Is classical music really better?

[Ploutos]

Is there any objective basis for arguing that classical music is better than rock-n-roll or other "popular" genres of music?

I am a lifelong fan of classical music - I've probably spent 15 hours this past week alone listening to the symphonies of Anton Bruckner, and I've been working my way through the Bach cantatas over the last several months (I'm up to Cantata 85 at this point). But aside from Bach and Handel (and a few possibly religious figures like Victoria, Mendelssohn, or Bruckner), most classical composers were rank pagans, many of them with personal lives sufficiently sordid to make good checkout-aisle reading. Not only that, but most classical music from 1800 onward is built on a distinctly non-Christian foundation. Who better epitomizes the deification of the artist than Beethoven? And then there's the overtly pagan themes found in the orchestral music of writers like Holst, Strauss, Mahler, or Wagner. All of these are composers that I love - but on what basis can one argue that they are any better than a song about psychedelic drug use by four British upstarts?

 

[yeutter]

I think of classical music in terms of how affects me
What music reduces stress? For me it is Bach, Vivaldi, Pachebel
What music makes me awake and alert? Sergei Rachmaninoff, Chopin
What music puts me on edge? Wagner, Verdi
What music leaves me feeling depressed? Schubert
What music is best to listen to when I want to get some sleep? Thomas Tallis, William Byrd

But you are correct most serious composers after the French Revolution were rank pagans.
Even pagans recognize this development. I think it was Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein's who made this observation on music: "Music came to a full stop with Brahms; and even in Brahms I can begin to hear the noise of machinery"

 

[Pomopu]

"most classical composers were rank pagans, many of them with personal lives sufficiently sordid to make good checkout-aisle reading. . ."

Sure. But they created masterpieces, things in tune with the laws of music which are as true as the laws of physics and as equally grounded in the Triune God.

 

[davejonescue]

No, there most likely isnt an objective basis for the claim, since most people making the claim would only be those who listen to classical music. Most people consider the genre of music they most listen to "the best." And while actual data may be had to what is most popular, trying to solidify an objective claim to what is "best" seems more difficult.

 

[Charles Johnson]

All of these are composers that I love - but on what basis can one argue that they are any better than a song about psychedelic drug use by four British upstarts?

"Best" is a matter of taste.

What one can objectively say about classical music is that it is often very complex. Songs are longer, pieces may incorporate various movements that repeat the same themes, a large variety of chord structures are used, a pieces may have various "voices" that interact in counterpoint, etc.

So in terms of melodies and harmonies it's very complex.

But "best" is a matter of taste. Classical music incorporates little of what is popularly regarded as important to music in Perú, for example, and so it's remarkably unpopular here. Here, genres of music are defined by their rhythms, which should be complex, and are often syncopated, and the dances that accompany them. Classical music is undanceable, and thus undesirable. Popular styles are salsa, cumbia, huayno, reggaeton (which is frowned upon), marinera, música folclórica andina, amazónica, etc.

 

[py3ak]

Is there any objective basis for arguing that classical music is better than rock-n-roll or other "popular" genres of music?

Yes, and it's not hard. I'll let others more versed in music theory approach it from a technical angle. I acknowledge David's point that "better" is often glossed as meaning what I like, but that is not properly the meaning. Nor are all evaluations of better or worse purely subjective, postmodernism notwithstanding. It's helpful to remember C. S. Lewis on all these points. He had a good breakfast; he enjoyed that (which is also good); enjoying a good breakfast did not make him a good man.

Classical music contains a rich tradition of deep thought, profound feeling, intense innovation, and demands of exquisite technical excellence. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant; it takes a tremendous amount of cultural capital and hard work to attain those heights, and instances of staggering genius are not uncommon. There are some good things that are only attainable through rigor in multiple dimensions. Concentrations of intelligence, skill, and excellence in the service of beauty are good. Many pieces (not all) furthermore express some excellent quality: like the heroism of the Egmont overture.

Of course the world of classical music is filled with sinners; at times depravity shines through, you have people who desire to subvert or destroy it, you have empty and pretentious types, etc. That's true in all the arts, as the sale of the duct-tape banana piece demonstrates adequately. It can happen that when high culture has been hollowed out and diseased, folk culture has more health. In our day, of course, folk culture faces the challenge of being commodified and mass-produced in new ways which can denature its folk character. Inevitably there are liminal cases. Regina Spektor is better than Alban Berg, and it isn't even close.

If God is the "overflowing fountain of all good" then the aesthetic good, the beautiful, is also found in God. In our oddity of a world under a curse, the aesthetic and the moral good do not always go together. And when a choice must be made, the moral good is to be preferred. But our capacity to respond to beauty is not immoral, nor is its cultivation. The aesthetic goodness of God is reflected in various degrees and in different ways in different elements of creation and their use (1 Corinthians 15:40-41). It's to be expected that some works of art, musical or otherwise, express that goodness in a particularly concentrated or elevated degree. Anything else would be an egalitarian anomaly in a world marked by differentiation.

 

[Pomopu]

No, there most likely isnt an objective basis for the claim, since most people making the claim would only be those who listen to classical music. Most people consider the genre of music they most listen to "the best." And while actual data may be had to what is most popular, trying to solidify an objective claim to what is "best" seems more difficult.

Eh. Michelangelo's David is a masterpiece, period. If you think it is ugly, your taste needs to be trained. We can say the same things for pieces of classical music. Regardless of establishing criteria, in the same way some sermons are better than other sermons, clearly there is a sound basis of aesthetic judgment. In the same way one athlete's form is objectively superior to another, so we can evaluate music and feel strong grounds for doing so. Just like one woman or man is more beautiful than the other; one equation more elegant and simple than another; one dance more tightly choreographed than another; one story more resolutely and skillfully plotted than another, etc. . .

Taylor Swift or Bach? It isn't a contest.

Some good things have been said here, my favorite empiricist, David Hume: https://home.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/361r15.html

After speaking of a sommelier who noticed something in the wine, demonstrating his superb taste:

"Though it be certain, that beauty and deformity, more than sweet and bitter, are not qualities in objects, but belong entirely to the sentiment, [and metaphysically, Christians wouldn't even say that, but read on ] internal or external; it must be allowed, that there are certain qualities in objects, which are fitted by nature to produce those particular feelings. Now as these qualities may be found in a smaller degree, or may be mixed and confounded with each other, it often happens, that the taste is not affected with such minute qualities, or is not able to distinguish all the particular flavours, amidst the disorder, in which they are presented. Where the organs are so fine, as to allow nothing to escape them; and at the same time so exact as to perceive every ingredient in the composition: This we call delicacy of taste, whether we employ these terms in the literal or metaphorical sense. Here then the general rules of beauty are of use; being drawn from established models, and from the observation of what pleases or displeases, when presented singly and in a high degree: And if the same qualities, in a continued composition and in a small degree, affect not the organs with a sensible delight or uneasiness, we exclude the person from all pretensions to this delicacy. To produce these general rules or avowed patterns of composition is like finding the key with the leathern thong; which justified the verdict of SANCHO's kinsmen, and confounded those pretended judges who had condemned them. Though the hogshead had never been emptied, the taste of the one was still equally delicate, and that of the other equally dull and languid: But it would have been more difficult to have proved the superiority of the former, to the conviction of every by-stander. In like manner, though the beauties of writing had never been methodized, or reduced to general principles; though no excellent models had ever been acknowledged; the different degrees of taste would still have subsisted, and the judgment of one man had been preferable to that of another; but it would not have been so easy to silence the bad critic, who might always insist upon his particular sentiment, and refuse to submit to his antagonist. But when we show him an avowed principle of art; when we illustrate this principle by examples, whose operation, from his own particular taste, he acknowledges to be conformable to the principle; when we prove, that the same principle may be applied to the present case, where he did not perceive or feel its influence: He must conclude, upon the whole, that the fault lies in himself, and that he wants the delicacy, which is requisite to make him sensible of every beauty and every blemish, in any composition or discourse."

If you can be validated making aesthetic judgment on empirical grounds, how much more, might a Christian, who has the metaphysics to back it up.

Yes, and it's not hard. I'll let others more versed in music theory approach it from a technical angle. I acknowledge David's point that "better" is often glossed as meaning what I like, but that is not properly the meaning. Nor are all evaluations of better or worse purely subjective, postmodernism notwithstanding. It's helpful to remember C. S. Lewis on all these points. He had a good breakfast; he enjoyed that (which is also good); enjoying a good breakfast did not make him a good man.

Classical music contains a rich tradition of deep thought, profound feeling, intense innovation, and demands of exquisite technical excellence. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant; it takes a tremendous amount of cultural capital and hard work to attain those heights, and instances of staggering genius are not uncommon. There are some good things that are only attainable through rigor in multiple dimensions. Concentrations of intelligence, skill, and excellence in the service of beauty are good. Many pieces (not all) furthermore express some excellent quality: like the heroism of the Egmont overture.

