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 ?

Post-burnt
Aspirant

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

Posted 10/01/07 - 12:30 PM:	#51
Jonicus wrote: 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. Good. I do like it for what I think it is - not, however, what you or anyone else think it is. Jonicus wrote: 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 employs 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. This is an argument about cigarette advertising. You are trying to draw an analogy between cigarette advertisements and the record industry. What I remember of the earlier cigarette adverts - one of the Freuds, unless I'm mistaken - was that they very successfully played on certain unconscious desires in order to sexualise smoking. Is this what you're suggesting? I'd be surprised to see anyone argue that music wasn't sexual before equal temperament, let alone before recorded music. Didn't Hildegaard von Bingen write on sexual pleasure? Is there an opera that isn't deeply sensual, if not sexual? Incidentally, I'm too young to remember cigarette adverts, consciously at least, but I do fully enjoy smoking in spite of better (yes, objectively better) advice. Jonicus wrote: These are powerful techniques for brainwashing. You've merely stated that cigarette advertisers used what you very blithely term 'brainwashing'. I'm pretty sure the success of cigarette advertising is a combination of appealing to subtle desires and aspirations whilst turning a blind eye to the health consequences, amongst a million other factors. Where and how is this done in the music industry? jaybzjaybz wrote: he '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 (?) I'd post the same question. It's not so much that the record industry doesn't use subtle and insidious techniques - it's that I don't see how anyone with the slightest amount of advertising nous - which I'd imagine is most adults - couldn't see through this.

Jonicus
Aspirant

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

Posted 10/01/07 - 06:50 PM:	#52
Post-burnt wrote: This is an argument about cigarette advertising. You are trying to draw an analogy between cigarette advertisements and the record industry. What I remember of the earlier cigarette adverts - one of the Freuds, unless I'm mistaken - was that they very successfully played on certain unconscious desires in order to sexualise smoking. Is this what you're suggesting? I'd be surprised to see anyone argue that music wasn't sexual before equal temperament, let alone before recorded music. Didn't Hildegaard von Bingen write on sexual pleasure? Is there an opera that isn't deeply sensual, if not sexual? Incidentally, I'm too young to remember cigarette adverts, consciously at least, but I do fully enjoy smoking in spite of better (yes, objectively better) advice. There is a difference, however, between the advertisement of sex and advertisement using sex. When there is the theme of sex used to advertise the opera, it is exactly that theme of sex that you get when you go to the opera. When there is the theme of sex used to advertise the cigarette, what do you get? A theme of sex, or a paper tube with poison-grass in it? We can simply chart these out in a table of what is advertised vs. what is sold: Advert: Sexy Opera Sold: Sexy Opera Advert: Sexy woman Sold: Cigarette The reason that it's important to make this distinction, is because it shows the first level required in 'brainwashing'�dishonesty. Now, we can also say, that when that dishonesty is intentional, then we have manipulation. Furthermore, we can say, that when a person actually falls for the manipulation, and does so repeatedly�showing that they believe to actually get from it what is advertised, or that the use of the product itself has made that difference irrelevant�that you have brainwashing. In other words, brainwashing is achieved when your subject has at last been convinced of the 'truth of the lie' as it were. You've merely stated that cigarette advertisers used what you very blithely term 'brainwashing'. I'm pretty sure the success of cigarette advertising is a combination of appealing to subtle desires and aspirations whilst turning a blind eye to the health consequences, amongst a million other factors. Where and how is this done in the music industry? So, you must ask yourself for these compositions, this 'pop' music: what is being advertised? Notes and poorly-sung verse is being sold. But, what is being advertised? That will determine if there is brainwashing or not. I'd post the same question. It's not so much that the record industry doesn't use subtle and insidious techniques - it's that I don't see how anyone with the slightest amount of advertising nous - which I'd imagine is most adults - couldn't see through this. Well, here's one problem with what you're saying�thinking they're adults. Most are kids, 13,14... or they are mentally and emotionally immature older teens, 17-19. If you notice, 'most adults' wouldn't touch pop music with a 12 yard pole. Perhaps, you've answered your own question and proven my point? But, I will not go so far as to say that... yet. Jon

Jonicus
Aspirant

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

Posted 10/01/07 - 06:58 PM:	#53
jaybzjaybz wrote: Also: are you immune to 'brain-washing?' I beg your pardon? The topic has nothing to do with immunity to brainwashing. We are trying to determine whether brainwashing is taking place or not. What qualities do you possess that the ordinary listener does not? The brainwashing doesn't take place in the music, not the 'listening'. It's the advertising that is brainwashing. The music is just what you hear; I doubt there are any subliminal messages within. Essentially, I'm wondering what quality it is that produces immunity to this 'brainwashing', and by extension the machinations of cultural outlets (?) Who ever said that there was any immunity to brainwashing? Again, we are only trying to decide if there is brainwashing taking place; we can make morality judgements afterwards based on the results we find in tackling that problem. Jon

jaybzjaybz
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 30, 2007
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 12

