Has music peaked?

Bodhidharma

I have two reasons for posting this question.

Firstly I posted a new thread about Underworld in the dance section. I wanted info on live sets, instead i got responses saying that Kraftwerk and Orbital were the greatest dance act of all time. Fair enough.

Secondly i was thinking about that U2 video "Window in the Skies". I think its a really good video, probably U2's best. Anyway looking at the people in it, i noticed the huge gap in quaility between the older acts and the contemporary ones.
So my question is this, has music peaked?
Are we ever going to have a band like the Beatles ever again, a great unifying act that transcend genres, culture and gender. To put it another way, have we seen the best of music? If you ask people to name the greatest acts of all time, i guess that there wouldnt be a contemporary act in the list.
I know music has a lot to do with nostalgia of childhood etc but the list of great names doesnt seem to be added to anymore. I would argue that Nirvana were the last great act of the last great movement (Britpop was a bit too regional for me to count).
Dont get me wrong, there are many, many very good bands out there, The White Stripes spring to mind. But i dont think there is a great modern band. As a whole i would say music today seems to lack ambition, particulary in Rock.
It just gets me that i am young in an era where there isn't a defining band or scene. I'm too old for that EMO thing and slighty too young to be a part of the brit pop generation. Where are my Led Zeppelin, Beatles, Dylan, Stone Roses, Smiths etc?
Whats the opinon, am i wrong?

(By the way i'm not looking for a discussion on who the greatest act of all time is)

cornbb

If you think music has peaked you're not listening to enough music, or enough types of music. If you mean rock music has peaked, then yes, it peaked a long long time ago. I haven't heard of a sucessful rock band that have attempted anything truly original in a very long time.

If you ask people to name the greatest acts of all time, i guess that there wouldnt be a contemporary act in the list

I think thats fair enough, given that musical "acts" have been around for hundreds of years. But in the 20th century there was an astonishing acceleration of creativity and diversity in all types of music. So your list would probably have a huge number of acts from the latter half of the 20th century. It became an era of "anything goes" and I think that is set to continue given the Internet, new technology, globalisation which has led to shared ideas etc. So no, I don't think music has peaked. but rock music has definitely stagnated.

qwertplaywert

i honestly thoguh the same as the orginal poster[apart from him listening the Beatles,imo there terrible] until i heard a band lately:
Enter Shikari.

Bodhidharma

I listen to all types of music except for hip hop. I also listen to it a lot, a whole lot in fact, so that is not correct. It isn't the variance in my taste that is the problem. The problem lies with new acts copying their predecessors and not doing something original.

I am not a fan of the Beatles either (more of a Stones man), but they did some interesting things that a lot of people got behind, and they are a great example of a band that evolves.

311

Amy winehouses album is brilliant .
I hope as things change ,we will get to hear what we all want to hear and not what sells.

Blisterman

I was reading a study recently, where they discovered that what people thought was the best period in music corrosponded to when they were 15-25, because that's when people's minds are most open to new music.
This explains why so many people say that music was better in their day.

ZappaFrank

Music Peaked in the 60s!

Orizio

As in did it peak about 40 years ago, well yes yes it did.

Rock and Hip-Hop in particular have been going nowhere fast since the 90's imo.

cornbb

Bodhidharma wrote:

I listen to all types of music except for hip hop. I also listen to it a lot, a whole lot in fact, so that is not correct. It isn't the variance in my taste that is the problem. The problem lies with new acts copying their predecessors and not doing something original.

Fair enough, I didn't mean to make any assumptions. I do think that its important that people try to listen to as many types of music as possible. I agree with you, the problem of stagnation occurs when new acts don't try to do anything new, which is a big problem in many genres at the moment. But the evolution of music takes a long time, musical revolutions don't happen overnight.
There is so much music out there to be listened to though. Rock, jazz, trad, electronic, experimental, classical, world music, hiphop, whatever. And so much of it is so good. Even with the problem of stagnation or a lack of good new stuff I don't think anyone should be bored with music in their lifetime. It is sad to see such a lack of originality in the short term though.

mike65

Music peaked in 1967-68 and no I was'nt 20 back then!

