare would write pretty scrafty 'espionage-thriller novels' and that Debby on flight 703 to Dallas would MUCH prefer a Koontz over wading through olde english and deciphering cryptic metaphors in Shakespeare. I also expect your nephew's parents are MUCH prouder of their son than they are of Picasso, and probably MUCH prefer their son's drawings.

See where I'm going with this!? C'mon, Gianluca! Take off the pompous-donkey-hat and THINK for a little while!

...if you fail to see that the aspects I mentioned (harmonic complexity, melodic sophistication, formal innovation, rhythmic invention, etc.) CAN all be operationalized as objective quality criteria, that's your problem. Go study some music theory, study Bach, analyze the works of the great composers and find out for yourself why their music has stood the test of time (because it is good; there is such a thing as good art...).

Dude, seriously - you don't get where I am without having to analyze a fair bit of Bach. I've paid my dues, and know my scraggy. I also know that "operationalized" is not a word. I also have never said there is no such thing as good art, and I even wouldn't disagree that Bach is in fact better (in my opinion) than Britney.

What you can't seem to comprehend is that SOMEONE ELSE will feel differently.

Another cool thing is that your "objective quality criteria" (melodic sophistication, formal innovation, rhythmic inventionm, blah blah blah) can all be EASILY applied to ANY music.

i.e. [beware - generalizations ahead]

Bach is rhymically inferior to Eminem.

Mozart is harmonically simpler than Gil Evans

Leonin and Perotin are melodically stagnant compared to Radiohead

Get it?! Nothing you have can actually show me that (for example) Bach is better. It IS all relative - my ears make my choices for me, same way yours do. I can just allow others to have the same freedom.

...

;)

The fat is in the fire!

[scraggy! Sorry everyone! I didn't realize this was that long....I probably wouldn't read it myself, so I don't blame you if you don't bother!]

Robin what would you say that I thought that Bach had more merit than Britney (though technically we're talking about Max Martin here, I believe) due the the infinite number of interpretations? Take the Cello Suites, for instance. Now put them next to Toxic, Crazy, and Oops I Did It Again. Do you not agree that one is clearly more musically advanced, though neither group really strays far harmonically or rhythmically?

I think Pop music has just as much validity as a whole as any other classification of music, but I also feel there are different levels and degrees of quality.

You're not Robin. :P

In your example, Amos' version is merely an interpretation of the lyrics and harmonic progression. If you wanted to look at it like that, then most music could be considered to be an interpretation of other music, cause rarely does one invent a harmonic progression.

How about, then, the level of musicality involved in the different interpretations? I would say Amos' cover of Smells Like Teen Spirit is of higher musical quality than most Britney Spears, but this is due to the difficulty in being expressive as opposed to being energetic, as well as the dynamics. Expression in general, really. Whereas, Bach is higher musical quality because of the higher difficulty in being expressive.

I've posted this quote in other threads, but hey, here it is again:

The positive element in kitsch lies in the fact that it sets free for a moment the glimmering realization that you have wasted your life.

All this applies to music with even greater force. Most people listen to music emotionally: everything is heard in terms of the categories of late Romanticism and of the commodities derived from it, which are already tailored to emotional listening. Their listening is the more abstract the more emotional it is: music really only enables them to have a good cry. This is why they love the expression or longing more than happiness itself. . . .

The leverage of music -- what they call its liberating aspect -- is the opportunity to feel something, anything at all. But the content of the feeling is always that of privation. Music has come to resemble the mother who says, "Come and have a good cry, my child."

In a sense it is a kind of psychoanalysis for the masses, but one which makes them, if anything, even more dependent than before.

Theodor W. Adorno, "Quasi una Fantasia" (essay "Commodity Music Analysed")

I don't necessarilly agree with everything Adorno says, but could be some snack for thought..

I don't necessarilly agree with everything Adorno says, but could be some snack for thought..

Me neither, but I can see where he's coming from with that idea at least. Oh, btw, Adorno is considered a music philosopher, not a musicologist. Though I'm not sure if he's done musicology work, but almost everything I've seen are things like that, haha.

You're not Robin. :P

In your example, Amos' version is merely an interpretation of the lyrics and harmonic progression. If you wanted to look at it like that, then most music could be considered to be an interpretation of other music, cause rarely does one invent a harmonic progression.

