I LOVE classic rock my self and I am like 14. I dunno oldies are awesome in my opinion. Zeppelin, AC/DC, and them are really good. Most of the older stuff i find is better than the new rock stuff. Pearl Jam also I like and Hendrix is kick ass
Music is what you call music, nothing more, nothing less. If that is music to some ears, then it is music. Granted, I wasn't overly enamored by that, and I like a lot of music no one else seems too, but I'm not going to tell someone that they're not making music, when that is clearly their intent.
What do you think of Musique Concrete [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9pOq8u6-bA]?
EDIT: If you like Mr. Bungle, give Capillary Action (Album So Embarassing) a listen. Very cool stuff. Hella, too (My favorite album being "Bitches ain't Shit, but Good People")
I'm not saying anything about John Cage, but I am saying something about 4'33 - it's not music. Specifically, it is the absence of music. In fact, that's basically what the instructions are for the musician: don't play music for 4'33. My point, in mentioning the piece, was that if you're going to call random noise music, you may as well just gather 4'33 of coughs and call that music.
Music, unfortunately for your opinion, is not just whatever you call it. Music has a definition. That is largely the point of definitions, by the way: to separate or "define" what one thing is in comparison to other things. Music has whole bodies of work dedicated to studying what music is, how it works, where it's going, and so forth. And in none of the definitions of music is it either defined as "just any sound" or "whatever you want it to be".
Yes, I have heard of musique concrete, and I think it can be said to be the foundation of experimental music and found sound collages. Is it music, as music is defined? Generally, no. There are examples that fit, kinda fit, and don't fit at all and no single piece speaks for all of the genre. Certainly, a lot more effort goes into musique concrete than in what Prurient was doing, especially since the people doing musique concrete in the early days were messing with tapes (splicing, editing, looping, etc.) and that takes fucking dedication.
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!
Look, just because you say it's not music doesn't make it 'not music'.
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.
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.
"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."
People sometimes call me an elitist when it comes down to my music taste, but I simply cannot find any good qualities in a song that takes itself seriously by stating something like "Are we human, or are we dancer/denser".
Ambiguity in songs can be fun, but not when you do it like that, bah.
An example of a band that did ambiguity in lyrics right, would be The Kinks, with Lola. You just can't figure out whether Lola is a transvestite or really a woman, when they say "but I'm glad I'm a man, and so is Lola"
I like rap (ex: T.I.) and honestly, I see no need to explain why I like the music I do. If you don't like it, fine, but quit being a hater and a fanboy and just listen to what you like. It's this self rightous feeling that everyone seems to have in their opinion of oldies that makes them think their choice is better, and it sickens me. Listen, I like Billy Joel just as much as the next guy, but I'll change the track if something, I think is, better is on.
I respect your opinion. I admit that I may be a little biased about rap, but have you listened to other music? It's either dance music, or a song about love. By the way, this is all coming from a teen.
This is the convo i've been waiting for, i was just thinking about this last week lol, every song that comes on the radio is about love, or breaking up, and the girls just eat it up, seriously, they could listen to Love Story by Talor Swift (sp?) for like 2 hours. Makes me sick.
Thats why I've been listening to music from Northern Europe!
Oh, and They are possibly more insane than the Japanese when it comes to music videos. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGUFfa2iDHg]
Yeah. My personal favorite is Bird. The Knife are like modern bagpipes; beautiful music to some, and noise to others.
Or would that put them in the category of "Noise?"
I totally agree. I hate him. I'd have preferred to be RickRoll'd to be honest.
As for decent modern music, try La Roux. Widely billed as one of the next big artists to hit the indie scene in 2009, the duo are basically an indie mix of electropop and synthpop with some elements similar to the Ting Tings (Americans may not have heard of either of these, but just bear with me):
Valid point! I think you could have just made this argument for your side. But I think the point was that MOST, POPULAR music, like love songs, and new rap shit, sucks balls.
I hate it that if people have a bad opinion about a music genre they think that genre is crap, its getting really annoying now.
JRCB said:
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?
I dont get what you mean on the whole, are you saying modern music as a whole is crap? weather you like it or not thousands upon thousands of people listen to that crap. But I do think theres too many sub-genres now, its getting hard to keep track of.
Fondant said:
I was interested, until the OP cited Led Zeppelin as 'good'. Then I realised it was just him being delusional.
Good modern music:
Rammstein
Red Hot Chilli Peppers
Franz Ferdinand
Other stuff I neglect to mention.
Good older music:
The Moody Blues
Hendrix
other stuff my brain refuses to process
all good bands there although quite a few people around my area hate Franz Ferdinand no idea why they're a great band. AirBourne are a great rockband also.
That's définatly good music. It's not that all modern music sucks, a while ago a friend of mine introduced me to Streetlight Manifesto [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAkgaTFq6tg&feature=related] wich I think is a really good band (the bass is kickass in this particular song). There is however really going something on in the music world wich is affecting music quality in recent years. I don't know if anyone heard about it, but it's the so-called Loudness wars [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_wars]:
The phrase loudness war (or loudness race) refers to the music industry's tendency to record, produce and broadcast music at progressively increasing levels of loudness each year to create a sound that stands out from others and the previous year.
The trend of increasing loudness as shown by waveform images of the same song mastered on CD four times since 1983.This phenomenon can be observed in many areas of the music industry, particularly broadcasting and albums released on CD and DVD. In the case of CDs, the war stems from artists' and producers' desires to create CDs that sound as loud as possible or louder than CDs from competing artists or recording labels.[1]
However, as the maximum amplitude of a CD is at a fixed level, the overall loudness can only be increased by reducing the dynamic range. This is done by pushing the lower-level program material higher, while the loudest peak sounds are either destroyed or severely diminished. Certain extreme uses of compression can introduce distortion or clipping to the waveform of the recording.
The only problem with modern music I have is that most of it is made from the same lego box... Often while listening to the same music genre you will fail to notice that another song is running because it's pretty much the same with different words added to it. Even rock is starting to suffer from the same problem, after scrambling around in new modern rock songs I get fed up to the lack of creativity and go turn on AC/DC. Still not all music is like that, a lot of music is still interesting and original, so there's no reason to say you hate modern music, that's like saying you hate a country because a person from there spat on you...
Well not necessarily. Compression has been around for far longer than digital media, be it CD, or the cassette based studio alternatives. An LP has a dynamic range of roughly 70 dB, while a CD has 96 dB (At 24 bit, DVD has 144 dB, but there's no real reason for that large a range in most situations.) However, while in the days of the LP and the concept of an 'album', music was mixed to sound as good as possible, and often used all 70 dB the record was capable of. On the other hand, today's music is focused on 'hits' and 'singles', which are mixed for the radio, which comparatively has far less dynamic range, and is generally compressed to hell anyways.
You're right: I did hate it. That was awful, and I can't take anyone seriously who calls that pleasant to listen to. Maybe you're fond of the artistic statement, but that was NOT pleasant.
You know, for all of those words, you don't actually say much.
clarinetJWD said:
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!
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."
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.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
