celsius wrote:Well, how about this one. My main criteria in a value assessment of a musical composition is the emotive response it evokes in me. Which is 100% subjective. Surely this is one of the main, if not the main purpose, of music.
It's easy if we're talking about a can opener because it has a primary intended primary function. To open cans. You could have the most gorgeously designed can opener by aesthetic standards. It could be light weight, low cost, recyclable and shoot fucking lazers but if it fails to open a can with ease then it can be judged as a low quality can opener.
What then do people think is the primary function of music?
Just to weigh in, I think music is art. As such it's function in society is hard to define. Sometimes it social(dance music). Sometimes it's nationalistic or patriotic. Rock music is more participatory and Democratic. It can free us from normal thinking and suggest a higher purpose. It can be religious. It can be a way to identify yourself in society, especially in a period where normal class distinctions can't be relied upon to answer the question, "Who am I?" All music is expressive or emotive, but can be used in many different ways.
I think that technical proficiency in music is as important as it is in painting. The rules that ground musical theory are based on demonstrable, objective facts about sound. Just like geometry and color study, and lighting are based on real principals. It's important, but not the only criteria to judge.
tl;dr I think that "quality" art can be judged semi-objectively, by how technically good it is. But "good" art is judged by it's effect, subjectively and in the culture which it occurs.
meh i dunno