The Dichotomy of Modern Music (1367 hits)
Category: Sound & MusicRating: 0.66 on 14 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by The Downward Spiral of your Mind (View user info) at 2003-05-08 17:48:15 EDT
For the longest time, man has been accompanied by the idea that he has a soul. Whether this idea is merely a fabrication of self-awareness, or reflective of such a phenomenon in actuality, is irrelevant here. What matters is that this pseudo-entity has infested practically all manifestations of human society throughout history.
Perhaps this is why humanity has continually entertained itself not only through physical activity, like other animals, but also through the use of sonoral stimulation. From the first musical "instruments," which probably consisted of two rocks, or mammoth skin stretched over a hollowed-out tree trunk, to the aspirations towards ultimate perfection of Tchaikovsky, Olivier Messien(sp?), and Strauss, mankind has always found one way or another to create an emotional response using melody.
In today's world, much of the most popular music is deemed worthless and vapid. Britney Spears, Enrique Iglesias, DJ Sammy, Creed, Snoop Dogg, Nickleback -all are considered, by the more "insightful" music fans, to be mindless clones of each other, merely using different instruments.
Lately, there has been a resurgence of what is often perceived as the "better" forms of music -the White Stripes, the Strokes, Coldplay; Mark Knopfler just released a new album, a few jazz musicians have risen to relative prominence, and several folk musicians have been gaining popularity(for example, Nickle Creek). These musicians tend to be seen as having much more to contribute to the human mind through their music. Virtues such as self-created lyrics and tunes, commentary on social issues, metaphorical/symbolic song lyrics, an interesting duality between a portrayal of cynicism vs. optimism, and emotional reality(without delving into emotional self-absorption), are repeatedly touted by these artists, and their insistence on doing so is rewarded with admiration from the people who loathe the likes of Spears.
Upon first glance, it's pretty obvious why the latter group would be more preferable than the former. These musicians tend to have a sense of independence about their music, and this attracts us. Because it's "different," because it's "original." We don't feel like we have to succumb to any mass mentality in order to enjoy the lyrics, and likewise with the music itself. Altogether, the songs from the former group tend to be devoid of repetitious syncopation, mindless drivel, and predictable chord usage.
What escapes MY mind, however, is why this is necessarily better than pop. If one goes back to the very origins of music, what does one discover? That it was used purely as a form of entertainment, as a way of passing the time. It did not need to be insightful or uplifting, just fun. And as most fairly intelligent people realize, "fun" often equates with stupidity.
One COULD argue that entertainment-oriented music is primal, that the reason we loathe such products now is because we've evolved past the point where we need music for entertainment alone. That it would be archaic to embrace pop, the majority of rap, and a good portion of electronica as a valid form of expression, because we would basically be returning to the behavior of cave-dwellers.
Well, bullshit. Bullshit, I say! Let's go to the times of Antonio Vivaldi, of Corelli(sp?) -the era of Baroque music. Whereas the likes of Mozart and Beethoven were rebelling against the formality and tight restriction of Baroque music with their free-spirited symphonies and operas, this does not negate the fact that Baroque music was an artistic pursuit in its own right. Now, while this same type of music was being explored, there were also innumerable folk songs, quite a few of which survive to this day -if not in the form of the songs themselves, then still through their influence on music today, at the very least.
The point is, these folk songs were not artistic. They were made and played with the intention of accompanying drunks dancing freely at weddings. They were not done to reveal some inner pain, or some higher purpose to life. They were pure entertainment, and nothing else. Doubtless, Vivaldi(who often worked for liturgical productions) saw much of this music as worthless and unartistic; hence, that it had no redeeming value.
But today, much of this same folk music is loved by many. And no, not just by Ren-faire attendees. I would never, EVER go to a Ren-faire, but I absolutely love the ethnic European music from Renaissance and Medeival eras(as well as much other ethnic music).
