Very good point Sir GH.
It prompted me to deem about the following:
All the centuries where the classic music reigned was a long process of learning and developing. A brain- was the thing that created music. It was a serious thing to do, an art.
Then came a rebellion. The 70 showed it the best. Groups like Led Zeppelin brought something very diffrent from what the classics did. But even so, the music was full of emotoins. The vocal, instruments- it showed this. It was a blast of energy.
The next stage was "a race". The musicians generally just tried to beat each other with something more and more out of the limit.
And now it's a business. To be a singer you basically need: a) a producer, b) a couple of guys over computers, c) shoal of people to provide the costumes and make-up, d) some catchy rhythm to make a listener tap his/her foot.
The future? Lets say so- once they got synthesizer, they won't go back to acoustic guitar. And the ones who wants use that- aside, because they just don't fit into system.
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Yara wrote: [/b]
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.
[/QUOTE]
You're right, the "end of art" is not a new idea. In the late 19th century, something referred to as "domestic music-making" is what composers did to make their work more accessible. But the question is, how much lower can we sink? Brahms' Lullaby was considered simplistic 100 years ago, but nowadays it's considered by many to be a melodic masterpiece, even if you don't compare it to the output of 50 Cent.
[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough... I totally get how you can come to that conclusion. I know, I desperately need to do my homework on Schoenberg.
[QUOTE]Also, there's a sharp decrease in quality from Stravinsky to Frank Zappa. And what a sharp one.[/QUOTE]
Ooooh... that statement can be debated. It's all about which of Zappa's work you're listening to, as there is mounds of it. From Peaches en Regalia to Jazz From Hell to The Yellow Shark, much of Zappa's work was absolutely brilliant, and did move things along upward.
[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]
Absolutely. But the point I'm trying to make is the average person doesn't know who most of those comparatively recent musicians are. But in their heyday, the average person did know who the big composers of times past were. Where popular music is today reflects little to no sign of those artists' place in that evolution.
[QUOTE]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?[/QUOTE]
Absolutely not. Folk isn't my thing, but he is undeniably one of the greatest artists of the 20th Century. It's just a completely different kind of art form. Music has evolved in different directions. But there probably won't be an argument that Bob Dylan has contributed to the fall of popular culture like many rappers have, or that Bob Dylan did it for the money, or that his music is written by outside songwriters purely to bring revenue to big record companies.
[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]
I certainly hope you're right. But in our world of technology, instant gratification, and focus on what people look like and what's happening in their personal lives instead of their talent, can we say this is just a slump or if we're here for good?
[QUOTE]There's a lot of positive things to be stressed too.[/QUOTE]
Indeed, plenty of it. I just hope we as a culture will soon toss our current garbage in garbage out system so that we can embrace the positive things collectively, instead of doing it in small counter-culture-type groups.
Yara · Member since
[QUOTE]Over the past 1500 years... absolutely. Plenty of it. But can we name one artist who has come out since The Beatles who has left a significant dent in what we as a culture define art to be? [/QUOTE]
For sure. Many. Michael Jackson, for instance. He redefined the meaning of music videos; he made a kind of music that, liking it or not, entered the hearts of people from all over the world; he brought dance and coreography, from the kind of the good old days of MGM, back to the center of music experience: he merged audio and visuals in a way that I think was quite impressive and revolutionary.
Now, the impact this guy has had on people all over the world can't be exaggerated: it's huge. Everything he did seemed to resonate with millions and millions of people.
He had a wonderful voice and gave to the world a kind of music everyone could relate to - a kind of music which wasn't simplistic or easy; a kind of music which was often very beautiful.
"We Are The World" is a piece of art of the late 20th Century. It still is for us. This song moved millions of people. It reached people's hearts in a way that many couldn't even imagine.
So who knows? I could bring up many other examples, but take a band as Rush. The amount of dissertations in music schools and colleges about their music is impressive given their popularity. The "average" Rush is still better than many acts I can think of - classics included.
