# Big scale popularity vs other forms of value assessment



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Big scale popularity often means good works (e.g., Mozart, Beethoven, etc.), but sometimes it also means vapid, easy to understand works (e.g., commercial pop music, etc.) Small scale popularity may indicate good works but which have some language barrier that has to be overcome in order to enter into their world (e.g., non-classical audience trying to listen classical, classical listener of pre 20th century music trying to listen to 20th century, or so one is told... by me ), but small scale popularity can also mean just mediocre works (e.g., conserative listeners about 20th century music, me about obscure late romantic works).

Thus, there are evidently some correlations between popularity and quality, but also contradictions. Can mere popularity be taken as the very definition of quality? Or quality is given by something else? In the first case, less popular works would be of less quality, while in the second, a quality work may or may not be popular, depending on a certain set of circumstances? 

Another question is, can a work which is only popular in a sub-community of the whole of classical listeners be of high quality? In case it is, what's the minimum size that the sub-community must have?

Is high quality dictated by experts and academics only? Is high quality an intrinsic and immutable property of a work, or just a transitory community consensus, probably based on transitory popularity? (of course, art only has a value in reference to humanity, if humanity is gone in the future, those works will be just inert pieces of paper with no value, but if the value given by humanity is immutable, we can pretend, as long as humanity exists, that the value is intrinsic to the work; this is an obvious consideration, so please let's not derail the whole discussion into that direction, that values don't exist, etc., since, in that case, let's call the mods to close this thread right now... but hey, with that criterion, we may close the whole forum as well, since art discussion is just hot air...)


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

In the arts, in aesthetics, values do not inhere in the works themselves. They have only whatever value any individual invests them with. There is no increasing of value by merely summing the number of individuals valuing a work of art. But the judgements of individuals are interesting to other individuals, and thus TC goes on. No need to shut it down.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

A) Quality can't be defined, so don't spend a lot of time trying.

B) Factors that can weigh in on short-term popularity can include: tunefulness, novelty, an "in" artist, "good beat," . . . none of which are intrinsic markers of quality, but can be.

C) Not paticularly liking a sub-genre (say, opera) does not affect intrinsic quality -- only your preference.

D. Are some sub-genres of higher or lower quality than others (say, Rap, Hip Hop, Metal, progressive jazz . . .). Maybe, but that also treads dangerously close to individual preference.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Strange Magic said:


> In the arts, in aesthetics, values do not inhere in the works themselves. They have only whatever value any individual invests them with. There is no increasing of value by merely summing the number of individuals valuing a work of art...


Since music is a 2-way communication between the artist's experience and the listener's experience, then, yes, the whole thing is subjective, sharing agreed-upon "meanings" and the commonality of experience. It's even misleading to say that "the work doesn't have any objective worth," because ultimately, the work is experiential only; it doesn't exist except as our experience.

So, if *more* people like a work, this shared experience of it, this 'idea' of it, begins to 'meme' itself and grow. A *meme* is a term referring to a unit of cultural information transferable from one mind to another. The bigger it gets, the more likely it is to go down in history, be recorded, etc.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

But, if everything is individual and we don't have a community standard, how we decide what goes to the orchestra programs for actual performances, what pieces music students should study in their school, etc.?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

aleazk said:


> But, if everything is individual and we don't have a community standard, how we decide what goes to the orchestra programs for actual performances, what pieces music students should study in their school, etc.?


Don't worry. Somebody will step forward and be The Decider. Strong personality, fat checkbook, etc. Besides, as millionrainbows has noted, we have the accumulation of memes. That's why my man Johannes Brahms will always be on orchestra schedules.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

aleazk said:


> But, if everything is individual and we don't have a community standard, how [do] we decide what goes to the orchestra programs for actual performances, what pieces music students should study in their school, etc.?


It is evidently a problem. Ultimately, choices are made for a variety of reasons, but "community standard" probably isn't really one of them.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

However, memes have "best if used by ___" dates. Mozart's last, great operas were relative failures in Vienna, which was going gaga over those of Paisiello [name one]. No one would call the 1812 Overture a great piece of music, but for what it tries to do, it does it very well, and it's still astonishingly popular.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Strange Magic said:


> Don't worry. Somebody will step forward and be The Decider. Strong personality, fat checkbook, etc. Besides, as millionrainbows has noted, we have the accumulation of memes. That's why my man Johannes Brahms will always be on orchestra schedules.





