# The Universal Appeal of Music



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

It's a concept we all know of, but I want to ask you about it from a different angle than usual. Instead of speaking across cultures and history, I've been wondering about music's appeal across class boundaries, education levels, and other factors of upbringing.

I was prompted yesterday evening because my family (*excluding* me!) was watching the _X Factor_ (the UK's version of those oh-so-woefully popular singing contests that promise eternal stardom for their winners, though their names inevitably drop from the public consciousness within a year).

Even though I hate it with a passion, I just thought to myself: "why doesn't this exist for writing or visual art?" Where is the literary talent show, or 'Artist Idol' - not to satisfy me, but for the *same demographic* as the _X Factor_?

Of course, from the perspective of actually making a TV show, the literary and visual arts don't lend themselves to the format. But the issue is wider than that - if you were to ask hundreds of thousands of teenagers which of art, music, and literature they were interested in, you could bet that close to 100% of them would claim to actively engage in music culture (meaning anything from just having a favourite band), with the figures far, far less for the other arts (many of them would never read or look at art outside of school). What makes music so special?


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Polednice said:


> What makes music so special?


The easy answer is, you can't dance to literature.

Also, music is an individual as well as a group event, which also factors in. If all the cool kids are going to a concert, everyone else wants to go. And they don't throw parties where they get together to read.

It also requires little effort to experience; people have it in the background all the time, and they don't have to concentrate as they hear it, like they would holding a book.

I wouldn't say far less encounter the other "arts." I use quotes, because like music, there are high and low forms of literature and visual arts. I'd say a good number of teenagers read. I was trying to think of Bella's last name from Twilight when I was at Barnes & Noble, so I asked a random teenage girl; she pulled the name out without thinking. The same could be said for Harry Potter.

The visual arts are the same, depending on the type of image. There is no lack of people looking at pornography. And movies/videos are a form of visual art everyone engages in.

I think there is a general lack of interest in anything considered high art, whether it's music, literature, or visual art. Few people want to go to the trouble of understanding something like that.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

The large majority of teenagers are unwise, un-insightful, have no perspective, are dull, dumb and boring...and stupid. It's as simple as that.

Of course the teenagers here on TC are the best of the bunch and don't fit this description at all. 

Sorry for the harshness, I *despised* my high school years with a passion.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

Sadly, this may be the case but only for the masses of today...when you're given a smart phone before you're ever even taught how to spin a top or use your imagination to play a good ol' fashioned game of kick the can...well, things can't go very well from there on in...the phone becomes 'boring' so you get a pad...but then you have to fill it with all of the apps imaginable to compensate for the lack of information in one's brain because you haven't even read a book and you're almost thirteen already...and there is no innocence because of everything presented everywhere and when you start getting those feelings, you just jump and act upon them...

...it is, indeed, a sad time but the good news is...it won't last much longer...we rape our mother with careless abandon assuming eternal supply and this simply will not do...


I loved my high school experience, though...a great, motley crew of all sorts of folks, mostly smart.


----------



## Curiosity (Jul 10, 2011)

violadude said:


> The large majority of teenagers are unwise, un-insightful, have no perspective, are dull, dumb and boring...and stupid. It's as simple as that.


Pretty much. Though that also applies to the vast majority of people in general, regardless of age.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

violadude said:


> Sorry for the harshness, I *despised* my high school years with a passion.


I know that feeling all too well...!

@Manxfeeder: I'm not sure who, but I think one of us would be surprised at the actual numbers of teenagers who read - and I mean read _anything_; Shakespeare or Rowling. My own experience comes from being a family of five kids and being the only one who has ever had the desire to touch a book (my siblings are 22, 16, 13, and 8, and every one of them actively _despises_ reading, no matter what it is). Then, of course, at school - again, in my experience - only my closest friends read for pleasure (hence why we were friends!); even people who I sat and joked with in classes wouldn't touch a book of any kind with a bargepole.

That's why there's an almost-500,000 strong "I hate reading" group on facebook - because why read a book when there's a film?

I think you're right about the social and concentration aspect though.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Having said the above, thinking about teenagers' perceptions of books, it's not just that they don't do anything for them, or that they'd have more fun doing other things, but that they are actually associated with boredom and nerdery. Is it inherent in the 'adolescent condition' for kids to find these things dull, or is it because parents/TV/radio/celebrities/something-else-cultural are constantly feeding them that preconception?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Polednice said:


> Having said the above, thinking about teenagers' perceptions of books, it's not just that they don't do anything for them, or that they'd have more fun doing other things, but that they are actually associated with boredom and nerdery. Is it inherent in the 'adolescent condition' for kids to find these things dull, or is it because parents/TV/radio/celebrities/something-else-cultural are constantly feeding them that preconception?