The reason it peaked was laregly down to a confluence of events - the album format was finaly being exploited to its full effect, electric instruments had developed to a point where sonic creativity was possible, Jim Marshall had invented the stack! The drugs did work for a while before killing or zombiefying half a generation, and the people were angry at stuff - happy youth makes bad music. There have been a few brief periods when magic/excitment happened since but nothing to compare really.

Mike.

John

Music can never peak because it's all subjective. For some people (crazy people) the likes of The Killers and Kasabian cannot be topped. Basically, I think if you steer clear from the charts, NME, major labels and concentrate on the independent acts you'll find a lot more creativity. Bands like Godspeed You! Black Emperor, Coil, Einstuerzende Neubauten, Matmos, Dirty Three, Wolf Eyes, Melvins, Larsen, Nurse With Wound, Fovea Hex, Windy and Carl, Thighpaulsandra, Mike Patton's various projects, Liars, FM3, Scott Walker and so on and so on are pushing the boundaries of great music left, right and centre.

Granted a few of these artists have been around for a while but all these artists, new and old have all released records in the last few years that have floored me (and I listen to a LOT of music). Some of it may be outside of many people's comfort zones (like Nurse With Wound or Scott Walker) but if you honestly think music has peaked, listen to Godspeed's Lift Your Skinny Fists album and tell me that they are ripping off someone or that it isn't creative. There's lots of fantastic and original music out there if you look for it.

Heisenberg.

This post has been deleted.

purple'n'gold

I take it you mean pop music, and yes it peaked a long time ago. I would say with the “Bridge over troubled water” LP. All down hill after that, and the absolute drivel that passes for pop music now is just a joke.

DarkJager

No, it seems that unfortunately music has hit rock bottom as of late. We have all of these "skinny boys with guitars" bands around now that all sound exactly the same...sh1t. Pop music has never ever been a matter of quality...its just the same old sh1t with every single track " I love you baby.." or "I'm a wannabe feminist cvnt" etc etc.

It seems that the only real music that continues to evolve and get ever better is the underground stuff, the non mainstream, non commercial music. Dance, metal, hip hop all have underground scenes which are already surpassing the quality of what has gone before.

eddyc

For centurys different cultures have been playing their own style of music without any kind of outside influence, its only in the past century with increased globalisation and especially now with the internet that musicians are beginning to incorporate sounds and styles from all over the world into their music, this in my opinion has only begun and we can look forward to some really interesting music in the coming years.

OctavarIan

Of course music hasn't peaked, there are numerous bands out there doing their own original thing (too many to mention) and not only being original but making awesome music too. Personally I find the charts and 'popular music' scene to be more about profits than the music itself, if you ignore the rubbish that's popular with the kiddies today you can see that the music scene is still as fresh as ever, it's just the corporations who have grown and saturated the market with tripe that give the stale impression.

One word..and a number..
Buck 65

OfflerCrocGod

_Brian_ wrote:

we will get to hear what we all want to hear and not what sells.

They are the same thing. If people don't want to listen to it they don't buy it.

cornbb

I think a lot of people look at what's in the charts (i.e. what sells) and think thats all there is to music. Which is a real shame, because commercial music never has anything new to offer. Its been on the increase rapidly for the last 50 years or so and its lack of originality, or should I say its lack of willingness to venture outside of people's comfort zones for fear of selling fewer records, may account for the percieved stagnation/peaking in music.

Thankfull the Internet is liberalising music again. Landing a record contract is not so important now what with myspace etc. and hence its not as necessary to make "safe" (ie boring) music. I may be fooling myself but I like to think that an awful lot of contemporary artists aren't as concerned about making big bucks as about making great new music. And that is a great thing to happen to music.

Hard Larry

Yeah the Charts have always been full of crap (and always will) but some rare gems sometimes slip in there too.

I dont think music has peaked at all in fact music is moving so fast now that if you blink you'll miss it and tbh its kind of exciting now as the whole industry seems to be turning on its head.
No longer do CD/Record Charts dictate the whole thing and as previously said, the rise of MySpace and Bebo give music lovers an even wider array of choice and music makers are getting back to making good music....but on the other side of the coin Bebo and Myspace could end up being as full of crap as the old charts

I think the time of the Supergroups may be now e.g. The Raconteurs and The Good,The Bad and the Queen.

Although Supergroups were around before with massmedia and the interweb there longevity may be extended.

Karl Hungus

cornbb wrote:

I think a lot of people look at what's in the charts (i.e. what sells) and think thats all there is to music. Which is a real shame, because commercial music never has anything new to offer. Its been on the increase rapidly for the last 50 years or so and its lack of originality, or should I say its lack of willingness to venture outside of people's comfort zones for fear of selling fewer records, may account for the percieved stagnation/peaking in music.

This man speaks the truth.

Personally, I continue to hear new bands that blow me away musically. There's some astonishingly original stuff out there, it just isn't going to hit you in the face, you have to keep an ear to the ground for it.

JC 2K3

Bodhidharma wrote:

I have two reasons for posting this question.

Firstly I posted a new thread about Underworld in the dance section. I wanted info on live sets, instead i got responses saying that Kraftwerk and Orbital were the greatest dance act of all time. Fair enough.

Secondly i was thinking about that U2 video "Window in the Skies". I think its a really good video, probably U2's best. Anyway looking at the people in it, i noticed the huge gap in quaility between the older acts and the contemporary ones.
So my question is this, has music peaked?
Are we ever going to have a band like the Beatles ever again, a great unifying act that transcend genres, culture and gender. To put it another way, have we seen the best of music? If you ask people to name the greatest acts of all time, i guess that there wouldnt be a contemporary act in the list.
I know music has a lot to do with nostalgia of childhood etc but the list of great names doesnt seem to be added to anymore. I would argue that Nirvana were the last great act of the last great movement (Britpop was a bit too regional for me to count).
Dont get me wrong, there are many, many very good bands out there, The White Stripes spring to mind. But i dont think there is a great modern band. As a whole i would say music today seems to lack ambition, particulary in Rock.
It just gets me that i am young in an era where there isn't a defining band or scene. I'm too old for that EMO thing and slighty too young to be a part of the brit pop generation. Where are my Led Zeppelin, Beatles, Dylan, Stone Roses, Smiths etc?
Whats the opinon, am i wrong?

(By the way i'm not looking for a discussion on who the greatest act of all time is)

You're not wrong per se, you just don't know what the question you're really asking is.

You ask "has music peaked?", which is not really what you meant at all, especially as you say "there are many, many very good bands out there". The question you are asking is one to do with mainstream youth cultural movements in relation to music.

The answer to your question? No, there is no defining movement right now. There hasn't always been one for every period of modern history either. There have always been fads which the mainstream embraces for a short while and then moves onto something else(e.g. rap gaining a lot of popularity in the recent past, modern indie bands and commercial emo) and there have always been subcultures with distinct attitudes and musical tastes(obvious example here are metalheads).

When the attitudes of a subculture become mainstream it affects the way a lot of young people think, and if the ideas that come with these subcultures are often abstract or simply quite different to how the previous generation thought, which makes such an event "era defining" and spawns "defining bands" of that period of time. These periods are really just fads, but with a larger following and greater influence. They're largely commercially fuelled though. You cite Nirvana as the "last great act of the last great movement", but in reality loads of bands were making music that was "different" like Nirvana's for a good 6/7 years before grunge/alt. rock became popular and turned into a mass youth cultural movement. Nirvana just happened to release a good album at the right time and had the right marketing. In truth there are a number of albums by a number of bands that could have been Nevermind.

So to summerise, "era-defining bands" are a commercial fallacy; no, music han't peaked, there are plenty of amazingly groundbreaking and mind-bending bands out there if you look for them; and no, there is no mass youth-cultural movement right now, although it'd be nice to have one, so long as it was an non-commercial and pro-cultural one.

Wow, that was a long post...

grumpytrousers

To answer the OP's post, and to qoute, (I think) Tomas O'Cruithean 'Ni Bheidh na leithid aris ann'...There'll never be the likes again - certainly with regards to the cultural impact of, say, The Beatles.

If one is to define the notion of music going downhill *solely* on the criteria of 'where is my equivalent of The Smiths, The Pistols, Beatles' etc, then it's fair, I think, to say that we've seen the last of bands that transcend the entertainment pages of the paper over to the news. (I'll ignore Pete Doherty, on the grounds that I think it's la Moss what's more famous than him)

Put quite simply, the evolution of music genres, the formatting of radio stations, and the formatting of Music television channels has meant that nowadays if you prefer, say, "rock" then there's one or two stations you'll tune to, or you'll plug in your iPod with the kinda tunes you want to listen to. To the almost utter exclusion of any other kind of music. Back as recently, even, as the early 90's there wasn't that kind of thing happening. You had VH1 and MTV. And a walkman. If you were lucky!

