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.
