EPTMusical Nostalgia and Why It Is Stupid - Page 2
| Blogs > flowSthead |
Empyrean
16992 Posts
| ||
|
flowSthead
1065 Posts
On May 05 2011 06:58 Empyrean wrote: I would agree with you there. Instead of complaining about people having a different taste in music than you do, perhaps you should complain about people who make objective statements based on nothing more than their opinion. ...That is exactly what I was doing. I have nowhere in any of my posts complained about people who have a different musical taste than I do. I have nowhere even stated what my musical tastes are. The reason I wrote it from the perspective of defending modern music is because I do not come across many people who hate old music and love modern music (although I am sure they exist), and I would be equally against them. Where have I let my personal musical tastes known? Would it surprise you to know that I listen to more music from the 80s and 90s than music of today? | ||
|
Empyrean
16992 Posts
On May 05 2011 07:10 flowSthead wrote: ...That is exactly what I was doing. I have nowhere in any of my posts complained about people who have a different musical taste than I do. On May 05 2011 03:24 flowSthead wrote: I am getting really sick and tired of nostalgia over the past, especially in relation to music.All the time online on forums and youtube comments, and sometimes in real life as well, I hear kids and older people talking about how much better music was in the 90s or the 80s or the 70s. They then go on to trash music of today, and talk about how all of it sucks and they wish they were back in the past. That is a stupid and illogical position and I will prove it. | ||
|
flowSthead
1065 Posts
Right, because they are making objective statements rather than talking about their opinions. I mean I will admit that perhaps it is poorly worded and confusing. But I feel as though I have explained myself without contradicting myself. | ||
|
Empyrean
16992 Posts
| ||
|
flowSthead
1065 Posts
On May 05 2011 07:19 Empyrean wrote: You have in your subsequent posts. <_< I'm too lazy to go back and edit for the sake of clarity. Plus, I was angry at the time and I like leaving my angry, poorly worded statements in a pure form, so I can come back later and be like "Why was I so angry? I'm such an idiot >_<." | ||
|
rkffhk
474 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + What you really, really want | ||
|
Empyrean
16992 Posts
| ||
|
flowSthead
1065 Posts
On May 05 2011 07:29 Empyrean wrote: Yeah I'm just giving you a hard time now. XD I actually appreciate that. It helps me clear my thoughts. It's the reason I tend to get aggressive and argue all the time, so I can figure it out for myself eventually by being challenged. | ||
|
DEN1ED
United States1087 Posts
| ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On May 05 2011 07:45 DEN1ED wrote: I agree with the OP. No one ever just says "I like music from the 70's more than modern music." People just say "Music from the 70's is better than modern music." I find it annoying. Because it IS better. I know people want to think this is a purely subjective assessment, but some music is objectively better than others, because there is actual objective criteria that determine the relative worth. Like what, you ask? Well, the first thing that comes to mind is the actual musical talent and ability and creativity of the musician. Being able to appreciate the skill of someone perfectly playing a guitar is similar to appreciating the skill of an old BW pro pulling off a perfect micro maneuver. In order to recognize that beauty from some noob a-clicking around, you need to have an understanding of the game. And a lacking in understanding music is exactly what someone has if they think the artistic merit of an expert guitar player is synonymous with a computer generating beats. Sure, someone had to program the beats, and I'm not denying there can be an artistry in that also, but usually there simply isn't. And this is just a single criteria. How about lyrics? The lyrics to a Pink Floyd song are objectively better than the lyrics to a modern pop song. This is why the "Friday" song made such a splash, because it took the stupidity of inane pop lyrics to a whole new level and became a parody of itself. I know it is wrong to lump all "modern music" in with pop and rap and the other garbage. But when people bash on "modern music" you have to realize this is what they are referring to. I'm a huge Radiohead fan, and they are modern. I appreciate their music for it's artistry and creativity, not because of the time period they released it. It's not about nostalgia, it's about good music vs. bad music. | ||
|
DEN1ED
United States1087 Posts
