Music: an art in decline ?: Philosophy Forums

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

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Music: an art in decline ?

Post-burnt
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 23, 2006

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 29

Posted 08/20/07 - 12:11 PM:	#31
Avedis wrote: “Paris Hilton by no means makes (what I would consider) the best pop music, but she is certainly not making bad pop music. “ Really? You do not think her music to be bad music? I would certainly qualify Paris Hilton’s album as an example of bad pop music. The album does not boast a single new musical concept, not even a rather useless musical concept. The album was simply the expected same old same old pop music record, stereotypical programming and sampling. The whole project was bland. Her album was far worse than Britney Spears’ mediocre (for a pop album) album. You're certainly right it doesn't contain a single new musical concept. Does Tchaikovsky? Mahler? Vivaldi? Miles Davis? Oscar Peterson? Etc. And which Britney album are you talking about? Because the first one, apart from the singles, was guff. The others have been less so. Ok, I'm happy to concede that other people may not like Paris. That's entirely fair. There's plenty of music out there I don't like, and it's pretty pointless to argue over that. Avedis wrote: Now, I do agree that we must recognize that various styles of music should be judged by varying criteria, but this does not mean that some criteria do not carry over from genre to genre. Yes. I agree entirely with this. I think the internet is often troublesome when it comes to expressing a position, but I think you've understood what I've written (assuming I've understood what you've written - vicious circle, see?). Personally, I don't expect pop music to be entirely inventive. It's a relatively benign music, so long as it isn't one's sole musical diet. I don't expect it to change my world, I do want it to be good, and it very often is. Equally, it's very often utter piffle, but I try not to concern myself with that music. And I agree that Paris Hilton is not solely responsible for her album, and it's a moot point (unless anyone here was in the studio when it was being recorded) as to whether or not she can sing. As soon as electricity is involved (ie immediately), the music has a degree of production, of alteration of sound. The conductor and however many musicians in an orchestra do not contribute to a single note of the music except in reproducing it 'faithfully'. Are they also not musicians?

Avedis
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 07, 2007

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 175

Posted 08/20/07 - 12:39 PM:	#32
“You're certainly right it doesn't contain a single new musical concept. Does Tchaikovsky? Mahler? Vivaldi? Miles Davis? Oscar Peterson? Etc.” Well, I will be honest and say that the only person mentioned with whom I am familiar enough to discuss would be Miles, and the answer is yes – many, many new musical concepts. Bitches Brew alone forged an entirely new genre of music (jazz fusion). “And which Britney album are you talking about? Because the first one, apart from the singles, was guff. The others have been less so.” I was speaking of the first, which was certainly her best, though, far too average to be worth purchasing. “Ok, I'm happy to concede that other people may not like Paris. That's entirely fair. There's plenty of music out there I don't like, and it's pretty pointless to argue over that.” It’s not a like/dislike issue, no, I cannot say that I like her music, but there are many artist who’s music I do not enjoy yet I manage to respect the artist none the less. “Yes. I agree entirely with this. I think the internet is often troublesome when it comes to expressing a position, but I think you've understood what I've written (assuming I've understood what you've written - vicious circle, see?).” To clarify, it seems that we do agree. When making my previous post, I wasn’t entirely sure if we were in agreement, though I am certainly glad to hear that you, too, think that we agree. Heheh. “Personally, I don't expect pop music to be entirely inventive. It's a relatively benign music, so long as it isn't one's sole musical diet. I don't expect it to change my world, I do want it to be good, and it very often is. Equally, it's very often utter piffle, but I try not to concern myself with that music.” I expect pop music to be inventive – it has often been. The Temptations and the Drifters were pioneers, as were the Beatles and Rolling Stones. The history of pop music is filled with geniuses; Curtis Mayfield, Eric Clapton and Buddy Holly come to mind. While you are right, often pop music is worthless; sometimes we are graced with true musical talent. Even in pop we can maintain high standards. “and it's a moot point (unless anyone here was in the studio when it was being recorded) as to whether or not she can sing. As soon as electricity is involved (ie immediately), the music has a degree of production, of alteration of sound.” Not quite. You are correct to say that as soon as electricity is involved, the sound is altered; however, this effect is in degrees. If a chorus effect is used on a vocal track (311 has been doing this for some time now), the vocals will blend better with a full band. If pitch correction is used, now that is a different story. I would have to have a close listen to the Paris album (something I am not willing to subject myself to) to tell you just how much work (using Pro-Tools) was done, and to what extent. “The conductor and however many musicians in an orchestra do not contribute to a single note of the music except in reproducing it 'faithfully'. Are they also not musicians?” They are musicians (well, the conductor may or may not be a musician, in his capacity as conductor he is not, though closely related) because there is still interpretation. The conductor sets the tempo and feel of the piece, while providing a dynamic range (yes, dynamics are written in, but the conductor determines the extent). The players, especially a soloist, have many decisions to make regarding tone, and feel as well. The players must also be mindful of one another, responding to the tone, feel and dynamics. If you have ever played in an orchestra, you know there is a great deal more than simply playing the notes on the page. As a percussion student, I can tell you from experience the countless musical decisions one must make – when playing the snare (in an orchestral setting) one must decide the best way to feel the roll, and even what sort of roll to use. One must determine the best sticking patterns to use. When playing timpani, sticking is also an issue, and dynamics are vital to the whole of the ensemble (often dynamic shifts are highlighted in the timpani parts). I’ll stop now as I think you can get the point. Yes, orchestral players are very much musicians, no matter what criteria you focus on.

