Many different ways to be 'good'?

There are many valid ways to define 'good music' depending upon what the goal is for any particular piece of music or sound recording.

• One could value (or devalue) a piece of music based upon its structural integrity (or lack thereof)
• One could appreciate (or depreciate) a piece of music based on how much ingenuity they felt the composer demonstrated.
• One could also judge a piece of music based upon how challenging it was to digest--or perhaps how  complex he considered it to be…
• Sometimes we may value a piece of music--at least to some extent-- based upon how difficult it was for the musicians to successfully perform.
• Others, however, may tend to judge music based upon how 'catchy' or 'infectious' they perceive the melody to be.
• Some recorded music lovers place a very high value on sterling production and sound quality of the recording.
• Yet others judge music based upon how varied, unusual, or appropriate they deem the arrangement to be.
• Soundtracks are often judged by how effectively they elicit (or at least enhance or contribute to the creation of) an appropriate emotional reaction from an audience during a particular scene of a motion picture. (The soundtrack for the shower scene of the Hitchcock film ‘Psycho’ comes to mind).
• Many music fans to some extent value music by how many years a composition has remained etched into the public's consciousness.  (Classical music fans often ascribe value based on longevity in this manner).
• Some judge music based upon more pragmatic, utilitarian measurements like how many people claim to have genuinely enjoyed it or even in more mercantile economic terms like how many dollars it earned or units it sold in the retail marketplace.

o   It has certainly enjoyed a long run of success as a light-hearted celebratory vocal tune for birthday celebrations.

o   It's lyrics have been translated into at least 18 languages.

o   It has enhanced the mood of millions of people for over a century now. It has passed the test of time!

Guinness Book of World Records has proclaimed the song “Happy Birthday” to be the most recognized song in the entire English language!  (Don’t ask me how they went about quantifying such an observation.  Even still, I must admit that I am hard-pressed to come up with a different song more ubiquitously seared in to the mind of more English-speakers worldwide.)  Based upon passing the test of time, relatively universal appeal, and the ability elicit fond memories from a large number of people, the song “Happy Birthday” has been—and continues to be--an astounding success!  On these counts this music is undoubtedly ‘good’.

The song “Happy Birthday” so obviously falls so very short of artistic aesthetics that it might be hard to even imagine someone attempting to seriously criticize that little ditty on such a basis.

Their criticism would be like berating an Army Tank because it cannot exceed 100 mph like a racecar does... The Army Tank was constructed with the goal of being durable, strong, and capable of land combat even in difficult terrain. It was not constructed with speed in mind. Although an Army Tank would be a terrible vehicle to enter in the Indy 500 race, the Indy racecar would be a terrible vehicle to employ in land combat over difficult terrain.

And yet we do this with music all the time!  (i.e. that dance song sure isn’t progressive at all! Not at ALL!!)

Music serves different audiences in different times and different places for different purposes.

Yet so many of us routinely:

o   Impose our own personal standards upon on music,

o   Judge it as "good" or "bad" based on our own personal standard,

o   Express those judgments of "good or bad" without ever defining our standards

o   Then we somehow expect others to magically conform to our unstated ideals.

If you pause to think about it, how incredibly absurd is that? And yet most people routinely talk about music as though it were arithmetic or moral law.

Consider for a moment—if you will—people.  Are there not many different ways for people to exhibit qualities which we consider ‘good’?

·         The strongest person among us is rarely also the fastest.

·         The fastest person in a 50 yard dash is not always the quickest moving laterally.

·         The quickest person is rarely the most accomplished at long distance running.

·         The best marathon runner may or may not be the smartest member of a group.

·         The smartest person is usually not also the wisest.

·         How often is the wisest person of a group also the most quick-witted?

·         The most quick-witted is almost never the most poetic.

·         The greatest engineer is rarely also the greatest psychologist or counsellor…

Music is similar in that the most intricate is rarely the most powerful.  The most stirring is rarely the most peaceful, etc.

Why is it sometimes so incredibly hard for us to really talk about music?

The easiest answer is that some people really do believe that there is one single ‘right’ standard of ‘goodness’ for all music and the rest is all ‘bad’.  Such a person sees music assessment the same way they view arithmetic.  2 + 2 always equals 4.  But there is a reason our art teachers did not teach us art out of a math book and math teachers did not teach us math from an art text.  These two disciplines do different things.  Arithmetic, by its very nature quantifies.  Where art most often qualifies.  Arithmetic says “how much is there?”.  Art says “How do I feel about that?”