[b]Signals [/b]is from 1982. [b]Presto, [/b]a brilliant album, is from 1989! Now, serious: it still impresses me how such high-level music could reach so many people over the world. It's not as if Rush were a local success: the concert they gave here was an achievement on its own. The level of Rush's music is seriously high. In order to make that kind of music become popular you have to be really talented. Rush's lyrics qualify as art. Many of them. No doubt about it for me.
I seriously think that [b]Björk [/b]is post-modern art at its best. Her recordings are absolutely jaw-dropping. To think that songs of that complexity would become that popular is incredible. [b]Björk [/b]makes me feel, at least, though by no means I'm the only one who admires her, as if the good old guys from the 70's were REALLY good OLD guys. Her music sounds modern, sounds advanced, creative and different.
My point being: Who knows if, 30 years from now, people won't be saying:
"Man, those times when there was Rush, Kate Bush, Joni Mitchell, Michael Jackson, Radiohead - the guys changed the whole scene with O.K Computer! - were really the best. Music nowadays sucks."
Last point: You see, Horowitz, 20th Century greatest pianist according to 9 of 10 musicians and listeners of erudite music, said he saw more music in a Chopin Mazurka than in a Mahler Symphony. So, we can't take the thought that music has been constantly evolving over the centuries for granted. One may argue that things went seriously downhill from Haendel to Mozart. From Schubert to Ravel. What can I say? From Liszt to Stravinsky there was advance or retrocess? I sincerely don't know.
Seeing the developing of music as a history of progress is complicated. The claim can be made, but I wouldn't stand for it - I think the history of music is much more nuanced.
Take a whole new phenomenon in - stunning, otherwordly visuals, videos and record music - and we just can't tell where things are heading.
Maybe, who knows?, another Stravinsky comes up to say: "There has been too much nonsense in music. Let's get the best of a certain tradition and add these and those elements". And we have another groundbreaking artist.
The 21 Century has barely begun. Who knows? I think the temptation of wanting to coincide the end of things with our own departure from the world is too strong.
About Zappa: you brought up the best example. Ok, let's take Zappa in. Zappa is not from the 18th Century. Here's an artist who came after the Beatles and had a significant impact on music culture. It's not as if he were from 100 years ago. We may say: "Beatles kind of sucked musically next to Zappa".
In the classic field: Karlheinz Stockhausen has recently passed away. Very recently. The guy was a tremendous composer and his impact on music is yet to be fully understood. It's a towering figure in music and I think he may turn out to be regarded as someone as great as Stravinsky. Stockhausen renewed people's interest in innovations in classical music.
That's my view. The "Nach uns die Flut" kind of thinking doesn't convince me, as bad as things may be portrayed.
Queen On Ice · Member since
What a fantastic thread and third page debate, by all concerned.
I was moved to want to make a nice long and opinionated reply to the thread question, but reading just the first two posts alone made me re-think my need for it, and the rest of the page has thrown up some of the best discussion I have seen on QZ for a good while.
As a musician of sorts, I am really devastated by the 'collapse' of music from (IMHO) the mid-late eighties.
Once the 'dance' revolution began in around '88/'89 I knew even then, as a young teen, that the BEST days of popular music were already behind us.
That is not to say there cannot be a few artists that would pop up and show us what real music - based on feeling and LOVE for music - really is, artists like Bjork, Jeff Buckley, even Radiohead to a lesser extent. And more besides sure.
But for the most part the motivation for making musis has changed dramatically, and as mentioned, has given way to the visual image and a 'soundtrack' to that rather than something you can sit back and enjoy with headphones and closed eyes.
I hang my head in shame that todays youth SNUB anything that does not have a repetetive 120-150bpm drum pattern with some guy wighed down with 'bling' TALKIN - yes TALKING over something that barely passes as music.
These poor kids are going to grow up believing THAT is what music is all about, and in ten, twenty or more years, I fear that no-onw will appreciate good music for what it is. It is not sissy, it is not laughable and it is not cheesy - it is real emotion. My neighbours often have parties at the weekend, and last saturday night from midnight to 5pm sunday (yes 15 hours straight) they listened to club/dance music. I was ready to pull out my hair and I feel SORRY for people who CHOOSE to listen to the SAME beat for so bloody long.
