The musical tribute
Everyone has a favourite band, or a favourite composer, or a favourite song. There is some music which speaks to you deeply; and other music which might be the current big hit, but you can only hear nails on a chalkboard.
Every time a major artist releases their latest album, the critics are there to tell you exactly how the artist got it right, or how they got it wrong. And the fans are there to tell the critic how they got it right or wrong, in turn. So if we all have our own opinions on music, is it ever possible to judge it objectively? Or are we subject to our subjective disagreements forever? We asked five music experts to tell us what they thought. Here’s what they had to say.
Sam Whitting: lecturer, University of South Australia
Prominent French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu defined “habitus” as the “structures of perception, conception and action” which guide what feels “natural” to some and alienating to others. Simply put, habitus is your home base plus your habits. It is shaped by many cultural, social, environmental and economic factors unique to yourself. It frames how you view the world, and, importantly, how you judge it.
In this sense, music can be
“judged”. But any judgement about it often says more about the person doing the judging and their social, cultural and economic priorities, than the music itself. Perception is in the ear of the perceiver.
Catherine Strong: associate professor, RMIT University
Music is social and our judgment of it can never be removed from that context. It might be possible to assess whether someone is technically proficient at playing an instrument, or whether a piece of music is “correct” for the style being played. However, judging music’s worth will always be fundamentally intertwined with our social position, and dominant discourses about what constitutes “good” and “bad” art.
We do not, and can not, encounter music in some sort of pure state. From the moment we’re born we’re exposed to certain types of music, which form our tastes. We’re also taught some types are better than others, and this process isn’t neutral. The idea that Western art music is the pinnacle of musical expression, while being challenged now, has helped uphold ideas about Western cultural superiority.
In this sense, the judgment of music is about power. And the ebb and flow of what music is considered
“good” provides insight into the subtleties of how this power is deployed.
Charlotte Markowitsch: PhD candidate, RMIT University
You know that old saying, “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder?” There are systems throughout popular music cultures which convince our metaphoric eyes of what objectively good music is. One of these systems is canonisation. Canonisation is a process which forms a list (a canon) of artists, songs and albums which represent the highest standard of musical quality in a particular genre.
The classic rock canon, my area of expertise, is a much-discussed product of this process. This dominant Western canon was formed out of music publications which appraised the greatest artists or albums of all time. Think: the Rolling Stone’s 500 Greatest Albums of All Time. These lists tend to favour the same set of British and American rock acts from the late 20th century.
This criteria for greatness informs audiences, artists and critics alike of how to objectively judge what constitutes “good” rock music (swap in any genre) and what doesn’t.
Laura Glitsos: lecturer, Edith Cowan University
Yes, music can be judged objectively through technical criteria such as instrumentation, complexity, production style, structure and dozens of other elements that likely reveal less about its emotional impact and more about its virtuosity or craft.
However, I think another important conversation to have is about whether music can be objectively valued, and I don’t believe so.
We must remember: we don’t listen to music with just our brains and social or intellectual capital — we listen with our entire body. Our bodies may know nothing of technical criteria, but everything about feel. In the words of Shirley Bassey: “Why ask your head? It’s your hips that are swinging.”
Timothy McKendry: professor, Australian Catholic University In choosing to listen to music, and in making determinations about what music we’ll explore further, humans exercise musical judgment. These aren’t simply the product of preference or “taste”. They operate, whether we realise it or not, according to a complex and intersecting criteria.
Most of us have an idea of what constitutes a “good” performance. Did the musician play or sing in tune? Were they clumsy? These aren’t matters of opinion. And if we can discern a good performance, it follows we can make informed judgments about music itself.
That different styles of music emphasise different musical elements, and thus should be judged by differing criteria, does not change this dynamic.
Let’s consider two of the greats: Beethoven and Taylor Swift. Beethoven wrote great symphonies. Swift writes great pop songs. Both modes serve different functions and operate according to different musical criteria, yet we are entirely capable of discerning excellence in both.
Two final points. First, this capacity for discernment is gained through wide listening and education. So while objective judgment is possible, many haven’t developed the capacity for it. Second, stylistic comparison is hard and usually unhelpful. Saying that Beethoven is better than Swift is simply a category error.
Annual music award ceremonies — like the recent Juno Awards of 2024 in Canada — afford opportunities to pay tribute to artists who have died, and acknowledge the living art of creative musical and cultural interpretation.
At the Junos 2024, memorial tributes were given to musical greats Robbie Robertson and Gordon Lightfoot. Yet another form of memorialisation, and musical re-interpretation, was witnessed via hip-hop sampling when Maestro Fresh Wes performed in celebration of his induction into the Canadian Music Hall of Fame as the “godfather of Canadian hip-hop”.
AWARDS EVENTS CARRY ON OLDER TRADITIONS
“In Memoriam” features at annual awards ceremonies allow contemporary industries to remember artists who have gone before, including by appreciating contemporary music that pays tribute to and builds upon earlier artists’ legacies across genres and styles.
Honouring the memory of prominent figures is a practice that dates at least back to the monuments of ancient Egypt and Greece. Funerary monuments in Europe have been erected to mark the final resting place for arts celebrities, while composers have dedicated memorials in sound, like Giuseppe Verdi’s Requiem for noted Italian writer Alessandro Manzoni.
“In Memoriam” segments of yearly awards events have carried on this tradition. Still images or video clips of the departed appear in a montage over an appropriate musical accompaniment, with special tributes occasionally interspersed. The choice of music is determined by its combination of a contemplative vibe with a broad audience appeal. The Oscars established the “In Memoriam” as a regular feature in 1994, and the Grammys and Emmys followed.
NOT WITHOUT CONTROVERSY
Although intended as a moment of reflection in the midst of the excitement of an awards show, the “In Memoriam” segment has not been without controversy. According to the former executive director of the academy, Bruce Davis, “it is the single most troubling element of the Oscar show every year”.
For any performing arts field, the number of dead far exceeds those who can be featured in the segment. An internal adjudicatory body must select names for the programme.
The exclusion (or inclusion) of names inevitably draws complaints in what called “the toughest Oscar vote of all”.
In recognition of the selectiveness of the process, the programme or sponsoring organisation provides a fuller list of dead members on their website.
Controversies, perhaps unsurprisingly, do erupt surrounding arts memorialisations. Prior to the death of folk musician Stompin’ Tom Connors in 2017, Connors forbade the Junos from including him in the “In Memoriam” portion of the programme. Connors famously returned six of his Juno awards in 1978 to protest the fact that Junos were being given to Canadian musicians who didn’t live in Canada.
MAESTRO FRESH WES
Another form of memorialisation was on display at the 2024 Junos in a performance by Maestro Fresh Wes. Wes, inducted into the Canadian Music Hall of Fame, became the first hip-hop musician to receive the honour.
—
Under Creative Commons Licence.