I recently read a statement that claimed that "Everyone in the world secretly (or not so secretly) thinks they have the best taste in music." This certainly rings true. Peter cannot be convinced that the Beatles are anything other than the greatest band in history. Thomas will claim to the bitter end that Coldplay is where it's at and Nate may argue that Nickleback, despite all the vitriol, continue to reign as kings of Rock & Roll-ish-ness. However, there are certain artists that I don't like that I acknowledge are very talented, they're just not my flavor (Joni Mitchel for example). I would suggest that this is true not only in musical arts but in other areas of art and life.I think as a family, or at least as siblings, we often make a statement of preference as if it is a statement of fact. If I like Radiohead better then other bands (and for good reason) I claim that they are "the best band" in "the entire universe" but aren't they just my personal favorite. So my question is this:
Today's Question
Are there objective ways to determine the quality of art, music, film, food etc?
I don't mean "objectively speaking, who is the best?" I mean are there measurements of what make music "good music" and what makes a movie "good film" and what makes a painter a "good painter". In other words "does Nickleback actually suck?"
5 comments:
There is beauty and ugliness, wise and foolish, light and dark, good and bad. This is true in all aspects of life and is therefore true about music. But I think we have to hone in on what we mean when we discuss “good music” verses “bad music.” Some music is “bad” because it lies about who God is. But some of the songs that most of the people I know would argue are “good,” lie about God. So what gives? Think about Girl by the Beatles. None of my brothers would argue that Girl is a “bad” song but if they thought about it they would agree that it is godless. So what do we usually mean when we talk about “good” and “bad?” I think that usually we are talking about enjoyment (it makes my head start to bob) and nostalgia (it brings a smile to my face). Of course there can be more to it than that but I would argue that this is the norm.
So, Nickleback is like the McDonald's of “Rock & Roll-ish-ness.” If you were asked what your favorite burger was you wouldn't say, "A McDouble," unless you are a seven year old boy, but, who doesn't like a McDouble? Who doesn’t think a McDouble is a good burger? Of course no one would compare it to Five Guys or Upland (good-brew-company-burgers), but who doesn’t want, like, or need a McDouble every now and then (or I should say, more often than not)? Everyone likes McDoubles! If you are tempted to comment and say, "I don't like McDoubles!" then you are the exception that proves the rule.
So, how does this connect to Nickleback? I would argue that there are lots of people who love Nickleback, buy their t-shirts and go to their concerts (believe me, when I was in the Air Force, the biggest concert each year in Shreveport, LA, was the Nickleback show). Nickleback makes them bob their heads and smile. Then there is the group of people that turns up their noses whenever Nickleback is mentioned in conversation but for some reason they forget to change the radio station when Nickleback is playing and therefore know all the words to their songs (and they to bob their heads and smile). And then, there are the people who emphatically, dogmatically and religiously don't like Nickleback/McDoubles and that to me is simply sad.
If the only thing that can give you pleasure and joy is Rembrandt, Mozart and Upland then you are going to live a very secluded and lonely life with the two other people in the world who are like you, or I should say one person, because one of those guys actually likes Brahms and that simply makes your ears bleed.
I think the key to this question is Ben’s use of the word “objective”; a factual reference should be established, one’s feelings and opinions should not be considered. On that note I agree with Nate, we should consider “good” what God has established as good. I would go a step further, and suggest that a clear distinction should be made in our terminology; “good” should be relatable to God’s good, and “effective” is the best that art can achieve when there is no good present. For example, much of Trent Reznor’s music is extremely effective, but it is not good.
Yet here’s the rub, how much of something has to be good to call it good? Another word Ben used was “quality”, which may simply be a measure of good per unit art. I’m coming to this discussion with somewhat a disadvantage; considering that many of the brothers have an extensive art history background. I’ll risk coming across as a novice by using The Triumph of Death by Pieter Bruegel the Elder as an example. At first glance the subject matter and tone of the painting is evil, there’s no way that this painting is good. Yet on the other hand, consider the skill on display, consider the warning that this painting represents, and consider the other works of this painter. I would suggest that objectively this painting should be considered good.
Briefly I’ll reply to Nate’s comment about “Girl” by the Beatles; based on my argument that quality is a measure of good per unit art I would mostly agree with Nate. I would suggest that there is a sliver of good in that song; Adam wasn’t good without Eve, and in a way that is reflected in the angst of “Girl”. At the same time the song is overwhelmingly about a very unhealthy relationship that desperately needs a Godly perspective. Would it be fair to say that this song has some good?
As for Nickleback, personally I’d rather look at a Bruegel painting and listen to some Trent Reznor while eating at Five Guys.
I like the way Nate started out and the qualifications Peter makes.
But I still think there is a missing piece. The definitions you guys made help evaluate whether a thing is good or not good in terms of content or subject matter but not artistically.
Perhaps you can still only say that a thing is artistically good if it is true and reflects the nature of God, but is there an objective way to determine if it is "good art"? I think that is the root of the initial statement that "Everyone... thinks they have the best taste..." Not only does each person think they have a grasp on what art is they think they know what good art is.
I don't often say much when it comes to discussions on music or movies, because I would be the first to say of myself that half the songs, or movies for that matter, that I like I have absolutely no explanation artistically why I like them.
The other brothers had some really good insight into music, better insight then I could ever provide, but what I can say in response to Ben's comment, which was intended I believe to bring us back to his original question, is that I really don't think there is one thing or many things that make one artists music better than another's.
Mozart and Bach compositions are magic to mom and pop's ears one minute, when at the same moment AWOLNATION has David banging his fists on the ceiling out of pure musical joy, and simultaneously I find my foot trying to keep up with the kick drum in KOL's Notion.
Likewise, some hobo thinks banging on a trashcan with a stick sounds good, so he does that every night after a late Pacer's game trying to make a living rather than getting a real job.
Really I just think it's all a matter of a opinion. Afterall, if Coldplay was the greatest most artistic band all there songs would be great, right?
Post a Comment