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 ?

Zealot6619
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 26, 2007
Location: Live
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 7

Posted 07/26/07 - 04:20 PM: Subject: Music: an art in decline ?	#1
Watch the hits for one hour, you will see 'artists' such as Fall out boy, Nelly furtado, beyonce etc etc, after about ten minutes you will start to feel as if you are listening to the same song. This is because the pop singer can only sing about a select few subjects in order to stay popular with their audience; you will notice they rarely stray from the subect of love - their love is so obviously feigned for if my understanding of love is correct you can not love several different men (or women) within such a short amount of time as a year (the amount of time it takes to release an album). Now to the point, music is considered an art form and my definition of art is 'expression through creativity'. With this definition I am reluctant to say that most typical pop music is art because they are not being creative but instead rewording other songs with background music. 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? In this post I'm only talking about pop music, my definition of pop also includes emo and most metal, dance, and rock. Edited by Paul on 07/26/07 - 04:40 PM. Reason: fixed illiteracy, incoherence

JAC
An Honest Aesthetic

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 24, 2007
Location: America
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 250

Posted 07/26/07 - 04:54 PM:	#2
It is because music has become a commodity, a product. It is no longer produced for art's sake, or for the sake of explicating one's feelings/emotions/thoughts/ideas; it has become solely a product, to be produced for some end other then itself - namely, money. Where is Frank Zappa when we need him?
_____________________ "A life with love will have many thorns, but a life without love will have no roses." - Friedrich Nietzsche "I feel as if I were a piece in a game of chess, when my opponent says of it: That piece can not be moved." - Soren Kierkegaard

si
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
Location: Nebraska
Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 150

Posted 07/26/07 - 06:47 PM:	#3
Zealot wrote: In this post I'm only talking about pop music, my definition of pop also includes emo and most metal, dance, and rock. Your definition is so wrong it hurts. All those genres are different genres not just all subgenres of pop. To say that is extremely ignorant. And emo (a stupid term people use incorrectly) by emo I assume you mean trendy, dumb pop rock bands that care more about their image than their music and whine about their virginity such as Senses Fail and From First to Last. Emo is short for emotional hardcore a subgenre of hardcore that began when hardcore bands started to sing more emotional lyrics besides the usual hardcore cliche songs (fucking, drinking, fighting). An emotional hardcore band is Rites of Spring go check'em out. Just because you don't like the music that their making doesn't mean it isn't art. There making music whether it sucks or whether it's a duplicate with a fresh beat it's still art. Most of them don't even write their own lyrics. So I don't even think most of them are singing about their own experiences. Most big name artists signed to fancy labels have song writers for them. And even I who despises FOB with my entire being can tell the difference between them and Beyonce. Most pop rock bands on the radio that are currently popular due to dim-witted teenagers that like Cartel, Senses Fail, FOB, Panic @ the Disco their songs sound alike because 2000 marked the beginning of pop rock lead singers screeching in high pitched, angst ridden yelps. So they all sound the same. And your definition of art is very louse I mind you. I can cut my arm and smear blood on my bathroom mirror and this could be my creativity expressed physically. Edited by si on 07/26/07 - 08:11 PM
_____________________ Let's enjoy the unappealing somethingness for as long as we can before nothingness which is equally unappealing overshadows it -dimka A fight is not won by one punch or kick. Either learn to endure or hire a bodyguard. Forget about winning and losing; forget about pride and pain. Let your opponent graze your skin and you smash into his flesh; let him smash into your flesh and you fracture his bones; let him fracture your bones and you take his life. Do not be concerned with escaping safely — lay your life before him -Bruce Lee

JAC
An Honest Aesthetic

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 24, 2007
Location: America
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 250