Makarismos
Tenured Poster

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

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1206

Posted 08/20/07 - 01:07 PM:	#33
1) It is not clear that music needs to introduce "a single new musical concept", and if it does this does not neccessaraly make it good music. 2) It is unlikely that anyones definition of pop music will contain a "a single new musical concept". Pop is not meant to do this, almost by definition. "Paris Hilton doesn’t make music. she only sings it. her team of producers, writers, choreographers, managers, agents, stylists, make up artists, camera men and marketing people do the rest. " And both her singing and the work of her musical director's were sub par. Did they make money? If they did, then thats what they intended, and they were sucessful. I imagin they do not care if they introduced anything new to music. Anyone who critisises pop because it aims to be popular, may first think why people make pop music - they do not do it because they want to be groundbreaking?

Avedis
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 07, 2007

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 175

Posted 08/20/07 - 02:31 PM:	#34
“1) It is not clear that music needs to introduce "a single new musical concept", and if it does this does not neccessaraly make it good music. 2) It is unlikely that anyones definition of pop music will contain a "a single new musical concept". Pop is not meant to do this, almost by definition.” 1. No, music does not need to, I never said music did need to introduce new musical concepts. However, when looking back on the legends of popular music, either they are responsible for new musical ideas or implementing existing ideas in new ways; often a number examples of both can be found 2. Why is pop music restricted from being creative? Must I list the many, many examples of pop music acts who pushed musical boundaries? “Did they make money? If they did, then thats what they intended, and they were sucessful. I imagin they do not care if they introduced anything new to music.” That’s all well and fine, making money, but the process of making money does not necessarily lead to art. In any case, the fact that the record made money does not change the fact that Paris Hilton as a singer, and her album are both sub par – by pop music standards. “Anyone who critisises pop because it aims to be popular, may first think why people make pop music - they do not do it because they want to be groundbreaking?” There is nothing wrong with music written to be popular – I have never even suggested such a thing. But, we must also remember that pop music can be groundbreaking and inventive, and as we look back on the history of popular music, those artists who are usually considered the best pop artists were, not only wildly popular, but also musically gifted. I suppose a brief list may be necessary – Buddy Holly, The Beatles, The Temptations, Eric Clapton (including his work as part of Cream and Derek and the Dominos), Curtis Mayfield, Bob Marley, Sly Stone, Aretha Franklin, Gladys Knight, Michael Jackson, David Bowie… Even more recently, consider Maroon 5, Stone Temple Pilots, Usher, Tupac – while these more recent examples may not be on the level of someone like Eric Clapton or Buddy Holly, each has managed to reach a level of unimaginable commercial success and still produce music that is inventive, relevant and, yes, with new musical concepts. Music is art. Even pop music is art.

