Best Singer of All Time is...

[sphinxsix]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I must disagree. Someone’s opinion that Mozart is better than Britney is fine, but there’s no such thing as objectively better in art. 

 

Yes, there is. As a person who studied art history I can assure you, Chris that there are criteria of 'objectively better' in art and I'm sure that can apply to music as well although I am not formally educated in this field. Probably someone here is..

Anyway comparing Mozart and Britney IMO is a little like comparing Space Shuttle Columbia and the basic model of let's say Fiat..

I apologize upfront to all Britney fans but a cheap Fiat isn't necessarily such a bad thing (although as for Fiats I only used to have Fiat Coupe turbo and BTW have great memories of this car).. 

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

I simply found the statement "Britney Spears is the same as Mozart is the same as Barry Manilow is the same as Miles Davis...." to strongly suggest musical relativism; then "Frank Sinatra, - was a below average talent that has nothing of value to bring to the table" to be stated as a dogmatic/objective fact of music/art.

 

Whether art is to be assessed relatively or objectively interests me.  I see the the need for some of the former, but also like some of the latter- certainly differing from many of the opinions expressed in this thread :).  Mozart did produce objectively better art than Brittney Spears; Charlie Parker than an R&B sax player of the same era; DaVinci better than the dude who put the urinal in the art exhibit; Baaba Maal, Andy Palacio, etc. better than XYZ- in my belief.

 

Bill

 

23 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

 

Yes, there is. As a person who studied art history I can assure you, Chris that there are criteria of 'objectively better' in art and I'm sure that can apply to music as well although I am not formally educated in this field. Probably someone here is..

Anyway comparing Mozart and Britney IMO is a little like comparing Space Shuttle Columbia and the basic model of let's say Fiat..

I apologize upfront to all Britney fans but a cheap Fiat isn't necessarily such a bad thing (although as for Fiats I only used to have Fiat Coupe turbo and BTW have great memories of this car).. 

 

 

 

What are the objective criteria for art or music appreciation?

 

Let me stress I am not against the idea, I am just intrigued by the notion. I can think of arguments both ways but it sounds like you guys have more experience in the area so I would genuinely like to hear what you think. There are wider ramifications which might apply but again I stress there is no trap in this question. I genuinely am interested in the answer.

[The Computer Audiophile]

41 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

 

Yes, there is. As a person who studied art history I can assure you, Chris that there are criteria of 'objectively better' in art and I'm sure that can apply to music as well although I am not formally educated in this field. Probably someone here is..

Anyway comparing Mozart and Britney IMO is a little like comparing Space Shuttle Columbia and the basic model of let's say Fiat..

I apologize upfront to all Britney fans but a cheap Fiat isn't necessarily such a bad thing (although as for Fiats I only used to have Fiat Coupe turbo and BTW have great memories of this car).. 

 

 

Absolutely not. Which color is best, red or blue?

[sphinxsix]

16 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

 

What are the objective criteria for art or music appreciation?

 

Let me stress I am not against the idea, I am just intrigued by the notion. I can think of arguments both ways but it sounds like you guys have more experience in the area so I would genuinely like to hear what you think. There are wider ramifications which might apply but again I stress there is no trap in this question. I genuinely am interested in the answer.

 

There are many. E.g. some think of Picasso as of the one of the greatest modern painters but in some regards Braque (not nearly as popular as Picasso) let's say 'proceeded' Picasso ideas or in other words - Picasso copied Braque's ideas (this is not a place to go into details but I guess one could Google it quite easily). Being the first one to use or more correctly to create a particular idea in art is one of such criteria but only one of them. I can't suggest you any particular books on this subject (it's been years since..) but it also should be quite easily 'googleable'..

This could be easily translatable to the music field - if e.g. the Rolling Stones copied some black rhythm and blues music ideas in particular in their early days - at least in this regard the original black artists are 'objectively better'.

[sphinxsix]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

Absolutely not. Which color is best, red or blue?

Color is not art, Chris. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, sphinxsix said:

Color is not art, Chris. 

It’s illustrative of my point though.

 

If you can judge art, which painting by Rembrandt is best?