How about, then, the level of musicality involved in the different interpretations? I would say Amos' cover of Smells Like Teen Spirit is of higher musical quality than most Britney Spears, but this is due to the difficulty in being expressive as opposed to being energetic, as well as the dynamics. Expression in general, really. Whereas, Bach is higher musical quality because of the higher difficulty in being expressive.

Actually, for any of this to make any sense we need to define "musicality," what it means exactly. "Better" doesn't cut it, "more quality" doesn't cut it. For it to be a scientific fact or truth we need tangible objective and empirical evidence, which is sort of hard if we're fighting over semantics or the very definitions of the words used.

In other words, every time you use a wildcard like "musically better" "higher quality" you need to exactly define under what objective observable criteria that is. Not supply even more questionable statements to back it up. I've said it before, if you think that Bach's music is superior in ANY way to Britneys' you should provide facts instead of simply saying so. Facts speak real loud.

It's like if I said a car with no wheels was inferior to a car with wheels, and I defined my criteria to be the fact that the no-wheel car performs poorly in the role assigned to it (Transportation) so, because it can't perform its function properly, I deem it inferior. The evidence is rather obvious just by stating the criteria and evidence in favor of my argument.

However, in music we can't just do that because "objective" or "function" need to be defined. But we can derive function of out of observable data, right? Sure, except that in that case we'll have enough contradictions to make any one single function not the only one so therefore whatever we use is going to depend on the context.

It becomes something like if I said that I found the car with no wheels better as a statement against pollution (!?) than the car with wheels (that fulfills its function, as that to me now is irrelevant.) But at this point, y'see, I'm just changing my definition of "better" or "superior" by virtue of context.

This sort of thing is FINE, really, we do it all the time. Except, while the second statement is subjective, the first isn't. Oh sure, we can say it's my interpretation to say that the wheel-less car is inferior to the car with wheels when it comes to transportation (fulfilling its function) but who are we kidding? Under these defined conditions, "inferior" as a qualification isn't just taste, but it's simply not measuring up to a standard which IS objective.

The only real way to establish musix X being better than music Y is to go into the neurology/evolutionary musicology thing and prove that, objectively, a certain aesthetic is always preferred over all the others and for what reasons that is. Since we can't do that, and in fact we've found the opposite, it stands to reason that music is only perceived "better" at a social/cultural/etc level, which is all subjective and hangs from a lot of other factors which have NOTHING to do with the music itself. This distinction PROVES, the inability of music (sound waves) to, by itself, distinguish itself as "better" or "worse" in our perception WITHOUT the aid of many other things that trigger this effect.

It's cause and circumstance, basically. We know for a fact (I've shown this in the evolutionary musicology thread...) that music (sound) is to our brains rather all the same. We apply a layer of context, symbols, meanings and so on to it. THAT layer is manipulated by a number of factors. Therefore, it's silly to say sound had anything to do with it, but not so silly to say that your upbringing, experiences, culture, etc did. These factors change how the brain processes music (or indeed what it perceives as "music") at a higher level, so that any theory on aesthetic bias derived from biology can be dismissed based on the simple reasoning (+ evidence) that there's no biological bias, and instead it's an acquired bias.

The real kicker is that, while the sound waves and physical phenomena for Britney's and Bach's music may be different, they're just that. Different. Like the sound of rain is different than the sound of a helicopter, you really can't say one is "better" than the other on that level. No, it requires something more, and the more you add to it the less it has to do with what you're actually hearing, and more with who you are as a person, your experiences, culture, etc etc. This is the very definition of subjective, by the way.

All this really is is a failure to recognize how people handle the raw data and what has actual meaning (by itself) and what doesn't. Bach's music is just a bunch of noise without someone who can understand the cultural/etc symbols in it, establish a context, etc etc. It's a bunch of noise just as any other sound is simply a bunch of noise unless we start to apply meaning/context to it. Therefore, since Bach and Britney's music is simply, well, just noise after all unless we have all sorts of things to help make sense out of it and establish it as "music", is it really fair to say that one is "better" than the other intrinsically and objectively? Or is it better to simply say that, given all the above crap, you just happen to like one better than the other?

