Is there any ground (or even combination of grounds) on which we can say that a work by lady Gaga is better then one by say Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart?
I’ve looked at (well skimmed through!) a few theories in aesthetics – formalism, institutionalism, versions of Witty’s idea of a family of resemblances, proceduralism, functionalism – nothing really seems to give much beyond
your opinion is as good as mine.
Any takers?
Or even references to old debates on ILP?
kp
Record sales.
And I hear that on some of her tracks, the volume goes up to 11.
and the auto tune can reach 10 ^ 6! 
kp
I just looked up a vid of Lady Gaga, who I wouldn’t have known if I tripped over her. She reminds me of Cher, in a couple of ways. Mozart wrote some stuff that was theoretically very sound, but about as inspired as a prospectus for the gas company. Mozarty crap. The music in the vid I just saw - Bad Romance, is not very different, harmonically and structurally, from something Mozart might have done. You could recast the melody into a Mozart-like treatment - there was even some faux harpsichord in the intro. Even the rhythmic figures aren’t so far away from Mozart.
In all, I enjoyed Bad Romance more than the worst of Mozart, but far less than the best of Mozart. Care must be taken to compare Bad Romance to minuet or a rondo or some other short, repetitive dance form and not to a full symphony. Some of those rondos are pretty fucking simple, and any first-year composition major can write one.
The beginning of aesthetics is consciousness of self. Blame the neocotex for that. It is the subjective “I” ( cortexial product with emotive input)) that decides what I like or dislike. So, it’s a matter of what trips your trigger. Now, if Lady Gaga’s music can do this for enough listeners over enough centuries, she might give Mozart a run for his money. Persistence of an art work (music, etc) over time gives us our notions of aesthetic value. For Lady Gaga, it’s too soon to tell. In the right now experience of her music, its aesthetic effect depends on who’s listening. The elitist opinion that Mozart has to be better may be based on the beauty and complexity of his musical compositions. These win by world-wide recognition.
But not all of Mozart’s compositions are more complex than your average pop song.
At any rate, Ierrellus, you seem to be making the case that aesthetic value is determined by popular vote over a long period of time.
That makes it easy, but not fundamentally about aesthetics at all.
Art taste is subjective and particularly relevant as to which side of the viewers brain is dominant.
Right side
Left side:
Balanced?
Sure. Lady Gaga is good pop music, I guess. It is popular. Lady Gaga would make a shit classical composer though.
Objectively better? No. But “objectively better” is an oxymoron.
And Bach wouldn’t have been able to match Herbie Hancock at jazz fusion.
I don’t like classical music anyways.
The point is an artist’s skill is to be ascertained by comparing him to artists of the same kind. You can’t compare a classical composer to a pop musician and ask which one is better. They are doing different things.
That’s not strictly true, Ascolo. Many composers of the Baroque and Classical periods - most, probably - wrote songs and other short forms - such as the aforementioned dance forms - that are entirely comparable to songs written today - even by “pop” writers. Handel wrote almost nothing but pop tunes, although he used longer forms than songwriters of today - but not always.
They are often enough doing exactly the same thing. In fact, many classical composers ripped popular tunes of their day - that wasn’t a secret - they had titles like “Variations on a Ripped Pop Song of Today”.
Not exactly. But pretty close.
I think that people who do not listen to a lot of classical music think that everything of that genre is through-composed or at least in the suite (symphony) form. But those suites contained just the kind of thing I am talking about - songs, minuets and the like.
Remember also that there was a lot of mediocre and even bad music written by classical composers. Most of that just isn’t performed anymore, so we don’t know it. Sometimes we don’t even know the names of the composers - because they were bad. I mean, music historians know them, but the general public doesn’t.
I don’t think I ever heard anything that Beethoven wrote that was anything but good - but maybe his stinkers are just not recorded or performed. But Stevie Wonder hasn’t written much that wasn’t very good. And musicians like Ian Anderson, Michael Jackson and Roger Waters - and many, many others - have written long-form stuff - but it’s still pop.
Nietzsche’s concept of the grand style may not go unmentioned here.
[size=95]This style has this in common with great passion, that it disdains to please; that it forgets to persuade; that it commands; that it wills… To become master of the chaos one is; to compel one’s chaos to become form: to become logical, simple, unambiguous, mathematics, law—that is the grand ambition here.—It repels; such men of force are no longer loved—a desert spreads around them, a fear as in the presence of some great sacrilege…
[Nietzsche, The Will to Power, section 842.][/size]
Cf. http://www.nietzscheforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=67 (I am ‘War God’) and http://groups.yahoo.com/group/human_superhuman/message/283.
The real test is how long the music is respected for.There is nothing fucking complicated about it.
So Chester - I am to let others decide for me?
They’re not making the choice for you, the majority view over a long period of time simply points to what is truly beautiful.
So, for instance, if you believe “Fur Elise” by Beethoven is a vile piece of music we can say that your taste is poor, ie, you are wrong on the matter.
Women’s rights?
Her videos kick his ass!
Well okay the paintings done of him at the piano.
LOL
Seriously his work is totally left brain ( and beautiful )…creates a state of awe.
her work is mostly right brain, sexual, emotional…Poker face makes me wanta dance and get laid…
both have their place.
Chester - are you serious?
Of course I’m being serious.
You have every right not to like “fur Elise”, but once you make a statement about it being vile you are clearly mistaken.You can say that it is not to your taste, but you are wrong if you attack it’s actual quality. Your not liking it is a reflection of your lack of taste rather than it’s lack of quality.