The (literal) end of music

[mitchables]

Do you think there will come a time when we've heard it all? When there are no more unthought of melodies, harmonies, riffs, chord patterns, or arrangements? If so, do you think that it will happen "soon" (by soon I mean in a century or two) or millennia down the road? Will music remain an integral part of cultures as new technologies and electronic instrumentalism come into their own? As people, and their tastes, grow and evolve, will music become more intricate and complex or will it be reduced to atmospheric hums and tones? People a few hundred years ago probably never even conceived things like synths or electric guitars - what do you think the future holds for arguably the single greatest creation of humankind?

[Blitz]

Probably in the future, but so far that no one will notice.

[mitchables]

So you're suggesting maybe, for example, that the general chord pattern and arrangement of a song on the radio today could be incredibly similar, if not identical, to something created by a bard on a lyre 400 years ago but there's no way we'd ever know because it was 400 years ago? So like, in a few hundred years time, similar principle?

[Blitz]

Yes.

[mitchables]

You're forgetting one thing, though - we have the capability to record music, and thus music of today has a much greater chance of lasting for centuries, assuming it's passed on and handed down and such, than some pieces of bygone eras, and even then - think about how much classical music is widely available, and some of these are songs written half a century ago.

[Blitz]

Well, then perhaps it will take longer than that. But I do think it's bound to happen. Perhaps not entire songs, but definitely riffs and that sort of thing.

[FakeLaser]

While there will always be new technology, think about it this way. Synthesizers, electric guitars, drum machines, music making software and all that stuff exist. People still use acoustic guitars, regular drums, pianos, etc.

You can argue that music has become a lot less complex as time has gone on. Nowadays, anyone can make music. Pop, rap, even rock and roll is more simplistic than the complex arrangements of a classical piece. There are so many different kinds of music, however. It's impossible to predict how it will evolve.

Music is an artistic medium. It will always exist.

[Blitz]

Of course it will evolve and always exist, but sooner or later every riff on a standard six string guitar will be played.

[el fregadero]

Different instruments or they could be Tom Morello and play solos with one chord and a bunch of pedals.

[FakeLaser]

Alternate tunings like Sonic Youth.

[Ninti the Mad]

When the metalocalypse begins... :shifty:

[OssMan]

mmm no. new technology like whoa, plus sampling forever. and you know there will always be underground music even if mainstream music ends or whatever

[Just John]

Music itself will last as long as people want, but from a mathmatical persepctive, thats anyones guess really, the amount of sounds available, its almost infinite.

I just wanna know when we will hear a totally new genre, we have all these hybrids emerging from hybrids, but nothing original. Seems almost impossible, but surely the same could have been thought about 50 years ago.

[Funky Fly]

I know fuck all about music terminology so help me here, but most modern music tends to progress in 4 part sections, right?

Like in Billie Jean by Michael Jackson, it opens with this bass/snare beat that happens 4 times, then the bassline kicks in. The bass/snare beat continues (along with the bassline) and then the synth hits. The number of bass/snare beats is divisible by 4.

But a math teacher I had once said when he was in India he heard Indian music with 5 part progressions. It probably would be very weird sounding to us, but the point I'm making is that music has a lot of avenues left to explore still. It'll probably be a few thousand years at the very least before we get to the very end.

[M-A-G]

As long as people are creative it'll evolve.

[mitchables]

I know fuck all about music terminology so help me here, but most modern music tends to progress in 4 part sections, right?

Like in Billie Jean by Michael Jackson, it opens with this bass/snare beat that happens 4 times, then the bassline kicks in. The bass/snare beat continues (along with the bassline) and then the synth hits. The number of bass/snare beats is divisible by 4.

But a math teacher I had once said when he was in India he heard Indian music with 5 part progressions. It probably would be very weird sounding to us, but the point I'm making is that music has a lot of avenues left to explore still. It'll probably be a few thousand years at the very least before we get to the very end.

Most standard pop songs are written in 4/4 - that is, 4 quarter-beats to a bar. Then, phrases and sections and stuff are divisible by four for the most part. However, time signatures such as 5/4, 6/8, 12/4, 9/8, etc are pretty common in a lot of music, just not the stuff you hear on the radio. You'll find as well that bands are starting to "mix" time signatures - for example, the guitar will play a 6 note riff, and the bass will play a 9 note riff - they sound out of time for a brief moment, but every 18 notes, they synch up again (2 repetitions for the bass and 3 for the guitar) and thus the whole section is "in time"... y'dig?

[OssMan]

As long as people are creative it'll evolve.as long as theres sound music will exist.

[Funky Fly]

Most standard pop songs are written in 4/4 - that is, 4 quarter-beats to a bar. Then, phrases and sections and stuff are divisible by four for the most part. However, time signatures such as 5/4, 6/8, 12/4, 9/8, etc are pretty common in a lot of music, just not the stuff you hear on the radio. You'll find as well that bands are starting to "mix" time signatures - for example, the guitar will play a 6 note riff, and the bass will play a 9 note riff - they sound out of time for a brief moment, but every 18 notes, they synch up again (2 repetitions for the bass and 3 for the guitar) and thus the whole section is "in time"... y'dig?
come over.

[Penner]

Donno man.

It's weird thinking about like a new instrument or something that we've never heard of being used in the mainstream.

[ron the dial]

I don't see it ending before I die, so it doesn't really concern me. With that said, I don't see there being an end to music. In the future, something may sound strikingly similar to something that has been created in this day and age, but how many people will have heard it? Chances are a lot of them will be so preoccupied with what is going on in their time that they won't give a shit if it sounds similar to something from the past. A "If I haven't heard it, it's new to me" sort of deal.

