Progress in music and arts

[the Dept of Science]

Art (not just as in gallery art but music film etc.) and the evaluation art is a subject that I have always found quite interesting, but there are 2 questions/notions that I've never really been able to get a satisfying answer for. Because I (and I suspect most other people here) know more about music than films, art, dance, calligraphy etc. I will use it as an example, but the arguments can apply similarly to the other forms.

1. Why doesn't art just keep getting better and better? When thinking about, say, technology, it would be stupid to say that any phone, computer or car is the best appart from the most recent model is the most advanced. However, with music, most people would say it peaked with either Mozart, Miles Davis, the Beatles or Metallica (for example, please don't turn this into an argument about Metallica). More gets known about music each year, with new movement, techniques, technology and instruments and a larger selection of artists to draw influence from. How come that doesn't result continually improving music?
Similarly, how come genres stagnate over time? Why aren't their punk bands nowadays as good as the Clash, pop bands as good as the Beatles or rappers as good as Public Enemy?

2. Similar to Q1, why don't artists themselves get better over time? This seems to go against any notion of experience. People can fill in their own examples of bands that had a string of great albums when they were new before starting to churn out mediocre stuff? Bob Dylan, Metallica, The Who, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Black Sabbath, Queen. People that were the top of their respective genres, but all seemed to just go downhill at some point. I can think of hardly any artists that have been around for a while that haven't fallen into this pattern.

To preempt what I know at least some people will answer, I know that this argument supposes that there is something objective and measurable in art. While this may be contreversial on some philosophical grounds, its a view that we pretty much all adopt in our everyday lives, so could we please be pragmatic about this, ok?
(Btw, I find this to have quite a good explanation of the whole subjective/objective thing in respect to art, albeit from an unusual source)

 

[the Dept of Science]

I would rather this didn't become another debate about how art is entirely subjective, because thats not really the topic at hand. While yes, you could argue from a very philosophical standpoint that there is no true definition of "great art", we are talking from a pragmatic standpoint, ie. if someone says that St Anger is the best Metallica album or the BrokenCYDE is the best band ever, they are a moron who should be purged.

I don't think their is a logical fallacy in saying that you enjoy something even though it is not "good". I enjoyed Back to the Future more than I did the Godfather or The Good, The Bad and the Ugly, but I wouldn't in a million say its a better movie. Using films as an example, there are (almost) quantifiable ways in which we can say something is good or bad. A good actor is someone who acts in a manner thats similar (ideally identicle) to a way that someone would behave in that situation in real life. A good plot flows, comes to a conclusion, doesn't give in to cliche or predictability. Something like a plothole will never be a sign of a good plot.

The article I linked to in the last paragraph of the first post sortof explains this.

 

[EMFCRACKSHOT]

I would rather this didn't become another debate about how art is entirely subjective, because thats not really the topic at hand. While yes, you could argue from a very philosophical standpoint that there is no true definition of "great art", we are talking from a pragmatic standpoint, ie. if someone says that St Anger is the best Metallica album or the BrokenCYDE is the best band ever, they are a moron who should be purged.

I don't think their is a logical fallacy in saying that you enjoy something even though it is not "good". I enjoyed Back to the Future more than I did the Godfather or The Good, The Bad and the Ugly, but I wouldn't in a million say its a better movie. Using films as an example, there are (almost) quantifiable ways in which we can say something is good or bad. A good actor is someone who acts in a manner thats similar (ideally identicle) to a way that someone would behave in that situation in real life. A good plot flows, comes to a conclusion, doesn't give in to cliche or predictability. Something like a plothole will never be a sign of a good plot.

The article I linked to in the last paragraph of the first post sortof explains this.

Except, art is subjective. There is no other direction you can take when discussing something of this nature other than to say it is subjective. Your original post for example is full of your subjective opinions.
What people consider good, when referring to the arts or entertainment, is entirely subjective.
You can argue objectively in an academic research paper because it is designed to inform, not invoke emotion or feelings and whatnot.
And the article you linked to was, to put it simply, wrong. An example of where it is wrong is in its talk of pacing. Whilst yes, i would agree pacing is important, the level of pacing that people consider "good" will be different in each individual case. It makes the very broad statement that pacing is important but does not say what level of pacing, or how a story should progress in order for it to be good. There are plenty of other examples within that article, but to go through them all would take far too long and i really can't be bothered. In short, whoever wrote that article does not truly understand objectivity vs subjectivity and completely wasted their time writing it.

