Where has music and art gone?

[WyrmDL]

I have thought about this long and hard, and still havent come up with a remote answer. Why has music and art gone from a standard that exuded much skill, expertise, creativity, and beauty, to the stuff we got today? Is it the absence of a major crisis in the world, or are we bathing in too much technology? Maybe even, is it our obsessive focus on education and money?

What are your thoughts?



Inspired by another thread:

Originally Posted by McHaven

EDIT: Not meant to offend anybody with anything I said. It's just something I've been thinking about, and I'd like to hear peoples' opinions.

[Rudreax]

I'm guessing you only mean popular music, because anyone that tries to dig even a little bit can find the kind of music you're taking about.

Music's changed because more people can listen to and create it now than ever before. Plus, the use of electronic devices helped out a lot.

Chances are, popular music is going to keep getting simpler and simpler until there's a huge backlash against it and people start letting more "complex" things take charge.

EDIT: Another thing; music is slowly getting to the point where the average person can relate to it personally and in terms of complexity. The music that's popular now is popular because more people in general (the average music listener that isn't involved in music at all) can relate to the the music of Lil Wayne than to the music of John Coltrane. Plus, there's a lot more for people to hear now and people don't have to compromise.

[WyrmDL]

That's a good point, and I didn't even think about that.

I was talking to someone I know about this, and I got a reply I don't even know what to say about, just because were on such different pages:

"you know... i have no respect for artists to begin with... however, every part of what you just said makes you sound like a condescending jerk. What makes music and art skillful or creative, your approval? no, so maybe the question should be am I (don) not able to accept newer music and do i despise that fact?"

How do you even respond to something like that, where you disagree with it, but also makes you take a double-take and think if you're being selfish and pushy about your opinions?

[uethanian]

(also 'not to offend,' this is just my opinion)

i think the rise and fall of 'artistic' music is in direct relation to musical theory and technology. between the medieval period and the baroque in western europe, musical theory became increasingly more complex; more pitches were added to the octave (in some lesser known cases far beyond 12, read 'archicembalo'), peoples' perception of consonance expanded, and the act of tuning keyboards was an art in itself.

past that point music became standardized; the variety of different temperaments (meantone, werckmeister, etc) were phased out for 12-tone equal temperament. 'serious' music began to turn it's focus towards the soul rather than the intellect. by the early 20th century, this one standardized system of music became so exhausted harmonically that some composers chose to abandon what traditions existed.

yet rather than develop new systems of music (new tunings/new instruments), they tried to re-work what was already understood to be old. serialism, then minimalism, then all the strange kinds of 'art' music that goes on today (pretty much unnoticed by the public).

that is why today we have a religious devotion to music from the 17th-19th century. that was the peak of harmonic development in music. and that is why most popular music today seems simplistic and trivial; people unconsciously settled for what was 'pleasant to the ear,' rather than push the envelope harmonically like what was going on only 200 years ago.

and yes, there is stuff around today that i would consider a break-away from all this...harry partch most notably, but even when rock bands experiment with tones and electronic effects...there's definitely a yearning there for something new.

EDIT: someone's probably going to say 'well what about jazz!' i think jazz introduced new textures into music, especially with the advent of the drum kit. it also offered a new intellectual way to look at music. i think it's a much bigger discussion as to why jazz came and went, i'm really just talking about the technical aspects of music.

[pklima]

There was always simple popular music for regular folk - it's definitely not something invented after John Coltrane. I don't think anything's changed for the worse. 1000 years ago you had "The Devil And The Farmer's Wife", in the nineteenth century "Soldier's Joy", some decades ago "I Walk The Line" and these days you've got, say, "Angry All The Time". I don't really see any sort of decline there. If anything the songs Tim McGraw performs are more complex and require much greater skill than those of earlier ages.

Serious art music and jazz of today might be completely unlistenable. Our cultural elites might have gone completely off the rails thanks to Romanticism. Even if all that's true, though, today's compositions do take a greater amount of skill and expertise to execute than those of the past - the range of techniques and even the pitches demanded is ever-increasing.

[Bruce Lindfield]

Originally Posted by uethanian

(also 'not to offend,' this is just my opinion)

i think the rise and fall of 'artistic' music is in direct relation to musical theory and technology. between the medieval period and the baroque in western europe, musical theory became increasingly more complex; more pitches were added to the octave (in some lesser known cases far beyond 12, read 'archicembalo'), peoples' perception of consonance expanded, and the act of tuning keyboards was an art in itself.

past that point music became standardized; the variety of different temperaments (meantone, werckmeister, etc) were phased out for 12-tone equal temperament. 'serious' music began to turn it's focus towards the soul rather than the intellect. by the early 20th century, this one standardized system of music became so exhausted harmonically that some composers chose to abandon what traditions existed.

yet rather than develop new systems of music (new tunings/new instruments), they tried to re-work what was already understood to be old. serialism, then minimalism, then all the strange kinds of 'art' music that goes on today (pretty much unnoticed by the public).

that is why today we have a religious devotion to music from the 17th-19th century. that was the peak of harmonic development in music. and that is why most popular music today seems simplistic and trivial; people unconsciously settled for what was 'pleasant to the ear,' rather than push the envelope harmonically like what was going on only 200 years ago.

and yes, there is stuff around today that i would consider a break-away from all this...harry partch most notably, but even when rock bands experiment with tones and electronic effects...there's definitely a yearning there for something new.

