Music is doomed

10-02-2010 05:30 AM

I've asked what the public thinks. I know it's Yahoo answers and all but I just what some feedback on what they think.

Here's the Link. The Beatles and 90's boy bands? - Yahoo! Answers

**Snowy Egypt** · 10-02-2010 05:41 AM

HEY...Hands off BSB. They're MY band.

Now that THAT'S out of my system; Music isn't doomed. I think it's thriving. You just think it's doomed because there's music out there you don't like. Like someone in here said, music is subjective. No need to write off the new stuff, or any of it for that matter. What's the point in that? Why purposely seek out music that's bad to you? Listen to what you like, ignore what you don't. Problem solved.

EDIT: So many new posts! XD

I share UM's thoughts on The Beatles.

10-02-2010 05:50 AM

Originally Posted by Snowy Egypt

HEY...Hands off BSB. They're MY band.

Now that THAT'S out of my system; Music isn't doomed. I think it's thriving. You just think it's doomed because there's music out there you don't like. Like someone in here said, music is subjective. No need to write off the new stuff, or any of it for that matter. What's the point in that? Why purposely seek out music that's bad to you? Listen to what you like, ignore what you don't. Problem solved.

EDIT: So many new posts! XD

I share UM's thoughts on The Beatles.

As do I. Check out my link to see what the "Public" thinks about this discussion.

**Noogah** · 10-02-2010 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by no-Name

John Cage was a talented musician with many points to tell.

He had talent, yes, but not the talent that justified any of his fame. Even that piece you just posted is nothing but a ramble I could write in my sleep, and, I do compose music for my dreams alot.

Originally Posted by no-Name

He was an impressive mathematician as well, and made plenty of art from it.

I don't care. Math =/= art.

Don't get me wrong, mathematics is in art. You couldn't have music and other art without it. However, if art is completely made from mathematics and nothing more, it is no longer art. It's just math. There is nothing artistic about it.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Um...yeah. I'm pretty sure that video was never intended to be a serious musical production. Comedy production, perhaps, but certainly not any definition of music.

Nope. Google 4'33?. John Cage, who created it (created what? Nothing, that's what.) took it very seriously, and seemed to expect other people to do the same. Crazily, some people really do.

Originally Posted by Univeral Mind

I used a plural term. There have been several golden ages of music, and every major genre has had at least one. The golden age of classic rock, which I consider the absolute peak of musical history, began in the 60's and ended in the 70's.

Golden age of classic rock?

Um...

Spoiler for All hell will break loose when you're done reading this.:

Originally Posted by Zhaylin

Not to sound racist in any way, my son asked a question the other day and I can't quite get it out of my head.
How is it a person can almost always tell whether a singer is white or black?

It's just their style. I've mistaken white singers for black singers before when they sang like a black person usually does.

Listen to what you like, ignore what you don't. Problem solved.

As we have established. Since music is subjective, it changes with culture. If bad music is going to become a style, then I am saddened. People are going to grow up with no knowledge of what truly wonderful music is.

**Lseadragon** · 10-02-2010 10:37 AM

Noogah, I think what you're missing is that John Cage did not necessarily make that music (4'33" or Music of Changes) for you to enjoy. He made it because it was what he had to make. He made it because it made a point that could not be made any other way.

Music of Changes was a piece that changed within limitation each time it was performed, according to certain quasi-random selections (castings of the I Ching, I believe). It raised the question: What is a piece of music? Is it the notes that make the music? Many people would say, yes, it is. But this piece changes, and yet it is still the Music of Changes. So a piece is not in what is played; it lives as a certain expression, as an idea.

4'33" was a piece conjured after he'd gone into a aeolic (sp?) chamber, where the ambient noise levels got around to -70db (which is fuck low; my memory of this may be off but it was a really quiet space for scientific experimentation). In such a space, you would expect silence; but instead he heard two noises. A low, and a high. The pulsing of blood, and the ringing of the eardrum.

This showed that silence was impossible; music, as long as there lived a listener, would continue. 4'33" was his way of expressing this to the audience. No musician is playing - they all rest, perhaps symbolically as in the grave - and yet somehow music continues, eternally, immutably.

