|
Yeah - the genre's weren't invented yet - like Techno, or Whatever.TF you want to name that stuff where a grinning idiot plays a record moving it by hand and calls himself/herself a musician. The stuff's about as much like real music by comparison as if you take your pet to a museum and, out of inspiration, it craps on a canvas. Movies? the world of remakes awaits you !
Sander Rossel wrote: Basically, everything is better now, except cartoons on TV.
You've just inspired the realization of the the perfect "book character" representation of Millennials! To wit:
The Candide generation![^] (from some guy called Voltare who wrote books).
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm just saying we have everything you had + some 30 years that came after it.
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: Whatever.TF you want to name that stuff where a grinning idiot plays a record moving it by hand and calls himself/herself a musician.
Please tell me more about how this hurts your feelings because it affects you personally while my generation is enjoying themselves with dance music 
In the words of Candide, you're a bitter man.
|
|
|
|
|
Well - let's be a bit more specific: Dance Music - your topic.
Where absolutely beautiful musical/lyrical combinations are debouched into (so called) dance music with a dance track. I was a a wedding and they even did this to "Will You Love Me Tomorrow".* And everything else they could get. Indeed - it makes one sure there is, in fact, a Devil.
The generation that pays exhortation prices to go to concerts and the talentless bastards lip-sync. And the fans (audience) find this acceptable?
Let me put it in terms you may understand: someone goes to the Louvre and put's mustaches on all the pictures - even the landscapes and still-life's. They have taken something beautiful and . . . . well, maybe, in fact, you approve of their new modern look! That is, of course, if you could get your eyes off your phones long enough to notice a difference.
* As performed by The Shirelles
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: someone goes to the Louvre and put's mustaches on all the pictures - even the landscapes and still-life's.
That actually sounds hilarious! 
Well, as long as the original paintings don't get vandalized, like with music where the original is still available in unaltered form.
Anyway, my grandpa used to say the same about your music from the 60's and 70's.
The world was coming to an end.
No doubt his parents said that about his music.
Heck, Stravinsky got people to riot because his Sacre du Printemps was too dissonant and the dance movements too jerky.
It was absolute blasphemy and not how ballet was supposed to sound or look.
Even Mozart, one of the greatest musical geniuses ever, got the same critique from the generation that came before him!
And now we see the opposite, The Beatles and Stones, who were really not so different from the musicians you now so despise, are now holy.
Their straight on rock music, featuring not so many chords or notes, which every beginner now plays on their instruments, is so much better than today's music.
It's really not that amazing.
Almost as easy as "play[ing] a record moving it by hand" (and making a good dance track is a bit more than just moving records by hand).
Instead of doing what so many have done before you, criticize the newer generations, maybe you could just STFU about it and accept what it is.
You've had your weddings with your music, now we have our weddings with our music.
Just be happy you were there to witness the happy couple on THEIR special day with THEIR preferred music.
If you want to listen to music YOU think is enjoyable, go sit at home and listen to your favorite record or something.
There, in your lazy chair, you may judge others for their personal tastes all you want, if that somehow makes you feel better about yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
Clearly, you missed the majority of the music from the late 60's and early 70's.
Not just a beat back in those days.
Music needed rhythm and melody, as well. You could look those up, but you won't understand until you experience music with those traits. And lyrics. Aqualung, Let It Bleed, so so much of the Beatles. Ballads from Surrealistic Pillow and Crown of Creation. Perhaps Hot Rats? Workingman's Dead and American Beauty. Extraordinary variety with once common thread which has been removed by that stitch-ripper of the current banal acceptance: they had talent . . . instead of promoters.
In other words, thoughtful music - respect for the craft. Hell - they even knew how to play their instruments and sang and played at their concerts because . . . they could!
In so many ways, those of us who do know better can exclaim: Oh Brave New World!. The context then, as know, is not positive.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: Aqualung
I simply don't like that kind of music, no matter how great it is.
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: so so much of the Beatles
Hell yeah!