I think it might be because the first time most kids start reading is in school, and school in general is usually associated with boredom. I don't think it helps either that most schools pressure kids to read a certain number of hours a week, so reading really becomes a chore and less of a pastime. I think if most kids started reading on their own, either with parents encouragement or just merely on their own because they're that cool, without all the pressure of school and reading being part of your grade, then more kids would like reading.

Although, it's a tricky issue because it's not like schools shouldn't encourage reading...


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I remember a study back in the 1980's or 90's using some kind of neuroimaging that showed music can have as profound a physiological effect as sex. The other arts don't even come close, unless combined with music as in films. There is your answer. That study made me a bit dissatisfied with the visual arts I was pursuing. 

Also, if my layman understanding of the articles I've read is close to correct, science now believes music could have evolved with us along with speech (or that speech and music are almost one and the same) as a means of allowing mothers to connect with their infants in a more hands free manner than was possible before, whereas writing and cave painting did not. So music could be much more innate. Of course that is still in the speculation stage.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

You youngsters all miss the answer to the op, which is: music per se is not art. "Art music", properly applied as a term, is a different thing.

BTW _Almaviva_, in several places and times, opera wasn't 'art' either.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Hilltroll72 said:


> You youngsters all miss the answer to the op, which is: music per se is not art. "Art music", properly applied as a term, is a different thing.


But I'm not asking about art-literature or art-art; I'm talking about pop-literature and pop-art.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Polednice said:


> But I'm not asking about art-literature or art-art; I'm talking about pop-literature and pop-art.


And what are you comparing those things to? Pop-lit and pop-art are just that - pop, same deal as pop music. Are you being deliberately obfuscatory, Noon Witch? Explain yourself, youngster!


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Hilltroll72 said:


> And what are you comparing those things to? Pop-lit and pop-art are just that - pop, same deal as pop music. Are you being deliberately obfuscatory, Noon Witch? Explain yourself, youngster!


I don't understand what your problem is! I'm comparing pop-lit and pop-art with pop music! I'm just wondering why music is so monstrously more popular than the others!


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Polednice said:


> I don't understand what your problem is! I'm comparing pop-lit and pop-art with pop music! I'm just wondering why music is so monstrously more popular than the others!


It isn't. You just don't know what pop-lit and pop-art consist of. I suppose it could be a terminology thing.... Hmm. The recent change in the appearance of Gator-Aid cans is pop-art. Each new billboard represents pop-art, and if there is a 'catchy' message, pop lit. Television advertising is pop-art, even the guy pushing 1800 tequila.

Jeez.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Hilltroll72 said:


> It isn't. You just don't know what pop-lit and pop-art consist of. I suppose it could be a terminology thing.... Hmm. The recent change in the appearance of Gator-Aid cans is pop-art. Each new billboard represents pop-art, and if there is a 'catchy' message, pop lit. Television advertising is pop-art, even the guy pushing 1800 tequila.
> 
> Jeez.


Err... I don't know whether you're trolling me or not Mr. Troll! 

Imagine: teenager. 16. Spotty. Disobedient. Likes N Dubz. Watches X Factor. Hates school. Hates reading. Harasses friends with funny/insightful quotes from TV/film/advertisements.

"Excuse me, Mr. Teenager, sir, do you like music?"
"Yeah mate! N Dubz roolz."
"And do you like literature* Mr. Teenager, sir?"
"Hell no! That's some borin' **** right there."

*call it what you like - even just generic 'reading' - they'll say no. Slogans do not count as pop lit!!!!


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

I wanna live where generic dumbass teens call people "mate".


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

regressivetransphobe said:


> I wanna live where generic dumbass teens call people "mate".


Come and live in my house then.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

Polednice said:


> "Excuse me, Mr. Teenager, sir, do you like music?"
> "Yeah mate! N Dubz roolz."
> "And do you like literature* Mr. Teenager, sir?"
> "Hell no! That's some borin' **** right there."


doesn't that answer your first question.. ? literature is boring, music is not


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Polednice said:


> Err... I don't know whether you're trolling me or not Mr. Troll!
> 
> Imagine: teenager. 16. Spotty. Disobedient. Likes N Dubz. Watches X Factor. Hates school. Hates reading. Harasses friends with funny/insightful quotes from TV/film/advertisements.
> 
> ...


