This is fairly odd. I had a teacher say something very similar the other day. Its just kind of a coincidence. I just want to make I sure I understand you before I respond. I'm sorry if I didn't get what you meant, but basically you are saying that within a subjective judgement there are objective criteria. I totally agree. That does not stop it from being subjective. I think we are using these terms with seperate definitions. I'm trying to say your opinion that money destroys music is only as valid as someone who only likes music that is to make money. That is all I mean, and that it bothers me when people act like the music they like is superior to some other form of music, and not only that but other people should believe that.
---------- Post added at 11:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:57 AM ----------
I have one huge objection to what you just said sympathy. There hasn't been originality in any musical sense by pop music. Sure you can argue lyrics and you would be right, but a teacher once told a friend of mine (he was a great teacher by the way) that she couldn't be a composition major, because everything she would ever do in music was already done by the tonal composers up to 1900. He was right. She only liked tonal music and it was over used to the point of exhaustion. Pop music is tonal in nature and it's really not original. So you say its not about pushing the creative envelope but it hasn't been for a long time (there are still very orginal classical composers and jazz composers, but for the most part they are ignored by any sort of large audience). Still lots of people would call rock original and right here the defintion of original is once again subjective. Which is fine. I'm saying whatever you think is original is not necessarily (in fact in most cases in music its necessarily not) original to me.
If music is so subjective how can certain works or artists rise to such untold fame and popularity?
As simply (and perhaps crudely) put as possible, what are the explicit criteria music has to meet for you to consider it 'good'?
For me it must be original within its own frame of reference (or genre), must be technically sound (must include musical difficulty and player skill), must have definitive intentions (e.g. to portray a certain message, or display creative exploration of a certain musical or recording technique) and above all it must utilise the compositional skills of subtlety.
Most agreed upon classics from any genre will usually exhibit these characteristics, and will have been written by someone who really knows what they're doing.
Since no one is addressing my points regrading relative artistic criticsm such as film and food, I am left to assume that there is no objective criticism of anything then, and if McDonalds sells more, than it is critically better food, according to some. Elements like quality and maturity are purely moot.
I assume you mean me? Whether or not quality sold is a good thing is a subjective matter. But here's the flaw in this logic. Here's Reductio ad absurdum time. Hunter Wasser is the greatest artist who ever lived because, his art style leads him to paint the same painting at the same time more than once. Henceforth he has a larger quanity than any other fine artist and is the greatest fine artist who ever lived.
You can see the absurdity.
I by accidently used quality when I meant quantity (I edited it so the post makes more sense, but I'm not trying to deny making that mistake).
Still I will clarify. I was trying to show than whether a large quantity of something is good or not, is still subjective. Reductio Ad Absurem. I will assume your argument is true and come to a ridiculous conclusion. Actually I will only come to one we both don't agree on.
Quantity is the only objective measure of something. So Hunter Wasser is therefore the greatest fine artist because his art style enabled him to create more than one original works (think a bunch of replicas but they were all done at the exact same time). This I will assume we both don't agree with.
I have another thing to say also. If I think McDonald's is subjectively bad (I do, I'm a vegetarian), then creating a large amount of something that's bad to me is worse than just creating one. Whether a large quantity of something is good, is still subjective. Thats the only point I'm trying to make. Sorry it wasn't clear.
I believe that every artist who got famous appealed to some group of people at some point in time and that is why they are famous. There is nothing objective about it. I also don't believe people who say not every artist deserves their fame are wrong. Rather I think that to them not every artist deserves their fame, and to another person that artist would. There are no universal musicians. The Bealtes would probaly be the most well liked music in the history of the world or way up there (I mean you could argue Beethoven or a few others but for the sake of argument assume they are, I don't necessarily believe that). I don't like them. Am I wrong not to like them? I would be if there was some objective criteria to measuring their music, and whats more is I would admit it.