Thread: cultural achievements of the modern compared to the past

Do you think that the cultural achievements and influences of the past generations (centuries ago) would never be replaced by the modern generation? In music scene, can you pick out modern artists who are comparable to the past musicians like Franklin, elvis, bb king? How many mozarts and beethovens can we produce, not but just they can play like them, but also a great composer that would be an influence for centuries and simply on the Voyager spacecraft as the representation of human civilization? How many scientists who make important discoveries in their twenties like Einsteins and Darwins can we produce now?

I think that our culture is dying off and the only advancement we have is technology. Do you think so?

no

To expand upon Marnix's admirable answer: according to the way in which you have presented it, the present is a point in time, the past is all of human history. Therefore your comparison is unfairly skewed against the present and cannot provide a meaningful model for any theorising you may wish to do.

I think that in those times there were few people doing many thinks. Today we have many people doing many thinks, a lot of which goes unnoticed by the the common person. I'm not sure on how to compare the music of today because of the veriety. I guess it's just how you look at certain music and how it influences humanity.

Just in musicians alive in the last 50 years you have Steve Reich, John Cage, and Shostakovich that are all considered brilliant and are starting to enter the main canon taught in schools.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=EJPyOh__zXw

Composers are also rarely considered genius in their own time. Schubert died near penniless, which is in contrast to Beethoven who was a huge star. It is difficult to look around today and pick out the composers that will be worshiped 50 years from now. It also changes with time, Bach was very much out of style by the end of his life and only came back to be regarded as a genius in the early 19th century.

One of the primary drives for the development of technology, music and art in the western world is personal recognition. An example: European classical music changed and thrived while Asian music tended to repeat and stagnate, largely because Europe's composers were in the habit of attaching their name to their music. When your work becomes a matter of personal pride, you sort of want it to stand out in the crowd. More than ever, people want to be recognized and that's why intellectual progress is in it's hayday.

Originally Posted by Kukhri

One of the primary drives for the development of technology, music and art in the western world is personal recognition. An example: European classical music changed and thrived while Asian music tended to repeat and stagnate, largely because Europe's composers were in the habit of attaching their name to their music. When your work becomes a matter of personal pride, you sort of want it to stand out in the crowd. More than ever, people want to be recognized and that's why intellectual progress is in it's hayday.

This is a very eurocentric view, Asian music was hardly stagnant. The primary difference is that Europe developed a growing middle class in the 19th century which led to the popularization of music. Many musical traditions in Asia were exclusive to the upper class and to court setting, similar to the European musical tradition prior to 1700. So, very little was ever produced for public display.

Moreover, the development of European music had very little to do with a drive for the individual to stand out. The most important factor was the cultural competition of the Italian city states. These countries were small but wealthy, and couldn't afford wars with each other because they knew they would have to come together in the case of an France, so they competed in the cultural arena. It became very popular in the renaissance for the rich families of Italy to be patrons of the arts. Eventually this led to public concert halls and public operas that were run for profit, so art had to be created for the masses, and whoever had the "best art" made the most money. Competition drove the radical development of western music in the 18th and 19th century.

By the time you reach the 20th century music is being driven by modern philosophical ideas. So, you get very specific schools like the Impressionist in France (see Debussy and Ravel) and the later Expressionist (see the second Viennese school, Shoenberg, Berg, and Webern). It should be noted that most of the composers of the modern era have been academics.

Originally Posted by xenobiology

Do you think that the cultural achievements and influences of the past generations (centuries ago) would never be replaced by the modern generation? In music scene, can you pick out modern artists who are comparable to the past musicians like Franklin, elvis, bb king? How many mozarts and beethovens can we produce, not but just they can play like them, but also a great composer that would be an influence for centuries and simply on the Voyager spacecraft as the representation of human civilization? How many scientists who make important discoveries in their twenties like Einsteins and Darwins can we produce now?

I think that our culture is dying off and the only advancement we have is technology. Do you think so?

Relax, I am your poster boy. Click my www below and from
there find my piano music. Yes people like Chopin and Mozart
do exist right now. I am one of those. BUT there are also lots
of aggressive artists with money and connections that push to
the top. I write music like Chopin, but nobody cares.

Discussion limited to music isn't going to answer "cultural achievements, past and future" very well. That's like asking about water travel and focusing on surfboards.

I think that most cultural achievements go unnoticed. If they really work, we take them for granted. And our culture is not dying, it's evolving.

Originally Posted by Pong

Discussion limited to music isn't going to answer "cultural achievements, past and future" very well. That's like asking about water travel and focusing on surfboards.

I think that most cultural achievements go unnoticed. If they really work, we take them for granted. And our culture is not dying, it's evolving.

Yes, music alone proves nothing. But to continue with this topic.
I personally write sonnets and I do paintings. I am a master of all
three arts. but it is not what you can do in this society that makes you
great. But rather if you can prove it to the masses. The media makes
people seem greater than they really are. Does movie acting alone prove
anything better than just music alone. Is a movie actor a genius like a
composer is? For example, there are many famous actors who can do
little else in life. Cultural achievements like my art goes unnoticed because
of the lack of media exposer. Of course it is easier to watch a movie than
it is to read all of my beautiful sonnets. BUT the point here is.......YES
there is still cultural class on this planet. But nobody wants it anymore.
They would all rather watch a movie about violence with lots of gore than
to be educated....and that's the sad truth. Now days it's all about mindless entertainment.