This brings me to another reason why I think it is difficult for people to talk about music.  I think people often respond to music on an emotional plane that they sometimes have not yet fully identified or assigned words to yet themselves.   And if they have been introspective enough to identify and put these feelings into words, they might be uncomfortable expressing them verbally.

For example, a metal-head might not fully recognize that the music they listen to makes them feel powerful and mighty, impervious to attack, capable of accomplishing anything they set their minds to.  They might just know it makes them feel good and they think the guitar player is “awesome dude”!  Or, if they are introspective enough to recognize the emotional state that their heavy music helps promote in their psyche, they might be understandably reticent to make themselves vulnerable by verbally expressing such personal emotions on a music discussion list.

Finally, I think that music discussions can become difficult because many of us get lazy and skip over communication of our ideals and/or standards.  We simply assume others share our values, skip straight to sharing our assessment and expect others to have come to similar conclusions.  When they don’t, we feel threatened and look for some defect in them to ‘blame’ for their ‘wrong’ perceptions.

The typical downward spiral to a flame-war

Let’s say Person A defines a rock band’s music as 'good' only if they play the majority of their own recorded output and their performances exhibit an high level of competency in terms of musicianship.

Let’s say person B defines a rock band’s music as ‘good’ if they have catchy music, a great stage show, and are fun to watch and sing along with.

OK, we have the raw ingredients needed for a flame war.  All we need to do is add the spark…

Person A happens to come across a band named the Beatniks.  The Beatniks are comprised of 4 self-taught hacks who despite their lack of formal training have crafted very effective vocal harmonies.  They also seem to have been naturally blessed with the ability to effortlessly compose an endless catalog of songs with catchy yet also highly memorable melodies.  They have an infectious energy and a certain stage presence that just seems to make everything ‘fun’.  Person A is surprised to discover that even a few days after he saw them perform live, he still catches himself unintentionally humming and/or singing Beatnik tunes he’d heard for the very first time during that show.

If Person A is open minded enough to admit that they do kind of like the Beatniks… yet they are still entrenched in one singular way of considering music to be ‘good’, they would be inclined to reluctantly acknowledge this bands good qualities by saying something like this…

·         Person A:  "You know what? I saw this young band the other day named the Beatniks and I kind of LIKE that band. I mean... Don’t get me wrong.  I'm not trying to say that they are “good”. They aren't good at all really. Their music is rather infantile in many respects.  But I still do kinda’ like them."

Person B then blows his stack.  Person B LOVES the Beatniks.  The Beatniks represent everything they value in rock and roll.  Truth be told, deep down, they kind of feel personally insulted, threatened, and devalued by being told the band they think is the greatest in the world is infantile really. 

Person B can’t just go on a music list and whine about how hurt they are.  Normal people just don’t DO that.  Instead, they start blaming person A for putting them into such a negative frame of mind.  Person B starts believing that Person A is probably a mean hateful troll or perhaps a grumpy, irritable jerk.  At the very least Person A must be IGNORANT, right?  So person B tells Person A in not uncertain terms that they know absolutely nothing about "good" music.

Person B’s outburst of vitriol certainly does NOT make Person A more inclined to have good and positive things to say about the Beatniks.  If anything, it tends to push Person A back toward their safe paradigm of “if you ain’t got chops, you ain’t a good band—period.  And sorry, but the Beatniks just ain't got 'em..."

A better way (IMO).  What if Person A had embraced a multi-dimensional paradigm for musical ‘goodness’ instead?

What if Person A had embraced an attitude that music could be valuable and have legitimately ‘good’ qualities even while it simultaneously was substandard in other aspects or qualities?

Such a person might instead say…

·         I was very impressed by the Beatniks tight vocal harmonies.  They displayed so much enthusiasm that I found myself getting caught up in how fun a simple rockin’ tune can be!  And their melodies, while simple enough to remember, they were quite varied.  That seems like a difficult thing to do now that I think about it.  Crafting inventive and distinct yet also easily remembered sing-along melodies.  I really love those things about their music. I do wish, however, that they would apply themselves to the discipline of developing more precise musicianship. If they did THAT, I'd really love this band.

Most of the time person A wouldn’t have any trouble at all accepting this.

But of course not everyone will talk about music that way.  Some people are just going to call things "good" and "bad".  Sometimes they will do so without even realizing that they have a personally internalized standard of what makes music ‘good’ to them at all.

What do you think? 

Are you too willing to say "OK, disco may be 'good' for someone who likes to dance while nostalgically remembering the 1970's, but it's not for me"? 

Or do you think I've finally lost my mind in a haze of musical subjectivity?  ;-)