[Kane Knight]

So you're suggesting maybe, for example, that the general chord pattern and arrangement of a song on the radio today could be incredibly similar, if not identical, to something created by a bard on a lyre 400 years ago but there's no way we'd ever know because it was 400 years ago? So like, in a few hundred years time, similar principle?

Well, it's happened already.

We still use the same chord patterns as 400 years ago. The Beatles used progressions that were popular near the Rennaisance. Much Metal converts easily to classical if you take away the percussive drum lines and screaming (And even then....). Technically, the music was not played over power chords, but metal usually establishes keys which make that irrelevant.

Hell, we have trouble noticing it 30 years later.

The only way to truly come up with something new is to introduce semitones (Done before), or go all art haus and throw in things like "audiene participation." I'd have to go into a lot of depth on the art haus stuff, so let me suffice to say that the specifics may not have been done, but the idea has.

One of the first songs I arranged myself actually used both Japanese and Western wind instruments in a song that was intended to be a slow, brooding metal song. They work well, because even cross culturally, there are a lot of similaraities.

It also died a horrible death because I couldn't find people who played Shakuhachi or Taiko. Blues works on a pentatonic principle that was undertood centuries before it existed. Jazz, similarly, is based on dissonant principles that were disliked and banned in the era of Bach. Banned by the Church, at least. Metal? Again, pentatonics. Rock? Blues. Rap? Not that different from established tribal deals, except with scratching thrown on on top. This idea, however, was already sort of done by a man whose piano recitals included rapidly tuning and untuning a radio.

By the way, I don't know what plays on your radio, but a good deal, and I might even venture to say MSOT pop songs are composed in either 6/8 or 12/8 on my American stations. This is pop only, but I think that's what you were addressing.

Funky, India is very interesting because their music developed differently. A lot of Indian music is polyrhythmic, like African and Cuban music, and relies on semi-tones. I don't think 5 part progression, however, refers to meter. Progression usually means how the music moves, whereas the measure is more an element of tim.

Some cultures develop more melodically, some more rhythmically.

Keep in mind people like Lennon also wrote things which should have been, say, 5/4, but were recorded over a 4/4 meter.

[Penner]

Alternate tunings like Sonic Youth.
Yeah sonic youth is about the only band that uses alternate tunings [/sarcasm]

[Kane Knight]

Yeah sonic youth is about the only band that uses alternate tunings [/sarcasm]

Not to mention alternate tunings are nonunique to the modern age (The most popular, Drop D, comes from several hundred years ago), and doesn't really change any of the things most addressed; such as chords and progressions. It makes certain chords sound different, but it's still the same old chords.

[Penner]

Not to mention alternate tunings are nonunique to the modern age (The most popular, Drop D, comes from several hundred years ago), and doesn't really change any of the things most addressed; such as chords and progressions. It makes certain chords sound different, but it's still the same old chords.

Agreed. All it does is move the guitar down a bit. In theory it is the exact same.

[Penner]

And Drop D isn't an alternate tuning. All it does is change one string off standard tuning to make it easier for "real" punk guitar players.

[El Fangel]

Music may cease to exist, as musicians make less and less money because of downloading, and pirated cds. There are the hardcore people who support bands they love, I for one buy some CD's but I tend to download to try out a band.

I think musicians would stop developing music as it would be too costly to put out a CD that would be pirated

[Kane Knight]

And Drop D isn't an alternate tuning. All it does is change one string off standard tuning to make it easier for "real" punk guitar players.

It's an alternate tuning, because it deviates from the tuning of EADGBe.

You forgot "real" metal players, too.

[Kane Knight]

Music may cease to exist, as musicians make less and less money because of downloading, and pirated cds. There are the hardcore people who support bands they love, I for one buy some CD's but I tend to download to try out a band.

I think musicians would stop developing music as it would be too costly to put out a CD that would be pirated

What a pile of horseshit.

Music will not cease to exist because of downloading and piracy.

Musicians will always make music. Metallica might not, Sugar Ray might not, but there will always be musicians. Consider the folks who sing around the campfire, or the street musicians. Consider the fact that downloading and piracy isn't hurting the people it's most supposed to be hurting--The small artists--But rather, the only ones who are losing money right now are the big five labels...The same ones who are suing their consumers and introducing copy protection. Small and Indie labels are doing well.

What you are describing would at best result in a crash of the stagnant major label monopoly. They're the ones hit and hurt by advances in music technology, not to mention piracy and downloading.

[Kane Knight]

So I've seen people do all sorts of funky tunings. I mean, Pamela Means uses as many as 3 capos on her guitars to avoid uptuning her instrument.

You can chance the sound of the music, but even Pamela uses familiar chord progressions, familiar harmonies and melodies, and presents it in an entertaining, but wholly non-unique way.

It doesn't make it any worse, but there has been stagnance in pop music for the last 500 years or so. The last truly original people were probably 300 years ago. Adding different tones? Not really anything different, as the music's still structured the same. Techno, Industrial, etc. Change more or less only the vector: Synths, drum loops, or even machine dsounds simply replace pianos, percussion, and well...More percussion (Wierd percussion is something that dates back to tribal Africa and America, as well as many European cultures...).

There are two main reasons music tends to stay roughly the same: influences and nature. The first one's easy to explain: While we may rebel from our parents, we are affected by them nontheless.

The second one's a little harder. There's a field of study called "Psycho-acoustic theory" which actually looks into it, but it's still mostly an inexact science. It basically comes down to the reason we like certain sounds, and thus tend more towards them, is "we just do."

I'm sure this is of very little interest to most people here. I find it fascinating,

In any event, music has survived for a long time without offering much new in the way of progressions, or even harmonic and melodic devices. This is why we get so excited about a different sound, because it's more or less all we've got left except in the arthaus world.