Is Music Really getting worse? discuss..

soulslicer

Tank
Joined
Mar 16, 2007
Messages
4,623
Reaction score
12
IS MUSIC GETTING WORSE?

Alright lets face it, we hear the argument all the time not just in hl2.net, but around every inch of the interwebs, and other forms of media. In this case, I'll look at the two most popular genre's of the century, pop and rock. Electronica as a genre has only gotten better though, with advancements in sound technology and all, so it's to be avoided here. Okay, so I'm not a god at crafting arguments and rants, but hear my case..

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is it really right to say that any music genre has actually changed for the worse? Alot of people have to understand that as much as "mainstream music", (what the media see's fit as music of our generation, thus morphing our minds accordingly) is the thing that's changing, for the worse or better, there will always be great artists out there, delivering fantastic "underground" (what the rest would call it) music to please our ways , should "mainstream" music get out of hand (which is probably the case now)

Another important point is that the rate of change of music is increasing, and this is because of the increasing level of genre's. So let's get a quick overview of rock's history. (do correct me if i'm wrong)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Quick Look at Rock History

First, we saw the birth of rock and roll in the 20's. Then we saw how, blues and jazz got integrated into rock and roll, forming "brit-rock" such as The Who, The Kinks, Pretty Things and bands as such. Then came along a rebirth of folk rock, like Bob Dylan, Neil Young. From this came Psychedelic rock, which led to progressive rock like Pink Floyd or Deep Purple. From the 70's, metal rock and hard rock was born, such as acts like Queen, LZ and Ac/DC. Real punk rock was also born (Sex Pistols for example..), and so was New Wave, the 1st electronic rock genre (Duran Duran..)

With the passing of the metal phase, we saw glam metal being born (don't know why it's dissed here at hl2.net..), like Ratt, Aerosmith, queen, Bon Jovi. In the previous decade, we saw the birth of funk metal (Incubus, 311, RATM, RHCP "awesome shit"), Nu-rock, grunge, alternative emo and "pop punk (Sum 41, Blink 182, green day etc.)", and an ever increasing level of electronic rock and Industrial (NIN, Filter, Rammstein). Of course year 2000 came and post-grunge and horrific teeny boppy pop-punk was advanced. (Jonas brothers, click five, mcr, fob) Horrific. British Alternative Rock also advanced ( Radiohead, Muse etc. )

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some bands of course change their style to suit the public and this pissed off fans. (Metallica is probably the most famous example). And of course, each phase shift has pissed a whole load of people off. The transition from the 60's rock to Heavy Hard Rock/Metal was not welcomed by people at first, but it passed. The Metal died to Glam Metal, and of course came the famous phrase ("Glam Metal killed Metal Rock"), then grunge (Sound-garden, Nirvana, AIC, GNR) consumed glam metal, after which it was murdered/consumed by post-grunge and alternative (3 doors down, Alerbridge, everclear etc.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

And what to notice from all these "mainstream" rock genre killings? It's all done by the media to feed a new generation. And the old generation will always go away pissed off, saying the good old music has died, while the teens and beyond will remember these genre's as true music. But there is a major flaw in this thinking, because of the way this new "rock music" is going. Post-grunge and pop punk are the two big mainstream rock genre's of today, and both of them do not require much musical skill level and are very repetitive imo. Sometime I feel as if, rock genre has been practically squeezed out to this level, and I can't see how rock music can actually advance, like it has done over the last 5 decades.

Pop Music too, has been great till the turn of this decade. Everything from the Beach Boys to the Bee Gees and Beatles, to the Jazzy Blue pop, all the way to the Dance and Disco era of Pop Music, they have been great. Hell, even boy bands had singing talent, if you look at it at a one sided way. But look at the pop music dominating "mainstream pop" these days. It's all RNB, Rap and crap (yes it's a genre, consisting of artists like Rhianna, Leona Lewis, Jordin sparks, gwen stefani, fergie). Why? I hate this genre's of pop music so much, especially RnB of this decade, it's horrible. I don't see the direction of where pop music is advancing.

So I have only one conclusion. Rock and Pop Music are dying. What do you think?

