Modern Music: Why I hate it

[Hamster at Dawn]

There is still good music, just not the stuff that they play on the radio.
Here's a good song that's recently become popular:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu_moia-oVI

 

[poleboy]

Here's a hint: Good music is usually not played on the radio.

 

[clarinetJWD]

Spoiler: stuff

You know, for all of those words, you don't actually say much.

Well damn, I guess everything I learned in my music degree with composition minor is wrong. Hard to believe isn't it? That I could have gotten a better education from some guy on the internet than at a conservatory for music...and playing in a contemporary and experimental music ensemble. Oh well!

Maybe you should ask for your money back? Just a thought.

Look, just because you say it's not music doesn't make it 'not music'.

Did I claim to be an authority? No (though you seem to be). I referenced the people who actually define what the word "music" actually means: dictionaries and encyclopedias. If your music degree hasn't taught you what the word music means, refer to reply 1.

Do you realize that when Gustav Mahler's symphonies were premiered, many critics agreed that his works were 'not music'? When new forms of composition or performance arise, there will always be resistance to them, and there will always be detractors, but more often than not, there will be no question about it 50 years down the line. Those who try new things, whether or not they themselves achieve greatness, open a door to new compositional and performance techniques for future generations of artists and composers.

Good anecdote! Sadly, the analogy is terrible. Mahler used the elements which fit the definition of music, so his critics were just overly picky. Noise, on the other hand, intentionally abandons the elements of what is called music, therefore it is something ELSE. Note that word: intentionally. It's NOT trying to be music. Why try to call it music when the intention ISN'T to make music?

Unfortunately, your arbitrary definitions do not define music as a whole, and honestly, you have no right to try to limit the scope based on your opinion.

Again, I did not define anything. I refer all questions of definition to dictionaries and encyclopedias. I only made mention that Noise does not fit those definitions; which, by the way - not arbitrary.

"At first the art of music sought purity, limpidity and sweetness of sound. Then different sounds were amalgamated, care being taken, however, to caress the ear with gentle harmonies. Today music, as it becomes continually more complicated, strives to amalgamate the most dissonant, strange and harsh sounds. In this way we come ever closer to noise-sound."

-Luigi Russolo

At last, we get to the point I'm trying to make: not everything is music. Oh, that's not to say it can't be called art or that just because it's not called music the creative efforts are in vain, but why destroy the definition of something by adapting it to mean both what it currently means and the exact opposite of what it means? That makes no sense. That's like if the definition of theist was expanded to include atheists, too. The term wouldn't make any sense. What's so wrong about calling music music and calling noise noise (or art-sounds or whatever)? Not only would it preserve the definition of music, but it would allow noise to be what IT is, instead of trying to make it into music, which it isn't.

Do you see what I'm getting at? If you take away what defines something, you eliminate the integrity of the word; the word becomes meaningless. Say I built a really good skyscraper in a time when the definition of what made a building a building included a good foundation, solid internal structure, etc. Many years later, my building's still standing, but it needs to be renovated. However, the definition of what a building means has changed and now includes all things that can be considered shelters -- even holes in the ground. With the change in definition, the building codes have become lax. Let's say that solid internal structure has become... optional... and the person who wants to renovate my building takes advantage of this change and removes all the steel girders. To everyone's surprise, the building collapses into a hole in the ground. Technically, under the new codes, it's still a building and just as good as it was before.

But is it just as good as it was before? Is it still a building? Wouldn't we have been better served if the definition of what a building was had remained the same and the definition of a "hole in the ground" hadn't been incorporated into the definition of "building"? This isn't to say that holes in the ground don't have their uses... they just aren't skyscrapers.

A dictionary definition or encyclopedia entry does not work for something subjective. By picking out only that which proves your point, and excluding the group that expands the definition of music, on the grounds that group A says so just doesn't work! It's like saying that Palestine doesn't deserve to exist because scholars from Israel said so. People who write these things either have a vested interest, or only an outside perspective. Taking definitions and cues from inside the music world is going to be a lot better to describe music, and many authorities agree that it's all about intent.