I can only imagine that there are plenty of standard bearers for particular musical genres out there who play marvellous stuff. Mind you, back in the 90's we didn't 'ave "genres". It were either Rock/Pop or Classical...but now that we ARE into the genre thing so much, few will ever tick as many boxes as bands did back in the day. Even if your favourite Death Metal band decides to do a syruppy Dianne Warren (shudder) power ballad complete with Michael Kamen-esque strings, it STILL won't make it out of the Kerangg video rotation to the others!

The last band to nearly come close (and i'm not saying whether they were any cop or not, altho' i've fondness for albums 1 &2 due to my age) to any sort of cultural crossover were Oasis. The second last were Nirvana.

As to whether music per se is going downhill or not, well I suppose it could be; insofar as I've not become aware of any albums that are as good as, say, Exile on Main Street, Together Alone or Parallel Lines coming out in the last few years. But then that's my own personal taste! And see that's the kicker. "Personal Taste". And having said all that, it's also fair to say that it's only in the last few years that we could have had albums like "Deserters Songs, Discovery by daft punk, or Thunder Lightning Strike...

John up there pointed out plenty of acts which he says that are still pushing out the boundaries, and as long as that's happening, then at least there'll always be something interesting going on. Being an old(er) fart myself, I don't have the patience to listen to 'boundary pushing' any more, but that's a failing on my part! Certainly there's still good 'mainstream' stuff happening. If you want pure and utter disposable shiny pop, Girls Aloud have written the textbook...and there's certainly no shortage in this day and age (and definitely in this neck of the woods) of singer/songwriters in the mould of Damien Rice (not a fan meself).

In short, it's all evolution; bear in mind that on a scale there's only 13 notes and only so many permutations before you have to venture into the realms of dissonance to get your kicks. And there's nothing wrong with that either (although it's blue fookin' murder trying to start a sing-song in the pub:D)

Owensie

JC 2K3 wrote:

So to summerise, "era-defining bands" are a commercial fallacy; no, music han't peaked, there are plenty of amazingly groundbreaking and mind-bending bands out there if you look for them; and no, there is no mass youth-cultural movement right now, although it'd be nice to have one, so long as it was an non-commercial and pro-cultural one.

Wow, that was a long post...

Yeah, and even if it is non-commercial and pro-cultural the market will probably absorb the next big youth-cultural movement anyway, if another ever comes along.

What if there's an elderly-cultural movement 50 years down the road as the population ages, with over 40's representing the major demographic (not that that's necessarily true), with oldies smashing up O'Connell St. demanding higher pensions, free false-teeth, reduced taxation on haemoroid cream and incontenence pads etc... what will the soundtrack to that generation sound like?

mike65

Hard Larry wrote:

I think the time of the Supergroups may be now e.g. The Raconteurs and The Good,The Bad and the Queen.

Although Supergroups were around before with massmedia and the interweb there longevity may be extended.

40-50 year olds run for the hills - "supergroups?! *shudder*

Cream, CSNY, Blind Faith, Brinsley Schwartz, ELP, Bad Company, Asia, Power Station, The Firm, Travelling Wilburys, yikes there's millions of them.

Mike.

Heisenberg.

This post has been deleted.

Killaqueen!!!

I listen to virtually all types of music (you hear that a lot, but so far I haven't found anyone who is true to that description) both new and old and I don't think that music has 'peaked'. I just think that the audience has changed significally. For all we know, there is an unsigned songwriter out there who matches Bob Dylans talents, a band as revolutionary as The Beatles etc. but we just don't know about it. Why is this? Because people these days want hip hop, rap, they wan't trance music. They wan't good looking girls and hot guys singing catchy songs. They don't care about talent.

The music on the charts is not as good as the music that was on the charts 20 years ago but there is still a lot of amazing music out there that I am only just discovering.

