The Future of Music - A Discussion

[Twangasaurus]

All right, here's a noggin-scratcher for you alls. And I'm not saying I have an answer (or that there is one), because I sure as shit don't, but:

Does art need progress?

And further, what constitutes progress in art? Is it improvements in technique? Juxtaposition of unusual elements? Making things louder? Making things shinier?

Please note that I fully admit that "progress" is a loaded term implying an agenda or set path or understandable way forward.

Again, just talkin' smack.

Well, to that I would say... innovation is iterative in all things. Some changes are big, some are small, some good and some bad. I wouldn't necessarily say that art can "progress" but I do think that it can widen in scope with each iteration in all directions.

[smallsnd/bigsnd]

how far in the future are we thinking here? 10 years? 20? 50? 100?

it's so hard to even think about where music will be, considering technology has been progressing at such a fast pace and of course heavily impacts the industry in every fold from the top down. not only that, there are economic considerations as well that impact how people make, produce and consume music. most of the developed world seems to be in a complicated place, financially speaking, and things will only get more complex with more people on our planet and the cumulative effects of climate change, etc. most people nowadays can write, perform, produce, duplicate, distribute and advertise their own music for next to nothing. have a computer and an internet connection? you're pretty much covered. naturally, that doesn't make it so that there's more GOOD music and it does make it more difficult to wade through the sea of content for standout talent, but there's plenty of interesting work being done.

[AngryGoldfish]

I suppose I would like to say some things on a couple points of discussion.
1. Anybody who can't find music they like in this day and age is either lazy, boring or both.
2. I think Bellamy and Muse are pretty laborious but I will forever like the fact that a prog band can still find mainstream success to the extent that they have achieved.
3. Anyone who thinks Skrillex is representative of dubstep is a silly and anyone who digs stoner/doom might find they like dubstep if they gave it a shot. Sit down, have a smoke and check out some of the more dub influenced dubstep like Liquid Stranger http://interchill.bandcamp.com/album/the-arcane-terrain.
4. I like strong psychedelics a fair amount. They have been good to me, are ultimately responsible for parts of myself that I like quite a bit and they undoubtedly had some influence on my taste in music. However, they definitely don't define my musical experience as a whole (in fact it's a fairly small corner) nor do they effect how I write or play music and I would never bother writing under the influence because it would be rubbish. I can say that this is true for pretty much all my drug taking musician friends (who are in the majority). Not saying some people can't and do write under the influence (Simon Posford or Steven Drozd for example) but I think for most people it makes the process "messy" and not in a good way.

As for the future of music . If you asked me at the end of the last decade when I was a bit more straight rock focused I would have said maybe we were in a bit of trouble but now... eh. Plenty of great material coming out faster than I can consume it. It's a good time to be alive.

Rush were as popular as Muse are and were a Prog band. Pink Floyd were even bigger and were also highly progressive.

And I mentioned Skrillex because, like Justin Bieber and pop music, he almost single-handedly controls the market. Is Skrillex the epitome of Dub-Step? I have no idea, I don't listen to it. Is Justin Bieber the epitome of Pop music? Fuck no, but he's still one of the most popular artists within that genre. I'm talking popularity here, not skill, adeptness, and integrity.

I had a listen Liquid Stranger and didn't like it that much. The influence of Reggae wsan't my cup of tea, and neither was the deep and syrupy bass. It was definitely nothing like Skrillex though.

All right, here's a noggin-scratcher for you alls. And I'm not saying I have an answer (or that there is one), because I sure as shit don't, but:

Does art need progress?

And further, what constitutes progress in art? Is it improvements in technique? Juxtaposition of unusual elements? Making things louder? Making things shinier?

Please note that I fully admit that "progress" is a loaded term implying an agenda or set path or understandable way forward.

Again, just talkin' smack.

Awesome question.

