At the risk of reducing the complexity and passion of the arguments about better music, as I see it, to argue that one kind of music is better than another is to put arbitrary distinctions on what is 'better'.
Arguing otherwise, while certainly possible and something that continues to be done, stands in flagrant disregard of the Avant Garde movement in the early-mid 20th century. People experimenting with electronic feedback for 20 minutes, or Phillip Glass's infamous 4:22 (essentially 4:22 of a guy sitting at a piano not playing), or Stravinsky's Firebird Suite's atonal parts were utterly progressive. Stravinsky's Firebird Suite's bit of atonalism even sparked an angry riot at its orchestral debut! Personally, do I enjoy listening to 20 minutes of painfully loud feedback until it starts to sound different? NO! lol. Avant Garde goes to show that this is an entirely moot point - to some extent almost nobody 'likes' it, and it says something that many classical composers dabbled and expanded upon it as a rebellion against a strict interpretation of music. You may argue that good music has to have basic things like notes, melody, movements, whatever restrictions, but at some point you'll have to come to terms with the fact that those are arbitrary distinctions, even if they are traditional for a genre. There is no way to 'prove' a Bach symphony is better than the sound of me typing this and occasionally coughing and marketing it as new wave avant garde music. You may agree, but that's an opinion ( and I particularly like the 6th movement, where I sip a drink of coke). Music is an area where opinions have a tendency to be stated as factual. The preceding knowledge was also given to me by a college music professor, who's knowledge of classical music and choral arrangements probably equals JrKASperov's professors - but he takes a relativist rather than an absolutist position. Arguing over aesthetics is an uphill battle that's invalid from the start IMO.
More specifically, JrKASperov's use of musical quantity and musical quality is off, as I see it. I can see, from an opinion perspective, how effort to design music with symphonic overtones, orchestrated movements and overall meaning make for some interesting music, but these are stated as matters of quantity in the post. I think these are better described as qualities of music, and qualities cannot be assigned quantities, right (which would support a relativistic perspective)? The complexity, atmosphere, and meaning of the 'wall of sound' in a death metal band cannot be considered superior or inferior to the complexity, atmosphere, and meaning in a prog rock song or classical piece, and both can definately be complex. Quantities of music are length, number of instruments, number of notes per measure, or beats per minute, time put into the song...and as I see it, arguing that having more of any of these things makes for better music would be quite challenging. [img]smile.gif[/img] That would seem to require a strict maximalist (more=better) perspective, and I'm not about to argue that the London Symphony Orchestra's goodness lies in its number of violinists hehe.
Finally, JrKASperov did start a bit of musical debate about more than what acts people like, thereby rectifying his initial complaint that only 'light' music is being discussed. Perhaps he was being a clever devil with a post just to stir everything up.
So, that's my way of saying 'ditto' to Groj's statement that
Quote:
|
progrock snob, who will hopefully get some sense in him when he gets older with respect to other people's tastes. You're making the wrong assumption that listening to "difficult" music automatically gives you a carte blanche to trash any other genres
|
[img]smile.gif[/img]
[ 05-06-2005, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: Lucern ]