The TRUTH: Why Modern Music Is Awful

Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 3 months ago to Culture
104 comments | Share | Flag

In this postmodern cultural marxist age we live in now, even our music has been affected. Just like our cars, just like your kids, just like the lamestream news of the day...everything is the same; a lie, compressed into an equality of outcome instead of an outcome of individual greatness, competence and uniqueness.
The latter is what most of us here, have grown up with and sought to achieve in our own life times.

Lamestream Uniqueness today is an illusion, decorated with bells and whistles. The risk has been removed therefore the value created is mediocre at best.

No wonder why, more and more people today are unhappy; as Robert from Straight line Logic has explained...true happiness comes from seeking wisdom, creating values with increasing competence and attaining Joy in the process.

Do you concur..?
SOURCE URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVME_l4IwII


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  exceller 2 months, 4 weeks ago
    I agree.

    I run away any time I hear it or accidentally bump into it.

    There are music channels on TV: when I browse, they pop up inevitably. Luckily, there is a remote. But for a few seconds I get a taste what it is like. Don't these women get bronchitis from all the screaming, yelling?

    My collection of CDs is entirely from composers 50-100 years ago. My CD player takes 5 CDs so I listen to them one after the other as the player advances automatically.

    My Christmas music is also an old collection.

    When I see my coworkers with a headphone and know what they are listening to: no wonder their souls are corrupted.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by bobsprinkle 2 months, 4 weeks ago
      One of my passions/obsessions has been collecting vinyl records. I am a child of the 50's/60's so you can imagine my favorites. But this exposed me to genre's I normally would not have chosen. There is some GREAT stuff from the 40's. Yard sales and estate sales were great sources. At one time I had close to 10,000 vinyl albums. In the past year or two I have sold a good part of the collection. Still have a couple of thousand. My CD collection has grown over the years also. It is still a lot of fun to dig into the stack and pull out an oldie and put it on the turntable.
      The majority of todays "singers" are just screamers/yodelers.
      I guess that is what my parents thought when I listened to Elvis and Bill Haley and the Comets.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 2 months, 4 weeks ago
        Today's singers don't even have to stay on pitch, and they don't have to have any vocal strength with technology repairing or covering up their mistakes.
        There still are some very talented performers though. They just aren't the ones that are foisted on the public as "pop stars."
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 2 months, 3 weeks ago
    "Concur"? I don't know that I can. I didn't look at the whole video. (I am allowed limited time on this library's machines, and, at any rate, have other plans for the day). To me, in the first place, "modern music" seems pretty much of a contradiction in terms. I am a sort of anachronism. I liked fast, loud, but harmonious music, but otherwise did not think much about it, until, at the age of 11, I discovered Gilbert & Sullivan. Then I knew what music was. It seems to me that music has deteriorated from about 1920 until the present; and that it cannot deteriorate much further without crossing the line and going outright out of existence. There is a rhythm, a beat, yes, but otherwise a loud cacophony, almost no harmony, if any, and as to melody--forget it. Plus, "rap" makes it even worse, with its hollering combined with obscenity. I have some phonograph records. I had a record player, but the needle went bad on me the other 5th of July; maybe I will be able to get another one in the thrift store, if I get a job; I understand that they don't make record players any more, but somebody told me that someone had started again. Then I'd like to play my Gilbert & Sullivan, and also Verdi and Puccini, and maybe a recording of la Marseillaise. Also, Clancy Brothers used to make recordings of very lively Irish tunes. But modern music ?! Where?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 2 months, 3 weeks ago
      The great jazz solos pioneered by musicians such as Louis Armstrong and Sideny Bechet didn't begin until well after the early 20s. Look them up on utube. "Loud cacophony, almost no harmony, and [no] melody" does not characterize that music or the popular band music that followed through the 1940s, and much of the rock and roll through the 60's, and protest folk music of the late 60s and 70s.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by LibertyBelle 2 months, 3 weeks ago
        There was some melody in the 40's. Not all that much. And swing came along, which ruins good, decent tunes. And it just went really bad in the 60's; although I admit that what came in in about the 70's made the 60's look almost lyrical. That's not saying much, though.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 2 months, 3 weeks ago
          All the popular songs of the big band era of the 1930s and 40s had melodies. The 'modern jazz' did not, but was also not very popular, it has been said that the purpose of modern jazz in that era was to see how many choruses of Autumn Leaves they could play without anyone recognizing what it was.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by LibertyBelle 2 months, 3 weeks ago
            I'm not saying there wasn't some music in the '30's and '40's. It wasn't my cup of tea (it was my father's music; I didn't hear it until my childhood), but at least it qualified. But as I said, I am a sort of anachronism; I wanted music, even when it was simple, to have a sort of passion-- to have a straightforward rhythm of one, two, three, four, one, two, three, four, or one,two-three,one,two-three, one, two-three, etc., and not meander around. My father said, "You don't like music--you like tunes!" And to me, if it hasn't got a tune, it's nothing.
            But I think that worse than anything we have been discussing is: Stravinsky! --To me, that is musical obscenity, absolutely poisonous garbage.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 2 months, 3 weeks ago
              You said "There was some melody in the 40's. Not all that much." On the contrary the popular, widespread big band music did emphasize melody, in contrast to the "classical" and "modern jazz" evolving at the time. And it did have straightforward rhythm -- it was dance music. (Remember Glenn Miller, Tommy Dorsey, and the others?) The same was true for rock and roll of the 1950s and 60s. The popular music in movies and 'broadway' musicals also had melody. (Remember the popular Sound of Music?).

