The Official "Music Was So Much Better in the Glorious Days of Yore" Thread

[zachsd]

The notion of Dark Ages has long been debunked. That there was a period of 'darkness' after the glorious Classical antiquity is a Renaissance construction. We call that period Middle Ages now and although the term points out to the connection of Renaissance to Classical world, it doesn't imply that the period was creatively stagnant. We now know that Renaissance owes a lot to the Middle Ages almost as much as to Classical Antiquity.

I really disagree with this. I stand by my opinion that the Middle Ages were comparatively culturally stagnant in comparison to other historical periods. The Renaissance owes a lot to the Middle Ages, but in my opinion it owes vastly more to the classical era, which was preserved through the monastic efforts of European monks and Arab advancement in the Middle East and Asia Minor. Yes, there were small centers of intellectual and creative output during the Middle Ages, which were largely limited within the confines of a very restrictive church. The main thing, however, was that the general population during the Dark or Middle Ages was extremely uneducated and overworked, thus eliminated from the creative process. Logically, in my opinion, this led to the era being less of a creative and cultural powerhouse than other periods. With that being said, why can't this same rule (albeit with different variables) be applied to musical decades?

but what comes after that is not creatively stagnant. On the contrary, those periods usually present further development of new ideas, more linear development and most importantly, more focused.

My point was that these periods were comparatively stagnant. The 80s, etc. were comparatively stagnant to the 60s in my opinion. Yes, there was creative expansion in more stagnant decades, but in modern music history little compares to the 60s and early 70s.

[TheBig3]

Originally Posted by ThePhanastasio

Some of them, yeah. Most of the phans I've encountered at shows have been way more into the contemporary jam scene, a la Bisco, STS9, String Cheese Incident, RAQ, Tea Leaf Green, etc.

And also - Phish fans HATE Dead comparisions; Phish is nothing like Grateful Dead.

1. "phans" really? belch.

2. I was under the impression that SCI was the boy band of the jam scene. Usually loved by high school DMB fans and the like.

3. Phish isn't comprable to the Dead in the scene. To those of us outside looking in, its not so different. I'll grant you I've never confused the two.

[Dr_Rez]

Originally Posted by TheBig3

3. Phish isn't comprable to the Dead in the scene. To those of us outside looking in, its not so different. I'll grant you I've never confused the two.

Agreed. To be honest most fans of those modern jam bands that I know dont listen to the music outside of the actual shows, and definitely dont listen to any of it while sober, which I find vry suspicious of a genres fans. If you need to be doped up to dance and enjoy your favorite band then wtf has gone wrong??

[dankrsta]

Originally Posted by zachsd

I really disagree with this. I stand by my opinion that the Middle Ages were comparatively culturally stagnant in comparison to other historical periods. The Renaissance owes a lot to the Middle Ages, but in my opinion it owes vastly more to the classical era, which was preserved through the monastic efforts of European monks and Arab advancement in the Middle East and Asia Minor. Yes, there were small centers of intellectual and creative output during the Middle Ages, which were largely limited within the confines of a very restrictive church.

The fact that the culture of Middle Ages was under the strong Church influence and therefore hieratic, ascetic etc doesn't say anything about its value. It just says that it's a different culture from that of Classical Antiquity or Modern World. Also, when you mention small centers of creative output, you're obviously forgetting the high culture of Byzantine Empire, and also the highly creative Romanesque and especially Gothic periods. One other thing, the main carrier of classical traditions throughout the Middle Ages was in fact Byzantine Empire.

Originally Posted by zachsd

The main thing, however, was that the general population during the Dark or Middle Ages was extremely uneducated and overworked, thus eliminated from the creative process. Logically, in my opinion, this led to the era being less of a creative and cultural powerhouse than other periods. With that being said, why can't this same rule (albeit with different variables) be applied to musical decades

OK, the bold part is really interesting. How does that make Middle Ages any different from Classical Greco-Roman world or Early Modern Era for that matter? In all past centuries the general population was uneducated and the main creative process was always in the hands of the elite. That started to change gradually with the development of civil society and especially with the Industrial Revolution, so that's a relatively recent history. The point is, when we talk about these big historical periods, we shouldn't place value judgments on them from the perspective of our time, but understand them on their own merits.

