The Year of Punk!

Saperlipopette! wrote: I'd say history gets magically rewritten all the time. Of course influence has plenty to do with it as we both agree on. You can call them elitists, but these elitists have always written our history.

They wrote the history - or so it seems - for a certain era of music.  Much less is known about pre-Renaissance/Baroque music than after but it is highly unlikely that no music worth listening would have been made at that time.  From the 1700s to the early 1900s, scoring helped document the work of composers systematically while the establishment exerted control over what music did and did not deserve accolades.  The power of money, more so than other considerations, has made the establishment bow to public taste and let that music be made which the public might like.   Also the capability to reach a much larger audience than was possible before the recording era.  It is the artists themselves and the audiences they can enthrall that write musical history in the 21st century scenario.   The appeal of some wears out while some continue to please audiences of later eras, but the audience is now a key factor.  

For all that 'important' people may wax eloquent about the Beatles, it would count for nought if re-issues of their albums were roundly shunned by the market.   There is unfortunately not much evidence other than your own fervent belief that the appeal of Sex Pistols has forever faded.  I highly doubt that that is the case anyway.   Are they wedded to their epoch?  I don't think so.  Punk simply presents rock in a raw, bare avatar and such a notion is likely to appeal to several generations of rock music listeners.  So whoever writes the history these days, even if they are elitists, it would appear that they have failed you at any rate.       

Arguing on line is such a frivolous exercise.

The fact is that the supposed elitist in 1900 hated the impressionist. So being educated in the arts, doesn't make it any easier to "guess" what will be next, often it's relatively blinding, and those that support the "new" have been people that just instinctly fell in love with a new way of thinking.

thellama73 wrote: Reagrding taste, of course "good" music is mostly subjective, but there are non-subjective aspects to it that the "elites" as you call them can perhaps better appreciate than the average radio listener. Influence is one, innovation is another. When I was a kid, I used to think Ace of Bass were wildly innovative for their use of synthesizers, because I didn't know any better. Having changed my opinion on how innovative they were may not change my enjoyment of them, but it does change my opinion of how "good" they were. As I've said in another thread, there is more to music quality than pure enjoyment. Technical ability, compositional sophistication, influence and innovation all play a part.

There MAY be other less subjective aspects to music appreciation.  It is not hard and fast.  Music is just a medium of expression for an artist.   A classical composer chooses to explore ideas and a listener is expected to evaluate this and not judge the piece only by his enjoyment of it.  But a piece of music may also be written purely to express some emotions and technical considerations may not be highly relevant in appreciating it.    Merely that one composition is more technical and complex than another would not make it better, so even if there are less subjective and more subjective aspects of music appreciation, it is difficult, if not impossible, to analyze these in isolation instead of in totality.  Maybe ....Bollocks struck a raw chord with listeners at the time of its release and captured the cultural zeitgeist of its era.  It's not for me to say that it is just a dated and overrated album just because I don't like it, maybe it's got more to do with my taste.  So...no, my preferences would not normally be a very reliable indicator of how good or bad a given piece of music is.

rogerthat wrote: I am afraid that's not what's being said in this thread at all.   Rather, that only elitists can judge what is influential and what is not in music and normal people don't count.  Sorry but that's a fanciful notion, to say the least.  History is not going to get magically rewritten to suit the elitist consensus (if such a thing exists, but that's another story).   Influence is determined by its impact on music culture and mainstream music has been a huge part of music culture for the last half a century or so.   There's no point in running away from that.   The normal people who knew nothing about music made Never Mind The Bollocks a classic and they will do likewise to some other album.   Whether that represents "true quality" or not is a moot point. I am also interested in exactly how a musician proposes to judge what is quality music.  I have talked to many and fortunately most never attempted to make such a definition and were more respectful of divergent tastes.  A scientist's statement is accepted by the average joe because he can also substantiate his statements with tangible evidence and does not expect that everything he says should be accepted on face value merely on account of his superior qualification.   Another example : a lawyer's 'opinion' is indeed about as useful/useless as any other opinion found on the internet or 'offline' unless he substantiates it with judicial precedents that support his position.  Where exactly is the supporting evidence when music elitists go on their favourite "my opinion is better than yours" trip?