Of course the world of classical music is filled with sinners; at times depravity shines through, you have people who desire to subvert or destroy it, you have empty and pretentious types, etc. That's true in all the arts, as the sale of the duct-tape banana piece demonstrates adequately. It can happen that when high culture has been hollowed out and diseased, folk culture has more health. In our day, of course, folk culture faces the challenge of being commodified and mass-produced in new ways which can denature its folk character. Inevitably there are liminal cases. Regina Spektor is better than Alban Berg, and it isn't even close.

If God is the "overflowing fountain of all good" then the aesthetic good, the beautiful, is also found in God. In our oddity of a world under a curse, the aesthetic and the moral good do not always go together. And when a choice must be made, the moral good is to be preferred. But our capacity to respond to beauty is not immoral, nor is its cultivation. The aesthetic goodness of God is reflected in various degrees and in different ways in different elements of creation and their use (1 Corinthians 15:40-41). It's to be expected that some works of art, musical or otherwise, express that goodness in a particularly concentrated or elevated degree. Anything else would be an egalitarian anomaly in a world marked by differentiation.

really well said, well said.

 

[arapahoepark]

This is why symphonic metal is even better!

 

[davejonescue]

Taylor Swift or Bach? It isn't a contest.

This is depending on who you ask. Simply saying those who would choose the former lack taste, doesnt solve the problem why you think your selection of the latter is objectively better.

 

[arapahoepark]

This is depending on who you ask. Simply saying those who would choose the former lack taste, doesnt solve the problem why you think your selection of the latter is objectively better.

What if those who choose the former are immature...?

 

[davejonescue]

What if those who choose the former are immature...?

I guess if the only people who listened to Taylor Swift were babies you would have a point. But then you would have to ask about all the heathens who listen to Classical as well. Meaning, if we were defining maturity based on sanctification, not age, then either no heathen would listen to Classical if it sprung from a closer relationship with God, or, if they do, then sanctification cannot be the basis for that maturity to acquire such taste.

 

[Charles Johnson]

Eh. Michelangelo's David is a masterpiece, period. If you think it is ugly, your taste needs to be trained.

What if, with the Reformers, I find nude Italian art immodest and gaudy, and I prefer a good Protestant painter with fully clothed subjects, like Rembrandt, Hals, or Vermeer?
Does my taste need to be retrained to include a taste for depictions of male genitalia?

 

[Pomopu]

What if, with the Reformers, I find nude Italian art immodest and gaudy, and I prefer a good Protestant painter with fully clothed subjects, like Rembrandt, Hals, or Vermeer?
Does my taste need to be retrained to include a taste for depictions of male genitalia?

Confusing ethical with aesthetic judgements, I suppose. God put genitalia on men, in the first place you know.

 

[davejonescue]

Confusing ethical with aesthetic judgements, I suppose. God put genitalia on men, in the first place you know.

He also gave them the means to cover it.

 

[Pomopu]

He also gave them the means to cover it.

And the means to uncover it in the bedroom. Point being, we can't mistake questions of right (should there be nude male sculptures?) for questions of beauty (as far as nude men go, is David beautiful? Yes).

 

[davejonescue]

And the means to uncover it in the bedroom. Point being, we can't mistake questions of right (should there be nude men?) for questions of beauty (as far as nude men go, is David beautiful? Yes).

And that may be the point. Hanging something in public, that should be reserved for the bedroom, makes it ugly. Otherwise there would be no difference between a painting of a nude David, or a Play Girl magazine.

 

[Pomopu]

And that may be the point. Hanging something in public, that should be reserved for the bedroom makes it ugly.

Ugly how? In the eyes of God, an offence (maybe). In the eyes of a person with good taste for proportion and sculpture? Stunning. Magnificent. Beautiful. And that doesn't change, even if the statue was used to bludgeon a person to death.

 

[davejonescue]

Ugly how? In the eyes of God, an offence (maybe). In the eyes of a person with good taste for proportion and sculpture? Stunning. Magnificent. Beautiful. And that doesn't change, even if the statue was used to bludgeon a person to death.

All things that offend God are ugly. That is why he has prescribed "the proper expression" of his creation according to what is beautiful to him. Imagine making a magnificent painting, then someone takes a sharpie across it; would that painting remain beautiful to you?

 

[Pomopu]

All things that offend God are ugly. That is why he has prescribed "the proper expression" of his creation according to what is beautiful to him.

Hmmm. We are confusing categories.

A baby deserved hell from the womb. Beautiful still? Yes. Physically, aesthetically, not spiritually.

