What do you think?

[Opth_001]

I was just reading the forum on "where has all the art gone" and it accured to me that eveyone talking about people in the 1800 and before but what about the main artist in our time. Like Micheal Jackson, I mean he has changed pop considerably, and Garth Brooks he has changed country music to a different level. AC/DC and Kiss (which I don't really like too much), and Metallica, what about Death they practically started death metal. Well tell me what you think about these artist are they good or are they just lucky.

 

[Lina]

this is purely opinion, but of those i would say that michael jackson is worth remembering, and that he has had a true impact on society. an argument can be made for all of them, i suppose, but m.j. has become a deity.

allow me to ramble a bit more on this topic. when we say that there are no musical greats of our time, there are in fact many great entertainers -- it's just not the TYPE of music that we consider "great." like i mentioned in the other thread, i knew a guy who could compose romantic-era music like nobody's business. but does he count as "a great talent of our time," or is his work somehow nullified by the fact that it's in the style of a different era?

i mean, classical music progressed from baroque --> classical --> romantic --> modern. So what comes after modern? Obviously, commercialized pop music is the next definable genre, but since that doesn't take talent to create, does that mean we have no greats (since we don't have a socety that fosters and appreciates them)? does it mean people who revert to styles of the past can wear that label?

 

[D Mullholand]

Originally posted by Lina
i mean, classical music progressed from baroque --> classical --> romantic --> modern. So what comes after modern?

modern --> post-modern. This is now.

Or (after modern, avant-garde) :

dodecaphony
serialism
electroacoustic
concrete music
microtonality
micropolyphony
minimalism

etc. etc.

Poop does not belong here.

The Erudite D

 

[Lina]

Excuuuuuuuse me! Yeah, I don't much care for anything after Debussy, so I never pursued it.

OK, so does this mean that a "great talent of our day" must come from the 20th century form of classical music, since that's who we consider great from the past? Or, can the Beatles be considered greats of this century simply because of their popularity? (Even though this would require diminishing the standards of greatness.)

So here's the question -- is "greatness" achieved through popularity or true musical talent? The greats of the past had both, so which one led to their timeless admiration?

 

[Opth_001]

I would have to say that greatness is considered by the impact that they had on music, which includes the Beatels, unfortunatly, but they did change the way that people listened to music. As for that guy you know Lina in my opinion he is a good musition (sorry for the spelling but I'm haveing troubles with it tonight), but he's not great only because he hasn't had an impact on music yet. Now if he came up with a new style of music and nobody really changed to his style till after he was dead than he would be a great musition, I'm only sorry that people like him don't get noticed because we have stupid music like britny what's her name. . . and the backside boyz. Because all the stupid teenagers who are running there parent want what everybody else has and can't decide what is really good music on there own.

Maybe we should blow up all the record componys like they did in Fight Club then everything would have to start over

Well that's my 2 cent I hope you enjoyed it if not who cares

 

[D Mullholand]

(ho ho, I know such terminology, I couldn't resist )

A great talent can come from both circles. I think art (let's drop the commercial poop from this discussion) will become more individual in time, and it will become harder to be world-famous as in superstar-famous. The entertainers will, the artists - no. People who are searching for art, will find art. People who don't - well, exposure of art won't help them; and even if they are brainwashed to think that "art is cool" - what are the benefits of such blind fandom ?

The term "greats" will become obsolete.

The Beatles are not just empty pop - they had great talent, and I'm not saying this because they are acclaimed. I love a big portion of their music - "Revolver", "Sgt. Pepper...", "Magical Mystery Tour" etc. And not just talent - also hard work. They threw out dozens of songs before releasing something. But, I won't deny the role of their producer (George Martin, I think) in their achieved fame.

I wrote more on this topic in the "art" thread.

BTW, Lina, I have to remind you again to check out Schoenberg. Pursue it, dammit !

D Mullholand

 

[Hail Eris!]

I noticed much negativity towards the Beatles, so I must defend.
I love the fucking beatles. They will be remembered as great musicians of the modern era and deservedly so. The beatles where master songwriters but Mikeal blows em' away. I just hope Opeth gets the credit they truly deserve, at some point....