(Do apologize if my musical knowledge or taste doesn't hold by post strong enough, but hey, we need a rant thread of this sort already, because I am sick of the shit I hear nowadays. Post-grunge is bearable though imo, though it too can be repetitive. For example, Audiovent, Hoobastank, Alter-bridge and such are alright, but Nickelback, Pap-roach and such acts are pretty horrific. Also, do remember, that I am referring to MAINSTREAM MUSIC)

Do, try not to turn this thread into an anti post grunge and pop punk thread, but give your views on changing music and the future of music.
 
While I can't comment that well on where the music industry is heading, you do seem to be forgetting there was an awful lot of crap in those decades too, we just forget about them and pick out the good stuff. In the UK we have/used to have a program called Top of the Pops 2 reminding us of this :p
 
The problem with music today, I believe, is part of a larger problem of a general dumbing down of mainstream media. As the OP stated, yes, there will always be amazing artists making amazing pieces of art in whatever their form is, be it music, literature, jouralism, etc. The problem is that because of the way the media industry is being run, it is getting harder and harder to deliver quality media to the masses.

I believe that a major reason for this, at least in the music industry, is a reluctance to give new or different things a chance. This is why everything always seems to sound the same in every mainstream genre. Sure, some decent stuff sneaks in, but then you always end up with a dozen clones all trying to replicate their success.

This problem has been exasperated by the music industry's complete and utter failure to evolve technologically in step with the rest of the world. This conversation has been had over and over, but in summary, I believe that the dwindling sales that the music industry complains of have much more to do with the lack of means of digital distribution (which are finally slowly catching up) than piracy.

As a result, the music executives are even more frantic to find artists that SELL, rather than attempting to find new, interesting and talented artists.

Here's a question to think about - given all I've said above, what artists are going to symbolize our generation? Past generations had artists like the Beatles, Simon and Garfunkel, Led Zeppelin, even Aerosmith, Pink Floyd, and so on. All of these bands, and others like them, I would consider extremely mainstream. Anyone who hasn't been living under a rock for the last 60 years should at least recognize the names, if not their music. What bands of our generation can you really say that about?
 
Here's a question to think about - given all I've said above, what artists are going to symbolize our generation? Past generations had artists like the Beatles, Simon and Garfunkel, Led Zeppelin, even Aerosmith, Pink Floyd, and so on. All of these bands, and others like them, I would consider extremely mainstream. Anyone who hasn't been living under a rock for the last 60 years should at least recognize the names, if not their music. What bands of our generation can you really say that about?

It depends on your opinion of said artists. I'm sure by now a lot of people here my thoughts of ''classic'' bands such as them, and for reasons strictly to do with the sounds and noises they make, I dislike a good few of them (The Beatles, Led Zep mainly - I love Floyd and agree 100% on their presence in music, but only for the albums and songs they've created. Far too many people liking bands because the media tells them to OBEY THE CLASSICS) so it's horses for courses.

In my own opinion, because of how much of an impact they've had on me and my tastes, my ears and my preferences, it's Modest Mouse or Aphex Twin that's going to be a classic I'll look back on in 20 years and respect whole heartidly. Many more, too, but that's just an example.

As for music getting worse... hell no. Not a chance. Not a goddamn chance in hell can that be said or backed up.
 
Here's a question to think about - given all I've said above, what artists are going to symbolize our generation? Past generations had artists like the Beatles, Simon and Garfunkel, Led Zeppelin, even Aerosmith, Pink Floyd, and so on. All of these bands, and others like them, I would consider extremely mainstream. Anyone who hasn't been living under a rock for the last 60 years should at least recognize the names, if not their music. What bands of our generation can you really say that about?
Dizzee Rascal.

YEAH BOYEEEEEEEEEEEEE.
 
No. Just different. Every generation has a different musical genre. People thought that baroque music was a desecration of music in general because it focused on captivating the audience rather than chanting holy verses. People thought that waltzes were terrible because they all followed the same pattern and promoted dancing (which was clearly evil), after that they thought ragtime was awful because it had "ragged" synchopation and allowed people to dance to it. Then they thought the blues were a desecration of ragtime because the blues utilized simple scales and riffs, then they thought Jazz was bad because it was "jungle music" and promoted sex, dancing and drinking, then Rock and Roll became the new "devil music", as it was the music of youth and had raunchy (in their view) dancers. Then everyone hated the Beatles because their music was (in their view) drug-inspired, then everyone hated punk and metal for their stage presence, nihilism and "satanism", then everyone hated grunge for its breakdown of complex chords and solos and its lack of "real" singing or guitar talent, then everyone hated post-grunge because it "commercialized" grunge, and now everyone hates nu-metal and emo because its "whiny", "commercialized", and "simplistic."

People always hate modern music. And in 20 years people our age will hate whatever is new, and will cling on to the emo and nu-metal music of the past, while we'll cling to our "oldies". Nine Inch Nails will play on AM radio someday with the connotation of "old people's music." Old men will live the grunge dream in shoddy basements and run-down bars, playing old Nirvana and Pearl Jam tunes. And some day there will be old-men emos,listening to My Chemical Romance and Fall Out Boy CDs on their ancient portable CD players, longing for the halcyon days of the 00's, when music was better, when it "meaned something", and decrying the slow decay of the "modern music industry."

Music never gets worse. It never gets better. It just gets different. People are born into a world and desensitized to a particular type of music, and then they hold on to it like it was the golden prize at the end of a race. Every man's trophy music is another man's garbage, and as people grow old and music goes on, the trophies die and fade into the distant past as a new generation picks up a new set of tunes, and completes the cycle, over and over again.
 
Music never gets worse. It never gets better. It just gets different. People are born into a world and desensitized to a particular type of music, and then they hold on to it like it was the golden prize at the end of a race. Every man's trophy music is another man's garbage, and as people grow old and music goes on, the trophies die and fade into the distant past as a new generation picks up a new set of tunes, and completes the cycle, over and over again.

I don't think it could be put into better words.

I also think some facts here stated are wrong, there are a fair amount of teenagers of this generation that absolutely love Nine Inch Nails. I've seen so much posts on the internet where everyone is like "Yeah.. I wish I could see them over in The Fragile era, or TDS era. To bad I was like, 2 when that happened".

It's not like the 'emo era' is that bad, you just gotta pick out the good bands. These good bands encorporate the energy of punk, but they add this extra level of friendlyness. I have friends that go to 'emo' concerts, and they've met every single band member without a single problem. These guys are down to earth, their shows are very energetic. I can proudly say that in 20 years I'll be saying "Man.. what happened to Taking Back Sunday, that was the era when music was good.".

Shunning a genre and saying it sucks is completely ignorant, it just takes time to find something you like. If I shunned off a genre I didn't like, I wouldn't be listening to Saul Williams, Portishead, Nine Inch Nails, At The Drive-In, Refused, Wilco, UNKLE, TV on the Radio, Spoon, Soulsavers, etc. etc.
 
If people think music is bad it's because they listen to bad music.
 
We REALLY can't compare classical music to todays music, in all aspects. Classical music may not be very easy to like nowadays, but just the complexity of it puts todays music to a corner. I'm not saying classical music is better than todays music, I'm just saying it has more value.
 
No, it's not.

I think it's just that the calculated, made-for-masses, profit-driven crap music tends to blare louder than the good stuff these days.
 
Not necessarily, but the popular taste in music is definitely worse.
 
Sadly the only album I like that I know of that came out in the last eight years is () by Sigur Ros and maybe a few people who made songs and put them up on the internet. I haven't even seen any new genre's or anything new (that is interesting) at all for eight years. It's not all bad though, were in the magical wonderland were all music is free and can travel across the entire planet without the help of a record company. Record company's seem intent on throwing out crap with a repetitive bass sound to everyone. It's so hard to find modern music that takes you somewhere else with it's cleverly chosen sounds and rhythms, it seems as if all we have is stuff that has a rhyming tune and nothing else to it. There's hardly any good lyrics either, all the poetry seems to have gone. Even a lot of the hidden indie stuff seems to be trying to hard and just ends up sounding silly. There is good music it's just very hard to find.

edit: The music industry has never been perfect it's always tried to push out "easy listening" stuff with watered down emotions so that it can be listened to by anyone in any mood. It's just that it's gotten a whole lot worse
 
No. And I hate you for calling the Beegees good. :frown:
 
I don't think it could be put into better words.

I also think some facts here stated are wrong, there are a fair amount of teenagers of this generation that absolutely love Nine Inch Nails. I've seen so much posts on the internet where everyone is like "Yeah.. I wish I could see them over in The Fragile era, or TDS era. To bad I was like, 2 when that happened".

