I'm a songwriter/musician and I plan on starting a classic rock revival band. I hope all of you guys would consider buying my albums once I find a record deal. Before this I'm going to college, so it'll have to wait for some more years.
shazamrock · Member since
This thread is depressing on so many levels.
Queenfan1995 · Member since
im 13 and i dont like the new music today only bruce springsteen and u2. the last rockers who is still young people like.
Queenfan1995 · Member since
i think the reason the music today is bad is that is more about too have much money and exspensive cloths and cars more than make the music and that the artists dont talk with normal people and turn too soul less machins that only care about money. [/QUOTE]
john bodega · Member since
In an attempt to save this thread I am putting it onto the 3rd page to get away from that fool with the !!!!!'s.
john bodega · Member since
In an attempt to save this thread I am putting it onto the 3rd page to get away from that fool with the !!!!!'s.[/QUOTE]
john bodega · Member since
In an attempt to save this thread I am putting it onto the 3rd page to get away from that fool with the !!!!!'s.[/QUOTE]
john bodega · Member since
In an attempt to save this thread I am putting it onto the 3rd page to get away from that fool with the !!!!!'s.[/QUOTE]
john bodega · Member since
In an attempt to save this thread I am putting it onto the 3rd page to get away from that fool with the !!!!!'s.[/QUOTE]
john bodega · Member since
In an attempt to save this thread I am putting it onto the 3rd page to get away from that fool with the !!!!!'s.[/QUOTE]
john bodega · Member since
In an attempt to save this thread I am putting it onto the 3rd page to get away from that fool with the !!!!!'s.[/QUOTE]
dragon-fly · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Zebonka12 wrote: [/b]
In an attempt to save this thread I am putting it onto the 3rd page to get away from that fool with the !!!!!'s.[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
Thanks:)
dragon-fly · Member since
Talking about the actual question: for me, it seems that artists were less spoilt with money, so they thought more about music then income. The rich people wasn't that much interested in pop music (opera, it's another question). They did it for the music itself. All that discovering of new equipment, so challenging. So much of enthusiasm and freedom. Now everything is established. The music is a huge business. The artist is a project, an album- a product. My opinion is that the music lost emotions, it's not "alive" anymore.
Of course, there are talented people nowadays as well. But they seem to be limited in possibilities to break through...
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]dragon-fly wrote: [/b]
But they seem to be limited in possibilities to break through...
[/QUOTE]
Absolutely. It's an incredibly sad state we're in right now. Just consider it from a deep historical perspective. As far as what is easily visible to the average person, musical creativity and quality have progressively grown over the past fifteen centuries... until very recently.
Medieval, Renaissance, Baroque, Classical, Romantic... about 1400 years of steady growth there, leading into the 20th century with composers like Rachmaninoff and Stravinsky. In the meantime, swing and jazz came about, as well as the blues, which led to rock and roll. For the first time ever, music was stripped down to its most basic... and that's where it all began to go wrong.
But within that rock and roll and pop idiom, there was a steady growth into the early 70s, where virtually every idea worked. The next ten years were hit and miss... plenty of good, and plenty of bad. And then came MTV, where the focus shifted from music to image and shock value. Within a couple decades, the mainstream is now delighted to have rap, 4-chord derivative rock, bubble gum cookie-cutter pop... songs called "I'm A Slave For You" and "I Wanna Fuck You" that the average person cranks up in their car.
So it took about 1450 years to grow from very primitive music to Stravinsky, and 50 years to recess to I Wanna Fuck You. One can only stand in awe. The average person breathed in Beethoven and Stravinsky a century ago... and today the average person is dancing to I Kissed A Girl.
Artists like Frank Zappa and Yes continued from where Stravinsky left off... but because of I Wanna Fuck You and all things related to it, the average person will probably never understand this evolution of how we got from Midieval to Frank Zappa and why he is as important to the evolution of music as Bach, Mozart, and Tchaikovsky.
Of course this argument can and will be picked apart, because this very downfall has rendered most of us unable to see these things in the grand perspective of musical evolution aside from our personal tastes as determined by the futile, generic music on the radio and TV. If something isn't catchy within 30 seconds, our attention span will simply deflect us elsewhere. That's what we have been reduced to. Even when classical music is used for a jingle, ten seconds of a melody are looped, instead of continuing the melody, because they know the average person needs to recall what they heard ten seconds for the music to remain interesting.
At the very least, the general sentiment of the slow, upward progression and quick downfall really isn't up for debate, is it? I fear for the future of music and what the soundtracks of people's lives will be in the years to come.
Yara · Member since
The "end of art" (Hegel, 19th Century) and the "end of music" (Schiller and many others) has been declared so many times over the history that I don't take it seriously anymore.
Strangely, the composer who's widely regarded as 20th Century's most innovative musician, Arnold Schoenberg, is all but absent from SirGH's post, which is understandable: he relates to Stravinsky's neo-classicism, which has yield wonderful works, no doubt, but to my mind is undoubtely a return to the past and a regression in terms of music development.
Also, there's a sharp decrease in quality from Stravinsky to Frank Zappa. And what a sharp one.
Fact is, there's no deep historical perspective here because the history of record music is all too recent - and it's a different history which is still in its very beginnings. No one knows what music will sound like 50 years from now.
There's been no decline in quality from what's wrongly labeled as "classical music" to jazz, for instance - Duke Ellington could be rightfully ranked up there among great names of European "classical" music.
We have recently witnessed the coming and passing of composers who still are pretty much an enigma to us: Thelonious Monk, for instance. A musical genius who people have a hard time trying to label. And one may argue that, in his own way and style, he's no worse than many names in classical music. Same goes for John Coltrane, Miles Davis, Cole Porter or Duke Ellington or Gershwin.
All these artists were pop artists in their own time, just like Mozart and Bach were centuries ago.
We don't know what will come out of it. We had a poet/musician in the 60's and 70's like Bob Dylan - who am I to say that he's worse than some classical artist?
Hegel and a whole lot of philosophers back in the 19th century declared the "end of art" - and the 20th Century witnessed none other than Picasso.
I don't like this music millenialism. There are times it seems music is going downhill and there are times we feel we're living in a golden age.
With all our limitations and having only the time of our life to judge things, we are tempted to make coincide the debacle of things with our own departure from the world.
I try to avoid this kind of...sorry for the irony, complaining about the state of music. There's a lot of positive things to be stressed too.
