• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Double Bass Are all musical styles of equal value?

Tom Lane

Tom Lane

Gold Supporting Member
Apr 28, 2011
3,594
5,175
Southwest Los Angeles, CA, USA
#1
So, this is an admittedly academic issue that I've pondered for a few months: are all musical styles equally valuable? First, I'm an admitted jazz snob, but I'm genuinely curious about other practictioners views. Is a rockabilly tune as valuable as a Chopin nocturne? Are the Smothers Brothers as valuable as a Beethoven Sonata? Do they need to be? Or is it enough that they are all entertaining in their own right? Are the comparatively simple basslines of a bluegrass tune as *good* as a Ray Brown line on Joy Spring?
I've heard the sentiment that *all styles have something to give* and I appreciate the concept, but I'm having a hard time believing it. I still feel that jazz players need to be better musicians with better ears and training and classical musicians need incredible discipline and training than their bluegrass, country and pop players. I'm not dissing the bluegrass folk, because I'm sure that they have their skill too and that it's not the same as a classical player's skill, but still, I'm thinking that if a classical player will make the effort to learn the nuances of the bluegrass player's genre, it'll be easier for him/her than vice-versa. Okay, please tell me where I'm wrong.
 
#2
Equal value to whom? You, me, them?

That's like asking if a hotdog has equal value to foie gras. Depends on who's eating it.

Sounds like you're really asking if we share your opinion that the average classical/jazz musician has more chops than the average bluegrass/country musician.
 
#3
AaronVonRock said:
Equal value to whom? You, me, them?

That's like asking if a hotdog has equal value to foie gras. Depends on who's eating it.

Sounds like you're really asking if we agree with you that the average classical/jazz musician has more chops than the average bluegrass/country musician.
Click to expand...
So, you're right. I'm asking if there is an OBJECTIVE view versus a SUBJECTIVE view. The subjective view is easily answered that if I like bluegrass more than classical, then bluegrass wins. I AM asking about a more objective view. Is foie gras better than a hot dog regardless of who's eating it? And what do we mean by *better*? More entertaining? More skill? How is it better if it is better? I honestly don't know the answer so I'm hoping you can educate me. Certainly, all styles have their nuances that non-practitioners don't implement accurately. That's why jazzers don't sound like classical players who don't sound like country players, etc. But, that's not my question. To put a point on it: is a Beethoven symphony more valuable than a Beetles tune? You tell me what *valuable* is. That's why I'm asking.
 
#4
Well, to most people jazz has no "value". :D Gold is only valuable because people decided it was valuable (that is to say, there's nothing intrinsically valuable about gold). Same with music. Does some music take more skill to write and perform? To some degree, yes - but part of what makes music special is the elusiveness of the "appeal factor". Jazz can be very high-brow, so to speak, but most people (myself included) would rather listen to pop than bebop. If by "valuable" you mean influential then you open a different can of worms. If you look at enough music for long enough, though, you begin to see the connecting strands and after a while you see that the divisions between styles are often not as great as many people would have you believe.
 
#5
tcl said:
To put a point on it: is a Beethoven symphony more valuable than a Beetles tune? You tell me what *valuable* is. That's why I'm asking.
Click to expand...

If your looking for quantitative data to see if Beethoven or The Beatles is more valuable, I guess you could find out which one has generated more income through royalties and licensing rights.

If you use monetary value as a measuring stick, I'm guessing pop music will be more valuable than both jazz and classical combined.
 
#6
Why do you have to put a value on music? It is here to enjoy. Enjoy the types you do, and encourage others to enjoy the types they do.

The last thing we need is someone to be bitter over music, we all need so much more of it in our lives.
 
#9
It will always be subjective, b/c even my objective opinion is going to be colored by the fact that I don't like rap, or that I'm a rock player who appreciates the value of a well-composed song more than the solo in it.

And there's another part of the equation, IMO... the jazz player who enjoys playing in the bluegrass band he is also in on Saturday night. Every musical genre is important to the overall picture.
 
#11
bass12 said:
Gold is only valuable because people decided it was valuable (that is to say, there's nothing intrinsically valuable about gold).
Click to expand...

That's not actually true, gold has been highly valued across time and cultures because it's hard to come by, it never tarnishes and is easy to work. It's chemically a very highly stable material (nice tight atomic structure).
But your intimation that "value", in and of itself, is never objective is an accurate one.

When I was young and stupid, I also had this "hierarchical" of musicians - classical players were better than jazz players were better than rock players were better than etc. But that's a very flawed observation. There are very, very few musicians in this world who are able to create that true moment of universal beauty, that poetic moment that can communicate directly across culture and time, that speaks to both the moment AND the ages. And they aren't limited to one genre of music or to one culture.
Sure, different music calls for different skill sets. But to say that (for example) Segovia is better than Jimmy Raney is better than Steve Morse is better than Chet Atkins etc. just misses the point. Each of those musicians is or was involved in the music they were for much the same reason- that's what coalesced meaning from chaos for them, that's how they needed to express themselves. To say that one was better or worse because they only concentrated on the skill sets necessary for them to transcend the ordinary to express themselves in the way that was most important to them is just like saying apples are no good because they don't taste like bananas.
 
#13
Couldn't have said it better!

Ed Fuqua said:
That's not actually true, gold has been highly valued across time and cultures because it's hard to come by, it never tarnishes and is easy to work. It's chemically a very highly stable material (nice tight atomic structure).
But your intimation that "value", in and of itself, is never objective is an accurate one.

When I was young and stupid, I also had this "hierarchical" of musicians - classical players were better than jazz players were better than rock players were better than etc. But that's a very flawed observation. There are very, very few musicians in this world who are able to create that true moment of universal beauty, that poetic moment that can communicate directly across culture and time, that speaks to both the moment AND the ages. And they aren't limited to one genre of music or to one culture.
Sure, different music calls for different skill sets. But to say that (for example) Segovia is better than Jimmy Raney is better than Steve Morse is better than Chet Atkins etc. just misses the point. Each of those musicians is or was involved in the music they were for much the same reason- that's what coalesced meaning from chaos for them, that's how they needed to express themselves. To say that one was better or worse because they only concentrated on the skill sets necessary for them to transcend the ordinary to express themselves in the way that was most important to them is just like saying apples are no good because they don't taste like bananas.
Click to expand...
 
#15
Ed Fuqua said:
That's not actually true, gold has been highly valued across time and cultures because it's hard to come by, it never tarnishes and is easy to work. It's chemically a very highly stable material (nice tight atomic structure).
Click to expand...

It's being hard to come by is the main factor in it's being so prized. Wood is equally useful, as is granite and numerous other substances and yet gold is seen as being much more valuable.
 
#16
I think it's actually a good question. If all musical styles are equal, why is so much time spent in conservatories and colleges of music toward the study of classical and jazz when they could be studying rap? If all musical styles are equal, who is to say that Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven were better composers than Vanilla Ice? If all musical styles are equal, why do public school bands, orchestras, and choirs largely omit heavy metal and rap from their repertoire; and when they do include them, they give them the more intricate arrangements characteristic of other styles? If all musical styles are equal, why do people go to the symphony or opera for "culture," when they could just as easily obtain it at a honky tonk? If all musical styles are equal, why do parents play Mozart for their children to make them smarter (or so they say) rather than simply playing "Me So Horny" or "Sweet Leaf"?
 
#17
Lee Moses said:
I think it's actually a good question. If all musical styles are equal, why is so much time spent in conservatories and colleges of music toward the study of classical and jazz when they could be studying rap? If all musical styles are equal, who is to say that Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven were better composers than Vanilla Ice? If all musical styles are equal, why do public school bands, orchestras, and choirs largely omit heavy metal and rap from their repertoire; and when they do include them, they give them the more intricate arrangements characteristic of other styles? If all musical styles are equal, why do people go to the symphony or opera for "culture," when they could just as easily obtain it at a honky tonk? If all musical styles are equal, why do parents play Mozart for their children to make them smarter (or so they say) rather than simply playing "Me So Horny" or "Sweet Leaf"?
Click to expand...
You're right - "equal" would not be the term to use. "Valid" yes, "equal" no. But I think the question was about "equal value". The value placed on a style of music is going to vary depending on who you ask. If we are talking commodity-wise then "pop" obviously has more value than classical for commercial radio. But, thankfully, music is more to most than just a commodity.
 
#19
bass12 said:
It's being hard to come by is the main factor in it's being so prized. Wood is equally useful, as is granite and numerous other substances and yet gold is seen as being much more valuable.
Click to expand...

Quibble all you want, we're not talking about useful, we're talking about chemically stable....
 
#20
InternetAlias said:
If music were equal then Skrillex would be equal to Rachmaninoff and we very well know that isn't the case.

I am all in for various types of equality, but comparing gold to dung just doesn't work.
Click to expand...
:) But even dung has greater value to some people than gold (for example, Indian villagers who would use cow dung for various tasks - including building their homes). :)
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back