Do you think the integrity of music is decaying over time, much like morality?

Status
Not open for further replies.

BacteriumFendYoke

Platinum Member
You do got me on the clothes thing, at least pop music back then was actually done with instruments and non computerized vocals tho.
Oh no! Won't somebody please think of the children?!

Trying to say that 'instruments' are somehow superior is an absolute disgrace in any discussion over the value of music. Since when did Popular music have a rule written in stone that said that acoustic instruments are absolutely necessary? I can understand reservations existing within the field of Western Common Practice but not Popular music. Can you provide me with a well-reasoned argument as to why instruments are so important?

Have you ever heard 'The Eraser' by Thom Yorke? Anything by Flying Lotus? Four Tet? Aphex Twin? Didn't think so.

As for the vocals. Ever heard of Kraftwerk?! Vocoders were all the rage in the 70s.
 

<(' . '<)

Senior Member
Oh no! Won't somebody please think of the children?!

Trying to say that 'instruments' are somehow superior is an absolute disgrace in any discussion over the value of music. Since when did Popular music have a rule written in stone that said that acoustic instruments are absolutely necessary? I can understand reservations existing within the field of Western Common Practice but not Popular music. Can you provide me with a well-reasoned argument as to why instruments are so important?

Have you ever heard 'The Eraser' by Thom Yorke? Anything by Flying Lotus? Four Tet? Aphex Twin? Didn't think so.

As for the vocals. Ever heard of Kraftwerk?! Vocoders were all the rage in the 70s.
I was more so referring to Skrillex and Dubstep but okay. I'm pretty sure that the point of music is instruments (and yes vocals count as an instrument to me). Would you rather sit on a computer and mash noises together or play a drum set? Obviously if you're on a drummer forum the answer will be play a drum set. The same goes for any instrument.
 

BacteriumFendYoke

Platinum Member
I was more so referring to Skrillex and Dubstep but okay. I'm pretty sure that the point of music is instruments (and yes vocals count as an instrument to me). Would you rather sit on a computer and mash noises together or play a drum set? Obviously if you're on a drummer forum the answer will be play a drum set. The same goes for any instrument.
Bollocks.

The point of music (by definition) is the organised arrangement of sound to develop toward an end goal, be it aesthetic, visceral, narrative or emotional. Nowhere has that got anything to do (necessarily) with instruments. Instruments are just one way of creating music and if you're trying to define the value of music by the instruments that it's using then I'm afraid you're backing yourself into a nasty little tautology that is inconsistent with decades of academic writings and research (that I've read).

I would rather sit on a computer and mash noises together. I'm a sodding noise artist! Please don't make assumptions about my style of composition and aesthetic decisions based on the fact that I am also a drummer.

This predisposition to hold a value to instruments above everything else is a false dichotomy. Music is about creation. To create, we use tools. Those tools might be instruments or they might be electronics. They might be software that uses quasi-random number equations to create non-repeatable composition:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhyWH6B68iA&feature=plcp

If, on the other hand, you want to try and judge the value of a certain form of music based on a critique of its principles, philosophy, effectiveness or aesthetics then I'm all for that. Unfortunately, you're not doing that.
 

<(' . '<)

Senior Member
I'm not going to get into it anymore with you. You either are with the electronics thing or not. And I'm not, it is as simple as that, sorry if I offended you. My main issue with the computer thing is that artist use them in MOST cases to heighten their talents of "singing" and are considered to be amazing singers when if you heard them without all of that, in most cases they can't actually sing. And people get famous and well known for that.
 

BacteriumFendYoke

Platinum Member
I'm not going to get into it anymore with you. You either are with the electronics thing or not. And I'm not, it is as simple as that, sorry if I offended you. My main issue with the computer thing is that artist use them in MOST cases to heighten their talents of "singing" and are considered to be amazing singers when if you heard them without all of that, in most cases they can't actually sing. And people get famous and well known for that.
With all due respect, that's not what you were saying.

You haven't offended me at all, just all methods of thought and reason.
 

Anon La Ply

Renegade
I agree with these ...

Black Page ... each generation brings their bad and good to the table
Xero ... Morality is decaying? ... I would say the opposite
KIS ... just a shift to even greater commercially driven shortcuts in the production of popular music.
Larry ... Top 40 is decaying IMO, but that's only a little facet of music. Great music will always be alive and well.
Larry ... The guy who said that was disturbed over the decay of morals in the younger generation. His name was Plato.


Back in the good old days (when the rights of western women, blacks and gays were less than they are today), it was possible for some wacky, independent acts to sneak into the Top 40.

