Has music peaked?

dbs_sailor

it's an irritating perception that any one decade has "better" music than another. music is music. 99% of bands have at least one song built off a blues progression. that's been around since long before i have been.

the cultural impact bands make is what make legends out of the members - the beatles, the rolling stones, jimi hendrix, janis joplin, the clash, the doors etc etc.

i don't mind people being into any sort of music at all, so long as they don't start off on some "ah, sure, realmusic is dead" tirade. idiots who play favorites with the big bands really annoy me. "i like led zepplin and no-one else. they were a true rock and roll band.. i'm 15.." it's sort of hypocritical.....

having said this, i will acknowledge that in 2007 music is a product to be sold to a consumer. it's not exactly "dead", but mainstream music is in a bad way in my opinion. until sheep realise not to go listening to whatever new band is processed through the "suit-and-tie" major labels and aspiring and awfully trendy indie labels("we like reallll music maaan"), through pitchfork or NME/hotpress to be put on a plate for our consumption, things will stay the same. [what an awful sentence]

i predict the next huge band will strike the balance between impressing members of the snobby music critic hierarchy, and gain a following of suggestible teenagers, and college students who try to broaden their musical interests by believing whatever niall stokes publishes. how do you do that? be young, goodlooking, talented, clever, trendy, and on the ball...... easy.

Sandwich

cornbb wrote:

Sorry for ranting, but my point is that all of this evolution of music can hardly be considered a decline. I have the greatest respect for the composers of the classical era. Where composition is concerned, that style of music has been thoroughly explored and is dead now, but the old works still sound great today and have spawned such a wonderful and diverse range of modern music.

Agree with much of what you say, but evolution does not mean better. I agree that the classical era style well and truly ran its course. But that does not devalue what it is : a masterpiece remains a masterpiece even if the genre does not keep producing more of them.

But the OP question is, has music peaked? And i would still maintain that 'better' music has not been composed since that time. So, if there has been a decline then we must say that it has peaked. Even if it has not declined, and music is still being produced that is the equal of Beethoven then we are still 'on' the peak. So again it has peaked.

You can only maintain that it has not peaked if you believe better music is being written today than in the past. A hard case to make I think, which is not to devalue lots of enjoyable (but not better!) music being produced today.

Killaqueen!!!

Orizio wrote:

I didn't know Hip-Hop doesn't do 'talent'.How does that work again?

You're right. It does. And I didn't really word that great. But most people (young people usually) only like the hip hop thats on the charts and I find that hip hop very repetitive and talentless (look at 50cent, for one example). Don't get me wrong, I love the hip hop and rap and even trance/dance music thats in the charts, especially if I'm out at a disco. But I just like it purely on the groove, the beats, how catchy it is etc. rarely does it have any true talent to it IMO.

cornbb

Sandwich wrote:

You can only maintain that it has not peaked if you believe better music is being written today than in the past. A hard case to make I think, which is not to devalue lots of enjoyable (but not better!) music being produced today.

Well at least we agree that classical era musical was great. If you define the "peak" of musical brilliance as the high watermark left by the best composer/artist at a particular time well then yes, then you could say someone like Beethoven represented the peak of musical excellence.

But that would be a highly personal judgment. I think musical achievement should be measured by the sum of all the excellent music being made at a particular time. Fair enough, there is an awful lot of sh1te music being made out there today, but if you scratch the surface and look at everything as a whole there is a multitude of amazing music and new means of expression out there now. The techniques, rules, instrumentation and freedom of expression that were used back then were so much more limited than what is used today. I could not possibly agree that the quality of music as a whole has "declined" since the 1700s. To be honest, I believe music will never "peak" anyway. We will always have the music of the past and we will always add more to it, I don't think that devalues classical music in any way.

Killaqueen!!! wrote:

I just like it purely on the groove, the beats, how catchy it is etc. rarely does it have any true talent to it IMO.

I never liked hip hop until someone exposed me to the non-commercial side of it. there is tons of hip hop talent out there. Same goes for any type of music.

Bodhidharma

I agree with a lot of what has been said so far, that there is plenty of good stuff out there, but i am also still thinking of the contemporary music scene. There seems to be a lot of apathy among the general public when it comes to new bands and the music scene at the moment. Is it my imagination or are people less interested these days?

I'll give you an example. None of my friends would be able to hold a decent conversation with me about music. I dont mean to imply that i am some fanatic with obscure tastes, its just that people my own age, 23, seem less interested. I could talk to older people all night about it. Its disappointing that i actually had to start a thread on the net about it when i should bw able to have a debate with my buddies.

I also think the trend for bands to reform is a really horrible thing. I saw the Pixies twice since they reformed, and the second time they just phoned it in. The blatent money spinning "reunion" is such a scam. If a band are going to reform they need some new material, as i understand the Smashing Pumpkins are doing.