              What was the music your father liked?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by LibertyBelle 2 months, 2 weeks ago
                Oh, swing. As when a tune formerly went "One,two
                three, four," it was changed to "One--two-three, four--- one--t-three--da,da--d,da----" etc. It is true that rock at least has a beat, and that's about all it's got, but, in a way, swing is even worse.
                I'm sorry, I can't give much detail about my father's music, but it didn't generally have much of a tune to excite me much.
                As to Sound of Music, yes, I saw it in the movie theater, and it was all right.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 2 months, 2 weeks ago
                  Syncopation does not remove the basic 4/4, 2/4 or 3/4 rhythms and does not remove the melody. Dancers have no problem following the simple, straightforward rhythm.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by LibertyBelle 2 months, 2 weeks ago
                    It is not straightforward.--Excuse me, it irritates me. Of course, it's not as bad as Stravinsky (I can't imagine what would be), and it's not a lot of deadening noise like rock.--But I just never cared for it. My father was once playing "Mexican Hat Dance" on an LP record, and it was swung, and he asked if I liked it. I said no, and went on about a little record (it was probably a 45), that had it as it was supposed to be, and he finally dug up that one and played it. He saw what I meant.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 2 months, 2 weeks ago
                      You can like or dislike what you want in accordance with your own tastes in the different aspects of music, but the simple 4/4 and 3/4 dance rhythms of the 1940s are not anything like Stravinsky at all, and are rhythmically very straightforward. The rhythms that were not so straightforward are those like the tango, which are harder to retain or dance, but still easy to at least follow listening.

                      The Mexican Hat Dance was more interesting in about the 1st grade, and bands that took such traditional folk music and 'swung' them had different degrees of success in making them at least briefly worth passively listening to in passing (i.e., not going out of your way to turn it off). Do you have an example from youtube? (You're unlikely to find that original 45 and LP but maybe you can easily find something to illustrate what you mean.)

                      The rock music of the 50s and 60s was mostly not "deadening noise", which came later in great decibels. Do you find the simple 1950s Rock Around the Clock, The Twist, and Elvis Presley -- to the later Beach boys and the Mamas and Papas to be deadening noise?
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by LibertyBelle 2 months, 2 weeks ago
                        I did not pay much attention in the '50's; I was little then. But after I discovered Gilbert&Sullivan (in 1963), modern stuff just didn't excite me. I'm not saying I violently disliked it, but it didn't arouse me.--And no, I did not mean to say they were like Stravinsky, which is about as bad as it can get. (Somebody told me Schoenberg [sp?] was worse; I don't remember ever hearing Schoenberg, but I don't see how that could be possible).
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by Lucky 2 months, 2 weeks ago
                          But, Stravinsky could produce great melody and dynamic rythme, (perhaps only in odd moments?)
                          Listen to the Rite of Spring, a ballet. It was used by Walt Disney in his Fantasia.
                          As for Schoenberg, when I have something to recommend I will post up immediately ..
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by LibertyBelle 2 months, 2 weeks ago
                            I heard Stravinsky on two occasions. Once, when I was at music camp; somebody played some of his stuff on a record player. There was a great deal of nastiness that day; people (or someone behind me was/were stepping on the bottoms of my flipflops. There was a lot of nasty talk. Then there was a fight. I am thinking that maybe one cause of the fight was people's getting nervous and in a nasty mood on account of those horrible sounds.
                            The other time was years later; some of it was played on my radio, and after a while I simply pulled the plug.

                            Now I don't know if it was the same composition in both cases or not. I don't know if it was Rite of Spring or not. But I hope I never hear it again.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  2 months, 2 weeks ago
                  I know exactly what your talking about, I once taught country dance, line dancing and couples along with swing.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by LibertyBelle 2 months, 2 weeks ago
                    I used to go to a country dance club until I lost my job, in fact, I continued to go until the unemployment ran out. (I thought it might be excusable to still spend money on it, in case I could make a contact with one of the people that would result in a job, but this didn't happen). Man, I really did enjoy that music. Once, even "Port Lairge" (an Irish jig tune) was played.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by  $  2 months, 2 weeks ago
                      I got into choreographing new dances to different tunes, but nobody was ready for that.
                      My first thought when my friend tricked me into going to a country dance club was that everyone looked good on the dance floor, few if any awkward dancers.

                      Once I got really good at teaching and dancing I thought...wouldn't it be really nice if Everyone looked Good on the dance floor, dancing to any kind of music.

                      My friend brought me to some 50's clubs and I was embarrassed to see a lot of people that really shouldn't be dancing in public!...laughing...including me at the time...
                      That is where I got the idea.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  3 months ago
    I think this is why, someone like Lindsey Stirling, The Cello guys and the piano guys, (linked in my "we need some music" post), are so overwhelmingly popular.
    They are, skilled, clean, precise, nuanced, uncompressed and unique.

    Something the culture craves but doesn't know why.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 2 months, 2 weeks ago
    Olduglycarl The question you raised in this thread is very good.
    Anyway- I have just found this article, it hits the nail on the head-
    https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/12/r...

    Some excerpts:
    " Reggae is to be added to the Unesco world heritage list. (!)
    the usual crowd of churlish curmudgeons, including me, who will argue that pop music shouldn’t be included on lists of the world’s cultural treasures.
    ‘…the Left, which …is unrelenting and unsparing in its analysis of our other cultural phenomena, has in general given rock music a free ride’ quoting Allan Bloom "
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  2 months, 2 weeks ago
      Yes, the post modern left is stuck on the idea that there is no good or bad.
      In the art world they went as far to create anti art and would go farther if it were possible.
      They are attempting the same with music, I've heard some stuff lately that would make you puke. Bad vocals, Really bad like listening to the tone deaf singing, bad musical format, and the worst mixing I have ever heard and I know,...I did all the mixing at my studio.

      I must confess that I hold a particular fascination for Pink Floyd, Steely Dan and in a totally different category, Jethro Tull.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  jlc 2 months, 4 weeks ago
    The video may be accurate, but it is incomplete. I think it represents a microscopic view to a phenomenon that requires a broader perspective.

    The earliest body of music we have is from the Renaissance. This was dance music, or song, or very closely derived therefrom. The orchestras were simple, more of a garage band size, and the musicians were classed as 'high level servants' as opposed to professional entertainers. The music was highly repetitive (as is necessary for dancing and/or singing!).

    Joseph Hayden moved music from the small band of Elizabethan era performance to what is now called the 'sonata form', which forms the basis of the symphonies of the next few centuries. He also increased the size of the band to that of a small orchestra. Similarly Bach's fugues and meditations move music from dance and song into pure music.

    If the video had included music from the 17-18th centuries, it would have shown (I think) the rather simple and repetitive tunes from those eras giving way to the more complex Baroque and Classical works - the reverse of what he shows for the modern music.

    After the Classical era, the Romantic era of music began, with huge orchestras playing complex music to a musically educated audience. Even workmen, going to lay bricks at their job, were whistling motifs from the symphonies or singing parts from the operas.

    This era ended with the invention of recorded music, which made it socially unnecessary for 'everyman' to know how to play a musical instrument (hence decreasing overall musical knowledge). Increasingly distanced from the common audience, the early 20th century, Classical music drifted off into the appalling hinterlands of dissonance via Scriabin and other such composers, ending in the slo-mo-car-crash 'music' of the current classical music vogue.

    It is no wonder that everyman turned away from this dissonance into pop music, which then became the hum and whistle music of everyman.

    It is at this point that the video picks up, but if you were to extrapolate what the curve might have looked like were the past of music included, you would probably see a double wave-form, with high points of complexity and sophistication during the 19th Century (for classical music) and the 20th Century (for pop music). I suspect that the height of the wave for pop music is far lower than that of the classical. That would be interesting to investigate, but not so long as the researcher only took a tiny view of a short span of the history of music, as this video unfortunately did.

    Jan, a fan of the 19th century's music
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 2 months, 4 weeks ago
      There was popular music on all continents long before the 20th century. Ayn Rand loved what she called the "tiddlywink" music of the early 20th century for its sense of life. It came from the popular piano ragtime music from the late 1800s, which in turn had evolved from popular banjo music.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  2 months, 4 weeks ago
      Yes, that would be very interesting.

      As far as a de-evolutionary intention we look to how art and language was purposely confounded by the postmodernist and ask...why not music too! The video shows, at least in the short time frame investigated, that it was intentional on an economic scale but it still begs the question, was it part of our dumbing down or is it just an accidental consequence.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  jlc 2 months, 4 weeks ago
        That is a question we should ask. Another question is, "What is this music being used for?" Almost all pop music is made for dancing; 150 years ago, operas took the place of today's movies - but they often had a waltz in the second act (so people could dance to it?).

        Another type of modern music to consider is 'movie music', which is the only worthy successor to the earlier classical music. You can't dance to it, but people do listen to soundtracks a lot.

        Good topic, Carl.

        Jan
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  2 months, 4 weeks ago
          We have talked about everything else the leftest postmodernist have confounded.
          I think most of us have complained about the music these days but thought it was just a generational thing like what we ourselves went through but now we have reason to think differently.
          Another piece of the puzzle.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by VicW 2 months, 4 weeks ago
    Current music has an interesting beat and bassline. If you check you blood pressure before, during and after you may find the current beat to be captivating and aggravate to your nervous system. I don't need music to elevate my blood pressure. We have Pelosi and Schumer for that.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  rockymountainpirate 2 months, 4 weeks ago
    As a living room musician I totally agree with what this says. It's all computer generated pap. Just my opinion, but if you have to flash your crotch while trying to sing, you aren't much of a musician.

