Can we agree music is objectively improving over time?
So obviously there's no arguing taste. Some people might prefer to listen to the sound of sheet metal tearing and that's their personal preference and there's nothing we can really say or do to change that.
So lets not talk taste, lets talk objective merit. has music been improving over time in this regard?
Consider prehistoric music: some primitive humans banging on leather drums in a cave somewhere
Consider music in early history: instruments built out of poor materials and improperly formed and tuned
Consider music in the middle ages: isolated composers working primarily under the influence of the church
Consider modern genres: genres like Jazz couldn't have come to exist if it wasn't for the unification of two different styles of music, something that could only happen once those genres were allowed to form, develop, and interact with one another over time.
Consider modern music: the use of the computer in modern production has completely changed the way we make music. We can now master music to sound better than it ever did in the past, and we can literally make any sound we want in music. We are no longer limited by the restrictions of physical instruments; you can put the exact sound you want in your music and not have to settle for the next best thing you could recreate on an instrument.
Now apply my argument to other subjects.
You might prefer the way old missions the church built in California in the 1800s look to the way the Empire State building looks (a matter of taste), but would you really argue that Mission San Juan Bautista has better objective architecture than the Empire State building? Of course not. Our methods of building stuff have improved over the years.
You might prefer the way an old Ford Model-T looks to body style of a Bugatti Veyron (a matter of taste), but would you really argue that the T is a better car, objectively speaking, than the Veyron?
Agree
Side Score: 10
|
 |
Disagree
Side Score: 5
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
|
2
points
No, not "nuff said" at all. You seem to be arguing from the point of view of your personal taste (i.e. I don't like how rap music sounds), which is specifically what I said this debate was not about. And even if rap as a genre could be shown to be objectively less than music that came before, that wouldn't refute my point. People still make houses out of mud and straw in Africa, but that doesn't mean architecture hasn't improved over time, that just means some people aren't taking advantage of the advances in architecture. Sometimes a 2001 model of a car is actually a worse car than the 2000 model; that doesn't mean we're not getting better at making good cars, just that one car hasn't improved over one year. Similarly, even if rap is objectively worse than past music, that doesn't mean music as a whole isn't objectively improving over time, it just means that one specific genre hasn't advanced or developed or what have you. Finally, I'm something of a music elitist (I'm a right picky jackass when it comes to determining what I consider to be "good music" and I can be very brutal in my critique of music I dont like), but even I can find artists or songs I like from every genre. If you can't find rap you like, you're the most musically closed minded person I've met, and believe me, coming from me that's saying something. Side: Agree
I do not consider that music improves over time. Everything that belongs to art area, in particular music cannot be subordinated to so rough, value judgment. And what was "to" and became "after"? Can we put Vivaldi and, say, Glinka in one row? Or compare Beatles and Linkin Park? Perhaps you also find such comparisons pertinent, but I so do not consider - even if we look by way of common view of whole music, it's strange, at least. In one era one genre prevailed, in second other party of musical expression towered. The past is not worse and it is not better, simple because it is absolute another. It pursued other aims, used other means, eventually, it had other audience! And here so it is simply impossible to hang up a terrible, huge, bulky and clumsy label "Better". This my IMHO, but music and cars are different things. Music - art, cars - something from industry area. The church in California is a church, and the shopping center like Empire S.B. is a building with commercial purposes, aren't they? It's out of my league - to compare such kind of things. I think that eve first song appeared on the Earth, in ancient cave, had their grateful listeners, purpose and belief method ;) Side: Disagree
1
point
I don't think so. Your examples, especially the car one, are about advancements in technique of making something. Yes, techniques of recording music have advanced; but good music isn't about technology. Take auto tune,...please. (if you didn't get that you can stop reading now) Music is about conveying emotion/feeling, much like poetry. Would you say poetry has gotten objectively better? No, it depends on the personal writer's ability to express their self in a way that speaks to the reader. Same with music. I truly believe 'Video killed the radio star'. MTV caused the popularity of a musician to include how they looked, instead of just how they sounded. Would Janice Joplin have been as popular as she was had she been on MTV. (nothing but love to Janice, she could sing, but she was not TV friendly) The next nail was the increased commercialization of music. Why make a soulful ballad of emotional expression, when a simple catchy beat makes you more money? The politics of getting any radio air time assures needing a major record label. So if you make music that isn't made for the lowest common denominator, aka, bound to be in the top forty it is very hard to be picked up by a major label, so nobody hears your music. Music hasn't objective improved because it can't because it is about personal expression. Their is still good music out their, but it is increasingly unlikely to hear it on the radio. Side: Disagree
|
