The Declining Music Industry

The Hubster said:
FSOL's ISDN has a really *REALLY* special place in my heart I tell you.
What an album. A master-fucking-piece.

So much can be said, as you stated, for all dance music around that time, around the globe. The level of creativity was just incredibly proactive and high, when you sit back and really think about it it's almost too much to try and comprehend.

I'll never forget how I felt when I first heard and then bought the 12" of Dave Clarke's "Wisdom To The Wise". I'm no vinyl junkie, but I tell you, I'd guard that record with my life... and I felt the same again when I bought Josh Wink's Higher State of Consciousness 12" as well.

You know what's missing in house these days? Those screaming divas of the early 90's, those gorgeous piano breaks. *sigh*.... just beautiful. Bring on some Black Box, it'll kick the pants of any dance post-1999.

Bringing back some memories now dude....

Gat Decor - Passion
Bizarre Inc - Playing with knives
Awesome 3 - Don't go
Remake - Bladerunner (remix)
Age Of Love - Age Of Love
Moby - Go
Jam and Spoon - Stellar
Leftfield - Song for life
Orbital - Chime / are we here?
X-Static - I'm Standing Higher
Jaydee - Plastic Dreams (Trance Mix)
Nomads of the North
Out of Order - Tears (which i cant find ANYWHERE)
4 Hero
Black Dog
Top Buzz - Edge of Darkness
The Prodigy - any
Egyptian Empire - The sound of the fog horn (prodigy ripped it for FOTL album)
Origin Unknown - Valley of Shadows
DJ RAP - Spiritual Aura
LTJ Bukem - Demons Theme / Music
Joey Beltram
Dave Angel
William Orbit
Laurent Garnier

I could go on and on but ive really got to get some work done today :)
 
By the way, excuse my opinion, once again, it may differ to yours. I believe that it is subjective to make the claim that music 'now' pays any more or less detail to music from any other given time. Which really brings me back to the point I was making before. What are the details that people are supposedly not paying attention to? Really how can you substanciate that claim with the response "I like what I like and it's my valid opinion to like it"? You honestly can't, and even if you can analyse every detail of a piece of music you still have the fact that the opinion you have is subjective. Attention to detail itself is a subjective term. I think you could argue that even a short relatively simple piece of music pays attention to detail.

On another similar note, I don't at all agree that a person necessarily gravitates back to the music they liked as a child and need to cling to it in the face of changing trends in music. I know for one thing that that is not at all true of my approach to music. As for musical stagnation, 90% of music produced in the last, lets say 50 years just as a token example is based on exaclty the same forumula. Whether it is "metal", "jazz", "rock" or whatever you call what britney spears does, which strangely enough is pretty much the same formula that was being used 400 years ago.

So in my, as always, humble opinion, blaming the 'record industry' for the so called decline of music is a complete waste of time.
 
Nothinggod said:
Whether it is "metal", "jazz", "rock" or whatever you call what britney spears does, which strangely enough is pretty much the same formula that was being used 400 years ago.

this is an indication of how much you know about music in the last 400 years and it is independent of considerations about the subjectivity or objectivity of value judgments about music.
 
derbeder said:
it seems pretty clear from an earlier thread that nothinggod made (the one about whether opeth should endorse abercrombie and fitch etc.) that he is basically looking for an argument for argument's sake so he can call other people pseudo-intellectuals, myopic and what not.

It seems pretty clear to me that you are one of the myopic, not to mention defensive, "pseudo-intellectuals" I was talking about then. As for an arguement. I wouldn't call what most of you present in response as an argument. As soon as things go against your way of thinking most of you either whine about how you are being victimised and having your opinion stifled, or you resort to arbitrary rants about how "ur ghey lol, u need sex lol"

Give me a break
 
Could you please give substance to the statement that the 'metal, jazz, rock' genres all share a common formula, one that's been in use for the last 400 years?

I'm very curious as to why somebody would claim that.
 
derbeder said:
this is an indication of how much you know about music in the last 400 years and it is independent of considerations about the subjectivity or objectivity of value judgments about music.

Ok then, how about you show me what you know and explain the following terms to me. 'Even tempering', 'Diatonalism', '12 tone chromaticism', and then explain how "the subjectiveity or objectivity of value judgements about music" are relative to anything.

Moonlapse said:
Could you please give substance to the statement that the 'metal, jazz, rock' genres all share a common formula, one that's been in use for the last 400 years?

I'm very curious as to why somebody would claim that.

How many notes you got on your guitar? Now how many notes do you think Bach used? Now what do you do when you play a dominant chord?

End of lesson
 
in about every post on these two threads you have called people names and given the same sort of rants about subjectivity etc. it is not wrong for anyone to have a reaction towards your attitude. i do not support some of those reactions, like "u r ghey lol" etc., but it seems that you have deserved some of them.

edit: (1) "explain how "the subjectiveity or objectivity of value judgements about music" are relative to anything." - there is no sense to be made of this request. what is it that you are asking for here?
i will make some comments in connection with this issue, however. if judgments about the aesthetic value of a musical composition are objective, then the truth or falsity of these judgments is not relative to anything. a statement such as "x is beautiful" is true just in case x is beautiful. the truth of the claim is not relative to people assessing it. if some sort of subjectivism about value judgments is correct, then the truth or falsity of these judgments may be relative to individuals or communities. eg. on one version, "x is beautiful" as assessed by a person P will be true just in case P takes x to be beautiful. this allows "x is beautiful" to be true with respect to one assessor and false with respect to another. it is possible to develop a coherent version of relativism about matters of taste (this was a large problem in the history of philosophy), but whether it is correct is another issue. this board is probably not the place to go into these details.
(2) i really am appalled by your claim about a common formula in music that has been going on for 400 years. there really is nothing to say about it. some things are obvious. i happen to know some classical music, so i assume i am in a position to see the obvious here.
 
