| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ubertar
ghost haunting audio students
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 3258
Location: Brooklyn, NY
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 8:38 pm Post subject: Re: Scientists prove that most modern pop music is garbage |
  |
|
| Snarl 12/8 wrote: | Just because some music is simple and loud doesn't mean it sucks.
*ducks* |
Very true. OTOH, the Ramones look like Stravinsky compared to some of the stuff that's popular today.
_________________
my new record:
http://spectropolrecords.bandcamp.com/album/solo-trios
“In this field, the number two is important. We count one, two, infinity.” Jill Tarter |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
chris harris
speech impediment
Joined: 12 Aug 2003
Posts: 4122
Location: Norman, OK
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chris harris
speech impediment
Joined: 12 Aug 2003
Posts: 4122
Location: Norman, OK
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 8:55 pm Post subject: Re: Scientists prove that most modern pop music is garbage |
|
|
But, anyway... it IS semantic. You didn't ask for a list of artists that are as innovative, or popular as The Beatles. You simply said "I'm saying that Chris' assertion that there's more great music being made now than any time in history is not true."
You're asking me to prove my opinion. Well, you've attempted to prove yours by presuming to define greatness. But, it hasn't changed my opinion. And, it hasn't changed what "great" means to me.
It's funny that your definition requires the hindsight of history to prove. It pretty much guarantees that nothing new can be considered "great". Enjoy that nostalgia trip.
_________________
Studio - http://www.hookechosound.com
Label - http://www.wearenicepeople.com
Band - http://www.depthandcurrent.com
Twitter - http://www.twitter.com/HoodEchoSound |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chris harris
speech impediment
Joined: 12 Aug 2003
Posts: 4122
Location: Norman, OK
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chris harris
speech impediment
Joined: 12 Aug 2003
Posts: 4122
Location: Norman, OK
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chris harris
speech impediment
Joined: 12 Aug 2003
Posts: 4122
Location: Norman, OK
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ubertar
ghost haunting audio students
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 3258
Location: Brooklyn, NY
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 9:30 pm Post subject: Re: Scientists prove that most modern pop music is garbage |
|
|
| chris harris wrote: | | ubertar wrote: | | They were extremely popular, extremely influential, and remain so. And they were innovative. There's nothing remotely like that now. |
Radiohead |
Nice example. And yet, I don't think they are nearly as popular, influential or innovative as the Beatles were in their time. They do seem to be one of the best bands of our time. I expect they'll be remembered as such. Whether they're great or not is debatable, but even given that they are for the sake of argument, I think it's hard to make the case that they achieved the level of greatness of the Beatles. The Beatles had a much stronger impact on the music of their time, not to mention the culture at large.
And then one can argue of whether it's even fair to compare the Beatles to Beethoven, Bach and Mozart, but that's a whole other can of worms...
_________________
my new record:
http://spectropolrecords.bandcamp.com/album/solo-trios
“In this field, the number two is important. We count one, two, infinity.” Jill Tarter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ubertar
ghost haunting audio students
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 3258
Location: Brooklyn, NY
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 9:33 pm Post subject: Re: Scientists prove that most modern pop music is garbage |
|
|
| chris harris wrote: | | ubertar wrote: | | What's a single example of GREAT music from the last five years? |
Arcade Fire's Suburbs (Grammy for Album of the Year) was a great album. |
I'll have to check that out. Giving you the benefit of the doubt that it's great, it's still not enough to prove that there's more great music being made now than ever before. But to be fair, I only asked you for an example or two, and now you have.
_________________
my new record:
http://spectropolrecords.bandcamp.com/album/solo-trios
“In this field, the number two is important. We count one, two, infinity.” Jill Tarter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ubertar
ghost haunting audio students
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 3258
Location: Brooklyn, NY
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 9:35 pm Post subject: Re: Scientists prove that most modern pop music is garbage |
|
|
| chris harris wrote: | | Now, GO! Offer some evidence that will prove my opinion wrong. |
My intention is not, and never was to prove you wrong. I'm here to have a discussion. I still think you're wrong, but appreciate that you've posted some examples to support your argument. Thanks. As I said upthread, I'd be happy to be proved wrong. I meant that.