[sphinxsix]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

It’s illustrative of my point though.

 

If you can judge art, which painting by Rembrandt is best?

 

Ha, ha.. Haven't you ever answered a question about the best Pearl Jam album.? 

It's definitely possible to say that some paintings by Rembrandt (it's actually quite personal for me - I live 500m from the house where he was born..) are better than others or better than e.g. some paintings by Frans Hals or by some other artists of the period. As for an attempt of comparing him with eg Picasso - it obviously makes very limited sense.. 

[JoeWhip]

I must say that I never thought I would be in a thread arguing the relative merits of Mozart v. Britney Spears. Did I happen to fall into some alternate universe? Help me Obi Wan, you are my only hope. 😀

[sphinxsix]

As for history of art - there are quite many tools of analysis of an 'art form' used to evaluate a particular painting or a particular painter. One more example - which artist of a given period did master chiaroscuro better. I'm sure there are similar tools in the field of history of music, there simply have to be.. But like I said - I'm not formally educated in this field.

[sphinxsix]

9 minutes ago, JoeWhip said:

I must say that I never thought I would be in a thread arguing the relative merits of Mozart v. Britney Spears. Did I happen to fall into some alternate universe? Help me Obi Wan, you are my only hope. 😀

 

IMO in many regards AS is an alternate universe just like whole this hobby.. 

 

[Bill Brown]

22 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

What are the objective criteria for art or music appreciation?

My argument is that there are gradations of quality in art, from bad to great and that there is an objective basis for this.  Not all art or artists are equally good.

 

I wish I could write on this with some degree of respectability, but it isn't in my "wheelhouse."  I remember reading some about it years ago, but don't have a great argument distilled in my head.  Maybe it is just my way of thinking.  It certainly feels "intuitive."

 

One has to begin to speak about things like "taste," "preference," and other concepts and keep them separate.  I would never criticize someone's preferences (at least out loud!), but I think taste becomes refined with learning/knowledge.

 

Am I the only one that gets exposed to new music, initially don't understand it/"get" it, but hear a snippet or two that brings me back, then back, then I understand it and fall in love?  It is the music that becomes the most important to me, much more (if I could only bring a few albums to my desert island) than the classic R&B I love that I grooved to ("got") on first listen.

 

Take it to the extreme.  Are the Sistine Chapel paintings better as art than the crayon drawings of a kindergartener?  Both are art, right?  Are the compositions and orchestration of Ravel better than Motley Crue?  As I said, seems intuitively obvious to me.  I certainly have lots of music I consider "guilty pleasures," we all do and that's cool.  But doesn't make them equal.  Our "preferences" are just that.

 

Bill

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

You guys kill me. Judging art is the most preposterous thing. 
 

I saw Britney Spears in concert. Extremely entertaining. She was far better than Mozart. Prove me wrong. 

[Bill Brown]

3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I must disagree. Someone’s opinion that Mozart is better than Britney is fine, but there’s no such thing as objectively better in art. 

 

Maybe my last post had this more in mind than AudiophileNeuroscience's.

[sphinxsix]

19 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

You guys kill me. Judging art is the most preposterous thing. 
 

I saw Britney Spears in concert. Extremely entertaining. She was far better than Mozart. Prove me wrong. 

 

Yeah.. comparing them IMO also makes limited sense, especially taking into account the depth of her masterpieces like:

 

 

In comparison to vulgar and boring Mozart pieces like e.g..

 

 

 

But I have a question, Chris - is she better than Pearl Jam.?  

Or Bjork.? (probably closer musically to her)

 

I'm sorry but for me personally she's like a cheap Fiat.. 

Of course - the world needs cheap Fiats and probably some really love them!

They're just not for me. 

And no-one will convince me of their importance in the car history (except from the commercial dimension)..

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

7 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

 

Yeah.. comparing them IMO also makes limited sense, especially taking into account the depth of her masterpieces like:

 

 

In comparison to vulgar and boring Mozart pieces like e.g..

 

 

 

But I have a question, Chris - is she better than Pearl Jam.?  

Or Bjork.?  

 

I'm sorry but for me personally she's like a cheap Fiat.. 

Of course - the world needs cheap Fiats and probably some really love them!

