Fans of popular music may respond to the elitist claims of classical music with a facile relativism. But they abandon this relativism when arguing, say, the comparative merits of the early Beatles and the Rolling Stones. You may, for example, maintain that the Stones were superior to the Beatles (or vice-versa) because their music is more complex, less derivative, and has greater emotional range and deeper intellectual content. Here you are putting forward objective standards from which you argue for a band's superiority. Arguing from such criteria implicitly rejects the view that artistic evaluations are simply matters of personal taste. You are giving reasons for your view that you think others ought to accept.

Further, given the standards fans use to show that their favorites are superior, we can typically show from those same standards that works of high art are superior to works of popular art. If the Beatles are better than the Stones in originality, complexity, emotional range and intellectual content, then Mozart's operas are, by those standards, superior to the Beatles songs. Similarly, a case for the superiority of one blockbuster movie over another would most likely invoke standards of dramatic power, penetration into character, and quality of dialogue, by which almost all blockbuster movies would pale in comparison to Shakespeare or Sophocles.

-- excerpted from the NYT article "Mozart vs. the Beatles" by Gary Cutting

On Saturday, December 31, 2022 at 6:37:58 AM UTC-8, Norbert K wrote:
> Fans of popular music may respond to the elitist claims of classical music with a facile relativism. But they abandon this relativism when arguing, say, the comparative merits of the early Beatles and the Rolling Stones. You may, for example, maintain that the Stones were superior to the Beatles (or vice-versa) because their music is more complex, less derivative, and has greater emotional range and deeper intellectual content. Here you are putting forward objective standards from which you argue for a band's superiority. Arguing from such criteria implicitly rejects the view that artistic evaluations are simply matters of personal taste. You are giving reasons for your view that you think others ought to accept.
>
> Further, given the standards fans use to show that their favorites are superior, we can typically show from those same standards that works of high art are superior to works of popular art. If the Beatles are better than the Stones in originality, complexity, emotional range and intellectual content, then Mozart's operas are, by those standards, superior to the Beatles songs. Similarly, a case for the superiority of one blockbuster movie over another would most likely invoke standards of dramatic power, penetration into character, and quality of dialogue, by which almost all blockbuster movies would pale in comparison to Shakespeare or Sophocles.
>
> -- excerpted from the NYT article "Mozart vs. the Beatles" by Gary Cutting

<< De gustibus non est disputandum, or de gustibus non disputandum est, is a Latin maxim meaning "In matters of taste, there can be no disputes" (literally "about taste, it should not be disputed") >>

McCartney explained how a musical it from "Blackbird" was a variation on a Bach invention; he was quoted as saying, "Pop music is the classical of Now.."

Lennon declared in their official biography, "We're as good as Beethoven."

On Saturday, December 31, 2022 at 6:37:58 AM UTC-8, Norbert K wrote:
> Fans of popular music may respond to the elitist claims of classical music with a facile relativism. But they abandon this relativism when arguing, say, the comparative merits of the early Beatles and the Rolling Stones. You may, for example, maintain that the Stones were superior to the Beatles (or vice-versa) because their music is more complex, less derivative, and has greater emotional range and deeper intellectual content. Here you are putting forward objective standards from which you argue for a band's superiority. Arguing from such criteria implicitly rejects the view that artistic evaluations are simply matters of personal taste. You are giving reasons for your view that you think others ought to accept.
>
> Further, given the standards fans use to show that their favorites are superior, we can typically show from those same standards that works of high art are superior to works of popular art. If the Beatles are better than the Stones in originality, complexity, emotional range and intellectual content, then Mozart's operas are, by those standards, superior to the Beatles songs. Similarly, a case for the superiority of one blockbuster movie over another would most likely invoke standards of dramatic power, penetration into character, and quality of dialogue, by which almost all blockbuster movies would pale in comparison to Shakespeare or Sophocles.
>
> -- excerpted from the NYT article "Mozart vs. the Beatles" by Gary Cutting

<< De gustibus non est disputandum, or de gustibus non disputandum est, is a Latin maxim meaning "In matters of taste, there can be no disputes" (literally "about taste, it should not be disputed") >>

McCartney explained how a musical phrase played on guitar from "Blackbird" was a variation on a Bach invention he had used years earlier, while strolling fairgrounds; he was quoted as saying, "Pop music is the classical of Now."

Lennon declared in their official biography, "We're as good as Beethoven," seeming more of an honest assessment than any sort of a boast.

On Saturday, December 31, 2022 at 8:37:58 AM UTC-6, Norbert K wrote:
> Fans of popular music may respond to the elitist claims of classical music with a facile relativism. But they abandon this relativism when arguing, say, the comparative merits of the early Beatles and the Rolling Stones. You may, for example, maintain that the Stones were superior to the Beatles (or vice-versa) because their music is more complex, less derivative, and has greater emotional range and deeper intellectual content. Here you are putting forward objective standards from which you argue for a band's superiority. Arguing from such criteria implicitly rejects the view that artistic evaluations are simply matters of personal taste. You are giving reasons for your view that you think others ought to accept.
>
> Further, given the standards fans use to show that their favorites are superior, we can typically show from those same standards that works of high art are superior to works of popular art. If the Beatles are better than the Stones in originality, complexity, emotional range and intellectual content, then Mozart's operas are, by those standards, superior to the Beatles songs. Similarly, a case for the superiority of one blockbuster movie over another would most likely invoke standards of dramatic power, penetration into character, and quality of dialogue, by which almost all blockbuster movies would pale in comparison to Shakespeare or Sophocles.
>
> -- excerpted from the NYT article "Mozart vs. the Beatles" by Gary Cutting

Mozart took the world by storm..as a young child. Everyone was jealous of him. When he began to compose, they said his father, Leopold, must have written the pieces. Everywhere Mozart went there was controversy, and there were sinister underpinnings as well that eventually led to his early death....but Mozart kept on composing.