Post-burnt
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 23, 2006

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 29

Posted 08/21/07 - 05:09 AM:	#35
Avedis wrote: But, we must also remember that pop music can be groundbreaking and inventive, and as we look back on the history of popular music, those artists who are usually considered the best pop artists were, not only wildly popular, but also musically gifted. I suppose a brief list may be necessary – Buddy Holly, The Beatles, The Temptations, Eric Clapton (including his work as part of Cream and Derek and the Dominos), Curtis Mayfield, Bob Marley, Sly Stone, Aretha Franklin, Gladys Knight, Michael Jackson, David Bowie… Even more recently, consider Maroon 5, Stone Temple Pilots, Usher, Tupac... Interestingly, I find nearly all of those examples to be at best derivative, at worst vapid and horrendously dull. This isn't by way of a diatribe against yourself - personal taste and so on. My first thought is that many of these artists could lead onto a 'genuine' innovator (to my mind). For instance, Bob Marley was a third-rate reggae artist (by my conception) who was, creatively, left for dead by the likes of Lee 'Scratch' Perry, Augustus Pablo or King Tubby. I have heard the early stuff, and to my mind it's very much Perry's involvement more than Marley's that makes them interesting records. Eric Clapton, even in bluesbreakers, did less for the guitar than Jeff Beck or Pete Townsend. The Beatles' 'innovative' edge is always illustrated by the White Album, which stole ideas wholesale from the likes of Stockhausen. I think the point I'm making is that innovation is not an end in itself - innovation is interesting, but listenable music is more important. And, more importantly, any picky, obsessive fool can come along and claim that band x 'stole' their ideas from band y. Did the Sex Pistols start punk? Or was it the Ramones? Or maybe the Stooges? What about New York Dolls? Or The Godz? Or the Shaggs? Or the Monks? Or Link Wray? It becomes very difficult to say who is the 'real' innovator because anyone can say someone else is 'more' innovative. But like I say, innovation is not an end in itself, or necessarily important. And, regarding Miles Davis' 'innovation' - I realise Bitches Brew is an incredibly important record, but I was thinking more along the lines that he's credited with introducting modal playing to jazz - the notion of modal composition is not new; the notion of modal improvisation is not new (it has existed, in various 'folk musics' for hundreds/ thousands of years). None of this stops Davis from being wonderful. I'm not sure if it undermines his innovations, but it certainly doesn't mean that Davis constructed an entirely, utterly new music out of thin air.

Makarismos
Tenured Poster

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

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1206

Posted 08/21/07 - 09:53 AM:	#36
More importantly, if you want to listen to Any kind of music, then in todays wonderful world - Someone is making it now. We have more genres, more artists, more access, more ability to create than in all of human history. If pop music is music in decline, this does not stop you ignoring the whole thing, searching out some bands or artists on MySpace, perhaps making your own podcast. The notion of popular music has changed dramatically from yester year. then we could say with some degree of accuracy that many people listened to what was popular. Today’s music is fragmented, it is intentionally self referential, it is global and it is personal. A prophecy for you:- New talent will never be recognised or widely held to be good, until long after it breaks ground. Listen widely, explore for yourself, put time in and get good music out:- and if all else fails make some music yourself. Good luck.