_________________
my new record:
http://spectropolrecords.bandcamp.com/album/solo-trios
“In this field, the number two is important. We count one, two, infinity.” Jill Tarter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chris harris
speech impediment
Joined: 12 Aug 2003
Posts: 4122
Location: Norman, OK
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ubertar
ghost haunting audio students
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 3258
Location: Brooklyn, NY
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 9:47 pm Post subject: Re: Scientists prove that most modern pop music is garbage |
|
|
| chris harris wrote: | | But, anyway... it IS semantic. You didn't ask for a list of artists that are as innovative, or popular as The Beatles. You simply said "I'm saying that Chris' assertion that there's more great music being made now than any time in history is not true." |
This paragraph isn't so coherent, which makes it hard to respond to. Yes, I said the sentence you quoted, but I also asked for examples of contemporary music you think is "great". What that has to do with semantics is anyone's guess.
| chris harris wrote: | | You're asking me to prove my opinion. Well, you've attempted to prove yours by presuming to define greatness. But, it hasn't changed my opinion. And, it hasn't changed what "great" means to me. |
Lol. "Presuming" to define greatness. No. Tentatively thinking out loud about what a definition of greatness could be. That you can't see the difference is, well, weird.
| chris harris wrote: | | It's funny that your definition requires the hindsight of history to prove. It pretty much guarantees that nothing new can be considered "great". Enjoy that nostalgia trip. |
Funny to you, I guess. Funny to me too, maybe, in that, well, greatness is usually defined in this way, and it presents a problem as far as recognizing greatness in one's own time. There's nothing new about this problem. I sure didn't invent it. If you've solved it, give us the answer. You'll be famous. Accusing me of a "nostalgia trip" just reveals what kind of prejudice you have against what I'm saying-- it shows where you think I'm coming from. It seems Justin C has the same prejudice. You couldn't be more wrong. I'm not stuck in the past, and I'm not resistant to hearing something new that's good. Maybe part of it is having been on the planet long enough and heard enough music that it takes more to impress me now than when I was younger-- I'll give you guys that much. But that doesn't mean I'm not open to new things. It does mean that I can recognize when "new" things really aren't so new as they would claim to be.
_________________
my new record:
http://spectropolrecords.bandcamp.com/album/solo-trios
“In this field, the number two is important. We count one, two, infinity.” Jill Tarter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ubertar
ghost haunting audio students
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 3258
Location: Brooklyn, NY
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 10:11 pm Post subject: Re: Scientists prove that most modern pop music is garbage |
|
|
| chris harris wrote: | | This is indeed a messy can of worms. I don't think being better than The Beatles is the low mark for greatness. There are plenty of bands that The Beatles are superior to, who made/make great music. |
I never said that was where the line was drawn. I asked "where is today's Beatles?" and your answer was Radiohead.
That still leaves the question of where to draw the line. How many music artists of the 20th century qualify as great? Two? Three? Ten? Hundreds? Thousands? Does every rock band that contributed something of value count as great? Or just the most important ones (however you judge that)? Will rock have a lasting influence on the development of music in the future, or will the whole genre just be a blip on the screen? Will anyone still care about the Beatles in 300 years the way we still care about Bach, or will they be a footnote in the history books, if that? It's hard to say.
In some ways it seems music is in a pitiable state these days-- the Western art music (classical tradition) never fully recovered from the tone-row/serialism/chromaticism of the first half of the 20th century; jazz went too far out, then retreated and ossified (for the most part); rock mostly recycles itself, or splinters off into tiny subgenres that only appeal to a handful of people. And so on. I think there's some exciting stuff going on in some corners of the microtonal world (but as part of that world, if only on the fringes, I'm biased) but there are some major obstacles to any of that catching on with a large number of people. Eventually someone will come along who does something that just changes everything. And that's a big part of what I mean by great...
