Mozart v. the Beatles v. Nirvana

         My first question is where Scruton draws the line which separates good music from bad music. For example, he compares Nirvana to the Beatles, claiming that the Beatles are superior. However, would he claim that Mozart is superior to the Beatles, because the Beatles are contemporary compared to the music of Mozart? 

     
      After our discussions in class I have realized that yes, Scruton would claim that Mozart is superior to the Beatles. However, I don't think he discriminates solely based on what year the artist started making music; he discriminates based on the quality of the music, in his opinion. For example, if a contemporary orchestra performed new and original music with the same style as classical music, I believe he would have no reason to consider it inferior. If the new music has tone, melody, harmony and rhythm, he would really have no reason to dislike it. 

      Therefore, Scruton doesn't claim that the Beatles are superior to Nirvana just because the Beatles started making music in the 1960's and Nirvana the 1990's. He believes the Beatles are superior because their music is superior. He believes they do a better job than Nirvana in incorporating tone, harmony, melody and rhythm in their music. He believes the music of Nirvana is less complex, and more dehumanizing. He also dislikes the fact that contemporary music forms idols of the artists. He doesn't like how Kurt Cobain is idolized by so many people, and thought of so highly. He would prefer people to praise the actual music more than the artist performing it, and he believes that most contemporary music is too simple for people to idolize it, so they idolize the musician instead.