In other words, I fail to see how pop is any less valid than the "real" music that so many people cherish and adhere to with ferocious tenacity. Yeah, it's stupid. But so what? As for myself, I love almost all forms of music. What I don't like is polka, Mexican ranchero/mariachi music(particularly the Northern stuff), most mainstream '80s rock(you know, hair metal, glam rock...), and most current punk rock. Even in those 4 genres, however, there are a few exceptions; there ARE a few ranchero songs I've heard that didn't make me feel like slitting my wrists.
I think most people just need to realize that there are, always have been, and always will be two main branches of music: entertainment, and art. The people who tend to only listen to music for entertainment(ricecar owners, for example), need to learn to appreciate artistic expression, and that art does not necessarily equate with beauty. I will agree with the "intellegentsia" on that level. In turn, they(the "intelligentsia") need to realize that entertainment is a perfectly valid reason to create music. One could even say that it is the most puristic reason, since that is why the msot primitive forms of music were created in the first place.
User Reviews
Submitted by Istaros (user info) at 2003-07-24 03:22:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"how can they NOT be artistic? and yes, they may have been made for the simple cause of fun, these songs could very well have come from the depths of the writer's soul."
Well, it really depends on what you consider "artistic." For me, art is something that challenges your way of thinking, or at the very least, activates it. Just because something comes from the depth of someone's soul does not, to me, make it artistic -it makes it expressive, yes, but there's more to art than expression. Otherwise Christina Aguilera would be one of the most artistic people on the planet. It involves content, originality, stylization(the least artistic of all the traits IMO, but it can be applied nonetheless), a challenge to your perceptions/assumptions, aesthetic appeal, and many, many other things as well as expression.
Most renaissance folk music IS very expressive("The Wind that Shakes the Barley," "Scarborough Fair," Dead Can Dance's "Severance," etc.), but it's not original or challinging. It's very stylized, but so is rap music(I won't get into the details of why I consider stylization to be the least artistic of the artistic qualities right now). I'm pretty sure that most of the rap songs that are written by the same guy who raps them come from the depths of the writer's soul, too. The thing is, it's a different soul...
"you don't strike me as a musician, there is emotion in the very execution of the music you're playing. anyone that truly loves to make music for the sake of making music knows that."
Actually, I do know exactly what you're talking about -and it's not something that exists only for the artist, either. A similar experience can be obtained by just listening to music a certain way(why do you think bands have such rabid fans?). I can assure you that Tupac probably got VERY emotionally involved in his live performances. Same goes with 50 Cent and his "21 Questions." Contrary to somewhat-popular beliefe rap stars, don't disassociate themselves from their music. People like you and I may find it very hard to associate with, but that says nothing about the associative quality of the music itself -it's meant for a different audience, of course you wouldn't think the same of it as you would think of *insert your favorite genre here*.
"and boo for comparing folk songs from the renaissance period with modern shit-pop and prepackaged rap."
Well, I was mostly comparing the original forms of music -caveman thumping- to pop and rap, because the majority of the songs in both of those genres are made for nothing more than their entertainment value -which means that they WILL be passing and overly malleable by necessity, since the tastes of society are always changing.
The overall point is, even stupid music has its place. On the dance floor, for example -and not much of anywhere else.
Submitted by El_Guapo (user info) at 2003-07-20 16:31:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
can't help but +2 this, that was very well written, even though i think you're a little off on one little bit.
**The point is, these folk songs were not artistic. They were made and played with the intention of accompanying drunks dancing freely at weddings. They were not done to reveal some inner pain, or some higher purpose to life. They were pure entertainment, and nothing else.**
how can they NOT be artistic? and yes, they may have been made for the simple cause of fun, these songs could very well have come from the depths of the writer's soul. you don't strike me as a musician, there is emotion in the very execution of the music you're playing. anyone that truly loves to make music for the sake of making music knows that.
and boo for comparing folk songs from the renaissance period with modern shit-pop and prepackaged rap.
Submitted by Agent_FUBAR (user info) at 2003-06-02 10:05:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I happen to like Snoop Dogg, does that make me a bad person? no. it does make me wanna blazetrees and smack bitches up though, muthafucka.
Submitted by Istaros <archon_templar.at.hotmail.com> at 2003-05-17 05:01:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Debates are for pussyfooting intellectual maggots who merely have yet to realize that I am better than they.
