In comparing modern pop with pop songs such as Cyndi Lauper’s Time After Time or Kate Bush’s Running Up that Hill—both of which had plenty of radio play in their day—the more modern pop music that gets radio play is not up to par … this in terms of depth, for lack of a better word. — javra
Again, this is just a skewed view. — Noble Dust
Nitpicking on two songs in an out of context fashion does not evidence an unbiased conclusion that the quality of music overall has remained unchanged. — javra
Here's something that we can agree on :) — Πετροκότσυφας
What's more interesting to discuss is the change in structure of the music business and how that change has affected both the artists and the listeners of specific genres. In my view, the whole thing has become more decentrilised, so, at least in terms of distribution and availability, it takes more effort from the listener to reach stuff that pre-broadband internet and pre-new recording technology could be reached either through multinational conglomerates or through a number of indie labels. Strangely, this is because more music than ever is readily available to simple folks. — Πετροκότσυφας
Amir ElSaffar seems like a good start. — Πετροκότσυφας
the allegorical, metaphorical, and metaphysical allusions made in the lyrics of Running Up that Hill to me far surpass the lyrical appeal of Dare You to Move. Why and how and who cares are not things that can be decided via logical analysis. — javra
Yet to someone like myself, a Rembrandt far outweighs the quality—both of structure and of content—of a Warhol. — javra
It’s not about the new which does away with the old. It’s about what is expressed, the quality with which it is expressed, and the tastes of the audience which is exposed to the former. — javra
You're essentially stating your bias (as we all do), but then saying that we're all just biased. — Noble Dust
either own up and make a claim about one era being superior to the other (and then defend the claim), or stop complaining and just accept the evolution of music. — Noble Dust
But by assuming that standard and not expressing it and defending it, your assertions hold no weight. — Noble Dust
T-Bone Walker is neither superior nor inferior to Sting. Neither were the eras. To me that is. — javra
I to me have not complained, but only frankly stated one more person's subjective truth. — javra
I'll then let the those who know the objective truth of the aesthetic matter determine what is superior. — javra
To be honest, I don't know exactly what I mean by "breaking new ground". — Bitter Crank
This "oh, rock's dead, today's music's shit" is really uninteresting. From the surface to the depths, there are good songs being made. And I say good because originality alone isn't sufficient. There are lots of original stuff that suck. But eitherway, original music is born every day on popular genres. That's not even worth the time to discuss much in depth. What's more interesting to discuss is the change in the structure of the music business and how that change has affected both the artists and the listeners of specific genres. In my view, the whole thing has become more decentrilised, so, at least in terms of distribution and availability, it takes more effort from the listener to reach stuff that pre-broadband internet and pre-new recording technology could be reached either through multinational conglomerates or through a number of indie labels. Strangely, this is because more music than ever is readily available to simple folks. — Πετροκότσυφας
I was suggesting that you were assuming an objective standard by saying "It's about what is expressed". — Noble Dust
a) personal truths of aesthetic preferences or b) an objective standard of aesthetic value which one as a subjective being is in possession of. If you know of an alternative to (a) and (b) let me know. — javra
I don't equate personal "truths" with aesthetic preferences, because I don't use the term "personal truth"; I'm not sure what it means. Personal experience, for instance, is not synonymous with personal "truth". — Noble Dust
I do know of another alternative: c) an objective standard of aesthetic value that exists, but which no one subjective being is in possession of.
Or, better:
c) An objective aesthetic reality which no subjective individual has fully experienced, but which is the basis of each subjective individual's aesthetic experiences, even experiences that result in conflicting aesthetic opinions. — Noble Dust
This is an issue of metaphysical inquiry into whether there is something along the lines of a Platonic Form for the aesthetic. I believe there is. All the same, in what way does either alternative you’ve expressed serve as a means of appraising that which is aesthetic? — javra
This is in opposition to just measuring somethings aesthetic value purely on subjective taste, without regard for the taste of others, or whether some have better or worse taste. — Noble Dust
The first, measure, to me doesn’t fit because aesthetics are not something measurable. One can make a numeric scale, such as from 1 to 10, but even so there is no mathematically precise way of gaging aesthetic quality or intensity ... save by comparison of qualia to the extent this is at all possible. — javra
Refinement by the self-declared elite will be deemed better taste than what is the common and, hence, vulgar tastes of the masses. An individual with commonsense-like tastes will deem the overly abstract tastes of the self-professed elite to be pompous buffoonery that, maybe, has lost touch with reality. Now, me personally, I’ll find better tastes as well as worse tastes in both the more refined and in the more vulgar — javra
But, being that it’s an issue of value, the question will always remain: better or worse to whom and for what personal reasons? — javra
This objective aesthetic would either be objective in the sense of a rock, as a physical and measurable object, being objective or, else, objective in the sense of being 100% impartial, as in (partial) objectivity in what one judges to factually be. — javra
The objective aesthetic, though, would itself not consist of any particular phenomena which would apply to individual cases of experienced aesthetic. Otherwise, it would not be a universal property common to literally all instances of this experience of the aesthetic. — javra
the value of the experienced aesthetic will nevertheless always be accordant with the statement that “aesthetics is in the eyes of the beholder”. — javra
Idon't know what the fuss is about. I lived through the 80s. — Benkei
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.