I've been debating this with many people in college (Baylor and Alabama), and it seems to me that people don't actually understand that old music has shaped music today, for better or for worse. Before anyone bashes anyone's opinion in here, music IS subjective and people like different kinds of music. But from a musicianship standpoint, there are many differences, and I want to talk about it.

Okay, go back about 30-40 years to the day of Blues and Classic Rock. The styles of music were new and innovative, as they hadn't been done before. Blues was much more prominent in the late 40s and 50s, but was a huge stylistic influence on Rock and Metal in the early days. But the style isn't what really catches my ear, but rather the distinctive tones of the instruments, especially lead guitar. When I hear a Boston song, I can automatically tell who it is; I don't need to look it up. The same goes with Journey, Zep, Hendrix, ZZ Top, KISS, Clapton, Judas Priest, Sabbath, Iron Maiden, and the list drones on. You just knew who those bands were after you heard them and found out who the were. Plus, the songs were memorable for their riffs, solos, or lyrics in certain verses or choruses. The singers didn't all sound the same either. They sounded similar, but there was a distinction between them. But we must remember, not every band that tried to make it was successful. The best bands (for the most part) were signed to major labels and put on radio and had huge success.

However, fast forward to now, and you see MILLIONS of bands getting signed to independent labels, indie labels, and major labels, and so on and so forth. However, popular music has become a factory of regurgitated sh*t. Take for instance Fall Out Boy, Panic! at the Disco, Plain White Tees, and a few other indie bands. I can't tell which is which half the time unless I already knew the song. A lot of bands are beginning to follow a formula, usually at the whim of a record company, but a lot of times, the musicians just aren't that talented. A lot of good bands I hear these days are generally "underground" type stuff or on independent labels. But the rise of technology has also made musicians lazier or maybe, they can just mask the fact that they can't sound that great period.

Pro Tools is a program that allows recording, masking, and overdubs that can allow many more parts to be played at once (could be done in the past, but was harder due to recording on tape). But Pro Tools also has many features which can change your sound and get the amp tone you want, the distortion, the effects, everything. The vocalists can even clear up their voice or make it sound better than it might actually be. Pro Tools is useful, but many people just use it to enhance their sound (which, I guess is okay on a studio album, but doesn't show much effort and time). Once they play live, they don't have that equipment and often sound like sh*t.

Although, I must say that there are modern bands that are still pushing limits and trying to be innovative and not completely go with minimalism. While they are my favorite band (though I don't think they're the best by any stretch), Avenged Sevenfold is one of the greater bands of today simply because they always try something new with each album they make, and they always try to get better, which should be the goal of any band. Music has evolved over time, but not at a rate in which I would like to see. It is also harder to be more original, but it takes exploration and the love of music itself to actually want to push your bounds and make something new. Everyone just wants to get on a label (which I can understand), but if you're not trying to create something different, then why bother? I do like some modern bands, but it's very limited. I listen to metal and hard rock and classic rock the most mainly because it just sounds the best to me and has innovation and is fun to listen to. I do have a taste for other genres though like funk, country, rap, reggae, jazz, and such.

Anyway, I don't listen to a huge selection of rap, so I'll leave that to someone who knows about a lot of it to post about old rap vs. new rap.

I don't know much about contemporary rock/pop, etc. but I get the idea of what you mean about the difference between say classic rock and modern indie labels. You seem to recognize that there were probably a lot of bands back in the day that were not very talented nor very original but they didn't get as much exposure as those who are able to now because of technology.

I myself don't know what 'should' be the goal of any band, but I do know that I love music enough to never box it into something INCLUDING the idea that music should necessarily push into something new. So much of great music is immitative (as well as original). There is a place for all of it with respect to music itself.

There always has been and there always will be.

Old-school rap is the shiz. The songs were powerful messages to bumpin' melodies and rhythms or could be just fun stuff.

Grandmaster Flash - The Message
(Don't push me, cuz I'm close to the edge....)

KRS-One - Love's Gonna Get Ya
(A story about how easy it is to get seduced by the streets and the seriousness of the repercussions.

Sugarhill Gang - Rapper's Delight
The original rap song. It's a fun song.

Run D.M.C. - Tricky and Walk This Way (collab. with Aerosmith)
Where the hell are songs like this? Is it too uncool to mix it up with rock stars anymore?

Public Enemy - Fight the Power
One of the best rap songs ever, this song encourages you to....challenge the status quo.

Tone Loc - Wild Thang and Funky Cold Medina
You can't tell me you don't love these crazy fun songs.

Beastie Boys - Fight for your right
...to parrrrrrty!

Even early gangsta rap was fantastic. It simply used serious and abrasive language, but it was social commentary and anger at what was happening in their areas.

Mobb Deep - Shook Ones Pt. II
There's no such things as halfway crooks.

Wu Tang Clan - C.R.E.A.M.
Cash rules everything around me. Doesn't that say so much about their mindset?

N.W.A. - Straight Outta Compton, Fluck the Police, Express Yourself
Straight out the cut, NWA was hitting the scene hard and direct! With mix maestro Dr. Dre on beats, it was a lock.

Ice Cube - You Can't Fade Me, It Was A Good Day
Listen to the tight-ass beats on these, along with what he's saying. He's talking about something (lying women and a fantasy about how a good day would be in the hood).

Dr. Dre - Nothin' But a G Thang
You know when you've got Dr. Dre on your sh*t. It's always the sickest stuff. Another look into the life of a young black man in Cali.

As far as newer stuff, the following have done very well.

Eminem - Stan, Kim, Lose Yourself
Three personas, three messages, three excellent deliveries and characterization. An obsessed fan, Em's extreme rage at his wife, and a description of the actions of his character in 8Mile.

Lupe Fiasco - Daydreaming, The Cool (song), Paris/Tokyo, Intruder Alert...you know what, listen to both of his albums:

Lupe Fiasco's Food and Liquor
Lupe Fiasco's The Cool

This cat is the freshest rapper to come out in the last two years. You owe yourself to listen to him. His phrasing, lyricism, imagery, and content are leagues about Lil Wayne.

Fort Minor - Believe Me and basically all of "Rising Tied"
These guys are awesome. They're talking about real events, something that matters and they have tight beats and flows. Pick them up!

That's about it.

Nowadays, everyone's happy with Lollipop and shaking their asses to club music.

TECHNICALLY, the first rap was out before Rapper's Delight. Rapper's Delight was the first songtypically regarded as the first rap song, but if you listen to Last Poets, they were doing proto-rap (rhymes or poetry with a certain cadence or rhythm VERY reminiscent of rap, and over the top of minimalist, stark drumbeats) back in the last 60s/early 70s.

As for Shadyfox, PLEASE do not refer to Panic! at the bull**** and Crap Out Boy as "indie." That is an insult to the genre. Those bands, in my estimation, should probably be called, "Corporate Emo made to appeal to all the depressed kids in the US, who whine because they have everything, but still feel trapped."

I personally can tolerate classic rock (even though nowadays, stuff I grew up with: U2, older REM, The Police; is being played on classic rock stations...that makes me feel old), but usually do not go out of my way to listen to it. I ALWAYS used to be the kind of person who HAD to discover new music on his own (I refuse to listen to the radio, and this was LONG beforre internet radio and MP3s and PTP), and was kind of always on the edge of whatever was becoming big in the underground (and I mean, the bigger side of the underground, not even the UNDERGROUND underground)...ie- when Drum and Bass, Trip Hop, Post Rock, "Electronica," Indie, ambient, noise, drone/space rock, etc, was coming out and beginning to get big, I had already been on it for a few years already.

But for the past few years, I've pretty much given up on trying to discover new stuff. My buddy turns me on to stuff now and again, or maybe I'll find 3 new bands a year or something, but in my advanced age, I'm growing comfortable with rehashing what I've been listening to for the past 20 years (beginning with stuff like The Smiths, Joy Division, New Order, and all the other mid-to-late 80s "alternative" stuff, up to now where I'm listening to the White Stripes, Merzbow, Wesley Willis, Del the Funky Homosapien, Atari Teenage Riot, Aphex Twin, Velvet Underground, Flying Saucer Attack, and Nick Drake all back to back).


So, yeah.


Oh, and Shadyfox....you wanna know who's generally considered to be the most influential band of the past 40 years in terms of influence on how modern music turned out? Velvet Underground.

I thought this was going to be a debate about old music (i.e. Baroque, classical, etc.).

You can post about it if you want. I don't know anything about classical then compared to now.