Avedis
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 07, 2007

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 175

Posted 08/21/07 - 09:06 PM:	#37
"Interestingly, I find nearly all of those examples to be at best derivative, at worst vapid and horrendously dull." This is interesting. Just for curiosity (as I realize we have moved away from philosophy), I wonder if you would entertain me with your thoughts as to why these artists are somewhere between "derivative" and "vapid and herrendously dull." You have my guarantee of a well considered reply. "For instance, Bob Marley was a third-rate reggae artist (by my conception) who was, creatively, left for dead by the likes of Lee 'Scratch' Perry, Augustus Pablo or King Tubby." To use reggae in this sense is to use a very broad term, then. The sort of music Bob played, and the sort of music made by the likes of Scratch Perry and King Tubby were quite different. Even Augustus Pablo was in a different vein of reggae. As for Bob being third rate, I do not see how this is so. Do not get me wrong, King Tubby, and especially Perry, were marvelous artists who do not receive enough credit, but Marley is, at least, their equal. First, Marley redefined reggae over and over again, without ever really moving over into dub like Peter Tosh. His lyrics are suggestive and sensual, but at the same time classy. Second, Marley had a clear artistic command over his voice. Even when he moved away from the doo-whop inspired harmonies, Bob's voice is clear and deeply expressive. It has it's own character, which he uses to his musical advantage, much like Sam Cooke and Wilson Pickett. Third, Bob usually had a great band to back him. When the Skatalites were in the studio, the band could not have been better - even to this day I'm not sure a better reggae group has performed (except, perhaps, for the Maytalls). Even with the Wailers, the listener is barraged with musical notions entirely new, yet so basic that you wonder if they have existed from time's begining. His lyrical potency was top notch, his voice deserves respect, and the bands backing him were fantastic. Third rate? Hardly. "Eric Clapton, even in bluesbreakers, did less for the guitar than Jeff Beck or Pete Townsend. " First, Eric Clapton has given more to music than just his guitar playing. And while I wholeheartedly agree that Jeff Beck has been more valuable to the guitarist than EC, the notion that Pete Townsend has had more of an influence or that Townsend was a superior player is far off the mark. Not to deny Townsend his rightful credit or that he is a fine player, but I will say that I've never met a guitarist who would agree with you on this particular comparison. "It becomes very difficult to say who is the 'real' innovator because anyone can say someone else is 'more' innovative. But like I say, innovation is not an end in itself, or necessarily important. " I agree with both points you make, innovation is not an end in itself, and listenable music is more important than innovation (which is why, despite my personal appreciation, I usually do not throw around Mahavishnu Orchestra as one of the better artists of the past 60 years). But, I think, these two facts make my points for me. Going back to Bob Marley, you mentioned Perry's influence, and certainly there was a great deal of it on The Wailer's as Perry produced a number of those records, but why, then, did Perry's own music not have such a universal impact on music? I'll leave this unanswered for now. "And, regarding Miles Davis' 'innovation' - I realise Bitches Brew is an incredibly important record, but I was thinking more along the lines that he's credited with introducting modal playing to jazz - the notion of modal composition is not new; the notion of modal improvisation is not new (it has existed, in various 'folk musics' for hundreds/ thousands of years). None of this stops Davis from being wonderful. I'm not sure if it undermines his innovations, but it certainly doesn't mean that Davis constructed an entirely, utterly new music out of thin air." No music is constructed without having a relation to some prior music - if we know of some prior music, there is necessarily an influence, either in the direction of that music or away from it. Either way, Bitches Brew is the first clear example of Jazz Fusion - the influence of jazz is obviously there, and of rock and roll, but the way in which these ideas are employed was, simply, unique. "A prophecy for you:- New talent will never be recognised or widely held to be good, until long after it breaks ground." This has been the case for most of music's history. Only for a brief period (and even then, only for a few select genres) has an artist been widly popular almost immediately into his or her career. Even today, as a general rule, if you want to go anywhere in the music business, you have to spend time in the trenches. Few artists experience otherwise. Even many of these artists who seem to come from nowhere have paid there dues in other acts, as sidemen, and playing gin joints. It really is a long road to the top. "Listen widely, explore for yourself, put time in and get good music out:- and if all else fails make some music yourself. Good luck. " Very true. Especially that last bit, "Good luck".

