Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

The End of Music

Does anyone else think that music has really cheapened over the past few decades? I had a thought last night; J.S. Bach has been dead for almost 300 years, but people still listen to play, listen, transcribe, and enjoy his music. What music from our time will people listen to in the year 2300? Hell, what music do people still listen to that was popular 10 years ago?

I just think that most modern music, and for that matter, modern movies and modern art, is just plain shabby. Movies are terribly predictable and involve about 4 or 5 stock plot lines, not to mention that heavily political overtones in most of them.

Modern art is simply worthless, and I hold the most contempt for it out of all the things I've mentioned. Beauty is not valued at all. Only newness and "difference" is, as if that mattered. The Virgin Mary in jars of urine? Throwing paint off ladders and onto a canvas? Squiggly lines? What am I looking at? I'm sorry, but if I can't tell what I'm looking at, there's a good chance that it's not art. But that's just me.

Comments

  • NirvanaNirvana aka BUBBA   `     `   South Carolina, USA Veteran
    edited November 2009
    Much of modern art, despite its high marketability, is trash indeed, KOB!

    The garbage shown on ABCs' Good Morning America this Thanksgiving morning is a case in point. Go ahead, make the Muslim world condemn us; feature a woman singer with skirt one eighth inch below her symphysis pubis on national TV! Just watch her sing!

    Not that it's any exception to the usual excesses, but still I wanna cry and say, "This is not my people."

    Art transports, it does not titillate.

    We're going down the drain, the media be praised!
  • RenGalskapRenGalskap Veteran
    edited November 2009
    Does anyone else think that music has really cheapened over the past few decades? I had a thought last night; J.S. Bach has been dead for almost 300 years, but people still listen to play, listen, transcribe, and enjoy his music.
    When Bach was alive, people complained that his music was old fashioned and dissonant. That would make his contemporary equivalent someone like Alban Berg. How much Berg do you listen to?
    What music from our time will people listen to in the year 2300?
    Classical: Berg, Schoenberg, Stravinsky. Glass or Adams maybe. Piazzolla definitely.

    Jazz: Bird, 'Trane, Monk, Mile's better stuff, Jim Hall (I'm a guitarist. I'm biased.) Ella Fitzgerald, Bill Evans, Sonny Rollins.

    Latin: Piazzolla again, possibly some of his imitators like Ziegler and Possetti. Possibly Baden-Powell's and Nara Leao's recordings, and if they're not playing Pixinguinha's compositions it can only mean that there's no joy left in the world. Mexican son jaropo and son huasteco. Cuban son mantuno and it's off shoots.

    Misc: B. B. King. Bob Marley. Amalia Rodrigues.

    Get off your butt and start looking for good music. You're surrounded by it.
    Hell, what music do people still listen to that was popular 10 years ago?
    Popular with who? Rita Ribeiro, Guinga, Rossa Passos, La Chicana, Juanjo Dominguez, Los Fabulosos Cadillacs, Aterceopelados, Ruben Blades, Luis Vargas, Susana Baca, Skatalites, Spanish Harlem Orchestra, Pepe & the Bottle Blonds, Lila Downs, Los Mocosos, Manuel Galban, Robert Cray, Cafe Tocvba, Ozomatli, Bobi Cepedes, Youssou n'Dour, Bela Fleck, Klezmatics.

    Define "popular" as something other than what's played on corporate radio stations where the music programming is done at corporate headquarters, and you've got a world of good popular music that was being made 10 years ago.
    I just think that most modern music, and for that matter, modern movies and modern art, is just plain shabby. Movies are terribly predictable and involve about 4 or 5 stock plot lines, not to mention that heavily political overtones in most of them.
    When was it ever different? Hollywood movies have huge budgets, and in order to recoup the money, they have to go with whatever will sell the most tickets. That leaves them with a choice of about 7 stars and 5 plots, or Pixar.
    Modern art is simply worthless, and I hold the most contempt for it out of all the things I've mentioned. Beauty is not valued at all. Only newness and "difference" is, as if that mattered. The Virgin Mary in jars of urine? Throwing paint off ladders and onto a canvas? Squiggly lines? What am I looking at? I'm sorry, but if I can't tell what I'm looking at, there's a good chance that it's not art. But that's just me.
    It's easy to make fun of something by picking the worst examples and ignoring the good. Someone once wrote that good criticism doesn't seek out the bad, but seeks out the beautiful in whatever form it takes and makes you believe in it.

    And in closing:
    "It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing.
    Do wah do wah do wah do wah do wah do wah do wah."

