Is music better or worse than it used to be?

Depends on what you are looking for in music. Music is subjective. There is no right answer. LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Depends on what you are looking for in music. Music is subjective. There is no right answer. foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="Film-Guy"]Ok I wasnt really including music that far back but I guess if thats what your more into then more power to you. foxhound_fox

Are you really trying to compare clasicall music with rock music? No offense dude but your sound really pompous right now. Rock and clasical are completely different and it is stupid to try and say one is better than the other. Its all opinion and nobodies is right or wrong.

music is constantly changing, and it hasn't gotten better or worse.

Are you really trying to compare clasicall music with rock music? No offense dude but your sound really pompous right now. Rock and clasical are completely different and it is stupid to try and say one is better than the other. Its all opinion and nobodies is right or wrong. Film-Guy

[QUOTE="Film-Guy"]Are you really trying to compare clasicall music with rock music? No offense dude but your sound really pompous right now. Rock and clasical are completely different and it is stupid to try and say one is better than the other. Its all opinion and nobodies is right or wrong. foxhound_fox

Music is terrible nowadays in my opinion. Nothing about it has any honor or morality too in it anymore. We got music that talks about sex, drugs, greed, lust, pride, violence, anger, depression, and horror. And there are many genres of music that are completely dedicated to some of those things. Most music nowadays that had a purpose back in the day has become entirely corrupted. Dance music used to be about getting up and moving to have a good time, now its all about jumping around in a dark room filled with smoke and seizure enducing lights, while people simultaneously practically have sex with their clothes on. Music, just like the world's conscience, has gone down the drain.......

Opera for life!

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="Film-Guy"]Are you really trying to compare clasicall music with rock music? No offense dude but your sound really pompous right now. Rock and clasical are completely different and it is stupid to try and say one is better than the other. Its all opinion and nobodies is right or wrong. LJS9502_basic

Exactly, why are we evem discussing clasical composers? When did anyone bring this up?

That's still opinion. There are many who get no enjoyment out of cIassical.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]That's still opinion. There are many who get no enjoyment out of cIassical.foxhound_fox

In your example you pulled out one game...the correct analogy would be to say that FPS' aren't as good as a strategy game for instance(example only....not game genre is better either). Pitting one genre against another...not one song/composition/game.

Music is terrible nowadays in my opinion. Nothing about it has any honor or morality too in it anymore. We got music that talks about sex, drugs, greed, lust, pride, violence, anger, depression, and horror. And there are many genres of music that are completely dedicated to some of those things. Most music nowadays that had a purpose back in the day has become entirely corrupted. Dance music used to be about getting up and moving to have a good time, now its all about jumping around in a dark room filled with smoke and seizure enducing lights, while people simultaneously practically have sex with their clothes on. Music, just like the world's conscience, has gone down the drain.......

Opera for life!

seanxixamx99

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]That's still opinion. There are many who get no enjoyment out of cIassical.foxhound_fox

I'm still confused as to why you are even bringing up the subject of clasical composers, I was talking about music since the 60 or so and you randomly bring up much older music.

[QUOTE="seanxixamx99"]

Music is terrible nowadays in my opinion. Nothing about it has any honor or morality too in it anymore. We got music that talks about sex, drugs, greed, lust, pride, violence, anger, depression, and horror. And there are many genres of music that are completely dedicated to some of those things. Most music nowadays that had a purpose back in the day has become entirely corrupted. Dance music used to be about getting up and moving to have a good time, now its all about jumping around in a dark room filled with smoke and seizure enducing lights, while people simultaneously practically have sex with their clothes on. Music, just like the world's conscience, has gone down the drain.......

Opera for life!

Darth-Caedus

everyone who complains about how music today sucks should do that.