JAS said:


> It is evidently a problem. Ultimately, choices are made for a variety of reasons, but "community standard" probably isn't really one of them.


Yes, community standard wasn't probably the best term to use. But, anyway, the fact that these 'memes' arise, and propagate in time, doesn't imply something about the (supposed) quality of the work?

Following millions, if the meme arises, then the work has some effectivity in communicating something to a group of people. Of course, that by itself doesn't mean quality, but seems to suggest that something is 'inherent' (see next clarification, though!) in the work itself, unless we believe that by mere miracle or chance these people agree with each other. Ultimately, of course, it's an inter-subjective agreement, and also related to a communication channel between work and listener, not of the work alone, one needs the listener, immersed in a culture, to interpreted what the composer, immersed in the same culture, is putting there. An extraterrestrial probably will not get any of these things.

Thus, couldn't we just say that the composer captures something which, interpreted in the terms of that culture, is interesting and communicates something meaningful, and that it's this relational thing, the elements present in the work in relation to the culture, what constitutes in some sense that which is objective in the work, since the culture element has already been taken into account? Of course, one may say that, still, if those elements in relation to the culture communicate something meaningful is subjective. But let's assume that we have a work in which many people agree that they find something that communicates to them, and even that they can agree, more or less, what the work communicates. And what if there's subjectivity, but also something outside the listener, the culture in which the listener is immersed, between the things that influence the personal reaction to the work? Even the fact that all humans have brains with the same hardware, and even software, so to speak. These are objective elements in some sense, so not all is free subjectivity.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Similar positive descriptive adjectives of any composer or work build a critical mass of acceptance that goes into the collective unconscious. The adjective is King... Long live the adjective. :cheers:


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Usually popular works, in Classical, Jazz, or popular music have an immediate effect on the typical listener, without need to try and grasp the music, which is not an indication of quality. There are some popular works which go way beyond its first impression in terms of quality (18th and 19th century basic repertoire, warhorses), some that just stop there (Classical lollipops, Glenn Miller , much of pop music). There are less popular works which don't have an offhand effect on the average listener (Bartok, Prokofiev, Scriabin, and others), but also go way beyond the first hearing in terms of quality, and some that just stop at the first listening (more obscure works by Raff, Hummel, Clementi).


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

aleazk said:


> Thus, couldn't we just say that the the composer captures something which, interpreted in the terms of that culture, is interesting and communicates something meaningful, and that it's this relational thing, the elements present in the work in relation to the culture, constitutes in some sense what is objective in the work, since the culture element has already been taken into account? Of course, one may say that, still, if those elements in relation to the culture communicate something meaningful is subjective. But let's assume that we have a work in which many people agree that they find something that communicates to them, and even that they can agree, more or less, what the work communicates.


You just have to be careful how broadly or narrowly you define "culture." As an extreme example, see how Japan adopted Western CM as something they imbue with significance, despite the wide "cultural" disparity. In spite of CBS cutting away from it because we're cretins, it was remarkable how many Japanese in Olympic Stadium (in Nagano, 1998) were able to sing along with Ozawa's performance of the choral part of Beethoven's Ninth -- in the original German. Clearly it speaks to them.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

MarkW said:


> You just have to be careful how broadly or narrowly you define "culture." As an extreme example, see how Japan adopted Western CM as something they imbue with significance, despite the wide "cultural" disparity. In spite of CBS cutting away from it because we're cretins, it was remarkable how many Japanese in Olympic Stadium (in Nagano, 1998) were able to sing along with Ozawa's performance of the choral part of Beethoven's Ninth -- in the original German. Clearly it speaks to them.


