Double Bass Are all musical styles of equal value?

[Chris Fitzgerald]

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.

This.

Bonnie Rait and Jessye Norman are two of my favorite singers for the reasons Ed mentiones above. I'm pretty sure that Ms. Raitt would sound pretty funny singing Mahler songs in German, and that Ms. Norman would sound similarly out of place belting out "Good Man, Good Woman" in a duet with Delbert McClinton*. But in their own elements, they are voices of the gods.

I've heard a lot of horrible jazz, and a fair amount of great pop/rock music. Reverse this sentence and it remains true. It's not about what you're doing, but rather how you're doing it. In my opinion, being a snob about styles is missing the point entirely. If you're going to be a snob about something, better to live by the maxim that that you only spend your precious time on earth re-listening to music that moves you in some deep way regardless of what other people may think of it. And if you can do that, given that our precious time on earth is so limited, it would probably be better to continue doing that than to talk down music that doesn't meet that standard for you. In the end, it's all subjective after all... and for each of us, we are the only subject that really matters. As always, YMMV, and YMWCB.



* However, given the raw musical genius of both, I'm sure either or both could surprise me if they set their minds to it.

 

[Marc Piane]

 

[drurb]

The question is meaningless on its face. I've been around TB for quite a while and, frankly, this is one of the most absurd questions I've encountered. That it produced three pages (so far) is unfortunate.

Can a brother get an "amen"?


Are we up to 4 pages yet?

Yup, page 4! You gotta wonder if the OP was pulling our collective leg from the start. Amazing that we have thoughtful members who have taken the time to explain about art and opinions.

I'd like to ask an equally valid question:

Is jazz 46 or leftward?

.

Amazing how, in order to rid us of absolutes, the proponents of E-prime suggest an absolute.

I sometimes apologize for going somewhat OT, but not in the case of this thread! Thanks, Marc, for taking us here.

 

[Lee Moses]

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?

The number of people who actually attend operas or symphony orchesta performances are dwarfed by the number of people who go to honky tonks, or to rock concerts, or listen to pop, rap or hip-hop music. Few, if any, opera houses or symphony orchestras could keep their doors open without taxpayer assistance.

I'm not sure what exactly you are trying to say. Are you saying that taxpayer funding is given to music of less value? The fact that elected officials and the constituents they represent choose to support opera houses and symphony orchestras rather than local gangsta rappers or country pickers suggests they see such things providing a cultural value to their community that the others could not match.

 

[Deathblade Eric]

Artistically, all forms are equal — Mahler = Britney
Technically, all forms are not equal — Mahler > Britney
Commercially, all forms are not equal &#8212; Mahler < Britney

 

[Ash Jazz]

Artistically, all forms are equal — Mahler = Britney
Technically, all forms are not equal — Mahler > Britney
Commercially, all forms are not equal — Mahler < Britney

Brilliantly stated!

 

[wideload]

Reminds me of the J. Evans Pritchard scene in "Dead Poets Society, plotting the importance and value of poetry. Utter nonsense. Music (and poetry) speak to the heart, and no type of music is the preferred language or style.

 

[SteveHeissner]

An impaired baboon could play most of the stuff I play (80's hair band tribute). I'm sure Marcus Miller or Billy Sheehan would be bored to death playing in my band. So I would agree that in theory not all music is created equal... at least when it comes to the skill required to play it well.

 

[Pork_Chop]

Would somebody please tell me how awesome I am. I play Jazz for Christ sakes!

 

[Lee Moses]

Artistically, all forms are equal — Mahler = Britney

No. Just . . . no.

 

[groooooove]

i wish i could say yes to this question, but i can't find a way to rationalize the late quartets of beethoven to be of equal value to what adele or rhianna are doing.

and +1 to the fact that rachmaninoff is indisputably "of more value" than skrillex, and i think skrillex is f_____ing cool.

however there are MANY styles of music that do measure up to great composers. traditional folk music has endless depth and value that is hard to really see without spending much time with it. one of the best drummers i know- he has a PhD in music- spent time in africa, researching traditional percussion. he joined in a drum circle and was immediately told by one of the african drummers to stop playing, and to just listen to them. a professional drummer! the sticks were grabbed right out of his hands, after "playing for no more than three beats."

so, theres my take on it.

t

 

[squidtastic]

Yup, page 4! You gotta wonder if the OP was pulling our collective leg from the start. Amazing that we have thoughtful members who have taken the time to explain about art and opinions.

Well, it's easy to be cynical, but I interpreted the OP to be wrestling with his own sense of snobbery. Most snobs don't think -- or don't want to think -- they're snobs . And who knows what other readers think about the topic? There are certainly a multitude of opinions/experiences, so what's the harm in chatting about it?

I've seen lots of trolling in my time (going far back enough that I still think of the original use of "troll" as a verb rather than a noun), but the OP struck me to be genuinely looking for feedback rather than merely trolling.

 

[drurb]

Artistically, all forms are equal &#8212; Mahler = Britney
Technically, all forms are not equal &#8212; Mahler > Britney
Commercially, all forms are not equal &#8212; Mahler < Britney

Ah, but the OP asked about "value." You are answering very different (more meaningful) questions.