 

[Zombie_Fish]

I would rather this didn't become another debate about how art is entirely subjective, because thats not really the topic at hand.

You're asking why music isn't getting better, whilst not actually explaining what made it good in the first place, or any standards as to why it is good. Sounds pretty subjective to me.

While yes, you could argue from a very philosophical standpoint that there is no true definition of "great art", we are talking from a pragmatic standpoint, ie. if someone says that St Anger is the best Metallica album or the BrokenCYDE is the best band ever, they are a moron who should be purged.

That's more of a value judgement than a pragmatic standpoint. Again, what makes St Anger the worst Metallica album ever, or BrokenCYDE not the best band ever?

Using films as an example, there are (almost) quantifiable ways in which we can say something is good or bad. A good actor is someone who acts in a manner thats similar (ideally identicle) to a way that someone would behave in that situation in real life. A good plot flows, comes to a conclusion, doesn't give in to cliche or predictability. Something like a plothole will never be a sign of a good plot.

The article I linked to in the last paragraph of the first post sortof explains this.

The article said that criticism consists of objective points evaluated subjectively:

If I dislike the pacing, I will explain how the pacing doesn't flow very well, and tends to be highly disjointed--this is an objective description of the pacing. It does not rely on me as an observer to make it a valid statement. I will then say that I think the pacing is ineffective because of its disjointed flow. This is a subjective statement! You may think the disjointed pacing lends the story a really brilliant, fragmented flow. But when you have finished with a criticism, you should be able to identify precisely what it is about the story (its objective qualities) that evoked that subjective reaction in the writer.

The reviewer's goal is to make the subjective reaction seem as logical and universal as possible--as well, of course, as to make it an entertaining or otherwise worthwhile read.

The article doesn't mention anything about principles or standards for art to follow, as you're making it out to be. I think you've misunderstood the article, judging by how it actually contradicts what you said about what makes good acting or good plot.

 

[the Dept of Science]

A world in which all art is entirely subjective simply doesn't make sense. Its quite easy to reductio ad absurdam.
It suggests that there can be no logic or reason behind an opinion to do with art, which almost suggests that taste is random. There are no grounds to claim that x is superior to y, therefore x = y. Does that just mean that critics and fans the world over claiming that Dylan or the Beatles are great artists just wrong? Are there no grounds for saying that Art Tatum is a better pianist than me, who cannot play at all?
Any attempt at evaluation or even discussion would be pointless. If you believe that it is entirely subjective, you contradict yourself every time you make any statement on it (unless the statement is of the form "it has x beats per minutes", "he plays a B chord then a C chord" or "the lyrics are"). Neither should you be able to take a recommendation, as the recommender can speak for himself and himself alone.
It does appear that there are measurable things that impact on quality. Take the Art Tatum example. He is considered the best jazz pianist ever because of his speed (measurable, in bpm), harmonic complexity (measurable), innovation (measurable, as you can compare it to other players, contemporary and past and take notes of its differences), rhythmic complexity (for example, his use of polyrhythms, again, measurable), ambidexterity (measurable) and range (measurable, as you can note the variety of techniques used in his repetoire).
Now, where the subjective/objective thing comes into play is whether you actually enjoy it or not. I'm not a great fan of solo jazz piano, so I wouldn't say I enjoyed it. However, if I were to say that he were a bad piano player, I would be provably wrong.

 

[BlindMessiah94]

I completely disagree. I think art has gotten better and better.
As time goes on more and more music has become experimental.
I just think you are wondering why mainstream music hasn't gotten better, and that is because, well, because it's mainstream. It appeals to the mass media propaganda mentality of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. I for one don't tend to pay much attention to the artistic opinion of people who listen to stuff like that.
Besides, I suggest listening to bands like Delhi to Dublin, or guitarists like Trace Bundy, and you will start to see that many people out there are improving music by doing new and creative things.
Do some research!

 

[ottenni]

Well i can explain why artists don't get better over time. They do. Its just the people who originally where fans of them because of the first music they made simply do not like the new music they are creating and refuse to move forward with them. Listen to the change is style of say, the Red Hot Chili Peppers since their first album and say Marilyn Manson and you will notice that they are very very different. And people don't like that.

 

[the Dept of Science]

I completely disagree. I think art has gotten better and better.
As time goes on more and more music has become experimental.
[snip]
Do some research!

I don't think that music now is bad (Lastfm), I have a roughly even spread of music between 1950 and 2010 and I'll always pipe up when people complain about how everything in the last 10 years is shit and/or derrivative. I don't think its gotten better and better, theres a (very roughly) equal amount of good stuff to listen to in each decade since music started getting recorded.
One trend I do find interesting is how more marginalised and experimental music moves into the mainstream over time. Its strange to think that some of the stuff that you hear in clubs nowadays would be thought of as seriously arty music in the 70s.

 

[Treefingers]

How come that doesn't result continually improving music?

I say that it's largely because of how the music industry is organized these days. Record companies pump huge amounts of cash into artists that they select because they think it will sell, not because it's any good.

Similarly, how come genres stagnate over time? Why aren't their punk bands nowadays as good as the Clash, pop bands as good as the Beatles or rappers as good as Public Enemy?

I think this is probably because when these guys started out, they were creating something original that hadn't really been heard before.

Also, context is important. Like, punk bands started out because they had something to rebel against. They were successful because the audience shared the same feelings. Same reason for Bob Dylan's success, for example. Eventually, context changes and certain themes don't carry the same weight that they used to.

 

[BonsaiK]

Art (not just as in gallery art but music film etc.) and the evaluation art is a subject that I have always found quite interesting, but there are 2 questions/notions that I've never really been able to get a satisfying answer for. Because I (and I suspect most other people here) know more about music than films, art, dance, calligraphy etc. I will use it as an example, but the arguments can apply similarly to the other forms.

1. Why doesn't art just keep getting better and better? When thinking about, say, technology, it would be stupid to say that any phone, computer or car is the best appart from the most recent model is the most advanced. However, with music, most people would say it peaked with either Mozart, Miles Davis, the Beatles or Metallica (for example, please don't turn this into an argument about Metallica). More gets known about music each year, with new movement, techniques, technology and instruments and a larger selection of artists to draw influence from. How come that doesn't result continually improving music?
Similarly, how come genres stagnate over time? Why aren't their punk bands nowadays as good as the Clash, pop bands as good as the Beatles or rappers as good as Public Enemy?

2. Similar to Q1, why don't artists themselves get better over time? This seems to go against any notion of experience. People can fill in their own examples of bands that had a string of great albums when they were new before starting to churn out mediocre stuff? Bob Dylan, Metallica, The Who, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Black Sabbath, Queen. People that were the top of their respective genres, but all seemed to just go downhill at some point. I can think of hardly any artists that have been around for a while that haven't fallen into this pattern.

To preempt what I know at least some people will answer, I know that this argument supposes that there is something objective and measurable in art. While this may be contreversial on some philosophical grounds, its a view that we pretty much all adopt in our everyday lives, so could we please be pragmatic about this, ok?
(Btw, I find this to have quite a good explanation of the whole subjective/objective thing in respect to art, albeit from an unusual source)

1. Music improves over time. People who are comfortable with the same old same old just refuse to acknowledge that and keep listening to their "classics". Music one the whole has always improved over time and will continue to.

1b. Genres don't stagnate, they do move on and they do improve. The Clash and The Beatles have been long superceded by their imitators in every respect from songwriting quality to production to the level of experimentation. Public Enemy had some groundbreaking music but the actual rapping delivery itself is nowhere near the standard of today's rappers in terms of rhythmic sophistication.

2. Artists generally do improve over time too. Just not your examples (although I think Queen improved drastically over time and were riding a creative peak when Freddy died).

 

[Gadzooks]

Something I'm curious to know, is which bands from the current or recent decades will people still be listening to in say... the 2050's?

From last century the 60's/70's rock groups have kept quite a following despite being around for some time (and mostly with nothing new added). I wonder what groups will resonate with future generations. Hopefully Pop and boybands die peacefully and quietly.

On that question though, are there actually any/many artists who are as universally popular as last centuries Beatles and Led Zepplin? Because as far as I can tell music has failed to evoke that same cultural movement, or atleast it has done it on a much smaller scale and less cohesively. I'm thinking perhaps those bands were so remembered for breaking the mould (as much as being talented artistically), but left and right nowadays it's hard to avoid bands messing with traditional formatting and trying something different and often those skilled artists go unnoticed while the same material gets put in the limelight. Marketing has a lot to answer for.