Posted 07/26/07 - 07:12 PM:	#4
si wrote: Your definition is so wrong it hurts. All those genres are different genres not just all subgenres of pop. To say that is extremely ignorant. And emo (a stupid term people use incorrectly) by emo I assume you mean trendy, dumb pop rock bands that care more about their image than their music and whine about their virginity such as Senses Fail and From First to Last. Emo is short for emotional hardcore a subgenre of hardcore that began when hardcore bands started to sing more emotional lyrics besides the usual hardcore cliche songs (fucking, drinking, fighting). An emotional hardcore band is Agnostic Front go check'em out. Just because you don't like the music that their making doesn't mean it isn't art. There making music whether it sucks or whether it's a duplicate with a fresh beat it's still art. Most of them don't even write their own lyrics. So I don't even think most of them are singing about their own experiences. Most big name artists signed to fancy labels have song writers for them. And even I who despises FOB with my entire being can tell the difference between them and Beyonce. Most pop rock bands on the radio that are currently popular due to dim-witted teenagers that like Cartel, Senses Fail, FOB, Panic @ the Disco their songs sound alike because 2000 marked the beginning of pop rock lead singers screeching in high pitched, angst ridden yelps. So they all sound the same. And your definition of art is very louse I mind you. I can cut my arm and smear blood on my bathroom mirror and this could be my creativity expressed physically. I would take the example in your last paragraph to be art, actually. And his definition of pop may seem rather misleading, but it is correct. Pop to me is music made for cash, not aimed at the quality of the music itself, or at expressing anything in particular, but solely as a product to be sold to millions of stupid teenagers who watch too much MTV and VH1. This includes many different genres of music which are all ultimately geared towards making money. It is not the act of making money itself that makes music pop, it is only when the purpose of music, and the main influence to make it, becomes monetary that music becomes what is today known as pop.
_____________________ "A life with love will have many thorns, but a life without love will have no roses." - Friedrich Nietzsche "I feel as if I were a piece in a game of chess, when my opponent says of it: That piece can not be moved." - Soren Kierkegaard

enkidu
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 830

Posted 07/26/07 - 08:06 PM:	#5
JAC wrote: I would take the example in your last paragraph to be art, actually. And his definition of pop may seem rather misleading, but it is correct. Pop to me is music made for cash, not aimed at the quality of the music itself, or at expressing anything in particular, but solely as a product to be sold to millions of stupid teenagers who watch too much MTV and VH1. This includes many different genres of music which are all ultimately geared towards making money. It is not the act of making money itself that makes music pop, it is only when the purpose of music, and the main influence to make it, becomes monetary that music becomes what is today known as pop. I agree. But this phenomenon is nothing new, popular art has always existed, there are countless 19th century european authors, who were extremely popular in their times, publishing endless feuilletons in newspapers, especially in Russia and France, that are totally forgotten today. And many a 18th or 19th century composer whose name is completely forgotten were extremely famous among their contemporeans. And one can even go before, most italian painters of the Renaissance have not reached posterity though their production, as insipid as it was, may have enjoyed a local fame in their times. Even in antiquity, you may nowadays find some compendium of popular greek literature, which was the most popular read of their times (it was not Plato or Aeschylus, surprisingly), and their authors, who certainly enjoyed some fame, are now hardly identified by the best historians. Popular culture has always produced such works of mediocre quality, only aiming at being entertaining and popular, and nowadays at making money, since it happens to be the commodity of success these days. But it does not mean that music as an art is in decline, simply that pop music is only marginally an art. Edited by enkidu on 07/26/07 - 08:31 PM
_____________________ "The difficulty in philosophy is to say no more than we know." L. Wittgenstein - The Blue Book

si
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
Location: Nebraska
Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 150

Posted 07/26/07 - 08:12 PM:	#6
I meant to say pop rock. Pop rock is not metal nor dance or grindcore. Sorry for lack of specification.
_____________________ Let's enjoy the unappealing somethingness for as long as we can before nothingness which is equally unappealing overshadows it -dimka A fight is not won by one punch or kick. Either learn to endure or hire a bodyguard. Forget about winning and losing; forget about pride and pain. Let your opponent graze your skin and you smash into his flesh; let him smash into your flesh and you fracture his bones; let him fracture your bones and you take his life. Do not be concerned with escaping safely — lay your life before him -Bruce Lee

killerofgod
Travelling Journeyman

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 01, 2006
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 44

