What is "quality music"?

[Josquin des Prez]

Seriously though, JdP: how ever were you convinced that you possess some supreme and objective ability to discern genius and greatness, and that those of varying opinion are simply *wrong*?

About the same time that society collectively decided that there is no objective criteria for art . I don't think i posses any special ability to understand genius (i'm but a speck of dust compared to giants like Weininger, or Schopenhauer and Kant before him), i just got bumped on top for lack of competition.

[karlhenning]

JdP is convinced there is only one correct road and that he owns it - that's a mix of immaturity and arrogance.

A mixture without even the potential mitigation of amusement.

[Bulldog]

Can someone give me arguments why Beethoven, Mozart and Haydn (and other "classical" composers) made greater music than Bob Dylan, Beatles and The Cure?
Some friends of mine who are not into classical music at all, are claiming these artists made some of the greatest music ever, and that classical composer's are boring to them, and therefor their music is of lesser quality.
I need arguments why Beethoven and other great composer's music are of higher quality. I know I LIKE classical music much more than popular music, but I am not able to give qualified arguments why the classical composer's best compositions are superior in quality. 
Can someone help me?

Don't bother arguing with your friends; it's a waste of time.  And if they don't respect your musical preferences, you might want to reconsider whether they really are your friends.

[Josquin des Prez]

I think it's a poor idea, in mixed company, to compare classical music to other types (they serve different purposes). 

Much like the Simpsons serve a different purpose then a film by Tarkovsky, and i usually find myself enjoying the first over the (very difficoult) work of the latter. Yet, i would never dream to argue that the creativity of a Groening is on the same footing as the genius of a Tarkovsky. This, to me, is an elementary concept.

[aquablob]

About the same time that society collectively decided that there is no objective criteria for art.

But there is no universal objective criteria for art! Art is a human phenomenon, and the very definition thereof is wholly dependent on culture (and sub-culture!). Various societies cannot even agree on what music is, or what art is, let alone on what music or art is great! Some languages don't even have an equivalent concept of "music" as separable from what we'd call "dance." Others differentiate prayer-singing from instrumental music-making to such an extent that no term exists that encompasses both.

Now, a group of people (or an individual, in your case) may certainly formulate conceptions of music/art and the criteria by which greatness/genius is determined, and then proceed to judge particular specimens according to how well they meet said criteria. The objectivity here, though, depends not on some universal concepts of art/music/greatness/genius inherent in the fabric of existence, but rather on expectations, definitions, and criteria agreed upon by certain humanoids.

[Josquin des Prez]

But there is no universal objective criteria for art!

Yes there is. It's called genius.

Art is a human phenomenon, and the very definition thereof is wholly dependent on culture (and sub-culture!).

You don't think there is an universal element that defines what it is to be human which transcends time and space? Do you think it is the Baroque that defines Bach? Or the Romantic that defines Chopin? And i'm the one being accused of knowing nothing.

[aquablob]

Yes there is. It's called genius.

Again, there is no universally accepted criteria for what constitutes genius; nor is there even a universal concept of "genius." Your assertions regarding true art and genius sound a lot like religious faith — which is fine, and you can believe what you want to believe, but A.) don't expect others to ignore the factual evidence that plainly shows how culturally relative such concepts are, and B.) belittling those who do not share your faith-based positions (that being their true nature) is in poor taste, whether the topic is religion, art, or genius.

You don't think there is an universal element that defines what it is to be human which transcends time and space?

Can't say that I do. And even if I did, I don't see how this would be relevant, unless I were also to accept your dated and not-at-all commonly accepted definition of "genius" as the capability to tap into that "universal element that defines what it is to be human which transcends space and time," let alone that such a feat were possible.

Do you think it is the Baroque that defines Bach? Or the Romantic that defines Chopin?

No, the Baroque does not "define" Bach, and the Romantic does not "define" Chopin. But one's cultural surroundings obviously significantly shape one's concepts and styles. Bach's music would be quite different had he lived in a different time and place (and had had an inclination to pursue music at all!). This you do not deny. You do claim, however, that his genius must necessarily transcend his surroundings, but on what evidence can you verify that he'd have found equal success writing music in, say, 10th-century China?

