You again missed the entire point of what I said (and stating something like "Even if you write 2 pages more, you still did do wrong" means you simply don't care what I'm saying). To sum it up, you're claiming that classic orchestral music is the only genre that will be remembered 300 years from now. What I'm saying is, you can't make that assumption. No one can. You have no goddamn idea whether or not classical orchestral music will survive the test of time, or will be the only surviving music genre in 300 years, after everything else is forgotten. And you're assuming other music genres will be forgotten. Again, you don't know that. You have no idea what future music listeners will be into, or how Handel and Mozart will be regarded by future generations. I argued that classical music's impact is already diminished, as is classic literature and classic films. The forthcoming generations already see the past differently than you do, and after that, who knows? And if you're that certain about the future, you're definitely wasting your time here -- you should be working for a corporation or a government, predicting trends three hundred years in advance.

It's not that I think there's good music anymore, it's just that you won't hear it on the radio anymore. The industry has deteriorated to the point where there are "ten sure things" they are willing to invest in, as opposed to the hundreds and hundreds of new and different-sounding acts they used to. New genres won't be heard, because giving them airplay and spending millions in promotion is risky. Double goes for the movie industry. Studios and record companies are no longer willing to speculate -- they want sure things, definitive returns on their investments. But without speculation, movies and music won't move forward, and eventually, even the sure things will stop making money.

 

I don't miss the point. And you are right about the second sentence in the following way:
You have fine arguments and I would love to discuss them with you. But how can I do so with a person who is not willing to admit that he did wrong to me?

Even though the above is still missing, I want to correct you on a point. An assumption is something of that you aren't sure, and indeed I wasn't sure. That's why I betted on it. I didn't say that it's a fact. I just said I can imagine the classic masters being listened to when other modern genres will be forgotten. I come to this imagination from the fact that classic is currently as liked as modern genres.

To sum it up: I think, classic as a common thread will always play a role (as inspiration or as a consumer product) while you think it will not. Can't we both live with that? I can.

Here we talk the same language. I too think that radio is a fast food type of music pleasing. The good music is in this world, but you have to find it by yourself more often than not. There are lables that take risks, but indeed airplay is mostly reserved for sure hits. Which tells a lot about the human kind. Are we really satisfied that easily? We here at audiosex mostly not. But we also are a minority.

 

I'm not denigrating classical orchestral music, I just don't think the future is so easy to predict. At the end of the day, we like what we like and consider whatever it is we consider to be "classic". I feel like I jumped on you a bit too harshly for your honest opinion, sorry about that.

And that's the whole problem -- you have to dig through millions of songs to find the good ones now. There is no longer any hierarchy of live bands being signed to labels, recording singles and albums, getting popularity through airplay and sales in record stores, publicly proving their sound. There's a small pool of company-backed "product", then a vast ocean of unsigned or self-made bands and performers. Some of them are amazing, a lot of them are bad and derivative, but they're all clumped together and hard to mine for the ones you'd want to listen to over and over again.

The concepts of anyone being able to self-produce an album on a computer and the death of commercially-financed popular music happened right around the same time. Supply far exceeds demand ... which is really a shame, because this should be the golden age of emerging musical genres and great composers finally having the affordable tools to create anything they want without paying a studio or going broke just trying to buy the gear to do it. I keep thinking that, without a profit motive, a generation of "serious" musicians will emerge to challenge the "product", but without being able to turn on your radio or TV and discovering them, or knowing enough about them to track them down in a live venue, I'm not sure how they'd reach a wide audience.

 

Last edited: Nov 22, 2016

These were our thoughts about classic and now read their problem:

A big problem

 

Last edited by a moderator: Nov 22, 2016

I love R&B ...and especially Urban Gospel...(which i will only play)...
this isnt 80s but 1990...im sure you guys have heard of them...or the groups that interchange in and out.

 

I feel this to be a most credible observation.

 

This video represents the current situation with music right now.
Janice is the music industry and the kid is the user, he wants to go out but cant he is forced to take a ride and the executives running the show are just laughing.

"Janice im falling"
Yes kid, we all are.

I swear this is the funniest shit on YT.

 

There needs to be an emerging platform that garners a wide audience and releases a lot of new music most people don't get to hear ... kind of like MTV was back in 1983 (I got back on topic!).

 

I could have not said it better my self > shitty modern low value TMZ promoted RAP.
And get a instrument and learn to be a musician.

 

Janice is a total asshole. Poor kid. Good analysis.

 

My bad these are new releases.

 

Last edited: Nov 25, 2016