Now for a personal account:
One time at the National Art Gallery here in Melbourne I believe they were holding a minimalist exhibition. Now I really enjoy abstract art, much more than realistic stuff generally; the colours and bold lines appeal. But a particular piece annoyed me; a monotone red square that didn't even look like it had been painted cleanly, with rough looking spots over it. It was /so annoying/, this piece; I like clean edges.

But I discussed it with the people I was visiting the gallery with, and somebody mentioned that might've been the artist's intention; to annoy.

Art is about provoking a feeling. This feeling may not be enjoyment. Why do you listen to sad songs? They will get you all depressed, and yet you listen. We always crave to feel deeply; connected, or sad, or joyous. Each of these has an effect on our perception of the work.

So perhaps John Cage could've made his Music of Changes more melodious, and beautiful; but then his message might've been lost. He made the decision to make it annoying art, angering art, so you would think "Why on earth did he make this piece?" You would then try and find it, try to find his motivations and the constructions behind the piece, and all of his message would get through.

If you're not trying to find the message then there's no lesson gained for you.

**Xei** · 10-02-2010 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Modern popular music is extremely pathetic. It is not even about sounding good. It is all about image. It is so shallow.

I don't agree. The ostentatious people are just the only ones getting your attention, for the simple reason that they are ostentatious. It's actually a victory for them if you think that. There wasn't a 'stupid epidemic' at any time in history when artists suddenly stop being born... but at any point in the last three hundred years you will find somebody shouting about how there was. In reality good music never stopped being made.

Not that image and quality are mutually exclusive. Visual impact has been a part of music since before beautiful women sang in the opera hall, and continued to be as brilliant musicians like the Beatles grew moustaches and slipped on psychedelic soldiers' outfits or as David Bowie dressed as Ziggy Stardust.

Originally Posted by Noogah

Let me correct this statement:

What is the perception of Christianity coming to?

Christianity isn't subjective. It's all in the Bible. The Ku-klux-klan can maraude about with crosses all they want. That doesn't make them Christian.

Congratulations on epically missing the point in a way we know only you can.

I could go into how God tells people to commit genocide in the Bible and other disgusting things (many of them picked up by the KKK; slavery is fine), or how the Bible actually consists of a chosen cross section of the original texts, or how much religion is actually dictated outside of the Bible (no the Bible does not talk about condoms) and hence you can't tell people what their religion is just because you don't like it. But that's not relevant.

The salient point is that posting a picture of the KKK does not prove that all Christians like to lynch black people any more than posting a piece of bad music shows that all modern music is bad.

Good music was made in the classical period, and a whole bunch of crap was also made in the classical period (guess what; nobody remembers it. Is this because it didn't exist or... because it was crap?), and crap music is made in this period but a whole bunch of good music is also being made in this period.

So hopefully you can see now why posting a good piece of old music and a bad piece of current music and saying 'so there' is such a facepalmingly asinine logical fallacy.

[ ^Skip to 4:10 if you must]

Now please take your absurd opinions and absurd logical errors and absurd little threads somewhere else.

Originally Posted by Noogah

That's like debating the best smelling animal feces.

I really loathe rock. To me, all rock is the same. Loud, noisy, and structureless. Whatever lyrics there are are both unpoetic and generic. Or, if they aren't generic, they make no sense. Like, the Beatles.

I don't care what you say about the Beatles, their songs made no sense. Yes, maybe if you analyze every detail, or pay close attention to metaphor you could find something in it, but that just makes it hard to understand, not artistic.

Perhaps they made some interesting accomplishments and discoveries in music. I will grant this. That doesn't make their music pleasant to the ears.

The Beatles are no better then any other modern rock groups. Just different, that's all. You consider their odious vomit better, and somehow "classical" (forty years does not make something a classic) because you grew up with them.

Kids who grow up on whatever garbage they feed kid's these days will consider them masterpieces when they're adults too.

Now, before you respond to this, remember, It's just my opinion on a BAND.

