Moral Decline (?) Of American Society

[Thoyd Loki]

But for the most part, the only music we hear of yesteryear is that music that survived the ages because of it's quality. That doesn't mean that all the music produced back then actually was of the quality of that which has stood the test of time. I think this may influence our perception into thinking that most or all of the music of the past was "good".

Wow. I had never even considered that myself, and I think about music a lot. Although I am still not at all happy with today's Cobain inspired dirge.

That being said, it is not arguable that today's sense of life in music is pathetic compared to any recent times. At least in the realm of popular music, or the music that people under 30 listen to predominantly, or that sells in the millions.

Mmm, love the internet. Just got Dan Baird's album Love Songs for the Hearing Impaired. No worries, just what RnR is supposed to be after a tiring day, something to make you smile. You guys fret for awhile. Bye.

Edited January 20, 2006 by Thoyd Loki

[RationalBiker]

That being said, it is not arguable that today's sense of life in music is pathetic compared to any recent times. At least in the realm of popular music, or the music that people under 30 listen to predominantly, or that sells in the millions.

I guess if you have already determined that it isn't arguable, there's no point in my putting up further argument. That's okay, I'm losing interest in arguing it anyway. I'm more concerned with music that I like and why I like it, not what other people like.

[hunterrose]

I would like to express the voice of an overwhelming minority here and suggest that people were somewhat right in this assesment of rock and roll... After rock and roll came on the scene, I would say there is a perfectly clear and distinct decline in the quality of popular music, and in the talent and general comprehension of the art of music required to produce hits.

In this spirit, I think it is absolutely appropriate to compare rap to rock and roll. I think it is one more step into the abyss. Of course, I don't think the mere existence of rap is an endictment of our culture, but I think our culture's embrace of it is. Especially if you note the lyrical content. The fact that rock and roll has matured now into Nu Metal and Robert Johnson into Aerosmith doesn't bode well for the future of rap, in my oppinion.

Hmm. Perhaps my greatest concern here is with the phrase "after rock and roll came on the scene," as it seems to imply a direct correlation between the onset of rock and a decline in quality of (popular) music. Is the idea here that rock (and perhaps rap) are in and of themselves destructive/inferior in comparison to older forms of music?

I consider that premise different from one of saying that modern artists (not necessarily limited to rappers/rockers) are not as good as past artists.

If the first were true, then perhaps there would be little prospect of rap "maturing."

But if the first were false, then I don't think either the existence or the embrace of these newer art forms is itself indicative of any esthetic decline.

Perhaps you're merely looking at bad rap lyrics, but I think rap lyrics compare favorably to other lyrics.

But for the most part, the only music we hear of yesteryear is that music that survived the ages because of it's quality... I think this may influence our perception into thinking that most or all of the music of the past was "good".

Good point.

[Bold Standard]

You state this as if it were some obvious fact. I don't see that it is that obvious. However, if you are going to point it out, I'd ask that you support it with some evidence. The existence of bad art does not automatically negate standards, nor does it negate the ability of others to produce good art.

Well, any fact is obvious in its proper context. Some evidence could be anywhere from a sentence to a volume, but I'll try to be as clear and brief as I can, and if you want me to elaborate more, I'll do some research and try to present a more complete and solid case (because it's a topic that interests me). It's really quite an accusation to state, as I have, that a group of people-- the hippies-- perpetrated an across the board destruction of values in all forms of art. I couldn't defend that position by just giving a concrete example from each art form. It's an end product of a long, sad story of philosophical and cultural deterioration, and it must be understood in that context, so that it's clear that a specific general approach to art will always follow from the premises of the group I'm describing. So I'll try to be more specific about exactly who I mean when I say, "the hippies." I don't mean "anyone who was unlucky enough to be a kid in the 60's." I mean a specific, fringe group of the New Left in the 60's, who were mostly middle/upper-class kids brought up in progressive schools, with some low class thugs thrown in with whom those kids liked to associate/become. The leaders of this "subculture" were mostly corrupt adults, such as Timothy Leary and some who were involved in the beatnik culture a generation or so earlier, some anarchists, some communists, and a lot of people who wanted to make a buck selling drugs to young kids, and maybe get laid in the process, etc. As for the philosophical foundations of the cultural phenomenon I'm describing, it's basically the New Left in Ayn Rand's The Anti-industrial Revolution. But I'm not trying to imply that Ayn Rand made or even came close to suggesting a case against rock and roll-- that's my own position and it depends upon an evaluation of cultural trends that were several layers of fad removed and diluted from what I assert to be their philosophical antecedents. I hope that I'm coming a little closer now to expressing who I mean by the hippies-- they were the ones who were scoffing at all the standards of their day, including some corrupt and stagnant ones, but also capitalism, (what is now considered) old fashioned romantic love, their own careers, any standards of their own personal happiness, etc. And pretty much anything lude or offensive that can be imagined in art-- assuming that it had a folksy, disintegrated flavor, is something they embraced with jaded enthusiasm. I don't mean the general sentiment derived from all of American culture at the time or simply confined to a specific age group or economic class, but rather a specific philosophically oriented cultural movement within and distinct from the rest of American pop-culture. Only philosophy can produce new art forms, and the philosophies embraced by the hippies were... not my favorite ones.

Now if that's too vague, I'd be happy to research it and give concrete examples in every art form and explain how and why they came to be from the philosophical premises I'm ascribing to "the hippies." Luckily, I wasn't personally alive during this period, and I've ignored many of the specific details of the 60's and of it's art and philosophy-- that which I have seen is more than enough and always the same. But sooner or later, maybe it'll do me some good to plunge in to my "cultural heritage," and find out all the sordid details..

I have more I can say on this, but tell me if I'm being clear enough before I go on. Of course I understand that the existence of bad art doesn't automatically negate standards-- every family with young children has plenty of it plastered on their refrigerator doors that is standard affirming in fundamentally important respects. But the widespread acceptance of bad art by the cultural establishment of its day, and the out-of-hand dismissal of any good art, when great art was the standard only a couple of decades earlier, is a monumentally different proposition.

Is it safe to assume that there is no rock and roll music that you consider to have any reasonable quality or that meets some your "standard"?

No, I'm afraid that's a dangerous assumption still. I haven't even begun to describe my criteria for judging whether a given composition fits into a specific genre, and how rigidly that can be defined, and what rock and roll means specifically. But leaving aside the loosest generalizations which would include a wealth of material that predates the hippies by several decades and would be synonymous with the honky-tonk, blues, ragtime, and country music of the early 20th century, and lots of great tunes that I have no problem with whatsoever, there is music even from the darkest depths of the 1960's and '70s and even later that I would classify unequivocally as rock and roll (or "rock music" which some people use as a different term, but I don't) and which I nonetheless consider to have many reasonable qualities-- though it does not meet my boldest standards, which not even my most favorite music meets consistently, without reservations. I am, myself, a musician-- and not even my own music meets these standards completely yet.

In my opinion, this is a narrow view of what is representative of the evolution (or influence) of rock and roll. Is Nu Metal the only thing rock has evolved into or influenced? ...The evolution of these forms of musis is not simply encapsulated by where we are now, which I would still say there's plenty of good new music coming out today, but also the various works that it evolved through or influenced along the way.

I was attempting to present an essentialised example of rock's enduring influence, but if you prefer narrow, I'm willing to concede some ground there. Nu Metal is by no means the only thing influenced by rock music. Some music influenced by rock is even good. Some of it I might even say is relatively good in specifically those elements which it's taken from the legacy of the 60's hippy rock music. That music came at a period in time when a lot of good musical ideas were still lingering, and several outstanding, talented musicians were willing to express themselves in the rock format, perhaps in order to be successful, and were successful; just like Hitchcock made some successful, amusing, even compelling movies in the naturalist style after romanticism was no longer marketable in films. Some of the old pop musicians became rock musicians and did some interesting things with it. But that's not what you see when you zoom out and look at the totality of the enduring work of the period. It's not what's considered most influential or "relevant" to-day. It's not the cannon the highbrow critics use by which to judge new works; it's not even in their vocabulary. Not that that's a surprise, or anything. But take the worst, lamest, mass produced atrocities of the 1920's or earlier, and I'll trade it for all but, perhaps, the very best music of today.

Personally speaking, I've listened to enough classical music that I thought was crap which was produced during the same time periods as some very awesome pieces. Not to offend anyone whose musical tastes may vary from mine, but I think most Baroque music is boring and unimaginative. But it certainly paved the way for some great works.

This is a small point, but I think it's worth stating that just because a piece of music employs some element or device from a previous genre (which actually means some specific previous piece/arrangement or other), doesn't mean the new piece is dependent on the former piece for its existence. It would be especially hard to prove that a piece is necessarily thus dependent on its predecessors for those distinctive qualities which make it a great work of art. I just thought I'd throw that in, in case it's not obvious to anyone. I hate Baroque too, btw. I use techniques I learned from Baroque, and altered, and adapted, in my music; but when I do it, it's not Baroque. The same principle can be applied to a lot of things.

I'm going to again assert my personal opinion about perception being influenced by exposure, though last time it was relating to the moral decline issue of culture. We hear most or a lot of the music that comes out today, the good and the bad. But for the most part, the only music we hear of yesteryear is that music that survived the ages because of it's quality. That doesn't mean that all the music produced back then actually was of the quality of that which has stood the test of time. I think this may influence our perception [ ] into thinking that most or all of the music of the past was "good". Does that mean that no one out there was producing sub-standard music before the 60's?

Some people are of the opinion that social trends follow an indeterrable, eternal repetition from generation to generation. I don't know if that's what you're getting at-- I'd really be surprised if you were actually to endorse such a view, and I don't mean to insult you by implying that you do, but since your arguments are following some of the patterns typical of that viewpoint, I want to state explicitly that that's not true. I think there is just as much about each successive generation that is unprecedented as there are things that are traditional, or innate to any civilized structure, or whatever else might cause similarities from one generation to the next. I frankly can't comprehend how you might believe that the scandal caused by Elvis' pelvic thrusts, for example, and let's say the scandal caused by indiscriminate legions of rappers glorifying stupidity, every kind of chauvinism and brutishness, and describing how jolly and proper it is to go around murdering police officers (as a "social commentary"), etc, with music that is completely monotonous and simple and often actually the actual music from another rap song, off a record or sampler, or standard beat box. (I shouldn't have to say this, since this is an Objectivist forum, but of course the type of "solution" to this kind of thing proposed by Tipper Gore some years ago is a hundred million times worse than the worst which could ever possibly be achieved by any rapper or musician. I'm only talking about good art vs. bad art, not anybody vs. initiation of force!)

Hmm.. yeah, I'm not trying to make anyone feel old here, but for me 60's music is the music of yesteryear every bit as much as music from the 1940's or 1910's. I was born in 1982. I almost never listen to 60's music, and when I can stand it, it is usually the best the decade had to offer, as far as I've been able to discover. By contrast, I listen to music of earlier periods all the time, I have for years, and often I will listen to it indiscriminately, just because I like sound of the period. So that aspect of your argument doesn't have much plausibility, I don't think. I still like the '40s better (and earlier music of the 20th century even better than that-- I do think there is a discernable decline in the quality of music over the century, which this century has yet to even begin to correct.)

Of course there was sub-standard music before the 60's, just as there has been and will be in every age-- but it was a higher standard.

Was every composer or artist a genius up until the 50's and 60's and then all of sudden the majority just magically turned into idiots?

Most every popular composer and artist from approximately the mid-late 1800's to the 1940's was at least enough of a genius to be able to grasp, master, and adapt the ideas and techniques of the real geniuses who originated and first popularized those ideas and techniques. Not every one of them was necessarily breaking new ground, but it doesn't matter because the ideas themselves were good and the sense of life was benevolent. And the types of arrangements and instrumentations which were popular then, in conjunction with the ideas upon which popular tunes of that era were based, naturally led to new innovations and almost necessitated ingenious new ways (which were often times overlooked, forgotten, miracles of musical genius in their own right) of adapting certain songs to the multiplicity of varying timbres, occasions, etc, which were simply the conditions demanded of a typical working band at the time.

The reasons for the decline, as I conceive it, are more than I could name here and I'm gaining new insights into the phenomenon every day. But as one last note, as all of this pertains to your typical musician, I just want to say that there was not this blithe, cynical, arrogant attitude which is so ubiquitous today. I mean the mentality of those who worship mediocrity-- who proudly, violently, and obnoxiously assert what they imply is their right to complete and utter incompetence in the craft they've chosen as their profession. A mentality so corrupt that its victims often go through painstaking, arduous struggles to learn the most obtuse, inexplicably demanding theories of modality, scales, and various musical theories, just to use it for five seconds at the beginning of a song before launching into a train wreck of sounds that very well could sound like a train wreck.. if there were such a thing as stale, typical, institutionalized formulaic train wrecks.

This is to prove that they could write in a pleasant style, you see, but they want to portray their own self consciously vulgar nihilism as superior, more honest, more realistic. That mentality was there with the hippies. But it was really the so called detractors of the "peace and love generation," namely: Punk Rock, that was to exalt that mentality to its most sickening heights. I'll leave heavy metal out of all this, because I've said what I think of that in other threads. And, I've probably said enough about all of this for now.

