Hey, ich mag dieses lied! Es ist gegen den krieg. :coolsmirk:
Hauptmann Jack
I think the underlying problem is we’re asking the wrong question. It’s not What makes a song great? It’s What makes a song great to this particular audience? It’s like asking the question, What makes a vehicle great? Well if you’re talking about getting across a lake, a Ferrari sucks, and a dingy is great. Same with music…if you’re talking about what’s great for a group of dancers at a bar, Beethoven’s Fifth sucks, but the Stones are great. (That tells you how longs its been since I’ve been in a bar dancing). You get my point. Context is everything, and without context the question is truly meaningless, though like god talk, it sure seems to make sense.
I think the underlying problem is we're asking the wrong question. It's not What makes a song great? It's What makes a song great to this particular audience? It's like asking the question, What makes a vehicle great? Well if you're talking about getting across a lake, a Ferrari sucks, and a dingy is great. Same with music...if you're talking about what's great for a group of dancers at a bar, Beethoven's Fifth sucks, but the Stones are great. (That tells you how longs its been since I've been in a bar dancing). You get my point. Context is everything, and without context the question is truly meaningless, though like god talk, it sure seems to make sense.In short, "greatness" is completely subjective, whether it's about music, cars or god. Lois
I think the underlying problem is we're asking the wrong question. It's not What makes a song great? It's What makes a song great to this particular audience? It's like asking the question, What makes a vehicle great? Well if you're talking about getting across a lake, a Ferrari sucks, and a dingy is great. Same with music...if you're talking about what's great for a group of dancers at a bar, Beethoven's Fifth sucks, but the Stones are great. (That tells you how longs its been since I've been in a bar dancing). You get my point. Context is everything, and without context the question is truly meaningless, though like god talk, it sure seems to make sense.In short, "greatness" is completely subjective, whether it's about music, cars or god. Lois I don't disagree with that statement in itself. But a great artist has the ability to connect to his/her audience on a fundamental level, IOW. to direct the subjective experience of the listener. This is achieved by mastery of technique, knowledge of the human emotions and the use of words, phrases, rhythm and composition. Good Art of any kind requires great skilll and insight of the human condition. Most popular music and songs today is achived by shock and awe, intolerable decibels of noise, screaming, and platitudes. That is not art, it is entertainment. An example of jazz art may be found in these renderings and improvisation on beautiful melody (theme). Michel Petrucciani was a master in the use of "tension and release" making the hair in your neck stand up. Listen to Petrucciani playing "Cantabile", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVzLmg0wquc and "Estate" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPuiDrXp2XA will bring tears to your your eyes. My definition of Art (in the best sense) is "the creation of that which evokes an emotional response leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" If you have not already listened to Leonard Bernstein's lecture (linked previously) how music is related to language, do take the time. I found it really enlightening.
It's still based on opinion. LoisJust because something is opinion-based does not mean that it is meaningless. Consider behavioral economics: it's all about how people make irrational economic decisions - you could describe it as a study of opinions in a particular field. But we can still draw out a lot of useful information there, like how confirmation bias affects shopping choices, for example. In music, we can look at which songs people like and which people don't like, and relative strengths of "liking", and this doesn't happen completely at random. People do show reliable patterns when selecting music they like and don't like. One person's opinion with what music they like and don't like can be considered subjective, but when looking at populations, the data speaks.
