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?

EDKJ
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 3

Posted 06/04/09 - 10:16 AM:	#21
I think good music is music which fulfills its purpose, it does what it is supposed to do, it has an aim and an intention. We can all agree the purpose of a kitchen knife is to prepare food, hence if I create a knife which does this, it is by definition: good. Whether you find it's purpose agreeable or not, is a different question. But say we have several kitchen knives, it is likely that some are better than others. A way to find out which are the best would be to measure their sharpness, as sharpness is a necessity for their purpose. It is logical to say that Britney Spears is a good pop musician as she fulfills the criteria of what pop music is supposed to be; however, not everyone finds her intentions to be agreeable.
http://edkj.angelfire.com/

Crackers
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 28, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 519

Posted 06/06/09 - 03:15 PM:	#22
I would argue otherwise. Music is only as good as people perceive it to be. Music from a certain time period reflects that period. People are more likely to relate to music from their own period as it reflects the aesthetics/emotions of the time. Thus, music tends to get worse over time, as it has less and less emotional impact on people in the future. However, I wouldn't say that it is as clear cut as "newer equals better". I think that Chopin has more emotional impact on people even today than pop artists such as Britney Spears have. Even if only 5000 people listen to Chopin and 5 million listen to Britney Spears; it's still possible that Chopin's music is still more evocative of emotion. Thus, Chopin's music will remain "better" until there isn't anyone left who is touched by it. Music from the middle ages, for example, isn't likely to appeal to people as much as more modern artists. Edited by Landlady on 06/07/09 - 10:12 PM. Reason: removed html

DrifterOfTheSun
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 19, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 31

Posted 06/23/09 - 04:33 AM:	#23
Art is not based on society but completely on an individual. A genuis might be born tommorow or he might not be born in millenia. Only he changes the music from simple to geinus. We have had small talents in 20th century but all this togeather can not compare to Mozart or Beethoven. P.S. Bach is a great composer such as Pachelbel, Vivaldi, Tartini, Paganini etc. But he is deffinetly not big enough for the greatest. Mozart is a lot better than Beethoven. How? Mozart was in mid 30's when he died, Beethoven 60. The lightness was what he liked, but we well know what he could do when he would get serius (If not See "Mozart Requiem"). He was not even like Keats to Byron, He already WAS bigger, but he would have gotten even better. In the end he wrote something in completely new direction, that he had never done before. It is just hard to penetrate the mood of Mozart to understand his genius. And Beethovens mood is closer to us. And I still feel I didn't said what I wanted. Zen
Before starting an argument, do some research, it might be proven it is right/wrong

RoboticHand
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 23, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 5

Posted 06/24/09 - 02:27 AM:	#24
I'd say one's perception of the music they listen to changes over time. Some of the music I'd listen to as an adolescent no longer has the same impact on me as it did back then. Certain musical acts seem primitive (for lack of a better term) or immature compared to the type of music I listen to now. I'd also say that there are particular albums or musicians that, when first listened to, I did not enjoy. Yet, over time I've grown to enjoy certain musical acts that in the past I did not understand. The music itself doesn't change, but my capability to comprehend what the artist is trying to convey does.

ergot_trot
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 14, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 21

Posted 07/20/09 - 11:18 PM:	#25
Music generally evolves as technology improves as well. What once took a whole symphony of musicians now one musician with a computer and powerful music technology can do. Electronic music is taking music in places no human ever could. Edited by Bobard on 07/21/09 - 08:30 AM. Reason: Capitalisation

mway
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2009

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 509

Posted 07/21/09 - 04:08 PM:	#26
Quality of music is subjective, and as such it does not improve over time, it only changes (part of evolution). Of course over the last few hundred years technology has extended what humans can do with sound, and the increase in population has allowed for many more people to be creating and listening to music. I like music from all genres, however from a personal "feel" perspective bands such as Tool make the classical composers look fairly childish sonically.
Lame is to Wav, as the Brain is to Reality.

Cleaver
Don't think of green

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 22, 2007

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 68

Posted 07/21/09 - 06:04 PM:	#27
I strongly do not think music gets better with time nor do I believe that it gets worse. Music is just made. How someone perceives it and develops a preference should not play a role as a deciding factor and what makes one musician(s) better than the other. There are plenty of people who would prefer listening to Britney Spears over Bach and think she is amazing. They might be drones, but they are allowed to like what they like. If you only note a trend in the propencity of people liking a particular group over the other, you outrule subjectiviity. Subjectivity is what makes music the beautiful artform that it is! While I love Chopin and Beethoven - there's nothing quite like listening to an accapella group singing the blues. It's just gorgeous to me, but not every case is. And sometimes, I'll listen to straight-up punk rock. Why? Because I found something good in it, but haven't put anything in any sort of hierarchy.
"The intellect is a cleaver. It discerns and rifts its way into the secret of things." ~Henry David Thoreau

