Death of music as an artform and as a the strongest communicative language we have. (1 Viewer)

[hiphophooray123]

i get far too angry about this kind of stuff haha

glad to know im not the only one.

i always think that i get too worked up about people dissing certain music without knowing anything about it.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Now we're just flooded with a whole lot of crap. And it's become about the song more than the band... because the bands song sound just like the last band. I'm not going to even talk about the fact that Recording to tape and using Valve equipment and having your CD mastered is vastly superior... because most bands don't realise this... they don't truly care about the music... they THINK they do, but they just WANT to be famous and play some form of music doing so because it's more fun than sitting at a desk doing paperwork. They've forgotten that this is an art form. And people have just bought into it. There is a difference between playing "Stairway to Heaven" and writing a song that will last that long.

is it just me misreading or does he really manage to whine about one thing then whine about the opposite (i.e. contradict himself) within a single paragraph?

 

[Born Dancer]

glad to know im not the only one.

i always think that i get too worked up about people dissing certain music without knowing anything about it.

i know i do, but i don't mind.. being elitist is far better than misguided ha

 

[jdevlin]

I only really read the first paragraph about classical music and skimmed the rest, but your thesis doesn't seem very coherent.
I'm not familiar with the work of Hindson, but I think your critique of the modernists is ignorant of the purpose and signifcance of their work. Just because no one composes by, or listens to schoenbergs 12 tone system, doesn't mean it wasn't important or necessary.
All the modernist movements were historically essential to progress in the art, unlistenable or no. It's not nonsense at all, if you study art history, all the movements in art and music are linked, and there is a sound intellectual process behind their development.
People are afraid of anything new. What do you want composers to do, try to emulate mozart for the next thousand years so it sounds 'nice' and accessible?

You criticise classical music for being inaccessable except to elitist wankers.
You go on to criticise rock music for being too populist.

Make up your mind about what you want art to be.

Thanks guys these are some interesting thoughts too. I'm just throwing ideas out there at the moment... and this is the sort of place where ALL sorts of ideas will come together.

It's not a thesis... it's very initial thoughts... dicatated from me ranting and talking. It's a response to the wave of articles recently talking about the mp3 player and the iPod, and pirated music, and the fact that the music industry is now actually loosing a lot of money

emulating mozart is exactly what I DON'T want them to do... but I also don't want them to emulate the really obscure sounds either. Having 50 or 60 odd orchestral pieces where it's essentially a very short jumpy melody being constantly moved around the orchestra is fine, pushing it but fine... having 60 or so a year for 10 years from all over the world is stagnating the music industry. And alot of the time... without significant knowledge of the composers specific way of arranging etc... you can't tell the difference. It's like that artwork in the Modern Art Gallery in Sydney that's a blank canvas. Only 1 person can really do that. Having 20 people doing it would just be stupid and visual arts wouldn't move anywhere.

People are NOT afraid of new things! What on earth gives you that idea. Yes people are afraid of big change all at once, because too much change is overwhelming... but constant change is what has developed us as a nation.

Different genres have different problems that cover the majority of it. See the works of classical composers who emulate Mozart never see the light of day. And Rock's equivalent pretentious wanker crap doesn't see the light of day. There doesn't seem to be a middle ground. And all the genres seem to hate each other. Like even at learning institutions. At Sydney Conservatorium... the Jazz musicians don't spend time with the Classical musicians and vice versa. And Metal is always mocking pop listeners for being followers of the crowd (when they're just as bad), and metal is branded as this dark thing... it just keeps going. Whereas in visual arts... you watch and learn from other people. In literature you learn from other peoples writing. But in music... there are these rigid divides... and even when the divide is broken, there is still a segregation. Opeth never have jazz AND Metal at the same time... it's an either/or feeling.

producing professional music is easier than ever, and thanks to the internet, distribution and access is fantastic.

Bit of a side track... but...
See that has just spelled the death of professional musicians. It's not "professional" music. It's emulated, it's Pro-Tools copy-paste. For instance... if you can tell me singer-songwriter Amy Lee Wilson from Wollongong http://www.myspace.com/amymusicaus is as good as say, Liz Frencham http://www.myspace.com/lizfrencham... you need to see them both live to see there is a massive difference. But recorded the quality is quite similar. But Liz Frencham puts out far superior music, and plays far superior music to Amy Lee... because Liz is a professional, and has been for a long time.
Sorry... as someone who earns money from playing music, and see's a lot of people who can only just get by playing live, but have good recordings is slightly frustrating.

hiphophooray123everything in music has been done to death, so why put pressure on artists to discover more, and more, and more, and more things that we haven't heard yet.

