On one end of the spectrum we have the position that the quality of music is just a matter of taste, on the other the idea that music has an objective quality which can be compared between examples.
Neither is particularly satisfactory. We want to be able to say that Ashkenazi is a better piano player than Cameron who I'm putting through for Grade 1 this year. We want to say that Beethoven's music is "better" that Brittany Spears, and when you say Band X is better than Band Y you do not usually mean: "I prefer Band X to Band Y" otherwise that's what you'd say. You are trying to assert that Band X is to some degree better.
If the quality of music is all a matter of taste then an autistic child drawing some perverse plesure from hearing the needle continue to scratch at the end of a record is enjoying the pleasure of a work of art just as valid as your cognitive swells at the mere sound of your favourite Goldberg Variation.
On the other hand, it's just so damn hard to give any reasonable objective criteria for what makes good music good. Is it bizarre unexpected harmonic or melodic changes? Or interesting rhythmic features? That kind of thing can sound amazing to the trained musician but go right over the head of a lay person, and by the same token those kinds of innovations can be present and the music can be an absolute pile of crap to listen to.
So how do we zone in to what makes what we consider "good music" good and "bad music" bad? If it's a sliding scale there's plenty of room for what falls in between.
No comments:
Post a Comment