It's not like the 'emo era' is that bad, you just gotta pick out the good bands. These good bands encorporate the energy of punk, but they add this extra level of friendlyness. I have friends that go to 'emo' concerts, and they've met every single band member without a single problem. These guys are down to earth, their shows are very energetic. I can proudly say that in 20 years I'll be saying "Man.. what happened to Taking Back Sunday, that was the era when music was good.".

Shunning a genre and saying it sucks is completely ignorant, it just takes time to find something you like. If I shunned off a genre I didn't like, I wouldn't be listening to Saul Williams, Portishead, Nine Inch Nails, At The Drive-In, Refused, Wilco, UNKLE, TV on the Radio, Spoon, Soulsavers, etc. etc.
Oh man, thank you, you are the only person i've ever seen mention soulsavers

I saw them live and they were absolutely fantastic (<3 mark lanegan)
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Quick Look at Rock History

First, we saw the birth of rock and roll in the 20's. Then we saw how, blues and jazz got integrated into rock and roll, forming "brit-rock" such as The Who, The Kinks, Pretty Things and bands as such. Then came along a rebirth of folk rock, like Bob Dylan, Neil Young. From this came Psychedelic rock, which led to progressive rock like Pink Floyd or Deep Purple. From the 70's, metal rock and hard rock was born, such as acts like Queen, LZ and Ac/DC. Real punk rock was also born (Sex Pistols for example..), and so was New Wave, the 1st electronic rock genre (Duran Duran..)

With the passing of the metal phase, we saw glam metal being born (don't know why it's dissed here at hl2.net..), like Ratt, Aerosmith, queen, Bon Jovi. In the previous decade, we saw the birth of funk metal (Incubus, 311, RATM, RHCP "awesome shit"), Nu-rock, grunge, alternative emo and "pop punk (Sum 41, Blink 182, green day etc.)", and an ever increasing level of electronic rock and Industrial (NIN, Filter, Rammstein). Of course year 2000 came and post-grunge and horrific teeny boppy pop-punk was advanced. (Jonas brothers, click five, mcr, fob) Horrific. British Alternative Rock also advanced ( Radiohead, Muse etc. )

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a lot to say on this because I have been thinking the same thing for so many years.


Here goes.

the bands that invented new genres of Rock were just doing what their own style and the style was different enough so that people called it a different type of rock.

HOWEVER, rock bands that try to sound like someone else is the main culprit here I feel. Instead of doing their own thing, their style is just them trying to sound like the classics. Part of it is a lack of talent and part of it is just heavy influence. (music fans making music that sounds like whatever they are a fan of) But trying to sound like someone else is never as good. Firstly, it's been done before so it's not fresh or exciting. Second, when you try to be like someone else, you can only emulate the part that you know, so the heart and soul of the original bands can never be taken


Also, the classics that we hear of so often is basically the best of the best in the entire history of rock music. I mean, they are like world records at the olympics. In the history of rock music which spans decades, It gets harder and harder to make better songs in the same way that as world records get better and better, they get harder and harder to beat.


Last, but probably most importantly, i think what modern rock had been lacking was devotion.

I think that rock music will never be quite as flawless as some of the classic rock is for this reason: bands like Led Zeppelin didn't have things like Xbox360's or DVD's or HDTV's with 1000 channels and internet porn and chat rooms to waste their life with. They had two things to do with their lives - do drugs and play music. So, they were just plain better. More skills. They spent more of their lives writing lyrics and playing music.

Nowadays, you can make a song in on a computer in as little as 2 minutes or a few hours, and that is what a lot of bands are probably doing, and that is much of the reason it sucks. It's just not varied enough. (here lets record that guitar riff one time and re-use it throughout the song)

The classics couldn't do this of course because the technology wasn't there.

Yeah, they could record the guitar riff and use it more than once, but you can tell that it wasn't done by listening to it.

It's just gotten too easy to use computers. And it's almost encouraged because it saves so much time. Again, part of the problem is that many bands don't have the skills to play the song straight through (going back to what I said before about the classics devoting their lives to playing music and writing lyrics and songs.

