Popularity as a measure of musical quality?

Irony? Oh well, back to the 957th remix of "Love Me Do" then

 

Well, certainly Art Pepper and Art Garfunkle...

Peace-
Norm

 

You forgot:

ART BEARS
ART ENSEMBLE OF CHICAGO
BLAKEY, ART
FARMER, ART
HODES, ART
LANDE, ART
MOZ-ART

All great "ART"s

 

Oh, no irony. I was going through my own thoughts on the subject, and realized how very hard it is to even define "quality" - especially in the area of music, which is, after all, simply a compex waveform with no utility outside human experience. You can't "test" music for quality, like you can a bolt or a can opener or a car.

Which conjured up the book, which is quite exhaustive on that topic.

I believe music listening is more a social activity than we might think, even when we listen alone. How many times, when you're really digging a track, do you think "boy, I wish so-and-so could hear this!" It's a medium for connecting to each other. (Reference: this Forum).

So, to some extent, my perception of music quality might be how effective it would be in connecting my thoughts and feelings to like-minded people. So if I want to connect with the mass music-consuming public, then then popularity might mean quality to me.

 

Great music exists if it is appreciated by any one listener! & it does not have to be human!

 

maybe it's just pattern recognition. almost everyone can identify a catchy melody, but it takes a trained ear to note the complex pattern in a Xenakis composition. or a Merzbow one. some people are satisfied with 'Pop Goes The Weasel' and some require something a little more challenging. or maybe that's just the math nerd in me extrapolating my own issues.

(yeah, I know. it MIGHT just be noise, but just because a criminal didn't intend to leave clues behind don't make them any less clue-y.)

 

Is that one of the Laws of Robotics?

 

For a minute there I thought I saw American Idiot it's "da bomb"

 

If a great piece of music plays just once in the forest and no-one hears it, is it a great piece of music?

 

Robbie nodded!

 

Of course it is!

As I said in the opening post - that would be a large part of my record collection

 

well if the trees grow better I think you will have your answer!

 

Some might find the Art Bears cacaphonous, and others might find Art Blakey cacaphonous. Some might not appreciate Mozart, and be unable to hear what makes it great. Some people are unable to hear what makes the Beatles great.

No. The witchhunts are still going on. IMO, there is about as much consensus on what is morally good or bad, even when it comes to loving or killing, as there is about what is good in music.

I had a thought about Coltrane, but I think it would be taking us too far off-topic.

I think we each have our own criteria by which evaluate whether music is good or not. We may know that others share similar criteria. I find mine to be not so solid - they ebb and flow, and come into play to different degrees in different situations.

I liked Zen Archer's point that music is for many people a social activity (before recordings, it was even more so) and that quality might be related to the degree to which it helps us to feel connected.

I also liked Mike B's thought that honesty is a quality which he recognizes and values, although it might be hard to define this in words as it applies to music. An example of honesty in music for me would be the recordings of Thelonious Monk. Louis Armstrong also comes to mind, especially his earlier recordings.

I apologize to anyone who finds my part in this discussion overly-intellectual - I'd acknowledge that words about music are of little importance next to music itself. But it isn't very often that I take up a topic like this anymore, and even someone who is Totally Inane™ needs to flex his brain once in awhile ! See you guys in the OBT !

 

Well, I enjoy it

Taking about music is like making love on the telephone!

I guess there is no agreement so far, but we might get there? What about the education part - you made no reference to that in your post.

 

I'll have to take your word on it.

I think education may help or hinder one's appreciation of music. IMO, the best education is to listen as much as possible with an open mind and to trust your instincts but not to assume your reaction to a piece of music is the last word on the subject. Learning about the structural elements of music may or not be helpful - for me it gave me a deeper understanding of some things, but was at times inhibiting in some ways. Also there is some danger for classical instrumentalists that focusing too exclusively on the repertoire for their instrument leaves them in the dark about a lot of other great music. So I'll amend my previous statement to: all you need is ears, a brain, and a heart - if you also have a voice, so much the better !