Sandwich

Music has indeed peaked, but even those recognising that here are out in their estimates by a long shot. Music peaked about 200 years ago. Since the Mozart/Beethoven/Schubert era we had about 100yrs of stagnation or slight decline, then another hundred of serious decline with the honourable exception of the coming of jazz. Apart from that only deadends, trivialities, and unsuccessful unmusical theoretical experimentalism.

But it that a problem? Not at all. Of course it would be nice to see a genuine pickup in inspiration or progress in the art, but even without that there is more good music already on paper than most people can get through in a lifetime.

JC 2K3

^What about Prog Rock and experimental electronic music?

And since when was academically backed, orchestral music the only credible form of music?

cornbb

Sandwich wrote:

Music has indeed peaked, but even those recognising that here are out in their estimates by a long shot. Music peaked about 200 years ago. Since the Mozart/Beethoven/Schubert era we had about 100yrs of stagnation or slight decline, then another hundred of serious decline with the honourable exception of the coming of jazz. Apart from that only deadends, trivialities, and unsuccessful unmusical theoretical experimentalism.

But it that a problem? Not at all. Of course it would be nice to see a genuine pickup in inspiration or progress in the art, but even without that there is more good music already on paper than most people can get through in a lifetime.

I must completely disagree. Firstly, the music of the classical era was not the only music of its time. It was great music and all, the fact that we still enjoy it today is a testament to this, but it only occupied a narrow subset of all the music of the time. Folk music comprised the rest of the range of music at the time. Folk music later went on to become popular music, accounting for pretty much every artist heard through the mainstream media in the last 100 years. So just considering the quality of music purely in terms of classical music is nonsense.

Secondly, whatever happened to classical music anyway? Well, we had the baroque era, the classical era and the romantic era. In the 20th century, this lineage mushroomed out into a hugely diverse range of progressive and experimental music, everything from Serialism, Minimalism, atonality etc, to the early pioneers of electronic music. Some of this music has crossed over into the mainstream and inspired a lot of the cutting edge music we hear today, for example you can now hear the influences of minimalism in a huge amount of music today, especially electronic music. So minimalism for one is hardly "unsuccessful unmusical theoretical experimentalism".

Sorry for ranting, but my point is that all of this evolution of music can hardly be considered a decline. I have the greatest respect for the composers of the classical era. Where composition is concerned, that style of music has been thoroughly explored and is dead now, but the old works still sound great today and have spawned such a wonderful and diverse range of modern music.

Orizio

Killaqueen!!! wrote:

I listen to virtually all types of music (you hear that a lot, but so far I haven't found anyone who is true to that description) both new and old and I don't think that music has 'peaked'. I just think that the audience has changed significally. For all we know, there is an unsigned songwriter out there who matches Bob Dylans talents, a band as revolutionary as The Beatles etc. but we just don't know about it. Why is this? Because people these days want hip hop, rap, they wan't trance music. They wan't good looking girls and hot guys singing catchy songs. They don't care about talent.

The music on the charts is not as good as the music that was on the charts 20 years ago but there is still a lot of amazing music out there that I am only just discovering.

I didn't know Hip-Hop doesn't do 'talent'.How does that work again?

dbs_sailor

it's an irritating perception that any one decade has "better" music than another. music is music. 99% of bands have at least one song built off a blues progression. that's been around since long before i have been.

the cultural impact bands make is what make legends out of the members - the beatles, the rolling stones, jimi hendrix, janis joplin, the clash, the doors etc etc.

i don't mind people being into any sort of music at all, so long as they don't start off on some "ah, sure, realmusic is dead" tirade. idiots who play favorites with the big bands really annoy me. "i like led zepplin and no-one else. they were a true rock and roll band.. i'm 15.." it's sort of hypocritical.....

having said this, i will acknowledge that in 2007 music is a product to be sold to a consumer. it's not exactly "dead", but mainstream music is in a bad way in my opinion. until sheep realise not to go listening to whatever new band is processed through the "suit-and-tie" major labels and aspiring and awfully trendy indie labels("we like reallll music maaan"), through pitchfork or NME/hotpress to be put on a plate for our consumption, things will stay the same. [what an awful sentence]

i predict the next huge band will strike the balance between impressing members of the snobby music critic hierarchy, and gain a following of suggestible teenagers, and college students who try to broaden their musical interests by believing whatever niall stokes publishes. how do you do that? be young, goodlooking, talented, clever, trendy, and on the ball...... easy.

