Why Is Music So Bad Now?

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.

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

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

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 recommend you get help.

Okay first, chill out. And please, stop with the "stupid" and "narcissistic" stuff, it's childish.

Addressing your points, no I'm not a mind reader, I'm a music student and a composer. The idea that most musicians prefer music from before the 1920s I got not from my own beliefs but from observing other people, performers, my friends, composers. Famous people and students alike.

Plenty of people like music I don't. Plenty of people like Barber.

I'm not claiming to be some "almighty arbiter" and yes, Barber's (or any other compopser I dislike) music has value because other people like it.

I'm not sure what say about your last paragraph, but that's pretty messed up. It seems you're doing just what you're accusing me of. I've already acknowledged several times that all this is my opinion and that I know people like modern music. It seems your views are threatened so you launch personal insults at me. If you read my post before this I said, "Well, I think it's worth noting that music is pretty much completely subjective." What do you want? Me to agree with you? If I don't agree with you I'm narcissistic and have a personality disorder? Are you the arbiter of psychology?

Why are you all feeding this fire? Kefienzel clearly doesn't know what he (assuming a guy just because) is talking about... unless, let's turn this on him: can you cite other examples (OTHER THAN CAGE) of music you don't like from recent years? Tell us a little about your feelings towards Adams, Daugherty, Saariaho, Reich, Carter, Andriessen, Takemitsu... These are "contemporary" composers that you should check out if you don't know their works. There is a wide range of aesthetic here; I'm not trying to show you just one example of "recent" music. Please stop making such wide-ranging assumptions when you have likely listened to one CD of Cage's music and decided you dislike a "majority" of recent music. Also, take time to educate yourself and open your listening experience before posting topics like this. No one is saying you have to like new(er) music, but you do have to give it an educated and fair look. You also need to be able to back up your claims with solid citations and examples, otherwise no one will take you seriously.

I've already acknowledged several times that all this is my opinion and that I know people like modern music.

Kindly rename the thread to "Why do I prefer older music?"

You'll get more straightforward replies, like: "That's just your personal preference, I guess. Each to his own."

Do not make an objective statement about the quality of music and then claim a decadent musical world based on your personal distaste for something.

Why are you all feeding this fire? Kefienzel clearly doesn't know what he (assuming a guy just because) is talking about... unless, let's turn this on him: can you cite other examples (OTHER THAN CAGE) of music you don't like from recent years? Tell us a little about your feelings towards Adams, Daugherty, Saariaho, Reich, Carter, Andriessen, Takemitsu... These are "contemporary" composers that you should check out if you don't know their works. There is a wide range of aesthetic here; I'm not trying to show you just one example of "recent" music. Please stop making such wide-ranging assumptions when you have likely listened to one CD of Cage's music and decided you dislike a "majority" of recent music. Also, take time to educate yourself and open your listening experience before posting topics like this. No one is saying you have to like new(er) music, but you do have to give it an educated and fair look. You also need to be able to back up your claims with solid citations and examples, otherwise no one will take you seriously.

I came here expected a mature conversation, instead I got blasted with personal insults because of my opinions, which I stated repeatedly were nothing more than opinions. As I've said before, I cited Cage repeatedly(I've mentioned other composers I believe) because he represents what I'm trying to communicate. I've heard of those composers, but because you disagree with my opinions you just *assume* I've only "listened to one CD of Cage's music and decided you dislike a 'majority' of recent music." That isn't true.

You also assume I haven't "opened my listening experience", whatever you imply by that. Do you have proof of any of this? No, you only disagree with me. You assume just because I don't like new music, I know nothing about it. How can you say that? You want cited examples of what? The bars in a Messiaen piece I can't stand?

It comes down to what I said in a few posts back: "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?"

You obviously haven't heard the really good modern music.

I'll take Ives over Beethoven any day.

Cage is rubbish.

Okay, well, I like Ives a lot, but I'd still take Beethoven over him. But I agree with you, he puts Cage to shame.

Kindly rename the thread to "Why do I prefer older music?"

You'll get more straightforward replies, like: "That's just your personal preference, I guess. Each to his own."

Do not make an objective statement about the quality of music and then claim a decadent musical world based on your personal distaste for something.

I guess what I'm getting at is why is new classical music so unpopular? I'm arguing that if you have to assign fault to anyone, it's the composers not the audience.

And there are the fine achievements of Lutoslawski, Messiaen, Penderecki, Glass and Part - with enough quality to withstand the test of time.

I have done a lot of studying on Lutoslawski and Penderecki in the past three months. I can't say I'm a fan of either although a minute few of Lutoslawsk's works I enjoy.