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: Surrealistic Pillow
Hell yeah again!
(don't know those others you mentioned)
So what about Adele, Coldplay, Meshuggah and Tool?.
To name a few great bands I know from the top of my head.
You're comparing the best of back then to the worst of now.
Don't forget the 70's had DISCO!
However, as I said to Member x below, that's all besides the point.
The point is people enjoy it, in whatever form, and plenty of people seem to enjoy the "bad" music that is made today.
So who are you to dismiss them so easily?
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: Don't forget the 70's had DISCO!
I did note "the early 70's". Disco, in fact, fits right in with your modern era: the musicians making a piece often never met. And, of course, who cares, anyway - as it's dance music.
Orgy-porgy Orgy-porgy Orgy-porgy Orgy-porgy - (they were happy, too!)
As for the "best" of then - I hardly touched the availability of quality music! Janis Joplin; Hendrix; Doors; Mountain; Led Zepplin; Crosby, Stills & Nash; Simon and Garfunkel; Santana; Emerson, Lake, and Palmer; Peter, Paul, and Mary; Grateful Dead; Zappa/Mothers; - I could get writer's cramp and still not be done.
I spot-checked your suggestion on YouTube - and by the time I reached Meshuggah I thought I'd lose my lunch (from boring to just plain noise) - that lunch, by the way, has yet to be eaten.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: and by the time I reached Meshuggah I thought I'd lose my lunch (from boring to just plain noise)
Funny you should say that.
Meshuggah have taken a mathematical approach to metal.
They use all kinds of strange signatures and somehow end up just right.
Their control of instruments is far better than any band you've just mentioned and their songs are more complex.
They defined a genre (math metal or djent) and create some of the most complex music in the world, yet you simply dismiss it as noise.
COULD IT BE THAT "BEST" AND "QUALITY" ARE PURELY A PERSONAL PREFERENCE!? 
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: Their control of instruments is far better than any band you've just mentioned and their songs are more complex.
Too bad it's hidden by all that background noise coming out of their amplifiers.
Sander Rossel wrote: COULD IT BE THAT "BEST" AND "QUALITY" ARE PURELY A PERSONAL PREFERENCE!
This opens up a philosophical point. For example, is there such a thing as a measure of "Good and Evil"? Actually, there is! That famous Golden Rule, "Do not do unto others what you would not have others do unto you" is it. BUT, it's also a 100% contextual measure. It can vary from culture to culture (person to person, etc.) So quality, also subjective, falls into this category.
However, there is one caveat to this:
Unless I give my opinion, in which case, I am right. That even applies to this claim.
Perhaps caveat is incorrect - axiom. Yeeah, That's it. Axiom!
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: is there such a thing as a measure of "Good and Evil"? Actually, there is!
No there isn't.
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: That famous Golden Rule, "Do not do unto others what you would not have others do unto you" is it.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law!
You are free to give your opinion.
But, keeping with your "do unto others..." belief, maybe you should tone it down a bit.
You may not have noticed, but in these few messages you called me a brainless twit (after all, I am a millennial), a fool (at least that's how I interpreted the Candide quotes because that was on top) and pretty much all of my hobbies shyte ((modern) music, games and movies).
I know better than to take that personal, so no hurt feelings, but I'm sure you could've made your points in other words 
I mean sure, there are foolish brainless twit millennials that listen to shyte music, and then there are boomers who do the same 
Now Gen Z... Those guys are REALLY hopeless
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: Now Gen Z... Those guys are REALLY hopeless
"I think he's got it! By George he's got it!" - slight paraphrase from Shaw's Pygmalion.
As for the "Golden Rule" thing - don't think of it religiously - think of it as a matter of a behavior principal; simply a line (with many a cultural difference) sorting things. Something could be good in one culture and bad in another. It could even extend to your "do what though wilt" philosophy if that's the cultural norm. I see that as a failed philosophy as soon as you have more than on or two people. If a few get together, they can impose their will on the smaller groups . . . and through a sequence of steps that the grouping enhances/enables you end up with effectively a monarchy where only the "king" can do as he wilt.