Posted 07/29/07 - 02:17 PM:	#7
It is extremely difficult to tell whether or not music is in a state of decline. There are forces pulling it in both directions and as far as pop music is concerned, I would say that the pull may be stronger in the degenerate direction. By looking at what pieces were popular over a wide period of time and the progression the music has undergone, it's quite plain to see a recent pattern of regression in most pop music. In the Classical era, popular music meant literally "folk music", the music of the populous, the people, the commoners. Simple, easy to sing melodies with even simpler harmonies. Only diatonic chords were used and pretty much only I, IV, and V. Contrary to this was the music of noble entertainment. Beginning in the Renaissance or perhaps even earlier (I'm not up to speed on my Medieval music history), nobles would hire composers like Handel, Haydn, and Mozart to entertain them with their symphonies and string quartets. Eventually, they began composing for entertainment on a wider level. For the most part, this meant opera. Opera houses had been supported by ticket sales to the public since the Renaissance and would continue to be a popular form of entertainment pretty much until the end of Romanticism and the big schism that came around the turn of the last century. Early forms of Jazz quickly took over as the pop music of its day. Folk music still existed and is actually still being composed today with a very similar aesthetic as its origin (expressing the life of the common people in ways understandable to the common people) although it is no longer very popular or very common in today's industrialized society. Even Jazz isn't really pop music any more. I don't know the answer to this question, but how many Jazz artists have gone Platinum recently? Classical? Now how about what we typically consider pop (using the umbrella definition that today includes rock, metal, dance, etc.)? Now that we all know what the popular music has been over time (and please feel free to add information or contest what I have given you. I am, after all, still a student), let's take a look at the music itself. Folk songs had simple melodies with simple harmonies. Classical opera had a much wider harmonic vocabulary and more varied thematic structure and greater development of its ideas. Romantic music pushed the tonality further, with time. High chromaticism and ever-developing themes and motives. When Jazz took over as the popular music, the harmonies where mostly Classical and early Romantic with a seventh, ninth, eleventh, or even thirteenth added to nearly all of the chords. Still, progress continued as harmonies and melodies expanded and became more complex. Even when soloists just improvised over repeating chord changes, at least the improvising was mostly improvised developments on a theme or two. Classical music (using the broadest use of the term) was still more complex and advancing faster, but it was no longer popular. When rock and roll became popular and expanded into the genres we have today, the complete decline began. Instead of this new art form evolving and growing, becoming more complex and varied, it devolved back to the beginnings of western music. Our popular music once again takes it's harmonic and melodic structure from purely diatonic keys. Half of what you hear on the radio consists of nothing more than four or five chords. Watch this absolutely hilarious video and you'll see what I mean: http://youtube.com/watch?v=JdxkVQy7QLM Basically what I'm saying is that popular music has all but stopped developing the way it once did. It has utterly halted its growth and chosen instead to simply repeat itself endlessly. Intro-verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus-outro all on the same chord progression with two themes that repeat, undeveloped. That being said, there is hope. There are bands, mostly metal bands, that push towards development. Tool and System of a Down are great bands and, although you don't typically hear them on the radio, they are more popular than people like Eric Whitacre or Libby Larsen (both living composers of "classical" music). But that's it. The emphasis has switched from development to repetition and until we switch it back, the degenerate forces on pop music will prevail.
_____________________ Just my own meaningless thoughts and opinions.

jaybzjaybz
Initiate

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

Posted 07/30/07 - 03:54 AM:	#8
This is a response to JHBowden's Pop MusicL The Aesthetic v The Self-Advertisement thread. But i couldn't post it - it wouldn't let me, sorry - my first post and a very rambling one at that, but I thought it was in the spirit of this thread, so here goes: In the same way that I can't hear the subtleties of Mozart's harmonic structures or whatever, you can't hear the subtle meanings and references that a particular sub-bass sound can instantiate in a Digital Mystikz piece. This is because pop-music, and related musics, have a [more] complex set of objectives and functions than you seem to presume, as is hinted in Reformed Nihilist's message. If you take Peter Gabriel, or gang gang dance, or dizzee rascal, or Malcolm McClaren on a purely 'musical' basis then obviously they don't measure up to Beethoven or Bach. Because they're not trying to. So in that way you're right - but only because your definition of 'successful' or 'good' music is too narrow. I think the stuff about idols is right when it comes to some pop, but it's not a fair assertion about a large section of pop music... and, speaking of idols etc, I think your holding of the past in such reverence smacks of religiosity and idolizes the past as much as the people who idolize a pop-star. Music, it seems, has it's own 'antiquity', it's own myths and gods, to which you seem to ascribe (just to perspectivize things a bit). Someone like Malcolm McClaren is a kind of cultural-musical-conceptual architect, whose music's aim is wider than 'pure' music, if such a thing can exist. This I think is another fault of seeing 'classical' music as pure: it's always bound up in the superficial just like pop music - it can't be magically divorced from power-relations. It's just that pop music recognizes this and uses it in a creative way, good pop music that is. Just listen to someone like Einsturzende Neubauten. Edited by Paul on 07/30/07 - 07:07 PM. Reason: fixed illiteracy