[RationalBiker]

It's an end product of a long, sad story of philosophical and cultural deterioration,

What you refer to above, I call an increase in freedom for legal and social force. The fact that some folks have acted irresponsibly with that freedom doesn't negate that more people are more free to engage in different forms of music, relationships, etc. than they were in the 40's. Speaking for myself, as I said before, I'll take today over yesteryear any day of the week. Granted, this may be a bit broader look at culture than perhaps the point you were making with specific regards to music, but I wanted to address that particular "sad story". I don't see all of the impact in it being so sad.

perpetrated an across the board destruction of values in all forms of art.

Whose values? If you say your values, end of discussion. Values are not separate from those who have them and for what purpose they have them. Are you talking about the so-called "traditional family values" that politicians harp on about? It's clear to me that you don't like the values portrayed in some music, and it's clear that I dont like the values portrayed in some music, but you aren't convincing me that there has been an "across the board destruction of value in all forms of art." I see too much art and music out there today that I find value in.

However, maybe you are speaking in terms of some percentage. Can you quantify on some numerical scale (say 1 to 100) just how much "value" you think has been destroyed between music of the 40's and music of today?

but tell me if I'm being clear enough before I go on.

You're clear enough in your opinion, it's just that we don't agree.

I haven't even begun to describe my criteria for judging whether a given composition fits into a specific genre, and how rigidly that can be defined, and what rock and roll means specifically.

Then our conversation may be pointless if we aren't talking about the same thing. Addtionally, I can't know if your criteria is the same criteria I use, or if it's even valid criteria. Further, it is probably far less important to me to determine if Bela Fleck's "Flight of the Cosmic Hippo" (more precisely, the songs contained on that album) should be categorized as "blu-bop", jazz, bluegrass, or some hybrid of jazz/bluegrass. In fact, I'm not sure objective criteria can be determined to classify the music on that album within existing categories. However, I like the songs on it, they are catchy, largely uplifting, and Mr. Fleck is a talented banjo player.

To put it a different way, I'm not convinced that just because you have more stringent requirements for what you expect in music, or that you more stringently wish to classify musical types, that that necessarily makes your requirements "higher standards", which implies better standards. Your standards may well guide you in YOUR life in some better way, but I'm not seeing that relate to some universal "better". Now mind you, I'm not implying that your judgement is subjective in the hideous Objectivist use of the word, but I am saying that your judgement may be personal. I draw a distinction in that personal judgement and it's impact on one's life can still be based on objective data.

Some people are of the opinion that social trends follow an indeterrable, eternal repetition from generation to generation. I don't know if that's what you're getting at-- I'd really be surprised if you were actually to endorse such a view, and I don't mean to insult you by implying that you do, but since your arguments are following some of the patterns typical of that viewpoint, I want to state explicitly that that's not true.

First, I note your disagreement with that idea, and add my disagreement to the statement you present. Your representation vastly overgeneralizes the content of my words. I'm not sure, but I smell a logical fallacy in here. It appears you are stating that my statement is untrue based on the fact that my statement represents some subset of a larger idea. Am I misunderstanding you?

Second, with regards to what I stated, I noted a possiblity, not necessarily a conclusion:

I think this may influence our perception

Third, I never mentioned "indetterable, eternal repitition" because I was only addressing a short (relative) specific period of time, not history in it's entirety. There are too many periods of history about which I have too little information to make such observation or conclusion. That the repetition of history may occur in some aspect of culture, during certain time periods, does not mean that all aspects of history repeat themselves during all time periods unavoidably. This is what I was addressing in #1 above.

What is the source by which you listen to the music of yesteryear? CD's, radio stations, internet? Dismuke perhaps? All of the above? How complete is this in terms of presenting the popular music of yesteryear, and the crappy music of yesteryear?

Hmm.. yeah, I'm not trying to make anyone feel old here

Speaking for myself, you couldn't make me feel old if you tried. (Take that with a touch of humor, not as pointed as it sounds) I'm 42, still loving life, and still have "young" outlook.

But take the worst, lamest, mass produced atrocities of the 1920's or earlier, and I'll trade it for all but, perhaps, the very best music of today.

There are some ragtime, country and blues pieces and artists I like from that period. However, given a choice between the crapiest music of that period vs. some of the decent music of this period, I'd take today's music. Given a choice between some of the best music of today vs. the best music of then, I'd still take today's music. Fortunately, neither of us are in a position to have to make that choice, or at least I'm not.

By contrast, I listen to music of earlier periods all the time, I have for years, and often I will listen to it indiscriminately, just because I like sound of the period. So that aspect of your argument doesn't have much plausibility, I don't think. I still like the '40s better (and earlier music of the 20th century even better than that-- I do think there is a discernable decline in the quality of music over the century, which this century has yet to even begin to correct.)

I guess that's checkmate then. You listen to and like that music better so my argument is not plausible. I can't argue against logic like that.

I do note that the fact that you listen to it "indiscriminately" would appear to detract from your argument. The act of discriminating is somewhat necessary in comparing things to determine which thing is better. Because you like music of that era, you are willing to listen to any music of that era, crappy or not. I like a lot of today's music, but I'm not willing to listen to all of today's music just because I like some of it. I'm not sure I can think of any music that I'm willing to listen to indiscriminately.

Of course there was sub-standard music before the 60's, just as there has been and will be in every age-- but it was a higher standard.

Please don't be offended if I stick to my judgement as opposed to just taking this statement as read.

Most every popular composer and artist from approximately the mid-late 1800's to the 1940's was at least enough of a genius to be able to grasp, master, and adapt the ideas and techniques of the real geniuses who originated and first popularized those ideas and techniques. Not every one of them was necessarily breaking new ground, but it doesn't matter because the ideas themselves were good and the sense of life was benevolent.

I would generally agree that crafting a decent symphony for a full orchestra takes more skill and vision than writing a decent song for a distorted guitar, an electric bass, a lead electric lead guitar and a drummer. But then I'm still glad there are folks who want to write music for small rock bands.

However, I don't personally have enough knowledge of "most every popular composer and artist from approximately the mid-late 1800's to the 1940's" to properly evaluate your claim. That's quite a lot of folks, and quite a lot music. If you have even basic familiarity with all those folks and all that music, then your musical knowledge is likely more expansive than mine. And with that in mind. I'm not argue much over whether the ideas were good or not. I will inquire about the sense of life of a fair amount of the classical music during the earlier part of the timespan you mention. How much of that popular classical work was commissioned for religious services and the "glory of God"? I do not consider that music to have a positive sense of life "as intended" any more than the christian music produced today.

That said, I have around 300 classical CD's (some of which during the time period you mention) and despite the religious "intent" of some of that music, I like the sound of it and for the most part there is no vocal "praisings" going on (Beethoven's 9th Symphony being an example of an exception to that guideline, and yes I realize he's actually prior to the time you mention) to mess up otherwise pleasant sounding music. In essence, I ignore whatever the composer might have been intending while designing the piece, and discover what value that music represents to me, what feelings and thoughts does the music bring to my mind. This is generally easier to do with music of yesteryear than music of today for that very reason, the prevalence of lyrical content.