Come on Noogie, we know you've never listened to any Beatles album, or indeed any other piece of good contemporary music. You also seem to have zero musical understanding. Rock is structureless..? So... when people transcribe the melodies and the chords, what is it they're doing exactly? The music is loud? Errrr 'I Will' is loud? 'Julia' is loud? 'Mother Nature's Son' is loud? Was Beethoven loud, Noogie? Does that make him crap too, Noogie? Were Handel's lyrics fantastic, Noogie? If I'm not mistaken he didn't even write any, I'm not sure how that could be said to be an improvement any more than John Cage's silence can be said to be music. Why is poetry even relevant to musical quality in the first place, Noogie?

I wonder at what age you'll finally stop spouting this shit (the Beatles are 'odious'... I wonder who planted that little gem in your limp sponge of a brain) and actually start forming some of your own credible opinions.

Originally Posted by no-Name

So you like The Beatles but not 90s boy bands? What do you think The Beatles were? They put out 27 albums in 8 years. If you saw someone do that today, you would just think they weren't putting any work into them. What made The Beatles so different? Most over-hyped band ever...

ಠ_ಠ

If this is your genuine opinion then you seem seriously misinformed. First off... they didn't. They released 12, and spent about a year on each of their most revered albums, yet almost every single track on those albums was totally new and interesting and about 70% of them were incredible compositions. As UM says, they wrote their own music, played their own songs... they were the foremost pioneers of technical musical innovation and experimentation and totally revolutionised music.

Whenever I hear these kind of comments I always seriously doubt the person making them has listened to their discography... what kind of boy band has ever created tracks like A Day in the Life, or Tomorrow Never Knows, or She's So Heavy, or Rain, or Helter Skelter, or... any of the hundred odd others which transformed music with their conception?

**Spartiate** · 10-02-2010 01:19 PM

The Monkees were the boy band version of the Beatles.

**Universal Mind** · 10-02-2010 03:43 PM

Xei, I was referring to modern popular music, not all modern music. There is a lot of new music that I like. It was the corporatization of popular music that watered it down so much. The game shifted from blow people's minds to get as many people as possible to like it just enough to buy it. That changed the quality. Image has always been part of popular music's appeal, but it used to be just icing on the cake. Now it takes center stage.

Noogah, you come across like you have barely checked out the Beatles' music. It involves a whole lot of diversity. Some of their later lyrics are very surreal, but surrealism is a type of art. Some of their songs were very simple and had little meaning, some were simple but really deep, some were complex and had little meaning, and others were very complex and deep. Some of their songs made little sense but were extremely deep. Lots of diversity, in terms of sound as well. Also, tons of people think their music sounds phenomenal. I am one of those people.

**Xei** · 10-02-2010 04:05 PM

Well, you're probably right that popular music is becoming more corporatised, poorer and derivative, and the reasons for that are interesting (especially bearing in mind we're talking about the free market here), but in general I just treat all that rubbish as something to be ignored. When you ignore the watered down crap, musical spirit doesn't seem that different.

**Noogah** · 10-02-2010 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by Lseadragon

So perhaps John Cage could've made his Music of Changes more melodious, and beautiful; but then his message might've been lost. He made the decision to make it annoying art, angering art, so you would think "Why on earth did he make this piece?" You would then try and find it, try to find his motivations and the constructions behind the piece, and all of his message would get through.

Well, that's all good and inspiring, but that doesn't make it music.

Originally Posted by Dictionary

an art of sound in time that expresses ideas and emotions in significant forms through the elements of rhythm, melody, harmony, and color.

4'33, though an extreme example, doesn't meet any of that definition. 4'33 is silence, not music, I don't care what message it contains.Significant though it may be, it is still not music.

Anyways, if he had to make his points by creating boring and pointless music, then fine. I just hope his style can stay rare, because when I listen to music, it isn't so that I can hear some philosophical lesson(more so, one that I couldn't understand unless that composer actually explained it to me. I don't see a point in that.) , I listen to music for it's melodious and harmonious properties.

