Similar, yet different
-
Music and software have many similarities. They both unfold over time, require abstract notation to be written, use the concept of theme-and-variation, and more. However, on the drive home from work today, I discovered their main difference. As I was flipping through the radio stations trying to find a decent piece or tune to listen to, I just kept hearing more and more junk. The music of today, the Top 40s, the oeuvre du jour is mostly just homogenous over-produced crap (I can feel my name being added to hitlists as I write this :suss: ). Look back a few decades or a few hundred years and you'll find music created by inspired genius. Look at the songs produced yesterday and you'll find mediocre talent doctored through music editing software (which was created by inspired genius, no doubt). Maybe I'm just getting old, but I don't think that has anything to do with it, to be quite frank. Thankfully, the world of software is just the opposite. The new programming languages and platforms just keep getting better and better. In software the old stuff is garbage, the new stuff is good. Of course these generalizations are not entirely true of either music or software, but they do seem prevalent in both. To put it succinctly, I'd rather listen to Bach while crafting XAML than listen to Mariah Carey while cranking out some VB3.
-
Music and software have many similarities. They both unfold over time, require abstract notation to be written, use the concept of theme-and-variation, and more. However, on the drive home from work today, I discovered their main difference. As I was flipping through the radio stations trying to find a decent piece or tune to listen to, I just kept hearing more and more junk. The music of today, the Top 40s, the oeuvre du jour is mostly just homogenous over-produced crap (I can feel my name being added to hitlists as I write this :suss: ). Look back a few decades or a few hundred years and you'll find music created by inspired genius. Look at the songs produced yesterday and you'll find mediocre talent doctored through music editing software (which was created by inspired genius, no doubt). Maybe I'm just getting old, but I don't think that has anything to do with it, to be quite frank. Thankfully, the world of software is just the opposite. The new programming languages and platforms just keep getting better and better. In software the old stuff is garbage, the new stuff is good. Of course these generalizations are not entirely true of either music or software, but they do seem prevalent in both. To put it succinctly, I'd rather listen to Bach while crafting XAML than listen to Mariah Carey while cranking out some VB3.
Josh Smith wrote: Maybe I'm just getting old, but I don't think that has anything to do with it, to be quite frank. Well, it does, at least to some degree. I mean, i still enjoy "Bush" or "Monster Magnet" when they show up on the radio, even though i know they suck - but "Nickelback", "Seether", and "Sevendust" leave me cold, angry, compiling lists of the singer's potential psychiatric illnesses and gramatical errors in my head. But then again, ten years ago when everyone was still trying to sound like "Pearl Jam", music sucked too. And though i wasn't really paying attention at the time, i'm pretty sure most of what got airplay back in '85 or '75 sucked also. It's not about what's popular, what's in the Top-40, 'cause what random sampling of 40 people wouldn't mostly piss you off anyway? It's all about finding a radio station that you like, and ignoring the rest of the crap out there. 'Cause if you can't enjoy the music you listen to, then why listen to music?
-
Josh Smith wrote: Maybe I'm just getting old, but I don't think that has anything to do with it, to be quite frank. Well, it does, at least to some degree. I mean, i still enjoy "Bush" or "Monster Magnet" when they show up on the radio, even though i know they suck - but "Nickelback", "Seether", and "Sevendust" leave me cold, angry, compiling lists of the singer's potential psychiatric illnesses and gramatical errors in my head. But then again, ten years ago when everyone was still trying to sound like "Pearl Jam", music sucked too. And though i wasn't really paying attention at the time, i'm pretty sure most of what got airplay back in '85 or '75 sucked also. It's not about what's popular, what's in the Top-40, 'cause what random sampling of 40 people wouldn't mostly piss you off anyway? It's all about finding a radio station that you like, and ignoring the rest of the crap out there. 'Cause if you can't enjoy the music you listen to, then why listen to music?
Shog9 wrote: It's all about finding a radio station that you like, and ignoring the rest of the crap out there. Like this![^] And hey, what's wrong with Nickelback? ;P:laugh:
Paul Lyons, CCPL
Certified Code Project Lurker -
Josh Smith wrote: Maybe I'm just getting old, but I don't think that has anything to do with it, to be quite frank. Well, it does, at least to some degree. I mean, i still enjoy "Bush" or "Monster Magnet" when they show up on the radio, even though i know they suck - but "Nickelback", "Seether", and "Sevendust" leave me cold, angry, compiling lists of the singer's potential psychiatric illnesses and gramatical errors in my head. But then again, ten years ago when everyone was still trying to sound like "Pearl Jam", music sucked too. And though i wasn't really paying attention at the time, i'm pretty sure most of what got airplay back in '85 or '75 sucked also. It's not about what's popular, what's in the Top-40, 'cause what random sampling of 40 people wouldn't mostly piss you off anyway? It's all about finding a radio station that you like, and ignoring the rest of the crap out there. 'Cause if you can't enjoy the music you listen to, then why listen to music?