Because honestly I believe that to be a true musician you shouldn't be happy to just go through the paces. Authors and Poets don't just write similar things. Literature develops so fast and grows so quickly. It constantly crosses mediums, and evolves in a way that you could never fully understand it. And literature expands out culture and redefines society. That's why i have such respect for good rappers... so why should musicians, when music is incorporating literature into it. Why is music so easily defined BY society as opposed to defining it?

Graney diminishing returns... the obvious roads have been tread by history, we are reaching the nadir of our civilisation, redefining a genre and inventing a completely new way of looking at music is pretty hard in a globalised world of millions of potential composers.

Yet although we are closer together, we don't communicate. Like I said... there's this divide... these obvious divides between musical genres. And it's not so much the listeners, but the musicians themselves who are to blame for it.

The biggest problem is still that music is so subjective... and so all this is really relevant to how you see and interpret and feel and express when music is involved.

Enteebee Music is better than ever because anyone can get into it these days. To decry a layman's ability to participate in music and share it with others these days because you don't like the music they're producing just smacks of utter elitism.

Oh I think EVERYONE should play or be involved in music, it's good for the soul, it's good for the mind, the emotions... everything really... it helps define who we are. And everyone has a right to share their music. But you wouldn't let just anyone put their paintings in an art Gallery... only exceptional art, things that stand out, go in galleries. Things of quality, and anyone with any right mind knows this. Also not everything gets published... artists, authors poets, they keep what isn't good enough for public distribution to themselves normally. So why is music so different that anyone who can play acoustic guitar and sing in tune thinks that they should upload what they recorded on their little 2 track Behringer Interface to Myspace, then tell all their friends to listen to it?

It's like decrying an artist who conveys a new idea in a slightly different way using a very similar painting techniques as say Whitely, as being inartistic.

Yet... say if one artist painted the Harbour Bridge in an impressionist style, dot painting... and then another artist did the same thing, from the same location on the same size canvas with the same ratios... only used a few different shades of colours... would both artists paintings be put up in the national gallery? And most people would think the second artist had copied the first artist.

Yet you take a sub-genre like Metalcore... and you have that exact same equivalent... where down to the amplifier brand and model, down to the way the riff is structured, down to the drum beats, the vocal sound... sometimes two bands will be undistinguishable unless you know the exact notes of all the riffs in the songs. And both bands are just absorbed.

I CBF reading/addressing your whole post but from my skim of it you're entirely wrong. In a big way imo, what you have to wait for is technology/society to progress as music is usually just a reflection of that.

See I think that technology is part of the reason for the problem. The mp3 player has created this demand for more and more music... so record comapanies and amateurs alike are just churning this music out in droves. No one uses a producer anymore, so nothing is filtered, because musicians always are attached to what they play and how it's played.

kfunk(1) Music looks dead if you look to the top of the pops - but I would contend that this is the wrong place to look. There is a lot of great music out there if you have the time to search and listen.

No i do generally go out of my way to find stuff, and search and give groups a chance...

(2) "Jazz is the same as classical music. It's either standards, or Avante Garde stuff that no one wants to listen to." --> Again, it seems as though you're not looking in the right places. Check out Dance of the Infidel by Meshell Ndegeocello and Momentum by Joshua Redman and tell me what you think (both these albums fall into a 'fusion' kind of direction --> but this is necessary if it is to sound at all 'different' right?).

I know Joshua Redman quite well...i think I may have listened to Dance of the Infidel, I'm not sure... but I recognise the name. But on Joshua Redman, that sound is quite common in the French Jazz scene (at least from what I've been told... I dunno... I haven't been and sat in Jazz clubs all over France).

(3) Music doesn't have to be different, or push the enveope, in order to be good. Sometimes simplicity is all it takes - chords I, IV, V and VI, good lyrics, quality musicianship and some heartfelt delivery. Hillbilly shakespeare kind of stuff. You complain about stagnation on the one hand (and of course you will encounter a degree of 'sameness' when considering a given genre - such similarity is a precondition for a common label!) and inaccessible art-music on the other. Besides, everyone knows that music ended with symphony for dot matrix printers.

I know that. I'm not trying to define what's good... because that's all subjective. And yes simple is great. I'm employed as a music minister, and simplicity is a big part of that. Like I said before... different genres tend to have different problems... there seems to be no middle ground.