They're just not for me.

 

I’d take that Britney song over anything from Mozart any day. Heck, Mozart couldn’t even sing!  At least Britney could sing with studio help. More than Mozart can say. 
 

[AudioDoctor]

Objectively, Britney is just a cheap american knock off of Kylie...

 

and Kylie is better. By better I mean, she is listenable.

 

 

 

[gmgraves]

3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I must disagree. Someone’s opinion that Mozart is better than Britney is fine, but there’s no such thing as objectively better in art. 

While you are right. Humanity’s collective regard for any art or artist forms the hierarchy that ranks both. That ranking puts Mozart higher than Britany Spears (and most everybody else), so basically we grow up being told that a Bach,  a Beethoven, and a Mozart represent the highest attainment of Western culture. - even if personally, many of us don’t appreciate their music and some of us have never heard any of their work, we know the names, and we know that they are considered the pinnacle of our civilization.

[sphinxsix]

9 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I’d take that Britney song over anything from Mozart any day. Heck, Mozart couldn’t even sing!  At least Britney could sing with studio help. More than Mozart can say. 
 

 

Britney more entertaining than Mozart, you gotta be kidding, Chris 

 

 

IMO without Amadeus there would be no e.g. some of Hendrix guitar tricks!

[AudioDoctor]

And Christina Aguilera is an objectively better singer than Britney.

[Mayfair]

Without commenting on the musical tastes and choices of others (chacun son goût), I will only note that Mozart died in 1791. There aren't many people who are remembered for over two centuries, let alone composers whose work is still widely performed and recorded by contemporary artists who think they can find and add something new.  

 

 

[sphinxsix]

35 minutes ago, Mayfair said:

Without commenting on the musical tastes and choices of others (chacun son goût), I will only note that Mozart died in 1791. There aren't many people who are remembered for over two centuries, let alone composers whose work is still widely recorded by contemporary artists who think they can find and add something new.  

 

 

 

I agree. Somehow I tend to think that even the greatest today BS fans will not remember her in 200 years from now..  

 

BTW frankly, I think 'Ooops..' is a very catchy sing and I quite like it, just like I like pieces I mentioned on 'Bizarre Music..' thread.

I also think everyone has a constitutional right to like songs like this one. Music and art evaluation is IMO at least to the same degree subjective as objective after all..

[The Computer Audiophile]

40 minutes ago, Mayfair said:

Without commenting on the musical tastes and choices of others (chacun son goût), I will only note that Mozart died in 1791. There aren't many people who are remembered for over two centuries, let alone composers whose work is still widely performed and recorded by contemporary artists who think they can find and add something new.  

 

 

If we’re want to talk about objective facts like who was remembered longer, that’s totally fine. It has nothing to do with judging art though. 
 

History can be funny though. Sports writers now rate Babe Ruth higher (think better) than the sports writers who actually saw him play in person. Perhaps he wasn’t as good as the legend has become or perhaps he’s better given that we can analyze his work with respect to more greats. 
 

Mozart may be great to some, but I don’t want ministers of information deciding what art is the best. It’s preposterous. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

42 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

And Christina Aguilera is an objectively better singer than Britney.

I’ve seen her a couple times. Fantastic talent who sings live every time. 

[sphinxsix]

11 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Mozart may be great to some, but I don’t want ministers of information deciding what art is the best. It’s preposterous. 

 

I agree in 100%, like I said we all have a constitutional right to like what we like.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

46 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

While you are right. Humanity’s collective regard for any art or artist forms the hierarchy that ranks both. That ranking puts Mozart higher than Britany Spears (and most everybody else), so basically we grow up being told that a Bach,  a Beethoven, and a Mozart represent the highest attainment of Western culture. - even if personally, many of us don’t appreciate their music and some of us have never heard any of their work, we know the names, and we know that they are considered the pinnacle of our civilization.

Hi George, I definitely hear you on this one but I get heebie jeebies thinking about taste makers deciding which art is better. I’m willing to bet we all know some artists that are far better, in our opinions, than those who got popular, but these guys remained mostly unknown. 
 

Album tracks are often better than officially released tracks as well.