PauloPanucci · Member since
it's not all the music who is suck today... have great musicians today!!!!
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Yara wrote: [/b]
My point being: Who knows if, 30 years from now, people won't be saying:
"Man, those times when there was Rush, Kate Bush, Joni Mitchell, Michael Jackson, Radiohead - the guys changed the whole scene with O.K Computer! - were really the best. Music nowadays sucks."
[/QUOTE]
Point taken. But we already can say most of that now. In terms of mainstream exposure (we're talking about the average person's perception of what good music is, right?) Rush, Joni Mitchell, and Kate Bush are all far past their prime. Radiohead was never really mainstream, and Michael Jackson hasn't had a hit song in over 10 years. My big question is - what current artists in their prime are on top 40 radio now, making up for the absence of the artists you've highlighted? Coldplay? Kelly Clarkson?
[QUOTE]Zappa is not from the 18th Century. Here's an artist who came after the Beatles and had a significant impact on music culture.[/QUOTE]
Music culture, yes... but not popular culture. Most people don't know who he is, never mind being aware of or understanding his accomplishments.
[QUOTE]Stockhausen renewed people's interest in innovations in classical music.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but within a very small circle of dedicated listeners of classical music. Rock and roll was already happening when his compositions started to be heard. In addition to Stockhausen, today there are composers like Karl Jenkins and Srul Irving Glick (also recently deceased) who have continued the evolution of music, unbeknownst to most.
[QUOTE]That's my view. The "Nach uns die Flut" kind of thinking doesn't convince me, as bad as things may be portrayed.[/QUOTE]
You've certainly got me thinking a bit more positively. But I'm not entirely convinced that this hole is one we can dig out of.
john bodega · Member since
My way of thinking is that the onus is on us artists to contribute, in any way shape or form, no matter what we think of the scene as a whole ... and do it with the best and most honest of intentions. Even if the music I make stinks, it's still done with my heart in the right place ... and that's all I ask of musicians today. I don't expect anything on a par with some of the oldies, but when it does come along I'm always pleasantly surprised.
PauloPanucci · Member since
The music is really suck today because the people just write about woman... sex and womansex..., or just about one thing... ( well, here in brasil they just do it)!!!
Whisperer · Member since
In my opinion most of the released music has always sucked. The thing is that when years go by, all the shitty songs are forgotten, even though they were huge hits at their time. Ten years ago all those Britney songs were heard everywhere (Baby One More Time and those), but now you practically never hear them on the radio. Only the best songs survive the time. That's why Queen and other great bands are still played on radio stations around the world every day.
This creates an illusion that old music was great and new music sucks. Only a small part of old music is great, most of it sucked like most of today's music sucks. This still doesn't explain why some songs are such a huge hits when they are released, even though they are bad. This also doesn't explain why we still hear that pure shit by Nirvana on the radio, even though it's not "in" anymore. But at least my theory explains something :)
Queen On Ice · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Whisperer wrote: [/b]
In my opinion most of the released music has always sucked. The thing is that when years go by, all the shitty songs are forgotten, even though they were huge hits at their time. Ten years ago all those Britney songs were heard everywhere (Baby One More Time and those), but now you practically never hear them on the radio. Only the best songs survive the time. That's why Queen and other great bands are still played on radio stations around the world every day.
This creates an illusion that old music was great and new music sucks. Only a small part of old music is great, most of it sucked like most of today's music sucks. This still doesn't explain why some songs are such a huge hits when they are released, even though they are bad. This also doesn't explain why we still hear that pure shit by Nirvana on the radio, even though it's not "in" anymore. But at least my theory explains something :) [/QUOTE]
On the whole you are right, but that does not change the fact that in ten or more years, we will still have mainly pre 90's stuff on the radios etc cos there is so LITTLE being produced today that will stand the test of time.
There has been a ressurgance in the last couple of years of 'guitar based' bands, and they will get airpley however rubbish they are because everything else (with that bloody drumbeat) is rubbish and will NOT stand the test of time.