If you're going to read any of this post read this - I'm not trying to say that music is dead... i'm trying to say as an artform it's DYING... I believe it to be in the early stages. I believe the first stage was the throwing out of all the vintage recording gear for new transitor based, mass produced equipment and that we've gone from there. I mean I like generic music, I like listening to it... one of my favourite sayings is that "There's a reason for generic being popular, it's because it's good!" The more i play music, in all the different styles that I play... and the more I listen to music... the more I see and hear that within the big blocks of genre like Metal, Rock, Pop, Jazz, Classical, Folk (not the world music part - that being exempt due to the whole purpose of it being to do with tradition) etc etc there is this powerful interconnectedness. The more I play metal music... the more i realise the sameness of it all. The more I play pop... the more I realise the sameness of it all... yet in too many ways the two are diametrically opposed in culture and in theory and sound and practice... when there is no reason to be. When in the past has an artform been completely controlled and determined by society and culture? When has an artform not been truly symbiotic with the society it is a part of?
Within their genres, they develop... but they have pretty much reached the reasonable limits of where they can go fowards, so why not go sideways?

lolokay from what I can tell.. op has no idea what he's talking about and makes no real good points. it's a bit hard to take the article at all seriously

I suppose that the decline of art in certain aspects of music is a good enough topic to write about, but I really think you need to find some better things to say in regards to it

Hi... I'm right here! *waves* It's rude enough to talk about people behind their backs... but to talk about them in front of them... kind of stupid.

And the whole point of the first few sentences I wrote were that it's just ideas... dictated ideas. I wanted people to discuss it.

To Born dancer (Lauren is it?) Yes you said very valid things about my earlier posts, I'm quite happy to admit that... but you made very incorrect judgements about my personality and listening habits. This is not supposed to be argument... it's ideas. And I do listen to music outside the mainstream... I use the mainstream for a lot of my evidence, yes... because everyone knows the mainstream. Most people won't know who/what I'm talking about if I mention Sigur Ros... and alot of people seemed to have heard of/listened to Radiohead. Obviously you're widely versed in modern music, and in Jazz and Contemporary Art Music. But this is not the sort of article intended for you. It's actually intended for a family friends technical training institute... it's like the equivalent of JMC or SAE... except it's in South Africa... I have no idea what it's called or where it is... I just happen to have a family connection to this college. And i write all sorts of articles for them. Last week I wrote an article on Pro-Tools and how it is both a blessing and a curse. This article is intended for tech students. I mean it's translated into Afrikaans for them!

In fact in reference to ALL your comments about the charts and "mainstream" music, and how you say I need to go and listen to non-mainstream... I have barely listened to the radio for 3 years... and on the rare occasion I do... it's Classic FM or Triple J. I have very little exposure to the mainstream.

Born Dancer You are just inviting criticism here. How is it at all possible to listen to enough bands to make that comment?! I can think of so many bands who can be considered 'rock' and fail to fit into your unoriginality category. Sigur Ros, TV on the Radio, Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds, Beck and Radiohead are just a few. Stop listening to mainstream and you might actually learn something. I'll even point out that the bands I've mentioned above aren't actually that obscure

Well... on listening to enough bands... I've pretty much spent the last nine months doing very little but playing and listening to music... and I spent most of the previous 2 years doing the same thing. My life is music, my job is music... you make these things a priority... and that's even before I get to music for pleasure. No i haven't listened to most bands... but I have listened to an insane amount... under so many different categories. And if you take the big picture of a bands sound... there is very little difference between them and anyone else in their subgenre... and you take the subgenres and they're not all that different from each other.

You need to do a hell of a lot more research before you begin writing absolute rubbish like that. I am totally agreeing with Graney about the modernist movement, if you knew anything about modernism as a movement even in literature then you would have a trillionth of a better understanding than you do. I was even more annoyed that you are totally pigeon holing contemporary classical music as wank, when contemporary is actually quite different to modernist classical music. Composers like Sonny Chua, Alexandre Desplat and others make brilliant contemporary classical music. (This isn't just me getting semantic on you either, look it up). Plus, the kind of dissonance and isolation you are referring to is hardly a new concept.. Composers such as Prokofiev have been playing with the conventions of classical music for years. Go even further and you will find people like John Cage and a lot of the Fluxus artists and students of Cage who revolutionised music composition and understanding.

Yes there is some brilliant contemporary classical music. No doubt about it... but I don't see how it's progressing! Show me where the progression is... tell me what the progression is. When has it moved in the last 5 or 10 years? I'll be joyful if you show me where! John Cage is interesting... but I honestly don't think his students, George Brecht and the likes... while they composed interesting stuff, really took his experimentation with sound any further then he could have. Which is a shame... because I think they are the sort of people who could've done something new. Like some of Dick Higgins stuff just leaves you wishing he had composed more.

Firstly, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that making your own music means you can't be credible or build a credible reputation. Music industries such as Jazz rely so heavily on networking through home-studio recordings most of the time. Sure that means there is a lot more crap, but you can't argue that and completely neglect the potential for so much good music as well. Bands are still perfectly capable to build up a reputable fan base and gig residencies with the advent of better recording technology. This is especially true considering how many bands have the talent but absolutely no money to get it off the ground.