    They just don't write 'em like that any more.
  • edited November 2009
    Improved access destroys quality. Back when only wealthy, highly educated people could read, books were of much higher literary quality. Those same people were the ones consuming music and art. Today the uncultured masses consume the majority of books, films and art. As RenGalskap mentioned, there is still plenty of high-quality artistic expression (probably as much as there ever was), but the most popular stuff will always be crap. I don't appreciate the Twilight books or Jay-Z, but it's a small price to pay for widespread literacy and a middle class.
  • edited November 2009
    Lyssa wrote: »
    Improved access destroys quality. Back when only wealthy, highly educated people could read, books were of much higher literary quality. Those same people were the ones consuming music and art. Today the uncultured masses consume the majority of books, films and art. As RenGalskap mentioned, there is still plenty of high-quality artistic expression (probably as much as there ever was), but the most popular stuff will always be crap. I don't appreciate the Twilight books or Jay-Z, but it's a small price to pay for widespread literacy and a middle class.

    Those pesky "uncultured masses"! Let them eat cake I say! ;)
  • StaticToyboxStaticToybox Veteran
    edited December 2009
    Lyssa wrote: »
    Improved access destroys quality. Back when only wealthy, highly educated people could read, books were of much higher literary quality. Those same people were the ones consuming music and art. Today the uncultured masses consume the majority of books, films and art. As RenGalskap mentioned, there is still plenty of high-quality artistic expression (probably as much as there ever was), but the most popular stuff will always be crap. I don't appreciate the Twilight books or Jay-Z, but it's a small price to pay for widespread literacy and a middle class.

    Back when only wealthy, highly educated people could read there actually was not many books, and certainly little to no fiction.
  • edited December 2009
    When was the last good modern-ish music in you opinion KotB? Some people that like classical music do not appreciate Bach!
  • SimonthepilgrimSimonthepilgrim Veteran
    edited December 2009
    You do love winding us up, don't you, KoB?
  • edited December 2009
    You do love winding us up, don't you, KoB?

    Haha. I really didn't think I'd get impassioned responses about music. I did not foresee the debate shifting to economics and how social statuses affected our quality of music.
  • edited December 2009
    William Gibson in one of his cyber-futurist novels refers to an endless stream of “Dub” which at once refers to both music and information. While music may bring joy, it is another thing that the mind can grasp at - something to be used with moderation. I would even go as far saying that it can be abused as form of escape. Has music deteriorated – no way, in fact the internet gives us greater access to non-commercial and legacy music.
    There are two types of music, good and bad – Duke Ellington.
  • StaticToyboxStaticToybox Veteran
    edited December 2009
    There's more wonderful, creative music out there then ever. You have to seek it out and dig a bit however, no one's going to be pushing it under your nose.
  • edited December 2009
    Haha. I really didn't think I'd get impassioned responses about music. I did not foresee the debate shifting to economics and how social statuses affected our quality of music.


    So are you interested in the music subject or was it a way of laughing at people when they are drawn into a heated debate by an opinionated comment? If i may be drawn in a smigeon - ignorance breeds hate. You hate modern art...Now i'm laughing:lol:
  • edited December 2009
    Takeahnase wrote: »
    Back when only wealthy, highly educated people could read there actually was not many books, and certainly little to no fiction.

    Have you ever heard of the Classics?!?! Ever heard of The Victorian Era?!?!? Literacy rates didn't climb until the 20th century.

    Check out the 19th century on this list.

    The Iiad 8th Century BCE
    The Divine Comedy 1321
    Don Quixote 1605
    Henry VII 1613
    Paradise Lost 1667
    Robinson Crusoe 1719
    Gulliver's Travels 1726
  • StaticToyboxStaticToybox Veteran
    edited December 2009
    That's a list of books written and published after the development of the printing press, which made literacy and education available to the common people. Not sure what point you're trying to demonstrate there.
  • edited December 2009
    blueface wrote: »
    So are you interested in the music subject or was it a way of laughing at people when they are drawn into a heated debate by an opinionated comment? If i may be drawn in a smigeon - ignorance breeds hate. You hate modern art...Now i'm laughing:lol:

    Well I don't think I'm ignorant of modern art. I've seen plenty of it. I just happen to think it's garbage by and large.
  • edited December 2009
    Takeahnase wrote: »
    That's a list of books written and published after the development of the printing press, which made literacy and education available to the common people. Not sure what point you're trying to demonstrate there.

    Literacy rates were around 50% in 1800 (in the developed world) and there was plenty to read.
  • edited December 2009
    Well I don't think I'm ignorant of modern art. I've seen plenty of it. I just happen to think it's garbage by and large.

    Sorry KOB - was a bit grumpy yesterday i think! So a new avatar then? i feel a long response coming on. brace yourself!

