http://www.flickr.com/photos/29103849@N00/6704958383
Mozart v. One Direction?
When something is inherent it is essential or permanent, so inherent value means permanent or innate worth. I believe that not all music has inherent value. To me, the value of music isn't what sort of impact it has on those who listen to it or how much someone has decided it should cost.Two ways to tell if a piece is inherently valuable are how permanent its popularity is and how original it is. I think music that has inherent worth should be able to stand the test of time. Will people still be listening to it in 2 years? How about 5? Or maybe 10, 20, or even 100 years? If one song can stay well know for decades while another song goes out of style almost as soon as it becomes popular, then the first piece is the one with inherent value.One great thing about music is that it has variety. If a composer creates a composition that is identical to that of another composer the piece has no worth, since it was just a copy of the original.
Does the piece written by a well-known, award-winning composer have the same worth as that of a tone-deaf child? I don't think so. Sure, they might both have certain importance and they might mean something to their composers, but it's clear that a piece written by a respected composer will have more permanent value. Take, for example, a piece written by Mozart and a song written by One Direction. To many people, they both have worth. But which work will still be listened to and respected years from now? I don't think One Direction's "What Makes You Beautiful" will. However, Mozart's Symphony no. 40 will be played and performed as a classic for years to come. This is permanent. "What Makes You Beautiful"...well, it's not. In this sense, I think that some music has more worth than other music. And because of this, some music has inherent value and some doesn't.
As well as the time test, music's innate worth can be tested by its originality. All music is, and should be, different. No two compositions should be the same. If they are, the original version is the more valuable one. For instance, rap became very popular in the eighties. Since then many contemporary rappers have developed the style. This style is virtually the same in all rappers: the same mannerisms, beats, and formats. So is all rap inherently valuable? I think the original rap songs had worth as a new musical form, but now most rap sounds extremely similar. Throughout their music Wiz Khalifa, Eminem, and Jay-Z all use the same type of language. Their themes are similar and they all heavily auto-tune their work. To many people, their songs sound exactly the same. This is classified as unoriginality. I believe that--since much of the rap industry is unoriginal--rap music as a genre is not inherently valuable.
My views on music are highly opinionated, since I believe that music should be taken seriously as a profession and not just a hobby. Just like not every novel has innate worth, not every musical composition has inherent value. That said, I enjoy lots of music that has absolutely no real worth! Sometimes I even like rap! I think we should listen to whatever we want, but I do think it's important to know the difference between temporarily popular music and classic music that has true inherent value.
4 comments:
Hello JoRo. I have some thought about your blog post. For starters, a piece written by a tone deaf child is just as valuable as a piece written by an award-winning composer; it depends on the listener. Second of all, even if a piece of music is unoriginal, it can still be unique, which is all that matters to some people. And third: ARE YOU COMPARING ONE DIRECTION TO A TONE DEAF CHILD ?!?! Because I agree :)
I appreciate your feedback Wenny! But unoriginal and unique are opposites haha :P And I guess it does depend on the listener, but I think I mean from a musical point of view, as in how good the piece actually is. :)
Your opinion on inherent value being partially based on originality has really got me thinking. I've never considered this, and on the one hand it makes sense. However, couldn't it be argued that most songs aren't 100% original, and that many artists are inspired by others? Sometimes a remake is even better than the original! Does this mean it doesn't have inherent value?
I think the idea of a piece of music having to withstand the test of time is a very fascinating way of measuring a song's worth and in most cases I would agree wtih you that it holds true. However, does this mean that a pop song which tops the charts with for a few weeks is more valuable than a song written by an independent artist who puts as much time and thought into their music as possible without worrying about how many plays it will get on the radio or how long it will be played on the radio but rather with appealing to a more intimate fan base in a more genuine way? just some food for thought
Post a Comment