No... no there isn't. But... a lot of the crap stopped being filtered with the advent of home recording. Jazz is a little different. Because the Jazz scene tends to be yes about networking, but that means that the crap is filtered out because everyone knows that Johnny is a terrible drummer who doesn't listen, or that Billy is THE Saxophonist if you're looking for one. Whereas bands in Rock and Metal tend to be formed by friends, and so within the creative process there is this lack of filtering because you're with mates. One of the best things I've found is that my brother is in my band, and is quite happy to tell me when something is crap. Whereas in other bands I've played in, no-one really says much. But honestly... if you really are good enough, but you don't have the money... you need to learn to look in the right places. There are so many ways to get gigs. And playing in pubs and the like you can earn oodles of money. Some pubs pay you like 25% of the bar... which can translate to like $500 for a night. Do 4 of those, invest a little of your own money and you've got a demo/EP recording which gets you more gigs... therefore earning more money etc etc.

Someone like hiphophooray or icraig88 will tell you that you are just wrong. Bling and battles is such a small part of rap culture, and more often that not accompanies mainstream rap culture. I say it again, open your ears past mainstream music. Plus, such a big element of rap actually is the beat, tonality and emphasis of words, far more so sometimes than the words themselves.

Yes I understand that there is more to rap... and beat, tonality and emphasis are a part of poetry too, they may not be so pronounced in poetry's purer forms, but they are there and are important. Iambic Pentametre being the most well known one.

Where the hell did you even get that from?

the way that every record company I know of has operated for the last... oh I dunno... 50 odd years. The fact that I have a few friends who work in A & R and a family member is best buddies with the managing director or whatever he's called of Sony BMG in Australia and I've had lots of interesting and enlightening conversations with him.

What have you been doing, listening to only Ella Fitzgerald and Louie Armstrong CDS and then chucking on George Adams or Charlie Haden?

Hmmm... Tim O'Dwyer, Jack Dejohnette, Jamie Oehlers, Sam Keevers, Julien Wilson, Randy Brecker, Thelonius Monk, Matt McMahon, Keith Jarret... to name a few I've been listening to recently...

tell us what your editor says.

I will ... It's not due for two weeks this one (the next couple are already written).

Captain Gh3y is it just me misreading or does he really manage to whine about one thing then whine about the opposite (i.e. contradict himself) within a single paragraph

Well no... I don't... the first bit is talking about audience and what is chosen and the second bit is about musicians motives.


So yea... keep the thoughts coming... It's all interesting stuff (except when you make unfounded judgements about my character or listening habits)

 

[Born Dancer]

Re: Death of music as an artform and as a the strongest communicative language we hav

To Born dancer (Lauren is it?) Yes you said very valid things about my earlier posts, I'm quite happy to admit that... but you made very incorrect judgements about my personality and listening habits. This is not supposed to be argument... it's ideas. And I do listen to music outside the mainstream... I use the mainstream for a lot of my evidence, yes... because everyone knows the mainstream. Most people won't know who/what I'm talking about if I mention Sigur Ros... and alot of people seemed to have heard of/listened to Radiohead. Obviously you're widely versed in modern music, and in Jazz and Contemporary Art Music. But this is not the sort of article intended for you. It's actually intended for a family friends technical training institute... it's like the equivalent of JMC or SAE... except it's in South Africa... I have no idea what it's called or where it is... I just happen to have a family connection to this college. And i write all sorts of articles for them. Last week I wrote an article on Pro-Tools and how it is both a blessing and a curse. This article is intended for tech students. I mean it's translated into Afrikaans for them!

First of all, if you are going to keep making this stupid argument (and it is an argument (i don't care what you say, you are pushing a point and that's fine but you need to evidence it properly) You need to totally redefine what you are saying. You need to clarify that you think the MAINSTREAM music industry is dying or isnt artistic. And once you do that, I don't think you really need to write the whole thing anyway, given that even idiots will tell you how commercially driven the mainstream music industry is. Fine if you can't use Sigur Ros or Radiohead (I argue that Radiohead are immensely popular but anyway) but then don't continue to say HAY MUSIC AS AN ARTFORM IS DEAD I MEAN DYING BROVAS because it's far too wide a spectrum and just clumsy. You talk about giving ideas sure but if you are going to go ahead and write this article you need to have some kind of arguing skillz and right now you just don't have them.

In fact in reference to ALL your comments about the charts and "mainstream" music, and how you say I need to go and listen to non-mainstream... I have barely listened to the radio for 3 years... and on the rare occasion I do... it's Classic FM or Triple J. I have very little exposure to the mainstream. Well... on listening to enough bands... I've pretty much spent the last nine months doing very little but playing and listening to music... and I spent most of the previous 2 years doing the same thing. My life is music, my job is music... you make these things a priority... and that's even before I get to music for pleasure. No i haven't listened to most bands... but I have listened to an insane amount... under so many different categories. And if you take the big picture of a bands sound... there is very little difference between them and anyone else in their subgenre... and you take the subgenres and they're not all that different from each other.