I like plenty of musical scores today (considered by some to be modern classical music) as well as some of the "new age" music. In general, I prefer the acoustic-oriented "new age" stuff, but I have a few CD's of the synthesized stuff. Not a Yanni fan though. I really don't care if some of these folks may be worshipping blades of grass or some imaginary mystical being, a lot of it contains very original, soothing, upbeat melodies.

On a logistical note, I understand that I asked you to make your case, and you responded in the manner you thought necessary to do so. But it's unlikely I will participate very often, if at all, if our debate requires such lengthy responses. It takes far more time to read and digest your argument and then respond to it than I'm willing to invest.

[softwareNerd]

For the typical individual, there's no time like today, and it will likely only get better. This is true virtually around the globe. Despite all the bogus philosophy, there's so much good in the world that it keeps making a net profit even after paying the taxmen of the body and the spirit.

A majority of cultures have questioned their intrincism and chipped away at their dogmatic evils. However, subjectivism and nihilism have definitely been taking their place. The iconoclasts are often right in their scorn of evil; trouble is, they often scorn the good as well. One might make a case that US is seeing a backlash against subjectivism, as evidenced by the growing religious right.

If I had to guess, I'd say world cultures will all tend to some point between where europe and the US are today, with each generation swaying slightly toward intrincism or slightly toward subjectivsm, until enough people see their way out of the dichotomy.

[Bold Standard]

I appreciate you reading my whole thread, and taking the time to digest and answer it. I know it was a little longwinded.

What you refer to above, I call an increase in freedom for legal and social force. The fact that some folks have acted irresponsibly with that freedom doesn't negate that more people are more free to engage in different forms of music, relationships, etc. than they were in the 40's. Speaking for myself, as I said before, I'll take today over yesteryear any day of the week. Granted, this may be a bit broader look at culture than perhaps the point you were making with specific regards to music, but I wanted to address that particular "sad story". I don't see all of the impact in it being so sad.

No, all of the impact isn't sad. Did you mean an increase in freedom from force? I'm not sure how to draw a direct connection between that and modern art, but maybe there is one. But, as an irony I'm not sure how to explain, it seems that some of the most oppressed people in the past made some of the best art, and their liberated descendents are now making some of the worst. I know, that's a general statement, you can disagree if you want..

Whose values? If you say your values, end of discussion. Values are not separate from those who have them and for what purpose they have them. Are you talking about the so-called "traditional family values" that politicians harp on about? It's clear to me that you don't like the values portrayed in some music, and it's clear that I don’t like the values portrayed in some music, but you aren't convincing me that there has been an "across the board destruction of value in all forms of art." I see too much art and music out there today that I find value in.

Lol, no, not family values. But traditional American values aren't far off from what I'm saying. I wouldn't say that family is the essential uniting those values. I do mean my values, and you can end the discussion there if you want. But my values are not completely subjective-- I'm not a whim worshipper. Specifically, I'm talking about-- in literature, the destruction of values such as a portrayal of man the hero, the hippy generation celebrated the anti-hero; in painting, the destruction of values such as portrayals of the universe as it appears to human beings, that generation celebrated incoherent smears of color and pasted in objects that weren't even the artist's own creation; in music, the destruction of values which amounted to a new emphasis on tribalist type rhythms, distorted, sometimes incoherent shrieks from the instruments, and painful sounding, literal screams from the vocalists. That's just a general trend; of course there are exceptions, and some individuals in each genre who almost made it work sometimes. It's the over-all trend I find disturbing.

However, maybe you are speaking in terms of some percentage. Can you quantify on some numerical scale (say 1 to 100) just how much "value" you think has been destroyed between music of the 40's and music of today?

I can't, sorry.

To put it a different way, I'm not convinced that just because you have more stringent requirements for what you expect in music, or that you more stringently wish to classify musical types, that that necessarily makes your requirements "higher standards", which implies better standards. Your standards may well guide you in YOUR life in some better way, but I'm not seeing that relate to some universal "better". Now mind you, I'm not implying that your judgment is subjective in the hideous Objectivist use of the word, but I am saying that your judgment may be personal. I draw a distinction in that personal judgment and it's impact on one's life can still be based on objective data.

Yeah, the lack of truly objective criteria for judging music makes this tough. But there are objective criteria for judging other types of art, as Ayn Rand explains in The Romantic Manifesto. It seems logical to assume that since other art stemming from the same philosophy is flawed, the music of that era is likely be similarly flawed. But I know that's a pretty weak argument.

First, I note your disagreement with that idea, and add my disagreement to the statement you present. Your representation vastly overgeneralizes the content of my words. I'm not sure, but I smell a logical fallacy in here. It appears you are stating that my statement is untrue based on the fact that my statement represents some subset of a larger idea. Am I misunderstanding you?

Maybe I was the one who misunderstood you. If your statement was an attempt to establish that each generation is bound, by some eternal principle, to produce music that is going to be decried by the previous generation as destructive to art, only to decry the next generation for the same thing, with each generation's music being no more destructive to art than the previous one's-- that's what I was disagreeing with. But maybe that's not what you meant. I wasn't sure, so that's why I offered a refutation of that principle, rather than what you specifically said.

Second, with regards to what I stated, I noted a possibility, not necessarily a conclusion:

Yes, I know, but.. Onus of proof. I don't think the principle as I stated it, admittedly less vague than yours, is even possible. I don't intend to claim that refutes what you stated, because if I misconstrued your intentions, it would be a straw man.

Third, I never mentioned "indetterable, eternal repetition" because I was only addressing a short (relative) specific period of time, not history in it's entirety. There are too many periods of history about which I have too little information to make such observation or conclusion. That the repetition of history may occur in some aspect of culture, during certain time periods, does not mean that all aspects of history repeat themselves during all time periods unavoidably. This is what I was addressing in #1 above.

Oh. Amusingly, some philosophers actually have maintained the latter position. Neitche thought so.. and I think Hegel, but I'm not positive about him.

What is the source by which you listen to the music of yesteryear? CD's, radio stations, internet? Dismuke perhaps? All of the above? How complete is this in terms of presenting the popular music of yesteryear, and the crappy music of yesteryear?

All of the above. Love the Dismuke! I'd say it's about as complete as listening to the music of today. Who could achieve comprehensive absorption of every piece of music in any era? True, I listen to music of yesteryear more than music of today, because there is less junk to shift through. But I find, as I go back further, the music that was good was more likely to be a hit at the time, and the music that was junk was more likely to be considered junk, to greater and greater degrees the further back you go. But there was scarcely ever a time when the best was necessarily a hit-- people always usually liked the junk better. IMO.

