Hello community.
Interesting thread for sure.
As always, in matters of art, it is very difficult to make "jugements". We react much more with our feelings, and that is ok for me. While I made a rule, when I like something, to try and understand why I do like this and not that.
Prestige comes into play, for sure. We all do love Mozart, don't we ? Well after controlling this assertion, I must say that SOME of Mozart's works don't please me at all, while I consider his (? his ?) requiem as one of the best pieces I know off. The name Mozart, as agreed by a large number of fellows, helps like his work without further investigation. (Don't get me wrong, I adore Mozart, but not all of his numbers).
Easy to dislike Hans Zimmer because his music doesn't compare with the good classicals, if we use the analysis criteria that apply to classical music. It seems indeed very poor. But when we widen the sight and consider his music for what it really is (some will talk more of sound design, but I don't think of it that way), he reached some sort of true excellence in his job. (Don't get me wrong, I hate Zimmer, but have great respect for what he achieved. Not Zimmer, but I hate the fact that such an artist outperforms others that I like more, just because of the "give them what they need" principle, which is to me contra artistic).
Funny example is Ennio Morricone, which is to me one of the greatest FILM music composer, as he is excellent at this particular thing : put the right mood on the right scene. Every film he did, bingo, right on spot : you simply can't imagine the film without his music. The fun is : when you listent to interviews of this outstanding composer, he claims his film music is completely secundary and of no importance (for him). Instead, he promotes his "classical" work that represents him much more. Funny, I don't like his classical symphonies at all, while I'm a big fan of all his cinematic work. Other fun : the score "The Mission" made its way to the classical venues and is considered classical music by all the profession (ar...).
I have, for myself, a little test that I constantly use in appreciating music of any kind :
Inside a particular idiom of music, if I can sort out what piece is way better than the other, then it means that I understood the underlying "rules" of that music (I mean the intuitive inherent rules), and I can say that I somehow "know" that music and can "juge" at least for myself of the quality of a work inside that idiom.
When I happen to find, again inside an idiom that I think I understand, a piece that I find weak, then I try to make one, inside the same idiom, that is better. More than often, I find that I can't do better, and so my vision of the piece and that of the idiom changes to... a better understanding of the said idiom.
Example, just try, really try and make something better than Morricone on this scene :
And of course, one can say it is just three notes of harmonica on an everlasting trivial harmonic pattern, but that is my point : this analysis is absolutely not pertinent. To understand the pertinence of this music, you have to try yourself. It will widen your ears.
My two cents.
Stephane.