Oh, yes, I mean in the widest sense possible, I was actually thinking on the whole of humanity at a given moment of time or historical period.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I can offer no better source of useful background on this issue than Leonard Meyer's essential book _ Music, The Arts, and Ideas_. Meyer, in his introductory chapter, Value and Greatness in Music, lists three aspects of musical enjoyment: the sensuous, the associative-characterizing, and finally the syntactical. Meyer was the pioneer in demonstrating the syntactical aspect of music (you need to read the book), and felt it to be the most important/profound/significant of the three. But by downplaying the roles of the other two aspects, giving very short shrift especially to the sensuous nature of music, his work provides a somewhat lopsided look at musical taste and "value". The point, though, is that while value (in my view) does not inhere within a piece of music, there are within the work comprehensible structures or triggers or stimuli that elicit the various responses that people have to it, and it is to those responses that values are ascribed. I deviate from Meyer in that he comes down firmly on the side that we can measure and rate and rank musical works using his criteria, and that these are inherent in the work, and I do not. I hold that the evaluation takes place entirely within our individual minds. But there is no question as to the brilliance, insight, and power of Meyer's analysis--it is must reading for anyone seriously interested in this discussion, and will definitely set your mind to whirring activity. As a fabulous bonus, you also get Leonard Meyer's revelatory enunciation of the New Stasis in the Arts that does so much to explain what we see occurring all around us in the arts. I've been boosting this exceptional book since first joining the TC family, but as new members join, here is an opportunity for me to recommend it all over again. It is densely written and exhaustively argued, but you will be well rewarded.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> I can offer no better source of useful background on this issue than Leonard Meyer's essential book _ Music, The Arts, and Ideas_. Meyer, in his introductory chapter, Value and Greatness in Music, lists three aspects of musical enjoyment: the sensuous, the associative-characterizing, and finally the syntactical. Meyer was the pioneer in demonstrating the syntactical aspect of music (you need to read the book), and felt it to be the most important/profound/significant of the three. But by downplaying the roles of the other two aspects, giving very short shrift especially to the sensuous nature of music, his work provides a somewhat lopsided look at musical taste and "value". The point, though, is that while value (in my view) does not inhere within a piece of music, there are within the work comprehensible structures or triggers or stimuli that elicit the various responses that people have to it, and it is to those responses that values are ascribed. I deviate from Meyer in that he comes down firmly on the side that we can measure and rate and rank musical works using his criteria, and that these are inherent in the work, and I do not. I hold that the evaluation takes place entirely within our individual minds. But there is no question as to the brilliance, insight, and power of Meyer's analysis--it is must reading for anyone seriously interested in this discussion, and will definitely set your mind to whirring activity. As a fabulous bonus, you also get Leonard Meyer's revelatory enunciation of the New Stasis in the Arts that does so much to explain what we see occurring all around us in the arts. I've been boosting this exceptional book since first joining the TC family, but as new members join, here is an opportunity for me to recommend it all over again. It is densely written and exhaustively argued, but you will be well rewarded.


It to me, in advancing years and skeptical of many things, sounds overly analytical. But I suppose I should give it a try.


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

Value assessments are difficult. Quality assessments are a bit easier, I think. A reasonable criteria of quality is whether or not the composer accomplished what he/she set out to accomplish, and how well. This can be separated from popularity, (unless popularity was a goal lol), and can be separated from what the music critic likes or doesn't like.

But the value of the work. That is difficult. What kind of value, intellectual, aesthetic, popular? 

I think time can be an indicator. If a piece has lasted for many years, and sufficient people have seen to making sure it is still played and recorded and not forgotten, I think we can at least say it has value. Because the ones with less value have fallen off and nobody listens to them any more. This is related to popularity, but not at all the same, and it can be separated from one's own reaction. 

Admittedly this leaves open the question of recently composed works. But I have no problem saying that perhaps, by this value criterion, the value of a recently composed work is not yet determined.

My own view is that any piece that has stood the "test of time" has value, even if I do not appreciate it. I then strive to figure out what the value is.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

JeffD said:


> Value assessments are difficult. Quality assessments are a bit easier, I think. A reasonable criteria of quality is whether or not the composer accomplished what he/she set out to accomplish, and how well. This can be separated from popularity, (unless popularity was a goal lol), and can be separated from what the music critic likes or doesn't like.
> 
> But the value of the work. That is difficult. What kind of value, intellectual, aesthetic, popular?