Acknowledging cultural context as a determinant does not preclude recognition of the individuals' substantial role in creativity, by the way.

And i'm the one being accused of knowing nothing.

That isn't true. You're the one claiming to possess some objective and universal truth on no evidential basis. You are not being accused of knowing nothing; you are being called out on not knowing everything.

[karlhenning]

Again, there is no universally accepted criteria for what constitutes genius; nor is there even a universal concept of "genius." Your assertions regarding true art and genius sound a lot like religious faith — which is fine, and you can believe what you want to believe, but A.) don't expect others to ignore the factual evidence that plainly shows how culturally relative such concepts are, and B.) belittling those who do not share your faith-based positions (that being their true nature) is in poor taste, whether the topic is religion, art, or genius.

Yes, and I retract my earlier remark;  when he does these knee-jerk "Yes-there-is-It's-called-genius" posts, as if no one else in the forum has had anything to say on the matter, his boilerplate really does attain to the state of humor.

[jwinter]

You are not making any sense, btw.

Apparently not, as you didn't understand a word I said. 

[DavidRoss]

Your assertions regarding true art and genius sound a lot like religious faith ....

Nah--faith is based on evidence and reason.  None of us knows that the sun will "rise" tomorrow morning, but based on our past experience and confidence in the rationality of our explanations regarding that experience, we rely on our certainty that the solar system will function tomorrow much as it has in the past.  That is faith.

Neither evidence nor reason underlie this JdP's assertions--indeed, both evidence and reason belie their credibility.  He may be delusional enough to believe them, but belief is not faith.  Otherwise, as usual, I agree substantially with your remarks.  

One thing I confess to respecting about JdP, as he's calling himself these days: when he pops in to tell us all how dazzlingly insightful he is and how dull we are, at least he stands in there and takes the response like a man, instead of whining about being mistreated like most of the other nutcase provocateurs who pop in from time to time.  (They may not know who they are, but everyone else does!   )

[Josquin des Prez]

Neither evidence nor reason underlie this JdP's assertions

So in essence, you don't believe there is such a thing as genius. No wonder then you find no qualms in comparing Elvis Costello to Beethoven. Glad you stood clear on this point.

[Bulldog]

Question to JdP:

Is God a genius?

[karlhenning]

So in essence, you don't believe there is such a thing as genius.

You seem to be having trouble understanding jwinter and DavidRoss, let alone understanding the nature of genius.

[Josquin des Prez]

Again, there is no universally accepted criteria for what constitutes genius; nor is there even a universal concept of "genius."

Do you think genius exists?

Your assertions regarding true art and genius sound a lot like religious faith

Do you consider morality to be a matter of religious faith as well? Is there a criteria for right and wrong?

don't expect others to ignore the factual evidence that plainly shows how culturally relative such concepts are.

What evidence?

Can't say that I do. And even if I did, I don't see how this would be relevant, unless I were also to accept your dated and not-at-all commonly accepted definition of "genius" as the capability to tap into that "universal element that defines what it is to be human which transcends space and time," let alone that such a feat were possible.

You don't think the human element is relevant to the assessment of genius? What else is there?

No, the Baroque does not "define" Bach, and the Romantic does not "define" Chopin. But one's cultural surroundings obviously significantly shape one's concepts and styles. Bach's music would be quite different had he lived in a different time and place (and had had an inclination to pursue music at all!). This you do not deny

No, i do not deny it, i just find it irrelevant. Let's say we accept the fact that both Bach and Chopin were geniuses. What is the common element that ties those two composers? Obviously, it has nothing to do with the influence exerted upon them by their respective surroundings, since they both lived in very different eras, right? If you placed Chopin in the Baroque, and Bach in the Romantic, do you think either of them would have been any less of a genius?

Acknowledging cultural context as a determinant does not preclude recognition of the individuals' substantial role in creativity, by the way.

Irrelevant. Culture has no role in determining individual genius whatsoever. What it can do is enable the individual, but that's quite a different thing.