To make an example of what devotion to music can do -- Beethoven, ray charles, and stevie wonder for example, had either no sight or no vision. They had nothing to do in their entire lives but do what they knew how to, which was to make music. And I firmly belive that is why it was so good.


I think new Rock music was pretty dead for the better part of the past 10 years, but in the past few years, it has some really ****in sweet stand-outs IMHO.

And the sound quality of music has gotten so much better that it helps make up for the lack of devotion that the classic bands had.


Maybe you should check out some bands you haven't heard before.
 
I don't think it could be put into better words.

I also think some facts here stated are wrong, there are a fair amount of teenagers of this generation that absolutely love Nine Inch Nails. I've seen so much posts on the internet where everyone is like "Yeah.. I wish I could see them over in The Fragile era, or TDS era. To bad I was like, 2 when that happened".

It's not like the 'emo era' is that bad, you just gotta pick out the good bands. These good bands encorporate the energy of punk, but they add this extra level of friendlyness. I have friends that go to 'emo' concerts, and they've met every single band member without a single problem. These guys are down to earth, their shows are very energetic. I can proudly say that in 20 years I'll be saying "Man.. what happened to Taking Back Sunday, that was the era when music was good.".

Shunning a genre and saying it sucks is completely ignorant, it just takes time to find something you like. If I shunned off a genre I didn't like, I wouldn't be listening to Saul Williams, Portishead, Nine Inch Nails, At The Drive-In, Refused, Wilco, UNKLE, TV on the Radio, Spoon, Soulsavers, etc. etc.

That's what I was saying. Nine Inch Nails, like all music, will someday be considered "oldies". I think that in 20 years, they'll be looked upon like Depeche Mode is now: old, cheezy electronic music with nice melodies, good composition and obsolete mixing methods. We'll deride the music teenagers listen to, saying its a degradation of music, overly commercial and so on. Whatever you think is "bad music" today will be the "good old tunes" in the future. And "mainstream" music in the future will be utterly incomprehensible to us. We'll snarl and sneer at the simplistic, formulaic music of the future, and shake our heads at the naievette of our children in listening to it.

There will still be underground music groups playing music that we like. There'll still be niche for everyone. Eventually the tunes we know will play in bastardized form in commercials and in movie trailers. They'll become iconic snippets from the past that everybody can hum but nobody knows the name to. Eventually in 200 years time, they'll be little more than the tunes of nursery rhymes. Those melodies will be relics of the distant past. Only the ones that are most recognizable will remain, icons of a lost and esoteric folk culture.

In the distant future, nobody will remember it at all. They'll call it "20th century folk music". Students will learn only the great pieces of classical music of the 20th and 21st century. The music of today will be so distant, so colloquial and contemporary, that it will be all but meaningless to them. Maybe an occasional English class will read an occasional passage from the poet Renzor and yawn and look at the foot-notes to see what "****" means, then analyze the metaphors of the downward spiral to see what life was like "way back then." And then they'll fail the test because they don't understand the language.
 
We're dealing with a very, very limited scope of music here.
To be fair, you addressed mainstream music, and I do agree that mainstream music has overall been in decline.

However, good music is not hard to find. You just have to be willing and open minded.

Independent record labels as well as large non-corporate labels sell and distribute in shops around the world. The very music found in these shops can also be found through online distributors as well. But as for how to discover the gold mine? Well, it's all right here on the Internet, particularly through e-zines and review websites. Record label hunting and corner store shopping is a thing of the past these days, though a visit to obscure shops is always fun. To name a few websites helpful for finding new music:

www.tinymixtapes.com
www.almostcool.org
www.cokemachineglow.com
www.popmatters.com
www.allmusicguide.com
www.drownedinsound.com
www.dustedmagazine.com
www.pitchforkmedia.com

and there is many, many more.

While album reviews may or may not reflect accurately the quality of music, as tastes tend to be subjective, these websites are damned helpful for getting an idea of what's out there, and what may appeal to you.

Be daring, and seek out some things that you've never heard before. If you like it, find the record label they operate through, and seek more.

Music as a whole has not declined, in fact it never has at all, despite the trends displayed in the mainstream sector. Even during the famed "classic rock" era, there were thousands of innovative bands at work (i.e. kraut rock, prog, early experiments with electronics, art folk, psychadelia etc) inspiring the very bands we all know of today, but most of them go unheard of by the masses. Pop culture is but a tiny blip on the musical map.

2cents.
 
Personally, I think that music is declining. I listen to most new music once (AKA Rap), and I never listen again. I mean, come on, there's absolutely no point to the songs, and they have no meaning whatsoever besides who said rapper f*cked or shot or how many times he got shot. It just grows tiresome after a while...


I agree with fiznut, good music isn't really that difficult to find, if you look, and are open minded. For instance, I bought RockBand for the 360, and ever since then, I've been listening to a lot more old and new-ish tunes, like NiN Ghost whatever album, which, by the way, is great.

I know, you're all thinking that I should give rap a chance, but I have. I've given it many chances. Too many to count, some times. It's just pointless. Music like The Hand That Feeds has a point, and it actually is good and has a tune. Music like Sabotage (Beasty Boys) draws the line between music and rap, and I would give it a listen, solely because it has some tune to it, and... Sort of a purpose.

All in all, I think that music is slowly declining, and in 30 years we will all think about the music of last generation (the generation before ours).
 
I'd rather listen to newer music like The Flaming Lips, Mogwai or The Raconteurs over Zeppelin and Floyd any day. It's stupid to say music is getting worse because anybody who ****ing searches around can find plenty of great bands.
 
We REALLY can't compare classical music to todays music, in all aspects. Classical music may not be very easy to like nowadays, but just the complexity of it puts todays music to a corner. I'm not saying classical music is better than todays music, I'm just saying it has more value.
Absolutely disagree. I listen to music from all the generations, and do not see this "complexity" that everyone says classical music has.

Different types of music depend on different tools. Beethoven era piano music used a lot of symmetrical sounds and repeating patterns, while today's instrumental stuff (NIN for example) emphasize asymmetry and is more heavy on bass. That doesn't make it worse. I'd argue that good musicians today put more work into their music than the classical musicians, because they don't even have a template to work with.
 
It's just that the mediocre bands are getting more air-time, more commercialised and more advertised these days. There's still an equal amount of great music out there as there was back 40 years ago, it's just that the current good music is outplayed by the shit music.
 
Personally, I think that music is declining. I listen to most new music once (AKA Rap), and I never listen again. I mean, come on, there's absolutely no point to the songs, and they have no meaning whatsoever besides who said rapper f*cked or shot or how many times he got shot. It just grows tiresome after a while...


I agree with fiznut, good music isn't really that difficult to find, if you look, and are open minded. For instance, I bought RockBand for the 360, and ever since then, I've been listening to a lot more old and new-ish tunes, like NiN Ghost whatever album, which, by the way, is great.

I know, you're all thinking that I should give rap a chance, but I have. I've given it many chances. Too many to count, some times. It's just pointless. Music like The Hand That Feeds has a point, and it actually is good and has a tune. Music like Sabotage (Beasty Boys) draws the line between music and rap, and I would give it a listen, solely because it has some tune to it, and... Sort of a purpose.

All in all, I think that music is slowly declining, and in 30 years we will all think about the music of last generation (the generation before ours).

You've given mainstream rap a chance, which represents a very small percentage of the genre. But I do agree, it is garbage = the subject matter they often rap about is shallow and to put it bluntly, just plain dumb. Hustling? Honeys? I've met many people who clamor on about Lil' Wayne, the "best rapper alive". I've heard almost everything he's produced, and I find him to be unnecessarily belligerent and dumb. Never understood why they idolize him..

But there's MCs and beatsmiths out there who are much different, more jazzy, daring, and more real about life.
 
Absolutely disagree. I listen to music from all the generations, and do not see this "complexity" that everyone says classical music has.

Different types of music depend on different tools. Beethoven era piano music used a lot of symmetrical sounds and repeating patterns, while today's instrumental stuff (NIN for example) emphasize asymmetry and is more heavy on bass. That doesn't make it worse. I'd argue that good musicians today put more work into their music than the classical musicians, because they don't even have a template to work with.

I'm not so sure about that. Classical music eras represent developing theories of music, developing sounds and discovery of modes. Believe it or not, composing symphonies and the like is actually very difficult, and requires a strong understanding of music and it's underlying processes.

