Does Music Improve with Time?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of the Arts » Does Music Improve with Time? » Does Music Improve with Time?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Does Music Improve with Time?

Thoughtless
The Mad Scientist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 12, 2005

Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 729

Posted 01/13/09 - 09:59 PM:	#11
slythytoav2 wrote: Mozart is famous because he was good at composing (albeit rather bland in my opinion, thus supporting my statement above). I agree that Mozart is rather bland. Beethoven > Mozart
"Have you ever felt that the self is an illusion? That you're not really 'you', but just a sequence of neurological events?" "It's thought that, yes."

armchairphilosopher
Tattooed,Psychotic,Biker

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 18, 2003
Location: Belfast

Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 940

Posted 01/14/09 - 02:10 AM:	#12
Have you ever heard of an artist being 'ahead of their time'? A musician/composer/writer's work may be appreciated by those who are well educated in music, and able to appreciate it, whilst the greater public at large can't, and won't until their tastes develop along with the evolution of the popular music that they listen to (are fed by TV & Radio). Music that is on the fringe, considered experimental or extreme eventually becomes more accepted, and a good indicator of this is the use of incidental music in television programs. Electronic music of certain kinds began life with a minority of people interested, and can now be heard in the background of mainstream television programs. Musical styles can also be said to be of a time when there is perceived to be certain emotions prevelant in the society in question.
Without beginning or end, not created nor started, existing always, forever. Infinite, unmeasurable and therefore unimaginable, does this mean that infinity is a religious belief?

Selfkind
Creative Collator

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 15, 2007
Location: Austin, TX

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 75

Posted 02/04/09 - 09:57 AM:	#13
Bach is definitely a strong candidate for the greatest composer of all time. Stravinsky is certainly in the running for greatest 20th century composer, but I feel that Shostakovitch achieved greater depth. Bach had great depth, and such prolificness as well. If anyone has not heard his Suite no. 5 for solo cello, they must do so straightaway. Actually, do you know who else might be considered for being the greatest or one of the greatest? Two that you might never have heard of. Guillaume de Machaut and Josquin des Prez. Both these guys were geniuses of Renaissance music. "Rose, liz, printemps" by Machaut is one of the prettiest songs I have ever heard, when it is performed right. There are a lot of mediocre early music performers. Medieval and Renaissance music in my opinion do show that western art music has evolved, and dare I say grown over time. But human genius still flourished in earlier eras. Even in late medieval, there was Perotin le Grand, who wrote some pretty cool, wacked sounding stuff. Individual geniuses worked within the limited musical language of their day and created beautiful, meaningful music. The church sponsored a lot of music in those days, and some composers may have found writing mass after mass to be monotonous. However, there were inevitably some that either transcended the monotony, or simply enjoyed writing their numerous masses, so we have some great early music from those eras. Most people aren't familiar with these eras of music. However, I was fortunate to be able to take an excellent course on Renaissance music with one of the true experts in the field. Mozart is not bland, he merely is taking a deep bow to convention. But you must look closely, because he's keeping his fingers crossed, winking, and snickering as he does so. In those days a lot of strict conventional rules were still in effect, many of which wouldn't get obliterated until Beethoven and beyond. Yet Mozart's way of doffing the rules was to subtly invert them, and to play tricks on his audience. Mozart's music is kind of a big joke, yet written with precision and perfection. But his early death was one of the most tragic events in the history of music, because he was finally getting serious! Just listen to his Requiem, one of his last works, and you tell me that Mozart is bland. No, he seemed to be entering a new phase of composition just as he died. I think he was poised to become perhaps the greatest composer of all time. He might also have ushered in Romanticism ahead of Beethoven, who knows. Generally when people think these hallmark eras or great composers are boring and bland, they don't fully grasp the music.

Makarismos
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1206

Posted 02/04/09 - 12:47 PM:	#14
Music is good or bad depending on the tastes of the listeners. This varies all the time. It depends upon who you ask, who you compare from the past and the present, or (perhaps) what you use to measure "goodness". I would say that the question implies some kind of objective "good", and that this is a load of rubbish.

Selfkind
Creative Collator

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 15, 2007
Location: Austin, TX

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 75

Posted 02/05/09 - 11:29 AM:	#15
Makarismos wrote: Music is good or bad depending on the tastes of the listeners. This varies all the time. It depends upon who you ask, who you compare from the past and the present, or (perhaps) what you use to measure "goodness". I would say that the question implies some kind of objective "good", and that this is a load of rubbish. If this is true then why do so many scholars, musicians, and lovers of music generally agree on who the greatest composers are? I'd say that most people's top 10 will have few surprises, even if the order is often rearranged. Why is it that hardly anyone thinks Ditters von DIttersdorf to be among the 10 greatest? Why would Beethoven be included on almost everyone's 10? Is it really wrong to say that Beethoven was better than von Dittersdorf?

TheThoughtfulOne
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 04, 2009
Location: Evansville, IN

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 69

Posted 05/31/09 - 05:09 PM:	#16
I wouldn't say music improves with time, it changes, but doesn't improve or get worse. It's all personal opinion. I like the music I like, there could be certain songs I like, or dislike, but that is my personal opinion. Music is music, like what kind you like and be happy.
I am what I am, but what am I? - Me

Stirling
The Lost Man.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 25, 2009
Location: Enumclaw, WA

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 77

Posted 06/02/09 - 06:25 PM:	#17
Music (or art in general), by the contingency of its human counterpart, takes on existing in the role as being a subjective work which, if lived up to individual qualifications, can be considered as such - or rather, that, as an art is an art by its concluding reference of the artist, can be recognized as art by the now viewing, hearing, interpreting audience. Joseph Conrad wrote, "A work that aspires, however humbly, to the condition of art should carry its justification in every line." Here, Conrad is referencing what writing should entale of from the writer (if I've interpreted this correctly): art from the artist. It also seems to state that art requires some "justification?" Understanding that art requires "justification" in the words of Conrad, - making an attempt to interpret a physical "substance" (object) to be catagorized as art; deeming it as an acceptable work, concluding it as art - it is that which pleases the senses, which satisfies individual opinions and emotions: as a subjective understanding as to what constitutes what... in this case, music. Adapting from the conception of "justification in every line," the emotional paradigm or "art" can stretch out into many different forms: to that of drawing and painting, writing and playing music, writing books, and to the extent of watching and experiencing things as they unravel a certain "truth" which hardly any other "justification" allows. The subjective side of this "truth" - permitting a "real" aside from the illusive shape of the less abstract - and to the opposite, objectivity (innersubjectivity), the question still lies as to what art is and why it is art. Does art have intrinsic qualities? Does art require an artist? etc. In the subjective view, a person sees or hears an art and makes mental judgments about it that are neither true nor false, but only grasp a feeling of this or that in a way that best outfits his or her own opinions, or individual desires; judgments which are indepndently true or false to what the individual person believes, wants, or hopes. Benedetto Croce, amore or less Hegelian philosopher, wrote quite extensively about aesthetics: the philosophy of art and beauty. He strongly believed that the understanding of art comes from either "vision or intuition:" vision, as he explains further, comes from intuition; vision, further, is the dream, the imaginatory response to his environment and mental dispositions by way of intuition. Art comes from the "intuitive" mind, says Croce. The intuitive mind is where imagination forms its creative interpretations of what it understands to be "real," to be "true;" through imagination, intuition, art is discernable, and plainly subjective. Intuition, as the "birth place" of imagination through its interpretation of the "physical world," is indistinguishable from expression. That is, art (as pertaining to the artist) is an emotional reaction, an expression of feeling reflective of his or her own interpretation of the environment that (may) influence them Friedrich Nietzsche in "The Will to Power" believed that art, similarly, comes from "dream and intoxication." The dream is "vision" (as compared to Croce's "vision"), "association," and "poetry." The "intoxication" is "gesture," "passion," song and dance." Further, in Nietzsche's "The Birth of Tragedy," he believed that there were two opposing impulses which are the developing qualities of an artist in his pursuit to create art: the Appolonian, which is th impulse or force of rational, civilized behavior; and the Dionysian, which represents the unrestrained, wild, impulsive side of the artist in the creation of his or her art. Art, as I see it, by way of those I mentioned and of my own opinion, is indeed dream and intoxication, understood by the dreamer, by his own "visioins" of life; dreams dreampt as abstract, individual interpretations of life through the imagination; dreams as abstract "truth." The dream, as imagination/creativity, thrust into the physical world as representing the abstract of the dreamer through the intellectual, Appolonian mind's process of creating: what was art in the mental abstract is then a physical abstractness. Croce wrote, "The artist produces an image or a phantasm; and he who enjoys art turns his gaze upon the point to which the artist has pointed, looks through the chink which the artist has opened, and reproduces that image in himself." From the artist, the art is interpreted by a subsequent viewer or listener - art as a construct of intial interpretation, made physical, and interpreted by other individual subjects. The interpretation is both reflective of the emotions expressed by the artist ("reproduces that image in himself"), with at least some influence, and the emotions within the viewer or listener which were "created" in him or her preceding the event of the viewing or hearing, making a new understanding, or a new "truth." Because art, according to Croce, is a mental, subjective occurence, what is considered art in the physical world is determined by individual interpretations. If you see an object, a "thing" in general, as a piece of art, it is then a piece of art. The subjective side which determines whether something is a piece of art or not, requires the viewer or listener to "understand" or notice some aspect that has some aesthetic quality, which they can then can mentally, perhaps subconsciously, categorived as, what can generally be considered, art. By that, does a piece of art require an artist? For the subjective view, it's not necessary. The "art," the beauty in anything lies with subject intuition. Just as "Starry Night" by van Gough is/can be considered art, so is/can Mount Rainier, simply by the aesthetic qualities which the viewer of listener understands. Music, on a temporal scale, doesn't improve. Though, what changes is the interpretation of the listener over time, depending on cultural alterations. Britney Spears is (oddly) more popular than Mozart, now - the same goes for many other musicians and composers, such as Samuel Barber - not because the quality of music has changed, but rather because culture has. Culture has "progressed" to a place where Handel, Vivaldi, the Bach family, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Shumann, Chopin, Brahms, Grieg, Berlioz, Liszt, Johann Strass Jr., Wagner, Verdi, Tchaikovsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Rachmaninov, Debussy, Ravel, Mahler, Richard Strauss, Schoenberg/Berg/Webern, Stravinsky, Copland, Barber, etc., have lost general appreciation because the style of music has been considered "out of date" as compared to the music of Britney Spears, etc. Whether the question is that, is a piece of Mozart music (let's Leopold or Wolfgang) better or worse than a piece of music by Britney Spears? Has music progressed somewhere or regressed? These questions are entirely subjective to what one may like in music. I, personally, am entranced by the music of Mahler, Richard Strauss, and Barber. While, my brother, who is only a little older than I am, likes Eminem, and the likes of that genre of music. Generally speaking, classical music makes him fall asleep. Though, what should be understood is that I have some classical training in music, whereas he doesn't. So,then, does the liking of one kind of music depend on the musical education of the individual, perhaps juxteposed with some cultural variation? I honestly don't know for sure whether it does or not. Culture, though, does seem like an obvious dividing line for what one may become, somehow, comfortable with. As to whether some musical education is necessary, I can't say for sure.
"A cage went in search of a bird." - Franz Kafka

mayor of simpleton
CAT vs. DOGMA

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 20, 2009
Location: Vienna, Austria

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 515

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 06/02/09 - 11:57 PM:	#18
Music does not improve over time. The music is what it is and the composition does not change, unless it is re-written. Sampling is now a re-write, but a new composition. What occurs is the social acceptance of an artistic form changes. Does it improve? That is just opinion. "Educated" or not, it is just opinion. It becomes "classic" through a "social/artistic codification". The music is "a priori", the classification which occurs is "a posteri". An overcomplicated way of saying we catch up with art. Peter Gabriel is a good example. His music was the same for years and "suddenly" in 1986 he released "So". Bang! He hit a nerve and he was in. His music is for many "timeless". The Beatles, Elvis, Mozart, Prince, Stavinsky, Sex Pistols, The Cure, R.E.M., Nirvana, Led Zepplin, Björk, hey, it does not matter who you list here. You could place "Men without Hats" on this list. Some will stay and some will go. There was a lot of music written in the time of Mozart that was a lot of crap and vanished. Sometimes it will be discover after the fact. I will list a pet peeve of mine. The moderators can get on my case if they care too. I will accept it. I am sick too death of people who believe that ONLY Classical art forms are "quality" art. These "elitists" are the reason why the "Classics" are dying. Art is for everyone and not just a bunch of pompus jackasses who feel that their taste "elevates" them above the common man. If Mozart lived in the 80's, he would not be in these stuffy halls of dead up to the neck classical music. He would be in Minneapolis. He would be called "Prince". Please get over yourselfs, get off you high horse and welcome to reality. Music IS my religion! HISSSSS!!!!! GREG
I am not one to attribute that which I cannot understand immediately to be god(s)-perhaps I will never understand, but god(s) are not defined by my lack of understanding-this is the foundation of dogmas, the pressing of connotative values into the realm of dennotative meaning. - MOS

Makarismos
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1206

Posted 06/03/09 - 11:37 AM:	#19
MOS, YES! Thank goodness someone else recognises the seemingly obvious: that music is not some dead pile of notation, but a living breathing vibrant social phenomena. I applaud your rant.

Schlitz
Hulkamaniac

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 09, 2009
Location: Home of the Cougar, Illinois

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 232

Posted 06/03/09 - 06:45 PM:	#20
voyaging wrote: No, but Britney Spears is popular music, Mozart is art music. Is Stravinsky better than Mozart? In my opinion, significantly. Actually, Mozart in his day wrote what was the popular music for his day. The institution of opera then is comparabe to the institution of pop tarts now. I'd say the distinction between pop and art music is more a matter of the consumption of the music than any other concern.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.