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 ?

Cato
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2007

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 16

Posted 10/12/07 - 12:15 PM:	#71
Music has become the product of the masses

Cato
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2007

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 16

Posted 10/12/07 - 12:32 PM:	#72
Music has become the product of the masses As it should be, everyone deserves to listen to music. Every musical stage people pick up a style and everyone starts to play in that style. I assume that loui100 wasn't alive during the 60's and 30's becouse music back then was just as repeditive as it is now. Back in the 60's folk music was the stardard american musical form. From what I have heard 60's folk I noticed that their music was very repeditive. I also noticed 60's folk is very similar to modern country music. What good has ever come of the electric guitar? synthesizers? Well that's your opinon Mr.Mooncalf I enjoy those instruments immensely. Nature can often get dull and boring. So us philistines need a few techno beats to keep our minds occupied.

loui100
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 13, 2007

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 168

Posted 10/12/07 - 01:32 PM:	#73
By repetitive I don't mean similar in style to other works of that era, but rather lacking in complexivity and repetitive internally so to speak. An example is that people tend to overuse certain melodic sequences, which results in two minutes of reshuffling of the same sequence before another sequence follows. This is a rather prehistoric style which simply is more hypnotic rather than inspiring or touching or intellectually satisfying for that matter. There isn't such a manner in the 30's music. 60's- the process starts to have its effect, and it got worse until modern times. I imagine that the people of our era, the majority, do enjoy this type of prehistoric style but for me, its just junk compared to the 30's music. A matter of taste, of course, but still a lot of people consider such an evolution of taste a detorioration rather than improvement. No worry, in a century everyone will probably find themselves listening to Bach or whatnot. Sinusoide everywhere. We must try to stop this sinusoide, the law of nature, if we seek to establish stability, in any areas whatsoever, government, art, science, society, culture, it all requires constraints to stop the work of the sinusoide.

Makarismos
Tenured Poster

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

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1206

Posted 10/12/07 - 01:44 PM:	#74
loui100 wrote: ... which results in two minutes of reshuffling of the same sequence before another sequence follows. This is a rather prehistoric style which simply is more hypnotic rather than inspiring or touching or intellectually satisfying ... I don’t see why everything has to be intellectually satisfying in order to be deemed good. This kind of criticisms is often aimed at cinema: With the result that something cryptic is considered intrinsically superior to something which is exciting. Because I do not consider humans to be primarily walking brains I do not follow this view; Music can be good at being hypnotic, or good at stimulating our minds, or good for dancing to, or good for makin’ love to - So long as it is good in some way then let it be . Other than that I quite agree with what you say, whatever is the case now It will doubtless change in a few years time regardless. Might as well just appreciate what is here, while it is here.

themusicologist
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2007
Location: London

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 12

Posted 11/08/07 - 03:00 AM:	#75
Mr. Mooncalf wrote: The question that underlies is whether western culture is on the decline. Or even Culture itself not just Western. I have read most of the posts on this topic and as usual with the forum have found it most informative. Of particular interest is the notion that the decline of so called civilisation, (regardless of origin), is preceeded by the decline in the quality of that civilisations music. I share a belief that music is the art form most capable of communicating a message. It has the power to affect our heartbeat, nerves, blood pressure, digestion and rate of respiration. Maybe other art forms do too but music does so unconsciously. From ancient China to Egypt, from India to the golden age of Greece there was a belief that there is something fundamental about music. Something which, they believed, gave it the power to sublimely evolve or to utterly degrade the individual psyche, and thereby make or break entire civilisations. Yehudi Menuhin has this to say: "Music creates order out of chaos, for rhythm imposes unanimity upon the divergent, melody imposes continuity upon the disjointed and harmony imposes compatibility upon the incongruous. Thus a confusion surrenders to order and noise to music, and as we through music attain that greater universal order which rests upon fundamental relationships of geometrical and mathematical proportion, direction is supplied to mere repetitious time, power to the multiplication of elements, and purpose to random association" So as to the initial question: Is our civilisation, (and music) in decline? I would say Yes. Why? because it has, (along with other art forms), become commoditized and is now a part of the Culture Industry. Lets face it, economics is the driving force behind everything today as we cross the bridge into a one ideology, (capitalist), Mono Culture. One of the earlier questions in the thread was; Are we going to allow this to happen? .. I believe that we already have.
"silence and speaking relate to the emptiness and fullness of man," began Yen Tzu. "If your mind is filled with your own prejudices, the truth that others speak cannot be heard. when engaging in conversation, most people are in a hurry to express their own opinion. As a result they don't hear anything but the sound of their own voice."