Calcutechnician
Existential Warrior

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 13, 2007
Location: Hull
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 104

Posted 08/03/07 - 05:29 AM:	#9
So what? If you don't like the music they play on the radio, don't listen to it. There's plenty of good music out there, if you can't find it then that's your fault. If people want to listen to shit music, that's thier choice, not yours.
_____________________ My world is in the universe of all worlds.

Post-burnt
Aspirant

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

Posted 08/03/07 - 08:01 AM:	#10
Calcutechnician wrote: So what? If you don't like the music they play on the radio, don't listen to it. There's plenty of good music out there, if you can't find it then that's your fault. If people want to listen to shit music, that's thier choice, not yours. This is probably the most pertinent point in this thread, methinks. From another point of view, do we expect that when a singer sings about 'love' or any number of the few subjects of 'pop' music they must believe it? Do we ever criticise an actor for not genuinely feeling what they're saying? Pop music, in the broad sense of songs about general experience, is a lot broader than the artists hitherto mentioned, and a lot broader than Anglo-American songs. It's not that the love song is exhausted, it's that there are enough songs out there for one to ignore those instances one doesn't enjoy. Simple as that, I would say. If you don't enjoy Anglo-American songs, try a bit of Soukous, or Soca, or Qwalli [sp?] or any number of things out there. I'm pretty confident that there is more than enough music out there to satisfy whatever needs you have, rendering any criticism of the music you don't like uneccessary.

Mijin
Registered Offender

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 05, 2003
Location: Birmingham, England
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 354

Posted 08/03/07 - 11:28 AM:	#11
I pretty much agree with everything that's been said here. But want to make two points: 1. Another possible reason for concern regarding modern music is the phenomenon of reality TV. Here in the UK many popstars start out as reality TV stars, and their success is as much to do with them being "the everyman done good" as to any pretence of musical talent. Between that and the influence music video TV, popular music is so much more about image than content. 2. It annoys me somewhat when people put certain genres above others. They often consider more lyrical and guitar-based music as superior to rhythm-based styles. But I like to dance and I believe that there can be a lot of creativity in creating fresh dance music. Also, I would take an interesting melody or chord pattern over good lyrics any day. I'm dubious of the ability of music to convey a complex message and think the meaningfulness of lyrics is overrated. NB: Apologies if I'm not completely making sense. I'm typing this after having had a few drinks.

Donster
leet

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 28, 2007
Location: on a chair... how lame
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 29

Posted 08/04/07 - 12:27 PM:	#12
Well if you are watching the hits you are clearly looking in the wrong place. There is plenty of good stuff out there, from bands like the Steve Kimock Band to solo stuff by Steve Reich.
_____________________ I once was a little Irish man. Drinking from a little tin can. I chewed on a cat; patched up my hat. This is the way of the Holy man.

Headon_ist
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 08, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 10