Sandwich

cornbb wrote:

Sorry for ranting, but my point is that all of this evolution of music can hardly be considered a decline. I have the greatest respect for the composers of the classical era. Where composition is concerned, that style of music has been thoroughly explored and is dead now, but the old works still sound great today and have spawned such a wonderful and diverse range of modern music.

Agree with much of what you say, but evolution does not mean better. I agree that the classical era style well and truly ran its course. But that does not devalue what it is : a masterpiece remains a masterpiece even if the genre does not keep producing more of them.

But the OP question is, has music peaked? And i would still maintain that 'better' music has not been composed since that time. So, if there has been a decline then we must say that it has peaked. Even if it has not declined, and music is still being produced that is the equal of Beethoven then we are still 'on' the peak. So again it has peaked.

You can only maintain that it has not peaked if you believe better music is being written today than in the past. A hard case to make I think, which is not to devalue lots of enjoyable (but not better!) music being produced today.

Killaqueen!!!

Orizio wrote:

I didn't know Hip-Hop doesn't do 'talent'.How does that work again?

You're right. It does. And I didn't really word that great. But most people (young people usually) only like the hip hop thats on the charts and I find that hip hop very repetitive and talentless (look at 50cent, for one example). Don't get me wrong, I love the hip hop and rap and even trance/dance music thats in the charts, especially if I'm out at a disco. But I just like it purely on the groove, the beats, how catchy it is etc. rarely does it have any true talent to it IMO.

cornbb

Sandwich wrote:

You can only maintain that it has not peaked if you believe better music is being written today than in the past. A hard case to make I think, which is not to devalue lots of enjoyable (but not better!) music being produced today.

Well at least we agree that classical era musical was great. If you define the "peak" of musical brilliance as the high watermark left by the best composer/artist at a particular time well then yes, then you could say someone like Beethoven represented the peak of musical excellence.

But that would be a highly personal judgment. I think musical achievement should be measured by the sum of all the excellent music being made at a particular time. Fair enough, there is an awful lot of sh1te music being made out there today, but if you scratch the surface and look at everything as a whole there is a multitude of amazing music and new means of expression out there now. The techniques, rules, instrumentation and freedom of expression that were used back then were so much more limited than what is used today. I could not possibly agree that the quality of music as a whole has "declined" since the 1700s. To be honest, I believe music will never "peak" anyway. We will always have the music of the past and we will always add more to it, I don't think that devalues classical music in any way.

Killaqueen!!! wrote:

I just like it purely on the groove, the beats, how catchy it is etc. rarely does it have any true talent to it IMO.

I never liked hip hop until someone exposed me to the non-commercial side of it. there is tons of hip hop talent out there. Same goes for any type of music.

Bodhidharma

I agree with a lot of what has been said so far, that there is plenty of good stuff out there, but i am also still thinking of the contemporary music scene. There seems to be a lot of apathy among the general public when it comes to new bands and the music scene at the moment. Is it my imagination or are people less interested these days?

I'll give you an example. None of my friends would be able to hold a decent conversation with me about music. I dont mean to imply that i am some fanatic with obscure tastes, its just that people my own age, 23, seem less interested. I could talk to older people all night about it. Its disappointing that i actually had to start a thread on the net about it when i should bw able to have a debate with my buddies.

I also think the trend for bands to reform is a really horrible thing. I saw the Pixies twice since they reformed, and the second time they just phoned it in. The blatent money spinning "reunion" is such a scam. If a band are going to reform they need some new material, as i understand the Smashing Pumpkins are doing.

The reunion tour seems to me to be symptomatic of the stagnation in music at the moment. The summer festival line ups are beginning to take shape now also. I wonder who will be this year's festival band? You know, those band that people see at a festival, sell a lot of albums, think they're great then fall flat on their face on the second "tricky" album. Joining the illustrious names as Travis, Keane, Kaiser Chiefs, and the like.

Keep up the debate!

