Music: an art in decline ?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of the Arts » Music: an art in decline ? » Music: an art in decline ?

Music: an art in decline ?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Music: an art in decline ?

Mijin
Registered Offender

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 05, 2003
Location: Birmingham, England

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 390

Posted 08/03/07 - 10:28 AM:	#11
I pretty much agree with everything that's been said here. But want to make two points: 1. Another possible reason for concern regarding modern music is the phenomenon of reality TV. Here in the UK many popstars start out as reality TV stars, and their success is as much to do with them being "the everyman done good" as to any pretence of musical talent. Between that and the influence music video TV, popular music is so much more about image than content. 2. It annoys me somewhat when people put certain genres above others. They often consider more lyrical and guitar-based music as superior to rhythm-based styles. But I like to dance and I believe that there can be a lot of creativity in creating fresh dance music. Also, I would take an interesting melody or chord pattern over good lyrics any day. I'm dubious of the ability of music to convey a complex message and think the meaningfulness of lyrics is overrated. NB: Apologies if I'm not completely making sense. I'm typing this after having had a few drinks.

Donster
leet

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 28, 2007
Location: on a chair... how lame

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 30

Posted 08/04/07 - 11:27 AM:	#12
Well if you are watching the hits you are clearly looking in the wrong place. There is plenty of good stuff out there, from bands like the Steve Kimock Band to solo stuff by Steve Reich.
I once was a little Irish man. Drinking from a little tin can. I chewed on a cat; patched up my hat. This is the way of the Holy man.

Headon_ist
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 08, 2007

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 10

Posted 08/08/07 - 06:03 PM:	#13
First and foremost, I feel, one should clearly stipulate what it is that's to be had from music, be it popular or otherwise. It is hard, and at most impossible, to discern 'pop-music' (which is yet another mass-produced product presented to the masses for gross brainless consumption through the medium of radio, MTV and others), from contemporary popular music practised as a form of art (which aims to, through imbedded values and a certain sense of connectivity, be a reflective and representative voice of the segmented group it aims to speak for or represent). Should one consider it (pop-music) as the former, then, definitely, music as an art-form is in a drastic decline. As the latter, though, (which I know is the aim of all TRUE contemporary ARTISTS in pop-music), it contributes positively to music as an art-form, and society as a whole. Examples of the former might, in my opinion, include: Britney Spears; Paris Hilton; ANY singer having won ' Pop-Idols' or any similar competition; etc.) Artists and bands I consider true popular artists are those that define our times, will stand it's true test, and don't succumb to whatever it is the current market-demands and fads/trends dictate.(Examples might include (among others): Radiohead; The Dave Matthews Band; Tori Amos; Nine Inch Nails; Tool; The White Stripes; etc) I heard someone say once, that: "The best way to get the wrong answer to a question, is to put a hundred people in a room and have them vote on it." This is true for pop-music especially. The moment an artist creates to please the masses, he/she ceases to create art, and should be considered nothing more than a mere tradesman, selling their goods (and their souls) at the market to the highest bidder! Thom Yorke (Radiohead) said, when they first started out, that the primary aim of the band would be to create art, nothing more. They were intent on proving to everyone (and themselves), that they were truly not affected by charts and album-sales. The band has certainly proved to deliver just that, refusing to succumb to popular trends and pre-conceived collective market demands. In stead it has presented us with initially alienating, eventually illuminating emotions which it gave to us objectively for own interpretaion and reflection. That is art's primary purpose. True art does not console one. It does not dictate one's emotions, nor affirm it. It does not act as mouthpiece to the collective consciousness of the masses, nor reflect on it. It looses its sustenance once it's subjected to being a platform for political gain, and restricts the spectator emotionally if applied as emotional manipulator for irrelevant and unrelated causes such as world-hunger or global warming. True art reflects what is. Or how, what is, is perceived. It confronts the spectator with this fragment of reality and allows him/her to introspectively apply it to his/her own frame and scope of reference, evoking certain ends which would not otherwise have been realised without it. This is the true purpose of art (in whatever form), its true and practical purpose to man: To hold a mirror to his face and guide him toward introspection and self-realisation. The true musician applies it as such. (And there are ample examples of modern-day musicians who do, such as Marilyn Manson or Ravi Shankar). The truely GOOD musician does it with flair and effortless, evident proof of years of hard practise and above-average innate talent. (And there are only a select few (as naturally there should be) of those, such as Steve Reich and his Triple Quartet (as mentioned by Donster) or the classical minimalist composer Nicholas Lens. To speculate on music as a declining form of art, is to speculate on the survival of man's soul itself. As a form of art, man will always have the need (and want) to apply and enjoy it. As the popular form (as currently perceived by today's seemingly informed and empowered members of society), I Hope & PRAY for it to be on a declining phase. Only once the damaging influence of capitalism and consumerism can be seperated from musical performance in all its forms, can the true nature and beauty of the art of music finally be realised. Edited by Headon_ist on 08/08/07 - 11:17 PM. Reason: elaboration as clarification of statement