There's fantastic music today, just as there's [i]always[/i] been fantastic music, provided one's willing to do the leg-work and actively seek it out.
If you get your music solely through the radio, then yeah... music today (and for, arguably, the past 30 years) sucks. And, if that's the case, sucks to be you.
thomasquinn 32989 · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
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.[/QUOTE]
I'd like to point out two things:
1) Art music, such as the medieval classical and modern classical examples you cite, always coëxisted with a more down-to-earth entertainment style. However, little material of that music remains, because most of it wasn't written down. Those fragments that do remain do not suggest top-notch music.
2) The "average person" did not listen to Beethoven or Stravinsky. The former was adored by the cultured middle class, and virtually unkown to the masses, the latter was reviled by everyone except the avant-gardists up until quite recently. "Average people" listened to Johann Strauss and even more simple dance music.
[QUOTE]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.
[/QUOTE]
Yes has nothing to do with Stravinsky, and Frank Zappa has little to do with Stravinsky. I could launch into a long -winded argument how Stravinskyist tonality and expanded tonal harmony influenced film music, but not popular music (Yes), and how avant-gardist art-rock (Zappa) is primarily influenced by John Cage and George Russell's Lydian-Chromatic conception of tonality, but I will spare you.
[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]
I do not feel bound by mainstream tastes and sensitivities. There have always been superficial doinks who just wanted something to dance to, or some simple structure to nail obscene lyrics to (you should look at medieval folksy lyrics. The most crude hip-hop or pop lyric would blush upon comparison), and I for one suggest that they go right ahead and don't bother those who take music seriously.
[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]
As I said above, what the "ordinary person" listens to has nothing to do with the development of art-music. Art has always been thoroughly elitist (pop-art tried to change that, and failed), and that is perhaps best.
[/QUOTE]
thomasquinn 32989 · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Yara wrote: [/b]
My point being: Who knows if, 30 years from now, people won't be saying:
"Man, those times when there was Rush, Kate Bush, Joni Mitchell, Michael Jackson, Radiohead - the guys changed the whole scene with O.K Computer! - were really the best. Music nowadays sucks."
[/QUOTE]
Point taken. But we already can say most of that now. In terms of mainstream exposure (we're talking about the average person's perception of what good music is, right?) Rush, Joni Mitchell, and Kate Bush are all far past their prime. Radiohead was never really mainstream, and Michael Jackson hasn't had a hit song in over 10 years. My big question is - what current artists in their prime are on top 40 radio now, making up for the absence of the artists you've highlighted? Coldplay? Kelly Clarkson?
[QUOTE]Zappa is not from the 18th Century. Here's an artist who came after the Beatles and had a significant impact on music culture.[/QUOTE]
Music culture, yes... but not popular culture. Most people don't know who he is, never mind being aware of or understanding his accomplishments.
[QUOTE]Stockhausen renewed people's interest in innovations in classical music.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but within a very small circle of dedicated listeners of classical music. Rock and roll was already happening when his compositions started to be heard. In addition to Stockhausen, today there are composers like Karl Jenkins and Srul Irving Glick (also recently deceased) who have continued the evolution of music, unbeknownst to most.
[QUOTE]That's my view. The "Nach uns die Flut" kind of thinking doesn't convince me, as bad as things may be portrayed.[/QUOTE]
You've certainly got me thinking a bit more positively. But I'm not entirely convinced that this hole is one we can dig out of.
[/QUOTE]
There was never, absolutely never, a widespread appreciation of art-music. Even Mozart's following was largely limited to the European elite, and he is arguably the most poppy exponent of classical music.
Yara · Member since
You both - or troth or froth - conveniently ignore my main point: the emergence of record music as the most profound turn in the recent history of music; and that, in terms of experience, we can only talk about the history of record music. Industrial capitalism made its way to music. At the same time it made available, for the first time ever, the highest human achievements to the ordinary person - and the internet is one step further in this direction - it also turned music into a commodity, not much different from a toothpaste.
