What is "quality music"?

[Franco]

If i believe that the murder of innocents is immoral, should i not condemn murder every time i see it, or should i stop and consider the murderer's point of view?

What about the murder of non-innocents?

Is that less immoral?

Re "quality music" (weird term) - I am one of those who value both so-called "high art" and "low art".  When I am feeling "x" one of those kinds of music just won't do, and the other is called for.  If some of your friends don't get classical music, leave them alone.  Either one day they will try it out to see what all the fuss is about, or not.  It really does not matter.

[Bulldog]

What about the murder of non-innocents?

Is that less immoral?

Certainly.

[Dr. Dread]

Certainly.

Two wrongs don't make it right, mister.

[Superhorn]

  The problem is that we are dealing with subjective tastes. As the ancient Romans used to say"De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum". Different people have different preferences in music, as in literature,art, food, drama, television, sports etc. You cannot avoid this fact. I happen to prefer classical music to Rock, but a Rock fan prefers Rock to classical. But neither Rock nor classical invalidate each other.
  Snobbism exists on both sides; some classical music lovers turn up their noses at Rock music and consider Rock fans to be ignorant, uncultured fools. Not all. But some Rock fans sneer at classical music,calling it stuffy,boring and elitist, and something hopelessly outdated and irrelevent, and contemptuously dismissing lovers of classical music as snobs who attend concerts and opera just to appear cultured and to show off their fancy furs and jewels.
Who is right? Neither.
  But I am no snob. I listen to classical music because I genuinely love it and would not want to live without it. As far as I am concerned, Rock fans have every right to be fans of that kind of music.It's not my cup of tea, but if that's the kind of music they love, that's fine with me.
Of course classical music is a magnificent thing, one of the most sublime creations of mankind.
   But we should not be intolerant of other people's tastes in music. To speak about classical music as being the"highest" kind of music and sounding snobbish just gives lovers of other kinds of music ammunition with which to disaparage classical music, and misleads many people who know little or nothing about it into thinking that they should not even try it.

[Ten thumbs]

  The problem is that we are dealing with subjective tastes. As the ancient Romans used to say"De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum". Different people have different preferences in music, as in literature,art, food, drama, television, sports etc. You cannot avoid this fact. I happen to prefer classical music to Rock, but a Rock fan prefers Rock to classical. But neither Rock nor classical invalidate each other.
  Snobbism exists on both sides; some classical music lovers turn up their noses at Rock music and consider Rock fans to be ignorant, uncultured fools. Not all. But some Rock fans sneer at classical music,calling it stuffy,boring and elitist, and something hopelessly outdated and irrelevent, and contemptuously dismissing lovers of classical music as snobs who attend concerts and opera just to appear cultured and to show off their fancy furs and jewels.
Who is right? Neither.
  But I am no snob. I listen to classical music because I genuinely love it and would not want to live without it. As far as I am concerned, Rock fans have every right to be fans of that kind of music.It's not my cup of tea, but if that's the kind of music they love, that's fine with me.
Of course classical music is a magnificent thing, one of the most sublime creations of mankind.
   But we should not be intolerant of other people's tastes in music. To speak about classical music as being the"highest" kind of music and sounding snobbish just gives lovers of other kinds of music ammunition with which to disaparage classical music, and misleads many people who know little or nothing about it into thinking that they should not even try it.

This is well put. To a child, nursery rhymes are set to quality music. There is no reason for genius to be involved. We have enough adjectives already to describe the finest in the classical repertoire without trying to create another synonym for great. Last week I went to see 'Les Miserables' and I found the music suberbly suited to the presentation of the story.

[DavidRoss]

When it comes to the Beatles or Dylan or David Byrne or Elvis Costello or Leonard Cohen or Joni Mitchell or Carole King or Hoagy Carmichael or Cole Porter or any of a great number of songwriters working in a contemporary pop vein, I do not see substantial differences in quality or even kind between them and revered classical songwriters like Schubert and Schumann, for instance.  One could reasonably argue that the two Schus were the Jim Morrison and Kurt Cobains of their day.

That's an interesting claim, David.. Could you please elaborate?

No pop music industry existed in mid-19th Century Europe.  Writing songs for home and salon performance and selling sheet music was about as close as it got.  All were Romantics.  All epitomize the romantic ideal of the young artist whose life is cut tragically short.   All are worshiped by fans long after their deaths.  You could probably bundle wayward sex into the comparison if you like, and the musical wives of the latter in each pair.  There's plenty of material to draw on if you're so inclined.  I'm not really interested but it might make a good subject for an undergraduate paper to illustrate the author's understanding of Romanticism and the role values play in the lives of both individuals and societies.