On May 05 2011 09:17 jdseemoreglass wrote: Because it IS better. I know people want to think this is a purely subjective assessment, but some music is objectively better than others, because there is actual objective criteria that determine the relative worth. Like what, you ask? Well, the first thing that comes to mind is the actual musical talent and ability and creativity of the musician. Being able to appreciate the skill of someone perfectly playing a guitar is similar to appreciating the skill of an old BW pro pulling off a perfect micro maneuver. In order to recognize that beauty from some noob a-clicking around, you need to have an understanding of the game. And a lacking in understanding music is exactly what someone has if they think the artistic merit of an expert guitar player is synonymous with a computer generating beats. Sure, someone had to program the beats, and I'm not denying there can be an artistry in that also, but usually there simply isn't. And this is just a single criteria. How about lyrics? The lyrics to a Pink Floyd song are objectively better than the lyrics to a modern pop song. This is why the "Friday" song made such a splash, because it took the stupidity of inane pop lyrics to a whole new level and became a parody of itself. I know it is wrong to lump all "modern music" in with pop and rap and the other garbage. But when people bash on "modern music" you have to realize this is what they are referring to. I'm a huge Radiohead fan, and they are modern. I appreciate their music for it's artistry and creativity, not because of the time period they released it. It's not about nostalgia, it's about good music vs. bad music. If people listened to music only based on musical talent everyone would listen to Mozart. A lot of people do but it's not many peoples thing. There is much more to music than just being able to play a guitar/piano/instrument well. Everyone has different musical preferences and people should accept that instead of insulting the type of music they like. The lyrics argument is also weak. Music is the art of sound. Is music without lyrics worse than music with lyrics? No. That's just what some people prefer. | ||
|
Fontong
United States6454 Posts
On May 05 2011 12:02 DEN1ED wrote: If people listened to music only based on musical talent everyone would listen to Mozart. A lot of people do but it's not many peoples thing. There is much more to music than just being able to play a guitar/piano/instrument well. Everyone has different musical preferences and people should accept that instead of insulting the type of music they like. The lyrics argument is also weak. Music is the art of sound. Is music without lyrics worse than music with lyrics? No. That's just what some people prefer. Everyone would listen to Mozart? Well I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were making a random generalization. There is no way that one music can be proved to be objectively better than another music. I challenge you to define musical talent. Once you have defined musical talent, I want you to tell me who is more talented: Birtwistle or Xenakis? Palestrina or Bach? Frescobaldi or Michael Jackson? Please justify in detail for each comparison. | ||
|
phosphorylation
United States2935 Posts
| ||
|
iSometric
2221 Posts
| ||
|
NibbloniaN
United States377 Posts
But seriously there's old music that sucks and old music that rocks, and new music that sucks and new music that rocks. Why hate on everything in a general time period? | ||
|
phosphorylation
United States2935 Posts
On May 05 2011 15:20 NibbloniaN wrote: But seriously there's old music that sucks and old music that rocks, and new music that sucks and new music that rocks. Why hate on everything in a general time period? Truth. But, music that sucks tend to fade away with time, so old music that remains tend to be better in general. Hence, it's not a huge stretch to say old music is better than new music. | ||
|
Fontong
United States6454 Posts
On May 05 2011 13:57 phosphorylation wrote: Indeed, but I can make a good effort to argue that one side created music that constitues better piece of art than the other. Still difficult but wortwhile and has truth in it. Of course. I would actually go further and argue that some music isn't even intended to be art. If such a think as 'art music' exists, then it's not a stretch at all to say 'entertainment music' exists. Otherwise how would you be able to explain the top40 radio stations, hehe. This is the main reason I don't like it when people say they can objectively judge music. Sure a majority people think [such-and-such] sucks, but if even one person enjoys their music then that person should be allowed their enjoyment. After taking three years of music classes, it strikes me that I've never heard one of my professors say that a given piece is bad. I don't doubt that they are thinking it, but it's significant to me that this is the case. | ||
| ||