I have had two teaches that are in love with serialism and post-serialism...to the point of goose bumps. They even have a festival of four days of that type of music. I don't think that style of music, which the author of this thread is probably pertaining to, will ever catch the public's eye. If a symphony orchestra will have a week's concert of post-serialism, the auditorium would be lose to empty (this has been said by many of conductors, you don't need my word on that.) However, there are some, esp in academia, that love it. Does it matter? Who knows...

Modern music is unpopular because most people are plain stupid.

I'm trying argue that's not true, it's not popular beacuse for most people it's not effective. I believe that is the composers fault, not the listeners.

Justin Bieber is currently more popular, well-known, and listened to than any of your favorite composers. It is clearly Bach's fault for writing lousy music.

Justin Bieber is currently more popular, well-known, and listened to than any of your favorite composers. It is clearly Bach's fault for writing lousy music.

eh, I don't know about that, but disregarding that, earlier I said "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."

Bach is well regarded as one of the best composers ever, and his counterpoint is very complex. But I guess 10 years later I'm too dumb to handle modern music?

We get it, you don't like modern music. Rename the thread please, or admit to your solipsism.

I'm trying argue that's not true, it's not popular beacuse for most people it's not effective. I believe that is the composers fault, not the listeners.

Life is more simple when we blame others isn't it ? it's not about how "popular" something is, that means nothing, we can decide ourselves if we like something or not without asking the masses.

Being hard to understand is the point. If you want simple you have Bieber. He's doing everything Bach ever did.

...lol, okay, are you guys trolling me?

i don't know what to think anymore

Brilliant rebuttal to all of our points.

Life is more simple when we blame others isn't it ? it's not about how "popular" something is, that means nothing, we can decide ourselves if we like something or not without asking the masses.

Yeah that's true, I'm just saying look at the big picture. A lot of composers do just that, they blame others for not liking their music and say they just don't understand.

We get it, you don't like modern music. Rename the thread please, or admit to your solipsism.

How about "Why is modern music so unpopular?"

"Why is modern music so unpopular?"

It's not.

/thread

I loled at this:

Why?

Well, relative to other genres, I think modern music is less popular, although the reason is not because of a lack of quality. Using popularity to gauge quality is ludicrous.

Also lol ravel.

I always resort to name dropping Ravel when being in the company of 'learned' folks :P

Oh you just edited this in. I really have to walk stuff through with you don't I. Ravel is popular, but he isn't debussy or rach. He's just a little more on the back burner, like Scriabin. So if a person said "Oh, my favorite composers are Ravel, Arvo Part, and Xenakis" the point isn't that Ravel IS there, it's that a big name isn't. I think people often do this to sound learned, and they're really just being pretentious. I can't stand it. But I'm sure there are people who really do love those three the most and I respect them for that. I just get the hunch a lot of people are pretentious when it comes to this sort of stuff.

Well, relative to other genres, I think modern music is less popular, although the reason is not because of a lack of quality. Using popularity to gauge quality is ludicrous.

Also lol ravel.

I think using popularity to gauge how effective music is isn't necessarily ridiculous if the composer is well known but his works are still unpopular. And by unpopular I mean relatively unpopular amongst professionals or trained musicians. The burden I think is on the composer to communicate to the audience, not the other way around.

Oh yeah Ravel. Real obscure. No one really knows about that guy.

did you just read what I said? are you trolling me? I'm beginning to think you are

If you aren't, I said "Ravel is popular, but he isn't debussy or rach. He's just a little more on the back burner, like Scriabin"

I didn't read what you said. I just got lucky in coming up with a highly relevant response.

What? Your response wasn't applicable at all. I don't know what to say now, you're not really adding anything to the conversation or rebutting my original points, so I'll just stop here with you.

I know right. Hey you guys want to go out and get something to eat? It's on me.

Like Ian said: no one really cares about what you have to say. You don't know what you're talking about, really.

Not trying to be harsh. Just presenting....a realistic overview of what has come of this thread.

Okay, if that's true, which it isn't, why hasn't anyone taken the time to rebut me, which must be so easy because I have no idea what I'm talking about? I'm 22 years old, I'm a composition major and I've been composing since I was 12. Lately I've been trying to get more into modern music, indeed forcing myself, to no avail.

If I have no idea what I'm talking about, PROVE ME WRONG.

On what accord am I supposed to prove you wrong? Every time I ask you a question, you go "ohhhh uh I was just saying my opinion I'm not gonna answer".

I said all this was my opinion from the outset, so don't make it seem like I'm resorting to that. It's you whose getting pissed off here for no good reason.

On the 4th page I answered your question about good and bad music. After I responded to you, you didn't really respond back or say anything constructive. I'm left with thinking you have no good response. There's been maybe 2 people on this entire thread who have been mature and tried to respond to my points. Why you can't do the same, I don't know. But I'm left with the last actual word here while you just sling insults around and don't really tackle what I'm saying.