The psychology of art is not something I'm aware of. I've never studied or invested personal hours researching it. But I think art in general is like a wave in an ocean. It's controlled by something beyond our means, at least on an atomic level. The only way to impact it is to work as a unit—an enormous unit. That is why so many people think that if they downloaded an artist's album it won't affect the industry as it's just a drop in a bucket. But if everyone thinks that then it will affect the industry. In other words, art will only change if everyone decides it's time to. And for the most part, this will be done subconsciously over a very long period time, like the Theory of Evolution.

Does it to need progress? Only if society as a whole decides so. Music and film has needed to adapt and evolve in the last five to ten years due to illegal piracy and the integration of the world wide web. But is that really an artistic evolution? No, because it was caused by something entirely uncreative and unartistic.

Art is arguably louder than it used to be. There is more contrast and clarity. The reproduction of art has improved, but the original artistry and design hasn't, in my opinion. It's probably decreased in quality. There are still some amazingly creative artists out there doing incomparable and clever work, but it's not nearly as widely acceptable as unique art used to be. But that could be wrong. As I said, I haven't art history before.

[phantasmagorovich]

past:

I'm a hedonist, I will take it as it comes. I don't keep up with trends anymore, I am ahead, below, behind or above them. I don't really care. I neither like Muse nor Floyd, tried to like Floyd several times but failed. Do like a lot of the Syd Barrett solo stuff though. I like that there is so much music available. Even though more people could take the time and decently rip some african psych from the 70's. What i am saying that my music consumption has become very arbitrary (right word idk?). When I joined this forum I found out that people much younger than me actually listen to T-Rex. If I weren't growing bald my hair would be standing up. The past is here, all the boundaries of what used to be good vs evil have fallen. There is a huge ocean of sound we can trawl if we want. We can also install oil rigs and go deeper in specific places. All I know is that back when music was still worth a thing (aka controlled by the industry) you could get crucified for putting Unsane next to Cypress Hill on a mix tape. Now my random playlist does not give a shit.

present:

we procrastinate.

future:

The last technical revolutions did not affect the sound. Most were revolutions that revolved around the product and ultimately made (or will make) everyone be on his own. I think professional musicians will have to play live shows for a living (unless the next technical revolution will do away with these). On the other hand being a musician will be a common hobby. This might lead to something like mid 19th century, where many people made music at home and concerts were a good source of income but comparably few truly creative musicians were around.
Why? Because if you have to constantly play for a living (I am talking constantly) you can't be bothered to compose. If you know that you will for the rest of your life just play for very few close people as a hobbyist you will probably not dream up a career and stick to stuff that's effective but probably not new. Be it simplified Mozart or Justin Timberlake.

I do hope there will be a revolution in sound that makes people dream about making music in a new way.

[Necrosis18]

How far in the future are we thinking here? 10 years? 20? 50? 100?

Anything long term would just be impossible guess at. I was thinking more along the lines of taking how music has changed through out history and current trends then using it to shed some light on the possible developing areas. Not the state of music as a whole at any specific time although that is indeed part of the discussion.

most people nowadays can write, perform, produce, duplicate, distribute and advertise their own music for next to nothing. have a computer and an internet connection? you're pretty much covered. naturally, that doesn't make it so that there's more GOOD music and it does make it more difficult to wade through the sea of content for standout talent, but there's plenty of interesting work being done.

So true! Cost and difficulty is at such a low anyone with the will to do so can not only get into their passion but share it with others. The down side being not everyone is an artistic genius, it's the age old "nature of the bell curve" story.

Does art need progress?

THAT'S AN EASY ONE!

Art doesn't need to change, we need to change art. Imagine if 1 unchanging thing was considered art, everyone could only repeat it and there would be nothing in their achievement to make them stand out among the leagues of potential mates. Art would become unnecessary because it wouldn't increase our chances to procreate. I would go so far as to say that Art is the game of changing things. To stand out in a crowd and you choose the crowd to compete against.