The reason I told the Mahler anecdote is because it most certainly applies. By the definition "any sweet, pleasing, or harmonious sounds or sound" (from dictionary.com) any non pleasing sounds were not music. The Romantic Era ear was not ready for the harsh and often unresolved dissonances in Mahler's music, and for the time, by that definition, it was not music. I bring it up, because I can't imagine anyone making that claim now. So many people have so many definitions, I think the only way to move forwards is by taking the most inclusive one.

Progress is made by change, and the introduction of new ideas. By restricting change, you restrict progress.

As for the building analogy, it may have worked better if you hadn't tried to make "Skyscraper" and "Building" synonymous. The all inclusive term "building" has room for more than one type of building. If "hole in the ground" and "skyscraper" are both included in "building", who cares? It doesn't make them equal, and it doesn't mean that one will be judged by the standards of another. By the expanded definition of 'building', yes the rubble pile is still a building, but it is not a skyscraper. Likewise, the standards of maintenance for a skyscraper would not change by adding "hole in the ground" as a building, and so the entire theoretical situation is moot.

Like in music. The inclusion of Noise Music into the overarching "music" doesn't affect the construction of "traditional music", "tonal music", "rock music", "impressionist music", and so on. It does not decrease the value of these styles, nor does it replace them. All it does is add another palette of sounds for use in composition.

An example: Where does one draw the line when voice is concerned? Is speaking music? Well Alvin Lucier uses it as music in "I am sitting in a room", which excited the room modes through a series of playbacks and recordings. If that's not music, what about Schoenberg's use of voice in Pierrot Lunaire? It doesn't really follow a melody per se... Alban Berg's sprechstimme? It's the musical delivery of spoken word, used in his operas. If that's not, what about other contemporary treatment of voice? Atonality? Use as percussion? Beat boxing? Do you see what I'm saying? It's a continuous line here, from spoken word to melodic tonal music. Where is the distinction? If you make the distinction, how do you make it non-arbitrarily? This is why I say the distinction is intent.

I won't be replying again, because I really don't feel like arguing about such a narrow minded view of music.

Eggo: Hi five, that made my morning.

 

[Chickenlittle]

There are a few good bands out there right now. I prefer Coldplay and The Killers, personally, and the latter's videos are s far out there you wouldn't believe it.

 

[EeveeElectro]

I don't listen to the charts or whatever music my friends like, I just listen to what I like.
There's good modern bands out there, you just have to squint.

 

[Lukeydoodly]

Because people stopped playing instruments well and the masses accepted that. Ive yet to hear any music on the radio what makes me think "Damn theyre good!".

 

[OuroborosChoked]

A dictionary definition or encyclopedia entry does not work for something subjective.

And how did you get your degree? I'm assuming you used books in some manner along the way... but if we can't rely on books, why on Earth would we use them? That IS most bizarre.

Taking definitions and cues from inside the music world is going to be a lot better to describe music, and many authorities agree that it's all about intent.

Have you been reading my posts at all? I mentioned this very thing in a discussion with someone else (by the way, would that make me an authority? Just askin').

So many people have so many definitions, I think the only way to move forwards is by taking the most inclusive one.

Yeah, speaking of... what's YOUR definition of music, Mr. Music Degree? It's not really fair to say my definition is inferior to yours when you don't provide yours, isn't it? And the reason I'm not advocating all-inclusive definitions is actually for YOUR benefit. Surprised? Don't be. You worked hard for that degree... and if suddenly just anyone can be considered a musician, then your degree is pretty much irrelevant, isn't it? Well, that just wouldn't be right. But hey, if you want to share a stage someday with someone who belts out Paris Hilton's greatest hits out of key as an opening act for your latest opus, be my guest... but I still won't call your opening act a musician.

Progress is made by change

Give the man a medal. Hey, I'm not anti-progress, or anti-change (I think I just repeated myself there). I'm anti-destruction. I'd also like to point out that you completely ignored my completely reasonable alternative in favor of asserting that the definition of music must change. Why is that?

