The world began to have "mass". Its a little song I sing and I'll sing it to the grave. Globalization is leeching the world's beauties, and200x. No more nightengales and moonlit sonnatas. No more adagios from Dvorak. No more Mozart at his piano. No more handsome strangers whispering Shakespeare in your ear. Its the age of the microwave and the nanosecond. Crass, smeared, and loud. Fucking pity.
Oh shutup, Gendanken. The only reason Beethoven was as popular then as 50 cent is now is simply because of fashion. I'm sure there were plenty of other great artists in Beethovens time that just didn't get the same exposure. Just as now, where there are so many great bands undiscovered. Nobody ever appreciates the times that they live in. Nobody ever did. Stop complaining all of you and get over it.
And thus you wish to kill the preference people might have for one time period (real or imagined) over another, Xerxes? Shut up and appreciate what you've got. Sounds a little like the purpose of religion really, without the added bonus of eventual reward. Opiate. Personally, I'd like a little more colour as well. I admit I'm no fan of classical (largely due to a lack of exposure though, I'd surmise), but given a choice between a pop icon and Beethoven, I'm sure I'd suddenly develop a taste for the latter. Xerxes would have us all wearing grey.
Xerxes Eat me. The man was not talking about artists juxtaposed, you little puke. He was referring to quality. and........ No fucking shit. Vainglorious salad tossing on your part- pity your stab in the dark was just that.
Actually I would have us all running around naked. I don't have anything against beethoven and I don't have anything against 50 cent. My preferences lie in other music. But if people only wish to complain about the state of modern music I suggest that they either: 1) write their own (its not as hard as it sounds) or 2) Hunt down some not so popular but awesome bands as I have (Modest Mouse, Weezer, etc.) Or even a combination of the two.
Gladly. DUH Who says that Beethoven is of any better quality than 50 cent? That was an assumption stab-in-the-dark on your part. Not mine. I have an appreciation for modern music AND classical, BTW.
Marquis: Yes. Just so long as its chique and we made it ourselves. Interesting. Pigeonholing with stylo, maybe? Xerx: Who has to? This statement holds little water when you consider that one of the two does little more than belch profanity. That's like...so cool. The other is beautiful. Strike one. *Snicker*.
Beethoven was definately a special case. Theres no denying he was a musical genius. But that's not all that counts. Today there are 50X more people in the world. Theoretically 50X more musical geniuses. 50X more textures to music. The contest is not in who can create the best sounding most artistically stable, but something groundbreaking with the most texture of lifes modern qualities. It would be nice, but genius isn't as much as a pre-requisite. And I'll tell ya what -- 50 cent is a helluva lot more gangsta than beethoven.
It doesn't matter if I agree with your opinion, or not. It's still an opinion. It's still 100% subjective. In a world that's essentially false, your 'truths' are the only things that hold little water. They only serve to make everything else more of a lie.
Xerx: So now its pretty motherfucking funny to see how you pounced out of nowhere blidly posting, isn't it? Dearprudence: Of course he could. You wouldn't like it and nor would the kiddies but art in the soul never dies. He'd be dirtpoor and miserable but I'd work just to keep him in socks.
I don't see the humor, Gen? I know exactly what I was saying and I stand by it all. Marquis, The quality of music depends on the traits you look traits you look at. Not a singlemost thing. That's why it's subjective. Like I said, Beethoven and 50 cent are totally different artists. Different texture, different styles, different cultures. No matter who you prefer they can't even be *compared* unless you blatantly point outa single universal idea that never changes. And to clarify, I'm not equating the two things as *equals*. What I am saying is that you cannot even compare them to eachother within the scope of such a broad word, and instead must compare the two to other music of similar nature. EG modern and classical. That's what I have been saying all along. In classical times they had music relative to Bethoven such that we now have bands (IMO Weezer, modest mouse) relative to 50 cent. The only thing we can do is draw parellels.
Xerx: In that case irony, maybe? Quite right, parallels aplenty. But you can't hold it against me or anyone else like me that it feels like ........mourning. So, be a little cautious with the 'shut-ups' next time is all.
Back in Beethoven's day, his music would be considered 'pop', same as with the Beatles in their day. Popular taste has always interested me, and the people who seem to initiate popular tatste even more. 50 cent is popular today because he is a product of current society and its taste. Quality????????Quality in music is taste. Simply becuase one musician for instance sings a song in 4 notes and the other in 2 does not say anything about "quality"! Only the (self)elitist and pretensious ramble on about the "quality" of "classical"...Oh how I bemoan the misuse of the word classical. What makes a composition existing solely on the piano any greater than one that incorporates the piano, drum, guitar, synthesizer, voice, etc? I abhor the characterization of anything popular as inferior for the hypocrisy and contemptible irony of it all.