Post-burnt
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 23, 2006

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 29

Posted 08/09/07 - 02:50 AM:	#14
Headon_ist wrote: It is hard, and at most impossible, to discern 'pop-music' (which is yet another mass-produced product presented to the masses for gross brainless consumption through the medium of radio, MTV and others), from contemporary popular music practised as a form of art (which aims to, through imbedded values and a certain sense of connectivity, be a reflective and representative voice of the segmented group it aims to speak for or represent). I have a few points to make regarding this post; I'll try to illustrate them as briefly as possible. While I agree with some of the sentiments, I do have to take issue with a few points. I think part of the problem is that the lingua franca of pop music is sales; the idea of a 'mass-produced product presented to the mass for gross brainless consumption...' is certainly a worry; however, I don't believe that the criteria by which you endeavour to separate the 'true artists' of popular music from the 'industry shills', as one might call them. There was a quote from Alec Empire (of Atari Teenage Riot) where he said something to the effect of 'once you enter the machine, don't be surprised if it eats you to shreds'. Anyone popular enough to reach the upper echelons of the charts has entered into the gross consumerism, none are safe. Even Radiohead who, in themselves I'm sure, believe themselves to be as far away from market demographics and sales points, are consumed by the market terms. Radiohead, more than the obvious candidates of Britney Spears or whomever, sell an absolutely enormous amount of records. And people do not buy these records without promotion. The press, under the investments of Radiohead's record company (which is, lest we forget EMIseagram), put a large amount of money into promoting Radiohead in so subtle a fashion as to allow the consumers to believe they're not being 'sold to'. They are being 'sold to'; Radiohead's place in the gross consumerism is a lot more stable than the latest pretty 19-year-old, and their demographic is very different. They are not absolved of their involvement in 'gross consumerism' at any point. The point I want to make is that they needn't be. Headon_ist wrote: Should one consider it (pop-music) as the former, then, definitely, music as an art-form is in a drastic decline. As the latter, though, (which I know is the aim of all TRUE contemporary ARTISTS in pop-music), it contributes positively to music as an art-form, and society as a whole. Examples of the former might, in my opinion, include: Britney Spears; Paris Hilton; ANY singer having won ' Pop-Idols' or any similar competition; etc.) Artists and bands I consider true popular artists are those that define our times, will stand it's true test, and don't succumb to whatever it is the current market-demands and fads/trends dictate.(Examples might include (among others): Radiohead; The Dave Matthews Band; Tori Amos; Nine Inch Nails; Tool; The White Stripes; etc) The problem I have with the above statement - as I stated before, no-one is absolved of their involvement in 'the machine' (as it were). Personally, I have recently thoroughly enjoyed two singles from the Paris Hilton album, I think Britney's Toxic is an absolute masterpiece of contemporary record production, Girls Aloud (who came from a British 'pop idol' style competition) are one of my favourite groups; by contrast, The White Stripes sound to me like about 4 million indie bands from 1976-present - it utterly baffles me why they are popular when someone like Jaguar (from the mid-90s) are entirely un-heard of, in spite of being very much the same (and believe me, I can think of at least another 20 bands who were, sonically, near-identical to the White Stripes). The Dave Matthews band and Tool all leave me cold. Tori Amos & Nine Inch Nails I find quite funny, but all a bit overwrought. The point I would like to make here is that I notice the instances you produce are of people who, ostensibly, play their own instruments. Firstly - the voice is an instrument as much as a guitar, and should not be neglected. Avril Lavigne or Kelly Clarkson, like them or not, have amazing voices. There are those who are auto-tuned up to the hilt, but there are also plenty of pop singers who are not. Secondly - I'm interested in music as an art form; I buy the CD/ LP and am therefore a consumer. I have exchanged money for goods or services. I cannot get out of my involvement in consumerism, neither do I want to. I take the art of music from where I find it. I would rather listen to a piece of music I enjoy than a piece of music that was made under 'true' conditions - art, in its various forms, has less to do with the means of production or the personalities involved (which is where I see the qualia for the 'play their own instruments' brigade) and has everything to do with being produced and being good. I realise this is a very vague statement, necessarily so - I don't which to suggest that it's a case of 'music is subjective' (I personally loathe this sentiment) but, when you're talking about the contemporaneous popular music, unfortunately, it is subjective. The criteria by which one talks about anyone in the charts are different to the criteria used for a Mozart or a Beethoven; not better, different. Headon_ist wrote: I heard someone say once, that: "The best way to get the wrong answer to a question, is to put a hundred people in a room and have them vote on it." This is true for pop-music especially. Radiohead, The White Stripes, Tool, Dave Matthews Band, Tori Amos have all sold millions of records. I don't understand the above statement. I'm drawing to a close here, I may write more later.