WOW THAT'S REALLY COOL. But you are still so wrong. Subgenre: Baile Funk Carioca. Bands: M.I.A, Bonde do Role, MC Biro Leyby. Subgenre: Folk. Bands: Joanna Newsom, Port O Brien, Tilly and the Wall, Akron Family. All of these can be defined by the same subgenres and have such different sounds. I could continue making lists but I'm not going to because it's useless to your argument. Subgenres of mainstream music ARE OBVIOUSLY BLAND. Cool, you still have absolutely nothing enlightening in your argument because EVERYONE KNOWS THIS ALREADY.

Yes there is some brilliant contemporary classical music. No doubt about it... but I don't see how it's progressing! Show me where the progression is... tell me what the progression is. When has it moved in the last 5 or 10 years? I'll be joyful if you show me where! John Cage is interesting... but I honestly don't think his students, George Brecht and the likes... while they composed interesting stuff, really took his experimentation with sound any further then he could have. Which is a shame... because I think they are the sort of people who could've done something new. Like some of Dick Higgins stuff just leaves you wishing he had composed more.

Please listen to Simon Tedeschi and Sonny Chua. Just do it and try and tell me that's not progression. All the avant garde you past off as wank is progression, and just because it's pretentious or you don't like it has absolutely nothing to do with its credibility. Um. George Brecht did amazing things with Fluxus art and making art acessible. Satie, Cale, La Monte Young, Macinuas plus others had a huge impact in experimental sound. Of course they did new things? They are a fundamental part of an evolving art movement that got us to where we are today with contemporary classical music and composers who are so fantastic at pushing boundaries.

No... no there isn't. But... a lot of the crap stopped being filtered with the advent of home recording. Jazz is a little different. Because the Jazz scene tends to be yes about networking, but that means that the crap is filtered out because everyone knows that Johnny is a terrible drummer who doesn't listen, or that Billy is THE Saxophonist if you're looking for one. Whereas bands in Rock and Metal tend to be formed by friends, and so within the creative process there is this lack of filtering because you're with mates. One of the best things I've found is that my brother is in my band, and is quite happy to tell me when something is crap. Whereas in other bands I've played in, no-one really says much. But honestly... if you really are good enough, but you don't have the money... you need to learn to look in the right places. There are so many ways to get gigs. And playing in pubs and the like you can earn oodles of money. Some pubs pay you like 25% of the bar... which can translate to like $500 for a night. Do 4 of those, invest a little of your own money and you've got a demo/EP recording which gets you more gigs... therefore earning more money etc etc.

There are always going to be people no matter what genre of music they decide to play in who form bands with friends or friends of friends. The networking process does not inhibit a lack of creative processes because for most musicians, being told you are crap doesn't really stop you from thinking you are wonderful and getting your music out there. Sure it may inhibit how many gigs you get, but that was neither your nor my point. The ways you have suggested to get gigs still relies so heavily on making your own sound, and sure there are bars that might pay$500 a night and they are SO few and far inbetween and again rely on reputation which can be helped so much be self-producing. Even having something to give a bar manager and say hey we made this have a listen can further you an incredible amount as a band. I have absolutely no idea what your point is with the last part of that paragraph because you made such an obvious statement about how recording companies choose not to produce mainstream artists. I assume you mean that bands seek out other DIY ways of making their own EPs but of course you are going to tell me that you didn't mean that at all and they will hire out a studio and do it that way. I argue that is such an unlikely scenario, especially given that so many bands choose to spend that money on good gear to make a sound which they can totally control and tweak themselves.

Yes I understand that there is more to rap... and beat, tonality and emphasis are a part of poetry too, they may not be so pronounced in poetry's purer forms, but they are there and are important. Iambic Pentametre being the most well known one.

Thanks for that useless comment, UR GR8 @ ENGLISH

the way that every record company I know of has operated for the last... oh I dunno... 50 odd years. The fact that I have a few friends who work in A & R and a family member is best buddies with the managing director or whatever he's called of Sony BMG in Australia and I've had lots of interesting and enlightening conversations with him.

Lol I laughed so hard. Wow thanks for choosing the biggest possible recording company of mainstream music! What about Virgin? Inertia? Hell even Universal produce obscure bands. How the hell do you think Radiohead and bands like Sigur Ros even Bowie get so damn popular in the first place? Because recording companies froth on the idea that people like to think they are listening to something new and trendy. Even companies like Sony have a independent music department (infact they have several) used for producing artists who don't fit into the mainstream. Plus there are SO many huge producers of mainstream music who work with artists all the time. Steve Albini, Dust Brothers, Rick Rubin, the list goes on. Also, Independent labels such as Domino use Companies such as Sony (at least in Australia I know that Franz Ferdinand are distributed by Sony) to get their music out to the wider populace.