Actually, it's interesting in that the "do as though wilt" philosophy is, on a societal scale, a negative feedback loop. The survival instinct in human nature assures this.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: That famous Golden Rule, "Do not do unto others what you would not have others do unto you"
I think in inessential that you have added a double negation.
In any case, it is dubious. Like, it is interpreted to mean: Do not let any breach of moral principles come to others what you do not want to come to you. You can use The Golden Rule to "protect" others from all sort of immorality, any kind of political opinions, any sort of information that you would like the world to be without.
Lots of "do good" is a disguise for moral, cultural and economic censorship.
|
|
|
|
|
No - you are now taking it to the position that you will force others to think your way - would you want others to force you to think there way.
In some (in my opinion) wretched puritanical society, perhaps everyone with the group want to have their behavior watched and regulated - then, within that group, it becomes "good" in the sense that you expect others to be doing the same to your, or, because of their cultural design, not "to you" but "for you". And if you're not of that philosophy then it really really sucks.
That the point when I said it is not the same everywhere - this is more a cultural norm (if you are alone, what does it matter?). For the most part, the norms evolve for the general welfare based upon adaption to their living conditions (resources, weather, etc.).
Cultural norms on, for example, an island paradise - with abundance always freely available all year round would develop quite differently than in a temperate climate where the good times (spring, summer, fall) and spent preparing for the bad times (winter) which will inevitably come. Good and Evil in such places would differ in a lot of ways - out of necessity.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: Their straight on rock music, featuring not so many chords or notes, which every beginner now plays on their instruments,
As a kid / youth, that is how I related to it. Easily accessible music.
Later, I have taken a second look, mostly through arragements for chorus. I have - somewhat to my surprise - discovered how sophisticated some of this music is. Some of the composers excel in sophisticated chord progressions and transformations - I never knew the Beatles were so beautiful before I started working with it. Lloyd Webber is a master of various rythmic styles, and he is definitely not alone in that field. The lyrics of many rock groups are certainly beautiful poerty. For the larger works, like rock operas, you come to realize how well composed they are, in the sense of structure, overall progression - full of internal interconnections and hints like a great mystery novel...
As a youngster, I don't think I needed to see such qualities in order to enjoy the music, and I couldn't claim to know the great from the mediocre music; I just nodded to those experts telling me which were great and which were worthless. Now that I dig into it at a mature age, I fully realize what made the great masters into great masters. The majority of hte music that survived is not characterized by "not so many chords or notes", but by high sophistication in rythm, harmonies, melodic lines and lyrics.
(To pick an example: Have you noticed how over-represented 5/4 ballads are among those who survive for many years, considering how few of the "new" songs are in 5/4? Five-beat tunes, often switching between 3+2 and 2+3 for creating a rythmic tension, provide something that a steady 4/4 won't. If you are like me: You may know some tunes very well without ever thinking of them as five-beat tunes - they are simply "right". Some seven-beat tunes are that way, too: You don't think of is as a somewhat "unusual" rythm because that is just the way that well known tune is!)
|
|
|
|
|
And I'm sure you'll find such music again if you'll look for it.
For example, Meshuggah, who have taken an almost mathematic approach to metal.
Of course it's still metal so people will quickly dismiss it as "noise".
Or Tool, who are less metal, but perhaps not less technical.
There are plenty of good bands in all genres who add technical prowess to their music.
And even if they don't, they may have something unique, like Sunn 0))), think of it what you want, but his "music" (if you can still call it that) was groundbreaking (quite literally with those bass sounds).
Member 7989122 wrote: Have you noticed how over-represented 5/4 ballads are
I really don't listen to ballads, so no.
As a musician, ex-drummer and current pianist, I'm really not all about easily accessible music, although that's sometimes nice.
I do, however, enjoy some current pop music (although I mostly don't).
My point was that the points Balboos makes have been made about your generation of music as well.
And about the music before that too, and before that, etc.
