4 ms·

I got endless streams of synthwave, vaporwave and similar on Youtube, regularly hearing new songs as well, people still keep creating great new music. Why'd we

I got endless streams of synthwave, vaporwave and similar on Youtube, regularly hearing new songs as well, people still keep creating great new music. Why'd we have to compose music in a style of the past? We got different instruments and sound production methods at our disposal now. Bach clearly was a geek of his time though, and I respect that.

coldtea 2y ago
>Why'd we have to compose music in a style of the past? Because we like it. >We got different instruments and sound production methods at our disposal now. So? Those are mere tools so we can make the music that we like and want to make. Those tools are not our masters to impose us making different styles on us.
- Aardwolf 2y ago
  >> Why'd we have to compose music in a style of the past? > Because we like it. Nothing against that, but there seems to be a group of people who dismiss anything except classical music as if we lost the ability to make acceptable music today. I also like some styles more than others, but I'm not going to make generalizing statements about humanity's abilities due to my personal preferences. > Those tools are not our masters to impose us making different styles on us. They most probably do affect the style, just like how 16-color pixel graphics produces a different visual style than playstation-style polygons. And that's a good thing, more styles = more variety, there isn't some particular style of some particular era that's somehow better than others
  - xattt 2y ago
    To add to your comment, music from that time was contemporary and reflected the needs and wants of the general population of the time. Forcing new composers to conform to what old people want from because tradition, damn it is a recipe for creative disaster.
    - coldtea 2y ago
      >Forcing new composers to conform to what old people want from because tradition, damn it is a recipe for creative disaster. Is it? That's how music and culture was preserved and slowly enriched over millenia, from Gamelan music to masterpieces like Bach. I'd say forcing new music for the sake of it, especially to the degree and speed we do in the latter half of the 20th century onwards, leads to music following "fast fashion" like deappreciation, lack of understanding of its legacy, lack of leaving a legacy, spintering of audiences to individual echo bubbles, and ultimately commercial crap.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
YurgenJurgensen 2y ago
If you ask “Why do we have to compose music in the style of the past?”, it’s pretty ironic that you give two examples of styles that are explicit throwbacks. Why is your new music trying very hard to seem like it’s 40 years old?
jmkr 2y ago
We still play Jazz standards from 100 years ago. It seems if you want to be able to have your own take on something you should be able to do it the intended way, capture l'espirit, and then impart your own. Also it's much cooler to switch back and forth between styles. Synthwave is pretty cool, but it'd also be pretty cool to hear a Moog play a piece from an old composer instead of a simple drone.

coldtea 2y ago

>Why'd we have to compose music in a style of the past? Because we like it. >We got different instruments and sound production methods at our disposal now. So? Those are mere tools so we can make the music that we like and want to make. Those tools are not our masters to impose us making different styles on us.

Aardwolf 2y ago
>> Why'd we have to compose music in a style of the past? > Because we like it. Nothing against that, but there seems to be a group of people who dismiss anything except classical music as if we lost the ability to make acceptable music today. I also like some styles more than others, but I'm not going to make generalizing statements about humanity's abilities due to my personal preferences. > Those tools are not our masters to impose us making different styles on us. They most probably do affect the style, just like how 16-color pixel graphics produces a different visual style than playstation-style polygons. And that's a good thing, more styles = more variety, there isn't some particular style of some particular era that's somehow better than others
- xattt 2y ago
  To add to your comment, music from that time was contemporary and reflected the needs and wants of the general population of the time. Forcing new composers to conform to what old people want from because tradition, damn it is a recipe for creative disaster.
  - coldtea 2y ago
    >Forcing new composers to conform to what old people want from because tradition, damn it is a recipe for creative disaster. Is it? That's how music and culture was preserved and slowly enriched over millenia, from Gamelan music to masterpieces like Bach. I'd say forcing new music for the sake of it, especially to the degree and speed we do in the latter half of the 20th century onwards, leads to music following "fast fashion" like deappreciation, lack of understanding of its legacy, lack of leaving a legacy, spintering of audiences to individual echo bubbles, and ultimately commercial crap.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

YurgenJurgensen 2y ago

If you ask “Why do we have to compose music in the style of the past?”, it’s pretty ironic that you give two examples of styles that are explicit throwbacks. Why is your new music trying very hard to seem like it’s 40 years old?

jmkr 2y ago

We still play Jazz standards from 100 years ago. It seems if you want to be able to have your own take on something you should be able to do it the intended way, capture l'espirit, and then impart your own. Also it's much cooler to switch back and forth between styles. Synthwave is pretty cool, but it'd also be pretty cool to hear a Moog play a piece from an old composer instead of a simple drone.