Is the Most Objectively Terrible Music Actually Musically Competent?

The debate over what constitutes 'objectively terrible music' is a passionate and multifaceted one. Let's explore this topic by examining the nuances of musical competence and the subjective nature of aesthetic preferences.

Defining 'Objectively Terrible Music'

First and foremost, it's worth noting that almost any music available in the public domain has found acceptance because someone, somewhere, found it enjoyable enough to share. This alone is a strong argument for the aesthetic virtue of music. However, not all music can be deemed as merely acceptable.

Objectively terrible music, according to various perspectives, can encompass a broad spectrum, from the culturally maligned to the technically incompetent. For instance, hip-hop is often criticized for reliance on sampling and auto-tune, which can be seen as a technical achievement but can also become repetitive and monotonous when overused. Yet, talented artists may still bring depth to their craft through compelling cadence and lyrical writing, avoiding the use of controversial tropes.

Subjective Aesthetic and Relativism

While some may argue that music should be judged solely on objective criteria such as technical proficiency, others hold that the subjective experience of the listener is paramount. The notion that "somebody likes this" can be a powerful aesthetic virtue because it implies a personal connection and emotional resonance.

However, this doesn't negate the existence of objectively bad music. The paradox surrounding objectively bad music is that it often arises from an intensification of the techniques and tropes found in objectively good music. It is when artists become too focused on mastering and replicating a genre's conventions that they lose the curiosity and exploration that bring life to music.

Over-Competence and Creativity

When we encounter music that is technically competent but still feels uninspired or dull, we are often confronted with the issue of over-competence. In these cases, the music appears to be too rigid and formulaic, as if the composer or musician is simply going through the motions rather than pushing boundaries and exploring new possibilities.

Take, for example, the Portsmouth Sinfonia, a unique ensemble known for its eclectic and unconventional takes on classical music. Their renditions of pieces like Richard Strauss's Aaron Schett showcase a blend of competence and creativity, demonstrating that even 'bad' music can contain elements of skill and innovation.

The Role of Technique and Creativity

Technique alone does not ensure musical greatness. While mastering the rules and techniques of a genre is important, it is equally crucial to have the ability to break them creatively. Good music engages the listener by allowing them to feel the artist's delight in figuring things out, whereas bad music leaves the listener feeling bored and uninspired.

This balance between technique and creativity is what defines the difference between competent and competent-with-heart. In the end, whether music is perceived as good or bad often comes down to the balance of emotion, innovation, and technical skill.

Conclusion

The question of whether the most objectively terrible music is actually technically competent invites us to reflect on the nature of musical beauty and the subjective nature of aesthetic judgment. While technical proficiency is essential, it is the injection of originality, emotion, and personal expression that truly brings music to life. Understanding this duality can help us appreciate the complexities and nuances of musical experience.