When you compare The Beatles to classical music, you can easily dismiss it as simplistic.
I always say that no matter how simplistic it was, Mozart or Beethoven didn't compose Sgt. Pepper though.
HOWEVER, all that is besides the point.
Music is here to enjoy, no matter it's form.
What you like may not be for me and vice versa, so who are you (and "you" is Balboos in this specific case) to dismiss modern music as trash or noise or whatever?
|
|
|
|
|
Fact is, I write off a share of the classical music as "simplistic". Certainly not all of it, but some of is written according to very strict, regular rules both harmonically and rythmically. Some of the great composers managed to create great music even within strict rules, but some of it is about as execiting as what you could get from a fully automated composition program on your PC.
My "problem" with some of the modern music (I am mostly thinking of music with significan jazz elements) is that when it is not simplistic, is is so harmonically dense, so fat, that my ears are getting tired before the piece is completed. Actually, that was my major reason for moving from the romantic era symponies to smaller ensembles, chamber music, baroque, folk music groups: (Stereo freaks have been talking about "listening fatigue" for fifty years - I experienced it even live, with no stereo system involved  )
Most romantic symphonies have great dynamics, so your ears get to rest a little now and then. With lots of jazzrock, the dynamic range is less than 6 dB... Too often I do not have the mental energy it takes to really listen to that complex, massive sound wall enough to appreciate it. And it ends up as nothing but a complex, massive sound wall. I tend to prefer music that is easier on the ear, showing the composer's (or performer's) genius in the small details.
If you happen to like crossover music - a couple of recommendations:
Play Vincenzo Capezzuto "Wondrous machine" (L'Arpeggiata)[^] at really high volume, and imagine how a rock gruou could have adopted this praise of the wondrous machine (composed before the first useful steam engine was built) as their newly composed tune.
The same singer and group, in Twas within a furlong[^] they stay within a "classical" framework, but the way they sneak in jazzy instruments, solos and rythms, in a way that feels natural and obvious, is just great. And the lyrics is just great, in our meetoo-age!
|
|
|
|
|
Member 7989122 wrote: some of is written according to very strict, regular rules both harmonically and rythmically
Like the standard ending. Pom. Pom. Pooom!
Member 7989122 wrote: My "problem" with some of the modern music (I am mostly thinking of music with significan jazz elements) is that when it is not simplistic, is is so harmonically dense, so fat, that my ears are getting tired before the piece is completed.
There can be brilliance in simplicity.
It's like when writing code, make it as simple as possible, but not simpler.
I think Satie does that well, relatively few notes (although not necessarily simple).
Of course in music, you don't always want it simple, but some music can really wear you down.
Member 7989122 wrote: Actually, that was my major reason for moving from the romantic era symponies to smaller ensembles, chamber music, baroque, folk music groups
I hear you there!
I've always preferred baroque and chamber music over classical and romantic, save for the nationalistic period within romanticism where I love the folk influences.
Member 7989122 wrote: a couple of recommendations
I can't say I recognize Purcell in it
I also have to admit I don't know Purcell very well.
|
|
|
|
|
George Bernard Shaw said (in paraphrase): Youth, is the most beautiful thing in this world — and what a pity that it has to be wasted on children!
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey - that stuff's old even compared to me. It was originally from a guy by the name of "George Bernard Shaw". Related to these things called "books" .
Books are a sort of old-DOS-style text screen thing except it doesn't need batteries.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: except it doesn't need batteries
So it's like modern electronics? No battery life 
|
|
|
|
|
Yes - yes . . . whatever you said. Don't lose any sleep over it.
Perhaps, in the morning, this will all just be a bad dream . . . if you are lucky.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: a brainless twit (or Millennial
A difference that makes no difference is no difference.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
If Microsoft wanted them to have a brain, it would have installed with Windows.
If you can keep your head while those about you are losing theirs, perhaps you don't understand the situation.
|
|
|
|
|
No
I'm not sure how many cookies it makes to be happy, but so far it's not 27.
JaxCoder.com
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
