Popularity vs. Importance (of music, art, books, etc.)

I think this was what Kid was looking for, and I need to stop derailing the book thread, so here it is. If this is off, mods, feel free to fix it.

I think the Beatles have both. Their accomplishments speak for themselves with regards to their popularity, and their influence on the music world seems pretty damn important.

Popularity can be determined by how the majority of the general public receives the work, while importance can be determined by how the work was received by critics, as well as how it affects its specific art form and the artists who follow. I think that popularity and importance combined = greatness. Thus, I think the Beatles have "Greatness."

Another example, in my mind, is Alfred Hitchcock. His films are entertaining and did extremely well in the box office while also receiving high critical acclaim.

NSYNC seems like an example of popularity without importance. Same with bands like One Direction or singers like Justin Bieber.

Someone in the other thread used Beowulf as an example of a work of literature that has importance but isn't exactly popular outside of school today (Though I'm not sure how popularity now should be compared with popularity during the work's time). Another example, in my mind is Dante and the Divine Comedy. Reading it by myself wasn't that great because I didn't understand a lot of the references. Reading it with a Dante and medieval history expert made it much more enjoyable, but I can see why it wouldn't be very popular nowadays.

Anyways, that's all I got. Discuss.

 

Lexvol said it.

Innovation that influenced a generation.

 

Like the Electric Slide.

 

You jest, but yes.

Another prime example would be Hank Williams.

Timing has a lot to do with it as any thing.

 

Popularity and importance/quality are not mutually exclusive or inclusive. Beatles obviously are in the both camp, Elvis as well.

Robert Johnson, very critical blues player, however, was not. Most people have probably never heard his stuff and may not even know who he is, but nearly every blues/rock singer will say "yeah, he was great and the most influential blues singer ever."

Then people like Beiber, Brittaney Spears, Smashmouth, etc, may have sold a lot of records, but I doubt people will be studying them in 50 years or buying their new anthologies.

 

I generally question any thought of greatness if the person didn't enjoy some popular success. that isn't to say plenty of shitty artists haven't had popular success. Beowulf is different obviously given the fact it was massively popular in his time and is basically impossible for the average person to read clearly today.

 

One of my closest friends went and visited his grave a couple of weeks ago.

Nice summary there.

 

The popularity itself can also be what, in a large degree, is "important"

Robert Johnson is important because of his music. Elvis is less so, but Elvis might be studied in 100 years because of how his popularity changed culture in post war America.

 

Love me some Robert Johnson.

 

yngwie malmsteen had very very little popular success, but could flat hammer a guitar.

 

Tomoyasu Hotei isn't that popular in the US, but he does amazing work on the guitar.

 

that's playing an instrument. or are you suggesting he created music that was great?

 

Sinatra couldn't write a song or play an instrument, yet I would consider him one of the all time greats of any era.

 

I'd argue he created the music even if he didn't write the lyrics or whatever. elvis wrote maybe 10% of his songs, but no one would confuse an elvis arrangement with another artist. it's not like him and Sinatra were hired guns who had no control over what it sounded like.

 

Ah, fair point. Thank you for clarifying.

 

yes

 

lots of people can play instruments. some people can REALLY play instruments.

 

I wouldn't have gone with importance. I don't like The Beatles, but I wouldn't dispute that they were important. In fact, I think it's fair to say that something that is immensely popular is always "important". You can argue whether was disco was good, but it was certainly important.

The question that flows from a statement that "the numbers speak for themselves" is the question of whether something is necessarily good because it's popular.

Invol wrote:

. And I think that's right (except for the part about liking the beatles). And, in fact, I think a position that popularity and quality go together in lockstep is not just incorrect, but completely absurd. In fact, so absurd that even addressing the notion would be giving it far too much credit.

So then putting aside the absurd notion that in the early aughts the best music being made was being made by N'Sync, an interesting question emerges. Can art be judged on its merits?

I'm going to give a very unsatisfying answer, and say that it can, but only subjectively. If you freaking love Nickelback. If you think their music is the best shite you've ever heard and you just can't stop playing it, I can choose to not hang out with you, but who am I to say your wrong?

The way I see it, the reason we love music is because of the very visceral way in which we respond it. If you hear a song and you like it, that's the end of the analysis. You shouldn't think about whether you'r esupposed to like it. Or why it is that you like it. (That's what music critics do, and that's why I hate music critics with every fiber of my being.). You simply either like it or you don't like it. if you consider any other factors in judging the quality of music, then you are in my humble opinion, completely missing the point. And if you think the stuff I wrote in this paragraph makes some sense, then I think it leads to the conclusion that there's really no good way of judging the quality.

Maybe that's what makes it so cool.

 

I agree with this. The ability to sing lyrics -- even ones you didn't write -- in a way that sounds good is about the best musical talent you can have.

 

I posted the popularity stuff in response to your post about how "nobody would list them in their top two favorites" or whatever it was you said. You were implying that while a lot of people today call them the greatest band of all time, few actually enjoy their music. I was just showing you that was wrong. That's why I highlighted the album released 30 years after they broke up that sold 13 million copies in a month.

I say yes it can as well, but disagree that it's only subjectively. Take, for example, Virgil's Aeneid. I recently wrote a paper analyzing the Latin version of the bee simile from the first book. One thing I wrote about was his use of 's' sounds to represent the buzzing of the bees. He does similar things throughout the entire poem, so it can't be written off as coincidence, and, instead, provides a true, objective example of why Virgil is a great poet. And that's just one example. You can take specific words and look at the way he uses them in different situations, and it's truly artistic. I can provide examples, if you'd like. Either way, it's not just subjective.