The reunion tour seems to me to be symptomatic of the stagnation in music at the moment. The summer festival line ups are beginning to take shape now also. I wonder who will be this year's festival band? You know, those band that people see at a festival, sell a lot of albums, think they're great then fall flat on their face on the second "tricky" album. Joining the illustrious names as Travis, Keane, Kaiser Chiefs, and the like.

Keep up the debate!

(By the way, i recognise that i am focusing my arguament on rock and its offspring, but it has been the dominant force during my lifetime so that is where i notice the change)

Sandwich

cornbb wrote:

But that would be a highly personal judgment. I think musical achievement should be measured by the sum of all the excellent music being made at a particular time. Fair enough, there is an awful lot of sh1te music being made out there today, but if you scratch the surface and look at everything as a whole there is a multitude of amazing music and new means of expression out there now. The techniques, rules, instrumentation and freedom of expression that were used back then were so much more limited than what is used today. I could not possibly agree that the quality of music as a whole has "declined" since the 1700s. To be honest, I believe music will never "peak" anyway. We will always have the music of the past and we will always add more to it, I don't think that devalues classical music in any way.

I tend to think that its not really down to personal judgement, even though we all do have our own favourites for a variety of reasons. Many preferences come from familiarity or a limited exploration of music, which leads to poor evalaution of the quality/value/level of one piece of music over another.

Take the follow dilemma:
Select 10 Beethoven masterpieces (3rd and 5th symphonies, Missa Solemnis, 4th piano concerto, violin concerto, a few sonatas, a quartet, Archduke trio for example).

Now, select the finest 10 works of music from the last 50 years.

One of the above groups of works must be erased from the face of the earth; recordings, sheetmusic, etc, and will never be heard again.

The Question : Which group should be chosen?

I just cant see the contemporary group mounting any defence of themselves compared with the Beethoven, or that any responsible, informed, fully explored analysis could conclude that the Beethoven group should be the one to go. (I am no rabid Beethoven fanboy btw, just painting the scenario).

Anyone really able stand over 10 works from the last 50 years that could justify a reprieve?

Pigman II

Music peaked in 1824 with Beethovens Symphony No. 9.

MLM

It's funny. I felt exactly the same in 1989. The best you could hope for was GN'R, INXS or U2. We had to look to the 1960's for anything really good. Then suddenly out of the blue came Manchester, acid house, and Seattle, and for about seven or eight you had something decent to listen to. Then the spice girls came along and sold f**kloads of records. When record companies saw this they decided that there was money in crap pop, and that is all they wanted to know about. Music hasn't peaked, but major label interest in music has.

Fanny Cradock

Now, more then ever, there are new, inventive and talented individuals/ bands available to the masses. So great is the opportunity to hear this music, that you can soon become completely swamped with the sheer amount of good (and bad) stuff out there.

Being an intensely personal thing, based on it's contextual relevance, it is impossible to say if music has peaked or not. Personally speaking, I think this is the start of a golden age because there is so much variety available now.

Blisterman

A lot of people here seem to only be looking at Rock music. Don't forget, in the future, there are bound to be completely new genres of music coming along.
So, no, Music hasn't and probably will never peak.

JC 2K3

MLM wrote:

Music hasn't peaked, but major label interest in music has.

Hurray for the internet!

John

Blisterman wrote:

A lot of people here seem to only be looking at Rock music. Don't forget, in the future, there are bound to be completely new genres of music coming along.
So, no, Music hasn't and probably will never peak.

Exactly. People may think of rock as the big revolution of the 20th century but in my opinion the big revolution was technology. Who knows what will happen in the future. I can't wait!

pbsuxok1znja4r

At any one moment in time from any one point of view you can technically say music has 'peaked', because it is always changing and it may not be to your tastes so much as it was before that. But even saying that is forgetting about the huge range of music out there; the amount of variety.

Personally I think the last 5 years or so have produced some of the best, most innovative stuff we have. It's innovative because it's new. It's good because it's new. Music's always evolving.

I hope I never end up as one of those dinosaurs who are unable to relate to 'today's' music etc.

http://www.myspace.com/thereceivingendofsirens

Sandwich

scouser.tommy wrote:

At any one moment in time from any one point of view you can technically say music has 'peaked', because it is always changing and it may not be to your tastes so much as it was before that. But even saying that is forgetting about the huge range of music out there; the amount of variety.

Personally I think the last 5 years or so have produced some of the best, most innovative stuff we have. It's innovative because it's new. It's good because it's new. Music's always evolving.

I hope I never end up as one of those dinosaurs who are unable to relate to 'today's' music etc.

http://www.myspace.com/thereceivingendofsirens

Changing music, or variety, does not necessarily mean better, and it can in fact be inferior to music written before it. Quality of music is not related to taste in music. You may a have a taste for inferior music, which is fine for your enjoyment of it, but still does not mean it is as good as music you may not enjoy.