Originally Posted by zachsd

My point was that these periods were comparatively stagnant. The 80s, etc. were comparatively stagnant to the 60s in my opinion. Yes, there was creative expansion in more stagnant decades, but in modern music history little compares to the 60s and early 70s.

And this brings me to the main point. The whole view that there are progressive, stagnant and declining periods has one fatal flaw. It applies the 19 c. scientific, evolutionist model to culture. It says that culture (and art) is developing progressively like science or technology. It implies that there is a predetermined high point in the future that culture strives to reach. Therefore, it judges different cultures and periods according to that ideal model. And that is wrong, because different cultures and periods have different goals and desires. When you apply this to the modern music, we're faced with different generations that have different views and longings and should be judged accordingly. That's why I think it's pointless to say that music was better in this or that period.

[duga]

^

Wow, I feel like I just got an education with the last few posts. Great stuff, guys.

I find the historical perspective of music to be fascinating. Anything we consider classical music came straight from the richest members of society. What is really interesting to me is that this doesn't mean the poor weren't creating music. I am positive they were making lots of music as it is a universal human interest. They just had no way of documenting it. Only with the invention of recording did those creations earn a place of permanence. And with most of the world still being of the poorer variety, we get a lot more of it. Almost to the point where music is almost now exclusively associated with the every day person and not the elite.

dankrsta, what do you study?

[dankrsta]

^Oh, I'm done with my studying years, officially I mean. I studied art history, which, I like to think, gives you a pretty broad perspective on history, culture, not just art.

And yes, common people, so to say, were also making music which was passed through the generations by oral tradition. It's not a written music. Even today, popular music is not written, but it has the benefits of recording, like you said. And with the advancements in technology, we today have more free time that enables us to devote it to art for art's sake, for example. That was once the luxury of the elite. And in the spirit of democracy, popular music is now the main current. And never before was popular music so interwoven with high art music like today. That makes for a diversity, individualism, eclecticism etc. So from the ethical point of view (beside technological), our time is more advanced compared to previous periods. But, does that make art today more valuable? No, because art (and culture) shouldn't be valued from ethical point of view. That's the whole point.

[TheBig3]

Originally Posted by duga

^

Wow, I feel like I just got an education with the last few posts. Great stuff, guys.

I find the historical perspective of music to be fascinating. Anything we consider classical music came straight from the richest members of society. What is really interesting to me is that this doesn't mean the poor weren't creating music. I am positive they were making lots of music as it is a universal human interest. They just had no way of documenting it. Only with the invention of recording did those creations earn a place of permanence. And with most of the world still being of the poorer variety, we get a lot more of it. Almost to the point where music is almost now exclusively associated with the every day person and not the elite.

dankrsta, what do you study?

Greensleeves would like a word with you.

[gettingby]

Rap used to be raw and very inspirational but now it has become very stupid.Lady Gaga,Justin Bieber,Beyonce,Rihanna are just lame,my parents are into old school soul music like from the 70's,80's but after the 1990's with New Jack Swing which I hate TLC and late Usher,B2k definetly not good.I personally think music began to rot after the 90's for sure.Every genre is too pop today I miss classics.

[CanwllCorfe]

I don't think anyone's ever made a point like this before. I'm gonna have to think about this for awhile. Thank you gettingby.

[jackhammer]

They are only classics because you identify with them on some level.

Every single generation with a 5 year gap will bemoan the current music scene. It's inevitable and predictable.

Use your time on here to listen to what others talk about and realise that there always has and always be some outstanding music out there. the mainstream charts can **** right off.