Makarismos
Tenured Poster

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

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1206

Posted 02/29/08 - 08:07 AM: Subject: After some thought...	#76
I was thinking about this thread today (I know, sad isn’t it) And I think I have a rather better answer to the proposition that music today is an art in decline. The first problem with the viewpoint, is that it is vauge. “Decline” could mean something along the lines of:- worsen: grow worse; "Conditions in the slum worsened" And if so then saying that music has become worse, is to say that it is qualitivly worse than it was previously. This view supposes either that musical creativity has declined, incidents of musical genius are not so gifted as they once were – Or else that the sum of musical output has declined in its average quality. I will note the absurdity of qualitivly categorising music right now, as I assume all can agree that the quality of music is for the most part in the “eye” of the beholder. However we must note that “music” is also a vague term here – as music today serves a different purpose/s than it has in previous ages. Yes we all dance to music, and we all sing along (well, I certainly do!) – But we also use recreational drugs when listening to music, we watch musicians playing music; we buy in to a lifestyle which is given by a particular genera. This adoption of a lifestyle is made most apparent in youth – we have skate punk, drum and base, gangster rap, grunge, heavy metal, nu metal (I could go on ) and each of them is not just a music, but also a fashion, a lifestyle, an genera which suggests a particular outlook. It is not, however, limited to youth. Music might perhaps be rated as to its perfection in some mathematical way – perhaps the complexity of the notes, or the simplicity of the central theme – even if this is so I would contend that it is impossible to rate these different lifestyles against the music. Further these lifestyles are integral to the understanding and creation of the music. Therefore, the music cannot be rated. If the music cannot be rated, the very notion of a decline in music is reduced to a subjective impression. If you think that music – and as some have claimed western culture itself – are in decline, then that is your opinion. Your opinion is meaningless, and holds no sway against the opposite opinion, that music is far from being in decline. All of this applies if someone would like to attempt to advance some objective argument for music being “worse” today than it was previously. However there may be other criteria we could use. We might think that the number of people involved in producing and listening to music is in decline. This is plainly not true – with the advent of cheap instruments and production techniques, and finally distribution possibilities, it is not possible for a lone musician living in ipswitch to have their music heard around the world. There are more people alive today than ever before, and far more of them have the time and resourses to put in to a hobby, the fruits of which are musical output. It is almost absurd to suggest that music is produced or listened to less today than it was previously – and anyone doing so would certainly have some statistics to pull out of the bag! So if music cannot be rated qualitivly, and is certainly more widespread than it was, what else might the statement mean? Perhaps it means that today people – though they produce more music – learn less about music as an art-form and science. That music is both an art-form and a science I will agree with. At its heights music is as complex and demanding to learn and understand as any human project can be. Is it not the case that in the past, those who were taught musically were taught all that was available in a methodical way, and today music is practiced by those who have merely picked up a guitar, or a record deck at a jumble sale. We must consider the numbers involved. In the past, I would make the claim that only an elite minority were taught musically. They were selected for their early talent, and no amount of talent would allow someone of the wrong class or position to practice or perform. There were less people from which to chose, and as musical talent has always been a scarce and valuable thing, this meant that musical geniuses were as rare as moon dust. Today there are musical Institutions which did not exist in the past. There are unified systems of musical grading (up to 9 non professional grades) with standardised testing and teaching. There are orchestral organisations employing thousands of trained musicians around the world (the London philharmonic orchestra for an obvious example) and these musicians do not only know all that we know about music, they know more than was ever known in the past. There are more genera’s than previously, more musicians than previously, more classically trained musicians than previously, more music in existence than previously, we have recorded music which allows everyone to listen to the works of any composer they wish in the click of a button. I would go so far as to say, that in every conceivable sense of the terms involved, music is not an art in decline at all. This leaves me with an objection just brought up "themusicolagist" wrote: So as to the initial question: Is our civilisation, (and music) in decline? I would say Yes. Why? because it has, (along with other art forms), become commoditized and is now a part of the Culture Industry. Lets face it, economics is the driving force behind everything today as we cross the bridge into a one ideology, (capitalist), Mono Culture. One of the earlier questions in the thread was; Are we going to allow this to happen? .. I believe that we already have. This is merely the objection that music has been alienated, as something which was once made freely it has now become a capitalist tool, robbing it of its essential humanity and causing both the producer and listener to become alienated and enslaved. This is Karl Marx, a rather interesting chap who had a rather big problem. While I respect his position, and his opposition for liberal democracy (something I would like to see more of!) It occurs to me that he merely guesses that our nature is to be communal and un-commercial. He advises that working merely for money denies some kind of essential part of our-selves - but he also advises that me may not be aware of this. The fact that we might not be aware is important, because it implies there is something about ourselves which we don’t know. Even if the musician is happy producing music, and the listener is happy buying it, they might be secretly unhappy - secretly alienated - and this is a problem. It suggests that we do not ourselves know what is best for us! That we do have a best path, which can be found out! And that weather we want it or not consciously, our own best interests can be and morally should be done for us. Such logic might very well lead to us banning music, and when we complain of why the music has gone, the answer will be "because you wanted it to banned, your true nature required it". And perhaps it is the case that we have such a "true nature" - but how would we find out about it? If someone who does not know is equally capable of happiness, then why would we want to know? It is a problem which I would rather not worry about, If our true nature is discoverable then we should find proof and go with what that proof dictates – otherwise I would suggest we each act and believe how we want to. Edited by Makarismos on 02/29/08 - 08:22 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.