Name speaks for itself: These are topics I hear people talk about all the time or have actually consumed people's lives or, sadly, are television channels and I do not understand why anyone talks about these topics at all. Please comment. :-)
Part I -
Kesha, Lady GaGa, Katy Perry and everyone to follow them...and the criticism I do not understandMusic is one of the most unique media in human cultural evolution. Sound has been crafted to carry pitch, rhythm, timbre and texture for a long time. And strangely, over what could be one hundred fifty centuries of human development some people found some forms of music they did not like. And they are confused as to why...which confuses me.
Now, while I am reserving the sarcasm that occurs when the sheer amazement strikes me about how this is a universal probability, I guess my real question here is, who cares? Our society still has not figured out how to adequately proportion out food to everyone and we are concerned with the awards someone is going to get for writing a song about having sex and drinking...why? Who cares?
Music has always been a means of displaying a social foray that some people are concerned with. Now with Twitter and MTV it is getting annoying, because now everyone and their mother thinks that they have an understanding of what "music" is. Another revolt of relativistic thought is that no one has the "edge", no one has the accrued understanding to adequately assess what precisely someone means when they say 'This is good music'. Well, speaking for all great elitists out there, thank you Frederick, you are all so ridiculously misguided that you actually turned around, got on the wrong flight and are very nearly adjacent to the kingdom of correct assumptions again.
Being a definitivist, I do everything in my power to not take sides with any one ideology, but whether people want to indulge or not, Plato is very much the wiser in a competition with Hume. Now again, I am not saying Plato would be all correct, notably since all music would probably still be flutes, symbols and maybe string while a lyre goes and a rhapsody sings about the fall of Troy. However, in spite of what most people probably think, having never heard it, that is good music. Music could probably best be recognized on a gradient chart, with the old classics on one side, heavy metal/alternative on the other. Both are good in their own right and at either end of the gradient scale you do have the best of both, and yes they are both very good. I can listen to both types of music. Obviously not at the same time, but at some times I need the best Bach and Beethoven can give me, and other times I really need Rise Against, Breaking Benjamin and Katy Perry to rock my iPod on the treadmill. Listening to one does not discredit the other, and not listening to both sides takes away a huge piece of musical evolution from someone's understanding. Trying to combine them is where it gets even more tricky, and it seems as though some people actually think that would be a good idea. Considering at the very center of the gradient scale is 'baby banging on a piano', I think everyone can agree: stick to the sides. And no Mr. Hume, you do not need to be "well endowed" to realize that 'child banging on a piano' is not the future of good music.
Now I will certainly say that I do have a preference and that my preference is for the more Classical styling of music, notably Baroque and German Romantic. I like a good lyre classic, a Wagner-based opera piece, the call of great Italian Opera and yes I do think Mozart might be the greatest musician of all time and the greatest musical genius to have graced the musical talents. I will also admit that I do not think that the Heavy Metal/Alternative side of music is as good as the classic side and that it lacks much of the subtle development and compounding elements that made a great symphony. However, the music of the twentieth and twenty-first century is catchy, energetic, more easily comprehensible for a
non savant, rhythmically-based, sometimes, and overall well developed. While I realize it is mostly to make money at least there is still incentive, misguided, but manipulable enough to not be a threat to all social undertakings as some people apparently believe.
This brings us to the question of what is modern pop music, the newest addition to the heavy metal/alternative side of the gradient scale, and why should we listen to it? Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, jazz, blues, rock and alternative have a tremendous impact on today's music and musician. Music of the twentieth century developed in a unique fashion as compared to previous efforts, notably in how it was not founded by established artisans and/or genius intuition and creative investiture. I did like music made by the 'common composer' as jazz was so often associated with. Admittedly I think Ray Charles is the best jazz musician of the twentieth century and I could listen to 'What'd I Say' and 'Georgia on My Mind' for a week and still have something new to take from both songs - that is what great art is. Now, you "enhance" something corporations sell as "music" in easily reproducible conditions made by people who most likely used tetrahydrocannabinol as their inspiration while talking about how "lame" and "unimaginative" it is at the academy, or even better, people realizing 'Hey, if we sing about what these people do, they might want to listen to it because it will "speak to them" and that will totally make money'. I would prefer the Ray Charles to the Stefani Germanotta (Lady GaGa for anyone confused) any day, but how they make their music , whether people want to admit it or not, is rather similar, and is their business, not mine.