Speaking for myself, you couldn't make me feel old if you tried. (Take that with a touch of humor, not as pointed as it sounds) I'm 42, still loving life, and still have "young" outlook.

Good to hear. I'm 24 and sometimes feel old! But I know I'm still a kid.

There are some ragtime, country and blues pieces and artists I like from that period. However, given a choice between the crapiest music of that period vs. some of the decent music of this period, I'd take today's music. Given a choice between some of the best music of today vs. the best music of then, I'd still take today's music. Fortunately, neither of us are in a position to have to make that choice, or at least I'm not.

Yeah, there are some advantages to new music- recording technology is better, for example.

I guess that's checkmate then. You listen to and like that music better so my argument is not plausible. I can't argue against logic like that.

Not your whole argument. Just the part that maybe it seems like music from the past is better only because it's less familiar. At least, inasmuch as it applies to me.

I do note that the fact that you listen to it "indiscriminately" would appear to detract from your argument. The act of discriminating is somewhat necessary in comparing things to determine which thing is better. Because you like music of that era, you are willing to listen to any music of that era, crappy or not. I like a lot of today's music, but I'm not willing to listen to all of today's music just because I like some of it. I'm not sure I can think of any music that I'm willing to listen to indiscriminately.

Lol, yes, good point. I didn't mean that I listen to it indiscriminately (although that's what I said), I meant that I select which songs to listen to indiscriminately. So that I'll listen to my favorite songs and my least favorite all together. That way I can discriminate between what I like and don't like, and compare it with music of other eras.

Please don't be offended if I stick to my judgment as opposed to just taking this statement as read.

I would generally agree that crafting a decent symphony for a full orchestra takes more skill and vision than writing a decent song for a distorted guitar, an electric bass, a lead electric lead guitar and a drummer. But then I'm still glad there are folks who want to write music for small rock bands.

Not offended. It can be done well, I'm just making normative generalizations.

I will inquire about the sense of life of a fair amount of the classical music during the earlier part of the time span you mention. How much of that popular classical work was commissioned for religious services and the "glory of God"? I do not consider that music to have a positive sense of life "as intended" any more than the Christian music produced today.

Here I'd suggest reviewing Miss Rand's description of music in RM. Something as specific as "glory of God" is too specific for a piece of music. The closest music can come is "the emotion evoked by contemplating glory in an abstract form." And, depending on one's philosophy, that could represent a very uplifted sense of life. Modern CCM seems to take "glory of God" to mean "weakness of man" (some old church tunes were like that, but a lot weren't-- some new CCM is not too.)

Library is closing, gotta go.

[Dismuke]

Love the Dismuke! I'd say it's about as complete as listening to the music of today. Who could achieve comprehensive absorption of every piece of music in any era? True, I listen to music of yesteryear more than music of today, because there is less junk to shift through. But I find, as I go back further, the music that was good was more likely to be a hit at the time, and the music that was junk was more likely to be considered junk, to greater and greater degrees the further back you go. But there was scarcely ever a time when the best was necessarily a hit-- people always usually liked the junk better. IMO.

Gee - I stay away from here for a few weeks and I come back only to discover that people have been saying nice things about me! That's cool. Thanks so much!

Bold Standard - I am in agreement with many of your sentiments about rock music and popular culture from the 1960s forward, especially as it relates to music. You, however, seem to have much more of a stomach for it than I do. I do enjoy and see value in some of the early rock and roll music - most especially the so-called "doo wop" variety. What that early rock and roll had which today's music is utterly devoid of is melody. I can't stand hardly any of the stuff today. That which is not nihilistic and gives me a splitting headache and nausea after being exposed to it for but a few minutes is so sanitized and non-melodic that I find it about as exciting and engaging as listening to a metronome. I would actually prefer the metronome.

I think popular music began to fall apart with the onset of World War II. That was when jazz - which since the early 1920s had been the driving force and inspiration of popular music - turned elitist and "modern" and abandoned melody. As a result, jazz overnight lost its popular audience and lost its role as the inspiration for the more mainstream, commercial popular music.

Additional unfortunate factors came into play as well. The depression and, most especially, the wartime draft, took their toll on the number of young "hip" and trend setting musicians who came along on the scene. The big names in popular music when Pearl Harbor was bombed in 1941 - Glenn Miller, Benny Goodman, Tommy and Jimmy Dorsey, Artie Shaw - were considered to be among the top "Roaring '20s" era white jazz musicians. The lifestyle of an aspiring musician has always been a bit hand-to-mouth. During the Depression, which impacted the music business as it did with every other industry, such a hand-to-mouth existence was a luxury many could not afford. And the draft and the war, of course, took lots of new musicians out of circulation - in some cases, permanently.

Then the musicians union committed suicide with a series of strikes against the radio networks and the record industry. This forced the networks and the record industry to rely on vocal acts. Prior to the war, people showed up to see a band perform and the vocalists merely accompanied the band. After the war, the vocal groups began to take top billing. Unfortunately, without innovative new trends in music, the songs the vocal groups performed became increasingly stale and trite.

Without the influence of jazz, most of the surviving bands after the war had started to adopt the dreadfully dull "easy listening" style which would dominate the late 1940s and early 1950s. By contrast, I think the early rock and roll of the late '50s and early '60s was actually an improvement over the easy listening stuff - it brought back an enthusiastic excitement which had largely disappeared. But by the end of the 1960s, however - well, things went into the sewer and fast. The very first thing that was murdered was melody - and it is still, almost 40 years later, very much missing from the scene.

As to what recordings can and should be regarded as "junk" - I think that such judgments have to be made within the context of each particular genre. One of the complaints I often hear from modern jazz musicians about the commercial dance band music of the 1920s and 1930s is that it was insufficiently improvisational - that talented jazz men in the more commercial bands were only allowed to improvise on "hot" solo passages and had to stick to a scored arrangement the rest of the time. But such a complaint misses the whole point of what such music was about and is about as valid as saying a lack of similar improvisation when a symphony plays Mozart is somehow a flaw in classical music. Such musicians always strike me as being more concerned about technical virtuosity than with the overall aesthetics - which, to me, is like damming a ballet performance because it is not more like Olympic gymnastics.

Sadly, for a very long time, such mentalities were the ones who were frequently chosen to write liner notes for reissues of 1920s and 1930s era recordings - and they informed buyers just what junk the music they were about to listen to really is and that the only value it has to offer is the historical perspective it provides for certain of the jazz artists who performed in those recordings. Of course, a modern jazz critic is going to regard commercial dance band music of the late '20s and early '30s as "junk" - just as I would undoubtedly regard the stuff such critics approve of as being "junk" or worse.

