| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Globutron
Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Location: England/Anyang
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 8:42 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| flakfizer wrote: |
| I find it hard to take this thread very seriously. A "best decade for music" discussion and almost all the decades mentioned are very recent. Modern man seems to have this idea that everything older is inferior. Some posters are even mentioning this past decade. That music hasn't even had a chance yet to be tested by time to see if it has staying power. Meanwhile, world famous composers from more than a century ago who were both creative and prolific don't even get mentioned though their music is still listened to and enjoyed today. |
Now we all know you have a higher level of taste because you listen to art music.
I said this:
| Quote: |
| Then there's the classical section that seems largely ignored. I think in the same way of refinement, some of the best composers have come out of this decade. Where cage and experimentalists dominated the 60's and on, it's now come to a point where certain compositional techniques are no longer considered experimental and are now being used as standard functions in context with everything else. It's a wonderful feeling. |
In general, things we make that are new tend to actually be better. This is because people learn and improve things. This isn't a thread about what is the most timeless music.
Haydn is timeless, but he's quite frankly sh*t. Good for the time he was around? Certainly. But we've moved past that. If somebody came along and wrote Haydn music nowadays, they'd either be thrown into the rubbish bin or taken as a parody or copy cat and nothing more.
Also, Classical eras are not defined in decades, they are defined in Centuries. It would be difficult to go about saying 'I like the post baroque period, just around the late 70's mark, in Bach's early days, Before he turned mainstream'. Possibly because we weren't alive then.
It's very easy to take the thread 'seriously' (as in, discussion worthy). The best recent decade for popular listening music. Simply read between the lines, ya? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
flakfizer
Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 10:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Globutron wrote: |
In general, things we make that are new tend to actually be better. This is because people learn and improve things. ? |
This is certainly true of science/technology, but I don't see it as being true of art. I really don't see modern art as "being an improvement" on classical art. It's different, sure, but an improvement? In fact, the more technology improves, the less important craft has become with more technologically advanced ways of making things rather than making them by hand. Modern man's increased knowledge certainly helps us make our machines stronger, faster etc. But I don't see how it makes our art better. Does electrifying the guitar make it better or just different? Would you really argue that modern music is "an improvement" on the works of Beethoven? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Globutron
Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Location: England/Anyang
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| flakfizer wrote: |
| Globutron wrote: |
In general, things we make that are new tend to actually be better. This is because people learn and improve things. ? |
This is certainly true of science/technology, but I don't see it as being true of art. I really don't see modern art as "being an improvement" on classical art. It's different, sure, but an improvement? In fact, the more technology improves, the less important craft has become with more technologically advanced ways of making things rather than making them by hand. Modern man's increased knowledge certainly helps us make our machines stronger, faster etc. But I don't see how it makes our art better. Does electrifying the guitar make it better or just different? Would you really argue that modern music is "an improvement" on the works of Beethoven? |
Well of course I was sticking purely to classical music in this situation. I'm an evolutionist, a firm believer in natural selection, knowing that things do not improve as such, but merely become suited to the surrounding environment.
But in the case of classical music, yes, I would really argue that Charles Ives, James MacMillan and Thomas Ades are all improvements on Beethoven.
People cling on to the likes of Beethoven and Mozart because of what they achieved, what they changed, the radical revolutions which caused their timelessness. But really, when looking at their music, it's simplistic, predictable and grotesquely repetitive in their cadences and form. Sure they are beautiful but there's only so much Blatant tearjerking I can handle before I metaphorically vomit sonatas all over the floor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ESL Milk "Everyday
Joined: 12 Sep 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| flakfizer wrote: |
| I find it hard to take this thread very seriously. A "best decade for music" discussion and almost all the decades mentioned are very recent. Modern man seems to have this idea that everything older is inferior. Some posters are even mentioning this past decade. That music hasn't even had a chance yet to be tested by time to see if it has staying power. Meanwhile, world famous composers from more than a century ago who were both creative and prolific don't even get mentioned though their music is still listened to and enjoyed today. |
I think the main reason is because everyone is stupid and inferior to you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flakfizer
Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Globutron wrote: |
People cling on to the likes of Beethoven and Mozart because of what they achieved, what they changed, the radical revolutions which caused their timelessness. |
I seriously doubt people "cling on" to the likes of Beethoven and Mozart for the reasons you mentioned. I think people still listen to and perform their works because they are still wonderful, enjoyable works. Who would you say in this decade "caused radical revolutions" and do you think people will be listening to their music 150 years from now?
| Quote: |
| But really, when looking at their music, it's simplistic, predictable and grotesquely repetitive in their cadences and form. Sure they are beautiful but there's only so much Blatant tearjerking I can handle before I metaphorically vomit sonatas all over the floor. |
More repetitive than pop music?
| Quote: |
| Sure mainstream bands don't tend to cover as many chord progressions now and stick to 2 second loops a lot, but the actual work that goes into it is no less |
| Quote: |
| I'm an evolutionist, a firm believer in natural selection, knowing that things do not improve as such, but merely become suited to the surrounding environment. |
It seems like you're saying that the most modern music is always the "best" because it is made by contemporary man and therefore best suited for contemporary man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flakfizer
Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ESL Milk "Everyday wrote: |
| flakfizer wrote: |
| I find it hard to take this thread very seriously. A "best decade for music" discussion and almost all the decades mentioned are very recent. Modern man seems to have this idea that everything older is inferior. Some posters are even mentioning this past decade. That music hasn't even had a chance yet to be tested by time to see if it has staying power. Meanwhile, world famous composers from more than a century ago who were both creative and prolific don't even get mentioned though their music is still listened to and enjoyed today. |
I think the main reason is because everyone is stupid and inferior to you. |
?
I think classical music is better than the most of the music mentioned on this thread. This does not make me an elitist nor am I stating others are stupid. For the record, I have plenty of 80's pop, 70's rock and other music on my mp3 player too. I like a lot of pop music and classic rock...I just don't think they're the best music. So sue me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Globutron
Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Location: England/Anyang
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| flakfizer wrote: |
| Globutron wrote: |
I seriously doubt people "cling on" to the likes of Beethoven and Mozart for the reasons you mentioned. I think people still listen to and perform their works because they are still wonderful, enjoyable works. Who would you say in this decade "caused radical revolutions" and do you think people will be listening to their music 150 years from now? |
But I wasn't talking about pop music at this point. I already passed the point that Timelessness doesn't mean something is *good*
I also pointed out that this decade is good for the very reason that it has amalgamised everything that has been learned over the previous decades, rather than having a stand-out theme like penguin or the riddler from batman.
| Quote: |
| More repetitive than pop music? |
In a sense, yes. The fact that centuries pass with IIb V I at the end of every single piece, and then another century or so of people playing 'beautiful' piano and orchestral scores deliberately aimed at making people cry. But again I'm not comparing pop and classical, I'm doing the opposite. this thread is clearly in a different realm to classical. I've tried to start a thread on classical long ago and not a soul was interested.
| Quote: |
| It seems like you're saying that the most modern music is always the "best" because it is made by contemporary man and therefore best suited for contemporary man. |
Yes. Correct. The industry design music to suit the audience it provides to. They may have decisions on what the audience like but if Roadrunner records start releasing 50's Jazz, I doubt they would come out with much success. And if classical musicians start writing Baroque music - As they sometimes do, I know from past concerts - They too will get very little success other than from a small sect of fools who can't keep up with the times |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
legrande
Joined: 23 Nov 2010
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
travel zen
Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Location: Good old Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 24, 2010 6:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The 1920s was great for jazz, followed closely by the 1930s and the 1950s.
|
Boo ya !! Jazz is da sh**! 
I also think 1980's hands down. Love music, slow dance, the beats just can't be outdone ! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Louis VI
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
Location: In my Kingdom
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 25, 2010 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Another vote for the noughties. more or less because I was 17-27 in this decade (the years when taste is more or less formed). Also because of the internet, there is a lot of music out there I would probably never of heard of in any other decade.
Flakfizer, I think most people just don't know enough about Classical music. I know a few piano majors and they might agree with you but I have no idea what is good or not in that genre. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 25, 2010 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Classical music sucks. If Beethoven were alive today, he would be a Pink Floyd and Yes fan.
Our understanding of music has grown so much since then. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ulsanchris
Joined: 19 Jun 2003
Location: take a wild guess
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 26, 2010 6:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 1970s. The best of prog rock was done then. Yes, Genesis, King Crimson, and Rush. Yes and Genesis were at their zenith at that time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shifter2009
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Location: wisconsin
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 26, 2010 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyRDDOpKaLM
Around 3 minutes in Rollins mentions the vocal and pitch tools bands use so much now and I tend to agree in the sense I like the dirtier real instruments sounds of the 60s and 70s rock. Loudness war is pretty uncool in my opinion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
machoman
Joined: 11 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 26, 2010 10:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 1992 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
