Why Is Music So Bad Now?

Obviously this is my opinion, and I'm sure this has been brought up before, but I need to know. Why is classical music so bad now? There's this kind of horrible post-tonal music around that is just completely awful. It's honestly making me lose hope in composing.

I'm going to go even further and say most COMPOSERS, not just musicians, like classical music from before 1920 MUCH more than music since. I think they just don't want to seem musically stupid, and when they compose this new music, it's very hard for others to poke holes in it. They like this. Say a student composer writes something in the vein of a 19th century composer but with more progressive harmony and their own personal flair. People could potentially shoot holes in this. But by writing this current intellectual garbage, no one can shoot their music down. It can almost always be defended in some way.

I'd wager nearly all (99%) musicians don't want to hear Cage (for example) over Beethoven and they never will. This is the composers fault - it isn't the audience's or the performer's. People like music the most when it is fundamentally about emotion. They don't like it when it's about going against the grain or appealing to some abstract plan or form. We as a community are actively trying to be open to this music and we still don't like it.

I'm losing hope though. What performers and musicians demanded of composers ~100 years ago was so much more human and so much more real than what is at work nowadays. Now composers write one big work a year, and maybe a song cycle or something, and it all sounds like complete crap. They are obsessed with being original. How original was Bach? Think about that question.

Also, look deep in yourself: do you really like music composed in the last 75 years more than say Beethoven or Chopin or Mahler or Bach?

I remember my first beer

Thanks for contributing.

I'm pretty sure he means that he didn't like beer when he first tried it, but now he can appreciate it after giving it a fair chance.

I'm pretty sure he means that he didn't like beer when he first tried it, but now he can appreciate it after giving it a fair chance.

I mean, then he's assuming that just because I don't like it I haven't given it a fair chance.

What are some works composed in the last 75 years which represent your giving contemporary music a chance?

You haven't responded to my questions.

You said I was making an assumption. Prove me wrong :).

I don't have to prove you're making an assumption, I mean, you don't know who I am. I could be John Cage. :D

John Cage has been dead for like 20 years. Judging by how he is used in every single one of your examples, I think my assumption was not ill-founded.

I just used him because he's one of the most famous composers of the last 75 years and kind of represents the point I'm trying to make. I can see you're very eager to think that I'm ignorant of recent music though.

What choice do I have? I mean, have you even been reading the things you have been saying?

yes

I can see you're very eager to think that I'm ignorant of recent music though.

Phil, you're starting to look too predictable :w00t: .

Bach is rotten?

My friend, it is you who is not getting it :).

Yeah, I realized I had already replied to that, I didn't realize I was on the first page. But you're very condescending for a 21 year old.

grow up.

no u

no u

I like your style. Just kidding. But is anyone going to address my original post or do people not want to confront this or something.

Obviously this is my opinion, and I'm sure this has been brought up before, but I need to know. Why is classical music so bad now? There's this kind of horrible post-tonal music around that is just completely awful. It's honestly making me lose hope in composing.

Kbye don't be a composer

I'm going to go even further and say most COMPOSERS, not just musicians, like classical music from before 1920 MUCH more than music since.

didn't anyone ever teach you to speak for yourself plz

I think they just don't want to seem musically stupid, and when they compose this new music, it's very hard for others to poke holes in it. They like this. Say a student composer writes something in the vein of a 19th century composer but with more progressive harmony and their own personal flair. People could potentially shoot holes in this. But by writing this current intellectual garbage, no one can shoot their music down. It can almost always be defended in some way.

you're right no one has ever written a thorough analysis of 20th century music

I'd wager nearly all (99%) musicians don't want to hear Cage (for example) over Beethoven and they never will. This is the composers fault - it isn't the audience's or the performer's. People like music the most when it is fundamentally about emotion. They don't like it when it's about going against the grain or appealing to some abstract plan or form. We as a community are actively trying to be open to this music and we still don't like it.

again, didn't any1 evr teach u 2...

I'm losing hope though. What performers and musicians demanded of composers ~100 years ago was so much more human and so much more real than what is at work nowadays. Now composers write one big work a year, and maybe a song cycle or something, and it all sounds like complete crap. They are obsessed with being original. How original was Bach? Think about that question.

very

Also, look deep in yourself: do you really like music composed in the last 75 years more than say Beethoven or Chopin or Mahler or Bach?

i like Cage's piano music better than Beethoven's 6th, I like Bach's Mass better than Salvatore Sciarrino's Requiem, I like mostly everything that's ever been written better than Chopin's polonaises, depends on piece and not on composer thx

edit: Bussotti wrote the Rara Requiem, not Sciarrino. i get dem confus

In an attempt to steer this thread towards some sort of direction, let's get back at the main subject.

To make an attempt at answering your question, I need to ask you some of my own. What makes music 'good' and 'bad'?

Thanks but I'm kind of looking for a response from you. I stated at outset of my original post that all of that was my opinion.

