MaritimeGuitarist wrote: ↑
Tue Nov 14, 2017 12:59 am
Rognvald wrote: ↑
Mon Nov 13, 2017 10:05 pm
The difference between your baseball and music analogy is that Music, unlike baseball, reflects the culture in which it grows and is nourished whereas, in baseball, culture has nothing to do with it since it simply represents the cumulative growth of skills, size, strength, and coaching of the athletes. As a former college baseball player, a 400-500 foot home run was considered exceptional in my time. Today, they are hit every day somewhere in the Big Leagues. Culture has nothing to do with it. There is no serious student of History that would not admit periods of feast or famine exist among generations. The Renaissance was not only a flowering of Music, Literature, Philosophy, and Art but also an age of incredible world exploration and advances in Science and Technology. Similar comparisons are also valid for the 19th Century and compared to today, Giants did walk the earth. As a final remark, it is my opinion that the Literature, Poetry, Philosophy, Visual Arts and yes, Music of the YTK reflects the shallow, degenerative times in which we live. There are some bright lights . . . but they are distant and appear only seldom on the horizon. Playing again . . . Rognvald
If music "reflects the culture in where it grows and is nourished", does renaissance and 19th century music also reflect the negative side of these cultures? Keep in mind that both of these eras were dominated with oppressive political systems where racism, misogyny, violence, and bigotry were embedded in most of the cultures throughout Europe and North America. You mention incredible world exploration. Well, many of these 'explorers' also systematically and violently appropriated land and culture from the indigenous populations they found. Imperialism was par for the course. Slavery was alive and well for much of these periods. I could go on, but, you get the point. It's easy to romanticize the past, but these were not good times for most people. If you are correct in your assertion, what does this say about the music produced in these eras?
We have a lot of serious problems in our current society here in North America and all over the world--no question. Many of the things I mentioned still exist. But our current 'degenerative' era has come a long way since the 16th or 19th centuries.
Much beautiful music was born out of the ugliness of these eras, I would really like to believe that music has the ability to transcend, rather the merely reflect, the cultures in which they were produced.
P.S. I agree with JA and others--it's absolutely ridiculous to suggest that there isn't a wealth of fantastic CG performers today.
On one hand, Music does reflect the culture as we see in popular Music today but it can also be an anomaly. Despite my dire views of the 21st Century, there are some artists who carry the banner of the universality of serious Art and seek to live by the tried and true standards of excellence that previous generations have provided by example. However, it is my opinion that they are the exception rather than the norm as I have stated in a previous post and an example is the three-chord guitarists who represent the lion share of Pop music today in comparison to the Pop music of the 40's and 50/60's played by competent, trained musicians in bands like the Benny Goodman Orchestra, Paul Whiting, Glenn Miller, Count Basie, Ray Charles etc. Secondly, when you speak about racism, violence, misogyny, etc., that occurred during these previous periods of artistic heights, these are the shallow catchwords of the 21st Century intended to diffuse or sidetrack serious conversations of a subject and morph into a YTK version of the Salem Witch Hunts. They have no bearing on the great Art that was created and certainly wasn't how life was viewed during that era. You can believe in Art with a Social purpose: Didactic Art as Hitler, Stalin and Mao paraded or choose Art for Art's Sake which is timeless and not infected with the stench of contemporary thought, politics, and brain-dead hipsterism. Of course, we have "Art" with political themes as Goya's painting "The Third of May 1808," Picasso's "Guernica" or even our own "Star Spangled Banner," but to negatively judge an era's artistic productivity and merits or to cast aspersions on these times of incredible productivity with the above socially correct terms denigrates Art to a pastime based on contemporary political norms and values which we all know, of course, is absurd. Art should be judged on its own merits. Nothing else. So, when you say: " Much beautiful music was born out of the ugliness of these eras, I would really like to believe that music has the ability to transcend, rather the merely reflect, the cultures in which they were produced. . . "(MaritimeGuitarist), I would remark that the "ugliness" you describe is your socially conscious view of this period as seen from a biased 21st Century perspective . . . hardly a fair posture when judging previous generations or Art. Finally, to describe most contemporary musicians as a "wealth of fantastic . . . performers," I would remark that this is your opinion and would counter that in the YTK, Art does reflect the times . . . but hardly in the way you see it. Thanks for your comments. Playing again . . . Rognvald
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music." Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra