5 ms·

Excellent article, although it seems to assume that the average quality of content has stayed constant over time. I don't think that's the case. Take music, for

Excellent article, although it seems to assume that the average quality of content has stayed constant over time. I don't think that's the case. Take music, for example. In the past, we were limited in the types of sounds we could make. Nowadays, with the help of computers, musicians can create any sound they can imagine. A similar thing has happened with television and movies. Technology has allowed a wider range of content to be created. It's also made it easier to create high-quality content.

brandall10 15y ago
Interestingly enough, if you read The Beatles Anthology they make the case that they were so good _because_ they had little else to do. When we talk great composers, you might argue about Beethoven vs. Mozart vs. Bach... but would you throw anyone from the last 100 years into the mix?
- jerf 15y ago
  Yes. But there are so many of them from so many different genres of music that being as skilled as Beethoven isn't as rare as it used to be. If it looks like nobody stands above the rest as clearly as Mozart or Beethoven once did, it is because the top end has become crowded, not because it was depopulated.
  - angus77 15y ago
    If you're talking in terms of technical skill, sure. If you're talking in terms of quantity of quality output, that's not quite so indisputable. You're not suggesting we're awash in 'Fur Elise's, are you?
    - colomon 15y ago
      If you'd said "Symphony #9", I might have granted you the point. But "Fur Elise" isn't particularly more complicated than a well-written rock or pop song, and yes, I'd suggest we are indeed awash with those. (Even if they only represent 0.01% of the music in those fields...)
      - hobbes 15y ago
        To misquote Bob Dylan, "Beethoven could have written Mr. Tambourine Man. Dylan could not have written Fur Elise".
        jerf 15y ago
        No, Beethoven could not have written Tambourine Man. Beethoven was a man of his time, and music was bound by strict rules that controlled what was acceptable in terms of harmonies, and physically bound in what instrumentation he could write. Beethoven pushed out the rules a little bit but he was not anywhere near where Tambourine Man is; the very concept of the modern I-V-IV progression would be enough to give musicians of the time the vapors. Part of the reason the classical musicians were so voluminous in their output is that their rules were so constraining that once you wrote down the melody, half the work was already done for you; there were a very limited number of choices left to you. I enjoy Mozart a lot, but at the same time listening to him with modern ears it is obvious that he has a very strong signature style, and that he could simply crank out the tunes using that style in a manner not entirely dissimilar from how one cranks out autotuned pop hits using standard harmonies and singers that can't actually sing. Mozart's results were better but there's more method overlap than you might think. I think when people say that all the good composers are in the past, they are really just socially signalling. It's not actually true. Plenty of spectacularly good people are around today, and like I said before, if they seem less unique it's because the top end has become crowded, not depopulated. Despite having no physical limitations of relevance, Mozart would never have written even The Flight of the Valkaries or much of anything else Wagner did, let alone Debussy, or Gershwin. All the classical musicians, geniuses though they were, were also very very confined in their style. They did not exhaust the space of good music; they only took the first hill of what we'd call modern music. It is a disservice to the many that have come after them to pretend they were uniquely virtuous; they were merely uniquely first.
        hobbes 15y ago
        Thanks for missing the point.
- muhfuhkuh 15y ago