I find this sort of question difficult to answer. I really don't understand how people can lump all music from a decade and compare it to others- people who just say 'modern music is terrible' or something similar to any time period just amazes me. That's completely ignoring the sheer diversity of music in any given period. Sure, one can say that mainstream music has got progressively worse, which it has, but saying plain that 'music has got worse' doesn't really mean anything. 'Music'- what, all music? Admittedly, much of my favourite music is rather recent, with the like of Radiohead, Matthew Good and Muse, but that gives me no basis to say a certain decade has better music than others because it's only small piece of the complete musical pie. So, in short, music isn't better or worse than it used to be. There will always be great music, and always terrible music. It's all subjective of course, though. ferretzor

[QUOTE="Darth-Caedus"][QUOTE="seanxixamx99"]

Music is terrible nowadays in my opinion. Nothing about it has any honor or morality too in it anymore. We got music that talks about sex, drugs, greed, lust, pride, violence, anger, depression, and horror. And there are many genres of music that are completely dedicated to some of those things. Most music nowadays that had a purpose back in the day has become entirely corrupted. Dance music used to be about getting up and moving to have a good time, now its all about jumping around in a dark room filled with smoke and seizure enducing lights, while people simultaneously practically have sex with their clothes on. Music, just like the world's conscience, has gone down the drain.......

Opera for life!

Film-Guy

everyone who complains about how music today sucks should do that.

which is y i dont listen to mainstream music, I can count on one hand the artists on my ipod anyone would even kno

but unfortunately mainstream music is the only stuff played on the radio, advertised, or getting any attention, so it is for the most part what everyone is listening too

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="Film-Guy"]Are you really trying to compare clasicall music with rock music? No offense dude but your sound really pompous right now. Rock and clasical are completely different and it is stupid to try and say one is better than the other. Its all opinion and nobodies is right or wrong. LJS9502_basic

I think his point is the quality of a composition in terms of arrangement, harmony and all that stuff is independent to wether you like the music or not, and I agree on this one, the enjoyment of music is subjective, people will always like different stuff, but the actual quality of a composition is determined by the knowledge and artistic vision of the composer.

I hope you don't behead me for this but here's an example: You may like The Cure and I may like Beethoven, we would both be right in liking our respective artist since musical taste is subjective, but there's no denying Beethoven was the better composer.

[QUOTE="ferretzor"]I find this sort of question difficult to answer. I really don't understand how people can lump all music from a decade and compare it to others- people who just say 'modern music is terrible' or something similar to any time period just amazes me. That's completely ignoring the sheer diversity of music in any given period. Sure, one can say that mainstream music has got progressively worse, which it has, but saying plain that 'music has got worse' doesn't really mean anything. 'Music'- what, all music? Admittedly, much of my favourite music is rather recent, with the like of Radiohead, Matthew Good and Muse, but that gives me no basis to say a certain decade has better music than others because it's only small piece of the complete musical pie. So, in short, music isn't better or worse than it used to be. There will always be great music, and always terrible music. It's all subjective of course, though. LJS9502_basic

I think his point is the quality of a composition in terms of arrangement, harmony and all that stuff is independent to wether you like the music or not, and I agree on this one, the enjoyment of music is subjective, people will always like different stuff, but the actual quality of a composition is determined by the knowledge and artistic vision of the composer.

I hope you don't behead me for this but here's an example: You may like The Cure and I may like Beethoven, we would both be right in liking our respective artist since musical taste is subjective, but there's no denying Beethoven was the better composer.

black_cat19

For cIassical music.....yeah. But that doesn't mean he can compose alternative music. ;)

I...uh...actually like Beethoven. Though to be honest.....Robert Smith's work is more compelling to me. Good arrangements, excellent melodies, interesting lyrics.

]There is quality in other genres of music. It is misinformed to state only one genre has quality. You may not like the other genres....but there is quality nonetheless. There IS no one genre that is best.

In your example you pulled out one game...the correct analogy would be to say that FPS' aren't as good as a strategy game for instance(example only....not game genre is better either). Pitting one genre against another...not one song/composition/game.

LJS9502_basic

Obviously I don't mean all old mainstream music. I'm just saying, I'd rather listen to the Beatles and the Rolling Stones than 50 Cent and Fallout Boy. Bit of a quality difference there, if you ask me. ferretzor

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]]There is quality in other genres of music. It is misinformed to state only one genre has quality. You may not like the other genres....but there is quality nonetheless. There IS no one genre that is best.

In your example you pulled out one game...the correct analogy would be to say that FPS' aren't as good as a strategy game for instance(example only....not game genre is better either). Pitting one genre against another...not one song/composition/game.

foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="ferretzor"] Obviously I don't mean all old mainstream music. I'm just saying, I'd rather listen to the Beatles and the Rolling Stones than 50 Cent and Fallout Boy. Bit of a quality difference there, if you ask me. LJS9502_basic

I for one think ABBA is awesome:P

Since when did I ever claim there was not quality worth enjoying in other genres of music? Don't put words into my mouth.

Music would be the shooter genre itself. A game like Deus Ex or System Shock 2 would be the Beethoven or Bach of the genre while Halo or Army of Two would be more like Brittney Spears or Miley Cyrus. A mainstream hit that relies more on it's hype and fanbase than its inherent quality to sell it.foxhound_fox

EDIT: By games, I mean music.

What usually happens is a good band pops up at any point in time, and after a while and a few albums, they start to get stale, and then another good band pops up and the cycle repeats.

Pantera was an awesome metal band, but then their most recent album wasn't the best, and about that time, a new metal band, Pig Destroyer, released an awesome first album. PxDx is now on their third regular album and it isn't that great, so there is probably some new band out there not as well known with a lot of talent.

[QUOTE="black_cat19"]

I think his point is the quality of a composition in terms of arrangement, harmony and all that stuff is independent to wether you like the music or not, and I agree on this one, the enjoyment of music is subjective, people will always like different stuff, but the actual quality of a composition is determined by the knowledge and artistic vision of the composer.

I hope you don't behead me for this but here's an example: You may like The Cure and I may like Beethoven, we would both be right in liking our respective artist since musical taste is subjective, but there's no denying Beethoven was the better composer.

LJS9502_basic

For cIassical music.....yeah. But that doesn't mean he can compose alternative music. ;)

I...uh...actually like Beethoven. Though to be honest.....Robert Smith's work is more compelling to me. Good arrangements, excellent melodies, interesting lyrics.

It's not arbitrary, how can I put this... Both Beethoven and Robert Smith must have art and feeling running through their veins, because you just can't make music if you're not a true artist (that's the problem with most mainstream music, all money, no art), and you can't objectively measure who is more of an artist, but out of the two, I'd be willing to bet that Beethoven has the most musical knowledge and mastery to project and deliver his artistic message, and that could be objectively measured. How? By looking at the complexity and intricacy of his compositions and comparing them to those of Smith, sure, they both have arrangements, harmony, melody, etc, in their compositions, but Beethoven clearly shows a different level of musical knowledge and mastery, so he would be the better composer.

And all of that has nothing to do with wether you like one or the other, or wether you should like one more than the other, again, enjoyment is subjective, quality is not. So, did that make any sense at all? :P

Music rules now. If you can't find something you like you're not trying hard enough.

If you can't find something you like you're not trying hard enough.

NearTheEnd

Exactly.

It's not arbitrary, how can I put this... Both Beethoven and Robert Smith must have art and feeling running through their veins, because you just can't make music if you're not a true artist (that's the problem with most mainstream music, all money, no art), and you can't objectively measure who is more of an artist, but out of the two, I'd be willing to bet that Beethoven has the most musical knowledge and mastery to project and deliver his artistic message, and that could be objectively measured. How? By looking at the complexity and intricacy of his compositions and comparing them to those of Smith, sure, they both have arrangements, harmony, melody, etc, in their compositions, but Beethoven clearly shows a different level of musical knowledge and mastery, so he would be the better composer.

And all of that has nothing to do with wether you like one or the other, or wether you should like one more than the other, again, enjoyment is subjective, quality is not. So, did that make any sense at all? :P

black_cat19

And it arbitrary to decide that complexity is the better....

