Bass Lady Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Firstly, a really interesting question and apologies as I suspect this may turn into a rant. Nothing personal against the OP or any other points of view, it just ties in so nicely with a few different things that have happened / said to me today. As a music teacher (classroom), a classically trained musician but also someone who loves all types of music and currently playing in a swing / cover band I suppose I am maybe coming at this from a slightly different perspective. I do find this discussion by musicians very intersting yet quite depressing at the same time. If Bach had said he was only going to perform / listen to / compose like Wiiliam Byrd................................. If Mozart had said he wasn't going to bother with anything new as Bach had already done it.................... If Beethoven had said that he couldn't do anything new because Mozart was better than him............................ If Tchaikovsky etc.etc skip 100 years If The Beatles had said they weren't going to do anything new because Rock n Roll had been done If Pink Floyd had said they could never be as popular as The Beatles.......................... If Mark King / Flea / Victor Wooten (replace with your own fav) had said well there's no point in getting good because they could never be as popular as Paul McCartney................. etc. etc. etc. Hopefully my point has been made, using very quickly thought out examples. My main point is, WE are the current generation / era / period of musicians and if we decide that everything has already been done well that's it then, evolution is over. Yes, there are only so many notes and many things have been done to regurgitate "old" music but you think of the progress / inventions / technological advances that have been made in the last fifty / sixty years. Don't get me wrong, I am not a huge fan of the music (that I have heard) that has been released in the last decade or so but we are looking at a very small portion of musical evolution and I just hope (I am fairly sure it won't happen) that in a hundred years time the next musical era doesn't look back at this time and call us the "unimaginative" or the "uninspiring" or the "well they had it all but decided not to bother" era. Okay, now I should explain the rant. Firstly, GCSE music pupils who are dragging their heels over composition coursework because it's too hard / they can't think of anything / the software is too difficult to use, yet expect to continue their musical studies onto A level and beyond. I encourage the kids to work to their strengths so no, I'm not trying to make the next Jimi Hendrix write a string quartet but apparently it is too much hard work to pick up a guiter and strum some chords or to much like hard work to actually research the style or genre of music they have decided to compose in. Secondly, a maths teacher who's reply to me about a rehearsal (at lunchtime) wasn't important as "music is just a hobby" and was quite suprised when I told him that with that answer he had just given up all rights to listen to any music as it's "just a hobby". Lastly, a pupil (private lessons) who got quite upset because I wouldn't give him anything new to learn as he had done no practise at all this week (even though he claimed to have at the start of the lesson) and couldn't understand why I said to him he had just wasted his parents (hard earned) money. Should add, this is someone who wants to gone on to music college and wants to be a pro. ............. and breathe. As mentioned, I don't want to upset anyone just seemed an appropriate rant for today. Cheers, Rachel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil.i.stein Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 nice post Rachel, although i do feel the need to point out that music does not necessarily have to have popularity as it's destination point. .. in fact that is what depresses me about (some) music. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bass Lady Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 (edited) [quote name='phil.i.stein' timestamp='1361823095' post='1991585'] nice post Rachel, although i do feel the need to point out that music does not necessarily have to have popularity as it's destination point. .. in fact that is what depresses me about (some) music. [/quote] Thank You and yes, I completely agree and maybe "popular" was not the right choice of words for me. Must add, love the sig, yes quite excited, Winter is coming. Edited February 25, 2013 by Bass Lady Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discreet Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 [quote name='Bass Lady' timestamp='1361822609' post='1991568'] Firstly, GCSE music pupils who are dragging their heels over composition coursework because it's too hard / they can't think of anything / the software is too difficult to use, yet expect to continue their musical studies onto A level and beyond. I encourage the kids to work to their strengths so no, I'm not trying to make the next Jimi Hendrix write a string quartet but apparently it is too much hard work to pick up a guitar and strum some chords or too much like hard work to actually research the style or genre of music they have decided to compose in... [/quote] To be fair though, that's teenagers for you! I'm sure they have much the same attitude to their other subjects! When I was a kid I was most disappointed that I couldn't