In response to Hyper's original post:
Incredible! For once I completely agree with you! maybe xcept for about Avenged Sevenfold .. whenever i look at that pic of them in your sig i get it mixed up with Good Charlotte.. i mean seriously they look EXACTLY the same!! but as Perversion said "Corporate Emo" .. i say neo-emo i figure thats at least a half correct and half accepted name for it @_@ the whole thing passed me by for about 2 years before i even heard of it.

The way I figure though is that when a new genre or style of music becomes rapidly really popular half the people living in it reject it because it's all new crap and sounds the same and listen to older music and the other half revel in it and are part of it and make this huge scene that one day a new generation will be listening to saying that all the new stuff is crap and sounds the same. I mean - it's likely to be a bit like that ne?

But I agree completely, record companies like to package music so that it will sell well. Always have and always will. Some things are good i hear songs here and there that I enjoy but for the most part I could hardly name you 1 let alone a list of mainstream bands in the last 3 or 4 years. I just have no clue anymore. Everything I find is at shows and on the internet and generally enjoy these more than anything when the radio is on *shrug* Independant/D.I.Y ftw.

@Ixzion - don't forget Black Eyed Peas! XD "Get Retarded" <3


classical music? .. iunno.. if you listen to Mozart then listen to Phillip Glass or something... classical music these days i think is mostly used for film scores so everything that gets made new is sort of ambiant or abstract .. ish .. as opposed to structured. o.o?

In my personal opinion, Baroque is better then classical. It is alot more technical, and sounds better.

Baroque KILLS classical. Now, is it better than Romantic, Renaissance/Medieval/Ancient or 20th Century?

Baroque Kills Classical?

I doubt it.

All you have to do is mention Mozart and Beethoven and you understand there is no distinction between eras in terms of genius, only personal preference.

Bach, Beethoven, Mozart; that's the pinnacle, that's unprecedented subtlety and cohesion of multifaceted skill-sets, but does that say anything useful about Mussorgsky, Ravel, or Stravinsky?
Not really.

What does Berlioz have to do with Vivaldi, exactly?

The question which really interests me is the merits of post-orchestral music versus the undoubted merits of orchestral music.
Is there any way we can compare the achievements of Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, and The Clash to the achievements of those who came before?
They appear to aim at different things, just as Classical possesses a different agenda from Baroque, but that's not really the point.
The point is the same when we look at Baroque versus Classical, or Baroque versus The Beatles.
Is there sufficient skill, is there sufficient genius to make such a comparison?
Is the arrangement of an album, of a song, of a bridge in modern music ever comparable in genius to the old masters?

That's the question that interests me, anyway.
I'll reply to myself later.

You are asking too many questions. The noise is so loud you simply cannot hear that Baroque kills Classical.

Bach is the best musician of all time. Argue what you want, say what you want but Bach is the best musician of all time. In music, there is nothing greater than a minor key Bach fugue. No symphony, no concerto, no sonata, no opera, no song, nothing.

Mozart is very good but very overrated.

Beethoven's best works are from/form the early romantic era not the classical era.

"You are asking too many questions."

Someone shoot him.


Then shoot me.


Then burn his damn corpse in a vat of boiling llama feces and spread his ashes over a field which shall be consecrated as "The Vale of STFU."

In the meantime, however, let's break this down.

If you bothered to read my post, you would see that my questions have nothing to do with not being able to hear anything.
Here's to hoping you read this one, or that you can read at all, and don't merely play Eenie Meenie Minie Moe with a set of prearranged responses designed to appear applicable without making any sense (co-authored by The Devil and Bryant Gumble):

A.

"Bach is the best musician of all time."
"Baroque kills classical"

So, because Bach is the best of musician of all time, and he was in the Baroque period, Baroque is inherently Cool to a degree The Fonz couldn't fathom, and Classical has no hope with.
What, he wrote fugues, the fugue is the musical apex of the Baroque period, therefore any other fugue writers share in the glory?
You're not talking about the Baroque period, you ponce, you're talking about Bach.
I dislike talking about Periods in general, and would much rather discuss artists with a background of period, but since you insist like the generalized sack of pseudo-intellectualism you are, then I refuse to conflate artist and era so brashly.

B.

"Mozart is very good but overrated."