    The point i was making was that perhaps beauty is in the eye of the beholder (cliche but true maybe). There will be some out there who think modern art is very wonderful and meaningful for them. To dismiss it all as garbage is to dismiss their right to define what is wonderful and meaningful to them- who made us in charge of beauty? This is my idea of pluralism and Thien Buddhism seems to also work with it - there is no one right and wrong but infinite perspectives.

    I know what you mean about modern art as sometimes when i see an art installation (rarely!) i see pretension and a mind-game rather than expression. However i would try to say - 'i don't get it' rather than 'i don't get it so it therefore must be meaningless and therefore worthless'. My sister's an artist and i think if i found out she has made the aardvark umrella stand art I'd just seen i might say to her 'i don't get it'. If she told me what went into it i might change my mind. Perhaps modern art could be accused of being elitist, or perhaps we could be accused of having lazy non interactive attitudes to how art should be presented.

    I had this discussion with my brother who believes you must work with absolute values in the world otherwise you cannot make meaning out of anything. We compared Mozart to Kylie Minogue :lol: He told me one artist was clearly superior to the other- that Austrian bloke. He sited longievity, and a big one with traditionalists- the amount of skill and time it took to produce the music. I countered with this - in some part of the world there will be a person (let's call her Gertrude) to whom Kylie's music produces the most wonderful and meaningful response ever - that she is their favourite artist, wheras when played Mozart even over time has no great impact. To say to her that Mozart is clearly superior is clearly nonsense - he isn't to her. There is no magic in his music to her. Should we therefore say she's a cretin, her understandingh of music is inferior to ours? Perhaps it would be more accurate to say it is a different understanding. Maybe her grumpy uncle played screechy violin at her when she was a teenager and therefore strings don't have a good association. Perhaps if the same had happened to my brother as a teenager he would prefer Kylie!

    Bonkers post but enetertaining i hope:crazy:
  • edited December 2009
    Lyssa wrote: »
    Literacy rates were around 50% in 1800 (in the developed world) and there was plenty to read.

    I wonder if there is a place for 'pop music' and 'Miles Davis'. I know when i was a kid i could only palate certain food and music was similar. Play me jazz then and I'd hate it, like i hated mushrooms too. Now i love Miles and love mushroom sauce too. There has always been music for the masses and music for the connosseurs even way back in the day. Shakespeare seemed to be able to be both popular, accessible and quality -how did he manage that?:eekblue:
  • edited December 2009
    blueface wrote: »
    ... Shakespeare seemed to be able to be both popular, accessible and quality -how did he manage that?:eekblue:

    I don't know how he did it then, but he wouldn't have managed it today. Who reads Shakespeare now?

    Sure there's a place for crap and a place for quality, but as you mentioned, appreciation for the latter requires a maturity that many people aren't given the opportunity to or don't have the desire to obtain.
  • BrigidBrigid Veteran
    edited December 2009
    Lyssa wrote: »
    I don't know how he did it then, but he wouldn't have managed it today. Who reads Shakespeare now?

    Sure there's a place for crap and a place for quality, but as you mentioned, appreciation for the latter requires a maturity that many people aren't given the opportunity to or don't have the desire to obtain.
    Who reads Shakespeare now? Are you kidding? Do you really think Shakespeare is read less now than he has been in the past??
  • edited December 2009
    Brigid wrote: »
    Who reads Shakespeare now? Are you kidding? Do you really think Shakespeare is read less now than he has been in the past??

    Yes. I love Shakespeare, but I rarely come across anyone who feels the same way. Shakespeare is now read primarily (and almost exclusively) by students who are being compelled to do so.
  • BaileyDBaileyD Explorer
    edited December 2009
    I believe that music such as Tool, Led Zepplin, anything blues, Nirvana, The Mars Volta, A Tribe Called Quest, Common, Eminem, etc...will be listened to decades from now for many reasons.

    There is art in everything, you only have to look to find it. Music is beautiful in so many different contexts. Music is complicated in so many different ways. Music is music in so many different ways.

    Music hasn't "cheapened" it's only changed, which is what it's supposed to do over hundreds of years. If you can't find the art and beauty in anything produced today it's because you aren't looking or don't want to find it.

    Beauty is everywhere, even in shit. (I don't think the Buddha said that but he should have.)
  • edited December 2009
    BaileyD wrote: »
    Beauty is everywhere, even in shit. (I don't think the Buddha said that but he should have.)

