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 ?

Mike H
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 05, 2007

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 154

Posted 08/22/07 - 06:48 PM:	#41
Is music in decline? This is an impossible, or at least extremely difficult, question. Firstly, musical tastes are all subjective. Someone with mainstream tastes will say that music is not in decline, while someone with more eclectic tastes might say it is. They could debate for eternity and not change their minds. Secondly, we have an information problem: there is far too much music out there for any one person to even listen to 0.01% of it, thus no one can make an informed judgement. This is actually a great advantage: no matter how strange your tastes, its is overwhelmingly likely that you will find a decent amount of music that suits it. In the end, this is all that matters. Who cares if the music other people listen to is in decline? It would be far more fruitful and relevant to ask if a particular type of music that you like is in decline. That way, you can take the preferences as given, and you go a long way towards resolving the information problem. I think the only hope for answering a question as general as "is music in decline" is to limit your inquiry to "big" popular artists, and introduce some objective measure of "goodness." I would suggest the measure of "will people still listen to this band in 50 years?" Using this method, I think we'd have to conclude that music is in fact in decline. Where are the Pink Floyds, the Led Zeppelins, the Miles Davises, Charlie Parkers, Mozarts, the Beatles of today? Can anyone name any band of the 90's/00's that people will listen to in 50 years, other than for nostalgia? Will that band be considered great in the overall context of music history, or just merely great in comparison to other bands from the 90's/00's? The only band I can think that might fit this criterion is Coldplay. But I admit to not thinking very hard on this, I don't listen to that much pop music.

killerofgod
Travelling Journeyman

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 01, 2006

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 46

Posted 08/22/07 - 08:18 PM:	#42
"...introduce some objective measure of 'goodness.' I would suggest the measure of 'will people still listen to this band in 50 years?'" That's a pretty lousy criterion to use as an "objective" measure of quality in a band. First of all, how many people have to listen to the band in fifty years before they're considered good? 10 percent? 50 percent? Surely no overwhelming majority of people listen to Bach and yet we (speaking not as an average person, but as a musician) consider him one of the greatest composers of all time. Not just because his music has lasted this long. In fact, if it weren't for Mendelssohn resurrecting his work (he was a huge fan of Bach's), no one but other composers and performers would have even heard of him. Instead, we revere Bach for laying down some of the most significant steps on the path to greater musical expression. The truly great composers are not just those that will be remembered, but those that truly have something to say with their music that perhaps no one has ever said before and so they open up new doors for expression in the process. People like Beethoven, Mahler, Schoenberg, John Coltrane, Miles Davis, hell even Tupac had something to say and he said it well.
Just my own meaningless thoughts and opinions.

Avedis
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 07, 2007

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 175

Posted 08/22/07 - 10:24 PM:	#43
"Tupac had something to say and he said it well." If anyone has a particular view of music that does not make room for Tupac to be considered a good artist, they have a failed system of considering music.

Mike H
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 05, 2007

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 154

Posted 08/23/07 - 12:28 AM:	#44
killerofgod: That's a pretty lousy criterion to use as an "objective" measure of quality in a band. I agree, but its better than nothing. If we want to debate about something subjective, we have to agree on some objective evaluative standard(s), otherwise we're not debating at all, but merely stating our tastes. Nothing wrong with that, but its not philosophy. The problem with other evaluative standards that would seem to be better, like "musicianship," or "catchiness," or "structural complexity," is that none of that is really a reliable indicator of "good art," which cannot be defined objectively. I just think the best we can do is somewhat arbitrarily equate "good art" with "what is generally considered good art and has stood the test of time as such." This enables us to at least debate about something, and it leads naturally to my "objective" measure, "will people still listen to this in 50 years?" Actually, it would be better if I replaced that with "will this generally be considered great music in 50 years?" The truly great composers are not just those that will be remembered, but those that truly have something to say with their music that perhaps no one has ever said before and so they open up new doors for expression in the process. People like Beethoven, Mahler, Schoenberg, John Coltrane, Miles Davis, hell even Tupac had something to say and he said it well. I'm inclined to agree, but "great" is still subjective. It necessarily resists any objective definition like "saying something new and opening up new avenues for expression." I'm sure there are many people who consider a band great, even though they're essentially treading the same ground as someone before them. After all, they can tread that same ground well. But if you define "great music" as "having something to say and saying it well," that just raises the problem of what is saying something well with music? Isn't that just the same question again, what is great music? For the purposes of debate, we can arbitrarily define "great" any way we like, as long as we agree on it. But I think the most agreeable (or the least disagreeable) definition possible is "that which people generally consider great" (including not just people now, but people in future generations).

killerofgod
Travelling Journeyman

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 01, 2006

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 46

Posted 08/23/07 - 07:31 AM:	#45
"Actually, it would be better if I replaced that with 'will this generally be considered great music in 50 years?'" That still leaves the definition of "generally" a bit ambiguous. I certainly doubt a majority of the population would say that John Cage was a great composer, but nearly every music program in the country includes at least a discussion of his work so at least amongst academia he is generally considered great. "that just raises the problem of what is saying something well with music?" Ok, I guess I was a bit ambiguous myself about this one. Let me illustrate with a few examples. Samuel Barber suffered from bouts of depression throughout his life. Listen to his Adagio for Strings and you can hear the intensity of his emotions and, if you can relate to his pain (either by suffering from depression yourself or otherwise being able to really empathize), you can feel the lump in your throat growing through the whole piece. Had he written something that sounded more like a Haydn string quartet, he would have failed to communicate his emotions as effectively. Bad music, at least as I understand it, is music that fails to express what the composer intended. If the composer intends to express anger, a listener who fully understands the music and its composer should feel anger.
Just my own meaningless thoughts and opinions.

Jonicus
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Location: Minnesota!

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 62

Posted 10/01/07 - 12:04 AM:	#46
Zealot6619 wrote: When music is apparently breaking new ground in the pop industry, is it really? Or is the industry really just going on a downward spiral? I think you are wrong, but only technically. I do not think of any of those things you listed as being music, so I do not think they can be representatives of the music art form. As such, they have no bearing on the state of music. I think most, if not all, of the 'music' produced today falls into the category of 'pop', especially as JAC defines it being: "...solely a product, to be produced for some end other then itself - namely, money." New country, rap, hip-hop, R&B, etc, even the music forms that were at one time good, have now become just another way to make money, and it has stripped all the value from the art of music. I think the last true musical artists really went out in the mid-nineties, such as Nirvana, who literally killed themselves in devotion to their art. Today, you need three things to become a 'musical artist': 1. vocal chords 2. looks 3. a general public dumb enough to listen to the filth you produce You are right... it is so very very sad. Jon

Jonicus
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Location: Minnesota!

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 62

Posted 10/01/07 - 12:15 AM:	#47
stay_in_school wrote: ...which returns to my idea. If everyone stopped buying Paris Hilton's album and bought "better" albums from "better" artists, then the record companies would eventually say "Well forget this Hilton girl, let's go where the money is." The record companies will bring what is in demand and if the demand is for crap they will supply you with it. Demand for better music and they will supply you with better music. The record companies do not merely record music. They also advertise music; and they advertise HEAVILY. They produce cheap garbage, and then advertise it excessively, using such tactics as 'all the good looking people listen', 'being a gangster is FUN', 'copulating excessively will increase your IQ' and convince young and impressionable people that they surely will achieve those things if they listen to that cheap music. It is this reason that cigarette ads are banned in many places. It was realised that people weren't buying and smoking cigarettes because they liked the initial feeling of having their throat burnt out; they were doing it because they were being brainwashed with endless advertisement. I think it is the same with this cheap mass-produced music: people only like/listen to it because they are brainwashed into thinking it is good/good for them. Note, a lot of the people who listen to this stuff and buy it are people who have barely entered into puberty. Their minds are feeble, and the record companies prey on them. Like I said before, it is all horribly sad. Jon