Originally Posted by Xei

The salient point is that posting a picture of the KKK does not prove that all Christians like to lynch black people any more than posting a piece of bad music shows that all modern music is bad.

And my point is that is an invalid analogy.

As I have said, and we have agreed, music is subjective. Not Christianity. When people start making bad music, and musicians start going that direction, that is what music is becoming. I know there is good modern music. I listen to it quite a bit. But, it isn't popular, I know that much. Get it?

Originally Posted by Xei

So hopefully you can see now why posting a good piece of old music and a bad piece of current music and saying 'so there' is such a facepalmingly asinine logical fallacy.

Obviously all of music isn't doomed yet (though I'm convinced it will be at some point. Degrading culture brings degrading music.), but that isn't the point of this thread. The point of this thread was to evoke intelligent discussion on the subject of modern music, and it's decline, or lack thereof.

Originally Posted by Xei

guess what; nobody remembers it. Is this because it didn't exist or... because it was junk?

It's because in the classical period, bad music wasn't accepted as music. The era had very strict standards that pieces of music had to meet. If they did not meet those standards, it was considered cacophony. Their society rejected it, which is why our society never hears it. On the other hand, our society seems to embrace every bit of rot that composers can pump out.

Originally Posted by Xei

we know you've never listened to any Beatles album, or indeed any other piece of good contemporary music.

I will give it to you that I've never actually just sat down and listened to an entire Beatles album, or even an entire contemporary album. I only describe what I have heard.

Originally Posted by Xei

Rock is structureless..? So... when people transcribe the melodies and the chords, what is it they're doing exactly?

I didn't say it WAS structureless. I said it SOUNDED structureless. Big difference.

Originally Posted by Xei

The music is loud? Errrr 'I Will' is loud? 'Julia' is loud? 'Mother Nature's Son' is loud? Was Beethoven loud, Noogie?

I said "and loud". I listed loud as a factor, not as a defining feature. Loud music isn't bad music, but bad music that also happens to be loud pains me.

Originally Posted by Xei

If I'm not mistaken he didn't even write any, I'm not sure how that could be said to be an improvement any more than John Cage's silence can be said to be music.

He wrote the enitre Messiah, if that's what you mean. He may not have written the lyrics, but I'll give him some mercy considering the fact that he wrote the whole thing in twenty-four days. That is talent, and it is definitely not silence.

Originally Posted by Xei

Why is poetry even relevant to musical quality in the first place, Noogie?

It's relative to music that is made up of words. Many classical pieces didn't need lyrics. They were amazing as orchestrations. You definitely can't say that about any rock music I've heard.

Originally Posted by Xei

the Beatles are 'odious'... I wonder who planted that little gem in your limp sponge of a brain

Xei, stop patronizing me. You have properly guessed that I live around people who don't care for the Beattles, or modern music, but they are more educated on the topic than you are, and I didn't get that "gem" from anyone.

Because I'm fourteen, you can't comprehend that I would have an opinion so much different than yours. Well, believe it, and if you can't respect someone's opinions enough to hold back your maddeningly condescending attitude and superiority complex, then please don't debate them.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Some of their songs made little sense but were extremely deep.

Alright then, I'll take your word for it. I probably just haven't heard their good side, and, in any case, I wouldn't like it anyways because I just don't enjoy the style.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Also, tons of people think their music sounds phenomenal. I am one of those people.

I respect that opinion. I'm not saying mine is any better than yours.

**Xei** · 10-02-2010 05:46 PM

I feel so sorry for you and angry at the people that have done this to you... I was reduced to disbelief several times during the reading of so many bizarre logical malformations, nonsense that you'd clearly made up on the fly, and overt admissions of the errors that brought you to your crazy conclusions, yet somehow without realising that they were there.

I can only hope that one day you will follow the advice of the title of the final song I posted.

10-02-2010 10:03 PM

Originally Posted by Noogah

That's like debating the best smelling animal feces.

I really loathe rock. To me, all rock is the same. Loud, noisy, and structureless. Whatever lyrics there are are both unpoetic and generic. Or, if they aren't generic, they make no sense. Like, the Beatles.