 

[davejonescue]

Hmmm. We are confusing categories.

A baby deserved hell from the womb. Beautiful still? Yes. Physically, aesthetically, not spiritually.

This is why I often dont get into these types of arguments, because nine times out of ten they turn into people uplifting their personal preferences to the epitome of beauty. And if something doesnt fall within that specific persons preferences, then it is not beautiful.

 

[Pomopu]

This is why I often dont get into these types of arguments, because nine times out of ten they turn into people uplifting their personal preferences to the epitome of beauty. And if something doesnt fall within that specific persons preferences, then it is not beautiful.

I mean, red herring. If anyone does that, cast their argument out. No one is claiming the individual finds what is the epitome of beauty. Most of the time, people find broad consensus on what is beautiful. Like, David.

 

[Ploutos]

So what I am getting at is whether (/how) one can make an argument for the superiority of classical music (all? most? some?) that doesn't in some way revert to a cover for someone's personal preferences.

I suspect there's an argument that can be made that Bach is objectively superior to Taylor Swift. I don't know Regina Spektor, and I think Berg was a pretty talented composer before he let the ideology of the 2nd Viennese School ruin him. Webern, on the other hand, is postmodern expressionist crap, and I'd favorably compare my toddler banging on a keyboard to his music.

But what about a comparison of harmonically & contrapuntally intricate classical music - say, the last movement of the Fourth Symphony of Brahms, which combines sonata form with variations on a bass line - with the rhythmically complex music esteemed in Peruvian culture? I haven't seen anybody in this thread talking about that.

Nor have I seen anybody mention the fact that outside of the western music tradition, most other musical traditions prize rhythmic intricacy and have a fairly simplistic approach to melody and harmony (not to mention a less varied but perhaps more colorful repertory of scales than our western 12-tone system). I might be betraying my ignorance here, but I'm not aware of another musical tradition that has emphasized and developed counterpoint and large-scale form in the way that the western tradition has. But perhaps I myself am now going down the rabbit trail of defining superiority by what I know and like.

 

[TheInquirer]

But they created masterpieces, things in tune with the laws of music which are as true as the laws of physics and as equally grounded in the Triune God.

Can you prove that from Scripture?

Here is the thing with music - a musician might be technically better than another musician, but if more people enjoy listening to the inferior musician, than how do you judge that? If you are a great musician and very few like to listen to your music, how successful are you?

I would never argue that Cheap Trick is technically "better" than Bach, but Cheap Trick is what I am listening to right now. If you want to argue that my musical tastes are inferior to another (I do have a minor in Music and have been a guitar player for a long time for whatever that is worth) than I am fine with that. I am going to listen to what I enjoy rather than force my tastes into someone else's paradigm.

I have tried listening to Classical music many times and studied it a bit in undergrad, but it just isn't my thing. I do appreciate some of it, but I just can't force myself to listen to music I don't like.

Now Country music is just awful and nobody should listen to it

 

[Ed Walsh]

Is there any objective basis for arguing that classical music is better than rock-n-roll or other "popular" genres of music?

Consider the difference between Bach's Jesu, Joy Of Man's Desiring, and, let's say, the Beetles: Why Don't We Do It in the Road?

Music can have faces, just as people do. I read a historian well versed in music around the end of the first Millennium. He studied many songs and fragments of musical pieces of that period. I was surprised to hear him say that one will search in vain for music other than the sacred. Maybe the Dark Ages weren't so dark after all.

So what I am getting at is whether (/how) one can make an argument for the superiority of classical music (all? most? some?) that doesn't in some way revert to a cover for someone's personal preferences.

I suspect there's an argument that can be made that Bach is objectively superior to Taylor Swift. I don't know Regina Spektor, and I think Berg was a pretty talented composer before he let the ideology of the 2nd Viennese School ruin him. Webern, on the other hand, is postmodern expressionist crap, and I'd favorably compare my toddler banging on a keyboard to his music.

But what about a comparison of harmonically & contrapuntally intricate classical music - say, the last movement of the Fourth Symphony of Brahms, which combines sonata form with variations on a bass line - with the rhythmically complex music esteemed in Peruvian culture? I haven't seen anybody in this thread talking about that.

Nor have I seen anybody mention the fact that outside of the western music tradition, most other musical traditions prize rhythmic intricacy and have a fairly simplistic approach to melody and harmony (not to mention a less varied but perhaps more colorful repertory of scales than our western 12-tone system). I might be betraying my ignorance here, but I'm not aware of another musical tradition that has emphasized and developed counterpoint and large-scale form in the way that the western tradition has. But perhaps I myself am now going down the rabbit trail of defining superiority by what I know and like.