Submitted by Chromeus <chromeus1.at.juno.com> at 2003-05-15 06:50:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
If you'd like to debate ANYTHING with me, feel free to email me at the address I give. Or IM me at Chromeus18 on AIM. Today I convinced a local news network to pull a story they had against a company they targeted for their consumer watch, I have no fears :)
Submitted by Istaros <archon_templar.at.hotmail.com> at 2003-05-15 06:25:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Haha, it's the internet, what am I gonna do, cry?
But seriously, that's the risk I pose to myself by posting topics like this. Saying "I like pop," even with the disclaimer of "BUT I ALSO LIKE GOOD MUSIC," is a surefire way of losing respect, especially here. But if I can convince one person I'm not a dumbass, I can convince a thousand.
Submitted by Chromeus <chromeus1.at.juno.com> at 2003-05-15 06:20:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i'm am glad you knwo who Sigur Ros is. I am only 22 years old, but I know quite a bit about the music industry, and I know what sells and what doesn't. And to note, I don't listen to hair metal bands in my 80's music: I listen to the music that was actually music, like The Cure, and The Smiths. The bands that have their style that CANNOT be touched by anyone, and stick by it (well, The Smiths would if they'd stuck together...). I am a real critic in any music I listen to, I do not pass pure shit off as palatable music to my friends. I have a whole new respect for you now, and I kinda wish I hadn't made such a vehement remark as I did in the last thread I posted in...
Submitted by Istaros <archon_templar.at.hotmail.com> at 2003-05-15 05:46:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"I won't admit the fact that this issue has been brought up since the 60's, really..."
You don't have to, seeing as I already admitted that it's been brought up since the time of Baroque music. It was actually around longer than that, of course, but that came as a good example when I wrote the post. But really, what issue CAN'T be connected to the past? Personally, I like it. I think it's quite impressive that one can draw upon centuries of knowledge and experience to make a point, and still present that point as being fresh and relevant to today's world. It may make me something of a monist, a label which I detest, but it's how I feel nonetheless.
What I don't like, however, is what you seem to be suggesting; people who jibber-jabber about nonsense "social issues" as if humans haven't had to deal with such things before. Like they're bringing something entirely original to the table. History repeats itself, it seems, and I don't deny that.
"Let's just assume that there is a division of the population who dislikes pop music. That would mean there the rest enjoy it for whatever reasons they do.
Along with this, let's assume that those people actually looked for music they liked, and pursued the music they like.
THIS is what differentiates music styles. It's no longer about "Art" and "Entertainment" anymore, it's about "Having the time to find what you like", and "Not having the time to find what you like". And sadly enough, in American society, most people adhere to the shit that is pop music, merely out of laziness."
How does it have anything to do with laziness? It's not as if people don't have time to find new and intriguing music, not with T3 connections and Kazaa... Or did you mean, intellectual laziness? That is to say, ambition? In that case, I could agree with you, to an extent at least.
Where I don't agree with you is where you say that divergent musical styles are no longer about art vs. entertainment. You say it's about having/not having the time to find what you like. The reason I don't agree with you here is because that would only affect the type of music being received(listened to), not the type of music being made. True, it does have an indirect effect, in that the big companies will make what people listen to, just more of it; however, that doesn't equate with the evolution of musical styles. Music has developed according to its own measure; sometimes the developments have rather surprising. I don't know if you're old enough, but do you remember the lashback against disco that occurred in the early '80s? Disco was fucking HUGE... and (apparently) suddenly, people got sick of it. And we started getting "cadaver music," hair metal, and electronic pop. Like, totally gnarly.
"It really is no more entertaining than bashing your head into a wall until you're unconscious, but it sells. I'd rather bonk a hole into my skull than listen to most pop music that is out today."
OK, fine, but that's a personal preference. I already classified pop into the genre of music that aims to entertain, not enlighten; and with entertainment, everybody has different tastes. Usually, those tastes are incredibly flighty, but that's part of what makes it entertainment, as opposed to art. You might not find most modern pop music entertaining, but nobody said you had to(well...).