Posted 08/08/07 - 07:03 PM:	#13
First and foremost, I feel, one should clearly stipulate what it is that's to be had from music, be it popular or otherwise. It is hard, and at most impossible, to discern 'pop-music' (which is yet another mass-produced product presented to the masses for gross brainless consumption through the medium of radio, MTV and others), from contemporary popular music practised as a form of art (which aims to, through imbedded values and a certain sense of connectivity, be a reflective and representative voice of the segmented group it aims to speak for or represent). Should one consider it (pop-music) as the former, then, definitely, music as an art-form is in a drastic decline. As the latter, though, (which I know is the aim of all TRUE contemporary ARTISTS in pop-music), it contributes positively to music as an art-form, and society as a whole. Examples of the former might, in my opinion, include: Britney Spears; Paris Hilton; ANY singer having won ' Pop-Idols' or any similar competition; etc.) Artists and bands I consider true popular artists are those that define our times, will stand it's true test, and don't succumb to whatever it is the current market-demands and fads/trends dictate.(Examples might include (among others): Radiohead; The Dave Matthews Band; Tori Amos; Nine Inch Nails; Tool; The White Stripes; etc) I heard someone say once, that: "The best way to get the wrong answer to a question, is to put a hundred people in a room and have them vote on it." This is true for pop-music especially. The moment an artist creates to please the masses, he/she ceases to create art, and should be considered nothing more than a mere tradesman, selling their goods (and their souls) at the market to the highest bidder! Thom Yorke (Radiohead) said, when they first started out, that the primary aim of the band would be to create art, nothing more. They were intent on proving to everyone (and themselves), that they were truly not affected by charts and album-sales. The band has certainly proved to deliver just that, refusing to succumb to popular trends and pre-conceived collective market demands. In stead it has presented us with initially alienating, eventually illuminating emotions which it gave to us objectively for own interpretaion and reflection. That is art's primary purpose. True art does not console one. It does not dictate one's emotions, nor affirm it. It does not act as mouthpiece to the collective consciousness of the masses, nor reflect on it. It looses its sustenance once it's subjected to being a platform for political gain, and restricts the spectator emotionally if applied as emotional manipulator for irrelevant and unrelated causes such as world-hunger or global warming. True art reflects what is. Or how, what is, is perceived. It confronts the spectator with this fragment of reality and allows him/her to introspectively apply it to his/her own frame and scope of reference, evoking certain ends which would not otherwise have been realised without it. This is the true purpose of art (in whatever form), its true and practical purpose to man: To hold a mirror to his face and guide him toward introspection and self-realisation. The true musician applies it as such. (And there are ample examples of modern-day musicians who do, such as Marilyn Manson or Ravi Shankar). The truely GOOD musician does it with flair and effortless, evident proof of years of hard practise and above-average innate talent. (And there are only a select few (as naturally there should be) of those, such as Steve Reich and his Triple Quartet (as mentioned by Donster) or the classical minimalist composer Nicholas Lens. To speculate on music as a declining form of art, is to speculate on the survival of man's soul itself. As a form of art, man will always have the need (and want) to apply and enjoy it. As the popular form (as currently perceived by today's seemingly informed and empowered members of society), I Hope & PRAY for it to be on a declining phase. Only once the damaging influence of capitalism and consumerism can be seperated from musical performance in all its forms, can the true nature and beauty of the art of music finally be realised. Edited by Headon_ist on 08/09/07 - 12:17 AM. Reason: elaboration as clarification of statement