Peyton Manning

Hip-Hop peaked during the era of Tupac Shakur, Biggie Smalls, Big L etc. and while there are some decent artists around today, somebody needs to come and shake things up again. I was honestly expecting this to be The Game, but he let all the publicity go to his head and has turned into and easily loathable person.

JC 2K3

Sandwich wrote:

Quality of music is not related to taste in music.

Explain.

Sandwich

JC 2K3 wrote:

Explain.

Taste is a personal preference for one peice or style of music over another that involves many more factors(musical knowledge, associatiations, memories, prejudices, musical aptitiude etc) than simply the quality of the music itself.

For example (and Im only picking an example here, I dont mean to debate the merits of either) - a person may prefer the latest Girls Aloud hit and consider it a more to their taste than say a Bach partita. And if they have no knoweldge of music of that period thats quite understandable and even to be expected. But I dont think they (or anyone else) could could put a serious argument that therefore the Quality of the Girls Aloud peice is superior to the Bach.

JC 2K3

Your'e not defining what this "quality" is though. Let's say you take a Mozart piece and a Bach piece, how do you know which is better in terms of quality? Then say you take a Beethoven piece and a complex progressive metal piece by someone like Dream Theatre or Opeth. Which is better and how do you know?

dr.bollocko

I was watching the Brit awards with a half an eye whilst I read through this thread.
Watching yet another goddamn award show really helped me in understanding peoples view points, particularly those of the opinion that music has indeed peaked and there will be no more incredible rock music.
I guess the Industry has really become just that, a music factory pumping out low grade soundalikes until someone else does it slightly better and cheaper.
The electric guitar, once the most incendiary invention upon which a new type of music fan and cultural movement was based is now the anchor which is forcing industry music under the water.
This is probably a conservative business based response to the explosion of the internet and online music promotion, cutting out the industry middleman and allowing a stream of music directly from band to consumer / fan. In "Dig" the A and R guys mentioned that only one in ten modern albums is a success. Basically, the one well received album covers the losses made by all the others put together and still makes millions for the music industry. There is also a quote saying "In what other business could a company have a 90% product failure rate and still be considered a success."
And when you begin to understand trying to market something as subjective as music in a successful and ongoing basis, you can see why music as a record company pushed entity has stagnated.
I mean seriously, James Morrison / Blunt, Damien Rice, Take that, fecking Lily Allen and the like on the Brit awards may well make you want to insert bullet in head swiftly, but just realise that these are the last throes of a dying art borne from love of drugs and killed by love of money. These lame facsimiles of former greats are being evermore pushed aside by new and vital music, and while cheesy pop and the one man and his guitar era will probably never ever die, (Goddamn it I hate you James Blunt. If my vitriol was water, we would all be drowned) at least most of us can plug in our mp3 player and find something new and reliable, and niche music is finally being lauded rather than overlooked or viewed suspiciously until a crossover hit or artist takes it to the mainstream.
I think a musical revolution is upon us. This is how all music has advanced since forever, by revolution not evolution, so why should our era be any different? Particularly with new movements, better production methods and a deeper understanding of what it takes to make a melody right, moving on from drums, bass and guitar, music will be exciting and new again. That is beyond doubt in my eyes.

But until then, can you all please join me in silently willing James Blunts' eyes to bleed live on the Brits tonight?

grumpytrousers

Sandwich wrote:

Taste is a personal preference for one peice or style of music over another that involves many more factors(musical knowledge, associatiations, memories, prejudices, musical aptitiude etc) than simply the quality of the music itself.

For example (and Im only picking an example here, I dont mean to debate the merits of either) - a person may prefer the latest Girls Aloud hit and consider it a more to their taste than say a Bach partita. And if they have no knoweldge of music of that period thats quite understandable and even to be expected. But I dont think they (or anyone else) could could put a serious argument that therefore the Quality of the Girls Aloud peice is superior to the Bach.

But in the game of musical Top Trumps you seem to insist we play here, who is to say that the value associated with Counterpoint/Aeolian Cadences etc from the Air from Bach's Suite in D can't be topped by the twang of surf guitar and the middle 8 from 'Love Machine'...

The fact that the older stuff has stood the test of time doesn't prove anything. We *might* be in a position to judge in 200 years time if Girls Aloud music is still listened to.

mike65

scouser.tommy wrote:

I hope I never end up as one of those dinosaurs who are unable to relate to 'today's' music etc.

Nothin' good since 1989.

Mike.

Orizio

Archimedes wrote:

Hip-Hop peaked during the era of Tupac Shakur, Biggie Smalls, Big L etc. and while there are some decent artists around today, somebody needs to come and shake things up again. I was honestly expecting this to be The Game, but he let all the publicity go to his head and has turned into and easily loathable person.

No it didn't.If Hip-Hop peaked at any time it was in the 80's/very early 90's.The mid 90's was the time that screwed up Hip-Hop completely with the complete polarisation of the genre and over commercalisation.

TBH I wonder about the opinion about of anyone who thought The Game was some kind of second coming.