My wife and I like to listen to the XM station "Alt Nation" which plays rock music but usually more obscure artists. My wife carpools with a friend who complains about the music on the car ride and tells co-workers that my wife listens to "weird"'music. But sometimes the songs on Alt Nation become mainstream hits after weeks or months of regular play. Then my wife's friend suddenly likes that song and tells others that she had been listening to that for a while. My point being that sometimes a person's taste in music is just what others think is good which is also known as not really having any taste in music at all, in my opinion. Maybe this is a common problem which could explain why pop music is so, well, popular. The only reason people like it is because it's popular which begs the question on how it became popular in the first place.Music that becomes popular must have a certain something going for it that appeals to a large number of people, otherwise ALL music would elicit the same reaction. There is no other way to judge music but how people react to it and they react for many different reasons. There is no absolutely good or great music that pleases even a majority of people who listen to it. It is completely subjective. Some people may like a piece of music beause other people like it, but more likely because it's played more often and becomes familiar. Lois
It's still based on opinion. LoisJust because something is opinion-based does not mean that it is meaningless. I neber said it is meaningless. i said it is subjective. There is nothing meaningless about subjectivity. Consider behavioral economics: it's all about how people make irrational economic decisions - you could describe it as a study of opinions in a particular field. But we can still draw out a lot of useful information there, like how confirmation bias affects shopping choices, for example. In music, we can look at which songs people like and which people don't like, and relative strengths of "liking", and this doesn't happen completely at random. People do show reliable patterns when selecting music they like and don't like. One person's opinion with what music they like and don't like can be considered subjective, but when looking at populations, the data speaks. We CAN draw useful information about opinion-driven decisions. But that doesn't make opinion any less subjective, nor does it make it meaningless.. Lois
It's still based on opinion. LoisJust because something is opinion-based does not mean that it is meaningless. I neber said it is meaningless. i said it is subjective. There is nothing meaningless about subjectivity. Consider behavioral economics: it's all about how people make irrational economic decisions - you could describe it as a study of opinions in a particular field. But we can still draw out a lot of useful information there, like how confirmation bias affects shopping choices, for example. In music, we can look at which songs people like and which people don't like, and relative strengths of "liking", and this doesn't happen completely at random. People do show reliable patterns when selecting music they like and don't like. One person's opinion with what music they like and don't like can be considered subjective, but when looking at populations, the data speaks. We CAN draw useful information about opinion-driven decisions. But that doesn't make opinion any less subjective, nor does it make it meaningless.. Lois Anyone else notice the parallels between this discussion and moral philosophy, where the debate whether or not morality can be objective rages on? It's really quite identical. It all comes down to how you define your terms. Define the "goodness" of music as simply a measure of popularity and, voilà, musical "goodness" can be objectively measured. Define the "goodness" of moral actions as simply a ratio of their effect on overall human/animal suffering vs. pleasure (as my boyfriend Sam Harris does, i.e. utilitarianism/consequentialism) and, voilà, morality becomes objectively measurable--in theory if not in practice. The point is, there are right answers to these questions--provided we define our terms (e.g. "goodness")--whether we can know them in practice or not.
Whereas Art may also become popular, popularity does not define Art.
How many great artist were starving while they were creating their masterpieces? They were not popular at the time, but their work survived the test of time.
Rock-n-Roll is a perfect example. Of the millions of popular songs written, what percentage survives today? There are relatively few exceptions which can claim the honorary title of Art.
IMO, we use the term art much to loosely and if one looks up the definition of Art, nowhere is “popularity” listed as a standard for judging what is Art.
Webster:
art noun \ˈärt
: something that is created with imagination and skill and that is beautiful or that expresses important ideas or feelings
: works created by artists : paintings, sculptures, etc., that are created to be beautiful or to express important ideas or feelings
: the methods and skills used for painting, sculpting, drawing, etc. Art Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
and from wiki:
Until the 17th century, art referred to any skill or mastery and was not differentiated from crafts or sciences. In modern usage after the 17th century, where aesthetic considerations are paramount, the fine arts are separated and distinguished from acquired skills in general, such as the decorative or applied arts.
Art may be characterized in terms of mimesis (its representation of reality), expression, communication of emotion, or other qualities. During the Romantic period, art came to be seen as “a special faculty of the human mind to be classified with religion and science”.[2] Though the definition of what constitutes art is disputed[3][4][5] and has changed over time, general descriptions mention an idea of imaginative or technical skill stemming from human agency[6] and creation.[7]
The nature of art, and related concepts such as creativity and interpretation, are explored in a branch of philosophy known as aesthetics.[8] Art - Wikipedia
We CAN draw useful information about opinion-driven decisions. But that doesn't make opinion any less subjective, nor does it make it meaningless.. LoisCool. I kinda got the vibe that we were disagreeing, but I now see that we aren't. Stupid internet.
Oh I thought of something else. Sometimes a good song can become a great song, when an artist’s particular performance, makes it so.
Oh I thought of something else. Sometimes a good song can become a great song, when an artist's particular performance, makes it so.Like Kurt Cobain's rendition of "Where Did You Sleep Last Night?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOZKz_sPM6U You've got to watch it to the end to get the full effect--that's where you may experience an intense case of the goosebumps...