So is this like a guessing game? Why do you have the opinion that you have?

I'd wager nearly all (99%) musicians don't want to hear Cage (for example) over Beethoven and they never will.

How MUCH do you want to bet on that statement? $$$

Opinion or not, I think your perspective may be a little bit skewed.

;)

Yeah, I'm sorry, I don't usually say this, it's very rare for me to, but you're stupid. Plainly and simply... stupid.

You are stupid to say that ALL music now is bad - there are so many different styles that established composers use, many of them tonal, that you're in essence saying all music is bad. That's ignorance.

You are stupid to say that most composers like music from before 1920. They don't, otherwise they wouldn't be interested in writing their own music. Among the music students here, some of the most well-liked and emulated composers are Shostakovich (around 1920), Berg (a little after), Xenakis (after), Schnittke, etc. You're stupid to take your mindset and extrapolate it to the whole group.

You are stupid to say that you can't shoot holes in atonal music. There is so much much much more to music than just harmony. I cannot believe you don't know, or consider that. That's the point of this age of exploration! There's so much MORE than harmony to exploit and explore.

You are stupid to say that 99% of musicians would rather hear Beethoven over Cage. Cage is just as "emotional" as Beethoven if not more. Musicians would rather hear great musicianship and thought being put into the work. It is stupid to say Beethoven put more thought into his work than Cage.There is no "abstract" form, just use your brain and you'll get it.

You should lose hope, because your stupidity is hindering you from understanding music.

You shouldn't generalize like that. If this is your opinion it's fine but speak only for yourself, you can't possibly know about 99% of composers :P

I've been positively vocal about music that I don't like at all. But I can understand and respect the fact that there are people who in fact do enjoy those styles I loathe (and even those who loathe my own). And despite I'd pick Tchaikovsky or Mahler any day of the week, not even me would dare to say that there has been nothing worthy composed in the last 75 years.

The last 75 years include the last works of Rachmaninov, Sibelius, Prokofiev and Richard Strauss, as well as the latter half of Stravinsky's and Copland's careers and the bulk of Shostakovich's and Barber's. No quality here? There's fantastic film music by Miklos Rosza, Jerry Goldsmith, John Williams, Ennio Morricone, Hans Zimmer and Howard Shore. And there are the fine achievements of Lutoslawski, Messiaen, Penderecki, Glass and Part - a few of them with enough quality to withstand the test of time, whether I like them or not.

Yeah, I'm sorry, I don't usually say this, it's very rare for me to, but you're stupid. Plainly and simply... stupid.

You are stupid to say that ALL music now is bad - there are so many different styles that established composers use, many of them tonal, that you're in essence saying all music is bad. That's ignorance.

You are stupid to say that most composers like music from before 1920. They don't, otherwise they wouldn't be interested in writing their own music. Among the music students here, some of the most well-liked and emulated composers are Shostakovich (around 1920), Berg (a little after), Xenakis (after), Schnittke, etc. You're stupid to take your mindset and extrapolate it to the whole group.

You are stupid to say that you can't shoot holes in atonal music. There is so much much much more to music than just harmony. I cannot believe you don't know, or consider that. That's the point of this age of exploration! There's so much MORE than harmony to exploit and explore.

You are stupid to say that 99% of musicians would rather hear Beethoven over Cage. Cage is just as "emotional" as Beethoven if not more. Musicians would rather hear great musicianship and thought being put into the work. It is stupid to say Beethoven put more thought into his work than Cage.There is no "abstract" form, just use your brain and you'll get it.

You should lose hope, because your stupidity is hindering you from understanding music.

I take offense to this. Don't throw around the word "stupid" when "ignorance" works better. However I appreciate your criticism.

I never meant to say ALL new music is bad, I was just making a broad generalization that compared to music previously, the last 75 years (or even better, the last 50 years) had little to offer.

Also I never said "atonal".

With composers, I guess the point I was trying to make was that deep down they prefer music from before ~1920sh to music after. Yes, there is more than harmony in music, I recognize that. I don't like the majority of classical music after around 1920-30 and I like composing. Shostakovich I definitely respect.

I think many musicians are pretentious and are afraid of being seen as stupid or unlearned so they'll go "Oh, my favorite composers are Ravel, Arvo Part, and Xenakis" but in reality they go home and listen to Chopin. A LOT of people love Chopin which is pretty much my point.

And I guess I should say they make it HARD for people to shoot holes in their music because they can just claim the audience "doesn't get it" or "doesn't understand" or just generally come up with some bogus reason of why they think it works. Cage is just as emotional as Beethoven? I know both composers fairly well and I think you'll have a hard time convincing me of that.

You say "Just use your brain and you'll get it." This attitude is really the problem. I was about 13 when I started really loving Bach's WTC. I didn't have to somehow turn my brain on to enjoy it. I was imimediately swept away, just like I was with nearly every Beethoven sonata. And I think we can all agree this is some of the finest music composed. I shouldn't have to "use my brain", rather, the music should assault me and not let me go. I shouldn't be able to help but actively listen. That is good music, and it isn't Cage.