"Today's 'artists' can literally ripoff ANY musician they want, for any sounds they want for their track. Eminem can assrape a classical Beethoven song with no repercussion, because no one cares anymore. All that matters in American society is MONEY. 'Hey Eminem, can you market this to 15 year olds who will buy your CD just because your name is on it?' 'SURE I CAN, I'M THE REAL EMINEM, (continue with some shitty rap at this point)..' There really is no 'Art' to music anymore, as in bands or persons who mean to push the art of sound into something it hasn't been in the past few years."
First off, I'm glad you put the term "artists" in quotation marks; that's why I refer to that brand of musicians(well, I suppose "performers" would be a better term) as "entertainers."
Anyway, it sounds like you just need to delve a little deeper into the world of music that is not yet directly controlled by everything corporate. Sigur Ros is nothing if not innovative. Plenty of electronica musicians are constantly pushing the envelope of what the human ear can tolerate while still enjoying what it hears. And jazz is a genre of music under constant transformation. And a few months ago, some guy(sadly I cannot remember his name) took Beethoven's 9th Symphony and stretched out the notes to cover a 24-hour period. Art is definitely being pursued; but you have to pursue it yourself, as well.
I also think you admitted to yourself being a minor part of the problem with music today as-you-see-it when you said "All that matters in American society is MONEY." I'm not saying you're wrong by saying that; your mistake, however, was in equating American music with ALL music. We're just one country out of several hundred; do you really think music isn't being pursued by other people? Sure, all you'll hear in America is American music -unless you listen to NPR or download song files from the Internet. But that's probably the best thing about it; the responsibility of refining our musical palates is now entirely ours. You can do great things with this; combining a world-wide means of communication(internet) with a way to experience music leads to unlimited options. You really CAN listen to anything and everything that your heart desires. It's not that hard. I'm hardly pro-globalizaton, but in this case, world-wide connectivity is definitely a good thing.
By the way, I honsetly think Eminem is one of the most talented rappers today. Of course, being the "most talented rapper" may be similar to saying "world's fastest snail," but regardless. I won't go into why I think so, I just felt like adding that in.
"In fact, if you had the chance to ask most of the leading names in music today, there IS no art in music they make. They all buy their shit off of other rapists who just take old tracks and remake them into something new-sounding."
You nearly made an oxymoron here by including the terms "leading names" and "art in music" in the same sentence. Of course the leading names in music aren't going to be artistic; it doesn't take a genius to figure that one out. People listen to a certain type of music. Some unknown, talentless band of 3 or 5 hacks signs a recording contract with Virgin Records. This company is one of the largest in the music industry, and they want to maintain their status; to do so, they have to pander to the will of the people. They don't care whether or not the music is worthless; they would promote artistic music, if that's what most people wanted. But that isn't what most people want; they want pop. Virgin delivers. Since Virgin is so fucking huge, they can afford to promote this new 5-minute-band. The band gains recognition. More people listen to them.
Simple, really. It's an endless cycle, but it's not so confusing that even simpletons can't understand it. My point to all this is, so what? Let people listen to what they want. It doesn't affect me, especially now that we have these wonderful P2P programs. I can listen to what I want, they can listen to what they want. I don't see the problem.
"This is why I've listened to 80's music for the past several years of my life. There is no "music" in music anymore. It's all predetermined bullshit that an 8 year old could come up with if they had a Casio keyboard long enough. Whatever happened to talent? I really miss that aspect of music..."
Hahaha, I used to hate 80's music.... ALL 80's music. Most people with "refined" musical tastes tend to agree. But it seems that, just as there are two main branches of music, there are two main musical attitudes; one comes from the type of music that serves as a medium for further development of music, and the other comes from the type of music that is a fulfillment of a certain genre; an end-stop of sorts. I think most 80's music falls into the second category. From what little observation I've been able to do of the development of music, it seems that most "fulfilled" music is generally seen as artless, and most "transitional" music is generally seen as palatable. I still hate most mainstream 80s rock, but lately, I've been seriously delving into early-to-mid-80's pop.