I have no idea of how to determine whether a composer accomplished what he/she set out to accomplish, and how well. I hope and assume they try their best, though they may leave a note that says "I tried to write a first-rate symphony, but it turned out to be third rate." We do know that composers sometimes rip up and destroy works, usually from their earliest years. Value? If people somewhere, sometime are listening to a work, it has value--but we are skating perilously close to popularity arguments, always waiting like the La Brea Tar Pits to swallow up all those discussing quality, value, etc.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

JeffD said:


> *Value assessments are difficult. Quality assessments are a bit easier,* I think. A reasonable criteria of quality is whether or not the composer accomplished what he/she set out to accomplish, and how well. This can be separated from popularity, (unless popularity was a goal lol), and can be separated from what the music critic likes or doesn't like.
> 
> But the value of the work. That is difficult. *What kind of value, intellectual, aesthetic, popular?
> *
> ...


These are critical distinctions, constantly overlooked or obscured in these discussions. The word "value" carries more than one meaning.

Mention of "value" prompts the reasonable question, "of value to whom?" Unfortunately it's here that the conversation is likely to stall, with the "aesthetic subjectivists" unable to conceive of, or admit the importance of, any criteria other than personal preference for assessing the quality of art, or the possibility that qualities intrinsic to a work may speak with exceptional power to human faculties and perceptions that transcend the individual and his tastes, and thus may give those works exceptional value as artistic achievements.

There's no implication that we "ought" to enjoy any music merely because it's better designed or richer in invention or expressive content, and there's no certainty that any particular number of us will. No certainty - but a high probability: better music will be to a great extent more popular and/or more highly esteemed among those who enjoy and understand music of its kind than will lesser work. Whether we can, without referring to the music's popularity or reputation, perceive the qualities that lend it distinction, depends on both the state of our knowledge and our personal temperament and taste.

It's no answer the assertion that Chopin's music has greater artistic value than Kalkbrenner's to say that one doesn't value Chopin.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

JeffD said:


> Value assessments are difficult. Quality assessments are a bit easier, I think.


An assessment of _qualities_ (aspects, elements, etc.) may be a bit easier, but an assessment of _quality_ is nothing other than a value assessment.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Most people are sheep and will like what they think is momentarily fashionable. Most pop music is based on this principle. Music industry invests money into pop music, pays to have it played on the radio, people are fed with it and start liking it. Advertisement works like this too. I am an individualist and am strongly suspicious to anything liked by the masses, sometimes possibly to my own disadvantage.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Like anything else, music is subject to trends. The current trend in pop music is for latin-rhythm, autoned ditties with throwaway lyrics (about some current saying or fad) often 'featuring' some youg lady warbling over the top of a sampled tune. Such stereotypical stuff is currently popular amongst the X-Factor generation but it will be laughed at and largely forgotten in 10 years. Big-scale popularity means nothing. It's about what you value in the music you enjoy. I might say that quality is in the ear of the beholder. For me quality means doing something that is different from others or, if not, doing it with style. The best thing about the imminent death of radio is that at long last people are experimenting a bit more.


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

JAS said:


> An assessment of _qualities_ (aspects, elements, etc.) may be a bit easier, but an assessment of _quality_ is nothing other than a value assessment.


I am making a distinction that it is not the same thing. Quality is related to how well it was done. Value relates to how important it is.

I don't want to get caught up in semantics, but I don't think those two things are the same.


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

Strange Magic said:


> I have no idea of how to determine whether a composer accomplished what he/she set out to accomplish, and how well.


Sure you do. If a tune presenting itself as popular but isn't catchy, if a piece is presenting as a military march, is it a good march, does it marshal your feelings. We have all heard awkward and thunky fugues. If romantic does the music have a big heart and move you. If the piece is conceptual (a genre I just learned about), do the concepts raised have any depth or interest?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

JAS said:


> An assessment of _qualities_ (aspects, elements, etc.) may be a bit easier, but an assessment of _quality_ is nothing other than a value assessment.


What do you mean "nothing other than"? When I say that something is of high _quality_, what do I mean but that it has fine _qualities?_ Valuing it is another matter. I can concede that music is of high quality while placing little value on the experience of hearing it.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> What do you mean "nothing other than"? When I say that something is of high _quality_, what do I mean but that it has fine _qualities?_ Valuing it is another matter. I can concede that music is of high quality while placing little value on the experience of hearing it.


I mean that an assessment of quality is by definition an value assessment, in contradiction of JeffD's statement, and continued insistence that there is a difference. In your own post, how is an assignment of "high quality" not a value judgement? An assessment of the effect of hearing it is simply a value judgement of a different aspect. (It is necessarily a semantic argument, which he apparently does not wish to pursue, but which cannot be pursued without it.)


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

JeffD said:


> Sure you do. If a tune presenting itself as popular but isn't catchy, if a piece is presenting as a military march, is it a good march, does it marshal your feelings. We have all heard awkward and thunky fugues. If romantic does the music have a big heart and move you. If the piece is conceptual (a genre I just learned about), do the concepts raised have any depth or interest?


Sorry, but I have difficulty in visualizing/imagining even the simplest ideas without concrete examples--a personal failing. You can help me understand your argument by providing several specific examples--piece, composer--where the composer failed to accomplish what he/she set out to accomplish. Also some named specific examples showing a gradation of skill in accomplishing whatever it was the composer was striving to accomplish. Classical music please, the simpler the better considering my disability.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

JAS said:


> I mean that an assessment of quality is by definition an value assessment, in contradiction of JeffD's statement, and continued insistence that there is a difference. In your own post, how is an assignment of "high quality" not a value judgement? An assessment of the effect of hearing it is simply a value judgement of a different aspect. (It is necessarily a semantic argument, which he apparently does not wish to pursue, but which cannot be pursued without it.)


An assignment of high quality is a value judgment, but so is an assessment of _qualities._ I don't think your differentiation between these holds; the former is a summary judgment based on the latter. The important distinction, I think (and I'm not sure about JeffD's thinking here) is between "value" as an assessment of quality and "value" as an expression of preference. The former identifies elements and aspects intrinsic to the work: does the piece succeed on its own aesthetic terms, attempt to say anything significant, employ means appropriate to its stated or apparent ends, exhibit creative imagination, show fine craftsmanship, etc.?


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> An assignment of high quality is a value judgment, but so is an assessment of _qualities._ I don't think your differentiation between these holds; the former is a summary judgment based on the latter. The important distinction, I think (and I'm not sure about JeffD's thinking here) is between "value" as an assessment of quality and "value" as an expression of preference. The former identifies elements and aspects intrinsic to the work: does the piece succeed on its own aesthetic terms, attempt to say anything significant, employ means appropriate to its stated or apparent ends, exhibit creative imagination, show fine craftsmanship, etc.?


No, qualities are subject to measurement (pitch, volume, etc). These are agreed upon statistical details, involving a degree of measure, or assessment if one must, but not any value assignment. One might quibble that loud is a value judgement, but not as a relative value, louder or softer, and less so as a numerical assignment in a standard unit of measure. But more importantly, my point is that quality (being better or worse) is necessarily a value assessment.

We might as well shine a light on the trickiness of language and say that it matters what values you value.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

> Woodduck: "Mention of "value" prompts the reasonable question, "of value to whom?" Unfortunately it's here that the conversation is likely to stall, with the "aesthetic subjectivists" unable to conceive of, or admit the importance of, any criteria other than personal preference for assessing the quality of art, or the possibility that qualities intrinsic to a work may speak with exceptional power to human faculties and perceptions that transcend the individual and his tastes, and thus may give those works exceptional value as artistic achievements.


This implies that there can be works composed that may exceed the ability of any (and even all) human being(s) to fully understand/grasp/appreciate them. Using a pyramid analogy, the higher we ascend the pyramid of human sensitivity/subtlety/aesthetic "education" or innate profundity, the smaller the population of those best able to utilize the bounty available to them. To employ a more earthy example, the olfactory prowess of dogs exceeds our own by orders of magnitude; we are the equivalent of odor-blind in the dog's world.

I find it more plausible/reasonable to instead retreat to my familiar stance that the individual is the supreme arbiter of taste, superseding any and all appeals to inherent qualities within the artwork, or to appeals to popularity among critics or some defined public. Art just is. What is to made of it is up to the individual's unique, idiosyncratic mix of brain chemistry, history, etc. etc.


----------