Aha! Of course 'slogans' count as pop lit. 'Reading' is comprehending language written down. Just don't confuse the issue by calling it 'reading' or 'literature'. I suppose you could show your 'subject' an advertisement, and ask him if he understands the message. If he does, and it's purely visual, he understands art. Same deal with written-down language; he gets the message then...

You're such a snob, Polednice.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

also, cheryl cole (<3) doesn't know anything about literature


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

ARGH!

@Philip: I suppose the one word "boring" does answer my question very, very, very, very slightly, but I was hoping for (and indeed got) some longer answers from others.

@Hilltrollnastyperson: now we're both going round in circles! Yes, reading is comprehending language written down - which is reading slogans - but reading slogans is _not_ pop-lit! In _my_, I obviously did _not_ mean comprehending language with the use of 'reading'. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Philip said:


> doesn't that answer your first question.. ? literature is boring, music is not


"Literature" may be a 'loaded' word. Maybe he enjoyed reading _Winnie the Poo_. I don't know what the modern equivalent would be, but maybe he could go into some detail about the adventures of _Melvin of the Apes_, as told in Mad Comics.

*Ookaballaconga!*


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Philip said:


> also, cheryl cole (<3) doesn't know anything about literature


Of course; stupid people rarely do.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

regressivetransphobe said:


> Of course; stupid people rarely do.


yes, that's the second part of the answer. tv runs on ratings... so it only makes sense that a popular tv show features immediate audiovisual entertainment rather than deep intellectual stimuli.

other than that, i wouldn't call cheryl cole stupid.. i would call her the most beautiful woman on tv!! :clap:


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Me is no talkin bout deep interleckchooal stimuli. Why no one listen to the piggy?


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

Polednice said:


> Me is no talkin bout deep interleckchooal stimuli. Why no one listen to the piggy?


OK well there's the _got talent_ shows


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

regressivetransphobe said:


> I wanna live where generic dumbass teens call people "mate".


Watch your language, mate!


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

I actually agree with Hilltroll. What is pop music except a catchy tune meant to drive sales? The same goes for pop literature and pop art. Advertising could be considered a subset of that. As for why pop music that's not related to advertising is more popular, I think it's because it takes less effort to comprehend. A book such as Twilight or Harry Potter usually takes several days at minimum to read, while a song takes only minutes to listen to. In addition, lyrics help automate the comprehension of the music (I'm guessing) by stimulating the language-processing parts of the brain (I'm not a neuroscientist, okay!). Teenagers like to stimulate the language-processing parts of the brain.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Polednice said:


> ...Even though I hate it with a passion, I just thought to myself: "why doesn't this exist for writing or visual art?" Where is the literary talent show, or 'Artist Idol' - not to satisfy me, but for the *same demographic* as the _X Factor_?


Well, there are visual art and literature prizes/competitions in this country where those in the "youth" bracket (eg. teens to early/mid twenties) are invited to make submissions & participate. This is not covered to any great depth on television, except maybe on our public broadcaster's (the ABC) art progams (or on digital tv channels devoted to the arts), but it does get some coverage in the press, on radio & online. Of course, it's not the same, and as others have said, these artistic mediums are a whole new ball game compared to music, so to speak.

Basically, to put it crudely, all you need to do to watch the "X Factor" or somesuch is sit on your backside, there's minimum effort there. But to get involved in the work of young visual artists and writers, you have to do the hard yards and actually read an article or two about them, about what's going on, or maybe even go to see an art exhibition or go to a book launch or public lecture/interview, etc. The Sydney Writers Festival and other such events around this country do have some youth element. The Art Gallery here has an annual show devoted to the cream of the crop of students completing final year high school studying visual art. Basically, these things are about putting in some effort, not just about sitting on the couch watching tv.

So you, Polednice, and others here are right about their cynicism regarding this.



> ...What makes music so special?


By the same token, what makes it special is (like what member Weston is saying) it's connection to our inner drives, which could be sexual, but also as he's saying connected with language. I've just been listening to Janacek and both those bases are covered there, his music tends to be quite passionate & based on the rhythms of his native Moravian dialect.

& I'm not putting myself on a high horse here, I was an avid reader in my youth - days before the internet came in big time, I was over 20 when that happened - but now I (you guessed it) spend more time online than reading a hard copy book. I used to read the newspapers, now I hardly do that. I used to watch at least some tv, I don't do that much now either. I've basically become a music nut, for good or bad. Yes, it is easier for me to pop on a cd or LP and just sit back and take it in, than to read a book or even lengthy newspaper article...


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I doubt any of us are very knowledgeable about psychological aspects of people's interactions with music, literature, or art. I would be interested in what StLukes might have to say on the subject given given his/her knowledge of the subject matter.

