You're all over the map. Is it "culture" that is dumbed down, or is it "music" that is dumbed down? They are not the same thing. What I'm saying is that when you have more than one variable ("culture" is made up of more than just "music"), you can't point at ONE variable (here, "music") and say it is indicative of all of them.
It's true for all forms of culture. It's just that this is a music forum so I highlighted music, but similar arguments could be made for literature, screenwriting, visual arts etc. I simply thought most people here wouldn't care about a discussion on romantic literature.
And then, you are, within music, comparing one specific genre of one time period with another specific genre of another time period.
The term classical music refers to the common practice period which runs roughly from 1600 to 1900. Thus I'm not talking about a specific genre of music, but all music created during a timespan of 3 centuries (which is a lot). Pop is also not really a specific genre but refers to whatever happens to be the most popular at any given point in time. Thus I'm comparing time periods more than boxed-in genres (though if I did that it would still amount to the same outcome).
It's not enough to say "classical music was the "pop" of it's time". No, it wasn't, in the sense that there were not the modes of transport that there are now. You wanted music? You had to go to a music hall and hear it performed. There was no "studio" with which one could "create" a piece of sound with no regard for the actual playing of it.
That's what you would think, but
A. concerts were much, much more common than they are now. You could go to a large concert every evening in even a medium sized town if you wanted to, and multiple times a day in cities like Vienna.
B. instrumental skills were much more widespread. In practically every family there was at least one person who played an instrument decently in Western Europe and who would do so on a daily basis. It was also very common to sell piano and string quartet transcriptions for people to play at home, which they did in large numbers, thus creating a common cultural repertoire if you will.
C. street musicians were much more common. If you walked outside in any European city during the 18th or 19th century, you would hear music.
What was the analogue to the mall? To movies? To the smartphone? To sporting events? To surfing the internet? To "Netflix and chill"? To PlayStation? To playing on GarageBand? To cable television? To regular telephones? To cooking? To any of 1,000 things that people do today to find emotional and intellectual relief and stimulation.
I still think this undermines your argument more than anything. Sure, there are some things nowadays that can give you an endorphine rush that weren't there before, but how is that related to the decline of culture? There are more sources of pleasure so then it's okay for culture to decline because...?
No, I'm not implying it, I'm outright saying it. Yeah, I am. What's the most common knock against the Malmsteens and Manginis of the world? Phenomenal technique, no emotion. "Robotic". I'm not suggesting that it is true all the time, but there's a reason that "The Beatles" wasn't John Van Halen, Paul Pastorius, George Malmsteen, and Ringo Peart.
I don't want to offend but this argument really baffles me honestly. You're making an incredible generalization, extrapolating from one guitar player and one drummer in the same genre in the same century to the
entire history of western music... So, let's assume you're indeed right, then the following is true:
"Beethoven, Brahms, Chopin and all other classical composers had no emotion. Additionally, all music written in between roughly 1600 and 1900 had no emotional content and was only about technique. Jazz also has no emotion and is purely for showing off."
I hope you see my point. The reason The Beatles was more popular was a huge marketing engine, the fact that they were hot, and the fact that their music is incredibly simple and engineered as a product to be as easily digestible and sellable as possible. Taking this into account, it would indeed be very strange if Malmsteen would have been more famous. In pop music, the popularity of the music is very rarely indicative of its actual content.
There's also a reason - and I don't mean to venture into sexism here, but it's something to contemplate - that women flocked to the Beatles and not to Weather Report.
Are you really going to equate musical quality with female attention?? Because then Nickelback is better than all prog bands together. Also, Mozart and Liszt were Don Juans if there ever were some, so the whole thing would be a giant paradox.
Topic: Why does DT not get all the respect they deserve? (Read 20487 times)
