Does Music Improve with Time?: Philosophy Forums

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

Does Music Improve with Time?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Does Music Improve with Time?

voyaging
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 27, 2008
Location: United States

Total Topics: 51
Total Posts: 165

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 01/10/09 - 07:43 PM: Subject: Does Music Improve with Time?	#1
Does music get better over time? For example, is the music of Stravinsky generally considered superior to the music of Bach because music has had a lot of time to develop since Bach? Is Bach generally just held in high regard due to its importance at the time? Or is it still considered an equal to the works of Stravinsky or Schoenberg?
A witty saying proves nothing.

Tra
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 11, 2008

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 35

Posted 01/10/09 - 08:03 PM:	#2
Forgive me if I'm being obtuse, but is Britney Spears better than Mozart?
Shooting for clay

voyaging
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 27, 2008
Location: United States

Total Topics: 51
Total Posts: 165

Posted 01/10/09 - 08:52 PM:	#3
Tra wrote: Forgive me if I'm being obtuse, but is Britney Spears better than Mozart? No, but Britney Spears is popular music, Mozart is art music. Is Stravinsky better than Mozart? In my opinion, significantly.
A witty saying proves nothing.

SIR2U
The Wonderor of Why

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 17, 2006
Location: Honduras

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 1373

0 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 01/10/09 - 09:06 PM:	#4
voyaging wrote: Does music get better over time? How could it improve unless someone changes it, if they change it then it is not the same music. Personally I like Led Zeppelin even more now than when I was young. But it has not improved any. I think what you are trying to say is that it sounds better today than in years gone by. This is quite possible true, due to the fact that some much research has been done to make better instruments, accousticly better theatres and high quality sound reproduction systems. voyaging wrote: No, but Britney Spears is popular music, Mozart is art music. How do you explain the difference? Mozart was the rage of his times and his music was just as popular.
Unknown Alanic wiseman. "Ignorance and bad teeth have at least one thing in common. Keeping your mouth closed makes them both less obvious"

enkidu
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006

Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 1448

Posted 01/11/09 - 02:55 PM:	#5
voyaging wrote: Does music get better over time? For example, is the music of Stravinsky generally considered superior to the music of Bach because music has had a lot of time to develop since Bach? Is Bach generally just held in high regard due to its importance at the time? Or is it still considered an equal to the works of Stravinsky or Schoenberg? Music composition (and interpretation) takes place within a social reality, and music therefore evolves concurrently with this reality. Society evolves, whether it improves or not is another matter (I am inclined to say it does improve), and music evolves with it, or even in reaction to it, like the other arts. Music therefore takes up the challenges of the time and proposes a solution. Stravinsky takes russian folk songs, and set them up in a sophisticated musical whole, including jazz motifs, and french effects. His music is an expression of the fusion of intimate tradition and very foreign elements, and the social reality of the 20th century is made of such a fusion, modernity is defined by it; so obviously Stravinsky music is more relevant to 20th century listeners than Bach's music. However, the music of Bach is still relevant to us, and we can still enjoy and get enlightened by it, because it goes beyond the contingency of its time, it proposes a solution to a problem, and as such as an absolute value, beyond the fact of whether the problem is ours or not, it enriches our "knowledge" of the world at large (I put knowledge between quotes, because this one remains non explicit, but it nourishes our intuition). In conclusion then, I am not sure we can say that music improves with time, but I am inclined to say that music, and particularly contemporean music helps us to improve.
Tight toy night, streets were so bright. The world looked so thin and between my bones and skin there stood another person who was a little surprised to be face to face with a world so alive. I fell. (Tom Verlaine)

voyaging
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 27, 2008
Location: United States

Total Topics: 51
Total Posts: 165

Posted 01/11/09 - 05:35 PM:	#6
enkidu wrote: Music composition (and interpretation) takes place within a social reality, and music therefore evolves concurrently with this reality. Society evolves, whether it improves or not is another matter (I am inclined to say it does improve), and music evolves with it, or even in reaction to it, like the other arts. Music therefore takes up the challenges of the time and proposes a solution. Stravinsky takes russian folk songs, and set them up in a sophisticated musical whole, including jazz motifs, and french effects. His music is an expression of the fusion of intimate tradition and very foreign elements, and the social reality of the 20th century is made of such a fusion, modernity is defined by it; so obviously Stravinsky music is more relevant to 20th century listeners than Bach's music. However, the music of Bach is still relevant to us, and we can still enjoy and get enlightened by it, because it goes beyond the contingency of its time, it proposes a solution to a problem, and as such as an absolute value, beyond the fact of whether the problem is ours or not, it enriches our "knowledge" of the world at large (I put knowledge between quotes, because this one remains non explicit, but it nourishes our intuition). In conclusion then, I am not sure we can say that music improves with time, but I am inclined to say that music, and particularly contemporean music helps us to improve. You are truly a genius. Thank you so much for the incredible answer.
A witty saying proves nothing.

enkidu
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006

Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 1448

Posted 01/11/09 - 06:07 PM:	#7
voyaging wrote: You are truly a genius. I agree
Tight toy night, streets were so bright. The world looked so thin and between my bones and skin there stood another person who was a little surprised to be face to face with a world so alive. I fell. (Tom Verlaine)

Thoughtless
The Mad Scientist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 12, 2005

Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 729

Posted 01/11/09 - 10:51 PM:	#8
I would say that music must get better: for, no matter how talented were the great composers of the past, someone with an equal or greater amount of talent will be born sooner or later; and this person will have the previous composer's work to draw inspiration from, but not vice versa.
"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."

slythytoav2
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 13, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 5

Posted 01/13/09 - 12:23 PM:	#9
voyaging wrote: Does music get better over time? For example, is the music of Stravinsky generally considered superior to the music of Bach because music has had a lot of time to develop since Bach? Is Bach generally just held in high regard due to its importance at the time? Or is it still considered an equal to the works of Stravinsky or Schoenberg? To answer this question we would need a single scale for the quality of music. Personally, I like Bach much better than Schoenberg but this does not make Bach better. Of course, if I listened to more Schoenberg then I might enjoy his work, but it is just too weird for me at the moment. Also, about the Britney Spears vs. Mozart thing: Britney Spears is popular because of her image, not talent. Mozart is famous because he was good at composing (albeit rather bland in my opinion, thus supporting my statement above).

unenlightened
everything is...

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 3283

Posted 01/13/09 - 01:20 PM:	#10
slythytoav2 wrote: I like Bach much better than Schoenberg but this does not make Bach better. . That would be completely silly. Of course it is Bach being so much better than Schoenberg that makes you prefer Bach. Music evolves; it does not necessarily get better, but over the long term the average complexity increases. The first question is can you hear the music - hear the complexity with some understanding? If you cannot hear it, then your judgement has no great value for another. If you can hear it with understanding, then the question can be asked, "is it any good?" Listening with intelligence is quite hard work and requires education and practice; people who do not wish to make an effort, must content themselves with simple music - it can still be good music.
...most of our actions are the result of the past, or according to a future ideal. That's not action, that is just conformity. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

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