I'm for the second one, obviously. ;P

[...you people are fascinatingly naive, condescending and blind that it's very intriguing to watch!]

In psychology this is called projection...

I DON'T think the concept of quality is redundant...I just believe that quality is decided and determined by the listener. I don't like the idea that someone else decides what I should think is good. [i'm pretty sure I've said all this before...perhaps someone with a degree in musicology should work on his reading comprehension skills :hmmm:]

Somehow you fail to see the stupidity of your position which amounts to solipsism and nihilism. If quality is an entirely subjective matter, like you claim, then no piece of art has any quality of its own. That does imply there's no good and bad art, because uou merely equate quality with individual preferences - if I like it, it has quality for me; if you like it, it has quality for you; but it's impossible to make any general statements about its quality transcending individual preferences.

Anyone who agrees with those statements is a fool who needs to think a little more. I expect Shakespeare would write pretty scrafty 'espionage-thriller novels' and that Debby on flight 703 to Dallas would MUCH prefer a Koontz over blah blah blah....

Well then the majority of people are fools (another instance of projection?), because few would argue with those statements. Man, you still don't seem to get it, do you? You only focus on exceptions to prove me wrong. Of course there are always exceptions, there are always people who think differently. There may be people believing that McDonald's food is of a higher quality than what you get in the most expensive French 'haute cuisine' restaurant or that George W. Bush was a better president than Abraham Lincoln. What I keep trying to say is that given the quality criteria (and if you have a problem with the term 'objective', let's call them 'commonly accepted') in any given domain, some judgements can simply be viewed as more valid than others because they can be justified to a greater extent by those criteria.

Dude, seriously - you don't get where I am without having to analyze a fair bit of Bach. I've paid my dues, and know my scraggy. I also know that "operationalized" is not a word.

I don't know where or how you analyzed your Bach, but obviously, you've never attended any higher education. Otherwise you would have known that "operationalized" is a word (see this link: Operationalization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

Bach is rhymically inferior to Eminem.

Mozart is harmonically simpler than Gil Evans

Leonin and Perotin are melodically stagnant compared to Radiohead

Once again, you focus on exceptions. Of course there may always be exceptional cases in which certain pop artists score higher on a particular criterion than certain classical composers, but compare them on many different criteria and you'll find numerous criteria on which Bach scores way better than Eminem (contrapuntally far more complex,harmonically richer, melodically more inventive, etc.). So those examples are just plain silly.

Finally...

It IS all relative - my ears make my choices for me, same way yours do. I can just allow others to have the same freedom.

No no no. Quality is not merely a relative matter of individual preferences, neither does that mean that we let others decide for us what is quality. We collectively decide, as a culture, what is quality. Of course some people's opinions (those of experts, authorities, critics, etc.) may have a little more influence in deciding what's quality, but in general, within any culture and within any art form, quality standards transcending individual preferences always emerge naturally from our collective judgement of what is good.

This is a process that takes time; in the course of history our judgement may change a bit under the influence of trends and fashions (this is why so many composers now considered great were hardly popular in their days or the contrary, composers highly popular in their days who are virtually forgotten nowadays). But in the end, the art that keeps surviving despite changing tastes, trends and fashions does so because it is good, because there's something in this art that keeps us collectively judge it as good art.

Ok, this is my last post on this issue, because I'm getting bored with this discussion.

LOLTASTIC

Robin what would you say that I thought that Bach had more merit than Britney (though technically we're talking about Max Martin here, I believe) due the the infinite number of interpretations? Take the Cello Suites, for instance. Now put them next to Toxic, Crazy, and Oops I Did It Again. Do you not agree that one is clearly more musically advanced, though neither group really strays far harmonically or rhythmically?

I would agree that the Bach is more musically advanced. The key word is "I". [bear in mind, most of my posts are a little exterme: I'm really just playing devil's advocate, for comedy's sake with Gianluca]

Although, simply because I'm not an ignorant fool like Gianluca, I can see how some listeners might believe otherwise - that Britney (or her team of Swedish songwriters) are more musically advanced than Bach.

---------

...the level of musicality involved in the different interpretations? I would say Amos' cover of Smells Like Teen Spirit is of higher musical quality than most Britney Spears...Whereas, Bach is higher musical quality because of the higher difficulty in being expressive.