    It's really hard for little local bands to find a place to play also. Hard to find open mic nights etc. Everything is now karaoke, and usually badly done.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  2 months, 4 weeks ago
      Was a musician until I turned 30, wrote songs, recorded songs and even owned a small studio, also had a car stereo business...music was a big part of my life...but I saw it coming, when the focus turned to big base sounds...it was over, distortion made a return and all the efforts we put into quality and realism went south...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 2 months, 4 weeks ago
    yes. Except for the time I spent at a Trump rally, I really havent enjoyed being around people for a while now. The energy at the Trump rally was envigorating to say the least.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Owlsrayne 2 months, 4 weeks ago
    Yes, most music from contemporary genre's is substandard. I like listening to music from Japanese Anime, my son got me into it when he was growing up. Even if it's sung in Japanese sounds great; instrumental pieces that are heroic in nature is gooding listening. Some movie music is good too, Gladiator is my favorite.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by GaryL 2 months, 4 weeks ago
    I love a lot of different types of music and even some of the current stuff today. Sadly with the current stuff I do like, none of it makes the billboard charts and what music does makes me want to barf. If I am spinning my own favorite oldies it is almost always from the 70s and 80s with very few current artists mixed in. What happened to songs that had lyrics with meanings that we can relate to?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Stormi 2 months, 4 weeks ago
    A computer guy I know told me several years ago, via his analysis on his computer, that the beat had intentionally been changed, to go against what was natural to the heartbeat, to what was irritating. He eve tool old songs, and applied the new method, to prove it. I greq up with big band of my parents, loved it. Then the 80s rock n roll, loved it. Went into the 70s liking, Paul Davis, Bon Jovi, and Mellenkamp. then it got too hard, to nasty, too anti woman. I went country, then Taylor Swift screwed that up. Went back to my old collections, Dan Martin, Sinatra, George strait, Johnny Rivrs, Glen Miller. Happy again. Until we go to Cassanos, which has Pulse satellite, adult contemporary on, Drwadful, all alike, can't tell when the song or artist change, all the same! Kids today cannot appreciate different genres of music, only the millennial droning. That has definitely been a shame and a loss, which our daughter, now 30s did not get drug into.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  2 months, 4 weeks ago
      Yep...the day the music died..bye bye American Pie.
      They started in the 40's I think, when they changed from tuning instruments at 432 to 440.
      I read a white paper some time ago that showed that healthful and harmful frequencies alternate from the shuman resonance on up and was surprised to see that 432 had a beneficial effect on the bodies cells but 440 did not!
      Go figure.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Stormi 2 months, 4 weeks ago
        Wish my big band dad was still alive to discuss this with. Did they say why or how the change came about?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 2 months, 4 weeks ago
          The history and significance are not what OldUglyCarl says. His pronouncements are the typical mystical and subjectivist dogma that make no sense at all. There is no such thing as a frequency's "beneficial effect on the bodies cells" affecting music as "healthful and harmful frequencies alternate from the shuman resonance on up". It is gibberish.

          The single frequency of a tuning standard alleged to have killed music has nothing whatsoever to do with the changing styles (due primarily to sense of life) or the large number of factors that go into making musical sounds and their relations, which are much more than a single frequency or associated perceived pitch within a range spanning octaves.

          Likewise for the "computer guy" claiming to have shown that "the beat had intentionally been changed to go against what was natural to the heartbeat". A moment's reflection tells you that the human heartbeat varies dramatically between individuals and within the same individual, measured in beats per minute, and that the tuning standard is a single pure tone measured in cycles per second. Claims of his pronouncements are the typical mystical and subjectivist dogma that make no sense.

          The "computer guy's" pronouncement, along with similar dogma from mystics appealing to “the heartbeat of Earth” and claims that "432Hz resonates with the golden ratio" are all no better than primitive Pythgorean number mysticism in a new age of irrationalism creeping for dominance in the 21st century as people gravitate to the mystical with no concept of causality and explanation. Please, not on an Ayn Rand forum.

          The standards for tuning have varied enormously throughout history. Until around the time of Galileo no standard was possible because there were no accurate clocks and no means to measure the frequencies.

          Once comparisons were possible, several different "standards" coexisted in different regions, with some differences so large as to literally cause a clash at the level of playing in different keys, at least a half tone away (one sharp or flat difference).

          The frequency standard for tuning -- today 440Hz, adopted by the American Federation of Musicians in 1917, by the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, and then progressively more accepted -- is a relative standard for consistency, not a departure in 1940 from an alleged Perfection of a mystical "338" as the source of "modern music killing music". One French standard adopting a popular pitch in the mid 1800s was 435, while German orchestras and bands was soon at 440 and the British royal standard was above 1850 and rising during the last half the 19th century.