Post-burnt
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 23, 2006

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 29

Posted 08/22/07 - 04:29 AM:	#38
Avedis wrote: "Eric Clapton, even in bluesbreakers, did less for the guitar than Jeff Beck or Pete Townsend. " First, Eric Clapton has given more to music than just his guitar playing. And while I wholeheartedly agree that Jeff Beck has been more valuable to the guitarist than EC, the notion that Pete Townsend has had more of an influence or that Townsend was a superior player is far off the mark. Not to deny Townsend his rightful credit or that he is a fine player, but I will say that I've never met a guitarist who would agree with you on this particular comparison. Buh... I'm not going to go through your list and say why I don't like it... very much a personal thing. I will say that, in terms of inventive guitarists, I don't think Clapton can touch Derek Bailey, Masayuki Takayanagi, Keith Rowe, Keiji Haino, Kazuo Imai, Christian Fennesz, Kevin Drumm, Franco, the chaps from My Cat is an Alien or the chaps from Sonic Youth [I could go on]. That's not to mention the legions of talent in classical guitarists. My position is not that I'm interested in inventiveness if it comes from what might be called the 'mainstream'. If it's there, fine, but there's probably someone doing something far wilder outside of the 'mainstream'. Incidentally, I don't really like the term 'mainstream' as it pressuposes a qualitative difference between that and what ever its 'other' is, which I just can't see. Anyway... I think maybe what I hear in a lot of the artists you listed, without going into detail, is that whatever incursions they made into innovation have been almost entirely eroded by their saturation and ubiquity. I find it near-impossible to believe that anyone, short of people who were actually there, can hear the Beatles and not hear the ideas repeated throughout the 20th-century. And there are those historians, or those that were there at the time, who can hear their forebears too. I appreciate music without gravitas, without grandeur, without the stamp of 'importance'. I often appreciate things which either genuinely are important, or at least bear that stamp. I see a lot of the 'big boys' of rock and roll as operating at neither extremity, and, personally, it doesn't interest me, which in turn probably makes my argument inconsistent. But it's definitely mine.

Avedis
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 07, 2007

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 175

Posted 08/22/07 - 06:32 AM:	#39
It is certainly odd to think that the general public might cling so closely to great talent - truly rare throughout history; such men are usually hated more than they are loved. "I find it near-impossible to believe that anyone, short of people who were actually there, can hear the Beatles and not hear the ideas repeated throughout the 20th-century. And there are those historians, or those that were there at the time, who can hear their forebears too. " Here is a difficulty which, I think, we must take great care to avoid. If we, in finding similarities between contemporary and past artists, allow ourselves to fall into the process of thought that leads us to conclude that an artist is stale, we have also allowed ourselves to forget two considerable facts 1. that music, as with all art, follows directly from that which preceeded 2. that all music necessarily shares qualities. If we were to look at Eric Clapton's recent "Me and Mr. Johnson" album, an album of Robert Johnson covers, we might be tempted to say something like "the music is good, but no better than the origional tunes being recreated" we are ignoring the artistic impression left by the artists involved in the more recent work. In this particular instance, the album was graced by such players as Steve Gadd, who has backed the likes of Chick Corea and Paul Simon not to mention various studio works with a who's who of modern music, Billy Preston, the so called "5th Beatle" who has also worked with too many renowm artists in a variety of genres to name, and Doyle Bramhall, Jr., often acclaimed to be the most noteworthy blues guitarist of his generation. A close listen to the album mentioned will clearly show that, even when these artists recreate music originally recorded some seventy years ago, that the music can be fresh and compelling. When I hear a record, and then discuss the record with other musicians, the conversation is generally structured by the artists thought to be influences. When listening to the Beatles, there is no doubt that they have fully digested Buddy Holly and the other early rock 'n rollers, and from this foundation have broadened the scope of their genre. Rather than seeing this as troublesome, it is generally taken to be well guided - just as we would expect any modern philosopher to consider the thoughts of past philosophers, making note of their advances and acheivements as well as their failures, we should likewise expect our artists to give similar consideration and revenrence to their predecessors.

Post-burnt
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 23, 2006

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 29

Posted 08/22/07 - 08:07 AM:	#40
Hmm. In that case I think it boils down to - I entirely agree with your argument; I disagree with the instances of your argument. Which is much less of a quarrel than it might seem. Again, you can take the Eric Clapton is less than Robert Johnson argument, tack on a Robert Johnson is less than Son House argument and it makes very little difference. Clapton still achieves what he achieves. I find it less than interesting (and I find Johnson less than interesting for that matter), but it's entirely pointless arguing about whether or not its valid. I may not like it, but I certainly don't think my dislike in any way invalidates anything.

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.