Posted 10/02/07 - 03:33 AM:	#54
In fact I think immunity, and the lack of immunity to 'brainwashing', is everything to do with this topic. Running through your ideas is a sense of priviledge: <i> 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> and <i>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."</i> and <i>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> What I wonder is: how is this not true for other artists?? Above you're implying that there is a pure state where economics and cultural exchange don't come into music. Or that this once existed. What I wonder is: What kind of artist could possibly defy the ignobility of touching or being econmic music, 'brainwashing' music? You provide your own answer to that question though: <i>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. </i> You then begin to sketch out 'brainwashing', although you are yet to name it so... <i>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. </i> Now my question is: what, in this outline of the music you associate with 'brainwashing,' cannot be said of Nirvana (who you choose as an example of a group who do not / did not fit into the 'brainwashing' music category?) I will give my answer to that: very little. Nirvana were advertised heavily, perhaps even excessively (the road to success and fame were ultimately a contributing factor towards cobain's suicide.) One simply substitutes 'being a gangster is FUN' with 'being a wild rock-star is FUN', 'all the good looking people listen' with 'all the wild rock fans listen.' 'Brainwashing music' and 'non-brainwashing music' occupy the same ground, if they exist at all. And therefore I posit, as I have before, that your distinctions between 'high' and 'low', your insinuation of 'priviledge', are mistaken. What is the qualitative difference between the 'brainwashing' music and other music? (This is why my questions about immunity are not moral, contrary to what you suggest. They are in fact key to the way I'm trying to understand the author of your thoughts in relation to the thoughts themselves.) This is why I asked : <i>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 (?) </i> And in fact you had already answered that question in an earlier post: <i> I'll gladly remain as far from it [the music you chastise] as possible. </i> I don't think, purely from the ideas - some latent - that you've expressed, that you have achieved this distance. I would posit that it is in fact an inherently impossible action to achieve. And herein lies the problem; the essential hypocrisy (a term I use in a philosophical sense, please don't take it personally) of your argument. You yourself, despite a professed immunity (above), are immersed within it, if it exists at all. Jack Edited by jaybzjaybz on 10/02/07 - 03:50 AM

Makarismos
Assistant Professor

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

Posted 10/02/07 - 12:01 PM:	#55
Hey Jaybzjaybz , Jonicus, It seems this is all about perceived authenticity. Some music is perceived as being authentic, and people buy in to this. You find that sub cultures develop where perceived authenticity has higher and higher levels. Take metal for example. You get people who just dabble in the music, maybe wear a band shirt, and maybe dye their hair black. Then you get those who take it a step further, Get tattoos, piercings; and so they are more authentic. They will probably dislike the more "commercial" bands, because they have "sold out". Pretty soon you get a kind of feedback loop, where those who are really in to the music, dislike almost all of it because its to popular. Personally, this is the reason I give all types of music a fair listen. Cheers Edited by Makarismos on 10/02/07 - 12:13 PM

Post-burnt
Aspirant

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

Posted 10/02/07 - 12:08 PM:	#56
Jonicus wrote: In other words, brainwashing is achieved when your subject has at last been convinced of the 'truth of the lie' as it were. So, if I am emotionally swayed by an opera, or a film, or a book, am I not convinced of the 'beauty of the lie'? I realise you're attempting to wedge a gap between art and commerce, but I think you've not done enough to illustrate that - I think this is one of the lines jaybzjaybz is pursuing. Jonicus wrote: So, you must ask yourself for these compositions, this 'pop' music: what is being advertised? Notes and poorly-sung verse is being sold. But, what is being advertised? That will determine if there is brainwashing or not. 'Poorly-sung' or sung with conventions distinct from those of academic singing? It's easy to come back to, and often apropos - Is Ella Fitzgerald a 'good' singer in a classical sense? No. She's terrible, in that sense. She is still a brilliant singer. There are some pop singers that have less-than-savoury voices. This does not, and cannot, apply to every pop singer - you'd do well to realise that pop music is not some niche art, it is a global enterprise, it has long since ceased to be an Anglo-American thing, if it ever were (Jacques Brele, Edith Piaf...) Jonicus wrote: Well, here's one problem with what you're saying�thinking they're adults. Most are kids, 13,14... or they are mentally and emotionally immature older teens, 17-19. If you notice, 'most adults' wouldn't touch pop music with a 12 yard pole. Perhaps, you've answered your own question and proven my point? But, I will not go so far as to say that... yet. Jon 'Most adults' are welcome to listen to what they want to. I listen to a lot of pop. Probably comparable to a lot of 12 year olds, in fact. I dislike the implication that, at an older age than any of those you mentioned, I am 'emotionally immature'. To be honest, I could talk about difficult contemporary art music, sound-art, the avant-garde, the various other schools of the 20th century, a fair wedge of early, baroque, classical [etc] music and a healthy slice of South Asian/ Arabic/ Chinese/ Japanese/ West-African [etc] music. At no point does this make me above simply enjoying a pop song for what it is. I'd like to make the point that, while Adorno is superlative, his arguments regurgitated have very little currency with me.