Now I am not saying that modern music should be blamed for its disconnect from the past while simultaneously utilizing the compendium of Western music, since I doubt 85% of Western citizens could name a composer pre-1950, and at least in this court ignorance is still an acceptable plea. To be fair, while disconnect is a relatively modern characteristic, people have always taken from other composers and never, in their minds, believed it was part of the greater musical tradition that was not theirs and only theirs. Beethoven would never have admitted how important Hayden was to him in the end of his career (and yeah if someone trains you from the beginning of your career and was a great part of your life they can be inspiring), and I doubt Wagner would have admitted how much Geyer, Muller and Beethoven influenced him, and I doubt Armstrong, Steinman, Spector and Schulze think Wagner is what propelled their masterpieces forward, all the way down to Kurt Cobain and his "rogue genius" act. And if musicians admit their influences openly and say 'Yeah, I took this from _____' they are far more self-assured than their peers, but the full extent of influence from centuries of development of rhythm, pitch and timbre is never truly able to adequately assessed. The symphony and sonata form have changed music since the 1700s; are we going to ask everyone in music to say that Bach and Handel are influences? Yeah, probably not.
So why is music of the modern world to be judged by the same standard as people we are not going to ask them to acknowledge? Handel would not like U2, and I would be willing place faith in the belief the feelings are not exclusive or non-reciprocating. Every age in history wants to believe it is important and the most advanced. So why, if we are so much better, has the rubric for great, culturally changing music not changed?
Do I think it should change; no. I also, though, do not think we are more evolved than we were two hundred years ago. I would put my money on cultural devolution, considering the most memorable contribution of the twentieth century killed about two hundred million people.
However, we are still alive inside enough to realize that some art will be worth forgetting, some worth fortifying. When the test fails and I remember that in two hundred years Mozart and Wagner and Charles will still be favorites for generations of artists, 'Poker Face', 'Hit Me Baby One More Time' and 'Teenage Dream' will not, I am able to put it on the 'Is this still good and enjoyable music?' scale. And guess what: in that framework, yes, it is enjoyable in its own right.
So why do people say 'This music sounds so familiar, simplistic, awkward and bland.' when that is just the way music is currently being produced, as well as what people have acknowledged is what they want? If that is how you want to critique music, start critiquing all of society and culture that way. Considering these are probably also the critics who think
Avatar is so great, yet could have a 'more complex' plot, using quotations because the film had no plot, I have to believe they are just the moderately educated people in the group trying to sound intelligent and sophisticated, mistaking skepticism and proper criticism acting for actually being a wise and knowledgeable person. After that lacking and worthless 'masterpiece' I am not sure why anyone complains about how bad the development of anything from the cultural centers can be. We can also thank the TNG movies, Voyager, Deep Space Nine, the Star Wars Prequels, Indian Jones IV, etc., for showing how even the best masterpieces and stories can not only lose their levity but can be completely ruined in every way.
MTV is on the veritable edge of uselessness, and is not any better than telling people who have no real right to comment that they know anything about music, but if there is a place where anyone can bring their opinions to the forum, then so can professors and composers from Graz and Julliard. This, like every aspect of "democracy" in our modern society can be made better if the best people are the leaders and moderators of conversation; not necessarily the ones who hold power and are the instrumental factor, but moderators at least. The problem is that we believe that 'woman with big boobs' (I do not know any host from any MTV show and I refuse to look it up so I will just cover them all) and someone from
USA Today are good moderators to this discussion...which they are not. Because we have bad models from both sides of the isles we feel music has lost something or that it is a free for all.
In summation, what I do not understand is that modern music is being critiqued inadequately and the relativistic philosophy that was supposed to fix the problem has caused a free-for-all development of criticism and distaste that has led to MTV being a standard for musical taste. If people looked at the problem with a bit of distinction and did care enough then the insights could be made as to what is happening to the theory of music and we might be able to utilize the evolution to make better music, but instead it is just another excuse to yell at people we do not like. Fair warning: just because you audition for Congress does not mean you will get the role, especially if you are not white, rich, male and over forty.
I just do not get it...