Saying I should lose hope of composing because I am stupid is just really cruel.

I've been positively vocal about music that I don't like at all. But I can understand and respect the fact that there are people who in fact do enjoy those styles I loathe (and even those who loathe my own). And despite I'd pick Tchaikovsky or Mahler any day of the week, not even me would dare to say that there has been nothing worthy composed in the last 75 years.

The last 75 years include the last works of Rachmaninov, Sibelius, Prokofiev and Richard Strauss, as well as the latter half of Stravinsky's and Copland's careers and the bulk of Shostakovich's and Barber's. No quality here? There's fantastic film music by Miklos Rosza, Jerry Goldsmith, John Williams, Ennio Morricone, Hans Zimmer and Howard Shore. And there are the fine achievements of Lutoslawski, Messiaen, Penderecki, Glass and Part - with enough quality to withstand the test of time.

Yes, I agree, I apologize if I made it seem like there has been NOTHING good in the last 75 years, there definitely has, I just think the previous several centuries have offered SO much more in my humble opinion.

In your opinion, what makes music 'good' or 'bad'?

In my opinion? Well, I think it's worth noting that music is pretty much completely subjective. However, my ideology was pretty much stated in my last lengthy post where I said, "I shouldn't have to 'use my brain', rather, the music should assault me and not let me go. I shouldn't be able to help but actively listen. That is good music..." There are some exceptions to this but for the most part this is my view.

But in the end what makes music good to someone is whether they like it or not. But putting this aside, when audiences nearly completely reject modern classical music (not film music) like they are now, and performers pretty much can't stand it, there's something wrong. A recent anecdote: Through youtube I found the pianist Lola Astanova. In one video I recall her saying how bad the state of music is now and how little she likes recent music. But she's a professional, she's very talented, she should be able to appreciate this music right? That's a misguided question. Instead she has on youtube a very popular cover of a RIHANNA song. And she loves Madonna. She's right, professional pianists want to play Rachmaninoff or Chopin, not Boulez. Audiences want to hear them and not Boulez, too.

Current composers tinker with schemes no one cares about, labor heavily over misguided plans to produde "12 Apologies for Contrabassoon and Electronic Harp" that almost no one, save the composer, will like at all. This is a travesty. After Stravinsky died, where has there been an insanely popular living composer, one who is a household name (at least in upper class households)? I can think of one composer who is a household name almost universally: John Williams. Do you see my point?

With composers, I guess the point I was trying to make was that deep down they prefer music from before ~1920sh to music after.

What are you, a mind reader? Yeah anybody who disagrees with your opinion deep down knows they're wrong. Like deep down in their hearts man, everybody likes music from before 1920.

I think many musicians are pretentious and are afraid of being seen as stupid or unlearned so they'll go "Oh, my favorite composers are Ravel, Arvo Part, and Xenakis" but in reality they go home and listen to Chopin. A LOT of people love Chopin which is pretty much my point.

People are actually lying when they say they like a composer you don't like, because how can somebody like something you don't?!

Cage is just as emotional as Beethoven? I know both composers fairly well and I think you'll have a hard time convincing me of that.

Because you are the almighty arbiter and the value of music depends on convincing you of it.

But in the end what makes music good to someone is whether they like it or not. But putting this aside, when audiences nearly completely reject modern classical music (not film music) like they are now, and performers pretty much can't stand it, there's something wrong. A recent anecdote: Through youtube I found the pianist Lola Astanova. In one video I recall her saying how bad the state of music is now and how little she likes recent music. But she's a professional, she's very talented, she should be able to appreciate this music right? That's a misguided question. Instead she has on youtube a very popular cover of a RIHANNA song. And she loves Madonna. She's right, professional pianists want to play Rachmaninoff or Chopin, not Boulez. Audiences want to hear them and not Boulez, too.

Cherry picking. I don't even know how you could have consciously typed that and clicked "post" without having the realization of your immense stupidity stop you, followed by you crying in a corner.

You have a narcissistic, borderline solipsistic, personality disorder. You confuse personal opinion with objective truths, and are incapable of acknowledging the slightest possibility of a differing opinion.

I would like to highlight this quote: "But in the end what makes music good to someone is whether they like it or not."

This single line exposes the staggering depth of your problem. As can be seen by the thread title, you think music is bad now. Yet, you claim that what makes music bad is people not liking it. What you really mean is that you don't like it. People who say otherwise "deep down" know they are wrong. They are being "pretentious" and are "afraid of being seen as unlearned." There cannot exist an opinion that diverges from your own. You don't like the music; it is therefore bad. You meticulously search and underline any event or anecdote supporting your view, while ignoring all signs to the contrary, dismissing them as lies.

Go get help.