Music: an art in decline ?: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

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

Music: an art in decline ?

stay_in_school
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 18, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 9

Posted 08/19/07 - 07:50 PM:	#26
...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.

Post-burnt
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 23, 2006
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 29

Posted 08/20/07 - 09:23 AM:	#27
killerofgod wrote: "as many great bands and composers as there has ever been"? I'd venture to say that there are even more. The problem is that they aren't getting any recognition except within very limited circles. I'll bet you can each name a dozen bands or composers better than Paris Hilton who no on else on this thread has even heard of. I'd rather argue for a plurality of taste rather than a puritanical, elitist 'music x is best'. Kaija Saariaho is easily my favourite spectralist composer. Franco is my favourite Soukous guitarist. I'm undecided on who I think records the best sea-shanties, and I'm pretty clueless as to my favourite Bhangra DJ. Paris Hilton by no means makes (what I would consider) the best pop music, but she is certainly not making bad pop music. The point I'm trying to illustrate - if you try and judge all music by exactly the same criteria you'll end up dismissing certain things. Would a critic of the Baroque era appreciate a Schoenberg or Shostokovich or even a Wagner? I very much doubt it - not because the music is bad, but because the dominant critical paradigm of the times would make a critical appraisal of each very limited. Is the F# of Beethoven's first an act of dissonance? Should we dismiss anyone using Dm (considered by 'early music' to be the devil's chord)? Is the Tristan chord nothing but decadent cacophony? None of these instances work if the critical appraisal of each doesn't move to accommodate the new paradigms. A parallel argument is that jazz music was considered, most notably by Adorno, to be an aberration. Now, of course, jazz is considered 'art music', and treated in similar regards to classical music. It was, in its earliest incarnation, little more than a dance music. If the critical thinking of the time doesn't think about jazz in different ways to how one thinks about classical, jazz remains a non-music. Likewise, one does not judge Paris Hilton, or Britney Spears, or Abba [etc] in exactly the same manner one does Beethoven, Bach [etc, etc]. It is not a question of demanding 'better music'. There is always plenty of very good music out there. It is not suprising that even a polymath like Xenakis is not wider known - it is not, by any means, easy music to listen to. Paris Hilton is, and, coincidentally, is also, in part, rather good at it. My life would be a great deal less rich if I existed on a diet of exclusively 'difficult' music. Man cannot live on bread alone [etc].

Avedis
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 07, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 175

Posted 08/20/07 - 10:32 AM:	#28
�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. 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.

Makarismos
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 454

Posted 08/20/07 - 12:15 PM:	#29
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. Pop music is a combined communal activity, which has been given a young girls pretty face as its badge.

Avedis
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 07, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 175

Posted 08/20/07 - 12:43 PM:	#30
"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. "Pop music is a combined communal activity, which has been given a young girls pretty face as its badge." Actually, such cases seem to be the minority in pop music. Pop music had it's start (today's form of it) in the early 50's, notably with the doo whop acts. The modern boy band and teen pop star, while not new entirely, have taken an entirely new form. There was a time when even those pop acts were comprised of serious musicians and singers.

Post-burnt
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 23, 2006
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 29

Posted 08/20/07 - 01:11 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 - 01:39 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
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 454

Posted 08/20/07 - 02:07 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 - 03:31 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 - 06:09 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
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 454

Posted 08/21/07 - 10:53 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 - 10:06 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 - 05:29 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 - 07:32 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 - 09:07 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.

Mike H
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 05, 2007
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 71

Posted 08/22/07 - 07:48 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: 1
Total Posts: 44

Posted 08/22/07 - 09:18 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 - 11:24 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
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 05, 2007
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 71

Posted 08/23/07 - 01:28 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: 1
Total Posts: 44

Posted 08/23/07 - 08:31 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
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Location: Minnesota!
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 37

Posted 10/01/07 - 01:04 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
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Location: Minnesota!
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 37

Posted 10/01/07 - 01:15 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 - 02:32 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
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Location: Minnesota!
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 37

Posted 10/01/07 - 11:18 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 - 11:34 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 - 11:46 AM

Page: 1 2 3 4

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.