Well, it's easy to be cynical, but I interpreted the OP to be wrestling with his own sense of snobbery. Most snobs don't think -- or don't want to think -- they're snobs . And who knows what other readers think about the topic? There are certainly a multitude of opinions/experiences, so what's the harm in chatting about it?

I've seen lots of trolling in my time (going far back enough that I still think of the original use of "troll" as a verb rather than a noun), but the OP struck me to be genuinely looking for feedback rather than merely trolling.

I was and am not being cynical. I was and am being logical. Asking if there is equal "objective" value is meaningless. No harm in chatting about anything. That's part of the fun of this place.

 

[DiabolusInMusic]

Artistically, all forms are equal &#8212; Mahler = Britney
Technically, all forms are not equal &#8212; Mahler > Britney
Commercially, all forms are not equal &#8212; Mahler < Britney

I don't know how to do the cross out thing, but it should read "Artistically, all forms are equal &#8212; Mahler = The production team behind Britney"

The rest if pretty accurate unless you are referring to dancing, then technically Britney would smoke Mahler one would think.

 

[Clef_de_fa]

This epic rap battle between Skrillex and Mozart is really great and sum what I think :

 

[Tom Lane]

Ah, but the OP asked about "value." You are answering very different (more meaningful) questions.



I was and am not being cynical. I was and am being logical. Asking if there is equal "objective" value is meaningless. No harm in chatting about anything. That's part of the fun of this place.

Okay, being the *OP* on this thread, I have to interject. !) I was being sincere in my question and 2) Ed Fuqua provided the answer I was looking for - that great music is made regardless of genre. Take your least sophisticated genre and disregard it because it could well be a musical genius is playing.
The poster that used the *>* signs was correct in my mind and identified a lot of the dissonance I was feeling. Classical *tends* to create better masters of their instruments, and jazz *tends* to create better ears, but genre is irrelevant, because great musicians play in the genre they familiar with, regardless. Being a snob just deprives me of some great talent and performances. Thanks Ed.
That said, I have to add, since there are so many negative comments about my snobbishness, that I'm a jazz snob because 1) I feel that I still have a lot to learn from jazz and don't want to spend what little time I have on studying other genres, a personal choice, and 2) the more time I spend on jazz, the less compelling I find other genres other multiple listenings. That's not to say that I don't enjoy a great bluegrass recording, and I appreciate the mastery that went into creating that performance, but over multiple listenings, I long for more musical complexity.
But, that's me, and I am in no way bitter that that the general music public doesn't see it the way I see it. I'm disappointed, but recognize that music isn't as important to most folks as it is to me. I think that's reality. At the end of the day, all things are REALLY important to a few, and of marginal importance to the majority.

 

[faulknersj]

Music is like food...you taste it...and you either like it or u don't. Whether you do or don't like food can evolve just like ones musical tastes. After eating a Prime cut of beef, the steaks that you once thought were delicious may not taste as good anymore. Education tends to educate both ones palate and ones ears IMO.

 

[JimmyM]

I've heard a lot of so-called art I thought was crap and a lot of so-called crap that I thought was art. I take it all on a case by case basis. If you're looking for a reason to be a snob, though, I'm sure you'll find one.

 

[gr8bassplayer]

Music is like food...you taste it...and you either like it or u don't.

+1, however a much more emotional food

 

[faulknersj]

Okay, being the *OP* on this thread, I have to interject. !) I was being sincere in my question and 2) Ed Fuqua provided the answer I was looking for - that great music is made regardless of genre. Take your least sophisticated genre and disregard it because it could well be a musical genius is playing.
The poster that used the *>* signs was correct in my mind and identified a lot of the dissonance I was feeling. Classical *tends* to create better masters of their instruments, and jazz *tends* to create better ears, but genre is irrelevant, because great musicians play in the genre they familiar with, regardless. Being a snob just deprives me of some great talent and performances. Thanks Ed.
That said, I have to add, since there are so many negative comments about my snobbishness, that I'm a jazz snob because 1) I feel that I still have a lot to learn from jazz and don't want to spend what little time I have on studying other genres, a personal choice, and 2) the more time I spend on jazz, the less compelling I find other genres other multiple listenings. That's not to say that I don't enjoy a great bluegrass recording, and I appreciate the mastery that went into creating that performance, but over multiple listenings, I long for more musical complexity.
But, that's me, and I am in no way bitter that that the general music public doesn't see it the way I see it. I'm disappointed, but recognize that music isn't as important to most folks as it is to me. I think that's reality. At the end of the day, all things are REALLY important to a few, and of marginal importance to the majority.

I feel you. I think jazz players are usually better players in nearly every aspect of music in my experience. I employ a lot of musicians in my band and I always view jazz experience as a big plus. Jazz players STUDY music, they know more than the major and minor scale, they understand how to approach music from the perspective of chords, they have great ears and chops and are fast learners in my experience. Rock players in my experience can have a tougher time grasping musical concepts in some of our repetiore. Rock players back in the day were at least trained in the blues or theory (Zep, Floyd, Rush) but I'm not sure that study, disciplined practice, and theory are really part of the culture anymore. Not a knock..just observation on level of musical knowledge based on my experience.