It depends on tastes, but for someone who doesn’t like the superficial stuff, I’m in agreement that as an overall appraisal, that which now makes it out into culture at large tends to be lacking in the deeper truths—lyrically and instrumentally (here, emotive resonance with what feels true to oneself)—heard in the music of yesterday.

In comparing modern pop with pop songs such as Cyndi Lauper’s Time After Time or Kate Bush’s Running Up that Hill—both of which had plenty of radio play in their day—the more modern pop music that gets radio play is not up to par … this in terms of depth, for lack of a better word.

As to not selling out, you have singers such as Lenard Cohen. Even his last album, released about the time of his death, was superbly intense.

Thinking of downward tendencies, NIN’s Downward Spiral—as with everything that preceded and most of what followed—was good as well … OK, more than great for some of us. Sepultura too has persisted without any indication of selling out.

I can think of other examples of bands that keep things honest for the long hall, Collide as one such band that has never been and likely never will be mainstream (it’s not like every band I listen to has a large following).

But, since this seems to me to be a matter of voting on whether or not music is still staying strong, I too will vote with, “no; as an overall human endeavor and industry, it’s not as good as it used to be”.

Then again, having everyone now exposed to lyrics such as “war, what is it good for?” or “you say you want a revolution”—lyrics that tend to say something meaningful in relation to the lives most people are living (other than simple sex and violence)—might not be in the financial interests of the large corporations which have bought up most of the music industry in the last couple of decades … or so my presumptions go.

In comparing modern pop with pop songs such as Cyndi Lauper’s Time After Time or Kate Bush’s Running Up that Hill—both of which had plenty of radio play in their day—the more modern pop music that gets radio play is not up to par … this in terms of depth, for lack of a better word. — javra

Again, this is just a skewed view. The number 2 pop song of '85 (the year of Running Up That Hill) was Madonna's "Like A Virgin".

As to today's pop songs not comparing (to what, "Like A Virgin"?) Take a band like Switchfoot, for example. "Dare You to Move" was released in 2004, and hit #17 in the billboard charts, vs. "Running Up That Hill" reaching #30 in 1985. Running Up That Hill is a poignant love song, wondering "And if I only could/ I'd make a deal with God/ And I'd get him to swap our places". "Dare You To Move" became largely a pop anthem "rallying cry" of sorts to overcome depression and fear; "I dare you to move/ I dare you to lift yourself up off the floor."

How do you qualitatively say which is "better art"? Other than your generational prejudice?

Again, this is just a skewed view. — Noble Dust

And I will continue to uphold my own bias till I discover good reason not to.

Nitpicking on two songs in an out of context fashion does not evidence an unbiased conclusion that the quality of music overall has remained unchanged.

Nitpicking on two songs in an out of context fashion does not evidence an unbiased conclusion that the quality of music overall has remained unchanged. — javra

I used one of your songs as an example; you mentioned two songs total as well with regard to pop in the 80's; a similarly nitpicking view by your own definition. You mentioned a few other bands you like, which I did as well with my previous youtube posts.

And by the way, I agree with you that all of the songs/artists/albums you mentioned are great music.

Here's something that we can agree on :) — Πετροκότσυφας

It seems to have taken Porcupine Tree to get there. >:O It's sort of a secret hand shake, no?

What's more interesting to discuss is the change in structure of the music business and how that change has affected both the artists and the listeners of specific genres. In my view, the whole thing has become more decentrilised, so, at least in terms of distribution and availability, it takes more effort from the listener to reach stuff that pre-broadband internet and pre-new recording technology could be reached either through multinational conglomerates or through a number of indie labels. Strangely, this is because more music than ever is readily available to simple folks. — Πετροκότσυφας

(Y)

Definitely check out the New Amsterdam Records stuff I linked to, if you're not familiar. More challenging than the average "adventurous" rock record (and wildly more eclectic than just "rock"), but rewarding, especially if you have any background in classical.

it’s not as good as it used to be”. — javra

But then, what is?

Amir ElSaffar seems like a good start. — Πετροκότσυφας

Go for it. I'm not even familiar with him, from what I can recall, which speaks to the sheer breadth of their output as a label. I had the good fortune of participating in a composers master class with the label over the past 4 months. Enlightening.