  "would you throw anyone from the last 100 years into the mix?" Carl Orff, John Williams, Danny Elfman, Hans Zimmer. For more individual achievements, Zack Hemsey for "Mind Heist" (aka the song from Inception) and Clint Mansell for "Lux Aeterna" (aka the Requiem for a Dream song).
  - zzeroparticle 15y ago
    Sergei Rachmaninoff should be added to this list since I've yet to encounter any pianist who didn't have a glowing reaction to any of the Rachmaninoff Piano Concertos. Especially Piano Concerto #2 which ranks up there as being one of my top 10 favorite pieces of music.
  - alphakappa 15y ago
    Not to mention an incredible array of composers from the non-Western world.
  - zb 15y ago
    <cough> Stravinsky?
  - autarch 15y ago
    <doublecough>Copland, Barber, Ned Rorem, James MacMillan, Britten, George Crumb, Joseph Schwantner, John Adams, William Bolcom, John Corigliano, Dominick Argento, Charles Ives, ... There's a lot more to modern composition than film music and Carmina Burana.
  - bhoung 15y ago
    scanning through the text, your name jumps out at me, which makes me ask myself what kind of HN consumer would call themselves that... to which the answer is, one with high average points karma
  - patrickk 15y ago
    For me, the track "Time" from the Inception soundtrack is mind-blowing. Listen to it with good quality earphones and tell me it doesn't send chills down your spine. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0kGAz6HYM8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0kGAz6HYM8 EDIT: link
- Cushman 15y ago
  Absolutely. I might name a dozen or more musicians still alive today who have produced extraordinarily compelling works which speak to the heart and soul as effectively as the classical masters. There are what, seven times as many people alive today as were in 1800? It's pure silliness to propose that the geniuses of art and science are dead. To the contrary, as it is so effortless today to produce art, works of incredible beauty are common enough to no longer be particularly notable. Of course that could be good or bad depending on your perspective... But I'm gonna say good.
  - watchandwait 15y ago
    Interesting point. Also the economic surplus is much greater today-- far fewer people in the past had the luxury time to pursue the artistic.
- nandemo 15y ago
  Prokofiev, Rachmaninoff, Bartok, Debussy, Ravel, Fauré, Janacek, Elgar, Mahler, Manuel de Falla, Sibelius, Gershwin, just to mention some of the major ones. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_20th-century_classical_composers_by_birth_date http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_20th-century_classical_...
- olifante 15y ago
  Béla Bartók
ynniv 15y ago
Not high-quality, high-resolution. And I will argue that good art is resolution independent. So we are creating a lot more stuff, and some of it is even good. Probably more good stuff than we used to create, but orders of magnitude more unremarkable drivel. You probably wouldn't be missing much by sticking to the classics.
AngryParsley 15y ago
I didn't mean to start a debate about great artists in history. As a less emotionally-charged analogy, consider math. There are extremely well-known and respected mathematicians from centuries ago. That said, we have better tools today (both new forms of math and computer-assisted proofs) that let us solve more complicated problems than ever before. If the Newton had access to MATLAB or Mathematica, he probably would have done even greater things. Likewise, if Beethoven had GarageBand or a Tenori-on, he could have created even more interesting music. There are a couple places where this analogy breaks down. Status matters a lot in art. Also, in math the end-product is the main thing that matters, while in art the creation process factors into its impressiveness. A sculpture hand-chiseled out of marble is more impressive than one made by a 3D printer, even if they are indistinguishable to human eyes. Still, I dare say that if Bach created his works today, they would be appreciated about as much as other high-quality contemporary composers (such as Hans Zimmer). Did I just compare artists across history? I'm such a hypocrite.

brandall10 15y ago

Interestingly enough, if you read The Beatles Anthology they make the case that they were so good _because_ they had little else to do. When we talk great composers, you might argue about Beethoven vs. Mozart vs. Bach... but would you throw anyone from the last 100 years into the mix?

jerf 15y ago
Yes. But there are so many of them from so many different genres of music that being as skilled as Beethoven isn't as rare as it used to be. If it looks like nobody stands above the rest as clearly as Mozart or Beethoven once did, it is because the top end has become crowded, not because it was depopulated.
- angus77 15y ago
  If you're talking in terms of technical skill, sure. If you're talking in terms of quantity of quality output, that's not quite so indisputable. You're not suggesting we're awash in 'Fur Elise's, are you?
  - colomon 15y ago
    If you'd said "Symphony #9", I might have granted you the point. But "Fur Elise" isn't particularly more complicated than a well-written rock or pop song, and yes, I'd suggest we are indeed awash with those. (Even if they only represent 0.01% of the music in those fields...)
    - hobbes 15y ago
      To misquote Bob Dylan, "Beethoven could have written Mr. Tambourine Man. Dylan could not have written Fur Elise".
      - jerf 15y ago
        No, Beethoven could not have written Tambourine Man. Beethoven was a man of his time, and music was bound by strict rules that controlled what was acceptable in terms of harmonies, and physically bound in what instrumentation he could write. Beethoven pushed out the rules a little bit but he was not anywhere near where Tambourine Man is; the very concept of the modern I-V-IV progression would be enough to give musicians of the time the vapors. Part of the reason the classical musicians were so voluminous in their output is that their rules were so constraining that once you wrote down the melody, half the work was already done for you; there were a very limited number of choices left to you. I enjoy Mozart a lot, but at the same time listening to him with modern ears it is obvious that he has a very strong signature style, and that he could simply crank out the tunes using that style in a manner not entirely dissimilar from how one cranks out autotuned pop hits using standard harmonies and singers that can't actually sing. Mozart's results were better but there's more method overlap than you might think. I think when people say that all the good composers are in the past, they are really just socially signalling. It's not actually true. Plenty of spectacularly good people are around today, and like I said before, if they seem less unique it's because the top end has become crowded, not depopulated. Despite having no physical limitations of relevance, Mozart would never have written even The Flight of the Valkaries or much of anything else Wagner did, let alone Debussy, or Gershwin. All the classical musicians, geniuses though they were, were also very very confined in their style. They did not exhaust the space of good music; they only took the first hill of what we'd call modern music. It is a disservice to the many that have come after them to pretend they were uniquely virtuous; they were merely uniquely first.
        hobbes 15y ago
        Thanks for missing the point.
muhfuhkuh 15y ago
"would you throw anyone from the last 100 years into the mix?" Carl Orff, John Williams, Danny Elfman, Hans Zimmer. For more individual achievements, Zack Hemsey for "Mind Heist" (aka the song from Inception) and Clint Mansell for "Lux Aeterna" (aka the Requiem for a Dream song).
- zzeroparticle 15y ago
  Sergei Rachmaninoff should be added to this list since I've yet to encounter any pianist who didn't have a glowing reaction to any of the Rachmaninoff Piano Concertos. Especially Piano Concerto #2 which ranks up there as being one of my top 10 favorite pieces of music.
- alphakappa 15y ago
  Not to mention an incredible array of composers from the non-Western world.
- zb 15y ago
  <cough> Stravinsky?
- autarch 15y ago
  <doublecough>Copland, Barber, Ned Rorem, James MacMillan, Britten, George Crumb, Joseph Schwantner, John Adams, William Bolcom, John Corigliano, Dominick Argento, Charles Ives, ... There's a lot more to modern composition than film music and Carmina Burana.
- bhoung 15y ago
  scanning through the text, your name jumps out at me, which makes me ask myself what kind of HN consumer would call themselves that... to which the answer is, one with high average points karma
- patrickk 15y ago
  For me, the track "Time" from the Inception soundtrack is mind-blowing. Listen to it with good quality earphones and tell me it doesn't send chills down your spine. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0kGAz6HYM8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0kGAz6HYM8 EDIT: link
Cushman 15y ago
Absolutely. I might name a dozen or more musicians still alive today who have produced extraordinarily compelling works which speak to the heart and soul as effectively as the classical masters. There are what, seven times as many people alive today as were in 1800? It's pure silliness to propose that the geniuses of art and science are dead. To the contrary, as it is so effortless today to produce art, works of incredible beauty are common enough to no longer be particularly notable. Of course that could be good or bad depending on your perspective... But I'm gonna say good.
- watchandwait 15y ago
  Interesting point. Also the economic surplus is much greater today-- far fewer people in the past had the luxury time to pursue the artistic.
nandemo 15y ago
Prokofiev, Rachmaninoff, Bartok, Debussy, Ravel, Fauré, Janacek, Elgar, Mahler, Manuel de Falla, Sibelius, Gershwin, just to mention some of the major ones. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_20th-century_classical_composers_by_birth_date http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_20th-century_classical_...
olifante 15y ago
Béla Bartók

ynniv 15y ago

Not high-quality, high-resolution. And I will argue that good art is resolution independent. So we are creating a lot more stuff, and some of it is even good. Probably more good stuff than we used to create, but orders of magnitude more unremarkable drivel. You probably wouldn't be missing much by sticking to the classics.

AngryParsley 15y ago

I didn't mean to start a debate about great artists in history. As a less emotionally-charged analogy, consider math. There are extremely well-known and respected mathematicians from centuries ago. That said, we have better tools today (both new forms of math and computer-assisted proofs) that let us solve more complicated problems than ever before. If the Newton had access to MATLAB or Mathematica, he probably would have done even greater things. Likewise, if Beethoven had GarageBand or a Tenori-on, he could have created even more interesting music. There are a couple places where this analogy breaks down. Status matters a lot in art. Also, in math the end-product is the main thing that matters, while in art the creation process factors into its impressiveness. A sculpture hand-chiseled out of marble is more impressive than one made by a 3D printer, even if they are indistinguishable to human eyes. Still, I dare say that if Bach created his works today, they would be appreciated about as much as other high-quality contemporary composers (such as Hans Zimmer). Did I just compare artists across history? I'm such a hypocrite.