This is exemplary of my previous post's actual point.
You assess tiers of skill, applications and exploitations of genius, but anything else is personal preference.
Your nifty little maxim about Bach, which, you may recall, I was in full agreement with, does nothing for the idea that the three principle musicians of all time are Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven.
Now I'm going to put my point simply: your opinion doesn't f*cking matter.
Beyond actual assessment of originality, skill, and capacity all you are dealing with is personal preference.
All of my questions had nothing to do with whether or not Baroque killed Classical, they were addressing the idea that it is impossible for an Era to kill an Era.
Wait, I must have gotten it wrong earlier, here's the real version:
You don't like Mozart, but you like Bach.
Bach is Baroque, Mozart is Classical.
Ergo,
Baroque kills Classical.

How's that for a syllogism.

C.

"Beethoven's best works are from/form the early romantic era not the classical era."

If I were to take a quick guess, this is a feeble attempt to salvage Big B from the Classical stigma.

Too bad it's wrong.

Beethoven was trained to the utmost in every classical field, wrote every single composition in established classical parameters, and does not share anything with the Romantics (not even a time period) but an indication towards more explicit emotional content.
And he is not Classical how?

D.

"You're asking too many questions."

Assuming you don't get shot, we'll have to deal with this.

First: Maybe you didn't notice but that whole second series of queries was entirely unrelated to the notion of 'Baroque vs. Classical'.

Second: Since when do I not get to be curious?


P.S.

Oh yeah, Bo, I'm buzzing.
Get it?

No I don't get it. You are buzzing, so what? Good, I'm happy for you and noted, but what is there to get? And if you are lying to make a point, what's your point?

Wow. "pseudo-intellectualism" and "conflate". Impressive vocabulary there. You wouldn't happen to be a REAL intellectual would you?

Now, if my opinion doesn't F***in' matter and all I am dealing with is personal preference, then I ask you, why the response in the first place when I stated that Baroque kills Classical and why the lengthy response to my reply to your response?

I'll let you answer this first before I go into any more detail.

Of course I'm a real intellectual, silly man.


And why the lengthy responses?
The first one because I was stimulated to discussion.
The second because you left yourself open to it.

Well if it will make you feel better, yes, it is only my opinion based on my preference that Baroque kills Classical and since my opinion doesn't matter to you, you need not worry about it.

But if you are interested, the whole reason I brought up Bach is because you first brought up Mozart and Beethoven WITH RESPECT to the eras. I know you were focusing on preferences but you didn't even qualify terms of genius and put out there that Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart are in a sense the big three to show that there are geniuses outside of the Baroque. I know that many/most people agree with you.

My point is that I don't consider Mozart to be a genius on the level of Bach or Beethoven AND I don't prefer his music significantly more than other good composers. The only piece by Mozart I consider at the same level of Bach's greatest fugues or Beethoven greatest piano sonatas (or particular moments within symphonies) is the Requiem Mass which is absolutely superb. Everything else by Mozart, while very enjoyable to me doesn't match the greatness, depths, genius, command, gravitas, etc. that B and B do. THAT is why I think he is overrated.

I was then saying that Beethoven was more notable as an early Romantic composer so if that were the case (and we'll discuss that in a moment) that leaves the classical era as having who? Very good but overrated Mozart, Haydn who is lousy, Gluck who is lousy, and ?

Wow, some era.

Whereas the Baroque has not only Bach, but Vivaldi (repetitve and imitative in a sense, but as beautiful, heartmoving, and rich as almost all of Mozart), Scarlatti who is extremely underrated in the classical world with his ridiculously sinister, chaotic yet controlled keyboard works, Handel, who is a solid example of a strong noteworthy composer, and Telemann and Corelli who individually or together destroy Haydn and Gluck.

In other words, unless you largely overrate Mozart's genius, if I created a team of classical composers versus baroque composers, Vivaldi, Handel, Scarlatti, Telemann, and Corelli would clearly beat Mozart, Haydn, Gluck, and ?. Oh, yeah, then I'd bring in Johann Sebastian Bach.

Case closed.

Unless you consider Beethoven classical, then now we'd have a game. While I admit that he is very classical in a sense, I do not put him in the classical era because he was using a classical tool set to form romanticism. Albeit there is overlap. I acknowledge and concede to an extant but then again does this mean that John Williams is a classical era composer, or a romantic era composer (probably moreso)? I don't think so even though he is using romantic or classical tool sets.