I most definitely am very selective about the recordings I present in Radio Dismuke and try to cull out what I consider to be lesser performances. The standard by which I do so is primarily set by the nature of the genre itself - and, I will openly admit, to some degree by my personal taste as well. Back then, songs were not performed by just one artist. Popular songs came from "Tin Pan Alley" music publishers, Broadway productions and, starting in the late 1920s, from talking pictures - and the songs were performed by all of the popular bands of the day and sometimes even by performers of specialty genre such as Hawaiian guitar music or "hillbilly music" as early country and western was then referred to. Thus one performance of a particular song could have been recorded with a arrangement which was either exciting, or lush or imaginative or perhaps included some really "hot" solo jazz passages while another recording, by contrast, could have been performed in a bland, lifeless manner using stock arrangements. Someone familiar with the genre would very easily be very likely to cull out that second type of recording as being"junky." And the same goes for songs as well. Some songs were imaginative and beautiful - while others were hokey and trite and make one wonder who slept with whom in order to get it published and recorded. I will entertain the opinions of what is and is not "junk" from someone who is familiar with the genre and loves it as much as I do - but such comments from someone who dislikes the genre altogether are about as useful as similar comments I might make about modern rock music, all of which is junk in my book.

One other comment I would like to make with regard to musical tastes - my take on it is that a great deal of it has to do with what one has been exposed to. One thing I have noticed in myself and in others is that, as one gets older, one's musical tastes tend to broaden. There are certain artists from the era of music that I like that I really could not stand to listen to when I first discovered the music as a kid - Guy Lombardo is one that comes to mind. I am still not much of a Lombardo fan - but today I can at least appreciate it in very limited doses when I am in the right mood. As a kid, I was largely indifferent to certain types of classical music that I really enjoy today. If a person grows up exposed to nothing but the sort of rock music that all of the other kids he grows up with listen to - well, other musical genres are going to be a bit overwhelming to him at first.

It is VERY tempting to try and make a moral/philosophical connection between people and the music they listen to. So far, the temptations I have had to do so have always blown up in my face. I have known some very rational and moral people who have been fans of horribly mind-numbing nihilistic music produced by drugged out hippies. And the music which was popular in Nazi Germany, of all places, was WONDERFUL - incredible dance bands which ranged from being vibrantly joyful to incredibly sophisticated, really cool tangos which, I think, were better than even those from Argentina and, of course, music from "Silver Age" Viennese operettas. When the SS thugs came home from a hard day's work at the death camps, they took their sweethearts to the movies or the dance halls and enjoyed some of the most cheerful and benevolent music the world has ever known. True enough, the music in Nazi Germany was a hold over from a better era. But that is what people grew up with - and their elevated standards in that area were a result of that. Many wonderful and decent people today have known nothing but the kind of stuff that is popular - and so that is their aesthetic frame of reference.

One of the nicest gifts parents can give their kids is expose them to a very wide variety of music in the home from very early on - and with the advent of Interent radio, it is now possible to do so at little or no cost with virtually any genre of music imaginable. I was very fortunate to have a childhood where I was exposed to a variety of music - some of which caught my fancy and has been a constant source of profound inspiration and enjoyment to me ever since. I kind of feel sorry for people whose musical tastes were more or less formed by default because it just so happened to be what all the other kids were listening to.

Anyhow, I guess it is now my turn to apologize for being a bit long-winded.

[Bold Standard]

[edit: Hm. My quote htmls don't seem to be working. Dunno why..]

Gee - I stay away from here for a few weeks and I come back only to discover that people have been saying nice things about me! That's cool. Thanks so much!

Thank you for the music.

Bold Standard - I am in agreement with many of your sentiments about rock music and popular culture from the 1960s forward, especially as it relates to music. You, however, seem to have much more of a stomach for it than I do. I do enjoy and see value in some of the early rock and roll music - most especially the so-called "doo wop" variety. What that early rock and roll had which today's music is utterly devoid of is melody. I can't stand hardly any of the stuff today. That which is not nihilistic and gives me a splitting headache and nausea after being exposed to it for but a few minutes is so sanitized and non-melodic that I find it about as exciting and engaging as listening to a metronome. I would actually prefer the metronome.

I wouldn't say today's music is utterly devoid of melody-- by then it would have ceased being music. It's just that the melodies aren't as smart, and are much more willing to be repetitive and to be subordinate to the rhythm, which is usually also monotonous, for the entirety of a song (as opposed to the old days, when, say Buddy Rich might have a fabulous drum solo, but then the band would kick back in with gusto and he'd lay back and ride it like a wave.. ::sigh:: ). But I'd say harmony and timbre suffer just as much these days. Think about how well mixed and balanced all the voices were in those old recordings-- you can hear everything (gasp-- even the mid-range!). Now we have the ability to mike, mix, and re-mix every different instrument from a dozen different angles, and it usually sounds like a jumbled mess, or like one horrible buzzing tone sounding out for several minutes and then stopping, with a faint distortion surfacing within it sometimes which is the actual song. But even rhythm is worse now, if you ask me. Compare any signature hip-hop "groove" with the death-defying syncopation of Roger Wolfe Khan's Orchestra, or the mind blowing rhythms which could be sustained effortlessly by one instrument alone, or with a whole band playing as tightly as a single player, in any decent ragtime recording of the early 20th century era. Even compare Rush drummer Neil Peart with any average Pop hit that has tap dancing. Shirley Temple had better rhythms than him, and he was a pretty good drummer for rock music! New music's got loud rhythms, yeah.. but it just ain't got that "swing." And I don't just mean triplets, or 3/4 time signatures. It's a certain type of harmonic arrangement, too, that drives those rhythms. But it gets so complicated. Maybe anyone who's interested in my methods for classifying genres should just PM me.

I think popular music began to fall apart with the onset of World War II. That was when jazz - which since the early 1920s had been the driving force and inspiration of popular music - turned elitist and "modern" and abandoned melody. As a result, jazz overnight lost its popular audience and lost its role as the inspiration for the more mainstream, commercial popular music.

The pre-WWII jazz music continued to inspire popular tunes all the way through the 40's. It's just that it, and the popular music inspired by it, were increasingly denounced as being "too commercial" sounding. Whatever that means..

Additional unfortunate factors came into play as well. The depression and, most especially, the wartime draft, took their toll on the number of young "hip" and trend setting musicians who came along on the scene. The big names in popular music when Pearl Harbor was bombed in 1941 - Glenn Miller, Benny Goodman, Tommy and Jimmy Dorsey, Artie Shaw - were considered to be among the top "Roaring '20s" era white jazz musicians. The lifestyle of an aspiring musician has always been a bit hand-to-mouth. During the Depression, which impacted the music business as it did with every other industry, such a hand-to-mouth existence was a luxury many could not afford. And the draft and the war, of course, took lots of new musicians out of circulation - in some cases, permanently.