EDIT: someone's probably going to say 'well what about jazz!' i think jazz introduced new textures into music, especially with the advent of the drum kit. it also offered a new intellectual way to look at music. i think it's a much bigger discussion as to why jazz came and went, i'm really just talking about the technical aspects of music.

I think we live in different worlds!!

Jazz is very much alive today and artists like Wayne Shorter,Dave Holland, Brad Mehldau and others are making great art to big audiences every year!!

I can go and see great Jazz at my local Jazz Club every Friday night with musicians who are 10 times more proficient and inventive than any pop groups!

Also - music as art developed in the late 20th Century with truly great composers like Olivier Messiaen - whose last works in the 1990s are truly ground-breaking - like :



and

[djero44]

I think I hear where you are coming from, but I also believe it is only true on the surface. Personally I attribute it to a few factors, huge population growth, the information age and the media focusing mostly on more "average" art and music, often meaning "popular".

Even though the mire of crap seems overwhelming at times, I take heart that there is (imo) an absolutely amazing musical renaissance happening at this time in history, even if you have to dig a little to find it. Some believe the mix of cultures to be degrading to the origins of many ancient styles of music, but personally I think the sharing of information and history to be an incredible potential for all of us artistically, unparalleled in modern times. I suppose we might (and do) flounder, but i'm hedging my bets there will be some truly amazing art emerging from it all, and indeed believe there already has, especially in some electronic arenas, and also in world music genres.

[UncleFluffy]

There's always been crap produced to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

History filters it out, so the past is perceived as more crap-free than it actually was.

[djero44]

Originally Posted by WyrmDL

Is it the absence of a major crisis in the world...

I'm sorry, but am I reading this right? Perhaps you live in America, but we are the few and the fortunate. Our world is under more major crisis than in any epoch of known human history, from my perspective.

My opinion, of course.

(sorry to get off-topic, I just had to say....)

[Pacman]

You're confusing art with entertainment.

[ggunn]

Originally Posted by WyrmDL

Is it the absence of a major crisis in the world...

I guess you mean a world war, because there are plenty of ongoing major crises in the world aside from that. And obsessive emphasis on education? I would say that the opposite is true.

[RAM]

To agree with you, I'll quote a few of the older guys who were in the industry when it still allowed for music to be great and the industry didn't cram it down our throats...

from an interview with Greg Rollie on 7/31/2009


My take on it might not be completely accurate, but what I do see is this. Back then, the record companies gave you time to create your music, and to have a career. They would build stars. Now they don't. You have to build yourself first, then they'll come and find you. It's almost impossible to do. That could be a nature of the business, where it costs them too much to do it the other way. I don't know their business completely. But in the product that they're putting out these days they've kind of destroyed that essence of it by just trying to be too fast. On top of that, the Internet came along, and they didn't embrace it, they fought it. They wanted to stop it. They finally got hip to it later.

from an interview with Steven Van Zandt (aka Little Steven) circa 2007
Its position in the culture has certainly changed.

The rock era is over. I clock it pretty much from "Like a Rolling Stone" to Kurt Cobain's death. We're back in a sort of a pre-Beatles pop era, and that's probably where we're going to stay for a while. Rock is never going to be mainstream again, but at this point we're fighting to even find it a niche. When we started the radio show, there wasn't one rock band signed to a major label. Now there's about 15. Five or six have broken through nicely -- the White Stripes, the Hives -- but if the Rolling Stones came out today, there's no format that would play them except for my show.

Isn't that normal? Tastes change.

There are specialty shows for the blues. There are specialty shows for folk. But you can't find rock 'n' roll, it doesn't exist. How it disappeared after being the mainstream for 30 years is horrifying. It's not an Oliver Stone conspiracy, but it makes you wonder. Rock 'n' roll is how we communicate; it's how we learned everything we know. Nobody's learning very much from hip-hop or hard rock -- all due respect. But rock-'n'-rollers aren't the homogenized artists you find in other genres, so it's not so easy for the record companies to deal with them. Put the Ramones on today. Put Eddie Cochran on. Put the early Beatles on -- The Ronettes, the Clash, Bo Diddley -- it's fxxxxxxg great, but kids don't have access to it.

One thing that seems apparent to me is a general decline in the longevity of a given artist. There are certainly those that persevere, but it seems like a lot more "one-and-done" kinds of things.

I quoted these two individuals as they'd had tremendous tenures, respectively, in the music business being closely involved in the production of top-selling music for several decades apiece. IMO, it's a parallel to the overall quality of musicianship.

Oddly, one genre that comes to mind is that of '80s hair bands...many of the guitarists were very, very good, but the quality of the songs wasn't good enough to persevere beyond trendiness. Very little from that day continues to sell at significant levels. Couple this with the fact that, to paraphrase Greg Rollie's quote from above, bands (and their respective musicians) don't often get to develop the way they used to, and this suggests to me that record companies don't take interest in the quality of what they put out.

[SLIV]

The Kingsmen (1955)

"Louie Louie"

CHORUS:
Louie Louie, oh no
Me gotta go
Aye-yi-yi-yi, I said
Louie Louie, oh baby
Me gotta go

Fine little girl waits for me
Catch a ship across the sea
Sail that ship about, all alone
Never know if I make it home

CHORUS

Three nights and days I sail the sea
Think of girl, constantly
On that ship, I dream she's there
I smell the rose in her hair.

CHORUS

Okay, let's give it to 'em, right now!

GUITAR SOLO

See Jamaica, the moon above
It won't be long, me see me love
Take her in my arms again
Tell her I'll never leave again

CHORUS

Let's take it on outa here now
Let's go!!

[uethanian]

Originally Posted by Bruce Lindfield

I think we live in different worlds!!

Jazz is very much alive today and artists like Wayne Shorter,Dave Holland, Brad Mehldau and others are making great art to big audiences every year!!

I can go and see great Jazz at my local Jazz Club every Friday night with musicians who are 10 times more proficient and inventive than any pop groups!

Also - music as art developed in the late 20th Century with truly great composers like Olivier Messiaen - whose last works in the 1990s are truly ground-breaking - like :



and

again, i think jazz is part of a different discussion. jazz fits in a different category because it's improvised, and therefore inherently 'new' in some sense whenever it's played. but consider, JSBach was improvising over chord changes using the same 12 notes as jazz musicians are using to improvise over their chord changes today (with noted differences). we pretty much think about harmony the same way we did 200 years ago, even though the technology and practices have changed dramatically. so i think composers today are facing this frighteningly large opus of things-that-have-been-done, and see being abstract and weird as the only way to be original.

yes, guys like messiaen, branca, xenakis can be viewed as exceptions to the general trend, as they approached music from a different angle. just remember that (for me) this discussion is removed from personal preference; i listen to a good amount of jazz as well as some more avant-garde stuff. i'm talking about things from a purely theoretical standpoint.

[UncleFluffy]

This is a worthwhile read that might offer some insight from a different angle.

[xzzy]

Originally Posted by RAM

Couple this with the fact that, to paraphrase Greg Rollie's quote from above, bands (and their respective musicians) don't often get to develop the way they used to, and this suggests to me that record companies don't take interest in the quality of what they put out.

The rise of the internet is taking the choice out of the hands of the record labels. They're losing their status as the gatekeeper to music, and I don't know anyone that takes radio seriously anymore. Every single piece of music I've bought in the last 5 years has been a result of sampling it on the internet.

Granted, the internet has dumped a whole bunch of complete crap on us, but it's also made "non-marketable" bands able to develop a fan base. We haven't yet had an artist start on the internet and graduate to selling out 100,000 seat stadiums, but I would bet money it'll happen before my days are done.

There's really no other way it can play out.. the music industry is making itself obsolete by fixating on short term return, eventually they'll start collapsing. Something will have to take their place, and it's going to be married to the internet.

[xgator4u]

I blame it on Guitard Hero.

[datsaxguy]

Great topic, great analysis Pacman.

Originally Posted by Pacman

You're confusing art with entertainment.

John Coltrane - Art

LiL Wayne - Entertainment

Different things entertain different people.
The beauty of art is in the eye of the beholder.

[WyrmDL]

Originally Posted by djero44

I'm sorry, but am I reading this right? Perhaps you live in America, but we are the few and the fortunate. Our world is under more major crisis than in any epoch of known human history, from my perspective.

My opinion, of course.

(sorry to get off-topic, I just had to say....)

It's just that there are so many young people out there, who take every single thing for granted, and complain about nothing. I wasn't trying to say anything about the state of the world or anything though... just maybe it could have been a factor...

And as far as I see it, I think this society runs on education and money. There's hardly any focus on the arts and whatnot.

----

One thing my friend noted when I was talking to him was that musical taste isn't universal, but generational. I thought it was a really interesting point, and I have to agree at least a little bit on him with it.

[Deluge Of Sound]

All I can say is that Hendrix moved me more with the note that starts of the solo to Machine Gun (Band of Gypsys) than any Baroque-era compositions I've ever heard.

If that makes me a troglodyte, fine, but I firmly believe that "art" has no inherent complexity requirement.