I don't care what you say about the Beatles, their songs made no sense. Yes, maybe if you analyze every detail, or pay close attention to metaphor you could find something in it, but that just makes it hard to understand, not artistic.

Perhaps they made some interesting accomplishments and discoveries in music. I will grant this. That doesn't make their music pleasant to the ears.

The Beatles are no better then any other modern rock groups. Just different, that's all. You consider their odious vomit better, and somehow "classical" (forty years does not make something a classic) because you grew up with them.

Kids who grow up on whatever garbage they feed kid's these days will consider them masterpieces when they're adults too.

Now, before you respond to this, remember, It's just my opinion on a BAND.

I understand you and everyone else is entitled to their opinion. But when you say "kid's these days will consider them masterpieces when they're adults too." you tend to lose a bit of credibility.

"The Beatles are no better then any other modern rock groups. Just different, that's all. You consider their odious vomit better, and somehow "classical" (forty years does not make something a classic) because you grew up with them."

So with this rationale if you didn't "Grow up" with the Beatles you can't like/respect their music. I didn't grow with the Beatles but you can sure bet I love their music. Music isn't for a specific age or group or even generation at least good music isn't but even that is subjective.

Originally Posted by Noogah

Perhaps they made some interesting accomplishments and discoveries in music. I will grant this. That doesn't make their music pleasant to the ears.

Ears? You mean yours right. You can't seriously be speaking for others now can you? I mean this is your opinion. If you don't like the Beatles (which you are the first person I've ever seen said that.(my personal experience) ) then so be it. But this "Music today is Doomed because of a few videos I've brought to the table" is nothing but baloney really it has no basis. For what the Beatles did to music you make it seem like they were any other band(Which they weren't) The Beatles revolutionized music has we know it today and paved the roads to many other great artists. If you can't see that then I don't know what to say to you.

**DuB** · 10-02-2010 10:20 PM

The golden age of music is right now. There is so much great music being made right now that it's ridiculous, and the internet makes it all instantly available at our fingertips. The only unfortunate thing which distinguishes the state of music today from earlier decades is that you have to actively search for the good stuff rather than simply tuning into the Top 40. But it's definitely out there; there's music being made as we speak that rivals or even surpasses the classics from the 60's and 70's (which I thoroughly appreciate as well).

Originally Posted by Noogah

I don't care what you say about the Beatles, their songs made no sense. Yes, maybe if you analyze every detail, or pay close attention to metaphor you could find something in it, but that just makes it hard to understand, not artistic.

Interestingly, some of their lyrics (notably by John Lennon) were deliberately intended not to make sense. John wrote a lot of his lyrics simply because he thought that a particular combination of words sounded pleasing (and isn't the point of music to sound pleasing?), and he didn't put too much thought into whether or not they actually meant anything (e.g., "words are flowing out like endless rain into a paper cup"), so he was always puzzled that people would attempt to analyze his earlier lyrics and attribute great, significant meaning to them which he didn't have in mind at all. After finishing the dada lyrics to "I Am The Walrus," Lennon reputedly looked up from his sheet of paper and said, "Let the fuckers figure that one out!"

Anyway, anyone is welcome to their opinions about the Beatles, but I should point out that focusing on the lyrics is rather missing the point, as it's the music which is considered truly revolutionary. A lot of people really don't recognize that a lot of musical ideas and recording techniques which thoroughly pervade modern music first started with the Beatles.

**Noogah** · 10-02-2010 10:44 PM

Originally Posted by Xei

I can only hope that one day you will follow the advice of the title of the final song I posted.

Uh-huh. Seeya buddy.

Originally Posted by MrBlonde

I didn't grow with the Beatles but you can sure bet I love their music.

Perhaps. But I doubt you hold them in as high esteem as those who grew up with them.

Originally Posted by Mrblonde

You mean yours right.

Of course.

Originally Posted by MrBlonde

this "Music today is Doomed because of a few videos I've brought to the table" is nothing but baloney really it has no basis.

