I can't help thinking that the previous century had such a vast amount 
of music that is drastically superior to this century (which, 
admittedly, isn't over yet). Take a trip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAUINv61Jvc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb3AVT5kBIo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTy5iDYh9b8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKHoEZgAb_k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEC-2_qCqeo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8C4vNjDaSo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3q3eKVBuoo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yD4C9B4zV9Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LGFA3L61Lg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i15ALD6fsUU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywsESPu7eGs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4G_Aa47vfk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzpWJx3I2DY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yHCBv7qdYE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7k679WKSwRE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMPi_iER9Qc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtINzvbYwY0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2_HpPut4gA

That's 18 tracks I found with a few trivial Google searches. I think it 
makes my point quite clearly. Though the sound quality (to say nothing 
of image quality!) varies wildly, the songs themselves are all 
premium-quality stuff.

Somehow, I doubt that in 30, 40 or 50 years time, anybody will give a 
**** about This Is Love, Payphone, Don't Wake Me Up, Whistle, or Call My 
Name. That's today's UK Chart Top 40. I just looked it up. I haven't 
heard of a single one of these [which is no surprise], but then neither 
have you [which is kind of my point].

Also: Hoo boy, this post is A LOT of copyright infringement! o_O 
Legally, I should probably be sued off the face of the planet...

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 21:46:57 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> Somehow, I doubt that in 30, 40 or 50 years time, anybody will give a
> ****
> about This Is Love, Payphone, Don't Wake Me Up, Whistle, or Call My
> Name. That's today's UK Chart Top 40.

A lot of classical music of the 20th century wasn't popular until after 
the composers were dead as well.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 7/3/2012 1:46 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> Somehow, I doubt that in 30, 40 or 50 years time, anybody will give a
> **** about This Is Love, Payphone, Don't Wake Me Up, Whistle, or Call My
> Name. That's today's UK Chart Top 40. I just looked it up. I haven't
> heard of a single one of these [which is no surprise], but then neither
> have you [which is kind of my point].
>
> Also: Hoo boy, this post is A LOT of copyright infringement! o_O
> Legally, I should probably be sued off the face of the planet...

Someone once put it like this - This is the first time in history where, 
in principle, 100% of all the crap, and 100% of all the truly great 
works, could potentially continue to exist into the next generation. 
Previously, about 50% of the great works survived, but so did roughly 
50% of the complete crap.

So, yeah, I am sure you can find "last century" music, if you only look 
at sources that have already filtered out the tone deaf, unpopular, and 
just plain bad, music, that is, apparently, better than an average 
sampling of today's. Its just a false comparison, unless you either 
"unfilter" the prior centuries music, or you add filters to the current 
music, to put them in parity. Odds are, most people haven't even "heard 
of" the truly horrible music from the last century, because no one 
listens to it, even though a few people have "saved it", instead of some 
better work, which they had no interest in keeping.

Post a reply to this message

On 04/07/2012 04:23 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Someone once put it like this - This is the first time in history where,
> in principle, 100% of all the crap, and 100% of all the truly great
> works, could potentially continue to exist into the next generation.
> Previously, about 50% of the great works survived, but so did roughly
> 50% of the complete crap.
>
> So, yeah, I am sure you can find "last century" music, if you only look
> at sources that have already filtered out the tone deaf, unpopular, and
> just plain bad, music, that is, apparently, better than an average
> sampling of today's. Its just a false comparison, unless you either
> "unfilter" the prior centuries music, or you add filters to the current
> music, to put them in parity. Odds are, most people haven't even "heard
> of" the truly horrible music from the last century, because no one
> listens to it, even though a few people have "saved it", instead of some
> better work, which they had no interest in keeping.

Heh. Sampling bias.

So I guess the thing to do is to try to track down 18 truly great tracks 
from this century.

(I'm tempted to say "the debut album from The Baseballs" and call it a 
day... but that's a tad lazy.)

Post a reply to this message

Am 04.07.2012 10:10, schrieb Invisible:
> On 04/07/2012 04:23 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Someone once put it like this - This is the first time in history where,
>> in principle, 100% of all the crap, and 100% of all the truly great
>> works, could potentially continue to exist into the next generation.
>> Previously, about 50% of the great works survived, but so did roughly
>> 50% of the complete crap.
>>
>> So, yeah, I am sure you can find "last century" music, if you only look
>> at sources that have already filtered out the tone deaf, unpopular, and
>> just plain bad, music, that is, apparently, better than an average
>> sampling of today's. Its just a false comparison, unless you either
>> "unfilter" the prior centuries music, or you add filters to the current
>> music, to put them in parity. Odds are, most people haven't even "heard
>> of" the truly horrible music from the last century, because no one
>> listens to it, even though a few people have "saved it", instead of some
>> better work, which they had no interest in keeping.
>
> Heh. Sampling bias.
>
> So I guess the thing to do is to try to track down 18 truly great tracks
> from this century.
>
> (I'm tempted to say "the debut album from The Baseballs" and call it a
> day... but that's a tad lazy.)

There /is/ plenty of good stuff out there. Don't expect it to be all 
Rock & Roll though :-P

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I can't help thinking that the previous century had such a vast amount 
> of music that is drastically superior to this century (which, 
> admittedly, isn't over yet).

  A certain genre not being popular today doesn't mean that nobody creates
that kind of music anymore.

  Also, you are comparing like the top 0.1% of the music of 100 years to
the average music of the past 10 years. Hardly a fair comparison.

> Take a trip:

  It looks to me like what you miss is rockabilly.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 04/07/2012 02:34 PM, Warp wrote:
> Orchid Win7 v1<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> I can't help thinking that the previous century had such a vast amount
>> of music that is drastically superior to this century (which,
>> admittedly, isn't over yet).
>
>    A certain genre not being popular today doesn't mean that nobody creates
> that kind of music anymore.

No. It just means that a lower quantity (and possibly quality) of it is 
produced, that's all.

>    Also, you are comparing like the top 0.1% of the music of 100 years to
> the average music of the past 10 years. Hardly a fair comparison.

Well, the previous century is /finished/, for one thing. The current one 
still has a long way to go. There's some hope it might improve in that time.

And also, yeah. My list demonstrates that the last century had some 
great music. The quest now is to compile a similar list for the current 
century...

>> Take a trip:
>
>    It looks to me like what you miss is rockabilly.

I miss melodic music, yes. I'm not a big fan of aimless wailing vocals 
and grungy percussion.

Post a reply to this message

>> Heh. Sampling bias.
>>
>> So I guess the thing to do is to try to track down 18 truly great tracks
>> from this century.
>>
>> (I'm tempted to say "the debut album from The Baseballs" and call it a
>> day... but that's a tad lazy.)
>
> There /is/ plenty of good stuff out there. Don't expect it to be all
> Rock & Roll though :-P

Well, like I said, The Baseballs. But music doesn't have to be R&R to be 
great. That's just the most obvious example. If I get a minute, I'll try 
compiling a list for this century...

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I can't help thinking that the previous century had such a vast amount
> of music that is drastically superior to this century

same is truer for the previous 2 centuries.

Post a reply to this message

On 04/07/2012 08:12 PM, nemesis wrote:
> Orchid Win7 v1<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> I can't help thinking that the previous century had such a vast amount
>> of music that is drastically superior to this century
>
> same is truer for the previous 2 centuries.

Well, now you're getting into more vague territory. The greatest piece 
of music can sound awful if performed badly, and even bad music can 
sound surprisingly good if played really well. So it's less clear-cut now.

But essentially, I have no idea what was actually written in those 
centuries, so I'm not qualified to comment further.

Post a reply to this message