Psalm 101:5 (ESV)​

Whoever slanders his neighbor secretly, I will destroy. Whoever has a haughty look and an arrogant heart, I will not endure.​

​

Proverbs 21:4 (ESV)​

Haughty eyes and a proud heart, the lamp of the wicked, are sin.​

​

Proverbs 6:17 (ESV)​

haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,​

 

[Charles Johnson]

Confusing ethical with aesthetic judgements, I suppose. God put genitalia on men, in the first place you know.

Not everything God made is equally aesthetically pleasing. The Apostle Paul calls certain parts "less honorable" and "uncomely." 1 Cor. 12:23.

 

[Pomopu]

Can you prove that from Scripture?

Yes. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Things resound with order. God called creation good. There is a speed of light, and there is the circles of fifths.

 

[The Calvinistic Methodist]

I own over 200 vinyl records. Almost every genre except for rap. I got rid of all of my records that have unholy messages, language, and themes. However, even the “safe” records that had lyrics felt empty to me. The secular music (even when sinful elements are removed) seems to be speaking a different language entirely than what my heart does. I don’t really get exited about any of them.

On the contrary, my Opera (usually in a language I don’t know), Jazz, Classical, and instrumental music all are more neutral. I don’t have lyrics to think about, just beautiful compositions. So in that sense I would say that these genres are better…for me!

 

[Charles Johnson]

An aside: no one is going to convince me that the worst of classical music, like a run of the mill Soviet or North American composer, is better than the best of other genres.

Genesis's Selling England by the Pound; Jimi Hendrix's first three albums; Santana's first four; Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon and Shine On; King Crimson's In the Court of the Crimson King; Kansas's Leftoverture; the Beach Boy's Pet Sounds; Dylan's albums 1965-1975 that won him a Nobel Prize.

Those are incredible works of art, and far better than a mediocre or poor classical composer. It's all well and good to compare that absolute best, most brilliant of classical music like Bach, Rachmaninov, or Dvorak to the most commercial, generic pop music, but if we compare the worst classical to the best of other genres, will we reach the same conclusion?

 

[Ploutos]

@Ed Walsh - I am a bit puzzled by your Bible quotes. Do you think I'm slandering someone or showing haughtiness in my post?

As far as comparing a selection from a sacred cantata of Bach's to that vulgar Beatles song? A more apopros comparison - or at least one germane to the OP - would be the humanistic celebration of man at the end of Beethoven 9 with the Beatles. The content of the Bach cantata provides an objective basis for viewing it as having potential for edification, whereas I would say one ought not to listen to that work by the Beatles, which celebrates depravity and immorality.

But what about Beethoven's Ode to Joy? It's not Bach, but is it better and more edifying than the Beatles? If so, why? Perhaps the music is possessed of greater artistic merit; how does one prove that? Is the worldview less offensive simply because it's presented in German (I don't speak or understand German, and to be honest, when I listen to Wagner operas, I'm usually trying to follow the leitmotifs more than nhe plot), or because it's presented in a less crass and vulgar manner?

 

[Ploutos]

An aside: no one is going to convince me that the worst of classical music, like a run of the mill Soviet or North American American composer, is better than the best of other genres.

Genesis's Selling England by the Pound; Jimi Hendrix's first three albums; Santana's first four; Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon and Shine On; King Crimson's In the Court of the Crimson King; Kansas's Leftoverture; the Beach Boy's Pet Sounds; Dylan's albums 1965-1975 that won him a Nobel Prize.

Those are incredible works of art, and far better than a mediocre or poor classical composer. It's all well and good to compare that absolute best, most brilliant of classical music like Bach, Rachmaninov, or Dvorak to the most commercial, generic pop music, but if we compare the worst classical to the best of other genres, will we reach the same conclusion?

This is closer to what I'm getting at, and I'd be interested to take the comparison further by comparing classical music to music from entirely foreign cultures. After all, even much modern rock and pop music has classical music in its lineage. Some of the members of Pink Floyd were classically trained, and The Wall uses recurring motifs throughout the album which are treated and modified much in the way that Liszt, Mahler, or Shostakovich might have done.

I really don't know much about the Beatles, but my understanding is that despite the crass references to drug use and immorality, from a musical standpoint some of their music is very harmonically complex and well-crafted.

I do like your suggestion of comparing the best of one genre to another. Bach and Taylor Swift isn't a fair comparison.