As far as their music goes:  I grew up with The Doors (never saw them--the one time I had tickets for them the concert was canceled because Morrison had been arrested for indecent exposure the night before), struggle to see the greatness of Schubert and Schumann (aside from their historical context) and listen to their music out of a sense of obligation rather than compelling interest, and think Nirvana's Nevermind is one of the better rock albums of the '90s...one of the few I enjoy, in fact.  Maybe I'll put it on right now!

[Franco]

I generally agree with the comment above (DavidRoss), but I will admit one huge difference:  We don't know if people will still be listening to The Doors or Nirvana in 150 years, as they still do with Schubert and Schumann - I tend to doubt it.  I think one of the constitutive aspects of Pop/Rock music is its disposablilty, it is rather quickly replaced with The Next Big Thing (altho in the case of the soundtrack of the Boomer generation (mine) it seems to have hung on for decades). 

Pop/Rock's greatest strength is its capturing, representing and summing up a year, or a summer, or even a month, but that is also its greatest weakness.

[DavidRoss]

I donno if Smells Like Teen Spirit will still get airplay in 2150.  (Heck, the way things are going I'm doubtful about civilization's chance of lasting that long!)  I suspect it has a much better chance than most pop music, which strikes me as flaccid dreck at best.  I do know that Autumn Leaves, They Can't Take That Away from Me, and What a Wonderful World still get play. 

BTW, I made no argument, only said that one could be made and,when asked to elaborate, offered some observations that might be used to construct such an argument if one wished.

[karlhenning]

. . .  I grew up with The Doors (never saw them--the one time I had tickets for them the concert was canceled because Morrison had been arrested for indecent exposure the night before) . . . .

If that scandal was lemons, Zappa made lemonade, in the form of the Mothers of Invention Anti-Smut Loyalty Oath, included on volume VI of You Can't Do That On Stage Anymore:

I, [state your name], do hereby solemnly swear, in accordance with the regulations of the contract with this here rock 'n' roll engagement, and the Imbecilic Laws of the State of Florida, and the respective regulations perpetrated by Red-Necks Everywhere! Do Hereby Solemnly Swear!, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES, TO REVEAL MY TUBE, WAD, DINGUS, WEE-WEE, AND OR PENIS ANYPLACE ON THIS STAGE!! This does not include Private Showings in the motel room, however (which is the Ramada Inn).

[DavidRoss]

I'm sure there will be groupies still hinged to this stuff [music by The Doors and Nirvana] (sadly), and never grow, hear, mature and develop a wider, deeper appreciation & understanding of the art beyond that, as there are those still hinged to The Doors, Dylan or The Beatles but that doesn't mean anything really. Nor does it matter. If these listeners did grow (explore, add to their palette etc.), they'd hear that pop stuff in a different light over time, and perhaps wouldn't take it so seriously, or even tolerate much of it with their ears (i.e christ, this sounds horrible to me 'now'). Generally, pop consumers hardly know what music is and have a narrow understanding & perspective of it. Most of these folks merely listen to what they are told what is hip & good dictated by the various media (incl. "controlled airplay"), business marketing, governing corp. control (who aren't exactly knowledgable either - as these entities are mainly concerned with wide appeal and making the most money). It's popularity contest, and mere ephemeria, musicially nothing to be taken too seriously.

To some extent I agree with you (there's a first time for everything!  ), at least insofar as your statements apply to the great mass of pop music that doesn't even aspire to anything more than brief success as a disposable commodity.  Heck, ever since MTV, even the music itself is just an accessory to marketing focused more on exploiting adolescent insecurity and hormones than on musical merit.  Jiggle sells.  Attitude sells.  Well-crafted songs?  Not necessarily.

Yet well-crafted songs and interesting music with artistic merit continue to be written by talented musicians drawn to pop forms and rhythms (and commercial success?), and the best of this seems just as likely to live on as the best work in a more traditional "classical" vein.  Remember, most "classical" music is pretty disposable, too.  For every Beethoven there are dozens of Dittersdorfs.  Just as for every Gettysburg Address there are a thousand canned stump speeches.

Don't listen to rock at all, or jazz, if you don't like it.  I'm sure not going to get on your case because it doesn't float your boat.  But when you dismiss all popular forms of music as crap, your self-righteous elitism is on full display, and your views are more likely to be dismissed without fair consideration than the music you despise. 

Now I will pop Nirvana's Nevermind into the CD spinner!

Cheers!

[Josquin des Prez]

To some extent I agree with you (there's a first time for everything!  ), at least insofar as your statements apply to the great mass of pop music that doesn't even aspire to anything more than brief success as a disposable commodity.