I largely agree with you about the influence question. Whether a band is influential is a fact that has to be uncovered, not proclaimed. That being said, musicologists spend more time trying to figure out who influenced who and are in a better position to make that judgement than other people.

Reagrding taste, of course "good" music is mostly subjective, but there are non-subjective aspects to it that the "elites" as you call them can perhaps better appreciate than the average radio listener. Influence is one, innovation is another. When I was a kid, I used to think Ace of Bass were wildly innovative for their use of synthesizers, because I didn't know any better. Having changed my opinion on how innovative they were may not change my enjoyment of them, but it does change my opinion of how "good" they were.

As I've said in another thread, there is more to music quality than pure enjoyment. Technical ability, compositional sophistication, influence and innovation all play a part.

thellama73 wrote: So do you believe that there is any distinction between popularity and quality? Is saying "X is the most popular" the same as saying "X is the best"? I don't think it's elitist to suggest that there is a distinction, or to suggest that people who don't really care about music may not be as good of a judge of it as people who can't imagine life without it. Is it elitist to say that trained scientists are better at science than the average joe who doesn't really care?

I am afraid that's not what's being said in this thread at all.   Rather, that only elitists can judge what is influential and what is not in music and normal people don't count.  Sorry but that's a fanciful notion, to say the least.  History is not going to get magically rewritten to suit the elitist consensus (if such a thing exists, but that's another story).   Influence is determined by its impact on music culture and mainstream music has been a huge part of music culture for the last half a century or so.   There's no point in running away from that.   The normal people who knew nothing about music made Never Mind The Bollocks a classic and they will do likewise to some other album.   Whether that represents "true quality" or not is a moot point.

I am also interested in exactly how a musician proposes to judge what is quality music.  I have talked to many and fortunately most never attempted to make such a definition and were more respectful of divergent tastes.  A scientist's statement is accepted by the average joe because he can also substantiate his statements with tangible evidence and does not expect that everything he says should be accepted on face value merely on account of his superior qualification.   Another example : a lawyer's 'opinion' is indeed about as useful/useless as any other opinion found on the internet or 'offline' unless he substantiates it with judicial precedents that support his position.  Where exactly is the supporting evidence when music elitists go on their favourite "my opinion is better than yours" trip?   

van der graff

If you think you have better taste in music than most, then fine with me, still I fail to see that Eagels represent especially terrible music, the way I look at it them play straight forward rock music, and they are quite good at that.

thellama73 wrote: tamijo wrote: Originally posted by thellama73 "The fact that the Eagles' Greatest Hits is among the best selling albums of all times shows that normal people, have terrible taste." If that was a correct and logical argument, this would folllow : People who like Genesis, Pink Floyd, Beatles....(and more) are also normal people, so their music must be   terrible, due to the fact, they are best selling. Same goes then for best selling movies, book ect. ect.    You dont like Eagels, great, but that does not make it terrible. Mass culture (with a free marked attitude) tends to promote art, that is very easy to get into, to max profits. More complex art, will always have a hard time, thats is sad, but its not the same as saying Mass culture cant provide good art. Or that normal people dont like good art. You've got my argument backwards. It's not "I don't like the Eagles, therefore they are terrible." it's "The Eagles are terrible, therefore i don't like them." It's not "most people have bad taste, therefore all popular bands are terrible" it's "a terrible band is very popular, therefore, most people have bad taste." Also, your premise that most people like Genesis is misleading. Most people like "We Can't Dance" Genesis, not "Foxtrot" Genesis, so that only goes to further prove my point.

Edited by tamijo - October 22 2012 at 09:56

Never underestimate the power of flippant generalisations.