Now with respect to the era itself. By far the reason that Baroque kills Classical is because of the loss of counterpoint. It would take too long, and really requires sound examples to say why this is incredibly tragic musically, but it happened in the classical (i.e. Ro-coo coo) era. There is also the loss of the basso continuo which to me was like taking the beat out of dance music. Then you seem to have an empasis on major key which is just wrong. And finally you have these longwinded styles like Neopolitan Opera and Symphony which just udderly bore the hell out of the listener.

At least when the romantic era came along, it kind of took stock of what was still en vogue and gave it some purpose, something that the lighthearted and gay classical era couldn't do. The only thing the classical era was good for was tearing down the baroque era to make room for the romantic era.

That is how you have a conversation.
Good man.

Now, the primary point which made me want to thwap something while reading your post, before we move back to the idea of Team Hockey for Eras, is this Romantic Beethoven business. This is, however, and will always be, a personal distinction on both our parts. Personally, for instance, the idea of Beethoven as being Romantic is a bit silly and out there. Just because he wrote things of a similar texture to those who followed him doesn't change the fact that he wrote in Classical structures, was trained classically, and thought classically whenever he wanted to get something done. At the same token, I can recognize your stance, as I have long agreed with the placement of William Blake in the Romantics, while some consider this a 'slumping in'. But let me say this: you say he was using a classical tool-set to 'form' Romanticism, which strikes me as a wholly retrospective statement, and not one which could have been possible without retrospect. Just because he was key in providing direction for Romanticism doesn't mean he is, or that you get to say he is, a Romantic.
Which means, to me, you are doing the 'slumping in', for your own personal reasons.
In situations like this, I stay stick to what something was at its core, which in Beethoven's case was a Classicist at the end of his era, helping a new generation to come forward.

After being away for awhile, I find my thoughts on the discussion have been refined with distance into a thankfully spare statement:

You yourself, I believe, admit your primary inhibition against the Classical Composers, one which places your statements firmly on a personal level. You don't like the Symphony, the Sonata Allegro format, which was the primary achievement of the Classical era, just as the Fugue was the root of genius in the Baroque.
If you are opposed, on aesthetic principle, to the chosen mode of these men, how can you be expected to appreciate them as evenly? Personally, the idea of Haydn being a crap composer is laughable, but he was certainly on par with the string of Baroque second-tier composers you so doggedly listed.
And what about C.P.E. Bach? Schubert? I could go on, could I not?
You're content to list even the most obscure of Baroque somewhat-notables, but Classical composers which still garner just as much regard, and often much more regard, you so usefully forget.

I myself admire most of the composers you listed, though I think some of them you just drafted in, but that's hardly the point: "And finally you have these longwinded styles like Neopolitan Opera and Symphony which just udderly bore the hell out of the listener."

I'm taking the liberty, in lieu of the way everyone else seems to feel so far in history, of replacing 'bore the hell out of the listener' with 'bore the hell out of me' for you, Bo.

In short, it speaks to me of a kind of bias against the tenets of the era, and you yourself admit to not even liking Beethoven so much for his symphonies, things I cannot clear myself of for days after hearing.
And then we come to Mozart. Entirely apart from writing in such a subtle, nuanced, almost figurative musical language in his symphonies and elsewhere, apart from controlling the emotions of his work (which you seem to think don't exist) so perfectly, I don't see how anyone who has listened to a Mozart opera can make such a dull observation as Mozart being dull.

So, yeah, that's about it. So far as the classicists go, I think you're hopelessly biased, and I think that's a good thing. I like your passion for passion, your love for your passions, your love for what your passions are passionate about.
If you get my drift. Maybe not. I'm out, stay chill guys.

@N.L.Y.

I appreciate your post, I have some responses that come to mind, but I feel in this case it best to leave your post as the last word for now on this subject so that I can think about it a little more and because I agree with you to certain extent.

So we could go back to what you were asking about the difference between merits of orchestral to non-orchestral music, and this then involves the music that ShadowFox1001 was addressing.

Is the matter simply that bias tells you what is the 'best' music and that's it. There is no best music or no better music inherently or intrinsically but only that which is consistent with your bias? If that is the case then one could not fairly challenge (i.e. in an unbiased way) the notion that droll preprocessed emo music is better than a Beethoven Sonata as long as that emo music was genuinelly believed to be better by one individual's mind (via its bias)?