Like in music. The inclusion of Noise Music into the overarching "music" doesn't affect the construction of "traditional music", "tonal music", "rock music", "impressionist music", and so on.

Ah! You changed terms. You weren't calling Noise "Noise Music" before. Noise and Noise Music are two separate things!

An example: Where does one draw the line when voice is concerned? Is speaking music? Well Alvin Lucier uses it as music in "I am sitting in a room", which excited the room modes through a series of playbacks and recordings. If that's not music, what about Schoenberg's use of voice in Pierrot Lunaire? It doesn't really follow a melody per se... Alban Berg's sprechstimme? It's the musical delivery of spoken word, used in his operas. If that's not, what about other contemporary treatment of voice? Atonality? Use as percussion? Beat boxing? Do you see what I'm saying? It's a continuous line here, from spoken word to melodic tonal music. Where is the distinction? If you make the distinction, how do you make it non-arbitrarily? This is why I say the distinction is intent.

Again, you make my point for me... but you're still overlooking the need for a clear definition. You ask me how one can draw the line, and I tell you, but you still ask me! Just because you don't get the answer you're looking for, it doesn't mean the answer's wrong. But it seems you'd rather revel in the mystery of what music is than actually take the time to figure it out. How like a religious nut, you are!

Anyway, to address your examples, I don't think the distinction is all that difficult: it's the difference between juxtaposition and synthesis. If voice is incorporated into the piece, then it's music. It one is merely set on top of the other (such as spoken word poetry) with no attempt to synthesize the two, then it is not music. As we have both said, it's about intent, and intent is pretty damn clear. As for I Am Sitting In A Room, I would assert that it's not music. He does not use melody, rhythm, any musical instruments, and there's no organization to the sound. His INTENT is not to make music, but to, as he says in the recording I heard, demonstrate the harmonic resonance of the room. That sounds more like an experiment in acoustics than a song. If you call THAT music, would you call radar music? Or sonar? As for atonality, I'm pretty sure atonality still uses other elements that define music (i.e. rhythm).

 

[gremily]

Dumbass people happened.

 

[clarinetJWD]

Spoiler: For God's sake use spoiler tags so everyone doesn't have to look at your page long quote tower each time

A dictionary definition or encyclopedia entry does not work for something subjective.

And how did you get your degree? I'm assuming you used books in some manner along the way... but if we can't rely on books, why on Earth would we use them? That IS most bizarre.

Taking definitions and cues from inside the music world is going to be a lot better to describe music, and many authorities agree that it's all about intent.

Have you been reading my posts at all? I mentioned this very thing in a discussion with someone else (by the way, would that make me an authority? Just askin'). What? That makes no sense. I mean, I don't even understand what you're trying to get at there... And no, I haven't been keeping up with most of this thread, only this quotefest. If you did indeed claim elsewhere that it is a matter of the creator's intent, that's kind of a 180 from your Rhythm, Melody, Harmony definition you've been spitting at me.

So many people have so many definitions, I think the only way to move forwards is by taking the most inclusive one.

Yeah, speaking of... what's YOUR definition of music, Mr. Music Degree? It's not really fair to say my definition is inferior to yours when you don't provide yours, isn't it? And the reason I'm not advocating all-inclusive definitions is actually for YOUR benefit. Surprised? Don't be. You worked hard for that degree... and if suddenly just anyone can be considered a musician, then your degree is pretty much irrelevant, isn't it? Well, that just wouldn't be right. But hey, if you want to share a stage someday with someone who belts out Paris Hilton's greatest hits out of key as an opening act for your latest opus, be my guest... but I still won't call your opening act a musician.

Progress is made by change

Give the man a medal. Hey, I'm not anti-progress, or anti-change (I think I just repeated myself there). I'm anti-destruction. I'd also like to point out that you completely ignored my completely reasonable alternative in favor of asserting that the definition of music must change. Why is that?Well, who are you to decide which is which? And you're the one who has been saying the dictionary defines music, not saying the definition needs to change. I'm the one who's been saying the definition needs to change. Pick a side.

Like in music. The inclusion of Noise Music into the overarching "music" doesn't affect the construction of "traditional music", "tonal music", "rock music", "impressionist music", and so on.

Ah! You changed terms. You weren't calling Noise "Noise Music" before. Noise and Noise Music are two separate things!

An example: Where does one draw the line when voice is concerned? Is speaking music? Well Alvin Lucier uses it as music in "I am sitting in a room", which excited the room modes through a series of playbacks and recordings. If that's not music, what about Schoenberg's use of voice in Pierrot Lunaire? It doesn't really follow a melody per se... Alban Berg's sprechstimme? It's the musical delivery of spoken word, used in his operas. If that's not, what about other contemporary treatment of voice? Atonality? Use as percussion? Beat boxing? Do you see what I'm saying? It's a continuous line here, from spoken word to melodic tonal music. Where is the distinction? If you make the distinction, how do you make it non-arbitrarily? This is why I say the distinction is intent.

Again, you make my point for me... but you're still overlooking the need for a clear definition. You ask me how one can draw the line, and I tell you, but you still ask me! Just because you don't get the answer you're looking for, it doesn't mean the answer's wrong. But it seems you'd rather revel in the mystery of what music is than actually take the time to figure it out. How like a religious nut, you are!

Anyway, to address your examples, I don't think the distinction is all that difficult: it's the difference between juxtaposition and synthesis. If voice is incorporated into the piece, then it's music. It one is merely set on top of the other (such as spoken word poetry) with no attempt to synthesize the two, then it is not music. As we have both said, it's about intent, and intent is pretty damn clear. As for I Am Sitting In A Room, I would assert that it's not music. He does not use melody, rhythm, any musical instruments, and there's no organization to the sound. His INTENT is not to make music, but to, as he says in the recording I heard, demonstrate the harmonic resonance of the room. That sounds more like an experiment in acoustics than a song. If you call THAT music, would you call radar music? Or sonar? As for atonality, I'm pretty sure atonality still uses other elements that define music (i.e. rhythm).

Yeah, I said I wouldn't reply, but I owe you this.

By your own definition (melody, rhythm, form) Paris Hilton does indeed perform music, yet you say it is not...

My definition: "Sound whose creator intends it as music"

And, yes, we used books. Books specialized to the field of music, written by musicians for musicians. Not written by an outside observer with a purely historical concept. And my books included many things, including "I am sitting in a room", that you would not consider music.

As for those with no musical training being musicians, well fine! There's enough room, and for the most part, non-musicians are the ones with the tunnel-vision, narrow minded definition of music, so that shouldn't be a problem anyways. And no, I wouldn't call radar or sonar music, because the intent is not to create music. Hell, I have no photography training, but I consider myself to be a pretty good photographer, and I have yet to meet a trained photographer who would disqualify me on the basis that I have no training. Same in music. As for the relevance of the degree...It's only relevant for teaching. Same with art, same with writing, same with photography. In non-academic fields like composition or performance, when you go for your composition or performance job, they will never ask how many degrees from where you have, they'll listen to you, or study your scores, they'll hear your ideas, and decide on that basis.

I didn't actually ask you your definition, because quite frankly, I don't care. What I asked was a rhetorical question to illustrate that on a continuous scale of use of voice from conversation to lyrical song, there is no place for distinction!

Oh, yes, noise and noise music are different. If the creator of the sound calls it music, then it is noise music, otherwise it is not.

Finally, "Alvin Lucier (born May 14, 1931) is an American composer of experimental music". Not American experiments in acoustic phenomena. His intent, as stated in his essays (which sadly I seem to have misplaced in my giant box of schoolwork), is to write a piece of music using the room as an instrument. "Alvin Lucier was probably the first composer to realize that an architectural space could be more than a supportive setting for musical instruments, that it could be an instrument itself."

I hope that some day you go to an experimental music concert, go up to the composer, and tell him what he's written isn't music. See how that goes.

As far as the "religious nut" comparison, I find that most religions have arbitrary rules and restrictions they put on various aspects of life...that doesn't sound like my side of this argument.

Spoiler: EDIT: I'm feeling a bit like this, so I'm out.Continue to argue with yourself if you so choose.

 

[Dr. FreeBird]

Modern Music it SHIT because wtf rap is just shit because it guys talking no guitar no solo wtf and like bands that are so called rock (jonas brothers, panic at the disco and others) cant play guitar or bass for that matter to save their lifes back in the 60s to 90s Jimi Hendrix, Slash and Van Halen would have kicked their asses by playing twinkle twinkle little star then when they break out the REAL ROCK jonas bothers and such would die from the awesomeness!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

I thought music started getting crappier since the 90's. Its just worst now.

 

[SultanP]

Here is an artist I'm quite fond of. He is modern, and you're going to hate him. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAw0-lx1gcU]

There is no way you can call that music.

 

[Zersy]

Okay, I know we're living in messed up times right now, but what's up with music? Have you noticed how we have moved away from some genres only to replace them with dance, rap, pop, or any mix of them? What happened to good music? Modern music doesn't have that "feel" when I listen to it. The moment any Lady Gaga or Jonas brothers or any form of rap comes onto the radio, I immediately switch to another station. Older music, like Led Zepplin, or even some '90s music comes on, I turn up the volume. What happened?

Well music industry just decided that music should be all about money and they should forget about the art in it.

I only listen to songs that have me turning my head to listen e.g. Have you Heard the inFAMOUS soundtrack ? "Silent Melody, Working for a nuclear free city" that song had me contemplating so much about everything around me.

 

[THAC0]

You got old is all that happened. I grew up in the 90s and now, even the stuff i hated then seems pretty good. The music being made now is alright some of the time, but i am not going through the same stuff i was back then so i am not placing the same level of emotional attachment to the songs as i once did.

music from the 80s or (dear god) the 70s just does nothing for me. When Led Zeppelin, ACDC, or Black Sabbath come on the radio, I cannot seem to get the station changed fast enough.

For me, XM radio was a godsend. It has let me keep up with modern music without leaving me to just listen to my old Nirvana cds over and over.

 

[Kajt]

Here is an artist I'm quite fond of. He is modern, and you're going to hate him. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAw0-lx1gcU]

Might be modern, but I doubt that it's music.

 

[Danz D Man]

Here is an artist I'm quite fond of. He is modern, and you're going to hate him. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAw0-lx1gcU]

To be honest I loved it, I know I'm not familiar with the genre at all, but it was different and from my point of view completely original. Have you ever heard of Mr. Bungle? They have that same kind of chaotic sound to them, especially on Disco Volante. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjjFl70CJEk

I understand why some people can like this kind of music (I, a musician, am not a fan), but I think fans of this "noise" are forgetting something; through the minds of the average person, this sounds absolutely terrible. Longtime listeners will find nuances and subtleties (uh oh.. spelling?) in what these artists are doing, but to a person who is listening to this for the first time, it just sounds like screeching and static.

At the same time, I think haters (and maybe fans) should recognize that since this type of music is never going to become the popular genre (sorry, it's not going to happen), it should not be looked at as "music." It should be looked at as an art form all its own.

Of course, fans of this genre could be full of sh*t and just claim to hear nuances when in reality they don't hear anything, but I'm not one to judge. xD

I'll agree that it's an art form, but it isn't music in the technical sense. That's what whoever it was earlier was trying to get at. Music is instruments, melodies, patterns. Noise is just that, noise. There can be nuances or whatever you want to call them, but it's not all music.
I'm not saying it shouldn't be around, or it's not an art form, just that it's not technically music.

I said "music" a lot. That was fun.

 

[AbsoluteVirtue18]

Times change, people change, music changes. Nothing you can do about other than starting your own band and trying to change the entire industry with your sound.