Headon_ist
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 08, 2007

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 10

Posted 08/09/07 - 06:04 AM:	#15
Thanks for the feedback. I realised, for one, that I definitely tend to disregard singers like, for instance, Britney Spears based on pre-conceived attitudes which reveals a gross ignorance on my part. (Hard pill to swallow). I may also have appeared to come across as laying down the final word on the topic. I merely tried to reflect the way I perceive things to be, knowing full-well how I might turn out to have been seriously mislead, as you just pointed out. (If I only knew just HOW MUCH I was mislead, though! )

lackofcolor
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 04, 2007

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 14

Posted 08/09/07 - 03:41 PM:	#16
You are so right about the popular artists. I think the companies are interested of "selling" and created a product. Not music, not art. It's sad, really. But that's why i have tuned OUT of that genre. There's just no originality or musicality anymore.

Donster
leet

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 28, 2007
Location: on a chair... how lame

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 30

Posted 08/12/07 - 09:44 PM:	#17
lackofcolor wrote: You are so right about the popular artists. I think the companies are interested of "selling" and created a product. Not music, not art. It's sad, really. But that's why i have tuned OUT of that genre. There's just no originality or musicality anymore. Some popular stuff can be fine. The idea is that if you are pushing the limits you are probably going to have to go around and play in bars and such because your music isn't going to be on the radio.
I once was a little Irish man. Drinking from a little tin can. I chewed on a cat; patched up my hat. This is the way of the Holy man.

killerofgod
Travelling Journeyman

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 01, 2006

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 46

Posted 08/15/07 - 04:49 PM:	#18
"...if you are pushing the limits you are probably going to have to go around and play in bars and such because your music isn't going to be on the radio." That is perhaps what I hate most about the music industry today. Anyone willing to push the envelope has to be willing to sacrifice their radio time because its bad business for the stations to play things that are even a little bit outside of people's comfort zones. A general rule of thumb for finding a good band is usually to turn off the radio.
Just my own meaningless thoughts and opinions.

Bryn
Initiate

Usergroup: Under Review
Joined: Aug 16, 2007
Location: Winchester, England.

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 12

Posted 08/16/07 - 01:55 AM:	#19
Popular music is definatly in decline. Although for me I'm lucky that the music I find enjoyable is as good as ever to some extent. Edited by Paul on 10/09/07 - 03:15 AM
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan

lackofcolor
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 04, 2007

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 14

Posted 08/16/07 - 09:40 PM:	#20
killerofgod - you are right on!

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

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