Post-burnt
Aspirant

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

Posted 08/09/07 - 03:50 AM:	#14
Headon_ist wrote: It is hard, and at most impossible, to discern 'pop-music' (which is yet another mass-produced product presented to the masses for gross brainless consumption through the medium of radio, MTV and others), from contemporary popular music practised as a form of art (which aims to, through imbedded values and a certain sense of connectivity, be a reflective and representative voice of the segmented group it aims to speak for or represent). I have a few points to make regarding this post; I'll try to illustrate them as briefly as possible. While I agree with some of the sentiments, I do have to take issue with a few points. I think part of the problem is that the lingua franca of pop music is sales; the idea of a 'mass-produced product presented to the mass for gross brainless consumption...' is certainly a worry; however, I don't believe that the criteria by which you endeavour to separate the 'true artists' of popular music from the 'industry shills', as one might call them. There was a quote from Alec Empire (of Atari Teenage Riot) where he said something to the effect of 'once you enter the machine, don't be surprised if it eats you to shreds'. Anyone popular enough to reach the upper echelons of the charts has entered into the gross consumerism, none are safe. Even Radiohead who, in themselves I'm sure, believe themselves to be as far away from market demographics and sales points, are consumed by the market terms. Radiohead, more than the obvious candidates of Britney Spears or whomever, sell an absolutely enormous amount of records. And people do not buy these records without promotion. The press, under the investments of Radiohead's record company (which is, lest we forget EMIseagram), put a large amount of money into promoting Radiohead in so subtle a fashion as to allow the consumers to believe they're not being 'sold to'. They are being 'sold to'; Radiohead's place in the gross consumerism is a lot more stable than the latest pretty 19-year-old, and their demographic is very different. They are not absolved of their involvement in 'gross consumerism' at any point. The point I want to make is that they needn't be. Headon_ist wrote: Should one consider it (pop-music) as the former, then, definitely, music as an art-form is in a drastic decline. As the latter, though, (which I know is the aim of all TRUE contemporary ARTISTS in pop-music), it contributes positively to music as an art-form, and society as a whole. Examples of the former might, in my opinion, include: Britney Spears; Paris Hilton; ANY singer having won ' Pop-Idols' or any similar competition; etc.) Artists and bands I consider true popular artists are those that define our times, will stand it's true test, and don't succumb to whatever it is the current market-demands and fads/trends dictate.(Examples might include (among others): Radiohead; The Dave Matthews Band; Tori Amos; Nine Inch Nails; Tool; The White Stripes; etc) The problem I have with the above statement - as I stated before, no-one is absolved of their involvement in 'the machine' (as it were). Personally, I have recently thoroughly enjoyed two singles from the Paris Hilton album, I think Britney's Toxic is an absolute masterpiece of contemporary record production, Girls Aloud (who came from a British 'pop idol' style competition) are one of my favourite groups; by contrast, The White Stripes sound to me like about 4 million indie bands from 1976-present - it utterly baffles me why they are popular when someone like Jaguar (from the mid-90s) are entirely un-heard of, in spite of being very much the same (and believe me, I can think of at least another 20 bands who were, sonically, near-identical to the White Stripes). The Dave Matthews band and Tool all leave me cold. Tori Amos & Nine Inch Nails I find quite funny, but all a bit overwrought. The point I would like to make here is that I notice the instances you produce are of people who, ostensibly, play their own instruments. Firstly - the voice is an instrument as much as a guitar, and should not be neglected. Avril Lavigne or Kelly Clarkson, like them or not, have amazing voices. There are those who are auto-tuned up to the hilt, but there are also plenty of pop singers who are not. Secondly - I'm interested in music as an art form; I buy the CD/ LP and am therefore a consumer. I have exchanged money for goods or services. I cannot get out of my involvement in consumerism, neither do I want to. I take the art of music from where I find it. I would rather listen to a piece of music I enjoy than a piece of music that was made under 'true' conditions - art, in its various forms, has less to do with the means of production or the personalities involved (which is where I see the qualia for the 'play their own instruments' brigade) and has everything to do with being produced and being good. I realise this is a very vague statement, necessarily so - I don't which to suggest that it's a case of 'music is subjective' (I personally loathe this sentiment) but, when you're talking about the contemporaneous popular music, unfortunately, it is subjective. The criteria by which one talks about anyone in the charts are different to the criteria used for a Mozart or a Beethoven; not better, different. Headon_ist wrote: I heard someone say once, that: "The best way to get the wrong answer to a question, is to put a hundred people in a room and have them vote on it." This is true for pop-music especially. Radiohead, The White Stripes, Tool, Dave Matthews Band, Tori Amos have all sold millions of records. I don't understand the above statement. I'm drawing to a close here, I may write more later.

Headon_ist
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 08, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 10

Posted 08/09/07 - 07:04 AM:	#15
Thanks for the feedback. I realised, for one, that I definitely tend to disregard singers like, for instance, Britney Spears based on pre-conceived attitudes which reveals a gross ignorance on my part. (Hard pill to swallow). I may also have appeared to come across as laying down the final word on the topic. I merely tried to reflect the way I perceive things to be, knowing full-well how I might turn out to have been seriously mislead, as you just pointed out. (If I only knew just HOW MUCH I was mislead, though! )

lackofcolor
Initiate

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

Posted 08/09/07 - 04:41 PM:	#16
You are so right about the popular artists. I think the companies are interested of "selling" and created a product. Not music, not art. It's sad, really. But that's why i have tuned OUT of that genre. There's just no originality or musicality anymore.

Donster
leet

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 28, 2007
Location: on a chair... how lame
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 29

Posted 08/12/07 - 10:44 PM:	#17
lackofcolor wrote: You are so right about the popular artists. I think the companies are interested of "selling" and created a product. Not music, not art. It's sad, really. But that's why i have tuned OUT of that genre. There's just no originality or musicality anymore. Some popular stuff can be fine. The idea is that if you are pushing the limits you are probably going to have to go around and play in bars and such because your music isn't going to be on the radio.
_____________________ I once was a little Irish man. Drinking from a little tin can. I chewed on a cat; patched up my hat. This is the way of the Holy man.

killerofgod
Travelling Journeyman

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 01, 2006
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 44

Posted 08/15/07 - 05:49 PM:	#18
"...if you are pushing the limits you are probably going to have to go around and play in bars and such because your music isn't going to be on the radio." That is perhaps what I hate most about the music industry today. Anyone willing to push the envelope has to be willing to sacrifice their radio time because its bad business for the stations to play things that are even a little bit outside of people's comfort zones. A general rule of thumb for finding a good band is usually to turn off the radio.
_____________________ Just my own meaningless thoughts and opinions.

Bryn
Initiate

Usergroup: Under Review
Joined: Aug 16, 2007
Location: Winchester, England.
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 12

Posted 08/16/07 - 02:55 AM:	#19
Popular music is definatly in decline. Although for me I'm lucky that the music I find enjoyable is as good as ever to some extent. Edited by Paul on 10/09/07 - 04:15 AM
_____________________ For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan

lackofcolor
Initiate

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

Posted 08/16/07 - 10:40 PM:	#20
killerofgod - you are right on!

killerofgod
Travelling Journeyman

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 01, 2006
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 44

Posted 08/17/07 - 01:27 PM:	#21
Well, now that it's been a few days and no one seems to be arguing to the contrary anymore, it seems we have reached the consensus that popular music is indeed in a state of decline. So now what? Do we all just go on with our lives with nothing more than slightly more confidence that Paris Hilton's latest album is a piece of trash? What I mean is, is there anything we can do to stop the state of decline? Can we revitalize music, or is it lost forever? I don't know, maybe I'm still just frustrated from working in a store where the radio only plays pop music...
_____________________ Just my own meaningless thoughts and opinions.

stay_in_school
Initiate

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

Posted 08/18/07 - 05:31 PM:	#22
I think the only hope is to listen to and support the music that we still find good, and support newer artists that have some "artsy" aspects to their music. If no one bought Paris Hilton's album, then she probably won't come out with a second. My point is the record companies will market and sell what's already selling. As long as people continue to buy crap the record companies will continue to sell crap. If people stopped buying crap and bought good music than the record companies will start promoting artists with similar aspects in their music.

lackofcolor
Initiate

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

Posted 08/18/07 - 08:34 PM:	#23
Can we revitalize music? You know, it's a great question. I'd like to think so, and I'd also like to think that some people are attempting to do that. But again, like so many have said, what sells is popular. But why are so many people liking what's out right now? This brings up the whole issue of what "good music" is. Is good taste an opinion? Are there some things that everyone likes? How can we revitalize music when so many people are stuck in a rut about what's "good" to them?

Post-burnt
Aspirant

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

Posted 08/19/07 - 07:38 AM:	#24
I think there's often the problem that a great many people find it difficult to appreciate good things if they come from inauspicious avenues. The Paris Hilton album has 50% good tunes. Personally, I find her public persona uninteresting and vapid; she's obviously making records with a hell of a lot of financial backing. However, if you can ignore the crass means by which the album was sired, there are some very good songs on there. She's obviously had her voice tweaked and the production is very glitzy, but it is, in part, a good record. I'll re-iterate an earlier point - music is unspeakably broad. There's absolutely no need to worry about it 'revitalising'. There are as many great bands and composers as there has ever been.

killerofgod
Travelling Journeyman

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 01, 2006
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 44

Posted 08/19/07 - 03:47 PM:	#25
"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.
_____________________ Just my own meaningless thoughts and opinions.

Page: 1 2 3 4

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.