Shog9 wrote: It's all about finding a radio station that you like, and ignoring the rest of the crap out there. I agree 100% with you there. The funny thing is, I do stick to a few radio stations most of the time. I was feeling adventurous today, I suppose, and was quickly reminded of the bigger picture. The exact bigger picture which I vowed to avoid when programming my radio's Preset buttons!! :-D
-
Music and software have many similarities. They both unfold over time, require abstract notation to be written, use the concept of theme-and-variation, and more. However, on the drive home from work today, I discovered their main difference. As I was flipping through the radio stations trying to find a decent piece or tune to listen to, I just kept hearing more and more junk. The music of today, the Top 40s, the oeuvre du jour is mostly just homogenous over-produced crap (I can feel my name being added to hitlists as I write this :suss: ). Look back a few decades or a few hundred years and you'll find music created by inspired genius. Look at the songs produced yesterday and you'll find mediocre talent doctored through music editing software (which was created by inspired genius, no doubt). Maybe I'm just getting old, but I don't think that has anything to do with it, to be quite frank. Thankfully, the world of software is just the opposite. The new programming languages and platforms just keep getting better and better. In software the old stuff is garbage, the new stuff is good. Of course these generalizations are not entirely true of either music or software, but they do seem prevalent in both. To put it succinctly, I'd rather listen to Bach while crafting XAML than listen to Mariah Carey while cranking out some VB3.
Josh Smith wrote: Thankfully, the world of software is just the opposite. The new programming languages and platforms just keep getting better and better. In software the old stuff is garbage, the new stuff is good. As Prof. CAR Hoare put it, "Algol-60 is an improvement over all of its successors." :rose:
-
Shog9 wrote: It's all about finding a radio station that you like, and ignoring the rest of the crap out there. Like this![^] And hey, what's wrong with Nickelback? ;P:laugh:
Paul Lyons, CCPL
Certified Code Project LurkerPaul Lyons wrote: And hey, what's wrong with Nickelback? For me, the tracks rely too much on their lyrics. The music behind them has too little variation or complexity to stand on its own. This would be bad enough if the lyrics were less childish and repetitive*****, but... yeah. On the bright side, they're great to pull up on the jukebox when you're too hammered to remember specific song names. ;) *nowhere near as bad as "Puddle of Mudd" though, the band that made me realize how lucky we were that so many talentless rednecks stick to playing bad country music, vs. bad rock. X|
-
Josh Smith wrote: Thankfully, the world of software is just the opposite. The new programming languages and platforms just keep getting better and better. In software the old stuff is garbage, the new stuff is good. As Prof. CAR Hoare put it, "Algol-60 is an improvement over all of its successors." :rose:
Vivic wrote: As Prof. CAR Hoare put it, "Algol-60 is an improvement over all of its successors." And then C# came along...:->
-
Paul Lyons wrote: And hey, what's wrong with Nickelback? For me, the tracks rely too much on their lyrics. The music behind them has too little variation or complexity to stand on its own. This would be bad enough if the lyrics were less childish and repetitive*****, but... yeah. On the bright side, they're great to pull up on the jukebox when you're too hammered to remember specific song names. ;) *nowhere near as bad as "Puddle of Mudd" though, the band that made me realize how lucky we were that so many talentless rednecks stick to playing bad country music, vs. bad rock. X|
LOL :laugh:
Paul Lyons, CCPL
Certified Code Project Lurker -
Music and software have many similarities. They both unfold over time, require abstract notation to be written, use the concept of theme-and-variation, and more. However, on the drive home from work today, I discovered their main difference. As I was flipping through the radio stations trying to find a decent piece or tune to listen to, I just kept hearing more and more junk. The music of today, the Top 40s, the oeuvre du jour is mostly just homogenous over-produced crap (I can feel my name being added to hitlists as I write this :suss: ). Look back a few decades or a few hundred years and you'll find music created by inspired genius. Look at the songs produced yesterday and you'll find mediocre talent doctored through music editing software (which was created by inspired genius, no doubt). Maybe I'm just getting old, but I don't think that has anything to do with it, to be quite frank. Thankfully, the world of software is just the opposite. The new programming languages and platforms just keep getting better and better. In software the old stuff is garbage, the new stuff is good. Of course these generalizations are not entirely true of either music or software, but they do seem prevalent in both. To put it succinctly, I'd rather listen to Bach while crafting XAML than listen to Mariah Carey while cranking out some VB3.