I think Manxfeeder had a couple of good ideas in the fact that music is often a group activity and also involves dancing. From a social standpoint, people might have an additional attraction to music. But I think it's deeper than that. In other threads we've discussed how music directly interacts with the amygdala (strongly correlated with emotions) whereas visual stimula first pass through other brain centers before reaching the amygdala. Music seems, in general, to have a stronger emotional impact. 

I agree with Kopachris and Sid that perhaps music is quicker and/or easy to enjoy. If we just focus on pop music and pop lit, music takes almost no effort to enjoy. One can be passive and still respond strongly. On the other hand, one has to actively read and think (more I believe?) to enjoy literature of any kind.


----------



## Theophrastus (Aug 13, 2011)

Unless things have changed since the 80s, teenagers cover their walls in posters. Pop-art, surely? I don't know how many teenagers read in USUK, but they certainly watch tv and movies - which means stories are still important, but the medium is different. I suspect what you're all talking about here applies mostly in the US and UK, where there has long been a culture of suspicion against intellectuals - as John Lennon said, they hate you if you're clever and they despise a fool. 

I have to say, I'm disturbed by the level of misanthropy on this thread. I see a lot to be hopeful for in young people. They seem, a lot of them, to be politically engaged in a way my generation wasn't, and actively trying to work for social and economic justice and the preservation of the natural world which we are so carelessly wrecking.


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

Theophrastus said:


> I have to say, I'm disturbed by the level of misanthropy on this thread. I see a lot to be hopeful for in young people. They seem, a lot of them, to be politically engaged in a way my generation wasn't, and actively trying to work for social and economic justice and the preservation of the natural world which we are so carelessly wrecking.


In what way are we more politically engaged than previous generations? I can't say I've noticed anything.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Well, there are quite a few young or younger people engaged in politics, but I don't know how many of them. Former Prime Minister here Kevin Rudd put on this conference called 2020, which had a fair amount of young people involved, discussing possible futures of this country and how to tackle certain issues. But at my end, the people I know on the ground (incl. myself), a lot or most are pretty apathetic regarding politics...


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Sid James said:


> Well, there are quite a few young or younger people engaged in politics, but I don't know how many of them. Former Prime Minister here Kevin Rudd put on this conference called 2020, which had a fair amount of young people involved, discussing possible futures of this country and how to tackle certain issues. But at my end, the people I know on the ground (incl. myself), a lot or most are pretty apathetic regarding politics...


I can't blame someone for being apathetic. Sometimes it seems as though politicians are just going to do what they want to do no matter what we say.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

violadude said:


> I can't blame someone for being apathetic. Sometimes it seems as though politicians are just going to do what they want to do no matter what we say.


Or rather, that politicians are just going to do what the lobbyists want them to do.



Theophrastus said:


> Unless things have changed since the 80s, teenagers cover their walls in posters. Pop-art, surely? I don't know how many teenagers read in USUK, but they certainly watch tv and movies - which means stories are still important, but the medium is different. I suspect what you're all talking about here applies mostly in the US and UK, where there has long been a culture of suspicion against intellectuals - as John Lennon said, they hate you if you're clever and they despise a fool.


Well, I don't know about you, but I cover my walls with maps!


----------



## graaf (Dec 12, 2009)

> If we just focus on pop music and pop lit, music takes almost no effort to enjoy. One can be passive and still respond strongly. On the other hand, one has to actively read and think (more I believe?) to enjoy literature of any kind.


This. It is all about effort, and people would rather make none. Even if with 20% more effort they could double the enjoyment - they would still rather go with no effort at all. I'd say that it really is that simple.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Theophrastus said:


> I have to say, I'm disturbed by the level of misanthropy on this thread. I see a lot to be hopeful for in young people. They seem, a lot of them, to be politically engaged in a way my generation wasn't, and actively trying to work for social and economic justice and the preservation of the natural world which we are so carelessly wrecking.


There are different kinds of young people. I think it's fair enough to be misanthropic of the stupid, annoying young people - it doesn't mean we think all young people are like that. Just the _X Factor_ audience.


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

graaf said:


> This. It is all about effort, and people would rather make none. Even if with 20% more effort they could double the enjoyment - they would still rather go with no effort at all. I'd say that it really is that simple.


This is really the answer... these days, people want the most possible entertainment with the least amount of effort. I think some of it has something to do with the fact that most of us have very busy lives, and we don't want to have to think too hard once we're off of work. And classical music does, indeed, require more attention and time to appreciate. But a bigger problem is that most of us are lazy to begin with :/


----------



## Curiosity (Jul 10, 2011)

Theophrastus said:


> I have to say, I'm disturbed by the level of misanthropy on this thread. I see a lot to be hopeful for in young people. They seem, a lot of them, to be politically engaged in a way my generation wasn't, and actively trying to work for social and economic justice and the preservation of the natural world which we are so carelessly wrecking.


Not really. They certainly posture more than previous generations appear to have, though. Maintaining the facade of being a concerned, moral, philanthropic human being (while actually not caring one iota and indeed treating the people close to you like utter ****, naturally) is all the rage among the youth right now.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I think most of us know the long history of maligning younger generations that goes back at least 2000 years. Younger people certainly have not evolved compared to a generation or two or three ago. The question is whether the social environment has changed enough to make a real difference on the youngest generations behavior. I know society has named each generation - baby boomers, generation X, generation Y, and supposedly there are significant differences. Personally I suspect that the differences in behavior are relatively small. The biggest difference come from the environment - the depression, World War II, economic growth and abundance, constrained resources and economic problems. 

I've seen several decades of young students at college, and as far as I can tell, the differences are small. The present ones are wealthier, but they seem to have similar desires to "change the world", help the needy, make money, have a family. There are undoubtedly differences, but I wonder how meaningful they are.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

mmsbls said:


> [...]
> I've seen several decades of young students at college, and as far as I can tell, the differences are small. The present ones are wealthier, but they seem to have similar desires to "change the world", help the needy, make money, have a family. There are undoubtedly differences, but I wonder how meaningful they are.


As a mostly disconnected old bachelor, the transformations are inexplicable. The young kids seem to run around and yell a lot. Then they become teenagers; the girls pretty much disappear except when they're waiting for the school bus, but the boys still are making a lot of noise, which evolves into loud exhausts from various internal combustion engines, and super-subwoofers that emit sounds way too low-pitched to be music.

Then one day I notice that these hopeless environment contaminators have turned into workingmen with families, who have accepted social responsibilities that I assumed were well beyond their ken.

Maybe there's a pupal stage I haven't noticed?


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> As a mostly disconnected old bachelor, the transformations are inexplicable. The young kids seem to run around and yell a lot. Then they become teenagers; the girls pretty much disappear except when they're waiting for the school bus, but the boys still are making a lot of noise, which evolves into loud exhausts from various internal combustion engines, and super-subwoofers that emit sounds way too low-pitched to be music.
> 
> Then one day I notice that these hopeless environment contaminators have turned into workingmen with families, who have accepted social responsibilities that I assumed were well beyond their ken.
> 
> Maybe there's a pupal stage I haven't noticed?


Not really, they just went from annoying to boring.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

regressivetransphobe said:


> Not really, they just went from annoying to boring.


Could it be that you haven't reached the pupal stage? I suspect that 'university' delays it. Could it be that some morning you'll notice that you've become... an academic, or an accountant, or... or... a _politician_? Would any of those conditions be boring?

I hope you are one of the lucky ones, who get to live an interesting life. Not interesting to others necessarily, but interesting to you when you look back on it.

I was one of the lucky ones.


----------



## Theophrastus (Aug 13, 2011)

mmsbls said:


> I think most of us know the long history of maligning younger generations that goes back at least 2000 years.


Precisely. And it goes back much longer than 2000 years. Homer's Odysseus complained about the degeneration of the young. Either things have been getting worse for a very long time or this is just a very common attitude towards the young.

As far as political engagement over the last decade goes, I think the public opposition of the young to various middle eastern wars spoke rather well of them. I think the activism among some of the young in the UK over some highly paid individuals who have apparently been dodging taxes is also praise-worthy. The latter is only something observed from afar, but still.

Really, when it comes to attitudes like those expressed by Curiosity, the young cannot win. Either they are posturing whiners or they are apathetic and selfish. I am apathetic and selfish myself, for the most part, but I admire people who stand up for their beliefs.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Could it be that you haven't reached the pupal stage? I suspect that 'university' delays it. Could it be that some morning you'll notice that you've become... an academic, or an accountant, or... or... a _politician_? Would any of those conditions be boring?...


Ha, ha! You're absolutely hilarious. Reminds me of THIS classic clip from the _Monty Python _show. Speaking of altruism, I think I'll donate to _The League for Fighting Chartered Accountancy _today! :lol:


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Speaking to what *mmsbls *is saying, I think young or younger people today have it good in some ways, bad in others (I'm talking here of "advanced" countries). Eg. there's been no major world conflict since the end of WW2 in 1945, previous generations had to deal with the traumas caused by that. Some just stoically went on & recovered, others didn't & turned to the bottle. The post-war boom provided many jobs and a level of optimism and advancement for Western socities as a whole.

Today's youth don't have to deal with these kinds of things, they will not witness for example what the allied soldiers witnessed when they were liberating Hitler's death camps, all the horror of that. But - & this is a big but - unlike the post-war decades, economic stability and job security have gone out the window. Youth unemployment is worse and higher in most countries than unemployment for much of the rest of the population in terms of age. There's also factors like casualisation of the workforce and many young people working in "McJobs" - eg. underemployment - whereas many would have the ability to get better jobs than that if given a chance, if the situation weren't so tight. & then this brings apathy, and for some, a "retreat" into things like some of the returned soldiers after WW2 - drugs, and not only alcohol (binge drinking among youth here is a huge problem), but also hard and illegal drugs. I've seen people affected by these things.

This is where hopelesness and cynicism comes in. Sorry to be so bleak, but I find it hard to blame some young/er people of today for being in many ways detached and not interested in for eg. politics which is dominated by people in their middle age (eg. baby boomers). Of course, they are going to get more excited by shows like the _X Factor_, not by things like _Question time in Parliament_, if anything the behaviours displayed in the former are often more "normal" than the antics of our pollies in the latter (some of our public figures are basically a joke, but the wrong kind of joke, if you know what I mean)...


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

violadude said:


> The large majority of teenagers are unwise, un-insightful, have no perspective, are dull, dumb and boring...and stupid. It's as simple as that.


The first three negatives are a product of inexperience. The other accusations are pure, condescending horse sh#t.
If it is true to a certain extent, don't fault the kids. They didn't construct the society that they inherited. That credit
belongs to the adults who should no better.

The answer to Polednice's question is obvious. Music is a performance art. You gonna turn on the tube to watch a painting?


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

violadude said:


> The large majority of teenagers are unwise, un-insightful, have no perspective, are dull, dumb and boring...and stupid. It's as simple as that.
> 
> Of course the teenagers here on TC are the best of the bunch and don't fit this description at all.
> 
> Sorry for the harshness, I *despised* my high school years with a passion.


That doesn't make any sense.

But you know, the faults we recognize in others are often traits of our own character.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

starthrower said:


> The first three negatives are a product of inexperience. The other accusations are pure, condescending horse sh#t.
> If it is true to a certain extent, don't fault the kids. They didn't construct the society that they inherited. That credit
> belongs to the adults who should no better.
> 
> The answer to Polednice's question is obvious. Music is a performance art. You gonna turn on the tube to watch a painting?


Alright, wellI grew up in the same society they did. I went to the same classes, did the same homework, lived in the same neighborhood. So why is it that I (who am no history buff mind you) knew that world war II ended in 1945 when half of my class (who all took basic history class) didn't. Why am I able to properly articulate myself, while many of my peers think dat dis iz a xeptable way too typez? I swear, some of my classmates, if I didn't know them and just looked at their writing, I would guess were foreigners trying to learn English, but they grew up in an english speaking society and yet half of them don't know how to speak it properly. So why is that? It can't be all society's fault since we all grew up in the same society.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Philip said:


> That doesn't make any sense.
> 
> But you know, the faults we recognize in others are often traits of our own character.


How does it not make sense? And thanks for calling me stupid.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I've experienced the same thing, Violadude. But it's not a product of stupidity. I know some very intelligent, thoughtful people who can't spell or write a correct sentence. For whatever reasons, they didn't learn those skills. Nowadays I hear intelligent and otherwise articulate people using phrases such as "I was like" instead of "I said". Some of these folks are over 50 years old.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

starthrower said:


> I've experienced the same thing, Violadude. But it's not a product of stupidity. I know some very intelligent, thoughtful people who can't spell or write a correct sentence. For whatever reasons, they didn't learn those skills. Nowadays I hear intelligent and otherwise articulate people using phrases such as "I was like" instead of "I said". Some of these folks are over 50 years old.


Yes, and I'm occasionally a bad speller, but I wasn't just talking about language and writing. I'm usually not a condescending person, but when it comes to this subject, sometimes I just have to slam my head against a table out of frustration. One time I was in highschool, we were all about 16 at the time, it was science class. One girl raised her hand and this is what came out of her mouth..."Hey umm is it possible for someone to land on the atmosphere of the earth?". I can see this being a valid question when you're 5, even 10 but 16?? I turned to the girl next to me and expressed my disbelief...only to find out that she didn't think it was a stupid question and wondered the same thing. Things like this can require nothing else but a huge *facepalm*.

Sorry, I know I am being harsh, but growing up for 4 years with people like this drove me absolutely crazy.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Well there's always an airhead or two in every class. I was only an average student, and I always envied the smart kid who got A's in every class while playing in the band, acting in the school play, and being a member of the swimming team. I could never keep up. But I've retained a life long desire for learning over the past 31 years since I graduated from high school. While other folks drank beer and watched football, I made frequent trips to the library to find books on various subjects, and recordings of jazz and classical music. Sure, I might have been farther ahead if I was the offspring of two intellectuals who exposed me to the finer things in life at an early age, but my parents are average folks. They're far from stupid, but not brilliant by any means. Many kids are far less fortunate.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

starthrower said:


> Well there's always an airhead or two in every class. I was only an average student, and I always envied the smart kid who got A's in every class while playing in the band, acting in the school play, and being a member of the swimming team. I could never keep up. But I've retained a life long desire for learning over the past 31 years since I graduated from high school. While other folks drank beer and watched football, I made frequent trips to the library to find books on various subjects, and recordings of jazz and classical music. Sure, I might have been farther ahead if I was the offspring of two intellectuals who exposed me to the finer things in life at an early age, but my parents are average folks. They're far from stupid, but not brilliant by any means. Many kids are far less fortunate.


You're someone I would have admired in high school. I don't care about straight A's. To me, grades don't mean anything until I have met a person because there are so many ways to get As and not learn a thing in High School these days. The thing that annoys me is that a lot of teenagers today seem like they don't even care that they come of as huge dumb***es. It's as if being knowledgeable isn't a respectable thing anymore. At least you were trying, even if you got average grades, and I would have respected that.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I admire people who can think outside the box, question authority, and follow their muse. I don't think you can pigeonhole all teenagers. I suppose knowledge for knowledge sake is not encouraged, especially in America where monetary success seems to be the end all. It's a stupid culture. It's also not that simple. It depends on your focus. There are an awful lot of interesting things being done by interesting people, but it doesn't get acknowledged in the mainstream. America is like the Grammy Awards where all of the real music gets marginalized in favor of commercialism.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

starthrower said:


> I admire people who can think outside the box, question authority, and follow their muse. I don't think you can pigeonhole all teenagers. I suppose knowledge for knowledge sake is not encouraged, especially in America where monetary success seems to be the end all. It's a stupid culture. It's also not that simple. It depends on your focus. There are an awful lot of interesting things being done by interesting people, but it doesn't get acknowledged in the mainstream. America is like the Grammy Awards where all of the real music gets marginalized in favor of commercialism.


I realize that not all teenagers are like that of course. I said most, not all.

As for interesting things done by interesting people, as far as high school goes I'll have no problem admitting when I meet an interesting high schooler....but that just wasn't my experience when I was actually in High school, sorry.

I would have loved to go to the same school as you so I could meet all these interesting people doing interesting things.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

violadude said:


> I would have loved to go to the same school as you so I could meet all these interesting people doing interesting things.


I wasn't referring to high school students in that statement, but to society at large. On the other hand, my best friend has a son and daughter in high school and they are smart, sensitive kids. I can't speak for anyone else. I don't even know what became of my own classmates. I never run in to any of them.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

starthrower said:


> I wasn't referring to high school students in that statement, but to society at large. On the other hand, my best friend has a son and daughter in high school and they are smart, sensitive kids. I can't speak for anyone else. I don't even know what became of my own classmates. I never run in to any of them.


Oh, I was referring merely to teenagers, not society at large.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Well, my feeling is that kids haven't changed, but parents have.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Well perhaps by some evolutionary by-product there's something inherent in tonal music (that both literature and fine art lack) where it fulfills a desire as natural as hunger and can produce a pleasure as sure as sex. When we hear a major or minor chord, or a progression something stirs within the psyche and produces pure _emotion_ which requires seemingly no effort on behalf of the listener to cultivate. Classical music may offer many more layers of complexity and depth to the experience, but the underlying fundamentals are no different from the inspiration teenagers experience listening to Lady Gaga's "Born this Way".

When music becomes atonal this universality mostly vanishes and it enters the domain of literature and fine art where only some seek out its rewards, you can see just by the way that its proponents on TC describe why they value it, for the "experience", or "surveying an unknown world", much more in line with how you would relate to a book or an art piece than a piece of tonal music.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

There is a level of joy, freedom, and ecstasy that can be experienced through music which hardly can be matched by other art forms.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

starthrower said:


> There is a level of joy, freedom, and ecstasy that can be experienced through music which hardly can be matched by other art forms.


Do you think this makes music a _better_ form of art?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Sid James said:


> Ha, ha! You're absolutely hilarious. Reminds me of THIS classic clip from the _Monty Python _show. Speaking of altruism, I think I'll donate to _The League for Fighting Chartered Accountancy _today! :lol:


Excellent, though rather frightening, skit. And my Pupal Period Theory could explain how the poor devil became a Chartered Accountant in the first place.

Chancy thing, this Pupal Period. One never really knows how one will turn out.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Polednice said:


> Do you think this makes music a _better_ form of art?


I wouldn't use the word better. It's just different. It may be that our sense of hearing has a more immediate impact on our emotions than the visual. Motion pictures are a great example. Our conscious mind may be focused on the visual, but our emotions are stirred by the music.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

starthrower said:


> I wouldn't use the word better. It's just different. It may be that our sense of hearing has a more immediate impact on our emotions than the visual. Motion pictures are a great example. Our conscious mind may be focused on the visual, but our emotions are stirred by the music.


It seems that the senses do not have equal access to the primitive brain. I read somewhere that smell and touch are essentially direct-wired. Hearing is more complicated, some sounds get processed more quickly than others. Sight has to be interpreted...? Hmm. This needs more reading.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I don't doubt that about smell and touch, but I was only comparing sight and sound as they relate to art. As far as perception of images and sounds through electronic media, seeing the same images over and over can deaden our reaction or interest. Sound seems to heighten our sensitivity.


----------



## Theophrastus (Aug 13, 2011)

starthrower said:


> I wouldn't use the word better. It's just different. It may be that our sense of hearing has a more immediate impact on our emotions than the visual. Motion pictures are a great example. Our conscious mind may be focused on the visual, but our emotions are stirred by the music.


According to Russell Hoban it's the 24 black spaces a second between frames we're really after - the flickering of the black.

But returning to music, I think it's got something to do with rhythm. I think that's what we respond to in powerful language as well - listen to the rhythm of the Gettysburg Address. The beat of some techno music obviously imitates the rhythm of a beating heart, but even when it's not obvious, is it the rhythm that we respond to physiologically - thus powerfully and pre-consciously?


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Yes, Rhythm is vital but the harmonic element is also crucial for rousing our emotions.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Harry Potter is pretty universal. 

Everyone likes to watch movies these days. 

TV is pretty universal. 

Movies transcend class, geography, education boundaries, etc. 

Rich kids who go to Harvard also go see the Harry Potter flicks.


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

i think it's working class tv for working class people.

working class people go to crap schools and don't like books. so it wouldn't make much money to do a show about litridture.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Although there are no doubt trends, it's important (and probably useful) to acknowledge that class differences don't necessarily correlate with artistic interests. I'm from a working class family of 7 people - my Dad was the first in the family to go to university (though it wasn't that great and he didn't do too well), though he has no interest in anything outside sport and soap opera. Similarly, my Mum and siblings watch reality television and never read anything, not even magazines.

I, from this same environment, share none of their interests whatsoever - I despise reality television, have contempt for celebrity, and love classical music and books. I have no ******* idea why though. Dare I be conceited and say education and/or intelligence? I suppose a mixture - education would still be correlated with class, and intelligence would determine what you do with that education (I was the only one who cared about or enjoyed learning at school).


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Polednice said:


> Although there are no doubt trends, it's important (and probably useful) to acknowledge that class differences don't necessarily correlate with artistic interests. I'm from a working class family of 7 people - my Dad was the first in the family to go to university (though it wasn't that great and he didn't do too well), though he has no interest in anything outside sport and soap opera. Similarly, my Mum and siblings watch reality television and never read anything, not even magazines.
> 
> I, from this same environment, share none of their interests whatsoever - I despise reality television, have contempt for celebrity, and love classical music and books. I have no ******* idea why though. Dare I be conceited and say education and/or intelligence? I suppose a mixture - education would still be correlated with class, and intelligence would determine what you do with that education (I was the only one who cared about or enjoyed learning at school).


Your dad likes soap operas? Very peculiar.


----------



## Moira (Apr 1, 2012)

Manxfeeder said:


> I think there is a general lack of interest in anything considered high art, whether it's music, literature, or visual art. Few people want to go to the trouble of understanding something like that.


I think there may be a general reluctance to put time, money and work into something that is seen as purely relaxing recreation which is what most light music, literature and entertainment is.

Once this barrier is overcome and a real passion for something is triggered then time, money and effort become secondary. This something, for most people here, may well be music.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Argus said:


> Your dad likes soap operas? Very peculiar.


Especially Desperate Housewives and Coronation Street. He clearly isn't a real man.


----------