I've only given a couple of videos. I started this thread after having a discussion with my older sister who is earning her music degree. Fact of the matter is, music is going downhill. Yes, there is lots of good stuff out there, but there is an equal ammount of odious vomit, and it's the popular stuff. The stuff that is popular defines the direction of music.

Originally Posted by DuB

Interestingly, some of their lyrics (notably by John Lennon) were deliberately intended not to make sense

Well, alright then. There you go. They didn't make sense, intentionally or not. It's a matter of opinion, yes, but I personally don't like senseless music.

Originally Posted by DuB

A lot of people really don't recognize that a lot of musical ideas and recording techniques which thoroughly pervade modern music first started with the Beatles.

Well, that doesn't really mean much to me because, like I've said, I'm unimpressed with modern music.

Anyways, this thread has taken a bad turn. I'm not here to attack the Beatles. I'm just saying that music is going a bad direction, that's all. I understand that I haven't given you many examples, butm if you've been anywhere, you have to hear it. Alot.

10-02-2010 10:52 PM

Originally Posted by Noogah

Perhaps. But I doubt you hold them in as high esteem as those who grew up with them.

What do you mean? Are you saying because times were tough back then that I don't see the Beatles in the "Right" light.

Its like the People that get mad when you like old songs and they say that you can't like them because you weren't born then. But at the same time they complain about how kids today don't listen to good music like back in their days.

Originally Posted by Noogah

I've only given a couple of videos. I started this thread after having a discussion with my older sister who is earning her music degree. Fact of the matter is, music is going downhill. Yes, there is lots of good stuff out there, but there is an equal ammount of odious vomit, and it's the popular stuff. The stuff that is popular defines the direction of music.

I tend to agree with you. They all seem to be the same and no one is trying something new. Its like anyone can be #1 now days. Just my opinion

**Maria92** · 10-02-2010 11:02 PM

I've only given a couple of videos. I started this thread after having a discussion with my older sister who is earning her music degree. Fact of the matter is, music is going downhill. Yes, there is lots of good stuff out there, but there is an equal ammount of odious vomit, and it's the popular stuff. The stuff that is popular defines the direction of music.

It defines the direction of the next generation of corporate-sponsored drivel, not music as a whole. Literally anyone with access to the internet can get a half-decent music editor, bought or free, and start making their own creations. I have a friend who has made some pretty sweet stuff. It isn't recognized by the world at large, but is freely available at soundcloud all the same. Good music is still out there...you just have to search for it.

As for the OP's "music," I'm calling it a work of modern art. i.e., it was designed to have some profound meaning, but that meaning is lost on the average layman. You could have argued that art was going downhill when the paint throwers came along and started being put in museums, but you still had artists like Bob Ross. Just because there are a few whackjobs out there, doesn't mean the entire artistic medium is dying.

I would argue that much of what makes "popular" music popular is the marketing, not the actual content. People listen to Justin Bieber not because he sounds good, but because he's an overhyped, Disney-funded sex object. It's the same formula that made Hannah Montana and the Jonas Brothers popular. To some extent, it's what made Twilight so popular. The more hyped something is (and what could be better at hyping something than greenbacks?), the more people know about it, and the more followers it gains, from either peer pressure or the few people who actually enjoy it. Popular music isn't about sounding good...it's about not sounding bad while you sell sex to children.

**Xei** · 10-02-2010 11:37 PM

Originally Posted by Noogah

Well, that doesn't really mean much to me because, like I've said, I'm unimpressed with modern music.

Which you've told us you don't listen to.

**DeeryTheDeer** · 10-02-2010 11:40 PM

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Deery, very few people have the musical talent to parallel the golden ages.

So what are you saying, exactly? That somehow the new generation is genetically less talented because they came after a certain period of time? You keep saying that it's the corporatization of popular music that's the problem, and I completely agree with that, but then you shoot down my only logical solution to that problem.

I don't think that there are any less of a percentage of talented people than there were decades ago, that's not even a tangible statement. The culture and expectations were different, and that's about it.

Maybe you could further explain what you mean.

**Noogah** · 10-02-2010 11:49 PM

Originally Posted by MrBlonde

Are you saying because times were tough back then that I don't see the Beatles in the "Right" light.