(By the way, i recognise that i am focusing my arguament on rock and its offspring, but it has been the dominant force during my lifetime so that is where i notice the change)

Sandwich

cornbb wrote:

But that would be a highly personal judgment. I think musical achievement should be measured by the sum of all the excellent music being made at a particular time. Fair enough, there is an awful lot of sh1te music being made out there today, but if you scratch the surface and look at everything as a whole there is a multitude of amazing music and new means of expression out there now. The techniques, rules, instrumentation and freedom of expression that were used back then were so much more limited than what is used today. I could not possibly agree that the quality of music as a whole has "declined" since the 1700s. To be honest, I believe music will never "peak" anyway. We will always have the music of the past and we will always add more to it, I don't think that devalues classical music in any way.

I tend to think that its not really down to personal judgement, even though we all do have our own favourites for a variety of reasons. Many preferences come from familiarity or a limited exploration of music, which leads to poor evalaution of the quality/value/level of one piece of music over another.

Take the follow dilemma:
Select 10 Beethoven masterpieces (3rd and 5th symphonies, Missa Solemnis, 4th piano concerto, violin concerto, a few sonatas, a quartet, Archduke trio for example).

Now, select the finest 10 works of music from the last 50 years.

One of the above groups of works must be erased from the face of the earth; recordings, sheetmusic, etc, and will never be heard again.

The Question : Which group should be chosen?

I just cant see the contemporary group mounting any defence of themselves compared with the Beethoven, or that any responsible, informed, fully explored analysis could conclude that the Beethoven group should be the one to go. (I am no rabid Beethoven fanboy btw, just painting the scenario).

Anyone really able stand over 10 works from the last 50 years that could justify a reprieve?

Pigman II

Music peaked in 1824 with Beethovens Symphony No. 9.

MLM

It's funny. I felt exactly the same in 1989. The best you could hope for was GN'R, INXS or U2. We had to look to the 1960's for anything really good. Then suddenly out of the blue came Manchester, acid house, and Seattle, and for about seven or eight you had something decent to listen to. Then the spice girls came along and sold f**kloads of records. When record companies saw this they decided that there was money in crap pop, and that is all they wanted to know about. Music hasn't peaked, but major label interest in music has.

Fanny Cradock

Now, more then ever, there are new, inventive and talented individuals/ bands available to the masses. So great is the opportunity to hear this music, that you can soon become completely swamped with the sheer amount of good (and bad) stuff out there.

Being an intensely personal thing, based on it's contextual relevance, it is impossible to say if music has peaked or not. Personally speaking, I think this is the start of a golden age because there is so much variety available now.

Blisterman

A lot of people here seem to only be looking at Rock music. Don't forget, in the future, there are bound to be completely new genres of music coming along.
So, no, Music hasn't and probably will never peak.

JC 2K3

MLM wrote:

Music hasn't peaked, but major label interest in music has.

Hurray for the internet!

John

Blisterman wrote:

A lot of people here seem to only be looking at Rock music. Don't forget, in the future, there are bound to be completely new genres of music coming along.
So, no, Music hasn't and probably will never peak.

Exactly. People may think of rock as the big revolution of the 20th century but in my opinion the big revolution was technology. Who knows what will happen in the future. I can't wait!

pbsuxok1znja4r

At any one moment in time from any one point of view you can technically say music has 'peaked', because it is always changing and it may not be to your tastes so much as it was before that. But even saying that is forgetting about the huge range of music out there; the amount of variety.

Personally I think the last 5 years or so have produced some of the best, most innovative stuff we have. It's innovative because it's new. It's good because it's new. Music's always evolving.

I hope I never end up as one of those dinosaurs who are unable to relate to 'today's' music etc.

http://www.myspace.com/thereceivingendofsirens

Sandwich

scouser.tommy wrote:

At any one moment in time from any one point of view you can technically say music has 'peaked', because it is always changing and it may not be to your tastes so much as it was before that. But even saying that is forgetting about the huge range of music out there; the amount of variety.

Personally I think the last 5 years or so have produced some of the best, most innovative stuff we have. It's innovative because it's new. It's good because it's new. Music's always evolving.

I hope I never end up as one of those dinosaurs who are unable to relate to 'today's' music etc.

http://www.myspace.com/thereceivingendofsirens

Changing music, or variety, does not necessarily mean better, and it can in fact be inferior to music written before it. Quality of music is not related to taste in music. You may a have a taste for inferior music, which is fine for your enjoyment of it, but still does not mean it is as good as music you may not enjoy.