To compare this to someone like Trent Reznor is a bit naive. Though I can't help but wonder how classical music would fare had you mentioned Autechre, Alva Noto, Merzbow, Keith Whitman, Matmos , or any other artist who experiment to extreme degrees. They truly place no limits on themselves and in doing so push music into extremely "complex" territory. Don't get me wrong, I like Trent's music, but it's not exactly breaking new ground, and not nearly as complex as you would think.
 
Absolutely disagree. I listen to music from all the generations, and do not see this "complexity" that everyone says classical music has.

Different types of music depend on different tools. Beethoven era piano music used a lot of symmetrical sounds and repeating patterns, while today's instrumental stuff (NIN for example) emphasize asymmetry and is more heavy on bass. That doesn't make it worse. I'd argue that good musicians today put more work into their music than the classical musicians, because they don't even have a template to work with.

Complexity of Renzor
http://img394.imageshack.us/img394/6872/closertq9.jpg

Complexity of Beethoven
http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/3691/beethovencopyfs1.jpg

Each arc represents a single theme or pattern. Large arcs mean that it rarely repeats or roccurs infrequently. A bunch of little arcs of the same size mean a bunch of simple patterns repeated over and over, a huge mess of arcs with big overarcing ones means it rarely repeats yet has certain grounding themes.
 
Who cares how complex a song is? Honestly. Something isn't better by definition just because it's harder to play. It's probably just as hard to find a simple tune that just grabs your audience, or to evoke certain emotions at will from your audience through a good build-up. Taking a dump into a bucket from 10km in the sky while flying at 400 km/h is very hard, but that doesn't make it good amusement though. Forced complexity is very tiresome.

And to those who say that mainstream music is just getting worse these days: I disagree. This may have been so up to now, but through the positive force of the internet, it's never been so easy to come across many kinds of music. Mainstream music labels are slowly crumbling under the influence of the internet as well, in favor of indie labels and digital distribution.
 
To compare this to someone like Trent Reznor is a bit naive.
Trent Reznor writes music classically I believe. I also come to believe he was influenced by classical music a fair bit in the way he writes his music.

Classical Music is extremely complex, repition can be complex (Where do you put it, how long does it last, who plays in this repetition.)
Modern bands don't have to deal with say, 50 different instruments. They just simply don't have to decide who plays what (Though it is largely simplified by having the different 'sections', it's still largely more complex.).

I'd argue that good musicians today put more work into their music than the classical musicians, because they don't even have a template to work with.
Classical musicians know quite a lot of theory, but a lot of modern musicians don't know that much. Theory is the musical template on which one can create songs, instead of just trying to guess a whole bunch of notes or going by ear (All methods just as effective, theory is just much more effecient.)
 
Rock is dead.

There hasn't been a proper classic song in at least 15 years.

The last decent song I heard was Sad Sad City by Ghostland Observatory, but it's just decent, nothing more. Nowadays rock bands like Razorlight can only muster a decent-and-nothing-more song like "America".
 
What do you mean, ''name them''? A classic song should be something that seems classic to you - just because 100 people call a song by some band classic doesn't mean that's it's label. People will tell me that Stairway to Heaven is a classic, but I can't stand it, so to me a classic is Gravity Rides Everything by Modest Mouse because it's one of the finest songs I've heard for a lot of reasons.

By implying that ''classics'' should be told to you by others is just wrong. Find them yourself.
 
What do you mean, ''name them''? A classic song should be something that seems classic to you - just because 100 people call a song by some band classic doesn't mean that's it's label. People will tell me that Stairway to Heaven is a classic, but I can't stand it, so to me a classic is Gravity Rides Everything by Modest Mouse because it's one of the finest songs I've heard for a lot of reasons.

By implying that ''classics'' should be told to you by others is just wrong. Find them yourself.
Not true. Classics are landmark songs. It doesn't matter if you like them or not. Smells Like Teen Spirit is a landmark song even though I don't care for it.

By your reckoning I could say Off He Goes by Pearl Jam is a classic, but it's not.
 
That's such a spoon-fed way of looking at things. If I don't like a song, in what way does that make it okay for me to call it a classic? So Smells Like Teen Spirit gets a lot of media coverage... so what? It does nothing for the both of us so it's not appealing to either, therefore not as groundbreaking to us as others may believe.
 
Back
Top