The following is based on the actual experience of one of my favorite college professors, heretofore known as "Doc." A knowledgeable conductor, music theory instructor, and phenomenal jazz pianist, Doc recounted this story to the students in an undergrad music theory class Yours Truly was attending. The following is the actual gist of that story, a paraphrase of the incident, not word-for-word:
During one of our music theory classes, Doc mentioned (to us students) that he had recently had a conversation with a lawyer friend of his; the topic revolved around an upcoming Las Vegas venue performance of a well-known finger-picking guitar virtuoso.
LAWYER: I've got tickets to the [said guitarist’s] concert next week, and can't wait; he is SO talented!
DOC: I'm sure you will enjoy it.
LAWYER: What?! Aren't you planning to attend the show yourself? He is such a great musician.
DOC: He definitely has a polished performance technique; I'm just not into his particular style of music.
LAWYER: What do you mean? I think he is the greatest!
DOC: Frankly, I prefer my harmony to be a little "richer" - I find it boring to have to restrict my listening to only triads and a few 7th chords in a basic chord procession for an entire evening. That is one reason why I prefer to play jazz, and I listen to a lot of classical music, too. I love all those altered and extended chords, more progressive melodic, harmonic, and rhythmic materials. The music I prefer is anything but bland.
LAWYER: I think you need to open your mind a little, Doc. I know what I am talking about, and this guy is fantastic.
DOC: No, you need to listen to me. You, are a lawyer. I would not presume to tell or advise you on legal matters, because that is your field, and you hold an advanced degree from a law school. I believe you understand your field better than I do, and you naturally expect others - myself included - to respect your opinion ON LEGAL MATTERS. I do not even have the LEGAL RIGHT to advise others on legal matters; that's your job, and field, and expertise.
In the same way, however, you ought to give me the same respect and courtesy IN MATTERS RELEVANT TO MY FIELD. I hold an earned doctoral degree in music and music theory, which requires at least as much study, effort, and time to earn as your law degree. You can verify this by asking the students in the music theory program I teach at the local community college. When it comes to MY field, I KNOW what I am talking about, better than you.
CODA: Why does everybody think they are an authority in the field of music, just because they can hear and dance to it, and perhaps sing along? I could probably at least read through a law book, if it's written in plain English, though I may not understand all of the legal principles involved. On the other hand, could this lawyer even READ a sheet of printed music, and perform that music on an instrument, let alone perform an in-depth musical analysis of, say, a symphony by Beethoven? (Does he know what is meant by "musical analysis"?)
Doc was a well-loved and witty educator, who worked and succeeded in establishing a complete fine arts program and AA Degree, with music emphasis, at a 2-year community college. Yours Truly completed his entire 4-semester music theory track at that school. In order to complete the bachelor's, however, it was necessary to transfer the theory credits to another, a 4-year institution. It is worth noting that, on the music theory placement exam for entry into the latter (an Ivy League "wannabe"), Yours Truly achieved the highest score of ALL the music majors in that Department.
Yours Truly knows what he is talking about, too.
We miss you, Doc! – Your Music Theory Students
Hmmm, although I understand were you are coming from, in the conversation you gave us in your post, I don't see the lawyer claiming to be an authority. He simple expressed his opinion, this band being talented and great. Art is very subjective when it concerns the 'like' and maybe even 'good' factor. When 'bad' music is loved by the mass, is the music 'bad'? I can tell you, I don't like so much of the music around, which is LOVED by the mass. This is especially the case in electronic dance music; The biggest events with the biggest stages with the most people in front of them, generally feature the artists with the least 'quality' and 'good' music. I put bad, good, quality all in quotes, since I do see the differences, but in the end such qualification is subjective. Interestingly, my username starts with Q taken from quality and I like to think all music I post in my blog is quality music, however, you may think differently :)
My son (@cmp2020) and I have variants of this conversation all the time. To what extent does the authority of the artist define the quality of the work and to what extent is it determined by the market?
I tend to place more reliance on the market, but that's only true over long time scales. He constantly brings up the examples of Franz Schubert and Emily Dickinson, neither of whom had commercial popularity until after their deaths, but obviously they knew that they had written quality works. And, of course, we have no idea how many high quality works have been lost to history.
I don't think there's really a black & white answer. If we're talking about technical correctness, obviously the trained musician knows more than the casual listener, but (IMO) that's only a partial evaluation.
I agree with your point of view. Some of my friends, being musicians, may have a different opinion, generally not connecting 'quality' with market. But I suppose, they think like that because they are musicians and although they indeed produce music with a certain complexity, something different then the standard (both aspects I like in music) making it a certain quality in my book, they want to differentiate from all those musicians producing relatively simple tunes, easy to listen to, easy in everything, which in the end is more the music for the mass, or at least, the mass generally likes to lesser complex music. Since, I'm not a musician, I can look at things in a different way, I suppose, kinda like how you think. The market determines in the end what 'quality' is and I'm pretty sure a lot of 'quality' music got lost because the market didn't find it quality enough :)
I'm not sure I agree that over the long term that low quality works get lost. Often, the long term survival is also a tendency of taste. In Early Music, our work also focuses alot on the rediscovery of "lost" works and composers. You'd be surprised how many gems there are! Of course, there are also troves of derivative works....