Post-burnt
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 23, 2006

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 29

Posted 10/01/07 - 01:32 AM:	#48
Jonicus wrote: The record companies do not merely record music. They also advertise music; and they advertise HEAVILY. They produce cheap garbage, and then advertise it excessively, using such tactics as 'all the good looking people listen', 'being a gangster is FUN', 'copulating excessively will increase your IQ' and convince young and impressionable people that they surely will achieve those things if they listen to that cheap music. It is this reason that cigarette ads are banned in many places. It was realised that people weren't buying and smoking cigarettes because they liked the initial feeling of having their throat burnt out; they were doing it because they were being brainwashed with endless advertisement. I think it is the same with this cheap mass-produced music: people only like/listen to it because they are brainwashed into thinking it is good/good for them. Note, a lot of the people who listen to this stuff and buy it are people who have barely entered into puberty. Their minds are feeble, and the record companies prey on them. Like I said before, it is all horribly sad. Jon If I said "This is a cliched and repetitious argument. You are therefore brainwashed." would that be a cogent argument? What exactly is sad about people enjoying things, whether they've been told to enjoy things or otherwise? Are you perhaps mourning your alienation from this music? Isn't it important that the world be full of different types? Isn't it also important that a great many people do not fester over their enjoyment of things, or worse, fetishise their appreciation to the point of never letting themselves listen to it? Would you still like the music you like if everyone else listened to it, or would you repeat verbatim what you've said here? You say that children's minds are feeble: if it were to come to pass that my mind enfeebled yours, would that make my argument right? It wouldn't, I'm not competing in that mode, but I generally disagree with all of your sentiments.

Jonicus
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Location: Minnesota!

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 62

Posted 10/01/07 - 10:18 AM:	#49
What exactly is sad about people enjoying things, whether they've been told to enjoy things or otherwise? What is sad about people being fed feces for breakfast having been told it's sausage links if they enjoy it and think it tastes good? Isn't it important that the world be full of different types? The main point behind this thread is that they are not different types, but rather variations on the same exact thing, performed ad nauseam. You say that children's minds are feeble Do you not agree with this? if it were to come to pass that my mind enfeebled yours, would that make my argument right? Of course not. It would, however, give you the advantage in being able to convince me that your argument was right. Whether it was actually right or not would be another matter. But, if my mind were more feeble than yours, then it would hold that you would be able to manipulate me in ways that I could not be able to prevent. Notice, I never said the record companies were right in doing what they do; only that they are capable of doing it. I actually said it was sad. Are you perhaps mourning your alienation from this music? No. I'll gladly remain as far from it as possible. My arguments are made not to lessen the pleasure that one may have from listening to these things—if you like it for what it actually is, that's fine. Instead, I am making an argument with information that can be empirically evidenced. I am claiming objective qualities of the compositions. That they do not follow form for lyrical compositions; that they are cheaply made; and that they are marketed in a manner which employees dubious marketing techniques—the same which cigarette manufacturers were successful in using to convince people to start consuming miniature sticks of death. These advertisements are highly successful in convincing impressionable people with weak minds—not weak because they are stupid, but because they've not been in the world long enough. They have the power to convince them to do things which aren't good for them, which go against even the person's most basic common sense, and all-out brainwash them. They are so successful that it has been found over and over again that it is the advertisements themselves which actually convince most people to take up smoking—because certainly there's nothing good in the actual product: cigarettes. The government has passed laws that have all but completely banned cigarette advertisements. These are powerful techniques for brainwashing. And they are used by record companies. Does not that raise your suspicions even the slightest? Jon

jaybzjaybz
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 30, 2007

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 12

Posted 10/01/07 - 10:34 AM:	#50
All record companies (including the ones whose artists the previous poster listens to) try to sell as much of the music they release as possible. Some are better than others. Some indulge niche markets. The 'alternative' culture or 'high' culture is an illusion. If it does exist then it has the same function (exchange of cultural capital) as the 'base' cultural forms that you describe. Also: are you immune to 'brain-washing?' What qualities do you possess that the ordinary listener does not? Essentially, I'm wondering what quality it is that produces immunity to this 'brainwashing', and by extension the machinations of cultural outlets (?) Edited by jaybzjaybz on 10/01/07 - 10:46 AM

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.