Category: Reflections

Can we measure music objectively or not?

That was the question in my mind when I started The JP Notes.  I wrote about it briefly in one of my first posts.  At the time, I didn’t have a clear answer.  I think I do now, or at least the start of a suitable response.

First, I need to make the question clear.  In The Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis addresses a claim made in an English textbook that amounts to this: ‘When someone says that a thing is good, they only mean that they approve of that thing, not that the thing has any inherent goodness.’  When we find that we like a song, we often say, “This is a good song.”  Most of us don’t go through an analysis of the song and its merits and then deem it “good.”  We hear it.  We like it.  We call it good.  Perhaps that’s the extent of a song’s worth.

But this claim poses a large problem.  Let’s say Jimmy Page and I are in the same room and we both have guitars.  We take turns playing our guitars.  I have little to no experience with guitars, and I am not a savant.  Wouldn’t anyone say that Page is producing better music than I?  I should hope so.  Page has worked hard to play the guitar that well.  It would be an insult to his life’s work to say what I produced was of the same quality.

Still, I think some would answer that it can be equal in value, as long as someone liked it as much as they liked Jimmy Page’s music.  A few years ago, I would have said that’s absurd.  Obviously Page’s music is better than mine because he is a more skilled guitar player.  Now I must admit that skill is not the sole measure of value in music, but neither is subjective approval.  Part of the beauty of art is that there is no one sole conveyor of meaning (at least not on earth).  The full value of art is something both subject and objective.

The best example I can think of to express this idea is that of a child’s drawing.  Several years ago, my sister drew a family portrait on a piece of cardboard.  It’s a typical stick figure design, and to anyone outside the family, it wouldn’t be anything special.  However, it means a great deal to me.  Attached to it are memories and emotions that are specific to me and my experiences.  But I would never say that at the time she was a better artist than Michelangelo.  Her drawing isn’t of the same quality as the ceiling of Sistine Chapel.  Objectively, its value is less than the cardboard it’s drawn on.  Subjectively, it is priceless.

What is even more magnificent about art is that objective and subjective values are not at odds.  These different values have a relationship with one another.  If my sister were to draw me a family portrait today, it would be of higher quality and (hopefully) the result of greater effort.  The improvement in quality would be delightful for two reasons.  First, everyone enjoys seeing something of better quality.  Second, I enjoy seeing my younger sister improve her skills.  The improvement between pictures is the source of both subjective and objective gains in value.

In my opinion, one of the most incredible things about art is that it’s a facet of our lives in which our subjective valuations mean something in tandem with the objective worth of the object.  Anything can be worth something to someone, but good things remain good in and of themselves.

The implications of this are great.  It means art can get better but still come in different styles and genres.  It means the worth of art can increase when we learn more about it.  It means that we can use art to help form our own identities.  It means we can find meaning in things that might otherwise be worthless.  It opens the way for everything we know and appreciate about art.

Is the measure of art objective or subjective?  Yes, and thank God it is.

Let me know what you think.  Do you agree with me?  Or do you think I’m missing something?  I’m looking forward to your responses and song suggestions.

Thanks for reading!

“It’s not part of your job.  It’s like maybe you can cook, but it doesn’t mean you should start a restaurant.” – Ryan from The Office

In 2016, the impossible happened.  Leonardo DiCaprio won an Oscar.  He started out his speech with the usual thank-you’s.  He used the rest of his time to talk about climate change.  This raises an important issue in entertainment.  Should entertainers use their careers to advance their ideological agendas?

Many were furious about Leo’s speech.  Others thought it wasn’t enough.  Before taking a side, it’s important to understand the entertainer’s vocation.  It’s a source of private earnings.  It means experience in entertainment, and it’s public by nature.  It comes with certain privileges and responsibilities.

Like any other worker, an entertainer has the freedom to use his private earnings for any legal purpose.  Leo’s fame is something he’s earned.  Outside of whatever contracts he’s signed and laws he has to obey, he can use it how he pleases.  Nobody can stop him from talking about climate change at The Oscars.  That’s his moment, his fame, his audience.  But should he use it that way just because he can?

No one can doubt that he has experience in entertainment.  He’s been acting since he was a child.  Leo is also an environmental activist, but being an activist doesn’t make him an expert.  He doesn’t have a degree or years of serious research behind him.  No matter how influential and involved he is, he does not have the qualifications to be a credible source on environmental issues.

It is also an inappropriate setting for the subject of his speech.  The Oscars is a ceremony for honoring merit in the film industry.  It’s a time to be gracious, to recognize exceptional productions, and to pay respect to an art form.  Since he received the award for Best Actor, it would’ve been a good time to talk about acting.  Then again, that doesn’t receive as much coverage.

Many have argued that since they have a large audience, entertainers have an obligation to use award ceremonies for activism.  I would counter that entertainers have an obligation to honor their audience and the setting before their personal agendas.  Leo’s speech makes the audience captive to his agenda instead of allowing them to participate in the purpose of an award ceremony.

It’s not that entertainers should never pursue their own agendas.  It’s important to be active outside of your career and to dedicate yourself to other vocations.  There is a proper time and place for that.  The time and place is not in an acceptance speech at The Oscars.

Leo had the best intentions, but publicity doesn’t grant entertainers qualifications or an appropriate setting for their personal agendas.  It wasn’t his job to bring up climate change during his speech.  Furthermore, it didn’t open the floor for discussion or convince anyone of anything.  It divided and distracted his audience at a ceremony meant to bring people together to honor the arts.

But still, congratulations on the award Mr. DiCaprio!  I loved The Revenant, and I’m looking forward to more of your works.

Let me know what you think.  Was Leo out of place?  Should entertainers be more or less active in ideological agendas, and how?  I’m looking forward to your responses!

Thanks for reading!

“There are basically three types of songs: loved songs, unloved songs, and transitional songs written by tired people in between the two.” – Ace Boggess

I often hear people say that all songs are about love.  It’s an exaggeration that points to something true about lyrical content.  Love is a common topic.  It’s not the only topic though.

Lyrical content depends on the genre and the time period.  The ancient Greeks and Romans sang poems of war, the gods, and nature.  Bach wrote music for “the glory of God and the refreshment of the soul.”  Progressive rock bands from the twentieth century wrote about travel, friendship, and famous works of fiction.

Love isn’t the only topic being covered in today’s culture either.  Pop songs cover depression, poverty, drug abuse, happiness, friendship, independence, ambition, and much more.  If you look past Billboard’s Top 100, you’ll find all kinds of new and original lyrical content are still being created.  Musicals, indie artists, and live shows are good sources for new content.

Still, it’s hard to ignore the plethora of love songs in existence.  Love is a universal emotion.  It is powerful and joyous.  It wants to be shared and communicated.  It desires an outlet, and music is a natural and obvious choice.  So it makes sense for love to be a common and popular subject.

Love is not the only subject though, nor should it be.  There is so much material about which to write, to play, to sing.  We should not limit ourselves to one subject in music any more than we should limit ourselves to one type of food or one style of book.  If we do, we’ll find our souls malnourished and wanting more.

Listen to all kinds of lyrics.  If love songs refresh your spirit, then listen to them.  If they weary you, don’t be afraid to find new content.  Love is great.  Variety is great too.

Let me know what you think.  What kind of lyrical content do you like best?  If you’re an aspiring musician, what kind of things do you like to write about?  I’m looking forward to your responses!

Thanks for reading!