The point is that gold wouldn't be nearly as valuable if it wasn't as rare as it is. The value we place on it is not based so much on intrinsic value (if you want to look at its chemical stability that way) as it is on rarity. Quibbling over with.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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?
- Thread starter Tom Lane
- Start date
Normally I'd say yes, all music has equal value. Unfortunately, my roommate recently invited a friend over who set up his gear in our apartment at around 11pm and decided to work on some experimental techno. I no longer believe all musical styles have equal value.
An admitedly difficult question based on ones point of view.
Just to be difficult I would say no, no music is equal to another.
But thats just a little simplistic.
A Mozart piano concerto would rate very high in complexity of composition. If you were to compare it to a simple 3 chord country song based on that criteria the classical wins out easily....however how many of those people who enjoy those 3 chord country songs are going to start listening to classical due to that assessment? Probably none. At the same time there are some smoking country songs. For example; Brent Mason or Clint Strong. Virtuoso playing and jazzy chord progressions.
So complexity or difficulty of execution is not the only standard by which music can be judged but it is a reasonable criteria if you are trying to evolve as a musician and learn harder peices or you happen to appreciate that facet of the music.
Of course there is the aspect that relates to how the music makes you feel. But how do you measure that? You could say sales or popularity although I prefer to look at longevity. There were many composers around in Mozarts day but how many of them are remembered? For me "new" is never a criteria for good but old sometimes is.
Just to be difficult I would say no, no music is equal to another.
But thats just a little simplistic.
A Mozart piano concerto would rate very high in complexity of composition. If you were to compare it to a simple 3 chord country song based on that criteria the classical wins out easily....however how many of those people who enjoy those 3 chord country songs are going to start listening to classical due to that assessment? Probably none. At the same time there are some smoking country songs. For example; Brent Mason or Clint Strong. Virtuoso playing and jazzy chord progressions.
So complexity or difficulty of execution is not the only standard by which music can be judged but it is a reasonable criteria if you are trying to evolve as a musician and learn harder peices or you happen to appreciate that facet of the music.
Of course there is the aspect that relates to how the music makes you feel. But how do you measure that? You could say sales or popularity although I prefer to look at longevity. There were many composers around in Mozarts day but how many of them are remembered? For me "new" is never a criteria for good but old sometimes is.
As an artistic expression all music has equal value. Obviously when get into to other things there is value heirachy but I don't find it important. I think some musics have more education value which is why they are commonly taught in schools. Although I think there is a lot missed by focusing on just jazz and classical. I play in an African Marimba ensemble at my local community college and I have gained a lot I wouldn't be able to get from playing in the jazz group I play in. So the answer is yes sometimes?
Values are personal and cultural. They are subjective and dynamic in pretty much all cases I can think of...
Personal:
1) I like mustard and ketchup on my hot dog, but not so fond of sauerkraut.
2) You might like kraut and chili and cheese on yours.
3) I favor bluegrass to both classical and jazz.
4) When I was in high school I could listen to Led Zeppelin all day. Now, not so much.
Cultural:
1) Beef hot dogs are kosher, but not pork.
2) Lutefisk is a delicacy to some people... and others cannot get within 10 feet of it without retching.
3) Lobster and caviar are delicacies in some cultures, and in others they are ugly-looking bottom feeders and scum from the inside of a dead fish respectively.
4) Academic culture currently favors classical and jazz as music "worthy" of study. 100 years ago, jazz may not have been considered "worthy" of study in most academic settings. 100 years from now, Techno and Hip-hop may be considered "worthy", and classical may fall out of favor.
5) As a generalization... in New Orleans, high value is placed on Jazz. In Nashville, it's country. In Chicago it's blues. Etc., etc.
Personal and cultural values may conflict, and they both change over time. So a value judgement like "Classical is 'better' than X" may have been much more prevalent 50 years ago than it is today. At that time, bluegrass was probably viewed by the majority as "hillbilly" music... today it gets a lot more respect.
As far as whether one type of music requires more virtuosity than another, I don't think you can make generalizations. Every genre has it's more rudimentary and more complex variations. For example, I'd argue that performing Mississippi John Hurt's fingerpicking style requires more virtuosity and skill than the average classical guitar standard.
Personal:
1) I like mustard and ketchup on my hot dog, but not so fond of sauerkraut.
2) You might like kraut and chili and cheese on yours.
3) I favor bluegrass to both classical and jazz.
4) When I was in high school I could listen to Led Zeppelin all day. Now, not so much.
Cultural:
1) Beef hot dogs are kosher, but not pork.
2) Lutefisk is a delicacy to some people... and others cannot get within 10 feet of it without retching.