Peyton Manning

Hip-Hop peaked during the era of Tupac Shakur, Biggie Smalls, Big L etc. and while there are some decent artists around today, somebody needs to come and shake things up again. I was honestly expecting this to be The Game, but he let all the publicity go to his head and has turned into and easily loathable person.

JC 2K3

Sandwich wrote:

Quality of music is not related to taste in music.

Explain.

Sandwich

JC 2K3 wrote:

Explain.

Taste is a personal preference for one peice or style of music over another that involves many more factors(musical knowledge, associatiations, memories, prejudices, musical aptitiude etc) than simply the quality of the music itself.

For example (and Im only picking an example here, I dont mean to debate the merits of either) - a person may prefer the latest Girls Aloud hit and consider it a more to their taste than say a Bach partita. And if they have no knoweldge of music of that period thats quite understandable and even to be expected. But I dont think they (or anyone else) could could put a serious argument that therefore the Quality of the Girls Aloud peice is superior to the Bach.

JC 2K3

Your'e not defining what this "quality" is though. Let's say you take a Mozart piece and a Bach piece, how do you know which is better in terms of quality? Then say you take a Beethoven piece and a complex progressive metal piece by someone like Dream Theatre or Opeth. Which is better and how do you know?

dr.bollocko

I was watching the Brit awards with a half an eye whilst I read through this thread.
Watching yet another goddamn award show really helped me in understanding peoples view points, particularly those of the opinion that music has indeed peaked and there will be no more incredible rock music.
I guess the Industry has really become just that, a music factory pumping out low grade soundalikes until someone else does it slightly better and cheaper.
The electric guitar, once the most incendiary invention upon which a new type of music fan and cultural movement was based is now the anchor which is forcing industry music under the water.
This is probably a conservative business based response to the explosion of the internet and online music promotion, cutting out the industry middleman and allowing a stream of music directly from band to consumer / fan. In "Dig" the A and R guys mentioned that only one in ten modern albums is a success. Basically, the one well received album covers the losses made by all the others put together and still makes millions for the music industry. There is also a quote saying "In what other business could a company have a 90% product failure rate and still be considered a success."
And when you begin to understand trying to market something as subjective as music in a successful and ongoing basis, you can see why music as a record company pushed entity has stagnated.
I mean seriously, James Morrison / Blunt, Damien Rice, Take that, fecking Lily Allen and the like on the Brit awards may well make you want to insert bullet in head swiftly, but just realise that these are the last throes of a dying art borne from love of drugs and killed by love of money. These lame facsimiles of former greats are being evermore pushed aside by new and vital music, and while cheesy pop and the one man and his guitar era will probably never ever die, (Goddamn it I hate you James Blunt. If my vitriol was water, we would all be drowned) at least most of us can plug in our mp3 player and find something new and reliable, and niche music is finally being lauded rather than overlooked or viewed suspiciously until a crossover hit or artist takes it to the mainstream.
I think a musical revolution is upon us. This is how all music has advanced since forever, by revolution not evolution, so why should our era be any different? Particularly with new movements, better production methods and a deeper understanding of what it takes to make a melody right, moving on from drums, bass and guitar, music will be exciting and new again. That is beyond doubt in my eyes.

But until then, can you all please join me in silently willing James Blunts' eyes to bleed live on the Brits tonight?

grumpytrousers

Sandwich wrote:

Taste is a personal preference for one peice or style of music over another that involves many more factors(musical knowledge, associatiations, memories, prejudices, musical aptitiude etc) than simply the quality of the music itself.

For example (and Im only picking an example here, I dont mean to debate the merits of either) - a person may prefer the latest Girls Aloud hit and consider it a more to their taste than say a Bach partita. And if they have no knoweldge of music of that period thats quite understandable and even to be expected. But I dont think they (or anyone else) could could put a serious argument that therefore the Quality of the Girls Aloud peice is superior to the Bach.

But in the game of musical Top Trumps you seem to insist we play here, who is to say that the value associated with Counterpoint/Aeolian Cadences etc from the Air from Bach's Suite in D can't be topped by the twang of surf guitar and the middle 8 from 'Love Machine'...

The fact that the older stuff has stood the test of time doesn't prove anything. We *might* be in a position to judge in 200 years time if Girls Aloud music is still listened to.