          There are many books on the physics and psychology of music, the role of chord ratios, overtones, different scales, etc., and you can read a summary of the history of the pitch standard in particular at http://capionlarsen.com/history-pitch/

          If your father was playing in Big Bands in the 1940s he would be familiar with the early 20th century incompatible "high" 440 and "low" 452-457 pitches for which instruments were built. Brass bands especially were still playing the "high" pitch, and "high" pitch instruments used in jazz were still common. English and Salvation Army brass bands used the "high" pitch until 1964 when production of the instruments stopped. If you buy an antique or old classic instrument today you still have to be careful of what pitch you are getting. (I have a 1911 Holton cornet with two sets of slides and a 19th century French LaLeur sheperd's crook cornet that was professionally modified with longer tubing to drop the pitch.)

          But the mystical dogmatism evangelizing for an irrelevant magic "438" has no rational place here and nothing to offer a discussion of musical qualities. The relative standard to which a group of instruments are tuned for consistency has nothing to do with the musical sound characteristics, other than the simple up or down, and which depend on physics and the style and ability of playing, not mystical "resonance with the heartbeat" and other such nonsense.

          Sound quality differences due to tuning alone depends on the methods of tuning, including multiple degrees of freedom of the instruments and the nonlinear variations with frequency, temperature, and loudness, which are subtle but can be noticeable, not a Pythagorean mystic's magic number.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  Stormi 2 months, 4 weeks ago
            I think Rand would be very much interested if this Treaty of Versailles topic were a concession to the Germans, a way to create equality among people. The fact UNESCO approved the matter years later, speaks volumes, considering their one world goal for the world, and cookie cutter approach to childhood thinking. My computer pal, did several experiments with the differences in music and his results supported what he had found. I stil find German Wagner's music very irritating. The composers of Europe were much more relaxing. Teh PULSE satellite radio station is grating in its's sound and alikeness of all the music. Do you also dismiss the effect of color on people? I worked for a corp. headqtrs, whcih decorated in red and tan, with eplyees facing red walls, Wtihin a few months, they were removed, as people's heath became worse, and disputes broke out. Then an all tan replacement restored harmony.. Hospitals are very careful as well about color and piped in music, and how to create calmness. Blood pressure if either is irritating. The Chinese have know about balance for years, and how it impacts heath. Look to the current rash of teen suicides, as follows teacher control and garbage sent into their heads. I think Rand would very much be concerned about such stealing of personal freedom, conscious or subconscious.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 2 months, 4 weeks ago
              The choice of a pitch standard for tuning consistently is not a "Treaty of Versailles topic" and has nothing to do with the rest of that either. The reference to the treaty is only for the date when an attempt was made to set a standard in music, in contrast to the false historical claims previously made. 440Hz was progressively adopted professionally thereafter, not by political mandate.

              This is not a political topic and Ayn Rand didn't try to turn everything into politics either. It has nothing to do with a "stealing of personal freedom".

              Musicians adopt a tuning standard for objective requirements of the production of music, including the physical compatibility of the instruments, not to a "concession to Germans" and not for the preposterous Pythagorian number mysticism claiming an impossible "resonance" with a "heartbeat" or "cells".

              The tuning standard is irrelevant to the sound of the music one chooses to produce and has nothing to do with Wagner's style. If you want it to sound differently due to pitch then play in whatever style you choose in a chosen octave and key relative to whatever the tuning standard is. You missed the whole point.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  Stormi 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                Music is a capitalist industry, and as such, the way it is run is very much something Rand would have been interest in. The fact it was part of the Versaille Treaty is political, another element which would have interested her.Right now,the music industry is being run about like the rail induustry in AS.It is about conformity and not personal best. It colludes with DC. It tolerates songs which call women whores and talks of raping them. It sings about raping babies, and another industry, tech, thinks it is fine. How you cannot see several elements in this controvesry which would be of interest to Rand, unbelieveable.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                  Ayn Rand was primarily interested in philosophical understanding. She did not try to turn every discussion into politics irrelevant to the essentials of a discussion the way a-philosophical libertarians do.

                  The discussion here is about music, specifically in this subthread the function, purpose and history of the tuning standard in contrast to New Age mysticism (that Ayn Rand had no sympathy for at all), all of which you have completely missed. The subjectivist, mystical statements made here attributing a magic status to "438" with nonsensical arguments claimed to be scientific studies are completely bogus.

                  Responding to that with a tangent on the politics of the Treaty of Versailles, dark accusations about German control, and citing obviously bad musical taste is steam of consciousness irrelevancy that does not address the bizarre "432" claims and not something "Ayn Rand would have been interested in" as an excuse for the tangent.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Lucky 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                The comments by evw are correct.
                Human ears and bodies do not respond and differentiate to differences in sound frequency in that way. There are a few people with perfect pitch, they can recognize and reproduce a tone exactly, but that is it.