Jonicus
Aspirant

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

Posted 10/02/07 - 01:19 PM:	#57
Post-burnt wrote: pop music is not some niche art, it is a global enterprise Enterprise? That terminology will do just rightly. Microsoft Encarta College Dictionary wrote: enterprise n ... 4.Organized business activities aimed specifically at growth and profit. Jon

Makarismos
Assistant Professor

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

Posted 10/02/07 - 01:32 PM:	#58
Jonicus wrote: Enterprise? That terminology will do just rightly. Jon If a good artist struggles for years, then sells a painting for ten thousand; Is he better or worse afterward? If he hires a publicist and they market his art, what does this do to the quality of the art? Does marketing ruin art, enhance art? The answer is yes and no. The artwork/artifact itself is not affected, but the associations it causes in the minds of the viewer are altered. Where once we saw the mona lisa we now see pound signs. If an artist is successful within their own lifetime, then perhaps they will see pound signs as they create. If it is perceived that they are doing this, then this will affect how we perceive the artwork. On the other hand; If an artist makes no money by producing their art then they will not be able to do as much. If they also have to hold down a job etc, they will produce less, perhaps in both quantity and quality. I would object to the posibilaty of this not for proffit artist: Many bands which are deemed more authentic, support themselves by creating their music. They style themselves so that their own lack of apparent commercial effort works in their favor, drawing an audience turned off by blatant advertising. Suddenly secret gigs, limited edition vinyl EPs and scruffy unkempt styling becomes the fashion. It is still a fashion though. Cheers

jaybzjaybz
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 30, 2007
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 12

Posted 10/02/07 - 01:37 PM:	#59
Makarismos wrote: . They style themselves so that their own lack of apparent commercial effort works in their favor, drawing an audience turned off by blatant advertising. Suddenly secret gigs, limited edition vinyl EPs and scruffy unkempt styling becomes the fashion. It is still a fashion though. Jaybzjaybz wrote: 'Brainwashing music' and 'non-brainwashing music' occupy the same ground, if [the distinction] exist[s] at all.

Post-burnt
Aspirant

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

Posted 10/03/07 - 09:43 AM:	#60
Kurt Cobain is the richest dead musician alive [sic] as well.

Pill17
ignorant truth-seeker

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 29, 2007
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 21

Posted 10/03/07 - 06:37 PM:	#61
From what I have experienced, kids just are not as creative these days. I am thankful that my mother made me grow up outdoors, where my immagination could grow and expand. But unfortunately, more and more kids are being raised with a screen instead of creative tools. It's very sad, but I think it makes sense that uncreative bands are very big right now simply because there is a large, uncreative audience. Also, my school mates with the worst taste in music also seem to be the ones obsesed with texting, myspace, etc. I think the popularity of "good" music will rise when parents start taking away the T.V.s and giving their kids boxes to play with.

Jonicus
Aspirant

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

Posted 10/03/07 - 08:45 PM:	#62
Post-burnt wrote: Kurt Cobain is the richest dead musician alive [sic] as well. And?

Post-burnt
Aspirant

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

Posted 10/04/07 - 10:34 AM:	#63
Jonicus wrote: And? I was merely intimating that using the example of a very rich musician (which he was while alive as well, he's just gone stellar since dying) as an example of creativity while decrying commerce as a impediment to creativity strikes me as somewhat odd.