You do realize that Kurt Cobain fits this category, right? Even when i listened to popular music exclusively (back in my teenage years), his work was considered "low brow", something for people with little discerning talent for music.

[Dr. Dread]

You do realize that Kurt Cobain fits this category, right? Even when i listened to popular music exclusively (back in my teenage years), his work was considered "low brow".

And what wasn't considered so?

[nut-job]

I'm sure there will be groupies still hinged to this stuff (sadly), and never grow, hear, mature and develop a wider, deeper appreciation & understanding of the art beyond that, as there are those still hinged to Dylan or The Beatles but that doesn't mean anything really. Nor does it matter. If these listeners did grow (explore, add to their palette etc.), they'd hear that pop stuff in a different light over time, and perhaps wouldn't take it so seriously, or even tolerate much of it with their ears (i.e christ, this sounds horrible to me 'now'). Generally, pop consumers hardly know what music is and have a narrow understanding & perspective of it. Most of these folks merely listen to what they are told what is hip & good dictated by the various media (incl. "controlled airplay"), business marketing, governing corp. control (who aren't exactly knowledgable either - as these entities are mainly concerned with wide appeal and making the most money). It's popularity contest, and mere ephemeria, musicially nothing to be taken too seriously.

If you don't distinguish between Dylan or the Beatles and run of the mill pop music then you are just as willfully ignorant as those who blithely dismiss classical music as stuffy, pretentious and boring.  The fact that you would refer "sadly" to people who appreciate such music seems to indicate that you are the sort of pompous, self-righteous, sanctimonious wind-bag that gives classical music a bad name.   

 

[greg]

Quality is, like, dude, I can just hear it, man. No one else can tell me what quality is or isn't. From my listening experience, I can just tell what the highest expression of mankind is. It's not something I can put into words or analyze it mathematically, but man, it's like, so theeeeeereeeeeeeeeee. So real. You can just touch it, like, touch it on the wall or something. I think it must be from all the listening experience I have alone in my underground torture chamber and the analysis of the dead bodies lying around- when I listen to Beethoven op.131, you can just see the soul of man popping out from the inside of the slashed chest, ascending into the void and conquering the world with its grandiose ideologies, and man, that's what quality is. It's like, uhhhh......

[Josquin des Prez]

See James? It wasn't too hard to step to the dark side. Now all you need is a copy of Mein Kampf and you'll be set to go. 

[Dr. Dread]

See James? It wasn't too hard to step to the dark side. Now all you need is a copy of Mein Kampf and you'll be set to go. 

You miss my question up there a ways?

[DavidRoss]

You do realize that Kurt Cobain fits this category, right? Even when i listened to popular music exclusively (back in my teenage years), his work was considered "low brow", something for people with little discerning talent for music.

I don't doubt it.  Even today, with the benefit of 15 years of hindsight, it appears that people with little discerning talent for music still consider his work "low brow" and lack the capacity to distinguish between Cobain's art and Katy Perry's.  (Now there's a bright student of Madonna.)

[Josquin des Prez]

And what wasn't considered so?

Zappa, King Crimson... even stuff like Pink Floyd was considered superior.

[Dr. Dread]

Zappa, King Crimson... even stuff like Pink Floyd was considered superior.

Oh, prog rock. Makes sense.

[karlhenning]

. . . because cause the idea of a gutter quite probably originated from an elite.

My theory is that the idea of a gutter originated from run-off management.

. . . how much do you expect to get from a perfect pop song? A short blast of joy ... adrenalin ... nostalgia - YES FOR SURE ... but spiritual sustenance ... ? solace? ... the breadth & depth of art great music? ... even some meat for existential & philosophical rumination?  .... Hmmm not sure about all that.

Well, your not being sure about all that is becomingly cautious, and as an honest statement of your viewpoint, is not to be argued with.

I'll hazard a few points:

1.  I probably find spiritual sustenance, solace, breadth & depth in some pop music.

2.  "The perfect pop song" is a little shadowy, and I think you set it against unfair implicit comparisons.  However, "the perfect pop song" probably holds its own against any number of classical Lieder.  Maybe "Life During Wartime" doesn't match the Berlioz Grande Messe des morts; but maybe "Firth of Fifth" is reasonable competition for "Erlkönig."

3.  In general, I agree that there is a greater degree of worthwhile literature produced out of the classical tradition, and a comparatively smaller percentage of worthwhile writing coming out of Planet Pop.  But I think that this is a result of a different genius:mediocrity ratio in the talent pool of the respective traditions, and not that this indicates any absolute barrier of artistic worth along a stylistic (or 'functional') fault-line.