                It is still true that- Modern music is awful.
                Why? It is deliberately dissonant. The very big youth market want to keep the olds away by playing loud and awful music - they call it. It is a group solidarity thing.
                The older opinion leaders pretend to sophistication, as in modern art, they claim to find meanings not apparent to outsiders.
                How is it done? Not by choosing one base frequency over the other but by dissonant harmonies. When sounds of different frequencies are mixed, more sound frequencies are created, the word is harmonics, some mixtures are pleasant, some unpleasant, others arouse interest such as the sound of bells. It is likely that such reactions are universal across cultures. To enhance the awfullness there are supporting measures such as singers not holding a note, not projecting (thus amplification), excess percussion, and the general slovenliness of public performers. All this keeps the olds away, but it has been going on for so long that the olds have their own preferences for ugliness based on (imagined) good times when they were young.
                My solution- the young have too much time and money, send them to work not to college, bring back the birch, more discipline and order, etc. (!) Humpff.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                  It's awful all right, but it's more than just the volume. Any music can be amplified to be too loud, but whether that or from the source, it causes nonlinear distortion. But in addition it's a sense of life issue that influences tonality and its shaping, rhythm, choice of chord ratios, phrasing, lyrics and more -- plus some obvious lack of talent or its slovenly underdevelopment.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  2 months, 4 weeks ago
          They said they wanted uniformity throughout the world with all musicians tuning to the same frequency...why not leave it at 432, much of the world was using that standard but they changed it to 440 for all.
          It's a little hard to detect but I noticed that when musicians played at 432 here at Hospice...I was more at ease and the music sounded somehow better...I didn't know at first that they were not tuned to 440...I learned that later.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  Stormi 2 months, 4 weeks ago
            Seems to me they did want uniformity. However, this choice seems more about uniformity and forced quality at German request, than about music, else why would it appear in a treaty. My father frequently spoke of the different hearing ranges of male vs female. He was acutely aware, women foun high sounds irritating in music. I think Rand would find forced music standards to be quite of interest.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 2 months, 4 weeks ago
              Objective standards in the engineering of musical instruments and their adjustment is not "uniformity and forced quality at German request". It is not politics. They are a requirement for a musicians to physically produce coherent music in tune with itself and in a predictable range.

              This is not about "forced music standards" and has nothing to do with what frequency range music is written in. But if you want the sounds to be within a particular range of pitches then you had better know what frequencies the notes you write in the score refer to. That is what a tuning standard provides.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  Stormi 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                It seems that the prevailing junk foisted on our youth is something a Brit video called "brainwahsing", as it detailed multiple changes that are made to insure all songs sound alike, with fewer words, no emotion, and changes in sound frequencies to level, is actually a form of denying youth the freedom to choose. What the record companies sell is what they buy, they are trained to favor it. Growing up, our daughter knew her grandfather's music, her parent's music, and her own. She switched between them, depending on mood. The levels of the music are not distinct now, as the idea is loud and repeattive, by design. It is like mainstream media reports, and the global warming crap fed to the youth. Therei should be thinking somewhere in here.We are seeing robotic acceptance encouraged.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                  That has nothing to do with the tuning standard. Nothing. There is no defense of the magic "432".
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  2 months, 3 weeks ago
                    Nothing "Magic" about 438...nor 432, or 528 and no one is proposing that. But, there are relationships we should note and see if we can use them to our advantage. That's what mankind does...seeks to control and understand nature to his benefit.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                      You don't even accurately acknowledge your own previous statements. Bad modern music was not caused by abandoning in the 1940s a tuning standard of a "beneficial 432" tuning standard for 440 -- which did not happen at all, let alone impossibly cause bad music. There is no such thing as a frequency's "beneficial effect on the bodies cells" affecting music as "healthful and harmful frequencies alternate from the shuman resonance on up".

                      Your posts are filled with supposedly authoritative but incoherent pronouncements consisting of false history and mystical appeals arbitrarily pronounced as fact -- boldly going where no fact has been before. It is not science. This is an Ayn Rand forum, not for the dogmas of New Age subjectivism and mysticism. There are no Nephilim alien creatures, magic frequencies in resonance with "cells" affecting human behavior, "unconscious humans" roaming the earth as zombies or any of the rest of it.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  2 months, 3 weeks ago
                  Not to mention, the words are mangled so badly it is almost impossible to get what they are singing about.
                  Confounding our language started with mistranslations, to meanings, to improper useage and now to their articulation masked by aggravating distortion.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  2 months, 4 weeks ago
              Correct. Couldn't remember the history nor the exact time frame of the change. What really interested me is how they knew what frequency they were playing at without a way to detected it, way back when.

              What is increasingly interesting though, is that there is some value to what the ancients thought and expressed. Not all of it was mystical thinking.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 2 months, 4 weeks ago
                You didn't say anything about how musicians "knew what frequency they were playing at without a way to detected it, way back when", and this has nothing to do with "what ancients thought and expressed".

                There is no magic to a tuning standard of "438", which happened to be one of many choices employed in the 19th century. There is no such thing as a frequency's "beneficial effect on the bodies cells" affecting music as "healthful and harmful frequencies alternate from the shuman resonance on up". That is gibberish. It is your own mysticism, not the "ancients'".
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  2 months, 3 weeks ago
                  Yes there is, and it was discovered by accident, not intentionally, (and was not the intent of the work discussed)(so it was something to pay attention to)...and yes, like freaking always...looking for that damn paper that I know I saved.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                    The pseudo-scientific "papers" are nonsense. gibberish is gibberish.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by  $  2 months, 3 weeks ago
                      I know what you are referring to and this one wasn't...that is why it was so surprising.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by ewv 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                        "There is no such thing as a frequency's 'beneficial effect on the bodies cells' affecting music as 'healthful and harmful frequencies alternate from the shuman resonance on up'. It is gibberish." You frequently claim to have "studies" establishing nonsense.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by  $  2 months, 3 weeks ago
                          Turns out there is, it's part of how the body works within itself.
                          The Big question is: How can we make use of that for healing...I don't think we can.
                          At least not now...maybe someday in the future.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by ewv 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                            Gibberish does not describe anything, let alone "healing". Non rational repetition is non-responsive. You have not addressed anything here correcting the bogus history and mystic appeals contrary to the known science of music and the purpose of a tuning standard..
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 2 months, 4 weeks ago
            None of that history is true, and neither are subjectivist claims attributing false causes relevant.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  Stormi 2 months, 4 weeks ago
              Rand would find such standards, were it actually for commercia benefit l, something to be worked out by the free markets, not by some treaty with Germany.
              I see controlling hands of Germany and the UN as part of the equation, of predecessor to our current race relations, which they wanted to smooth out at the time.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 2 months, 4 weeks ago
                The tuning standard was adopted by professional musicians for musical reasons within a range of options, but in which consistency is required. It has a long history that is not the claims that OldUglyCarl pronounced. It is not politics and has nothing to do with "controlling hands of Germany", the UN, "Agenda 21", black helicopters, or any of the rest of that mentality. It is music, not a conspiratorial political topic.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  Stormi 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                  Germany never gives up trying to control, certainly not back then. I am part German, put everyone thought Hitler was okay also. Music has influence, and it is used for that, from the songs of the Vietnam war, before and after. Songs are not just songs, now they are used to promote pedophelia, as one performer on YouTube admitted was his goal. Music is an industry, and as such can be run as Rand would have wanted, or can be cheapened and misused. Why did the Waco FBI play "Boots" over and over, because they wanted to soothe the compound inhabitants, or drive then batty? Music has consequences, and as such, and as something for which we pay good money, should also be scrutinized, every aspect.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                    "Everyone" in Germany did not support Hitler, nor does any of this have anything whatsoever to do with the tuning standard. Establishing 440Hz as a consistent pitch for tuning did not cause bad music.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by  $  Stormi 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                      You missed the point, that those in Germany said they were not coming for them, until they did. Such is your attitude about music, it's implications on the beliefs of the masses, and it's possible manipulations - turn a blind eye as the German's did, until it was too late. Rand did not feel architect FLW lived up to her expectations of him as a man, by Objectivist standards, and said so. By the same measurement, songwriters and producers today, and musicians, do not live up to Objectivist standards, of doing what is true to themselves, but rather to some big brother recording industry as a whole. The video from England lamented the fact that talented artists don't get contracts because they will not play by the all alike rules. An Objectivist in that industry would have as hard a road as did Roark and Reardon.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by ewv 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                        A stream of consciousness non-response is not a point. The role of the tuning standard in music has nothing to do with anyone "turning a blind eye to the Germans coming for them", or what Ayn Rand said about "Frank Lloyd Wright", or "big brother recording", or any of the rest of the rambling. Nothing.

                        Bad music did not come from "the beat had intentionally been changed to go against what was natural to the heartbeat" and there is no such thing as a frequency's "beneficial effect on the bodies cells" affecting music as "healthful and harmful frequencies alternate from the shuman resonance on up". It is all gibberish. Claims of a magical "432" for the tuning standard and blaming bad music on a-historical, false claims about it are mysticism. Wandering off about "the Germans" and what Ayn Rand said about an architect is irrelevant. Stream of consciousness is not a logical "point".
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by bassboat 2 months, 4 weeks ago
    The way the singers of today slaughter the national anthem is treasonous from my perspective. Ditto other great songs. It all comes from the liberal mindsets in the MSM executives of today. Replace them all with leaders that have American values of the past and you will have the rancor of today subside precipitously.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 2 months, 4 weeks ago
      You want to execute musicians whose style you don't like for "treason"?

      No, it doesn't "all come from the liberal mindsets in the MSM executives" and the solution is not "values of the past". Reason and a proper philosophy are required for choosing values, not "tradition".
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  2 months, 4 weeks ago
      These creatures have ruined, not Just our music but our books, our history, our food and education...right up to our cars...today's cars are produced to reflect an equal outcome of global ugliness; each model across the board reflect the same repeated ugliness. One can't be better or prettier than another.