Anyway, I don't see how you can think music has stopped being artistic. Don't let television commercials and radio top-20s fool you. Don't become a media teetsucker. Search out what you want, and you'll find it. I did. The difference between me and most other people who like "artistic" music, is that I also like "entertainment" music. So far, I'm the only person I've met who likes and can see the merits in both.
Submitted by Chromeus <chromeus1.at.juno.com> at 2003-05-15 05:04:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I won't admit the fact that this issue has been brought up since the 60's, really...
Let's just assume that there is a division of the population who dislikes pop music. That would mean there the rest enjoy it for whatever reasons they do.
Along with this, let's assume that those people actually looked for music they liked, and pursued the music they like.
THIS is what differentiates music styles. It's no longer about "Art" and "Entertainment" anymore, it's about "Having the time to find what you like", and "Not having the time to find what you like". And sadly enough, in American society, most people adhere to the shit that is pop music, merely out of laziness. It really is no more entertaining than bashing your head into a wall until you're unconscious, but it sells. I'd rather bonk a hole into my skull than listen to most pop music that is out today. Today's "artists" can literally ripoff ANY musician they want, for any sounds they want for their track. Eminem can assrape a classical Beethoven song with no repercussion, because no one cares anymore. All that matters in American society is MONEY. "Hey Eminem, can you market this to 15 year olds who will buy your CD just because your name is on it?" "SURE I CAN, I'M THE REAL EMINEM, (continue with some shitty rap at this point).." There really is no "Art" to music anymore, as in bands or persons who mean to push the art of sound into something it hasn't been in the past few years. In fact, if you had the chance to ask most of the leading names in music today, there IS no art in music they make. They all buy their shit off of other rapists who just take old tracks and remake them into something new-sounding.
This is why I've listened to 80's music for the past several years of my life. There is no "music" in music anymore. It's all predetermined bullshit that an 8 year old could come up with if they had a Casio keyboard long enough. Whatever happened to talent? I really miss that aspect of music...
"
Submitted by Istaros <archon_templar.at.hotmail.com> at 2003-05-15 04:26:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Hahahahaha... Oh God, I love it when people barely read something, and then make it painfully obvious by saying something that only relates to the first paragraph of an article... With articles/essays/whatever, I usually DO start off writing about something that has little or nothing to do with my conclusion. I do this for two reasons; 1) to strengthen my conclusion, and 2) to give the text a driving, motile dynamism; to keep the content from stagnating on one idea for too long.
Thanks, Phinch, for doing us all the courtesy of taking in all available knowledge before commenting on it. Yes, basically, that's what I was saying with this; "mainstream" people like "stupid" music -e.g., pop. "Smart" people like "good/creative/intelligent/talented" music. My point was, both of these sub-groups are misguided, if not outright wrong(which they are).
Pop is a valid form of music. And yes, that includes N'Sync and Nelly. I can't stand Nelly, but that doesn't mean "his" music is worthless. It has its place in society. There are two main branches of music; art, and entertainment. I have met very, very few people who can simultaneously appreciate both with full vigor.
Submitted by masterofdissaster (user info) at 2003-05-08 19:34:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Video Killed The Radio Star, but technology killed music altogether.
Submitted by Phinch (user info) at 2003-05-08 18:34:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i read the post.
summary:
lots of people hate pop music.
smart people like intellegent music.
pop music may not really suck after all
pop music has it's place in society.
+1 for providing a break in my boring day in the salt mine
-1 for typing so much.
phinch
Submitted by JMG114 (user info) at 2003-05-08 18:29:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
In the Silmarillion, Tolkien's God figure creates the world through music. I also hardly read the post, but I think this kind of works with what you were sort of kind of maybe thinking. Sort of.
Submitted by Scythe (user info) at 2003-05-08 17:56:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
What about Atheist - Unquestionable Presence, Demigod - Slumber of Sullen Eyes, or Miasma - Changes?
I hardly even read the post..... hence the axiomatic, needless... yeah whatever, back to sleep for me.