Bonus Opinion!
Art really doesn't exist we just do stuff and call it art, art is just a thing of the mind. It can be said that the universe is the single greatest piece of art. Ever changing and infinitely complex, but take out life, remove the observer and all that is left is the mandatory turn of events matter proceeds through given the laws of physics present.

[jrmy]

So much more to say than this, but this quote:

Bonus Opinion!
Art really doesn't exist we just do stuff and call it art, art is just a thing of the mind. It can be said that the universe is the single greatest piece of art. Ever changing and infinitely complex, but take out life, remove the observer and all that is left is the mandatory turn of events matter proceeds through given the laws of physics present.

made me think of Duchamp:

If you don't know the story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)

And specifically the defense of The Fountain as a work of art: "Whether Mr Mutt made the fountain with his own hands or not has no importance. He CHOSE it. He took an article of life, placed it so that its useful significance disappeared under the new title and point of view – created a new thought for that object."

[D.o.S.]

I'm a big fan of found art.

That said, the sole definition of art as experience and therefore anything can be art is a bit of a cop out--like answering "if a tree falls in the woods, and no one is around, does it make a sound?" with "no, because sound is something that requires eardrums to process."

(A perfectly acceptable answer/thought process if you're looking at the relationship between the individual and the rest of the universe, by the way... Unfortunately, that's not what's being discussed.)

To my way of thinking, Art requires purpose, otherwise the thing/the situation/the scenario/the "it" is merely a pleasantly synchronicitous event.

So, for example, a gorgeous sunrise is not art, no matter what the dopamine is making you feel.

TL; DR:
You're not wrong, Walter, you're just...

[D.o.S.]

but, as always, I could be wrong.

[jrmy]

Sure, yes - that's why the CHOOSING of whatever is made art matters. Further, good found art tends to recontextualize whatever was found in a way that's interesting given the context of the time.

Further, Duchamp posited that art is a circuit - it's not art without an audience to complete the circuit. Meaning that the art has to be doubly conceptualized - first in the mind of the artist making/choosing/recontextualizing it, then in the mind of the audience trying to process what the artist has done with/to it.

[jrmy]

FURTHER...

[jrmy]

I tend to repeat words when I'm on a roll.

[D.o.S.]

Yup. The philosophy is fairly similar to some of the more experimental authors working around the same time--and a lot of that influence trickles down into post-modern literature (which is my boner de jour).


I, however, will always hold that Duchamp was taking the piss with that submission.

NSFW: show

Further, you should check out Bern Porter's stuff for some really cool found and experimental art. You may dig.

[jrmy]

Yup. The philosophy is fairly similar to some of the more experimental authors working around the same time--and a lot of that influence trickles down into post-modern literature (which is my boner de jour).


I, however, will always hold that Duchamp was taking the piss with that submission.

NSFW: show

Further, you should check out Bern Porter's stuff for some really cool found and experimental art. You may dig.

Well played, sir, well played.

I will definitely have to check out Bern Porter. Thanks for the tip!

[kbit]

the future of music is the next time you pick up your instrument and go **piiiinnnnng** (or whatever sound your instrument makes)

Amen, brother.

In the future, everything will be run through sidechain compression.
EVERYTHING
LITERALLY ALL THE MUSIC

I can feel my body convulsing now.
I like it.

[Gearmond]

bedroom producers, and easier access to easier to use production programs is probably/definitely going to be the next big thing. i mean a decent mic, interface, soundcard, interface, and a plethora of pirated music already gets you anywhere you could possibly want to go, add on top of that whatever instruments or new sounds you want to make, and you could theoretically make just about any kind of music for like a couple thousand on your own. or even less.

hopefully we'll see the bedroom producer trend happening now branch out beyond the house/new age/pop hybrid that seems to be the summation of all bedroom producers. not to say that there hasn't been shittons of different stuff made with that combination, but it's theoretically an unlimitedly variable mode of production where each person is able to express their unique vision