No, I'm just saying that people who grew up with it like it better because they have been with it longer, in childhood, and adulthood.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Good music is still out there...you just have to search for it.

Oh yeah. It's out there...for now.

BTW, what composition programs are you referring to? I'm interested,

Originally Posted by Mario92

I'm calling it a work of modern art. i.e., it was designed to have some profound meaning, but that meaning is lost on the average layman.

Alright, you can call it art (though, really, it's little different then submitting a speckled canvas) but I still don't think you can call it music.

Originally Posted by Mario92

The more people know about it, and the more followers it gains, from either peer pressure or the few people who actually enjoy it.

But it's popular nonetheless. I won't argue with you about the motives. I agree, but nonsense is still hate popular thing. And as long as it becomes more popular, the good music will become harder and harder to find.

Originally Posted by Xei

Which you've told us you don't listen to.

Not when I don't have to, but, in this world, it's rather hard to go anywhere without hearing it blaring over some speakers. In fact, my computer speakers used to have a weird problem where they would pick up random radio stations and broadcast them quite clearly, even when you turned them off (but plugged in).

10-02-2010 11:58 PM

This Discussion has made me change by look to a All-Beatles Look.

"Not when I don't have to, but, in this world, it's rather hard to go anywhere without hearing it blaring over some speakers. In fact, my computer speakers used to have a weird problem where they would pick up random radio stations and broadcast them quite clearly, even when you turned them off (but plugged in)."

Same thing use to happen to me also. It also would also buzz every time someone was using a razor.

**Xei** · 10-03-2010 12:12 AM

Originally Posted by Noogah

Not when I don't have to, but, in this world, it's rather hard to go anywhere without hearing it blaring over some speakers. In fact, my computer speakers used to have a weird problem where they would pick up random radio stations and broadcast them quite clearly, even when you turned them off (but plugged in).

Again, there's no reason to think the stuff on radio stations is representative. You need to listen to albums, where you'll tend to find the more interesting work; good albums.

There will always be people with taste who don't follow those around them. The internet has made it far far easier for people to broaden their tastes, too. Manufactured music has existed for half a century and as DuB says, there's still as much or more good music being made.

**Maria92** · 10-03-2010 12:13 AM

But it's popular nonetheless. I won't argue with you about the motives. I agree, but nonsense is still hate popular thing. And as long as it becomes more popular, the good music will become harder and harder to find.

You'll note that there is a finite number of "popular" groups at any one time. Hannah Montana and the Jonas Brothers have been on the decline for a good long time now...right as bieber has risen to power. People can only keep up with so much. I seriously doubt music is going to die because of popular bands. Change, perhaps, to meet universal demand, but so long as there is a person who rejects the mainstream (and there always is), there will be an artist who can create something unique and different.

The program I'm using is called Fruity Loops Studio. Basically, it lets me take any sound and arrange it in any sequence of notes, patterns, and rhythms that I see fit. It can be used to write pieces reminiscent of the Romance era of music, or modern-day trance or techno, or just about anything in between. A free version would be something like Madtracker 2.

EDIT: this is one application.

Mario92 · 10-03-2010 12:17 AM

Originally Posted by Mario92

You'll note that there is a finite number of "popular" groups at any one time. Hannah Montana and the Jonas Brothers have been on the decline for a good long time now...right as bieber has risen to power. People can only keep up with so much. I seriously doubt music is going to die because of popular bands. Change, perhaps, to meet universal demand, but so long as there is a person who rejects the mainstream (and there always is), there will be an artist who can create something unique and different.

The program I'm using is called Fruity Loops Studio. Basically, it lets me take any sound and arrange it in any sequence of notes, patterns, and rhythms that I see fit. It can be used to write pieces reminiscent of the Romance era of music, or modern-day trance or techno, or just about anything in between. A free version would be something like Madtracker 2.

EDIT: this is one application.

Pretty Cool I use GarageBand myself. I agree with you on the part that so as long as someone dislikes mainstream music that there will be an artist for them. Its a cycle and it will keep moving.