So yea... keep the thoughts coming... It's all interesting stuff (except when you make unfounded judgements about my character or listening habits)

Absolutely none of my arguments have been unfounded. I am taking exact direction from what you are saying and how you are saying it. If you make statements which are so utterly ridiculous like the ones you are making, YOU NEED TO PROPERLY BACK THEM UP. Most of the time you are so inconsistent in doing this that your ideas just come off as undeveloped. LOAL JOHN CAGE'S STUDENTS COULD'VE DONE MORE NEW STUFF YEEEEEAH is incorrect and completely unfounded. You make some ok points but most of it is rubbish. Saying OH OH I DO LISTEN TO HEEPS OF STUFF I REALLY DO. Is not enough for me. Show it in your argument. Sorry, i mean ideas.

 

[ur_inner_child]

Re: Death of music as an artform and as a the strongest communicative language we hav

I have to go to uni (SYDNEY CONSERVATORIUM OF MUSIC) in 5 minutes, I will get back to you with my massive response.

Yeouch.

 

[Enteebee]

Re: Death of music as an artform and as a the strongest communicative language we hav

I think another big problem is somewhat that you think there's a difference between saying 'music is dead' and 'music as an artform is dead'. I personally think that music would be an artform even if all we had were the pop charts churning out what you consider to be dull, rehashed, cheap music.

Yet... say if one artist painted the Harbour Bridge in an impressionist style, dot painting... and then another artist did the same thing, from the same location on the same size canvas with the same ratios... only used a few different shades of colours... would both artists paintings be put up in the national gallery? And most people would think the second artist had copied the first artist.

Yet you take a sub-genre like Metalcore... and you have that exact same equivalent... where down to the amplifier brand and model, down to the way the riff is structured, down to the drum beats, the vocal sound... sometimes two bands will be undistinguishable unless you know the exact notes of all the riffs in the songs. And both bands are just absorbed.

The people listening to the music take away from different songs slightly different experiences. You might find them indistinguishable but that doesn't mean that everyone does. If I admire a piece of artwork in a gallery and someone tells me 'oh that's not art, that's exactly like this' and pulls out what I agree is a technically and even thematically very similar image that however shows a slightly different type of scene (even something as small as a slight change to facial expression on a figure in the painting) I may not consider it as artistically interesting as the other I saw because it doesn't connect to me as well as the other one does, taking every single little variation.

Do you think covers aren't art?

 

[icraig88]

i always think that i get too worked up about people dissing certain music without knowing anything about it.

top 5 hip hop artists ever:

1. 2pac
2. 50 cent
3. the game
4. hurricane chris
5. souljah boy

discuss

 

[jdevlin]

Re: Death of music as an artform and as a the strongest communicative language we hav

First of all, if you are going to keep making this stupid argument (and it is an argument (i don't care what you say, you are pushing a point and that's fine but you need to evidence it properly) You need to totally redefine what you are saying. You need to clarify that you think the MAINSTREAM music industry is dying or isnt artistic. And once you do that, I don't think you really need to write the whole thing anyway, given that even idiots will tell you how commercially driven the mainstream music industry is. Fine if you can't use Sigur Ros or Radiohead (I argue that Radiohead are immensely popular but anyway) but then don't continue to say HAY MUSIC AS AN ARTFORM IS DEAD I MEAN DYING BROVAS because it's far too wide a spectrum and just clumsy. You talk about giving ideas sure but if you are going to go ahead and write this article you need to have some kind of arguing skillz and right now you just don't have them.



WOW THAT'S REALLY COOL. But you are still so wrong. Subgenre: Baile Funk Carioca. Bands: M.I.A, Bonde do Role, MC Biro Leyby. Subgenre: Folk. Bands: Joanna Newsom, Port O Brien, Tilly and the Wall, Akron Family. All of these can be defined by the same subgenres and have such different sounds. I could continue making lists but I'm not going to because it's useless to your argument. Subgenres of mainstream music ARE OBVIOUSLY BLAND. Cool, you still have absolutely nothing enlightening in your argument because EVERYONE KNOWS THIS ALREADY.



Please listen to Simon Tedeschi and Sonny Chua. Just do it and try and tell me that's not progression. All the avant garde you past off as wank is progression, and just because it's pretentious or you don't like it has absolutely nothing to do with its credibility. Um. George Brecht did amazing things with Fluxus art and making art acessible. Satie, Cale, La Monte Young, Macinuas plus others had a huge impact in experimental sound. Of course they did new things? They are a fundamental part of an evolving art movement that got us to where we are today with contemporary classical music and composers who are so fantastic at pushing boundaries.