No doubt. But, gee.. I mean, we could come out of the Civil War with music just getting started, and pretty soon we were right up there with the best in the world. And my great grandfather was a piano tuner in the great depression, and he did phenomenally well. From stories he used to tell, music was seen as a real outlet then. People couldn't afford dinner for their families, but by God, they'd scrape together enough to get their piano tuned and hear some music. After all, they had to live. What's life without music?

I agree that the things you mentioned didn't help. But I think there was an underlying philosophical shift that was more responsible. (Those who want more details on this hypothesis would probably be better of PMing me.)

Then the musicians union committed suicide with a series of strikes against the radio networks and the record industry. This forced the networks and the record industry to rely on vocal acts. Prior to the war, people showed up to see a band perform and the vocalists merely accompanied the band. After the war, the vocal groups began to take top billing. Unfortunately, without innovative new trends in music, the songs the vocal groups performed became increasingly stale and trite.

Fascinating! I'd never heard of that, but it does make sense.

Without the influence of jazz, most of the surviving bands after the war had started to adopt the dreadfully dull "easy listening" style which would dominate the late 1940s and early 1950s. By contrast, I think the early rock and roll of the late '50s and early '60s was actually an improvement over the easy listening stuff - it brought back an enthusiastic excitement which had largely disappeared. But by the end of the 1960s, however - well, things went into the sewer and fast. The very first thing that was murdered was melody - and it is still, almost 40 years later, very much missing from the scene.

But there was music that people called rock and roll in the '40s and 50's, which I mentioned before, and that music was upbeat, and IMO usually better than 60's rock. Now I'd probably call it boogie woogie, or doo-wop, or Country, or something else to avoid confusion, but it was the early rock and roll. So in that frame of reference, I'd say rock got much worse just a few years prior to the "British Invasion." The Kinks etc are when I start loosing interest.

As to what recordings can and should be regarded as "junk" - I think that such judgments have to be made within the context of each particular genre.

That approach can be problematic. Often I hear someone say of a band, "I don't like them, but they're good for the kind of music they play." Well, if you don't like them, (I say to these people) by what standard is it "good"-- are you trying to imply that you have bad taste? And then they might answer, "But I can respect that they're talented musicians, even though I don't like the music that they play." Talented musicians? Does that mean that the sounds they make with their instruments are pleasant to hear? No? Then by what standard are they "talented"? Because they can make an awful racket using more inexplicably complicated techniques? To me, that's like saying someone is a talented hunter because he tries to bounce his bullets off a tin can instead of shooting an animal directly-- only he never ends up hitting any animals! The point of playing an instrument is to be able to make music with it that sounds good. If you can't do that, by a certain standard, you're not a good musician! (For more details on my standards for music and how I arrive at them, PM me.)

One of the complaints I often hear from modern jazz musicians about the commercial dance band music of the 1920s and 1930s is that it was insufficiently improvisational - that talented jazz men in the more commercial bands were only allowed to improvise on "hot" solo passages and had to stick to a scored arrangement the rest of the time. But such a complaint misses the whole point of what such music was about and is about as valid as saying a lack of similar improvisation when a symphony plays Mozart is somehow a flaw in classical music. Such musicians always strike me as being more concerned about technical virtuosity than with the overall aesthetics - which, to me, is like damming a ballet performance because it is not more like Olympic gymnastics.

LOL, yes. Except, I'd say more concerned about what they think is technical virtuosity. Because there is a lot more to playing an instrument than just "playing notes." You've got to make sounds, you've got to keep the thing in tune, you've got to make sure it's never too trebley, never too bassy, never loud when it needs to be quiet, never quiet when it needs to be loud, and on and on, but just those things are plenty to keep a good, professional player's mind occupied as they "stick to the score" --which usually, by the way, was extensively customized by their particular band leader especially for that performance, by that band, in that venue. It didn't just come off of some assembly line. It was much more tech than most modern musicians and "music experts" usually admit. Not to mention the musicians would often do choreographed dances while they played! That's a whole other subject.

Sadly, for a very long time, such mentalities were the ones who were frequently chosen to write liner notes for reissues of 1920s and 1930s era recordings - and they informed buyers just what junk the music they were about to listen to really is and that the only value it has to offer is the historical perspective it provides for certain of the jazz artists who performed in those recordings. Of course, a modern jazz critic is going to regard commercial dance band music of the late '20s and early '30s as "junk" - just as I would undoubtedly regard the stuff such critics approve of as being "junk" or worse.

I really don't think it's a mere difference in opinion. I think, on some conscious or subconscious level, those mentalities or the mentalities influencing them are aware that today's music can't stand next to those old, "commercial" masterpieces. Either it's too painful for them to admit how crappy today's music is in comparison to yesterdays, or they're intentionally covering over that fact, because whatever mediocrities they're trying to sell to people could never adapt to that style if it became popular again (for evidence of that, see the atrocious 1920's style swing/obnoxious rock groups that got briefly popular in America in the '90s.) Or maybe they just really do have that bad of taste. It's probably some equivalent of standing in a Howard Roark building and saying, "it just isn't homey!" They listen to that music and say, "it's just too happy, catchy, commercial, superficial, melodic, contrived" or whatever adjective they've decided should be understood as derogatory.

I most definitely am very selective about the recordings I present in Radio Dismuke and try to cull out what I consider to be lesser performances.

Ah, I didn't mean to imply you aren't. Usually, when I listen to your station, I'll listen to it for a while, then go to another 1920's oriented station, and skip around to get some variety. But even your selection has quite a variety of styles, which are interesting for varying reasons; and some things are better than others.

The standard by which I do so is primarily set by the nature of the genre itself - and, I will openly admit, to some degree by my personal taste as well.

See, I just can't grasp how a style can have its own intrinsic standards for quality. Do you mean that you purposefully select some music which is not to your taste? How do you choose which songs that you don't like, to play; and which one's to skip? Other people's opinions? Or some method of personal judgment which is somehow separate from your taste?

Back then, songs were not performed by just one artist. Popular songs came from "Tin Pan Alley" music publishers, Broadway productions and, starting in the late 1920s, from talking pictures - and the songs were performed by all of the popular bands of the day and sometimes even by performers of specialty genre such as Hawaiian guitar music or "hillbilly music" as early country and western was then referred to. Thus one performance of a particular song could have been recorded with a arrangement which was either exciting, or lush or imaginative or perhaps included some really "hot" solo jazz passages while another recording, by contrast, could have been performed in a bland, lifeless manner using stock arrangements. Someone familiar with the genre would very easily be very likely to cull out that second type of recording as being"junky." And the same goes for songs as well. Some songs were imaginative and beautiful - while others were hokey and trite and make one wonder who slept with whom in order to get it published and recorded. I will entertain the opinions of what is and is not "junk" from someone who is familiar with the genre and loves it as much as I do - but such comments from someone who dislikes the genre altogether are about as useful as similar comments I might make about modern rock music, all of which is junk in my book.