Oh I thought of something else. Sometimes a good song can become a great song, when an artist's particular performance, makes it so.Like Kurt Cobain's rendition of "Where Did You Sleep Last Night?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOZKz_sPM6U You've got to watch it to the end to get the full effect--that's where you may experience an intense case of the goosebumps... I agree and the reverse is true also. Below is one of my favorite truly great artists (singer/composer/painter) singing a few classics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4ED44zz4O0&list=PL_jrKrBTmTmC6GqUGOryKxdcvRFfOob05&index=2 and her own songs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLKb9Ms68ME Notice, no fireworks, smashig of guitars, or jumping around. Just brilliance of lyrics augmented by great musicians. And a cut:
Pat Metheny and his group playing "Third Wind" from the album "Still Life (Talking)", released in 1987. In this album. Metheny mixes Brazilian-influenced harmonies and rhythm with jazz, folk, and pophttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSmWCYNRpNs
Rock-n-Roll is a perfect example. Of the millions of popular songs written, what percentage survives today? There are relatively few exceptions which can claim the honorary title of Art.I totally disagree here. First of all, Rock is a completely unique form of music created from earlier folk and ethnic music, e.g. African-rhythm undertones that led to jazz, Delta Blues, Western folk, and Scots-Irish ballad forms rolled together. Many of those early rock tunes by Elvis, Chuck Berry, little Richard, Fats Domino to name a few inspired the Beatles, Jimmy Hendricks, Janice Joplin, the Dead, And many ballad singers too numerous to mention. In fact some of them are still performing today, e.g. The Rolling Stones. Not to mention the thousands of posters created by artists inspired by the music. They have become collectors worth thousands of dollars. And of course rock is still around today; it's still popular and evolving although the purists may not like what it has evolved into and Dick Clark is probably rolling in his grave, but he may give it a 95. :coolsmirk: Cap't Jack
I don't disagree, you named the great artists who created a new gender in music. But of the millions of rock n roll songs, how many have survived. A few hundred, a few thousand. Of course the same can be said of any music. A few great works survive, while the rest fades into obscurity. But, personally I think the bar has been lowered considerably in general and with a few exceptions, popular music today is not of the quality that was set by those giants. Of course this is subjective, but I consider a work of art must have certain special qualities, to rate the title "great" rather than "good". I was a good musician (7 years on the road) but never a great one and I never thought of myself as an artist in the truest sense of the word.Rock-n-Roll is a perfect example. Of the millions of popular songs written, what percentage survives today? There are relatively few exceptions which can claim the honorary title of Art.I totally disagree here. First of all, Rock is a completely unique form of music created from earlier folk and ethnic music, e.g. African-rhythm undertones that led to jazz, Delta Blues, Western folk, and Scots-Irish ballad forms rolled together. Many of those early rock tunes by Elvis, Chuck Berry, little Richard, Fats Domino to name a few inspired the Beatles, Jimmy Hendricks, Janice Joplin, the Dead, And many ballad singers too numerous to mention. In fact some of them are still performing today, e.g. The Rolling Stones. Not to mention the thousands of posters created by artists inspired by the music. They have become collectors worth thousands of dollars. And of course rock is still around today; it's still popular and evolving although the purists may not like what it has evolved into and Dick Clark is probably rolling in his grave, but he may give it a 95. :coolsmirk: Cap't Jack
Oh I thought of something else. Sometimes a good song can become a great song, when an artist's particular performance, makes it so.Like Kurt Cobain's rendition of "Where Did You Sleep Last Night?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOZKz_sPM6U You've got to watch it to the end to get the full effect--that's where you may experience an intense case of the goosebumps... Great find.
I don’t disagree, you named the great artists who created a new gender in music. But of the millions of rock n roll songs, how many have survived. A few hundred, a few thousand. Of course the same can be said of any music. A few great works survive, while the rest fades into obscurity. But, personally I think the bar has been lowered considerably in general and with a few exceptions, popular music today is not of the quality that was set by those giants. Of course this is subjective, but I consider a work of art must have certain special qualities, to rate the title “great" rather than “good". I was a good musician (7 years on the road) but never a great one and I never thought of myself as an artist in the truest sense of the word.Ok let's say out of the "millions" (really?) of rock songs a few hundred have survived the decades and served as a lesson to future performers, so what? Several hundred are still being played, musicians world wide are covering them and using the basic tune structures to create their own forms. The same may be said of even classical artists. Who listens to everything Beethoven wrote or admire everything Van Gogh painted? Outside of those superlative, and popularized paintings and music John Q. isn't interested. And as time marches on styles change because new generations create music to suit their own tastes. Otherwise what we hold up as great music becomes encapsulated in the past. That doesn't mean that we can't admire and enjoy Baroque or even classic Jazz, of course we can be inspired by a great riff and I do enjoy watching a teenager turned on by Dave Brubeck or Bach but they relate better to Taylor Swift whether we like it or not. As a musician you probably remember when Rock was called "the Devil's music" and banned from radio stations, so we were forced to listen to the "hit parade", sappy early 50's tunes like "How much is that doggie in the window" by Rosemary Clooney. Then Jerry Lee and the rest burst on the scene and the music was forced to change. It was exciting. Before that Jazz was vilified in the same manner. But there will always be a few pieces of music that will stand the test of time as long as there is someone interested enough to listen. Cap't Jack
I agree and good songs are worth listening to. We are not that far apart in our judgement. Our difference is subtle and the line between a good song and a great song cannot easily be drawn.
IMO. the difference berween a good and great art is a relative distinction, especially in songs which have dual aspects, the interplay of the lyrics and the music. Someone else already mentioned that a good song can be ruined by poor execution and an excellent inventive rendering of a bad song can make it palatable.
But IMO, a bad song performed poorly does not qualify as Art, and 95% of what is popular today is just trash, IMO.
“hey won’t you play another somebody done somebody wrong song” or “achy breaky heart” are not examples of great poetry or musical competence.
Perhaps I have a bias in that coming from Holland I listen first to the music and only when I like the musical execution, do I listen to the lyrics. IMO, a work of Art has to be complete in all aspects, a quality which is rare today because it requires mastery of both lyrical content and musical execution.
As in all disciplenes “critical thinking and analysis” must be applied to Art also. When a composition is flawed it just cannot qualify as great, even though it may be pleasing to the casual listener or has a hook which is easy to remember. But I consider that entertainment, not art.
Of course, today we don’t need to learn to play an instrument or even have a great voice. Everything can be electronically enhanced and a single person can write a symphony, by pushing a few buttons on his synthesizer.
But when I hear a spontaneous rhythmical improvisation between say piano, bass and drums, I marvel at the musical connectedness of the artists.
Listen to this masterpiece by three of the greatest jazz musicians on earth, performing an exploration of the “World of Rhythm”
It's still based on opinion. LoisJust because something is opinion-based does not mean that it is meaningless. I neber said it is meaningless. i said it is subjective. There is nothing meaningless about subjectivity. Consider behavioral economics: it's all about how people make irrational economic decisions - you could describe it as a study of opinions in a particular field. But we can still draw out a lot of useful information there, like how confirmation bias affects shopping choices, for example. In music, we can look at which songs people like and which people don't like, and relative strengths of "liking", and this doesn't happen completely at random. People do show reliable patterns when selecting music they like and don't like. One person's opinion with what music they like and don't like can be considered subjective, but when looking at populations, the data speaks. We CAN draw useful information about opinion-driven decisions. But that doesn't make opinion any less subjective, nor does it make it meaningless.. Lois Anyone else notice the parallels between this discussion and moral philosophy, where the debate whether or not morality can be objective rages on? It's really quite identical. It all comes down to how you define your terms. Define the "goodness" of music as simply a measure of popularity and, voilà, musical "goodness" can be objectively measured. Define the "goodness" of moral actions as simply a ratio of their effect on overall human/animal suffering vs. pleasure (as my boyfriend Sam Harris does, i.e. utilitarianism/consequentialism) and, voilà, morality becomes objectively measurable--in theory if not in practice. The point is, there are right answers to these questions--provided we define our terms (e.g. "goodness")--whether we can know them in practice or not. Ok, define goodness. While you're at it, define greatness. Lois
Whereas Art may also become popular, popularity does not define Art. How many great artist were starving while they were creating their masterpieces? They were not popular at the time, but their work survived the test of time. Rock-n-Roll is a perfect example. Of the millions of popular songs written, what percentage survives today? There are relatively few exceptions which can claim the honorary title of Art. IMO, we use the term art much to loosely and if one looks up the definition of Art, nowhere is "popularity" listed as a standard for judging what is Art. Webster:I will ask you the same questions I asked Bugrib. Define goodness and greatness--in terms of music and more generally.art noun \ˈärt\ : something that is created with imagination and skill and that is beautiful or that expresses important ideas or feelings : works created by artists : paintings, sculptures, etc., that are created to be beautiful or to express important ideas or feelings : the methods and skills used for painting, sculpting, drawing, etc. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/artand from wiki:Until the 17th century, art referred to any skill or mastery and was not differentiated from crafts or sciences. In modern usage after the 17th century, where aesthetic considerations are paramount, the fine arts are separated and distinguished from acquired skills in general, such as the decorative or applied arts. Art may be characterized in terms of mimesis (its representation of reality), expression, communication of emotion, or other qualities. During the Romantic period, art came to be seen as "a special faculty of the human mind to be classified with religion and science".[2] Though the definition of what constitutes art is disputed[3][4][5] and has changed over time, general descriptions mention an idea of imaginative or technical skill stemming from human agency[6] and creation.[7] The nature of art, and related concepts such as creativity and interpretation, are explored in a branch of philosophy known as aesthetics.[8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art