Mr. Mooncalf
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 21, 2007
Location: Texas
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 61

Posted 10/05/07 - 12:20 PM:	#64
The question that underlies is whether western culture is on the decline. I believe it is, not that it was ever that great in the first place. At least however there were some high points, in Art and Science, but not much else. Ghandi replied when asked about his thoughts on western civilization that "It seems like a nice idea." Folk music has evaporated due to our changing society and consequently has cut off the source for "high culture" music.
_____________________ After such knowledge, what forgiveness? T.S. Eliot You've had a cream of a nightmare dream and you've got the hoo-ha's coming to you. T.S. Eliot

Makarismos
Assistant Professor

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

Posted 10/05/07 - 01:16 PM:	#65
Folk music is alive and well - get yourself to a local club night and you will find DJ's who play their own tunes. In the pubs you will find talented singers, Musicians, Lyricists, Poets, more than you can shake a stick at. Local music scenes are common and increasing due to the new surge in live music caused by the mp3 effect combined with the comparative ease of recording, production, and distribution enabled by netwoking of the internet. We live in a golden time - all that is required is for us all to get ourselves out these listening and making the music of tomorrow. Or we could sit here and say how its it not as good as the old days. Cheers

lackofcolor
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 04, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 14

Posted 10/05/07 - 10:08 PM:	#66
Amen to that, Makarismos. The "good old days" are happening right now. Many are too lazy or ignorant to see it.

Mr. Mooncalf
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 21, 2007
Location: Texas
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 61

Posted 10/07/07 - 09:42 PM:	#67
Makarismos wrote: Folk music is alive and well - get yourself to a local club night and you will find DJ's who play their own tunes. In the pubs you will find talented singers, Musicians, Lyricists, Poets, more than you can shake a stick at. I would disagree, I have been to such places and typically enjoy myself but I am not convinced that it justifies itself as folk music/art. Night clubs/coffee shops that host these particular events cater to a particular crowd and particular events even more so. The pluralism of large cities tends to segregate and reinforce particular genres of art/entertainment and as a consequent limit the communication that occurs between different people living closely to one another. The more global our society becomes the more homogenized it becomes. It's a trade off, there are benefits and there are detriments. This is to say that I am very unlikely to ever communicate with people who hold opinions that differ much from mine where as before television, the internet and to an extent radio, most people of particular communities would gather at some sort of center and inevitably begin making music, dancing and discussing politics etc... Bach, Mozart, John Coltrane all took simple folk/pop culture music and reinvented it. Currently, even the most honest art/entertainment is consumed as something that reinforces who we believe we are instead of presenting itself as something new and challenging. As modernization has begun so rapidly in less wealthy countries many of the people like to identify with power, typically American popular culture. As for evidence, we need only realize the number of global traditions/local languages that are dying out. Much of culture, particularly music, is now influenced from the top down, not from the bottom up. This is why I would argue that folk music is evaporating. There are benefits such as declining xenophobia (overall) and some would argue that materially it benefits less wealthy countries. However, the superior process of creating interesting and worthwhile culture flows from the bottom up.
_____________________ After such knowledge, what forgiveness? T.S. Eliot You've had a cream of a nightmare dream and you've got the hoo-ha's coming to you. T.S. Eliot

Cato
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 16

Posted 10/10/07 - 02:05 PM:	#68
Is it change that you fear? But what can happen without it? What is dearer to nature or more vital to the universe? Look at everything that sustains you. Can you take a warm bath if the wood you burn doesn't change? Can you digest your food if it doesn't change Can any of your needs be met without change? Don't you see, then, that the change in music is no diffrent and similarly feeds the life of the universe?- Marcus Aurelus, The emporors handbook I think that saying pretty much sums up my feelings about the subject. I belive that musical form has to change and reach certain stages in order to enjoy it. Note: I changed death to music but I think marcus aurelius would still agree with that.

loui100
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 13, 2007
Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 168

Posted 10/12/07 - 05:15 AM:	#69
Music has become the product of the masses. Since the masses have stepped into a stage of vulgarity, contemporary pop music is simple, repetetive and uncreative. Its not just the artists that are bad nowadays, its just the demand of the masses that imposes this artistic infertility upon the aritsts. Wait a century and you will see the return of the golden 60's or even 30's. Wait two centuries and you will probably be back where you started, its just the way all things in nature work, and sadly humanity is still largely of nature rather than besides, if you know what I mean. And I fear that as time goes by, we will get closer and closer to nature rather than the other way round.

Mr. Mooncalf
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 21, 2007
Location: Texas
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 61

Posted 10/12/07 - 12:15 PM:	#70
loui100 wrote: And I fear that as time goes by, we will get closer and closer to nature rather than the other way round. I think the further we get from nature the worse the music becomes, generally. What good has ever come of the electric guitar? synthesizers? Catchy tunes at best. Man is natural and belongs close to nature. Yes, I see the irony/hypocrisy in my posting this on the internet. That's the tyranny of technology, and my laziness.
_____________________ After such knowledge, what forgiveness? T.S. Eliot You've had a cream of a nightmare dream and you've got the hoo-ha's coming to you. T.S. Eliot

Cato
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 16

Posted 10/12/07 - 01:15 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 - 01:32 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 - 02:32 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
Assistant Professor

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

Posted 10/12/07 - 02:44 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."

Page: 1 2 3 4

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.