Omninescience
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 20, 2006
Location: a desolate desert

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 25

Posted 07/25/09 - 11:07 AM:	#28
voyaging wrote: Does music get better over time? No, because if that were true, music today will be superior in all ways and form, in your sense of the question delving into the past of music is sharing a likeness of the first computer ever build. Music evolves but doesn't get better, because the word better is only a matter of opinion. Better to some might be the 50's, other might see better in the 70's, today young kids see better in the 00' and regard the 60's detestable.
http://omninescience.wordpress.com/

BitterCrank
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 01, 2008
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 226

Posted 09/06/09 - 02:08 PM:	#29
Music evolves. It gets more complex, sometimes simpler. Polyphonic and baroque music can sound like a jumble of competing lines at times. New instruments (the harpsichord, later the piano, the valved horn, etc.) make new sounds possible, and greater volumes of sound. Some instruments cease being used - heard any new music for sackbut or shawm lately? Instruments like the electronic theramin initially were used for solo classical performance (still could be) but found their very effective place in horror movie soundtracks. They also graced the sunny and totally horror-free Beach Boys productions. The terms under which composers produced music have been referenced. Franz Joseph Haydn had a steady gig, but his music had to please his employer. The steadiness of his employment, and maybe his temperament, allowed him to polish his scores, something that Mozart didn't do. Mozart had to hustle for business a good share of the time. It is possible to find good and bad music in the archives of 'classical' music (or formal orchestral and choral music from any period), just as one can find good and bad contemporary music. Some contemporary music composers (including rock and roll or jazz artists) might rank up there with the greats, but given the sheer quantity of musicians performing today, a lot of them are not going to make it into the ranks of even the 'also-ran' crowd. One thing that one might use is a measure of 'uniqueness' that is, how many works in a given era are indistinguishable from other works of the same era - even the same composer. I can not tell a lot of Johann Sebastian Bach apart from other JSB pieces. I have a feeling that a lot of his music could be cut, mixed up, and spliced back together and few would notice. (Of course, his famous Lutheran chorales don't fit this pattern.) Likewise, there are whole oceans of contemporary music genre's which pretty much sound all alike. It seems to me that rap and Mexican or Polish polkas, work that way. It all sounds like one interminable piece. Recorded music obviously changed our experience of music, and recorded music has been around for over a century. Prior to Edison, people couldn't listen to the same [recorded] sounds over and over again. (This is very different than a live performer playing something over and over again.) The fact that we can and do listen to a massive amount of music, and repeat much of it ad nauseum, has been fully digested by modern culture. There are certain pieces (Bach to rock) that I love to listen to over and over without a break. Good music is interesting; bad music is boring (as rated by people who like the genre) Good music endures and garners new fans; bad music ceases to be played and few people like it (among people who generally like the genre) Good music (in any genre) stands out in the genre; bad music gets lost in the crowd of the genre Good music bears multiple hearing; bad music grows stale very fast -- once is enough Good music is imitated; bad music is the uninspired imitation that misses the boat
If you won't fan the flames of discontent, at least don't join the fire department.

easyjacksn
Almost there...

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Oct 06, 2004
Location: San Luis Obispo

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 1230

Posted 09/06/09 - 05:06 PM:	#30
mway wrote: Quality of music is subjective, and as such it does not improve over time, it only changes (part of evolution). Of course over the last few hundred years technology has extended what humans can do with sound, and the increase in population has allowed for many more people to be creating and listening to music. I like music from all genres, however from a personal "feel" perspective bands such as Tool make the classical composers look fairly childish sonically. I'm a huge TOOL fan and have championed their music on classical music forums. Their music is extroadinarily underrated. They have nothing on good classical music from any era, though. It is they who are the children in comparison. The polyphonic beauty of Reflection is infantile compared to Bach. The developments in Rosetta Stoned are incredibly simplistic compared to Beethoven, and the gorgeous harmonies that permeate so much of their music are laughable compared to Shostakovich. I can make these statements because TOOL attempts to do with their music what these masters of the craft did, only it is obvious that they don't do it nearly as well. Anyone who believes that there is no objective difference between the quality of Mozart and Prince simply doesn't know what the hell they are talking about. This is not opinion any more than citing the difference between the quality of Ferraris and Ford Escorts. Listening to people rant about the "pompous elitists" that can tell the difference is akin to listening to the rants of pseudophilosophers who claim that their grand theories are just as good as those of the great philosophers.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

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