There are always going to be people no matter what genre of music they decide to play in who form bands with friends or friends of friends. The networking process does not inhibit a lack of creative processes because for most musicians, being told you are crap doesn't really stop you from thinking you are wonderful and getting your music out there. Sure it may inhibit how many gigs you get, but that was neither your nor my point. The ways you have suggested to get gigs still relies so heavily on making your own sound, and sure there are bars that might pay$500 a night and they are SO few and far inbetween and again rely on reputation which can be helped so much be self-producing. Even having something to give a bar manager and say hey we made this have a listen can further you an incredible amount as a band. I have absolutely no idea what your point is with the last part of that paragraph because you made such an obvious statement about how recording companies choose not to produce mainstream artists. I assume you mean that bands seek out other DIY ways of making their own EPs but of course you are going to tell me that you didn't mean that at all and they will hire out a studio and do it that way. I argue that is such an unlikely scenario, especially given that so many bands choose to spend that money on good gear to make a sound which they can totally control and tweak themselves.



Thanks for that useless comment, UR GR8 @ ENGLISH



Lol I laughed so hard. Wow thanks for choosing the biggest possible recording company of mainstream music! What about Virgin? Inertia? Hell even Universal produce obscure bands. How the hell do you think Radiohead and bands like Sigur Ros even Bowie get so damn popular in the first place? Because recording companies froth on the idea that people like to think they are listening to something new and trendy. Even companies like Sony have a independent music department (infact they have several) used for producing artists who don't fit into the mainstream. Plus there are SO many huge producers of mainstream music who work with artists all the time. Steve Albini, Dust Brothers, Rick Rubin, the list goes on. Also, Independent labels such as Domino use Companies such as Sony (at least in Australia I know that Franz Ferdinand are distributed by Sony) to get their music out to the wider populace.



Absolutely none of my arguments have been unfounded. I am taking exact direction from what you are saying and how you are saying it. If you make statements which are so utterly ridiculous like the ones you are making, YOU NEED TO PROPERLY BACK THEM UP. Most of the time you are so inconsistent in doing this that your ideas just come off as undeveloped. LOAL JOHN CAGE'S STUDENTS COULD'VE DONE MORE NEW STUFF YEEEEEAH is incorrect and completely unfounded. You make some ok points but most of it is rubbish. Saying OH OH I DO LISTEN TO HEEPS OF STUFF I REALLY DO. Is not enough for me. Show it in your argument. Sorry, i mean ideas.

Very fair points... that is all... I didn't say your arguments about my thoughts were unfounded, I said your attacks on my personality were. I wrote this between 1:30 - 2:30 this morning... of course some of my thoughts are incongruous. Hey I may seem like an idiot for putting them down before i forgot, but I did. So yea. I understand that a lot of my "arguments" are unevidenced... I'm not a moron. Let me clarify. I'm not trying to say that my thoughts are non-argumentative, I'm trying to say that they are unformed. There's still two weeks of Research and listening to do. Still a lot of planning and writing and editing to do.
Mocking me, while probably immensely satisfying for you, only really incites others to do so, sort of backing me into a corner and making me tend to lash out and say things. That tend to be my experience of forums anyway. Mocking my opinion of George Brecht's contribution to the arts? It's an opinion... about a subjective response.

I haven't tried to say that my ideas are the be all and end all (at least I hope I haven't... that wasn't my intention)

Of course the moment I write this next paragraph I have a pretty good understanding of what will be said. But just because I write all this down, and try and clarify what I'm trying to say doesn't necessarily mean I believe it all. It's interesting to think about,I think. And as wi h most things there is evidence for AND against. It's interesting to discuss and see what people think.

I put this up here because I thought people might discuss it... but I was wrong... and I think I regret that now. I should've waited and then put up my finished article... or not bothered at all.

To Enteebee... I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, and I'm pretty sure that looks like a loaded question...

 

[Born Dancer]

Re: Death of music as an artform and as a the strongest communicative language we hav

Way to get all defensive and whiney. Other people in this thread are attacking you not because I did but because they can see faults in what you are saying. It's completely useless to say "oh i wrote that not really meaning it". Noone should ever be making unformed arguments. What the hell is the point of that? I can just as easily say that Paris Hilton is an extremely underrated musician and actually has genuine skills as a performer and defend it with "oh my argument is just a starting point, I don't have to evidence it because I'm just thinking about this point" but that does absolutely nothing for my credibility, it's like pulling something completely useless out of thin air and it's just as valid because I haven't thought about it properly. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Shame on you for openly admitting that what you are writing you don't necessarily wholeheartedly believe in. So what, I tend to be a bitch on the internet. Get over it, srsly. You could've given your argument just one tiny bit of thought (though you are going to tell me again you've done that) and come up with something better. You wanted debate and that's what you got given: logical, clear and concise arguments which all made sense in opposition to what you were saying. Of course there are arguments for and against. Thanks Einstein, the point is you still need to back up what you are saying.