 

Yes, thank you, brilliant example.
I wouldn't say so much with Louis- sometimes, but sometimes there was mugging for the crowd, though it wasn't completely disengenuous. Don't get me wrong, I love Pops, but there's a certain element of over-ornamentation sometimes that prevents him from being a personal favorite.
Monk, however is just... sublime. Everything is just right on. It's like he's always saying "Hey I have an idea, wanna hear it?" and I'm all "hells yeah!" and then he and his boys play it. It's almost conversational. The deliberate phrasing is the key element here, buttressed by those fantastic melodies.

Another example I'm fixated on is Mahler's 9th symphony. God, the composition of the thing is so humbling it makes me feel small and grand at the same time. The only way I can put it into words is "I'm going to die but that's alright."

 

I know what you mean about Louis A. and Gustav M.

Two of my favorite Monk recordings that I think exemplify the quality we're talking about - both are solo piano, but on albums that feature a larger ensemble:

Unidentified Solo Piano - from the "Thelonious in Action" CD - it's a bonus track, not on the original LP, although it might be on the complete Riverside LP box set, I'm not sure. As of the time this CD was issued, no-one was really sure whether this was an original Monk composition or a forgotten standard.

When It's Darkness on the Delta - from the "Thelonious Monk Quartet and Big Band in Concert" album. I think this is maybe the most incredible solo he ever recorded (although they're all pretty incredible). It makes me want to laugh and cry at the same time.

Mike, if you can find the Vox 2-CD set of Beethoven piano sonatas vol.1 recorded by Alfred Brendel, I think you'd like this too (it's also really cheap - two CD's for $10). This set contains all the late piano sonatas (op.101, 106, 109, 110 and 111) - it's part of Brendel's first recording of the complete Beethoven sonatas, which are still my favorite performances of these works. For me, this is music of trancendental clarity, imagination, and honesty.

 

masked man!

 

If you are searching for some objective criteria, using the work of classical composers is a poor example to support the claim that some music can objectively and "universally [be] agreed upon as being 'good'". The vast majority of people (85-90%) do like or even listen to classical music, so I do not understand how you can claim that the works of "Bach, Bartok or Shostakovitch" are universally acclaimed. (Here in Canada, I doubt if one in a thousand people would recognize Bartok and Shostakovitch's names, let alone be able to identify pieces of their music or are articulate about their work.)

By what constituency are you measuring this acclaim - the general public, music listeners, fans of this particular genre, musicians, composers, or "experts" such as academics and critics?

 

Wufnpoof, Brendel is a fantastic concert pianist, and I'm sure your recommendation is accurate. I'll keep it in mind when I eventually have some dough in pocket again.

 

I think this is a DAMN GOOD POINT!

IMO, even a GREAT piece of music has to include something for the "less-than-musical-genius" to like in order to have any significant impact. Intellectually I know that 1940's "Bop" is supposed to be musical "genius." However, most of it I've heard (at least to me) has no swing and either no discernible or enjoyable melody, so I've never been able to appreciate it. Damn shame, because I'm probably missing some great stuff!

If we substitute a numerical scale for musical merit and popularity, then "1" would be an unpopular total piece of crap and "100" would be a masterwork that appeals to the masses. My guess is that about a 65 to 70 would be the "threshold" for declaring a song to be both popular and high in quality.

 

Three examples that prove that the statement ain't true: "Who Let The Dogs Out" by the Baha Men, "Backstreet's Back" by the Backstreet Boys, & "Truly, Madly, Deeply" by Savage Garden

 

Ahhh, but were all of those composers considered "Great" in their own time? IMHO, it takes longetivity and/or the endurance of years passing and generations changing for something to be considered "Great" or "Groundbreaking".

 

The cream generally rises to the top. The best music may not always hit the Top 10, but it is generally the most popular within its own genre or niche.

 

I'm not claiming anything - I'm asking questions

If what you say is true (1 in a 1,000) - oy wey to the Canadian level of education I'm sure that is NOT true, but there is no end to surprises...