[QUOTE="black_cat19"]

It's not arbitrary, how can I put this... Both Beethoven and Robert Smith must have art and feeling running through their veins, because you just can't make music if you're not a true artist (that's the problem with most mainstream music, all money, no art), and you can't objectively measure who is more of an artist, but out of the two, I'd be willing to bet that Beethoven has the most musical knowledge and mastery to project and deliver his artistic message, and that could be objectively measured. How? By looking at the complexity and intricacy of his compositions and comparing them to those of Smith, sure, they both have arrangements, harmony, melody, etc, in their compositions, but Beethoven clearly shows a different level of musical knowledge and mastery, so he would be the better composer.

And all of that has nothing to do with wether you like one or the other, or wether you should like one more than the other, again, enjoyment is subjective, quality is not. So, did that make any sense at all? :P

LJS9502_basic

And it arbitrary to decide that complexity is the better....

Yeah, I've been told that before, and I guess you're right. But really, wouldn't the better composer be the one who uses his musical knowledge to give more complexity and detail to the music he writes? Wouldn't that even get the point across better and make what is in his mind/soul clearer? It's just an idea I've always had, it makes sense to me at least...

I wish, pianist was around here somewhere, I'd love to hear his view on this, although I think it wouldn't be much different from yours.

Yeah, I've been told that before, and I guess you're right. But really, wouldn't the better composer be the one who uses his musical knowledge to give more complexity and detail to the music he writes? Wouldn't that even get the point across better and make what is in his mind/soul clearer? It's just an idea I've always had, it makes sense to me at least...

I wish, pianist was around here somewhere, I'd love to hear his view on this, although I think it wouldn't be much different from yours.

black_cat19

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="black_cat19"]

It's not arbitrary, how can I put this... Both Beethoven and Robert Smith must have art and feeling running through their veins, because you just can't make music if you're not a true artist (that's the problem with most mainstream music, all money, no art), and you can't objectively measure who is more of an artist, but out of the two, I'd be willing to bet that Beethoven has the most musical knowledge and mastery to project and deliver his artistic message, and that could be objectively measured. How? By looking at the complexity and intricacy of his compositions and comparing them to those of Smith, sure, they both have arrangements, harmony, melody, etc, in their compositions, but Beethoven clearly shows a different level of musical knowledge and mastery, so he would be the better composer.

And all of that has nothing to do with wether you like one or the other, or wether you should like one more than the other, again, enjoyment is subjective, quality is not. So, did that make any sense at all? :P

black_cat19

And it arbitrary to decide that complexity is the better....

Yeah, I've been told that before, and I guess you're right. But really, wouldn't the better composer be the one who uses his musical knowledge to give more complexity and detail to the music he writes? Wouldn't that even get the point across better and make what is in his mind/soul clearer? It's just an idea I've always had, it makes sense to me at least...

I wish, pianist was around here somewhere, I'd love to hear his view on this, although I think it wouldn't be much different from yours.

read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_aesthetics Music aesthetics is basically a branch of the philosphy of aesthetics used to study the beauty and enjoyment of music. It's interesting to view the thoughts of people like Immanuel Kant on this issue.

Exactly, why are we evem discussing clasical composers? When did anyone bring this up?

Film-Guy

Why not? You asked the question "is music better or worse than it used to be?" No stipulation was made about the era. For the record, foxhound_fox is correct about cIassical composition. It is far more sophisticated and complex than any form of popular music. But that doesn't make it 'better' - it just means that the craftsmanship is more difficult, and that it requires a great deal more intellectual skill to craft an effective composition in the cIassical styIe than it does to craft an effective piece of popular music. Creativity is still demanded by both, of course, and you can create a very beautiful piece of music with very simple musical materials. But the 'difficulty' is in the inspiration, not the composition.

Here's a really beautiful example. It's such an evocative tune, and the heartfelt emotion in it is plainly evident. But after you come up with the initial idea, making it work as a composition is just not difficult, because when you get right down to it, there's not much formal complexity in this work. Certainly no comparison to a Romantic symphony!

In answer to the initial question, I don't think you can call music better or worse today than it was at any point in the past. Perhaps in an overall sense there is more crap to filter through nowadays to find effective writing, and the prevailing compositional styIe is undoubtly much more simplistic than it was in the past. But since better or worse would be purely subjective tags, it doesn't make sense to apply either one.

You actually can't make that determination. Complexity is not the criteria for what is good music. That's an image of what is good for music...yes. But complexity does not mean better. As Smith has never been interested in composing cIassical music....and Beethoven never composed modern music....it's only YOUR OPINION that one is better than the other.

And it arbitrary to decide that complexity is the better....

LJS9502_basic

Assuming he lived to the modern day, there really can't be any question that Beethoven would be entirely capable of composing in the alternative rock style. It's really not that hard to figure out what makes a rock song 'tick,' and as the innovative, rhythm-oriented genius he was, Beethoven could have written very compelling music using those conventions. It would just be another form of chamber music to him - though it's questionable as to whether the musical styIe would interest him at all. He was never a fan of simplistic popular music styIes.

But could a rock musician compose of symphony in the cIassical styIe? One that could match the quality of what was produced by the masters of the form? Doubtful. Very, very doubtful. Composition isn't a two-way street - you can work your way backwards and write music which is simpler than your skillset allows for, but that doesn't mean you can, at a whim, start writing music which is far more sophisticated than your skillset provides.

So I would agree with blackcat. Beethoven demonstrated through his writing that he had both remarkable creativity as well as an incredibly advanced understanding of complex composition. Unless the rock musician in question demonstrates the same ability through his work, logic demands that Beethoven must be considered the more capable composer. Not better, but certainly more capable.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

You actually can't make that determination. Complexity is not the criteria for what is good music. That's an image of what is good for music...yes. But complexity does not mean better. As Smith has never been interested in composing cIassical music....and Beethoven never composed modern music....it's only YOUR OPINION that one is better than the other.

And it arbitrary to decide that complexity is the better....

pianist

Beethoven never composed modern music? :? His compositions were the epitome of early 19th century modernism. Some of his late works were so far removed from the norms of his day that it took decades before people began to understand and accept what he was doing in them.

Assuming he lived to the modern day, there really can't be any question that Beethoven would be entirely capable of composing in the alternative rock style. It's really not that hard to figure out what makes a rock song 'tick,' and as the innovative, rhythm-oriented genius he was, Beethoven could have written very compelling music using those conventions. It would just be another form of chamber music to him - though it's questionable as to whether the musical styIe would interest him at all. He was never a fan of simplistic popular music styIes.

But could a rock musician compose of symphony in the cIassical styIe? One that could match the quality of what was produced by the masters of the form? Doubtful. Very, very doubtful. Composition isn't a two-way street - you can work your way backwards and write music which is simpler than your skillset allows for, but that doesn't mean you can, at a whim, start writing music which is far more sophisticated than your skillset provides.

So I would agree with blackcat. Beethoven demonstrated through his writing that he had both remarkable creativity as well as an incredibly advanced understanding of complex composition. Unless the rock musician in question demonstrates the same ability through his work, logic demands that Beethoven must be considered the more capable composer.

Modern music....ie now....not the 19th century.

Ah but figuring out doesn't mean he could do it well. It's actual quite inaccurate to make a determination in this since the times are very different.

It's entirely possible. While music has changed the innate talent can still exist in a rock musician even if they don't dabble in that genre.

Beethoven demonstrated that Beethoven could create....Beethoven music. That is all actually when it comes down to it.

Modern music....ie now....not the 19th century.

Ah but figuring out doesn't mean he could do it well. It's actual quite inaccurate to make a determination in this since the times are very different.

It's entirely possible. While music has changed the innate talent can still exist in a rock musician even if they don't dabble in that genre.

Beethoven demonstrated that Beethoven could create....Beethoven music. That is all actually when it comes down to it.

LJS9502_basic

Yeah, I figured that out and deleted the comment.

Why not? When it came to music, anything Beethoven figured out he did well. Whether or not he chose to figure it out is a different story. For instance, he didn't much care for opera, so he only wrote one. But even in spite of that fact, Fidelio is still a very solid contribution to the genre of opera, and better than numerous examples by composers who devoted themselves much more to the genre. I really don't see why you'd argue against this claim... do you REALLY believe Beethoven would be incapable of writing great rock music knowing what you do about his achievements and musicianship? As a deaf man he accomplished more than most musicians in the Western tradition...