 

[Enteebee]

Re: Death of music as an artform and as a the strongest communicative language we hav

To Enteebee... I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, and I'm pretty sure that looks like a loaded question...

It's a question which flows directly from the paragraph before it. My point is that something can be art without having differentiated its self much at all.

 

[AsyLum]

Re: Death of music as an artform and as a the strongest communicative language we hav

I'd probably contend that visual signs moreso than audio has been the dominant communicative language in recent decades.

As for the 'art of music', like others have previously stated, you have to define what 'art' is. Additionally you lack the ability to contextualise many of these movements within their time-frame. The rise of the Enlightenment, the role of religion in influencing high and low music, the technology in creating/mastering certain sounds and instruments, the reactions against the rigidity and 'elitism' of Jazz through the advent of rock and roll, etc.

If you isolate music from its context, then music has been dying every few hundred years as each movement takes over.

Mocking my opinion of George Brecht's contribution to the arts? It's an opinion... about a subjective response.

And please don't pull the relativism card, it really pisses me off.

 

[hiphophooray123]

Re: Death of music as an artform and as a the strongest communicative language we hav

top 5 hip hop artists ever:

1. 2pac
2. 50 cent
3. the game
4. hurricane chris
5. souljah boy

discuss

omg lyke totally!!


hahaha hurricane chris is so horrible it hurts.

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

Re: Death of music as an artform and as a the strongest communicative language we hav

The guy that started this thread is a cocksucker. Listen to some goddamn MERZBOW.

 

[Graney]

Yet... say if one artist painted the Harbour Bridge in an impressionist style, dot painting... and then another artist did the same thing, from the same location on the same size canvas with the same ratios... only used a few different shades of colours... would both artists paintings be put up in the national gallery? And most people would think the second artist had copied the first artist.

Marcel Duchamp, Andy Warhol, Conceptual art, the pop art movement etc... To name a few.

Your analogy to the visual arts is way off. Imitation is an essential part of art.

I put this up here because I thought people might discuss it... but I was wrong... and I think I regret that now. I should've waited and then put up my finished article... or not bothered at all.

No, no, no we are being fair and patient. We just disagree. You've received nothing but fair and valid criticism. No need to spazz out about it.

 

[AsyLum]

Partly to blame for this I'd say is the Digital Music revolution... pretty much from the 80's onwards with home recording. It used to be that a band would get gigs based on previous merit and references from places they had played. They would then eventually get noticed once they had enough fans for a record company to make them viable (because having fans meant that people actually liked you). Then you'd go into a recording studio with a proper recording Engineer, and a producer... etc etc...
Now every man and his dog can set up a home studio that has a "professional" sound to it... meaning generally that he can record the drums, bass, guitars, vocals seperately and mix them to levels that mean all can be heard in the balance they should be heard. And with the growth of computers, the internet and programs like Pro-Tools... this became cheaper and easier. Now we're just flooded with a whole lot of crap. And it's become about the song more than the band... because the bands song sound just like the last band. I'm not going to even talk about the fact that Recording to tape and using Valve equipment and having your CD mastered is vastly superior... because most bands don't realise this... they don't truly care about the music... they THINK they do, but they just WANT to be famous and play some form of music doing so because it's more fun than sitting at a desk doing paperwork. They've forgotten that this is an art form. And people have just bought into it. There is a difference between playing "Stairway to Heaven" and writing a song that will last that long.

Like Graney said, its fair and valid criticism, largely because your arguments, such as the one above, are so incredibly baseless and unequivocally bad in logic that they warrant said criticism.

You sprout some crap about how the 'pop' industries are ruining music, then point to a culture of bands playing in venues and getting signed...by the very same industry that you're saying is bad.

 

[Graney]

Music died February 3rd, 1959 imo.

 

[icraig88]

Re: Death of music as an artform and as a the strongest communicative language we hav

omg lyke totally!!


hahaha hurricane chris is so horrible it hurts.

so he should be number one??


ohhh snapppppp.....

 

[hiphophooray123]

Re: Death of music as an artform and as a the strongest communicative language we hav

haha why is it that everytime the HSC exams are near the music students come in full force to try and apply tech terms to the philosophical properties of art.

 

[icraig88]

Re: Death of music as an artform and as a the strongest communicative language we hav

because they are still listening to dance muzikkK and itZ kool 2 puMp NiCkk SkiTzz out of your massive SubWooooofffaAAZZZ.. oh shit i aLmost 4GetteD sNeakkii SouNd SysTemmZZ and MonasTry Of EpiKK FaillZZ