3) Lobster and caviar are delicacies in some cultures, and in others they are ugly-looking bottom feeders and scum from the inside of a dead fish respectively.
4) Academic culture currently favors classical and jazz as music "worthy" of study. 100 years ago, jazz may not have been considered "worthy" of study in most academic settings. 100 years from now, Techno and Hip-hop may be considered "worthy", and classical may fall out of favor.
5) As a generalization... in New Orleans, high value is placed on Jazz. In Nashville, it's country. In Chicago it's blues. Etc., etc.
Personal and cultural values may conflict, and they both change over time. So a value judgement like "Classical is 'better' than X" may have been much more prevalent 50 years ago than it is today. At that time, bluegrass was probably viewed by the majority as "hillbilly" music... today it gets a lot more respect.
As far as whether one type of music requires more virtuosity than another, I don't think you can make generalizations. Every genre has it's more rudimentary and more complex variations. For example, I'd argue that performing Mississippi John Hurt's fingerpicking style requires more virtuosity and skill than the average classical guitar standard.
Every time I tried playing Cecil Taylor to get my mack on with the ladies, something always seems to go wrong. 
I realize you want to have an academic discussion in hopes of reaching an objective conclusion, but the problem is that the concept of value is by definition a subjective, relative measure. In short, "valuable" is whatever a given person (or life form in general) decides it to be. Even with the example of gold given here earlier, the fact that its chemical composition makes it useful for certain things doesn't change the fact that there are some people who just have no need or desire for it. If all their needs & desires are met with some other material(s), then gold has no particular value to them. You can try to tell them otherwise, but only they know what they feel, believe and desire.
As for music, if someone doesn't have any kind of emotional reaction to a piece of music, then they would presumably consider it of no value (or if they particularly disliked a piece of music, it presumably is of negative value). But even then, we can't say for sure -- only the listener can. I recall being in my teens and having an upstairs neighbor -- 13-year-old boy -- who used to crank metal in his bedroom. Drove me crazy not just because it was loud but because I *hated* metal at the time (still don't like it for the most part). Long story short, I later realized that he had an unhappy family situation and metal was his coping mechanism. It enriched his life while it did the opposite for me.
This is just the nature of value.
Every time I tried playing Cecil Taylor to get my mack on with the ladies, something always seems to go wrong.
There's an invaluable lesson to be learned here.
Wow! Lots of intelligent, thoughtful responses - mostly - thanks! I appreciate it! While there are a lot of good points made, Ed's resonated with me the most. I agree that a great musical piece doesn't have to be complicated to be sophisticated. And it seems to me that great musicians in any style can make compelling music. Ed's example of Chet Atkins, for instance. But then, maybe great musicians can make great music regardless of the vehicle? At the end of the day, I think I agree with what I think is the consensus, that great music is independent of its musical style. I'll take the point that classical and jazz can offer good musical training. Not to say a musician can't master their instrument and develop musical sophistication by only studying and playing rock and roll, but the path to excellence might be less obvious? I'm not sure about this last part - I'll have to give it more thought.
Well, consider painting. There are some paintings/schools of painting/eras that focus much more on technical "perfection" than others. The technical abilities of painters/artists such as Durer are incredible but I wouldn't say his work is any more valid than the work of any number of the impressionists (whose work might be considered less than "perfect" on a technical level).
Typical examples of certain kinds of music are very repetitive and have a lower s/n ratio than others. I think we can eliminate some of that from the equality convo, but you're going to be on pretty shaky ground from there on out.
Sometimes a car and its stereo go by the house and I would seriously rather listen to a train or off-balance washing machine with a little poetry over top. Half the music made for consumption that will be forgotten over time can't hold its own to the sound of birds and traffic. I think that's a goddamn fact. I guess I don't have any place telling people over the internet what is dumb music, but I know it almost instantly when I hear it. I'm sure it has nothing to do with genre. And discussions of genre are for Spin magazine and that's about it, right?
Sometimes a car and its stereo go by the house and I would seriously rather listen to a train or off-balance washing machine with a little poetry over top. Half the music made for consumption that will be forgotten over time can't hold its own to the sound of birds and traffic. I think that's a goddamn fact. I guess I don't have any place telling people over the internet what is dumb music, but I know it almost instantly when I hear it. I'm sure it has nothing to do with genre. And discussions of genre are for Spin magazine and that's about it, right?
Value? well that depends on your perspective, I'm an ardent 'jazz' but i have a very diverse taste in music which believe can teach you a lot about music and more specifically, give you different ideas to approach playing the bass. For example, checking out stuff like Steely Dan gave me loads of interesting rhythmic ideas to incorporate in my upright jazz approach alongside transcribing the jazz masters and playing classical repertoire.