I have before, yeah. My stuff isn't as experimental as the average New Am artist, but if you like Porcupine Tree, you'll probably be ok. I don't want to derail the thread, but I'll leave a link here, and the mods can delete if it's not appropriate. This record came out in 2015:

https://matthewanderson.bandcamp.com/album/lunar-tide

That bandcamp link defaults to track 2 because it's the most approachable track, but start at track 1 if you want, since you're not looking for the catchiest hook.

I've been working on a new record for the past 2 and 1/2 years, and I'm pretty much at my wits end, but it will be out soon. It's 100 times better and more mature. Anyway. (Don't ask an artist about his art, he won't shut up).

As I mentioned previously, it’s a matter of taste. To entertain the comparison you’ve chosen— comparing an apple with an orange in terms of content—the allegorical, metaphorical, and metaphysical allusions made in the lyrics of Running Up that Hill to me far surpass the lyrical appeal of Dare You to Move. Why and how and who cares are not things that can be decided via logical analysis.

Same with the painting world. Some will deride those who claim that painting quality has gone down the drain in terms of what is the modern standard. Yet to someone like myself, a Rembrandt far outweighs the quality—both of structure and of content—of a Warhol.

It’s not about the new which does away with the old. It’s about what is expressed, the quality with which it is expressed, and the tastes of the audience which is exposed to the former.

Now, I acknowledge my bias in what I uphold. But, then, for others to not acknowledge their own is more than a bit dishonest—else, they’re stipulating that their own aesthetic tastes are to be deemed the metric standard by which all else is measured.

So, I’ll be true to myself and uphold that which I initially stated … not as an objective reality but, again, as one more person’s preference.

the allegorical, metaphorical, and metaphysical allusions made in the lyrics of Running Up that Hill to me far surpass the lyrical appeal of Dare You to Move. Why and how and who cares are not things that can be decided via logical analysis. — javra

That's fair, but why argue about it, then? Why make a statement at all? You're essentially stating your bias (as we all do), but then saying that we're all just biased. It seems like a cop-out to me; either own up and make a claim about one era being superior to the other (and then defend the claim), or stop complaining and just accept the evolution of music.

Yet to someone like myself, a Rembrandt far outweighs the quality—both of structure and of content—of a Warhol. — javra

Rembrandt and Warhol express fundamentally different things on an epistemological level. That's important in understanding how to interface with art in general, outside of our own personal aesthetic tastes. In other words, you begin with your bias towards Rembrandt, and then compare Warhol to Rembrandt. Of course Rembrandt is better in that context!

It’s not about the new which does away with the old. It’s about what is expressed, the quality with which it is expressed, and the tastes of the audience which is exposed to the former. — javra

Yes, it is about those things, but again, we need to understand the context in which those concepts are obtaining. To say that it's about "what is expressed" suggests an objective standard by which expression is judged, and thus art would be judged as well by that standard. But by assuming that standard and not expressing it and defending it, your assertions hold no weight.

You're essentially stating your bias (as we all do), but then saying that we're all just biased. — Noble Dust

And somehow, this isn't true?

either own up and make a claim about one era being superior to the other (and then defend the claim), or stop complaining and just accept the evolution of music. — Noble Dust

Sorry, but you lost me here. T-Bone Walker is neither superior nor inferior to Sting. Neither were the eras. To me that is.

As to the second portion of this quote, I to me have not complained, but only frankly stated one more person's subjective truth.

But by assuming that standard and not expressing it and defending it, your assertions hold no weight. — Noble Dust

I'll then let the those who know the objective truth of the aesthetic matter determine what is superior.

Not my style of argument.

T-Bone Walker is neither superior nor inferior to Sting. Neither were the eras. To me that is. — javra

Cool. (Y) Sorry if I mis-interpreted you.

I to me have not complained, but only frankly stated one more person's subjective truth. — javra

Fair enough, again. I think I was just looking for some more substance behind that subjective opinion.

I'll then let the those who know the objective truth of the aesthetic matter determine what is superior. — javra

Obviously you don't mean this, but, obviously, I didn't mean it, either. I was suggesting that you were assuming an objective standard by saying "It's about what is expressed".

To be honest, I don't know exactly what I mean by "breaking new ground". — Bitter Crank

I was alluding to the difference between breaking new ground in terms of form (the paradigm of 20th Century art) and in terms of content. I can use traditional forms, for example, but find new subtleties and nuances of feeling, evocation and allusion. The forms certainly seem to be limited, but content would seem to be potentially infinite in its scope for novelty.

This "oh, rock's dead, today's music's shit" is really uninteresting. From the surface to the depths, there are good songs being made. And I say good because originality alone isn't sufficient. There are lots of original stuff that suck. But eitherway, original music is born every day on popular genres. That's not even worth the time to discuss much in depth. What's more interesting to discuss is the change in the structure of the music business and how that change has affected both the artists and the listeners of specific genres. In my view, the whole thing has become more decentrilised, so, at least in terms of distribution and availability, it takes more effort from the listener to reach stuff that pre-broadband internet and pre-new recording technology could be reached either through multinational conglomerates or through a number of indie labels. Strangely, this is because more music than ever is readily available to simple folks. — Πετροκότσυφας

(Y)

And I suspect that many people who complain about "music these days" just don't know where to find it now, especially people who grew up in the seventies or eighties (or before), who compare their cherished LPs with what they hear on today's mainstream radio. It might also be psychologically preferable to think that music is worse than to face the possibility that one is stuck in the past, out of touch, boring, and so on.

On the other hand I think there is some reason to mourn the days when music was centralized, and hundreds would queue up outside the main record shop in town to get the latest album by whoever.

Even if its not self consciously understood as progressive by its fans, an art form can stagnate. Take popular music. Think about the past 50 years, from 1968 to the threshold of 2018. How radical a transformation in mindset has taken place since Iggy Pop, Joni Mitchell, Jimi Hendrix and the Velvet Underground? Certainly there have been many new permutations of musical style since then, but someone who grew up enjoying the music of these 60's artists could conceivably also identify with current trends. But compare this period to the 50 years from 1918 to 1968. It's hard to imagine someone growing up at the dawn of the jazz age being able to relate to psychedelic rock.

Modern artists are basically milked for everything they have by record labels, they're told what sort of music to create which means the creative process is damaged, false and sacrificed for churning out boring songs that appeal to simple minds.

However, there are still cases of artists becoming mainstream through their own record label and becoming hugely popular. Then a record label comes along and offers them millions for a 5 year deal and the same happens to them...

Dude, if what one is interested in is a discussion that mutually attempts to better understand the subjective truths of others, where I come from tonality matters … strange as this might seem. A shoot first ask questions later approach doesn’t suit me well. Yes, to each their own methods; just saying, though …

As allegory, I’ll address paintings since it might be less personal. The aesthetic value to works of Rembrandt and Warhol can either be judged—I’ll use the harsher word for “appraised” since it is a judgment after all—based on a) personal truths of aesthetic preferences or b) an objective standard of aesthetic value which one as a subjective being is in possession of. If you know of an alternative to (a) and (b) let me know.

I have in no way claimed that Warhol is devoid of value, to me. To me, his artwork is often repetitive in structure, his painting and illustrative technique is quite simple and at times juvenile, and the concepts and social critiques he makes—though I too like them—do not stand up the concepts and social critiques of Rembrandt. Now that the novelty of each has passed, you’re typical schooled artist will far more easily duplicate Warhol’s methods (though not his genius in the context of his own time) than those of Rembrandt, whose degree of subtlety is immense. I appreciate the layers of meaning that can often be found in Rembrandt far more than in the one-size-fits-all in your face approach of Warhol. This, then, is a reflection—for better or worse—of my own tastes, i.e. is one person’s summed up explanation of his own personal truths as regards one’s own aesthetic preferences.

Another might likewise cordially explain why they find Warhol more appealing than Rembrandt. Maybe on account of being more minimalist, more serene in expressions, while all the while being more frank. I, then, upon then better understanding this alternative aesthetic, might then further develop my own, maybe to the point that I then will indeed favor Warhol over Rembrandt on a personal level of who I’d most likely first buy an art book of, or who’s works I’d first place in my house most prominently where I to have the money.

Still, all this would yet be (a) interacting with (a), and at no point in time would it be due to (b).

To claim a bird’s eye view of aesthetic truth is, from where I currently stand, to be a participant in the emperor’s new clothes phenomena. “Why yes, they are beautiful … well, maybe not to me personally now but to all those others out there who exalt in this view from nowhere regarding aesthetic truths and who I naturally then agree with; its they who are the experts, after all; you can tell by how much money they’re making.” Something along these lines.

To me aesthetics is power relative to the psyche(s) which hold the experience of it. If it does not grab you without letting go—while dragging you toward realms of reality both intimately familiar and yet estranged from you--it holds no power to you and is not to you an aesthetic. Of course it may not to you while it may indeed do so to others. Aesthetics are in the eyes (or ears, etc.) of the beholder. And, in so being, they will always pertain to (a); not to (b)—again, this as I currently interpret things.

Same, then, with music. And my own subjective truths so far remain the same as they were when first here expressed—idiosyncratic as they might, or might not, be. Yet I now see I need to emphasize this: again, I hold this perspective not in terms of all music, but in terms of the overall music making its way into common culture. Such a thing still exists, I at least hope. And I of course do not deny occasional exceptions standing out as great music. In terms of new bands within common culture, X Ambassodors come to mind with their hit single Renegades. But again, it’s an issue of individual tastes.

I was suggesting that you were assuming an objective standard by saying "It's about what is expressed". — Noble Dust

To me art is minimally differentiated from non-art precisely due to the intention of expression and its then manifested results. If I find a brick placed on a brick wall and it was maybe forgotten there by someone, it then is not art. If, on the other hand, the same brick on the same wall in the same position resulted from some psyche’s intention to express anything whatsoever either to others or this their own person, then it is art. Maybe not the best to most, but it then is an instance of art all the same.

So yes, I do claim this aspect of something expressed to be a universal in relation to what art minimally is. Hence, were someone to claim that a certain landscape is art, this—as I currently interpret it—can only make sense were the person in question to interpret the landscape to have been in some way created by some being with intention to express some either emotive or cognitive meaning. Can you find something wrong with this?

If not, then I argue that what is expressed then matters relative to who it is expressed to.

For my part, I'm in agreement.

a) personal truths of aesthetic preferences or b) an objective standard of aesthetic value which one as a subjective being is in possession of. If you know of an alternative to (a) and (b) let me know. — javra

I don't equate personal "truths" with aesthetic preferences, because I don't use the term "personal truth"; I'm not sure what it means. Personal experience, for instance, is not synonymous with personal "truth".

I do know of another alternative: c) an objective standard of aesthetic value that exists, but which no one subjective being is in possession of.

Or, better:

c) An objective aesthetic reality which no subjective individual has fully experienced, but which is the basis of each subjective individual's aesthetic experiences, even experiences that result in conflicting aesthetic opinions.

I don't equate personal "truths" with aesthetic preferences, because I don't use the term "personal truth"; I'm not sure what it means. Personal experience, for instance, is not synonymous with personal "truth". — Noble Dust

A personal truth simply means a personal non-falsity, or non-self-deception. That a person dreamt of trees would be the person’s personal truth, were this dream-experience to have been real. That the trees actually signify what the person dreamed them to signify, for example, might or might not be a self-deception.

Aesthetics—unlike things such as hallucinations—are always truths that strictly apply to the being in question. One cannot, for example, hallucinate an experienced aesthetic.

Hence the different between personal experiences and personal truths as a significant subset of the former.

Do you have a better way for making this distinction?

I do know of another alternative: c) an objective standard of aesthetic value that exists, but which no one subjective being is in possession of.

Or, better:

c) An objective aesthetic reality which no subjective individual has fully experienced, but which is the basis of each subjective individual's aesthetic experiences, even experiences that result in conflicting aesthetic opinions. — Noble Dust

This is an issue of metaphysical inquiry into whether there is something along the lines of a Platonic Form for the aesthetic. I believe there is. All the same, in what way does either alternative you’ve expressed serve as a means of appraising that which is aesthetic?

This is an issue of metaphysical inquiry into whether there is something along the lines of a Platonic Form for the aesthetic. I believe there is. All the same, in what way does either alternative you’ve expressed serve as a means of appraising that which is aesthetic? — javra

Your kind of strawmanning a little bit here; your original offerings of a) and b) were set up to make a) the only reasonable choice, which is why I suggested c). But, if c) is true, then it works as a means of appraising the aesthetic by measuring a given work against the objective aesthetic reality, to the best of one's subjective, incomplete ability. This is in opposition to just measuring somethings aesthetic value purely on subjective taste, without regard for the taste of others, or whether some have better or worse taste.

This is in opposition to just measuring somethings aesthetic value purely on subjective taste, without regard for the taste of others, or whether some have better or worse taste. — Noble Dust

There are some terms that don’t chime true to me within the context so far addressed: “measure” and “better and worse taste [...objectively(?)]”.

The first, measure, to me doesn’t fit because aesthetics are not something measurable. One can make a numeric scale, such as from 1 to 10, but even so there is no mathematically precise way of gaging aesthetic quality or intensity ... save by comparison of qualia to the extent this is at all possible.

The second, better and worse taste, is to me about as ambiguous as it gets. Refinement by the self-declared elite will be deemed better taste than what is the common and, hence, vulgar tastes of the masses. An individual with commonsense-like tastes will deem the overly abstract tastes of the self-professed elite to be pompous buffoonery that, maybe, has lost touch with reality. Now, me personally, I’ll find better tastes as well as worse tastes in both the more refined and in the more vulgar—this to not confuse a generalized observation with a personal inclination. But, being that it’s an issue of value, the question will always remain: better or worse to whom and for what personal reasons?

That aside, where you find a strawman in my stance I find a perspective which does not work in yours (imo … but I’ll refrain from adding this “imo” to every statement I’ll make, though they will so be—which to me signifies that I’m still learning things and could well be wrong in what I currently uphold).

This objective aesthetic would either be objective in the sense of a rock, as a physical and measurable object, being objective or, else, objective in the sense of being 100% impartial, as in (partial) objectivity in what one judges to factually be.

I for now greatly presume we both agree that it would be more along the lines of the second form of objectivity. Correct me if needed. Nevertheless, I strongly disagree with the first application of the term within this context of aesthetics.

Then objective aesthetics would be something which holds for all particular cases of experienced, subjective aesthetics … these always being individualistic and, where commonality is found, common to some given cohort.

The objective aesthetic, though, would itself not consist of any particular phenomena which would apply to individual cases of experienced aesthetic. Otherwise, it would not be a universal property common to literally all instances of this experience of the aesthetic.

Suffice it to say that, from the vantage I’ve tried to present, while one can hold an understanding for others’ aesthetics, the value of the experienced aesthetic will nevertheless always be accordant with the statement that “aesthetics is in the eyes of the beholder”. It’s not this or that object that is the objective aesthetic. Its more like this: it’s what all individuals experience—a calling toward (akin to a telos) which attracts in a specific way relative to where the individual presently is mentally—that serves as the myriad different facets of the same, objective aesthetic.

While I’d be glad if this at least makes some sense even if not fully agreed with, no problems if it doesn’t. I don’t now currently know how to express myself better.

At any rate, I don’t find myself to be presenting a strawman so far.

I like Steve Wilson's music, and him in Porcupine Tree.

The layering of sounds in Steve Reich's music is fantastic.

I am also getting a similar layering effect in hip-hop where sounds are recorded over other music, in either a collage or a montage sampling effect (although seems like mostly montage, collage is apparently larger, less determined category).

Kinda reminds me of collage & montage in art works of Picasso (as collage) and Matisse (as montage)

Reich seems far more cerebral than Puff Daddy, but Reich's emotional content don't give me those body rushes.

I am optimistic about the future of music especially with augmented and virtual realty on the horizon.

The first, measure, to me doesn’t fit because aesthetics are not something measurable. One can make a numeric scale, such as from 1 to 10, but even so there is no mathematically precise way of gaging aesthetic quality or intensity ... save by comparison of qualia to the extent this is at all possible. — javra

Aesthetics are not measurable in a mathematical sense, no, and I didn't mean that when I used the word. But if aesthetics is not figuratively measurable, i.e. it isn't qualifiable, then it seems pointless to me, and trying to talk about it also seems pointless.

Refinement by the self-declared elite will be deemed better taste than what is the common and, hence, vulgar tastes of the masses. An individual with commonsense-like tastes will deem the overly abstract tastes of the self-professed elite to be pompous buffoonery that, maybe, has lost touch with reality. Now, me personally, I’ll find better tastes as well as worse tastes in both the more refined and in the more vulgar — javra

I agree.

But, being that it’s an issue of value, the question will always remain: better or worse to whom and for what personal reasons? — javra

Better or worse when imperfectly, subjectively, measured against the objective aesthetic reality.

This objective aesthetic would either be objective in the sense of a rock, as a physical and measurable object, being objective or, else, objective in the sense of being 100% impartial, as in (partial) objectivity in what one judges to factually be. — javra

No, I think an objective aesthetic would be a higher form of reality which great art is capable of glimpsing. Unfortunately, only the subjective experience of great art can indicate this possibility. But assuming that subjectivity is the only arbiter of aesthetic truth is to begin with subjective experience (which is right) but to also end there, rather then then moving on to an abstract analysis in order to ascertain the possibility of an objective aesthetic. The other indicator of an objective aesthetic, and I think this is important, is the subjective aesthetic experience itself.

The objective aesthetic, though, would itself not consist of any particular phenomena which would apply to individual cases of experienced aesthetic. Otherwise, it would not be a universal property common to literally all instances of this experience of the aesthetic. — javra

If by particular phenomena you mean a certain quality like "4/4 rock beat", "abstract painting style", etc., then yes, of course.

the value of the experienced aesthetic will nevertheless always be accordant with the statement that “aesthetics is in the eyes of the beholder”. — javra

But how can it be if an objective aesthetic exists?

Aesthetics can't be separated from other philosophical problems, and this is what I see far too much on this forum with regards to aesthetics. Aesthetics is not just some nice experience of a beautiful painting or piece of music. If you or anyone else considers aesthetics to be of philosophical value, you need to figure out how aesthetics integrates into the larger whole of philosophical issues like truth, goodness, ethics, etc. In other words, we're all fond of the notion that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", but if this is epistemologically true, then, necessarily, "truth is also in the eye of the beholder", as is goodness, and any and every sense of any objective anything. I'm tired of aesthetic discussions that devolve into "what's beautiful for me isn't beautiful for you". Oh? Maybe our aesthetic sense has been seduced by it's very nature; but aesthetics won't avail itself of just simple pleasure; aesthetics are inseparable from truth, from goodness, from reality. Aesthetics doesn't care about how you feel about it.

I’ll be taking a break for now. Still—without here presenting what I already agree with and what I find issue with—I’m thinking it might be beneficial to first try to present a definition of this very abstract term, “aesthetics”. Yes, I know it’s something that has been addressed for over two millennia without yet being definitively defined. But having a general idea of what aesthetics is supposed to be to those who’d partake of this discussion would nevertheless be helpful.

As to me, I’ve already said a little of it in my previous posts. If needed, I’ll better express what I interpret as the referent to this word in a later post.

"Hexagram 1, nine in the third place means:
All day long the superior man is creatively active.
At nightfall his mind is still beset with cares.
Danger. No blame.

A sphere of influence opens up for the great man. His fame begins to spread. The masses flock to him. His inner power is adequate to the increased outer activity. There are all sorts of things to be done, and when others are at rest in the evening, plans and anxieties press in upon him. But danger lurks here at the place of transition from lowliness to the heights. Many a great man has been ruined because the masses flocked to him and swept him into their course. Ambition has destroyed his integrity. However, true greatness is not impaired by temptations. He who remains in touch with the time that is dawning, and with its demands is prudent enough to avoid all pitfalls, and remains blameless."
-"I Ching", Wilhelm translation.

Sorry for delayed response, I just saw this.

For sure there are more or less radical transformations of style and content (if not form and harmony), from the blues and rock and roll of the late fifties and early sixties to the rock music of the late sixties and early seventies. It reflected a powerful cultural paradigm shift; the beginning of a much more widespread popularization of an underground or alternative culture. To some extent this happened again in the nineties with the so-called 'indy' and 'alternative' music styles. Rock music, harmonically speaking, has not been all that diverse (compared to say, Jazz or even Classical music) but there is as great a diversity of 'feel' or content around today as ever before, I would say.

I don't know what the fuss is about. I lived through the 80s.

Idon't know what the fuss is about. I lived through the 80s. — Benkei

And you Didn't Stop Belivin, that Jenny at 867-5309 would be your Angel is a Centerfold, if you could just Put Another Dime in the Juke Box Baby, you might just believe in the Grand Illusion. 8-)