Now you will never hear Top 40 music with the artistry of Macarthur Park (scoff if you will haha), Classical Gas, Bohemian Rhapsody etc because the industry, like all others, has rationalised. The efficiency has also resulted in nothing quite as odious as Tie a Yellow Ribbon Round the Old Oak Tree either :)

That's CQ for you - competent mediocrity - nothing too good or too bad can slip through the net. I worked in the public sector for over two decades and am very familiar with the rationalist policy-based approach - they kill inspiration and original ideas as quickly as they eliminate lack of professionalism (which they often put in the same basket because the risks of inspiration are deemed greater than the potential benefits).

Is the world going to hell in a handbasket? I just think all problems are because there's too many of people (along with a bit of our animal greed and callousness).

Put one dog in the back yard and it's lonely. Two dogs and it's fun. Three's a party. Ten is mayhem, 50 utter anarchy and 100 cannibalism and death.

I can't verify the numbers above :) ... but there logically must be a number to fit with each of those scenarios.
 

cdrums21

Gold Member
Whoa! Holy crap! I never wanted to start a political/religous thread. Man, I am surprised by some responses and how this has touched a nerve in some of you. This was supposed to be just an innocent observation and comment. As far as the moral decay comment, I think it's pretty obvious that things today are much more permissive and liberal compared to when I was growing up. I could watch television and not hear an F -bomb, learn about erectile disfunction or see people deliberately trying to inflict pain and injury on themselves and others. It's widely accepted now and to me, yes, that's a form of moral decay.

Some music is a product of environment and I think todays' society has a huge influence on alot of music. Not saying it's good or bad, right or wrong, just sayin'. I also think that you don't have to be as talented or have the dedication and commitment to an istrument or your voice today like you did years ago. So, that's what I was mainly getting at, please don't take it for more than what it was meant to be...a simple question on a drumming forum.
 

BacteriumFendYoke

Platinum Member
I don't see how discussing erectile dysfunction is indicative of moral decay. Quite the opposite, actually. It shows an open society ready to accept that it exists and can be a progenitor or symptom of further mental health issues. If it helps somebody to solve a genuine medical problem, then I see that as morally positive. Would you rather testicular cancer was swept under the carpet as well?
 

cdrums21

Gold Member
I don't see how discussing erectile dysfunction is indicative of moral decay. Quite the opposite, actually. It shows an open society ready to accept that it exists and can be a progenitor or symptom of further mental health issues. If it helps somebody to solve a genuine medical problem, then I see that as morally positive. Would you rather testicular cancer was swept under the carpet as well?
You're freakin' killing me man. I don't think it's appropriate to discuss things like that on prime time television when my young children are watching. Talk to a physician or go to a library or another source of information. I don't need to have my 7 year old daughter wonder what an erection is. I'm sorry I ever started this thread. I think I can close it since I started it. Consider it done, my bad, won't happen again, that's for sure.
 

Anon La Ply

Renegade
Duncan, this was thought provoking - "This predisposition to hold a value to instruments above everything else is a false dichotomy. Music is about creation. To create, we use tools. Those tools might be instruments or they might be electronics."

I've been through some guilt trips when doing home recording, because while my music is quite adventurous and regularly breaks convention, I have a little conservative thing inside me who tells me I'm somehow cheating because I'm using my mind more than I'm using my body.

There is a sportlike worship of physical skill in music, and nowhere in music is it more obvious than in drumming - guitarists tried to be as cool as us in the 70s and they just ended up carrying on like tossers :) That skill-thrill dynamic has been going on forever. Status has always been bestowed upon those with exceptional physical ability.

So people practice and practice and practice so they can become popular and powerful. From those egotistical beginnings musicians are often sidetracked from they shallow goals by the fascination of music - how parts are put together, how patterns played in a certain way create an effect, how instruments combine to sound amazing - a lot of it is pretty mathematical at this point (maths has its own beauty).

A group of people with these skills can come together to create a stories or journies through the body, heart and/or mind.

But ... when you use technology it's possible for one person to create music as fleshed out as that of bands. But you lose the relationships, the different perspectives, some touch and some timbre. People who are into skill thrills don't trust these recordings because they don't know how much is human and how much is "the machine" (ie. use of mind instead of the body ... as though it's somehow easier hahahahaha).

You gain things in solo recordings too - ideas needn't suffer death by committee, there's greater breadth and scope than with acoustic instruments and one person is more able to make music deeply personal (though most shy away from this).

Each has its merits and shortfalls.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top