Josh Smith wrote: As I was flipping through the radio stations trying to find a decent piece or tune to listen to, I just kept hearing more and more junk. The music of today, the Top 40s, the oeuvre du jour is mostly just homogenous over-produced crap (I can feel my name being added to hitlists as I write this ). Too true. However, there are still great new bands like Edguy, and classic bands like Dio, producing excellent rock music. You just won't find it on the radio. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
-
Josh Smith wrote: Maybe I'm just getting old, but I don't think that has anything to do with it, to be quite frank. Well, it does, at least to some degree. I mean, i still enjoy "Bush" or "Monster Magnet" when they show up on the radio, even though i know they suck - but "Nickelback", "Seether", and "Sevendust" leave me cold, angry, compiling lists of the singer's potential psychiatric illnesses and gramatical errors in my head. But then again, ten years ago when everyone was still trying to sound like "Pearl Jam", music sucked too. And though i wasn't really paying attention at the time, i'm pretty sure most of what got airplay back in '85 or '75 sucked also. It's not about what's popular, what's in the Top-40, 'cause what random sampling of 40 people wouldn't mostly piss you off anyway? It's all about finding a radio station that you like, and ignoring the rest of the crap out there. 'Cause if you can't enjoy the music you listen to, then why listen to music?
Shog9 wrote: And though i wasn't really paying attention at the time, i'm pretty sure most of what got airplay back in '85 or '75 sucked also. Yeah, I'm told Deep Purple got not airplay in the 70's, although I *know* there were at least SOME stations playing Motley Crue, Metallica and Iron Maiden in the 80's. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
-
Josh Smith wrote: As I was flipping through the radio stations trying to find a decent piece or tune to listen to, I just kept hearing more and more junk. The music of today, the Top 40s, the oeuvre du jour is mostly just homogenous over-produced crap (I can feel my name being added to hitlists as I write this ). Too true. However, there are still great new bands like Edguy, and classic bands like Dio, producing excellent rock music. You just won't find it on the radio. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
Christian Graus wrote: However, there are still great new bands like Edguy, and classic bands like Dio, producing excellent rock music. You just won't find it on the radio That's the problem. The radio is too limited. Has anyone tried out the XM radio service (satellite feed, I believe)? If so, how is the selection/variety? Hopefully it will not turn out to be like digital cable, where you get 999 channels, but there's never anything worth watching. :wtf: [No, I'm not jaded and cynical, just picky. Perhaps a feinschmecker to a certain degree]
-
Shog9 wrote: It's all about finding a radio station that you like, and ignoring the rest of the crap out there. Like this![^] And hey, what's wrong with Nickelback? ;P:laugh:
Paul Lyons, CCPL
Certified Code Project Lurker -
Music and software have many similarities. They both unfold over time, require abstract notation to be written, use the concept of theme-and-variation, and more. However, on the drive home from work today, I discovered their main difference. As I was flipping through the radio stations trying to find a decent piece or tune to listen to, I just kept hearing more and more junk. The music of today, the Top 40s, the oeuvre du jour is mostly just homogenous over-produced crap (I can feel my name being added to hitlists as I write this :suss: ). Look back a few decades or a few hundred years and you'll find music created by inspired genius. Look at the songs produced yesterday and you'll find mediocre talent doctored through music editing software (which was created by inspired genius, no doubt). Maybe I'm just getting old, but I don't think that has anything to do with it, to be quite frank. Thankfully, the world of software is just the opposite. The new programming languages and platforms just keep getting better and better. In software the old stuff is garbage, the new stuff is good. Of course these generalizations are not entirely true of either music or software, but they do seem prevalent in both. To put it succinctly, I'd rather listen to Bach while crafting XAML than listen to Mariah Carey while cranking out some VB3.
Josh Smith wrote: than listen to Mariah Carey while cranking out some VB3. :laugh: ostly the good stuff survived the ages. At Bachs times, there was a lot of homogenous over-produced crap as well.
Pandoras Gift #44: Hope. The one that keeps you on suffering.
aber.. "Wie gesagt, der Scheiss is' Therapie"
boost your code || Fold With Us! || sighist | doxygen -
Music and software have many similarities. They both unfold over time, require abstract notation to be written, use the concept of theme-and-variation, and more. However, on the drive home from work today, I discovered their main difference. As I was flipping through the radio stations trying to find a decent piece or tune to listen to, I just kept hearing more and more junk. The music of today, the Top 40s, the oeuvre du jour is mostly just homogenous over-produced crap (I can feel my name being added to hitlists as I write this :suss: ). Look back a few decades or a few hundred years and you'll find music created by inspired genius. Look at the songs produced yesterday and you'll find mediocre talent doctored through music editing software (which was created by inspired genius, no doubt). Maybe I'm just getting old, but I don't think that has anything to do with it, to be quite frank. Thankfully, the world of software is just the opposite. The new programming languages and platforms just keep getting better and better. In software the old stuff is garbage, the new stuff is good. Of course these generalizations are not entirely true of either music or software, but they do seem prevalent in both. To put it succinctly, I'd rather listen to Bach while crafting XAML than listen to Mariah Carey while cranking out some VB3.
Maybe it is more a question of peaking. If you look at the timeline of music it is thousands of years old. Software is still a pin-prick in comparison. Maybe software is on its upward slope with a peak in the distant future and then a slide down into mass produced commercial crap. Of course music is more subjective than software. I may prefer Mariah Carey to Bach (for the record I don't) and that is my choice. With software, while there is still some subjectivity to it, you can argue that X is better than Y based on objective matters. regards, Paul Watson South Africa Colib and WebTwoZero. K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
-
Maybe it is more a question of peaking. If you look at the timeline of music it is thousands of years old. Software is still a pin-prick in comparison. Maybe software is on its upward slope with a peak in the distant future and then a slide down into mass produced commercial crap. Of course music is more subjective than software. I may prefer Mariah Carey to Bach (for the record I don't) and that is my choice. With software, while there is still some subjectivity to it, you can argue that X is better than Y based on objective matters. regards, Paul Watson South Africa Colib and WebTwoZero. K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
One could argue that the quality of music can be viewed and argued objectively. Hegelian philosophy fortified the idea that art is a manifestation of the human spirit and experience and, as such, can be analyzed and discussed logically in those terms [see Hegel's "Introductory Lectures on Aesthetics"]. I happen to agree! :-D I also recognize that there is a matter of individual taste involved, but that does not plunge the analysis and critque of music into a mere wishywashy pool of opinions.
-
Music and software have many similarities. They both unfold over time, require abstract notation to be written, use the concept of theme-and-variation, and more. However, on the drive home from work today, I discovered their main difference. As I was flipping through the radio stations trying to find a decent piece or tune to listen to, I just kept hearing more and more junk. The music of today, the Top 40s, the oeuvre du jour is mostly just homogenous over-produced crap (I can feel my name being added to hitlists as I write this :suss: ). Look back a few decades or a few hundred years and you'll find music created by inspired genius. Look at the songs produced yesterday and you'll find mediocre talent doctored through music editing software (which was created by inspired genius, no doubt). Maybe I'm just getting old, but I don't think that has anything to do with it, to be quite frank. Thankfully, the world of software is just the opposite. The new programming languages and platforms just keep getting better and better. In software the old stuff is garbage, the new stuff is good. Of course these generalizations are not entirely true of either music or software, but they do seem prevalent in both. To put it succinctly, I'd rather listen to Bach while crafting XAML than listen to Mariah Carey while cranking out some VB3.
Yes, you are getting old ;) Disregarding the point that "good" is subjective, it seems that the stuff that is deemed good by consensus survives the longest. The truly bad stuff (90% by Sturgeon's Law, and I contend that Sturgeon's standards were too low) dies a quick death. So here, from our vantage point years, decades, or centuries later, what we see of the period is only the cream; hence, we are exposed to only the best of the past, while being subjected to the 90% bad/10% good mix of the present, and thus tend to believe music was better back then. But for each Mozart, there were many court composers whose music was bad enough to not outlive them -- think of them as Britney Spears with powdered wigs. For every "Stairway to Heaven", there were ten "Billy, Don't Be a Hero"s. For every Green Day, there is an equal and opposite Good Charlotte. Vincent
-
Yes, you are getting old ;) Disregarding the point that "good" is subjective, it seems that the stuff that is deemed good by consensus survives the longest. The truly bad stuff (90% by Sturgeon's Law, and I contend that Sturgeon's standards were too low) dies a quick death. So here, from our vantage point years, decades, or centuries later, what we see of the period is only the cream; hence, we are exposed to only the best of the past, while being subjected to the 90% bad/10% good mix of the present, and thus tend to believe music was better back then. But for each Mozart, there were many court composers whose music was bad enough to not outlive them -- think of them as Britney Spears with powdered wigs. For every "Stairway to Heaven", there were ten "Billy, Don't Be a Hero"s. For every Green Day, there is an equal and opposite Good Charlotte. Vincent
Vincent, I agree with your point that our view of the past (and the products of it) is filtered by the test of time. I do not see that as proving my original point wrong, though. I am not aware of any profoundly brilliant and groundbreaking music being produced these days. I do know that in the past such things happened. While pondering your lucid argument, I realized an important piece of the puzzle. The "lives" of music and software (to speak figuratively) are very different. Music evolves while software progresses. The distinction between these two concepts is subtle, but important in this context. Evolution is not necessarily directed or aiming to acheive some form of perfection. Evolution is the process of adapting to changing circumstances in the best way possible. Art evolves. It is a reaction to the social climate, the passions, the hardships in life. On the other hand, software progresses. The life of software is, largely, directed toward processing information and providing services to people, businesses, etc. Software is intricately linked to money. Software has a very different place in this world than art (despite the fact that software can be art!!). Of course there is overlap between the two realms, but I definitely see the two entities as existing in separate spaces. This distinction ties into and supports my original argument, yet forces me to modify it somewhat. I can no longer say that the future of music is eternally dismal and bound for endless pandering, but that it is in a slump. Concurrently the life of software (that constant ascent into betterment) is inevitably looking better and better. Could the artistic slump I'm describing be attributed to this society's fleeting interest in the arts? By the same token, is that a reasonable explanation for why the life of software improves faster than you can say XAML? :) Or perhaps I'm just superimposing a self-critique onto the "outside world"... Josh
-
Yes, you are getting old ;) Disregarding the point that "good" is subjective, it seems that the stuff that is deemed good by consensus survives the longest. The truly bad stuff (90% by Sturgeon's Law, and I contend that Sturgeon's standards were too low) dies a quick death. So here, from our vantage point years, decades, or centuries later, what we see of the period is only the cream; hence, we are exposed to only the best of the past, while being subjected to the 90% bad/10% good mix of the present, and thus tend to believe music was better back then. But for each Mozart, there were many court composers whose music was bad enough to not outlive them -- think of them as Britney Spears with powdered wigs. For every "Stairway to Heaven", there were ten "Billy, Don't Be a Hero"s. For every Green Day, there is an equal and opposite Good Charlotte. Vincent
vincent.reynolds wrote: think of them as Britney Spears with powdered wigs. LOL! :laugh:
-
Music and software have many similarities. They both unfold over time, require abstract notation to be written, use the concept of theme-and-variation, and more. However, on the drive home from work today, I discovered their main difference. As I was flipping through the radio stations trying to find a decent piece or tune to listen to, I just kept hearing more and more junk. The music of today, the Top 40s, the oeuvre du jour is mostly just homogenous over-produced crap (I can feel my name being added to hitlists as I write this :suss: ). Look back a few decades or a few hundred years and you'll find music created by inspired genius. Look at the songs produced yesterday and you'll find mediocre talent doctored through music editing software (which was created by inspired genius, no doubt). Maybe I'm just getting old, but I don't think that has anything to do with it, to be quite frank. Thankfully, the world of software is just the opposite. The new programming languages and platforms just keep getting better and better. In software the old stuff is garbage, the new stuff is good. Of course these generalizations are not entirely true of either music or software, but they do seem prevalent in both. To put it succinctly, I'd rather listen to Bach while crafting XAML than listen to Mariah Carey while cranking out some VB3.
<megaphone_voice> Welcome to middle age! </megaphone_voice>
Software Zen:
delete this; -
Yes, you are getting old ;) Disregarding the point that "good" is subjective, it seems that the stuff that is deemed good by consensus survives the longest. The truly bad stuff (90% by Sturgeon's Law, and I contend that Sturgeon's standards were too low) dies a quick death. So here, from our vantage point years, decades, or centuries later, what we see of the period is only the cream; hence, we are exposed to only the best of the past, while being subjected to the 90% bad/10% good mix of the present, and thus tend to believe music was better back then. But for each Mozart, there were many court composers whose music was bad enough to not outlive them -- think of them as Britney Spears with powdered wigs. For every "Stairway to Heaven", there were ten "Billy, Don't Be a Hero"s. For every Green Day, there is an equal and opposite Good Charlotte. Vincent
You do realize that the Internet version of Sturgeon's Law is "99.997% of everything on the web is crap"?
Software Zen:
delete this;