Once... Beethoven. Now...50 Cent They both are popular today. One is popular with the younger people and one is popular with the older ones. They both have their followers and that's the way life goes. Music changes and if you don't care for what you hear......DON'T LISTEN TO IT!! There's always a different radio station to enjoy or a free download site to get ANY music that YOU like . Back during Beethovens days there was only that style of music available so I'd think the divercity we have today helps everyone enjoy something musical.
Yes, it's albout universalism, relativism, and monetarism. Aesthetic standards do not count, because people like Maya Angelou are held to be just as important as Lord Byron. 2Live Crew and Garth Brooks are just as legit as Stravinsky and Wagner. Damn ape music. Music should be worthless, mindless, and mometarily amusing. It should have no message, no intensity, nothing to make us think.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Note: Shakspeare was a rip off and a cheeseball; the 50 Cent of his time. There were other styles of music, but it was so terrible the police would haul them away for indecency. Beethoven's first symphony wasn't even recognized as particularily brilliant and spent most of his life being robbed, hardly the romantic we make him out to be. Over the years he drew the attention of the elite and became an immediate hit. Classical is not pop. Let me give you an example: during the nationalist-WWI era Stravinsky composed 'The Rite of Spring', which was actually pretty controversial at the time and many thought it to be decadent because of it's odd dissonance. The first show caused a riot, hardly what I call 'Pop'. During that time another song was produced called 'I Didn't Raise My Boy To Be A Soldier' (an anti-war song) which got massive airplay right along side 'Over There' (a pro-war song). These were pop in the purest form and today I can hardly stomach the absolute crap instrumentation. Yet Stravinsky, despite the otherworldiness of his music, continues to spin in my CD player, undefeated in sheer pagan harmonies. Pop music is momentary, realized music is forever. Why? Are you a coward? Ideas are accumulative, be they ideas from today or ideas from six thousand years ago.
Time will be the true test. I only regret I won't be around in three hundred odd years to see if anyone still remembers Weezer. Somehow, I think not.
He was also a pedophile and smoked more dope than most of the todays rappers. People seemed to be confused with the definition of 'pop' music. Pop is anything that is *pop*ular for an era, reflecting the culture and what not. This is not always true, especially in small circles, however. 'Classical' was once pop. However since the culture it grew out from is practically extinct, it's now become classical. The Beatles are soon to reach that status. Although we have maybe 50 -- 100 more years. Much of the music that is obscure now will one day become classical. We don't know, and we can't know, but it will happen. And I suppose your opinion is the only one that matters? I'm sure people said the exact same thing about Nirvana 10 years, or the Beatles in the 60's that you say about 50 cent now. I don't even like 50 cent, but my point still stands. Oh -- and BTW, a lot of the music/culture you *don't mention from that era is timeless. Take a look at some of the art deco (later in those days, jazz, blues, ragtime. Roots that will one day be classical and remembered for their simplistic brilliance. I'd bet my wallet that people hum more tunes from that era alone than all classical combined. Look what White Town did with that blues melody from the thirties! This statement is true only to a certain extent. The Beatles are probably the finest and most recongnizable refution (and, ahem *first* ) that we can use. The recording and distribution of music on paper or other media has only been around so long. So who's to say that whats popular now will be forgetten in 3 years? 500? You remind of the patent officer who, one hundred years ago, claimed that all usefull ideas had already been discovered. And BTW, nothing is forever. Get over the Romanticism. A coward? You don't even know who you're talking to. The experience I've had or the kind of person I am. Another symptom of the narrowmindedness that you spew. I give Gendanken this: She is bright enough in her (controversial) opinions to *not* state the obvious as a tool of debate. I hope you're not always like this. No, you're completely entitled to your own opinions. I just can't stand it when people complain about the current state of music. After several years of piano I also have an appreciation for some of the greats. But then I also love ripping up the piano to 'la bamba'. Beside Nirvana, I'd say that Weezer has probably been one of the most influential bands of the 90's. THey all hail from the same roots (Pixies -- not nearly as popular as they could have been,) and have had a humongous influence on many other bands. For that alone, they will be remembered in music textbooks. Maybe not popular opinion, but textbooks. Now, other bands, say Green Day, might have a bigger place in our memories. but their influence will be lost in a matter of decades since it was pretty standard. Bands these days take from them, but that will not always be the case. Their music is good, no question. THey're a lively, fun band, that was once massively popular, and they will one day become classics. But few will look back for influence the same volume as people look to beethoven for influence nowadays. Now to prove my point I'll give two simple examples. Take music relative to beethoven (as I"ve been comparing two bands of our time.) Look at their own influence. --Simon and Garfunkel, STairway to heaven, etc. That's right. Plain average folk music. Am I making even the tinsiest (??) bit of sense? Now if you want something that'll be forgetten very soon, look at Good Charlotte. Look at Pogs, look at everything fleeting these days and it will be completely out of radar by the time you are reincarnated in 2200.