That isn't true. You're the one claiming to possess some objective and universal truth on no evidential basis. You are not being accused of knowing nothing; you are being called out on not knowing everything.

I don't see why all this is important. I don't care whether you believe i'm right or not. If i am personally convinced that what i say is true, how can i possibly act in any other way but in accordance to what i believe is the truth? 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?

[The Six]

Much like the Simpsons serve a different purpose then a film by Tarkovsky, and i usually find myself enjoying the first over the (very difficoult) work of the latter. Yet, i would never dream to argue that the creativity of a Groening is on the same footing as the genius of a Tarkovsky. This, to me, is an elementary concept.

Genius and comedy are mutually exclusive?

[Ten thumbs]

I don't believe 'quality music' can be attributed exclusively to genius and classical masterpieces. Other music has stood the test of time because it is 'quality music' and traditionally the writers of this music are unknown. I am of course speaking of folk music. By that I mean real folk music not the modern guitar strumming. In this field the only musical element of importance is the tune and to some extent some modern popular songs may share this quality if they exist outside the recordings in the voices of the people.

[aquablob]

Do you think genius exists?

Depends on how you define it.

Do you consider morality to be a matter of religious faith as well? Is there a criteria for right and wrong?

To the first, no. I consider it—in its most basic conceptual sense—a virtually universal aspect of humanity, the variations of which are largely (but not solely) culturally determined. To the second, my answer relates to my answer to the first, namely that some of the criteria are culturally determined, while others seem to be more fundamental to the human condition/experience more generally*. For example: all cultures (that I know of) have at the very least an unwritten code about "not killing each other"; but different cultures have widely varying conceptions of the moral ground on which, say, a polygamist stands.

*Note: such cultural "universals" in no way imply transcendence of space-time / the material fabric of reality.

What evidence?

There is a plethora of evidence that conceptions of what constitutes art and music (and therefore also what constitutes "great" art or an artistic "genius") vary between cultures. Do I really need to cite specific studies?  Relevant fieldwork is nothing new.

You don't think the human element is relevant to the assessment of genius? What else is there?

I don't know what you mean by "the human element." If you mean the condition of being human, then I do think it is relevant to the assessment of genius, regardless (perhaps) of one's definition of the latter. If you mean some transcendental plane beyond space and time that holds all the truths of humanity, then I don't.

If you placed Chopin in the Baroque, and Bach in the Romantic, do you think either of them would have been any less of a genius?

I think this comes down to how "genius" is defined; some would base their definition on results. What if Bach had not been raised by a musical family? What if he had never composed music? Isn't the very fact that he did compose music largely a result of his surroundings? And how can you be sure that Chopin would have succeeded as a composer in 18th-century Germany, or that Bach would have excelled in 19th-century Paris?

Let's say we accept the fact that both Bach and Chopin were geniuses. What is the common element that ties those two composers?

What are you searching for? Why must there be some cosmic, transcendental connection between two people who wrote music that you happen to enjoy?

Irrelevant. Culture has no role in determining individual genius whatsoever. What it can do is enable the individual, but that's quite a different thing.

Of course the individual plays a huge role in creative endeavors, but why must surroundings play "no role . . . whatsoever?" How can you so cleanly divorce "enabling" from "determining?" I'm trying not to get hung up here on your insistence on a quite mystical definition of "genius," but I think it's really the central issue.

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?

I don't care whether you believe i'm right or not.

If i am personally convinced that what i say is true, how can i possibly act in any other way but in accordance to what i believe is the truth?

Despite our disagreements, I do enjoy reading your posts!

(I think I'm done here, though.)

[Florestan]

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?

[karlhenning]

Let's say we accept the fact that both Bach and Chopin were geniuses. What is the common element that ties those two composers?

Quite a few common elements.  Your blinders must certainly seem to you like The Inevitability of Truth.

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?

To quote yourself: Irrelevant.

[Bulldog]

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?

How many murders have you actually seen?  And instead of condemning murders you see, why don't you make a citizen arrest and be a hero.