    Quote of the decade!:grin:
  • edited December 2009
    BaileyD wrote: »
    I believe that music such as Tool, Led Zepplin, anything blues, Nirvana, The Mars Volta, A Tribe Called Quest, Common, Eminem, etc...
    I agree with most of these :)

    I listen to alot of music from alot of eras and genres. Each genre has some amazing artists, and some crappy ones. I don't think it is appropriate to judge all music in such a general way.
  • edited December 2009
    BaileyD wrote: »
    I believe that music such as Tool, Led Zepplin, anything blues, Nirvana, The Mars Volta, A Tribe Called Quest, Common, Eminem, etc...will be listened to decades from now for many reasons.

    Eminem? Really? Rhymes about the difficulties of being rich and famous and name-dropping that only makes sense if you watched Entertainment Tonight in the last week, all spouted over a sampled beat? Like most pop music, Eminem's output is highly contextual. It won't make any sense to people decades from now.
  • BrigidBrigid Veteran
    edited December 2009
    Lyssa wrote: »
    Eminem? Really? Rhymes about the difficulties of being rich and famous and name-dropping that only makes sense if you watched Entertainment Tonight in the last week, all spouted over a sampled beat? Like most pop music, Eminem's output is highly contextual. It won't make any sense to people decades from now.
    That's a good point about contextual content in pop art forms. I haven't thought of it in a while but it's true. All the references used in so much music today will seem like inside jokes in the far future.
  • edited December 2009
    Good point Brigid.
  • Quiet_witnessQuiet_witness Veteran
    edited December 2009
    I like alot of modern art. As long as Picasso's paintings exist they will be cherished. I am especially fond of modern and post-modern literature. There are some great lessons I have learned from modern literature that lead me to Buddhism, especially Karouac and Eliot. There are alot of artists I don't like as well. So what?

    We cannot expect a Buddha to come in every generation so why should we expect a Bach or a Bethoven to come forth.
  • PalzangPalzang Veteran
    edited December 2009
    Well, I would beg to differ that there is no good music being created today that will still be around hundreds of years from now. There is, but you won't hear it on pop radio! That's just commercialism under the guise of music. I think in the more popular realm the Beatles would fall in that category of timelessness. Some of the electronic and so-called New Age music that is being created is fantastic (not all of it but some of it). Check out Hearts of Space some time if you don't believe me. It's on your local NPR station (some of them) or on the web.

    One should also bear in mind that many great artists are not recognized as such in their own lifetime. It takes a while for the cream to rise to the top.

    Palzang
  • StaticToyboxStaticToybox Veteran
    edited December 2009
    Brigid wrote: »
    That's a good point about contextual content in pop art forms. I haven't thought of it in a while but it's true. All the references used in so much music today will seem like inside jokes in the far future.

    When it comes down to it most art is contextual. Who today really understands who Giovanni di Buiamonte was? No one apart from a handful of scholars I'd wager. But that doesn't lessen the works of Dante Alighieri any.


    Oh, and speaking of: Dante was another writer who intended his work for the unsophisticated masses, which is why he chose to write it in the vulgar Italian tongue rather than the more high-brow Latin.
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    edited January 2010
    Art only has the value that YOU invest in it. You may invest the mona lisa or a squiggly line with your adoration. Its your experience which is relevant to YOU. You love Bach. Backstreet boys are garbage. Tell that to a 20s who the BB are like the Beetles. I am not telling what to like I am just pointing out that these are just your reactions. They belong to YOU and not the objects in some sense.
  • edited January 2010
    Lyssa wrote: »
    Eminem? Really? Rhymes about the difficulties of being rich and famous and name-dropping that only makes sense if you watched Entertainment Tonight in the last week, all spouted over a sampled beat? Like most pop music, Eminem's output is highly contextual. It won't make any sense to people decades from now.

    It may not make sense decades from now, but it will sure shed light on a portion of the state of American culture during it's time.
  • edited January 2010
    RenGalskap wrote: »

    Jazz: Bird, 'Trane, Monk, Mile's better stuff, Jim Hall (I'm a guitarist. I'm biased.) Ella Fitzgerald, Bill Evans, Sonny Rollins.

    Sonny Rollins is eternal.
  • buddhafootbuddhafoot Veteran
    edited January 2010
    It's funny...

    Many artistic greats could hardly afford to eek out a living during their lifetimes because nobody liked or appreciated it. But decades or centuries later - their art is finally appreciated to ridiculous lengths. So.... was their art at that time "modern crap"?

    I wonder if Morris Dancers ridiculed or laughed in disdain at the modern antics of Beethovan?

    What about when our modern music becomes "classic".

    Not too long ago, I heard Zeppelin's 'That's The Way' done in Muzak style while shopping in a grocery store.

    I think they're well on their way to becoming the Bach's of our day.

    -bf
Sign In or Register to comment.