      American uniqueness has been globally manufactured away.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Stormi 2 months, 4 weeks ago
        Agree! There is conjecture withing a hosrt period, only Toyota and Ford, 5-seater SUVs will be sold. I argued with the guy who had read it, comparing it to Gore's climate misconceptions. It might be what the UN and oligarchs would like to have happen, but people want that American uniqueness, or what is left of it. "Driving Passion" compared what people say they want, vs what they really want, when it comes to cars. What they say is what is politically correct. Ad say women want safety and ask of it first. I have always asked about the engine, hP!I hate tht kids are educated to be anti-auto, and all about pseudo science of climate. Brainwashing, no matter how you look at it. No Camaro, no Corvette, I keep my money.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Ben_C 2 months, 4 weeks ago
    I agree that modern music is awful. I prefer music from the hills of Mississippi - Fat Possum Records R.L. Burnside et al. The guys are the salt of the earth and are not caught up in the corrupt commercialism of entertainment. I like music that come from the soul - not some third party moocher.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 2 months, 4 weeks ago
      Great or good musicians, of whatever sense of life, become commercial successes when the way they use their talent appeals to a large number of people, not entertainment corruption. There was nothing wrong with Loretta Lynn from the hills of Kentucky and even a Bob Dylan becoming commercially successful, and there is nothing wrong with the popular entertainers today becoming commercially successful -- the problem is the declining kind of taste of those who popularize them.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 2 months, 4 weeks ago
    My musical happiness almost entirely comes from music written more than 50 years ago, and I haven't heard anything worth hearing written in the 21st century. There are lots of current performers who have fantastic performing talent and the opportunity to make a living using that talent is greater today than it has ever been before. Artists don't have to use traditional channels to be successful, and they can mix their own music with hundreds of musical instruments using sampled sounds and a digital audio workstation. That's "making a living", not becoming a recording "star."
    The "Voice" and other such star search tv programs are not done to benefit the artists who perform. They are a promotional technique used by recording companies, and the winners of such "contests" are pretty consistently encouraged to change their sound to be the same as the rest of the rubbish created by the recording industry. The performers who don't comply are removed from the competition quickly.

    Today, even the good music written 50+ years ago is often turned to rubbish by most popular artists.
    I love to hear Christmas music. I get joy from singing carols and popular Christmas songs written 50+ years ago.
    I tried to listen to some Christmas CDs performed by modern artists on Christmas day. I could not tolerate it longer than 10 minutes.
    A few do perform the music in less "modern" arrangements without making up a new melody or doing vocal gymnastics.
    Those performances are rare and marvelous.

    Thanks for posting, OUC ;^)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 2 months, 4 weeks ago
      Try the Mormon Tabernacle choir and organ performances. I am not into their religious stuff at all, but I take from mormons what is good about them.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by LibertyBelle 2 months, 3 weeks ago
        They do a great rendition of "Battle Hymn of the Republic", except that even they have caved in to one thing--they sing, "As He died to make men holy, let us live to make men free," when it is supposed to be "die to make men free,". (It's a battle hymn, for gosh sakes)! But still, that objection is irrelevant, musically.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 2 months, 3 weeks ago
          I am can accept them and their “ god “ thing, so long as they accept. Me with my “no god” thing.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by LibertyBelle 2 months, 3 weeks ago
            I can look at songs and musical performances from a musical point of view (or should I say, can listen to them from a musical point of audition). I have even performed certain musical pieces as musical pieces. But "Battle Hymn of the Republic" is just really rousing, musical, and moving--even if one cannot (as I cannot) subscribe to the Christian message. And, even Julia Ward Howe's lyrics are good poetry. (I was never in a public performance of the "Battle Hymn", unfortunately).
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 2 months, 3 weeks ago
              Of late, i have been watching YouTube videos lately. Somehow YouTube selects videos for you. I have watched history of theater and church organs, how to deal with DUI checkpoints, music from a variety of musicians, and many documentaries and historical pieces. Very interestingy. Made me more knowledgeable about what’s really gone on in the world. Never got this information in the government indoctrination centers (public schools). Mormon tabernacle performances are pretty good (subtract out the dogma stuff)
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ycandrea 2 months, 4 weeks ago
      If you want good Christmas music, listen to the Mormon Tabernacle Choir Christmas cd. What do you think of James Horner, who did the music for Titanic and Braveheart? I, too, love the oldies the most for the creativity and originality you just do not see now-a-days. There are a few who have popped up that surprised me. I will share when I can remember them. lol
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 2 months, 4 weeks ago
        Mormon Tabernacle Oran and Choid recitals are awesome. There are lots of them on YouTube actually. I am NOT into the religious part of Mormonism at all, but I do like their financial teachings and their family teachings. They are a bit negative towards non believers to be sure, but they seem to be ok with people who are into letting the mormons be mormons.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo