# Music And Common Criticism



## Metalheadwholovesclasical (Mar 15, 2008)

One thing about the world and PRIMARILY the musical world nowadays is the huge trend of people thinking genre A is talentless merely because they do not like it. This behavior is directed to EVERY genre, some genres more than others, however. Why is this? People will insult genre A because they don't like it and when someone else insults a genre he likes, he thinks they are an idiot. Why do they refuse to realize that they sound like just as much of an idiot than he does? Why do people believe this, and do you believe this can be applied to genres, or for ANY genre?


----------



## David C Coleman (Nov 23, 2007)

I think part of the reason is that people link a certain type of person with a certain type of music. Here in the UK, we are very class driven. It seems that people from a working class background like (not exclusively) pop and rock music and they think that classical music is for that "posh lot"!. And people who accept classical music more, generally (not exclusively) are from a more middle and upper class, and they generally look down on the working class...
I, myself am from a working to middle class background (whatever that means)..Nothing special, yet I embrace a wide variety of music.
I see "talent" in most forms of music. I also see a lack of talent in most of forms. It's wrong to say, and I've heard it say that pop and rock musicians are talentless and classical music (and maybe Jazz) is the one and true form of music...
That reminds me of a previous thread on this forum about elitism in Classical music...


----------



## purple99 (Apr 8, 2008)

David C Coleman said:


> That reminds me of a previous thread on this forum about elitism in Classical music...




Music's tribal, so when a genre's criticised adherents of that genre feel themselves attacked, that the musical symbol of their tribe -- or class © David C Coleman -- is being dissed and they get hot under the collar. It's similar to the reaction when a national flag is burned or someone f*rts during a national anthem.

Add to that how clannish young people are -- how they love belonging to a group and looking down their noses at other groups -- and how ridiculous some members of the middle classes become over classical music -- using concert attendance as a means of making themselves feel superior to others -- and you've got a toxic mix.

BTW classical music concerts in the US are now, in general, far worse than the UK. You see women with jewels the size of pigeon eggs shamelessly using the event to display their wealth and social standing. They can barely sit still during the music, craning round to see who's noticing them. Their husbands aren't much better. At least in Britain a hundred years of public subsidy has spread classical music around a bit. Except Glyndebourne, of course, which is still a nest of vipers, but the management are doing their best to change.


----------



## Zombo (Oct 5, 2008)

I think it's people are sometimes confusing importance/significance vs taste.

You can always debate the significance of a genre vs another using facts. Likewise for composers. Example, you can't argue against the FACT that Beethoven is a prominent composer in the history of Western classical music. You can't argue against the FACT that popular band X sold Y million copies. It's objective.

However, your actual TASTES in music are relative and proper to each other. You can explain why you like a genre more than another, but this is not factual, this is subjective. You can try to convince someone to appreciate another genre, but ultimately it's their choice what they like and you have to respect it because you have no evidence in this matter. So you can say you like Beethoven or not, that's your taste. I can't say you're stupid if you like it or not, but I can say you're stupid if you think Beethoven is not an important historical composer.

The problem now occurs when people forget the difference between those two fundamentally different topics and start mixing the two.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Zombo said:


> So you can say you like Beethoven or not, that's your taste.


'Liking' is indeed a matter of taste, though I've always thought it a useless word when it comes to discussing art.

The point about Beethoven - or any other great composer - is that his music permits a certain kind of experience to the listener. It's an experience that's hard to define, but it's possible to recognise it when it happens, and, as with any great art, it doesn't really have anything to do with 'liking'. To say that I 'like' Wagner's _Ring_, for instance, would be seriously misleading about the kind of experience it offers. I'm shaken by it, haunted by it, changed by it, moved by it, and all sorts of other things that have nothing to do with 'liking'.

The division is not between genres, but between the kinds of experience that are on offer. Like the difference between _art_, on the one hand, and _craft_, on the other. One isn't 'better' than the other (you might as well say that cheese is 'better' than wood); they just aren't the same kind of experiences.


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

It is still true that some genres are less complex (Most are just as musical), but that complexity does require more talent.

Talent? What is this abstract term supposed to represent anyway?


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Yagan Kiely said:


> complexity does require more talent.


I'd say complexity requires a _different kind_ of talent; or may even be a sign of _less_ talent (though like you, I wonder whether 'talent' is the right word and suspect it isn't). For example, anyone can write a long, complex and impenetrable sentence about a difficult topic; but it takes a particular kind of intelligence and care to write it clearly and simply, even if the result may seem less impressive on the face of it.

On the whole, though, discussions about art that focus on things like 'skill' (and possibly 'talent') tend to get bogged down because 'art' starts to get muddled up with 'craft', and then it becomes impossible to unravel, because everyone's talking about different things as if they were the same. In the same way, it would be pointless trying to argue whether Eric Clapton's guitar introduction to 'Layla' is 'better' or 'worse' than Beethoven's introduction to the 5th symphony. Confusion would be the only possible outcome.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Metalheadwholovesclasical said:


> One thing about the world and PRIMARILY the musical world nowadays is the huge trend of people thinking genre A is talentless merely because they do not like it. This behavior is directed to EVERY genre, some genres more than others, however. Why is this? People will insult genre A because they don't like it and when someone else insults a genre he likes, he thinks they are an idiot. Why do they refuse to realize that they sound like just as much of an idiot than he does? Why do people believe this, and do you believe this can be applied to genres, or for ANY genre?


Well, it's a bit like people who love, say, Tennis and hate Soccer arguing that there are no talented soccer players (or vice versa).


----------



## Kuhlau (Oct 1, 2008)

There was a time when music wasn't burdened by the weight of so many genres and sub-genres. It was just music, and one appreciated it in as many different forms as one enjoyed.

It's a bit like what's happened to coffee. You used to be able to go into a cafe and buy a coffee. Now, you have to learn a complex new language just to get what was once a straightforward hot beverage. (I believe we now have to ask for an 'Americano' if we want coffee the way it used to be served.)

FK


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

> I'd say complexity requires a _different kind_ of talent; or may even be a sign of _less_ talent (though like you, I wonder whether 'talent' is the right word and suspect it isn't). For example, anyone can write a long, complex and impenetrable sentence about a difficult topic; but it takes a particular kind of intelligence and care to write it clearly and simply, even if the result may seem less impressive on the face of it.


Which means it takes even more talent to write a complex piece cohesively!.  But I really don't like the term Talent.

And I HATE the tern genius.


----------



## Mr. Terrible (Oct 17, 2008)

The word complexity when used to describe music is a little tricky.
A lot of music can be deceptively simple in appearance and yet incredibly difficult to perform well.

An interesting example of this is my own introduction to Country music.
I moved to Nashville in 1981 with all the usual preconceived ideas about Country music, only to have them turned on their head when I actually tried PLAYING some country music.
Now I am a bassist by trade and you would think that Country bass parts are about as simple as you can get.
Root fifth all the way, right?
Where the simple becomes incredibly complex and challenging is in the rhythmic elements.
At my first session I played the part required exactly as written & got told I wasn`t playing it right.
Eventually, the rhythmic subtleties involved dawned on me and with it a degree of humiliation that I had been so over-confident that I could just lay waste to this "simplistic" style with no preparation or experience.

Complex doesnt necessarily mean sophisticated or indeed difficult.
And sometimes the simplest things are the most difficult to get right.

And sometimes talent can be confused with knack.
Music is not an olympic event.


----------



## Lestris (Nov 2, 2008)

Metalheadwholovesclasical said:


> One thing about the world and PRIMARILY the musical world nowadays is the huge trend of people thinking genre A is talentless merely because they do not like it. This behavior is directed to EVERY genre, some genres more than others, however. Why is this? People will insult genre A because they don't like it and when someone else insults a genre he likes, he thinks they are an idiot. Why do they refuse to realize that they sound like just as much of an idiot than he does? Why do people believe this, and do you believe this can be applied to genres, or for ANY genre?


This reminds me of Elbert Hubbard's words:

"If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names."


----------