play like Hendrix without learning the guitar and being dedicated enough to put the time in, ha ha. It was only when my testosterone levels sorted themselves out that I was able to concentrate on anything other than girls and komungo. Great post though, agree with you wholeheartedly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discreet Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 [quote name='Bass Lady' timestamp='1361823323' post='1991595'] Must add, love the sig, yes quite excited, Winter is coming. [/quote] I'm not sure that's such a good thing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xilddx Posted February 25, 2013 Author Share Posted February 25, 2013 [quote name='Bass Lady' timestamp='1361822609' post='1991568'] Firstly, a really interesting question and apologies as I suspect this may turn into a rant. Nothing personal against the OP or any other points of view, it just ties in so nicely with a few different things that have happened / said to me today. As a music teacher (classroom), a classically trained musician but also someone who loves all types of music and currently playing in a swing / cover band I suppose I am maybe coming at this from a slightly different perspective. I do find this discussion by musicians very intersting yet quite depressing at the same time. If Bach had said he was only going to perform / listen to / compose like Wiiliam Byrd................................. If Mozart had said he wasn't going to bother with anything new as Bach had already done it.................... If Beethoven had said that he couldn't do anything new because Mozart was better than him............................ If Tchaikovsky etc.etc skip 100 years If The Beatles had said they weren't going to do anything new because Rock n Roll had been done If Pink Floyd had said they could never be as popular as The Beatles.......................... If Mark King / Flea / Victor Wooten (replace with your own fav) had said well there's no point in getting good because they could never be as popular as Paul McCartney................. etc. etc. etc. Hopefully my point has been made, using very quickly thought out examples. My main point is, WE are the current generation / era / period of musicians and if we decide that everything has already been done well that's it then, evolution is over. Yes, there are only so many notes and many things have been done to regurgitate "old" music but you think of the progress / inventions / technological advances that have been made in the last fifty / sixty years. Don't get me wrong, I am not a huge fan of the music (that I have heard) that has been released in the last decade or so but we are looking at a very small portion of musical evolution and I just hope (I am fairly sure it won't happen) that in a hundred years time the next musical era doesn't look back at this time and call us the "unimaginative" or the "uninspiring" or the "well they had it all but decided not to bother" era. Okay, now I should explain the rant. Firstly, GCSE music pupils who are dragging their heels over composition coursework because it's too hard / they can't think of anything / the software is too difficult to use, yet expect to continue their musical studies onto A level and beyond. I encourage the kids to work to their strengths so no, I'm not trying to make the next Jimi Hendrix write a string quartet but apparently it is too much hard work to pick up a guiter and strum some chords or to much like hard work to actually research the style or genre of music they have decided to compose in. Secondly, a maths teacher who's reply to me about a rehearsal (at lunchtime) wasn't important as "music is just a hobby" and was quite suprised when I told him that with that answer he had just given up all rights to listen to any music as it's "just a hobby". Lastly, a pupil (private lessons) who got quite upset because I wouldn't give him anything new to learn as he had done no practise at all this week (even though he claimed to have at the start of the lesson) and couldn't understand why I said to him he had just wasted his parents (hard earned) money. Should add, this is someone who wants to gone on to music college and wants to be a pro. ............. and breathe. As mentioned, I don't want to upset anyone just seemed an appropriate rant for today. Cheers, Rachel [/quote] Great post Rachel, thank you. I think for some people it takes a little time to develop the true passion, and for others the passion burns brightly until they lose it and move on to Victorian dental equipment collecting or something. Some have the gift and the passion and will never lose it. But I think I'd agree if someone said that with today's technology has come impatience along with dwindling ability and desire to puzzle-solve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil.i.stein Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 [quote name='xilddx' timestamp='1361826571' post='1991682'] ..with today's technology has come impatience along with dwindling ability and desire to puzzle-solve. [/quote] and that is our mission. ffs. you only get old once. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bass Lady Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 [quote name='discreet' timestamp='1361824060' post='1991613'] To be fair though, that's teenagers for you! I'm sure they have much the same attitude to their other subjects! When I was a kid I was most disappointed that I couldn't play like Hendrix without learning the guitar and being dedicated enough to put the time in, ha ha. It was only when my testosterone levels sorted themselves out that I was able to concentrate on anything other than girls and komungo. Great post though, agree with you wholeheartedly. [/quote] Yep, I think I had just had enough of teenagers for the day, I love my job but sometimes.................. I hate saying "in my day" as I know I was no different but completely agree with the statement "But I think I'd agree if someone said that with today's technology has come impatience along with dwindling ability and desire to puzzle-solve." Frustrating to know that todays technology is wasted on some and I really do mean only some teens, but it shouldn't be wasted by ANY teens. Knowing how to post on Facebook or nick other peoples pics off Google is apparently all there is to being computer literate these days according to some I teach. Having now had several cups of tea and calmed down enough (don't worry, Hubby had the full rant before I even got on here) it is so good to read so many peeps on here do want new and are looking to the future. All is good in the world really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BassTractor Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 (edited) Not at all for me personally. I dread the thought though, but that's about my concerns for other people and for the culture. But me myself, I'd just delve into all the music I know I love but have not used the time on lately. Also, new music pops up in my head all the time. No production necessary. I think I've not even written down anything for maybe a decade or so. best, bert Edited February 25, 2013 by BassTractor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spoombung Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 We desire increase (you'll notice). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_skezz Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Worth it if it means no more Chris Brown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad3353 Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 [quote name='Bass Lady' timestamp='1361822609' post='1991568']Firstly, a really interesting question and apologies as I suspect this may turn into a rant... ... Cheers, Rachel [/quote] Yeah, but you're [i]old[/i], innit..? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad3353 Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 (edited) No, just kidding, Rachel, your post hits quite a few nails on the head. A bit too close to the front line to be truly objective, I suspect, but very lucid (are you sure you're a teacher..? Hmmm... ). New music suggests 'new to the composer' since, as has been indicated, a listener would be hard put to have already heard a very large percentage of all music already existing, and therefore there is already a huge source of new music for the listener. New composers have, and will always, churn out much work re-hashed (although innocently...), but there will still from time to time, be a breath of fresh air from divers inspirations ('synth' music was difficult to envisage before synths were invented, similarly electric music...). Invention and innovation seem to be part of the human psych, for better (the arts..?) or worse (the Bomb..?), and will, imho, only be suppressed by the extinction of the species. What was that again..? Winter is coming..? Yes, I'm afraid it is. Edited February 25, 2013 by Dad3353 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ead Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 I can't think of a single reason why anyone would [u]not[/u] want to hear new music. For my part I would think it supremely arrogant to suggest that anything worthwhile has already been created. You may not like it all, but that doesn't make it bad music, and who is so omniscient that they can consider themselves to be the sole arbiter of taste? Actually reading a few of the recent threads on here it would appear quite a few individuals do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacqueslemac Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 How much of the new music that's being created now is truly new, as in innovative? There is so much that has already been produced, it must be very hard to create something that isn't just a slight tweaking on what's gone before. (I watched the documentary about modernism in music last night, which demonstrated how music that was very different from what came before - and ignored the "rules" - was too uncomfortable to listen to that it's pretty much disappeared.) My stepdaughter works in the fashion industry and complains that there's nothing really new being created in that industry. It's all re-hashing of what's gone before, with a slight twist so it feels fresh to consumers. As a consumer, I never listen to the radio. I do listen to a lot of music, but it's often as a result of an interview, or book I've read. I find myself travelling down alleyways from music I know, so rarely have any idea when the music that's new to me was first recorded. For example, when my band wanted to play Alive by Pearl Jam, it wasn't until I saw the video on YouTube that I realised it hadn't been written just a couple of years ago. I've recently been exploring Rockabilly from the 1950s. It's mostly new and fresh to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thisnameistaken Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 [quote name='Jacqueslemac' timestamp='1361868753' post='1992007'] How much of the new music that's being created now is truly new, as in innovative? [/quote] Old people have been asking that since the late '70s. Has all the music since then been valueless? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacqueslemac Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 [quote name='thisnameistaken' timestamp='1361869173' post='1992014'] Old people have been asking that since the late '70s. Has all the music since then been valueless? [/quote] Value is in the hands of whoever is listening to it. What I meant is that it's difficult to write something that's clearly different from what's gone before. Everyone who writes music has been exposed to so much variety, it must be very difficult to write something that hasn't been done before in some shape or form. We're all influenced by what's gone before, whether or not we know it. For example, listen to Paradise by Dr Feelgood and then listen to Curfew by Jags/Steve Carl, recorded 20 years before. Did Wilko do it on purpose or was the melody just lodged in his brain somewhere? The first person to decide to use a guitar, drums and bass in a band had nothing to act as a point of reference. I remember Jack White insisting on keeping the White Stripes as a two-piece so that he had to explore new ways of creating music within that parameter. he felt that if he added another guitar, the music would end up sounding like too many other twin-guitar bands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacqueslemac Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 On reflection, it may be difficult, but not impossible. I'm sure people with far more musical knowledge than me could point to the influences, but have a listen to: UFOs by Amplifier Geneva by Russian Circles Where did those come from? And how about Talking Pipes by Magnum 500? It's clearly "surf" but wouldn't have been created without borrowing heavily from other sources. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 Interesting question. Firstly though, it's never going to happen because new music will always be created as long as there are musicians in the world. But, supposing it really did happen, I don,t think it would matter at all, because there is enough music already in existence for people to discover throughout their lives. It was only about five years ago that I 'discovered' Nick Drake. Last year I 'discovered' Cressida and Spock's Beard. I'm expecting to 'discover' a lot more old music before I pop off but it'll all be new to me. From a musical perspective, it doesn't matter WHEN a piece of music was created, it only matters if the person concerned has heard it before. I'd suggest that all this angst about 'new' music is more of a sociological issue than a musical one. Kids use new music as part of their rebellion against the status quo, they are attracted to stuff that has never been before. Also, many people like to dislike stuff simply because it's popular, so they are naturally drawn to new stuff because they think it gives themselves some sort of originality. So there are all sorts of behavioural stuff going on concerning music, but strip all that nonsense away and there's more than enough music already in the world to satisfy our basic musical needs. After all, the time you spend listening to a brand new piece of music is time that you cannot use to listen to a piece of old music and if you never hear that old music how do you know it's not better (subjectively, of course) than the new piece? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leschirons Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 There seem to be a few posts on this thread suggesting that there is so much undiscovered music out there already that it wouldn't really matter if no more new stuff was created as there is loads to still hear as "new" to that person. We'll always discover old "new" stuff and that's great but, I've always been of the opinion that in most cases, music created is due to what the writer has to say at that particular time in their lives and is also influenced by the current state of society at that time. Punk being a prime example. It would be a real shame to lose the musical viewpoint of all those future writers and composers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thisnameistaken Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 [quote name='Jacqueslemac' timestamp='1361869679' post='1992023'] What I meant is that it's difficult to write something that's clearly different from what's gone before. Everyone who writes music has been exposed to so much variety, it must be very difficult to write something that hasn't been done before in some shape or form. We're all influenced by what's gone before, whether or not we know it. For example, listen to Paradise by Dr Feelgood and then listen to Curfew by Jags/Steve Carl, recorded 20 years before. Did Wilko do it on purpose or was the melody just lodged in his brain somewhere?[/quote] I don't know. I've never heard either though. I imagine a lot of people haven't. Wouldn't it be hard to be influenced by what has gone before if you've never heard it? I don't know... Look at the sampling era of hip-hop - they were basically lifting whole sections of records and rapping over them, but the songs were still distinctive and had a different feel and flavour. You can't really get much more plagiaristic than sampling and it still produces new-sounding music. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xilddx Posted February 26, 2013 Author Share Posted February 26, 2013 [quote name='leschirons' timestamp='1361876049' post='1992156'] There seem to be a few posts on this thread suggesting that there is so much undiscovered music out there already that it wouldn't really matter if no more new stuff was created as there is loads to still hear as "new" to that person. We'll always discover old "new" stuff and that's great but, I've always been of the opinion that in most cases, music created is due to what the writer has to say at that particular time in their lives and is also influenced by the current state of society at that time. Punk being a prime example. It would be a real shame to lose the musical viewpoint of all those future writers and composers. [/quote] Absolutely. I am finding some of the responses quite troubling. Some are like music is only for people who 'appreciate' music for its intrinsic melodic, harmonic and rhythmic values in isolation, rather than as a reflection of the people creating it, a reflection of context. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xilddx Posted February 26, 2013 Author Share Posted February 26, 2013 [quote name='Jacqueslemac' timestamp='1361869679' post='1992023'] Value is in the hands of whoever is listening to it. [b]What I meant is that it's difficult to write something that's clearly different from what's gone before.[/b] Everyone who writes music has been exposed to so much variety, it must be very difficult to write something that hasn't been done before in some shape or form. We're all influenced by what's gone before, whether or not we know it. For example, listen to Paradise by Dr Feelgood and then listen to Curfew by Jags/Steve Carl, recorded 20 years before. Did Wilko do it on purpose or was the melody just lodged in his brain somewhere? The first person to decide to use a guitar, drums and bass in a band had nothing to act as a point of reference. I remember Jack White insisting on keeping the White Stripes as a two-piece so that he had to explore new ways of creating music within that parameter. he felt that if he added another guitar, the music would end up sounding like too many other twin-guitar bands. [/quote] I think that way lies music of little significance. Deliberately trying to be different would seem to me to create music that is emotionally quite barren, it comes from an proactive engineering solution rather than a reactive emotional expression. Although I'll grant you their are many musicians who can't seem to connect their more complex emotions to their musical expression. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earbrass Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 [quote name='xilddx' timestamp='1361876477' post='1992163'] Some are like music is only for people who 'appreciate' music for its intrinsic melodic, harmonic and rhythmic values in isolation, rather than as a reflection of the people creating it, a reflection of context. [/quote] Not exactly sure what point you are trying to make here, but it's worth pointing out that the context of the listener is important too, not just that of the creator. To take some examples, a western listener and a Javanese listener might both enjoy gamelan music, but one might experience it as intriguingly exotic and strange, the other might experience it as comfortingly familiar, and a sound of home. When we hear, for example, baroque music today we may find different things in it from those noticed by its contemporary audience because we have also heard so much music that has been written since. I find dixieland jazz music rather bland and a bit cheesy, but once it was new, vibrant and even shocking. What I'm trying to say is that I'm not sure there is such a thing as the "intrinsic melodic, harmonic and rhythmic values in isolation" - the listening experience will always be at least as much a reflection of the cultural context of the listener as it will be of the cultural context of the creator. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xilddx Posted February 26, 2013 Author Share Posted February 26, 2013 [quote name='Earbrass' timestamp='1361878789' post='1992227'] Not exactly sure what point you are trying to make here, but it's worth pointing out that the context of the listener is important too, not just that of the creator. To take some examples, a western listener and a Javanese listener might both enjoy gamelan music, but one might experience it as intriguingly exotic and strange, the other might experience it as comfortingly familiar, and a sound of home. When we hear, for example, baroque music today we may find different things in it from those noticed by its contemporary audience because we have also heard so much music that has been written since. I find dixieland jazz music rather bland and a bit cheesy, but once it was new, vibrant and even shocking. What I'm trying to say is that I'm not sure there is such a thing as the "intrinsic melodic, harmonic and rhythmic values in isolation" - the listening experience will always be at least as much a reflection of the cultural context of the listener as it will be of the cultural context of the creator. [/quote] Fair points. I suppose I meant technical appreciation, like a musicologist. But you're right, the listener's context is just as important. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.