Every time I tried playing Cecil Taylor to get my mack on with the ladies, something always seems to go wrong.
There IS a lot of value here - the value lies in context. Different things work best at different points in time. You can bring the Vietnamese soup to a barbeque, but a lot of the time macaroni salad goes over better. It's like Stravinsky at a house party.. sure people will probably still have a good time, but there are songs that the girls would rather dance to (and it doesn't have to be the oh-so-dreaded "mindless drivel constructed for the masses", either.)
I am having a hard time presenting this thought in the manner I want, so hopefully you get the idea. I always compared music to another one of my favorite things: cooking and eating. Music is made of different elements.. some dishes are complex, others simple. Some nights you just want a cold beer and some wings, one of the simplest combos in Western society. The beer is made of little other than barley, hops, and yeast combined with water, and wings are just fried and smothered in hot sauce. Other times you want smoked applewood bacon wrapped around filet mignon, cooked to the perfect temperature, with a side of asparagus battered and fried in tempura, paired with a 30-year-old bottle of cabernet sauvignon you've been saving for just the right occasion.
Some may say the filet mignon has more value. The ingredients are more expensive or rare, the preparation has more attention to detail, and generally such a dish to be successful requires more skill and experience to make perfectly than the other example. But that doesn't mean on a Friday night I don't want an ice cold Sam Adams with a dozen wings, because sometimes that is just ideal.
Context.
And I am sorry if you're hungry..
Well given your forum name, the food analogy is only apropos. 
Yeah you caught the intention behind my sarcastic remark. Value is only worth what the criteria you're using it judge by. For instance, outside of Mingus works, jazz isn't as good as other idioms for presenting stirring social commentary. Rap is quite good at that. Not just good, sometimes very sophisticated depending on who's writing the lyric. Jazz also not very good at matching my mood when I want sometime to accompany an adrelinaline fueled activity. I tried listening to Miles (2nd quintent) while skiing once - I like Miles just as much as the next guy but that was probably one of the worst musical choices to make.
When someone poses these questions, the term "value" is usually about coming from an academic, afro/euro-centric perspective. But traditional Western based musical traditions are not the center of the musical world. Yes they've contributed alot but it's not the only end-all-be-all.
To argue whether one style is better than another is like making judgements on why one color is better than the next. If you dont' like one color, then go look at something else you do. The colors change with whats trendy moment to moment. For someone to pose the question of why one style is more valued than another screams more like you're trolling to hear people validate your musical tastes - whatever style you happen to favor.
Easier to just sit back and say, it ain't your cuppa...
Yeah you caught the intention behind my sarcastic remark. Value is only worth what the criteria you're using it judge by. For instance, outside of Mingus works, jazz isn't as good as other idioms for presenting stirring social commentary. Rap is quite good at that. Not just good, sometimes very sophisticated depending on who's writing the lyric. Jazz also not very good at matching my mood when I want sometime to accompany an adrelinaline fueled activity. I tried listening to Miles (2nd quintent) while skiing once - I like Miles just as much as the next guy but that was probably one of the worst musical choices to make.
When someone poses these questions, the term "value" is usually about coming from an academic, afro/euro-centric perspective. But traditional Western based musical traditions are not the center of the musical world. Yes they've contributed alot but it's not the only end-all-be-all.
To argue whether one style is better than another is like making judgements on why one color is better than the next. If you dont' like one color, then go look at something else you do. The colors change with whats trendy moment to moment. For someone to pose the question of why one style is more valued than another screams more like you're trolling to hear people validate your musical tastes - whatever style you happen to favor.
Easier to just sit back and say, it ain't your cuppa...
Reading this conversation it seems most people have changed "are all musical styles of equal value", which is arguably true, to "is all music of equal value", which is pretty obviously not.
SirMjac28
Patiently Waiting For The Next British Invasion
maybe to put this in perspective....
Who's a better artist, van gogh or da vinci?
They both have the basics...they can paint....however, they chose to express their artistry in the manner in which they did. I think that's true with a lot of musicians...they have the basics...they can play...but they choose to express themselves in the manner in which they do, in order to create the mood, movement, and/or the overall foundation to the music they're playing.
Who's a better artist, van gogh or da vinci?
They both have the basics...they can paint....however, they chose to express their artistry in the manner in which they did. I think that's true with a lot of musicians...they have the basics...they can play...but they choose to express themselves in the manner in which they do, in order to create the mood, movement, and/or the overall foundation to the music they're playing.
Latest posts
-
-
Software drums recommendation for practice Latin, Cumbia styles preferred
- Latest: bass player 53
-
-