I think a lot of this illustrates what I was trying to express about how dynamic and creative groups were back then. They started with a piece of sheet music with just the bare essentials of a chord progression, melody, and basic rhythms. And then they'd individually have to transform it to whatever style and instrument and venue they were performing in. Many if not most professional musicians could play any given tune in a wide variety of different styles. That was probably true of session and touring musicians straight through the sixties, and to some extent in the 70's. Then it became politically incorrect for a musician to play a song he didn't write himself. People would say, "Ah, he's lame, he doesn't even write his own stuff. 'The record company' does it for him." Then music got a little better in the 80's, and then it became politically incorrect for a musician to use machines that weren't being controlled in "real time." People would say, "Ah, he's lame. He just programs everything on 'a keyboard.'" Then you had "grunge." And all the magazines hailed Kurt Cobain as "the last innovator of guitar." Yeah, right! I digress.. <_>

One other comment I would like to make with regard to musical tastes - my take on it is that a great deal of it has to do with what one has been exposed to.

Sure, not to the extent that Schoenberg etc. maintained, but that's a part of it, certainly.

One thing I have noticed in myself and in others is that, as one gets older, one's musical tastes tend to broaden. There are certain artists from the era of music that I like that I really could not stand to listen to when I first discovered the music as a kid - Guy Lombardo is one that comes to mind. I am still not much of a Lombardo fan - but today I can at least appreciate it in very limited doses when I am in the right mood. As a kid, I was largely indifferent to certain types of classical music that I really enjoy today.

Yes, that all follows from the exposure premise.

If a person grows up exposed to nothing but the sort of rock music that all of the other kids he grows up with listen to - well, other musical genres are going to be a bit overwhelming to him at first.

Very true. I've won over many converts to certain things I like, but they almost always hate it the first time they hear it! My past experience is the same. When I started listening to a lot of early 20th century music, a lot of it sounded like Mickey Mouse songs to me. But there was some stuff I always liked. Then, as my palate became accustomed, I could distinguish easily between cartoon-y type music and quality popular tunes. Likewise, since I've heard it all so much, I can easily distinguish stylistically between Eric Johnson, Jimmy Hendrix, Metalica, Nickelback or whatever. And I can pick out whatever elements I like from these guys and what I wish they'd done differently. Yet no matter how exposed I am to it, I never come to the point of completely liking it, as a whole piece (I listed those in a somewhat descending order according to my tastes). I think the essential elements combining these that prevent me from liking them are stylistic. (More detail on that will probably be best through PM.)

It is VERY tempting to try and make a moral/philosophical connection between people and the music they listen to.

Well, knowledge and morality are contextual. When I find out someone loves heavy metal music, I feel about the same way about them I would feel if I found out they easily loose their temper, or if their favorite artworks are posters and statues of dragons and wizards, or if their favorite movies are the one that all have the same plot, with explosions and a car chase, and a villain that comes back to life at least four times. It's just like.. well, whatever. I still like what I like for reasons, and if you like what you like for reasons, you'll be able to see I don't mean it as a personal attack if I criticize what you like. That's how I look at it. (Using "you" as a general term.)

Of course, I've learned the hard way, that's not always the best type of discussion to bring up on a first date..

I have known some very rational and moral people who have been fans of horribly mind-numbing nihilistic music produced by drugged out hippies.

Well, a person can be rational over-all and still hold some irrational positions on particular issues.

And the music which was popular in Nazi Germany, of all places, was WONDERFUL - incredible dance bands which ranged from being vibrantly joyful to incredibly sophisticated, really cool tangos which, I think, were better than even those from Argentina and, of course, music from "Silver Age" Viennese operettas. When the SS thugs came home from a hard day's work at the death camps, they took their sweethearts to the movies or the dance halls and enjoyed some of the most cheerful and benevolent music the world has ever known. True enough, the music in Nazi Germany was a hold over from a better era. But that is what people grew up with - and their elevated standards in that area were a result of that.

It's true, Germany had some good music. In Ominous Parallels, Peikoff mentions them playing songs from "Merry Widow" to the prisoners in concentration camps as they were marching them, unbeknownst to the captives, into the death chambers. In the visual arts, too, some of the Nazi propaganda pictures were in an attractive realist style. But I also have reason to believe that, just as the Nazi's helped launch Dadaism in graphic art, they also helped to push and popularize the incoherent "avant-garde" noise/music which later had so much influence on jazz, and the abandonment of melody, rhythm, harmony, timbre, and any semblance of what's generally recognized as form in music.

Many wonderful and decent people today have known nothing but the kind of stuff that is popular - and so that is their aesthetic frame of reference.

Yeah. Sad.

I kind of feel sorry for people whose musical tastes were more or less formed by default because it just so happened to be what all the other kids were listening to.

Yes. Poor little sheep. Oh well, some people just aren't really even interested in music. I know there are some good mathematicians and bad ones, some good physicists and bad ones, and some good biologists and bad ones, but other than in the most obvious cases, I'd have trouble distinguishing them, because it's not one of my primary interests. I don't disapprove of or regret that people settle for Brittany Spears and Lincoln Park any more than I disapprove or regret that I've settled for my high school math text, or popular press articles on scientific discoveries. I think the choice of whether music, science, math texts, and popular opinion in general is quality or not is ultimately up to a few assertive, creative individuals who know, rather than the ignorant masses at large. At least, in a relatively free society, anyway. So, in short, I'm optimistic about the internet and the future, too.

Anyhow, I guess it is now my turn to apologize for being a bit long-winded.

Well, you know.. It's really hard to get a point across concisely if it's an unusual viewpoint! You can't just rely on people to get the gist of what you're saying, especially in such an elusive subject as the aesthetic relativity of musical genres-- as it represents/causes/is caused by the moral decline of a society.

I think we each deserve a pat on the back for being as brief as we were. Even if we're the only ones who read our posts.

Edited February 1, 2006 by Bold Standard

[LauricAcid]

[edit: Hm. My quote htmls don't seem to be working. Dunno why..]

I think for the tag to work you can only have about ten quotes in a post.

But I also have reason to believe that, just as the Nazi's helped launch Dadaism in graphic art, they also helped to push and popularize the incoherent "avant-garde" noise/music which later had so much influence on jazz, and the abandonment of melody, rhythm, harmony, timbre, and any semblance of what's generally recognized as form in music.

I never heard of a Nazi influence on the launch of Dadaism, which occurred while Hitler was but an infantryman in the Bavarian army. And what avant-garde music did the Nazis push and popularize that has so much influence on jazz? And what jazz do you consider to be without melody, rhythm, harmony, timbre, or form? For that matter, how could any music be without timbre?