That's the contradiction we're always facing. Most poor communities here have some kind of project for music education - the kid goes on to learn his share of Bach and Beethoven and whatever. He thinks he experience something unique. But, at the same time, he's constantly taught by all social environments he's in that music is absolutely disposable; that it has to be properly labelled as any commodity so that people can derive their identity and sense of belonging to a group from their relation to a kind of sound which is also a niche market; and, finally, that it is sold at a certain price to a mass of consumers - this is as true of a CD with Chopin's works as one with 50cent's.
This structure is inevitable. There's no way out of this. Does it mean that this is the end of the world? No. Because people are constantly demanding new stuff from the music industry: and it means that, in order to accomodate such demands, the industry has to enlarge its structure to encompass a kind of taste which doesn't fit the more mainstream sound. Thus, specialized labels begin to appeal to certain groups of people who want to set themselves apart from 50cent or Katy Perry - sometimes it's the very same label; sometimes it's a whole different label altogether, but in the end it's all done within the boundaries of the music market: things can be pushed so far as to make possible a Rush concert like the one in Rio - and that's unprecedented. The fact that millions of people can relate to a kind of music which is not simple by any stretch of imagination neither structurally nor lyrically is unprecedented: the same goes for Radiohead's concert here in Brazil in support of Rainbows. Thousands of people. Almost immediatly sold out.
And you've got pretty much everything there: from exquisite changes of tempos and structure variations between additive and divise rhythms to tonal changes to the notes most remotely related to the key. Zappa's way of dealing with rhythm is very reminiscent of Stravinsky and Bartók; and it is so because he counsciouslly wanted to do that - at the same time, the breaking of the rhythmic structure also allowed for developments in techno and hip hop music. Zappa has a lot to do with Stravinsky, yes, and it's not only Zappa - it's an influence which became widespread in all kinds of music but that reached itself a limit: people consumed it all, listened to it all, and there's the ever-increasing urge for something "new" - and you can bring up to them things as different as Ben Harper and Björk, and it won't be enough. Björk is not "worse" than the Beatles; in many aspects, it's musically much more interesting - but its advances were bound to become predictable too. And they did, and people got tired of it.
The music market has become too segmented and the demand for all things new disturbs our perception - sometimes, a very remote tradition is brought back and we see it as a novelty because it had all but disappeared for years.
The only, and I'm careful when I say this because there are some considerable exceptions to the rule, the only musical tradition which doesn't lend itself to consumption so easily and resists this kind of exhaustion is the Second Vienna School: Schoenberg, Berg and Webern. This is where I see "hope" in music in the sense of listening to something which is both different, new and relevant to ME.
But that's MY taste. If someone comes to me and says: "Chemical Brothers rule and Webern sucks", I can't answer; I can't give any other answer than: "Right. But I enjoy Webern". Period. If I start trying to bash Chemical Brothers, one will rightfully begin to point out a lot of interesting stuff in their music which is absent from Webern's.
But Webern is my thing. As Alkan and Godówsky are my thing with regard to 19th music. I do like Beethoven a lot, but he's not my favorite 19th Century composer by any means, nor is Wagner - I rather listen to Liszt's transcriptions of Beethoven's symphonies than the symphonies themselves, but that's totally ME.
So I'd say, no doubt: from Liszt, especially the late Liszt, to Mahler and Ravel there has been a regression. Some people would fire at me; other would agree - which is a sign of how pre-record music can't be reduced as a history of "steady progress".
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/b]
Yes has nothing to do with Stravinsky
[/QUOTE]
On the surface, yes, they don't. But they had a similar philosophy - to create envelope-pushing music while always maintaining the melody.
[QUOTE]I could launch into a long -winded argument how Stravinskyist tonality and expanded tonal harmony influenced film music, but not popular music (Yes), and how avant-gardist art-rock (Zappa) is primarily influenced by John Cage and George Russell's Lydian-Chromatic conception of tonality, but I will spare you.[/QUOTE]
Bring it on... I'd love to hear it.
This is such a great topic with many thought-provoking points. I had to bring it back...