Nice response, and about what I expected. Personally I don't give a shit what you call me. It's more illustrative of your stupidity than mine. But if being called stupid is a problem for you then I suggest you rise above validating it. Which in my opinion you could do by selecting one of the two options. Answering my question, or admitting you have no idea.
 
I'll tell you what is obvious; Firstly, that you have no idea how to answer my question and secondly that you are too stupid and/or arrogant to admit it. So the obvious conclusion is, what position are you in to be appalled by anything I have to say? Way to show me up.

[edit] All fixed
 
Nothinggod said:
By the way, excuse my opinion, once again, it may differ to yours. I believe that it is subjective to make the claim that music 'now' pays any more or less detail to music from any other given time. Which really brings me back to the point I was making before. What are the details that people are supposedly not paying attention to? ...


... blah blah, fart, poo, plop ...

Whether it is "metal", "jazz", "rock" or whatever you call what britney spears does, which strangely enough is pretty much the same formula that was being used 400 years ago.

So in my, as always, humble opinion, blaming the 'record industry' for the so called decline of music is a complete waste of time.

These are some of the most outrageously stupid and ignorant comments about music I think I have ever read.

Let's put aside the factor of your viewpoints being in opposition to what others here think, as this is not relevant. You must keep in mind that NO ONE here is having a problem with your viewpoint (although what you say above is VERY questionable but I'll get to that in a moment).

The problem here is your approach to your view. You are NOT providing any supportive examples with which to communicate your ideas, rather, blurted mouthfuls of anger instead.

We are all prepared to listen to what you and anyone else has to say, but you need to provide it with a valid method of communication! Debate is good, but it must be CONSTRUCTIVE!

I am not claiming to be a musicologist, but music is my biggest hobby and I do a LOT of research into it and spend HOURS talking about it with various musically minded people from musicians to conservatorium teachers.

You have stated you have some technical knowledge, but your posts are clearly showing you have not learned how to APPLY your knowledge, especially in a historical nor "discussional" context, and this is where a number of us were steering this thread. We are all brainstorming here, not trying to prove each other right or wrong. Get a grip and calm down dammit!

Now, your comments on music for the past 400 years: these, given your apparent knowledge of music on a technical level are outrageously incorrect.

Massive amounts of music within the Renaissance and Baroque periods were very short, some even barely making 2 minutes in length, and yet so many of them are very detailing (or to use the correct term, decorative) based works. If you don't believe me, go and listen to any works for religious music of the Renaissance or music for the Viola Da Gamba of the Baroque period and do some reading.

The technique of vibrato itself with singing and instrumental playing is a direct result of detail!!! You should know this! This simple fact alone single-handedly destroys your entire argument on the history of musical evolution!

The role of the instrument in music has drastically changed since the rise of choral music in Medieval times. Where the human voice once was the main instrument itself, the evolution of (played) instruments has come so far (in coombination with the rise of the virtuoso) that the role between voice and instrument has seperated into two completely seperate forks.

The human voice no longer requires an accompanying played instrument, nor does the accompanying instrument need be restricted to the role of an accompanying voice in a composition. Where once the voice was a sustained instrument, it has itself become it's own instrument of virtuosity. This also applies for all other instruments. Thus, compositions of music throughout history have reflected this change and voices now have more independence from one another. This was NOT the case before!

I could go on and on, I could (and so could derbeder and NFU) all harp on about evolvements in counterpoint and basso continuo etc etc, but there is no point here as we move off the topic.

I have made my point. You need to calm down, or just leave us in peace. Stop arguing against us, you are wasting your time.
 
what has explaining some terms have to do with there being a formula for music? one of the terms you mentioned is relevant in this connection. the second viennese school had a formula of sorts in the 12 tone technique. this was a new method of harmony in music, so it had clearly not been around for the previous 300 years. and there have been many different developments since the early 1900s in harmony. and these have hardly any relevance to britney spears etc. that you were talking about. how does britney spears share a formula with schoenberg?
 
Nothinggod said:
How many notes you got on your guitar? Now how many notes do you think Bach used? Now what do you do when you play a dominant chord?

End of lesson
still, the use of chords in jazz and even metal is vastly different from music 400 years ago when 7th's or earlier when 3rd's were considered dissonance.
Then what do you consider progression? Microtonality? I haven't seen that pulled off well yet.

edit: damn this forum is fast. The Hubster has very good points.
 
By the way please note, and pay attention to the details here. I did refer to 90% of music, admittedly a rhetorical figure. Also what I am refering to has nothing to do with the employment of any kind of mictrotonality, including just, pythagorean or otherwise intonation or vibrato or even serialism. It refers specifically to the 12 tone evenly tempered western chromatic system and it's hierachic nomination of diatonalism for cadencial resolution. Since you are obviously well read enough to put me in my place you will have no trouble understanding the significance of that to my arguement. The end

Now go back to rambling on about how the record industry is in decline I am going to bed. [edit] just time for one more edit
 
Nothinggod said:
Nice response, and about what I expected. Personally I don't give a shit what you call me. It's more illustrative of your stupidity than mine. But if being called stupid is a problem for you then I suggest you rise above validating it. Which in my opinion you could do by selecting one of the two options. Answering my question, or admitting you have no idea.


no, YOU are stupid
 
biggsy said:
Well I think this thread is rapidly going out of my intelligence range. Very interesting reading though, I'm sure I'll keep checking in.
:lol:
I honestly don't know if you mean the intelligence is too high or too low.