Again, this I would have to see to believe. Writing a compelling symphony demands so much more than writing a melody-with-accompaniment, which is essentially what any rock song is. Notwithstanding the number of instruments you have to deal with, the formal considerations for writing a compelling 40 minute symphony are vastly greater than those of a rock song that lasts a few minutes. And speaking from personal experience, I can tell you that it is MUCH easier to write a good melody than it is to do something with it. But without that development, you can not sustain a composition for more than a few minutes before it becomes tedious.

You wouldn't have to convince me that a person who demonstrated that he can handle calculus could handle arithmetic. But you WOULD have to convince me that a person who can handle arithmetic could handle calculus, because until you see that proof, there's no reason to believe the person is capable of a much more complex form of mathematics. Musical composition is no different with respect to complexity.

Yes, Beethoven demonstrated that he could create Beethoven music. But what IS Beethoven music? It's incredibly innovative and incredibly sophisticated. Popular musicians sometimes get the innovative part. You could argue that certain popular musicians had at least as much ability to conceive of new musical ideas. But the sophistication is what you don't get in popular music, and not until you see it can you believe that the composers of such music are capable of it.

For the record, I think rock music would work just fine with sophisticated form, counterpoint, harmony, and development. There's no reason it wouldn't work. It just hasn't been done yet.

Yeah, I figured that out and deleted the comment.

Why not? When it came to music, anything Beethoven figured out he did well. Whether or not he chose to figure it out is a different story. For instance, he didn't much care for opera, so he only wrote one. But even in spite of that fact, Fidelio is still a very solid contribution to the genre of opera, and better than numerous examples by composers who devoted themselves much more to the genre. I really don't see why you'd argue against this claim... do you REALLY believe Beethoven would be incapable of writing great rock music knowing what you do about his achievements and musicianship? As a deaf man he accomplished more than most musicians in the Western tradition...

Again, this I would have to see to believe. Writing a compelling symphony demands so much more than writing a melody-with-accompaniment, which is essentially what any rock song is. Notwithstanding the number of instruments you have to deal with, the formal considerations for writing a compelling 40 minute symphony are vastly greater than those of a rock song that lasts a few minutes. And speaking from personal experience, I can tell you that it is MUCH easier to write a good melody than it is to do something with it. But without that development, you can not sustain a composition for more than a few minutes before it becomes tedious.

You wouldn't have to convince me that a person who demonstrated that he can handle calculus could handle arithmetic. But you WOULD have to convince me that a person who can handle arithmetic could handle calculus, because until you see that proof, there's no reason to believe the person is capable of a much more complex form of mathematics. Musical composition is no different with respect to complexity.

Yes, Beethoven demonstrated that he could create Beethoven music. But what IS Beethoven music? It's incredibly innovative and incredibly sophisticated. Popular musicians sometimes get the innovative part. You could argue that certain popular musicians had at least as much ability to conceive of new musical ideas. But the sophistication is what you don't get in popular music, and not until you see it can you believe that the composers of such music are capable of it.

For the record, I think rock music would work just fine with sophisticated form, counterpoint, harmony, and development. There's no reason it wouldn't work. It just hasn't been done yet.

pianist

One who writes a novel can not necessarily write poetry. And vice versa of course. While Beethoven was brilliant at what he did compose...it doesn't mean he could create alternate genres of music.

Well I have heard CD's that are over 40 minutes in length and have a similar atmosphere/sound thoughout the album so I don't agree that a 40 minute symphony is harder to create. When you break a symphony done....it's divided by instrument/group. One would first focus on a particular part of the symphony and then move to the next.

I don't agree that the "musical intelligence" has left music. However, most people are more interested in performing music they love and thus shift their attention to the modern music and not cIassical.

I don't think blackcat was correct in asserting that a modern musician can't create complex music....I think it's just not being done for several reasons....one I mentioned about and I'm sure the ability to sustain a living is another. Note: I'm not saying they all could create this music....just that I don't believe they all can't.