I think Corbin and SSC address the "interpretations" issue nicely. Musicality, difficulty being expressive... I dunno. I don't think it's easy to assess how difficult it is to be expressive within a certain style. It's a weird concept...I'm happy you brought it up...I need to think.

For now, some food for thought ... or for your ears. What happens when you do things like this? How can we evaluate it?

• Mozart, interpreted by Uri Caine et al: mozart (It should play automatically...listen for a little while, you'll recognize it. It's fantastic!)
  
• Balanescu String Quartet plays Kraftwerk: YouTube - Model - The Balanescu Quartet (HD Audio) (Amazing...now, do Kraftwerk instantly become BETTER composers because their music is now of a "higher" quality?)
  
• Brad Mehldau plays Radiohead's Paranoid Android YouTube - Brad Mehldau - Paranoid Android (Radiohead cover)
  
• Cornelius plays Bach:
  (What the hell is this?! Bach made a techno tune....Is it a far stretch to have Britney singing over something like this? Is Bach now a "bad" composer?! - I'm lookin' at you Gianluca!!)
  

----------------------

We'll see where this goes. ;)

Don't bother... I don't feel like continuing this discussion anymore, at least not for the time being.

(Unless maybe you raise some very intelligent points that make me want to revise my stance ;))

If quality is an entirely subjective matter, like you claim, then no piece of art has any quality of its own. That does imply there's no good and bad art...

It doesn't imply anything: Art absolutely has it's own inherent qualities. These qualities can simply be interpreted differently.

You only focus on exceptions to prove me wrong. ...There may be people believing that McDonald's food is of a higher quality than what you get in the most expensive French 'haute cuisine' restaurant or that George W. Bush was a better president than Abraham Lincoln. What I keep trying to say is that given the quality criteria (and if you have a problem with the term 'objective', let's call them 'commonly accepted') in any given domain, some judgements can simply be viewed as more valid than others because they can be justified to a greater extent by those criteria.

My examples are not exceptions...they are the "commonly accepted" norm.

How many records did Bach sell in 2007? How about Chris Daughtry? How many Dean Koontz books were purchased? How about copies of Hamlet? How many Big Mac's were consumed, vs Beluga steaks with white truffle sauce? I don't know exact figures, but I think I made my point.

The commonly accepted criteria, in our current muscial climate hold Britney higher than Bach. Just because most of those listeners aren't as educated as yourself doesn't make their opinion any less valid. A bachelor's degree in musicology doesn't make your opinion MORE valid than mine or anyone else. I know folks with PhD's and DMA's who believe the same things I do - are their opinions more valid than yours, cuz they's more lurned then U?

I don't know where or how you analyzed your Bach, but obviously, you've never attended any higher education. Otherwise you would have known that "operationalized" is a word (see this link: Operationalization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

I stand corrected, fair enough. Merriam-Webster's doesn't list it. My bad. And, yah...obviously I never attended any higher education. ;)

Thus, my opinions must be of lesser value...

Once again, you focus on exceptions. ...compare [for example, Bach and Eminem] on many different criteria and you'll find numerous criteria on which Bach scores way better than Eminem (contrapuntally far more complex,harmonically richer, melodically more inventive, etc.). So those examples are just plain silly.

Silly, yes. But certianly APT. Again, I expect a vast majority would prefer Eminem over Bach...by your "commonly accepted" theorem, that makes Eminem better, no?

-----------------

:w00t: WHEEEEEEEE!!!

Don't bother... I don't feel like continuing this discussion anymore, at least not for the time being.

Aw, C'mon!! You're no fun...

You only focus on exceptions to prove me wrong. ...There may be people believing that McDonald's food is of a higher quality than what you get in the most expensive French 'haute cuisine' restaurant or that George W. Bush was a better president than Abraham Lincoln. What I keep trying to say is that given the quality criteria (and if you have a problem with the term 'objective', let's call them 'commonly accepted') in any given domain, some judgements can simply be viewed as more valid than others because they can be justified to a greater extent by those criteria.

Grow up, sir.

I FINALLY FOUND THE CORE OF MUSIC!!

YouTube - Crisis Core FFVII Music - The Enemy of the World is Created

It took me 200.5 licks.

I've had recent conversations like this with someone on a message board on one of my online classes.

It was ridiculous.

