Does more music = better world?

[Dendy Jarrett]

What do you think?

 

 

http://www.harmonycentral.com/articles/music-revival

 

[1001gear]

Depends who tends the flock.

[Phil O'Keefe]

[h=2]Does more music = better world?[/h]

IMHO, no.

 

Increased quantity isn't what we need, although I do agree with your point about the importance of increased opportunity and increased participation in the act of making music. I think those are generally "good things", but does an increase in the amount of music automatically equate to a better world as you ask in the thread title? To that I'd say no... music is not in short supply, so there's no issue with insufficient quantity. Music of increased QUALITY OTOH, is something we can always use more of, and it's been available in decreasing amounts - at least in terms of NEW music with high quality standards. That's what I think we could use more of... YMMV

 

[1001gear]

I could not have said it any better; literally. So bitters included, music is in the eye of the seller. The old "like taking candy from a baby" axiom has proven to be a historical lie and in fact goes, "like giving candy to a baby" . lol

 

As an example of nothing in particular, I just Googed BIAB and got

 

http://beersmith.com/blog/2009/04/14/brew-in-a-bag-biab-all-grain-beer-brewing/

 

 

 

[Anderton]

I don't think it's about more music per se, it's about more people making music (hopefully much of it will never reach YouTube).

 

I'm not sure what things are like in Brazil these days, but a few decades ago I had a good friend from there and it when going to visit someone, it wasn't considered at all weird to bring over an instrument, then sit around and play music instead of, say, watch TV.

 

Actually the picture that accompanies the articles kind of says it all...a bunch of people having fun. Obviously no one is forcing them to be there, so presumably, they're there because they enjoy what they're doing.

 

So really, I think the conversation is about whether more people playing music would be beneficial. It's hard for me to imagine a scenario where that wouldn't be beneficial.

 

 

[Mats Nermark]

I'd say that if more people took up playing an instrument instead of spending time doing stupid destructive stuff then it would be a much better world.

 

Cheers,

 

Mats N

[Dendy Jarrett]

Amen to that.

[1001gear]

I know you idealists love to muse - or at least schmooze but can that happen? A better world that is and via music; students of music no less. ?

[Anderton]

I know you idealists love to muse - or at least schmooze but can that happen? A better world that is and via music; students of music no less. ?

 

I suppose that's why it was framed as a question

 

So to start with a baby step...what if people substituted playing music instead of watching TV? I tend to think that would make a better world. There was a famous study that showed people who watched Fox News were less well-informed than people who didn't. But, if I had to bet, I'd say the same could be said about CNN, MSNBC, etc. because they're all profit/entertainment driven. You wouldn't be bombarded with commercials trying to program you, and you'd avoid a lot of stupid shows that play on people's fears. Overall, while TV has some positive elements, IMHO the negative ones outweigh the positive ones. I also realized that most of the time when I thought something would be worth watching, by the time it was over I felt like I'd wasted my time.

 

So now my motto is "an hour spent watching TV is an hour not playing music." When I play music I never feel like I'd wasted my time, or had to put up with intrusions into my life (e.g., commercials) that provide no benefit. Speaking at least personally, making more music has made my world better...and I think it probably results in a more positive vibe when interacting with other people.

[nat whilk II]

Hmmm...I say beware of justifying music by referring to it's beneficial effects in other spheres.

 

The arts seem to me to be in their proper place when they aren't answerable to interrogations such as "is this good for you/me/us/the world?, etc.

 

My art I hope is edifying, overall, for other people, yes. But a lot of great art is depressing, antagonistic, even destructive in some sense. Art is not medicine or education or self-help or therapy - it's all of those things and none of those things, depending. Truth cuts in all directions, depending.

 

Once art has to justify itself along non-artistic criteria, then it's subject to pressures from non-artistic agendas. Is it politically correct? Is it clean and healthy and nutritious? Does it make better citizens? Better church goers? Good for the economy? Promotes healthy teeth and gums? Encourages respectful compliance with authority?

 

Nah - you gotta take the good with the bad, artwise. It's the mixed good/bad and self-contradictory human soul working itself out....not a recipe for someone's notion of "it's good for you."

 

nat whilk ii

 

[Chris Loeffler]

I'd rather see more diligent and informed curation of music. It's hard to sift through the muck, and short of randomly clicking on YT recommendations based on a band video, I'd like to see something meaningful come out of the original Pandora project (or, heck, Amazon) and have a more honed pool of material to consider when looking to leave the bell jar.

[Anderton]

Hmmm...I say beware of justifying music by referring to it's beneficial effects in other spheres.

 

The arts seem to me to be in their proper place when they aren't answerable to interrogations such as "is this good for you/me/us/the world?, etc.

 

My art I hope is edifying, overall, for other people, yes. But a lot of great art is depressing, antagonistic, even destructive in some sense. Art is not medicine or education or self-help or therapy - it's all of those things and none of those things, depending. Truth cuts in all directions, depending.

 

Once art has to justify itself along non-artistic criteria, then it's subject to pressures from non-artistic agendas. Is it politically correct? Is it clean and healthy and nutritious? Does it make better citizens? Better church goers? Good for the economy? Promotes healthy teeth and gums? Encourages respectful compliance with authority?

 

Nah - you gotta take the good with the bad, artwise. It's the mixed good/bad and self-contradictory human soul working itself out....not a recipe for someone's notion of "it's good for you."

 

nat whilk ii

 

 

If music can properly frame a negative subject, then it has made for a better world...think Bob Dylan's "protest songs." They weren't positive, but they helped effect a positive change because they framed the subject in a way that people could relate.

 

A "better world" doesn't result from a Polyanna-based papering over of what's bad, but by identifying both the good and bad...then encouraging the good, and fixing the bad.

[Kinzu]

I say YES !

[Beck]

Short answer: Yes, but the creative process as in more people participating in making music is the key. Beyond that, people will debate what type of music. Many studies over the decades have shown correlation between classical music and high church music, and higher intelligence, but drum circles... not so much. I've watched people leave their drum circles to throw poop at police officers. To be fair, the candlelit Nazi parades of the 1930's which what we would term higher music were beautiful, musically speaking.

[RockViolin]

Yeah...um, no.

 

I mean, generally speaking, what's already there doesn't seem to have helped that much.

 

​Maybe first the world, at large, could probably stand to broaden it's pallet, a lot, and regrow an attention span. And while it's at it... perhaps unharness music from what currently seems to be it's primary role - as the soundtrack for some other form of art/entertainment, or life, lawn mowing etc. It can be more than that, and much of what has already been done is considerably more than that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ernest Buckley]

People expressing themselves is a good thing. I`m not going to judge whether its good or not, that irrelevant.

 

When I look at the world and take myself out of the equation, I see a bunch of immature world leaders who fail to grasp the concept that we`re all in this together and that we are destroying the planet and ourselves so a handful can live in abundance and luxury.

 

Peace,

E

[Phil O'Keefe]

I'd rather see more diligent and informed curation of music. It's hard to sift through the muck, and short of randomly clicking on YT recommendations based on a band video, I'd like to see something meaningful come out of the original Pandora project (or, heck, Amazon) and have a more honed pool of material to consider when looking to leave the bell jar.

 

In my day, it was a matter of picking your favorite radio stations and letting the DJs hip you to what was cool and new... today, the lack of that kind of curation and trusted recommendations is a real drag. I totally agree that we need more and better ways of getting that, and I think that whomever comes up with a widely used and liked method to give that to the world is going to make a lot of money.

[RockViolin]

I suppose what I was trying to say is that by all appearances, in spite of all the fabulous, great music that has been created thus far, same world as far as I can tell.

 

Of course it's hard to quantify how much music, the writing of a song, the taking in of a symphony has made anyone's life richer, or better. Same rotten, cruel world though.

 

Of note, perhaps, Richard Strauss wrote nothing after WWII, though he continued to conduct for some time.