There are some exceptions (Bach was more a culminator than innovator, for example, but he wasn't without innovation, either) but for the most part, great to me means something that, after you've heard it, everything changes. You can't just go back to doing what you were doing. It's obsolete. We all know examples of this. I don't know of anything that fits that description from our time. Maybe I'm missing out on something. I'll check out the Arcade Fire album you mentioned. I'm sure I've heard some of it before, just through osmosis. But I'll try to give it a fair listen.
_________________
my new record:
http://spectropolrecords.bandcamp.com/album/solo-trios
“In this field, the number two is important. We count one, two, infinity.” Jill Tarter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vvv
on a wing and a prayer
Joined: 13 May 2003
Posts: 5619
Location: Chi
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 1:11 am Post subject: Re: Scientists prove that most modern pop music is garbage |
|
|
Miles.
To some extent, and he's diluted hisself, but mebbe Prince.
'Trane was great, but mebbe not particularly influential, unless you ask Bob Mould and Steve Wynn.
Ornette was innovative; his legacy is perhaps yet to be known.
Jeff Beck, especially his latter-day arrangements.
John Cage?
Some might argue Pat Metheny, also, at times.
Don't larf, but The Beastie Boys?
Pushing it now, but Willie Nelson.
_________________
vlayman; THD; blog; TFP |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jhharvest
steve albini likes it
Joined: 23 Oct 2010
Posts: 318
Location: Tanzania
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 3:08 am Post subject: Re: Scientists prove that most modern pop music is garbage |
|
|
| ubertar wrote: |
In some ways it seems music is in a pitiable state these days-- the Western art music (classical tradition) never fully recovered from the tone-row/serialism/chromaticism of the first half of the 20th century; jazz went too far out, then retreated and ossified (for the most part); |
Wait a minute - Western art music tradition has never been better. It's progressively getting richer as more elements are incorporated and new avenues explored. Just because you like that obsolete music from yestercenturies doesn't mean contemporary stuff isn't good. Personally I'd take Berio over Bach any time.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chris harris
speech impediment
Joined: 12 Aug 2003
Posts: 4122
Location: Norman, OK
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 10:30 am Post subject: Re: Scientists prove that most modern pop music is garbage |
|
|
It's semantics because at this point, we're squabbling over the meaning of the word, "great".
You're attempting to define "greatness" in context with everything else that's ever been done. Your definition requires some kind of unspecified popularity or cultural significance. I believe that my neighbor can write a "great" song that nobody will ever hear. My definition of "great" music is music that is very, very good, in which I can find no fault or anything I personally would change. By my definition of "great", you don't actually have to agree with me for something to be great. Every user on this forum has different ideas of what might be "great". I'm sure there are plenty of places where the circles for many members would intersect. But, it's SUBJECTIVE. You CANNOT define "greatness" no matter how hard you try, because someone, somewhere will disagree with you.
Greatness is in the ear of the beholder. And, I still believe that there is more music being made today that more people consider to be great, than at any time in the history of the world. And, that's a belief that cannot be proven or disproven.
How you feel about it will be informed by your own beliefs. If you haven't heard anything in 20+ years that really, really turns you on and blows you away, that's your problem and not mine. I'm shitting in tall cotton. There's so much "GREAT!!!" stuff out there that I have a hard time keeping up with it.
I don't know that any truly artistically valid and great music will ever again truly shake the world like The Beatles did. The world is just not the same as it was when that was more likely. I don't even know if it's possible for a Nirvana to ever happen again. The mainstream music business has changed THAT MUCH. But, that doesn't mean that great music is not being made. It is.
_________________
Studio - http://www.hookechosound.com
Label - http://www.wearenicepeople.com
Band - http://www.depthandcurrent.com
Twitter - http://www.twitter.com/HoodEchoSound |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