I finally got him to boil down his beliefs... and basically classical music and the need for notation relies in the beauty that god put into classical music.

Like, gag me with a spoon.

He thought it was funny that I separate God from spirituality.

I should have said... same thing to you... where's Vishnu go?

People like those are a bit too ridiculous to make me laugh. I just feel like tearing off my eyeballs.

Grow up, sir.

Judging the (lack of) content of your post, you're the one that needs to grow up. I have already grown up.

Aw, C'mon!! You're no fun...

Alright then - one very last post on this issue, because you think it's so much fun... But this time I do mean last.

It doesn't imply anything: Art absolutely has it's own inherent qualities. These qualities can simply be interpreted differently.

These inherent qualities determine what over the course of many years we (collectively) come to perceive as good and bad quality. In other words, these inherent qualities are at the basis of what we come to commonly accept as quality criteria within a particular art form.

How many records did Bach sell in 2007? How about Chris Daughtry? How many Dean Koontz books were purchased? How about copies of Hamlet? How many Big Mac's were consumed, vs Beluga steaks with white truffle sauce? I don't know exact figures, but I think I made my point.

My goodness, now you're equating "commonly accepted quality criteria" with selling rates and popularity among the masses. Anyone with some capacity for critical thinking will understand that what is popular or what sells well is not necessarily high quality. Popularity among the masses and selling rates are highly dependent on fast changing trends, fashions and markets. Like I pointed out, some artists (composers) highly popular in their days have now been completely forgotten (in fact, Meyerbeer was a much more popular opera composer than Wagner in their days). High artistic quality survives, independently of fashions, trends and periods. That's why we still admire the work of people like Michelangelo, Shakespeare, Rembrandt, Bach, Beethoven, Dostoevsky, Picasso, etc.

So, it is history that ultimately decides what is quality and I am convinced that history makes the right decisions. Bach's music has survived for 250 years now. Let's wait another 250 years and see how well history treats Britney and most pop musicians of today - my guess is that in 250 years they will mostly be forgotten whereas Bach's music will still be played a lot.

The commonly accepted criteria, in our current muscial climate hold Britney higher than Bach.

Do you honestly believe this nonsense? I'm sorry to tell you, but in our western culture critical consensus is still such that Shakespeare's writing is regarded as better quality than Koontz's (even though Koontz may be more widely read in the US at this particular moment) and Bach is regarded as a greater musical genius than Britney Spears (even though she may sell more records at this particular moment). If you really believe this is not true, you're either childishly naive or painfully ignorant or both.

Like I said, this is really my final post on this issue. I have no interest in further arguing against such a completely vacuous and nihilistic position as yours. Besides, you simply keep evading all points I bring up by bullshitting your way around them. I don't wish to waste my time on that any longer. Reply if you wish, but I'm not going to make any further comments on this.

Like I said, this is really my final post on this issue.

Again?

Do you honestly believe this nonsense? I'm sorry to tell you, but in our western culture critical consensus is still such that Shakespeare's writing is regarded as better quality than Koontz's (even though Koontz may be more widely read in the US at this particular moment) and Bach is regarded as a greater musical genius than Britney Spears (even though she may sell more records at this particular moment). If you really believe this is not true, you're either childishly naive or painfully ignorant or both.

Since you won't stop posting, I'd like to remind you that consensus and objective fact are two very, very, VERY different things. Plus, let's get some sources on it while you're in the mood for bullshitting, yes?

Your argument is as solid as saying man didn't go to the moon since there's a consensus saying that they didn't. No sources, nothing.

The most hilarious part is how you manage to ignore everything I post (too hard to argue with reality??) But well, hopefully this IS the last post and this thread will die.

Emotion is only one of the two basic components that constitute the "core" of music. Let's not overlook the other component: ratio or intellect. The greatest music does not just appeal to the emotions, but also to the intellect (which is why pop music for instance doesn't belong in the category "greatest music" - it doesn't appeal to our intellect).

To get on topic:

What about rap music that is politically or socially motivated? What about the fact that rap music arose out of a need for a new, amalgamated form of social and political criticism? Simply because it is non-melodic does not mean that it does not appeal to the intellect, so where does it fall?

Let's drag your example even further, how about considering recited poetry music?

Well, why not?