I will never forget viewing the last luncheon show of the Beatles from the Cavern Club. I was watching from Edinburgh, Scotland, where I was at university. "Where did they get those chords?" I asked. I sensed that everything in 'rock' music as w knew it back then would never be the same...

So perhaps another subjective evaluation can come by the impact a person or group had on the world of music...

On Saturday, December 31, 2022 at 6:46:45 PM UTC-6, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, December 31, 2022 at 6:37:58 AM UTC-8, Norbert K wrote:
> > Fans of popular music may respond to the elitist claims of classical music with a facile relativism. But they abandon this relativism when arguing, say, the comparative merits of the early Beatles and the Rolling Stones. You may, for example, maintain that the Stones were superior to the Beatles (or vice-versa) because their music is more complex, less derivative, and has greater emotional range and deeper intellectual content. Here you are putting forward objective standards from which you argue for a band's superiority. Arguing from such criteria implicitly rejects the view that artistic evaluations are simply matters of personal taste. You are giving reasons for your view that you think others ought to accept.
> >
> > Further, given the standards fans use to show that their favorites are superior, we can typically show from those same standards that works of high art are superior to works of popular art. If the Beatles are better than the Stones in originality, complexity, emotional range and intellectual content, then Mozart's operas are, by those standards, superior to the Beatles songs. Similarly, a case for the superiority of one blockbuster movie over another would most likely invoke standards of dramatic power, penetration into character, and quality of dialogue, by which almost all blockbuster movies would pale in comparison to Shakespeare or Sophocles.
> >
> > -- excerpted from the NYT article "Mozart vs. the Beatles" by Gary Cutting
> << De gustibus non est disputandum, or de gustibus non disputandum est, is a Latin maxim meaning "In matters of taste, there can be no disputes" (literally "about taste, it should not be disputed") >>
>
> McCartney explained how a musical phrase played on guitar from "Blackbird" was a variation on a Bach invention he had used years earlier, while strolling fairgrounds; he was quoted as saying, "Pop music is the classical of Now."
>
> Lennon declared in their official biography, "We're as good as Beethoven," seeming more of an honest assessment than any sort of a boast.
Beethoven came to take a lesson from Mozart in Vienna when he was young. He played someone else's composition, to which Mozart said, "Anyone can do that. Play something of your own." Which he did. And Mozart then said something to the effect, "It won't be long before the world hears of this young man..."

On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 10:29:15 AM UTC-8, pamel...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, December 31, 2022 at 6:46:45 PM UTC-6, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 31, 2022 at 6:37:58 AM UTC-8, Norbert K wrote:
> > > Fans of popular music may respond to the elitist claims of classical music with a facile relativism. But they abandon this relativism when arguing, say, the comparative merits of the early Beatles and the Rolling Stones.. You may, for example, maintain that the Stones were superior to the Beatles (or vice-versa) because their music is more complex, less derivative, and has greater emotional range and deeper intellectual content. Here you are putting forward objective standards from which you argue for a band's superiority. Arguing from such criteria implicitly rejects the view that artistic evaluations are simply matters of personal taste. You are giving reasons for your view that you think others ought to accept.
> > >
> > > Further, given the standards fans use to show that their favorites are superior, we can typically show from those same standards that works of high art are superior to works of popular art. If the Beatles are better than the Stones in originality, complexity, emotional range and intellectual content, then Mozart's operas are, by those standards, superior to the Beatles songs. Similarly, a case for the superiority of one blockbuster movie over another would most likely invoke standards of dramatic power, penetration into character, and quality of dialogue, by which almost all blockbuster movies would pale in comparison to Shakespeare or Sophocles.
> > >
> > > -- excerpted from the NYT article "Mozart vs. the Beatles" by Gary Cutting
> > << De gustibus non est disputandum, or de gustibus non disputandum est, is a Latin maxim meaning "In matters of taste, there can be no disputes" (literally "about taste, it should not be disputed") >>
> >
> > McCartney explained how a musical phrase played on guitar from "Blackbird" was a variation on a Bach invention he had used years earlier, while strolling fairgrounds; he was quoted as saying, "Pop music is the classical of Now."
> >
> > Lennon declared in their official biography, "We're as good as Beethoven," seeming more of an honest assessment than any sort of a boast.
> Beethoven came to take a lesson from Mozart in Vienna when he was young. He played someone else's composition, to which Mozart said, "Anyone can do that. Play something of your own." Which he did. And Mozart then said something to the effect, "It won't be long before the world hears of this young man..."

Beethoven as a transitional composer brought a change from the chamber music of Mozart and Haydn, where the sounds were almost performances of mathematical expressions, to cohesive themes in symphonic movements and the romanticism of programme-music, intended to evoke aural comparisons with natural elements.

Beethoven brought a new level to what was expected of compositional excellence, which was not limited to technical proficiency.

Mozart might have sensed this germ of genius, and requested something original to see if it were really there; young Beethoven likely demonstrated some variation as an invention that Mozart suddenly found himself envying, much like the rival character in the film "Amadeus" without the jealous rancor..

Combine Michelangelo's visual sense for the album artwork, Shakespearean tendencies with the clever colloquial lyrics, the definitive musical profundity of Beethoven, and the intellectual whimsy of Lewis Carroll, and you might have something like The Beatles.

The rhythm and blues and rockabilly music they admired became reprocessed into their form of Rock and Roll that was secretly concerned with function as well as style.