Music has gotten progressively better due to improvements in the technology. Just because mainstream music isn't as good as we want it to be doesn't mean that music being made right now isn't better than it has been in the past.
I think the idea of anyone saying "music in the XX's was way better."
No, it wasn't. The vast majority of music in that decade sucked terribly. Most of the chart toppers were horrible songs that few people remembered after that decade was over
What you've gone and done is taken an entire decade's worth of hundreds of thousands of songs and distilled it to a selection of a few hundred noteworthy songs and a few dozen musicians and bands. You have a cherry picked selection of songs that fit your tastes in preference from a decade's span of time.
Music has gotten progressively better due to improvements in the technology. Just because mainstream music isn't as good as we want it to be doesn't mean that music being made right now isn't better than it has been in the past.shakmaster13
Music has gotten progressively better due to improvements in the technology. Just because mainstream music isn't as good as we want it to be doesn't mean that music being made right now isn't better than it has been in the past.shakmaster13
Every decade has its fair share of good music, my personal favorite being the 2000's.
Pirate700
While true, the 60s through 80s had much more of it. Mainstream music and hit songs were amazing back then.
No doubt mainstream music was superior back then, yet I find the measuring and comparing of music quality within any length of time as baseless. Quality music still exists today, that's all that matters.
The technology allows artists to express themselves in better ways than they could have 30 years ago.
[QUOTE="shakmaster13"]Music has gotten progressively better due to improvements in the technology. Just because mainstream music isn't as good as we want it to be doesn't mean that music being made right now isn't better than it has been in the past.deathtarget04
So autotune has made music better? Gotcha
Not just autotune, but other ways of enhancing production values. Sure it is overused in a lot of songs, but that doesn't necessarily mean the technology hasn't been good for music. Plenty of artists out there make great use of autotune.
[QUOTE="shakmaster13"] The technology allows artists to express themselves in better ways than they could have 30 years ago. [QUOTE="deathtarget04"]
[QUOTE="shakmaster13"]Music has gotten progressively better due to improvements in the technology. Just because mainstream music isn't as good as we want it to be doesn't mean that music being made right now isn't better than it has been in the past.shakmaster13
So autotune has made music better? Gotcha
Not just autotune, but other ways of enhancing production values. Sure it is overused in a lot of songs, but that doesn't necessarily mean the technology hasn't been good for music. Plenty of artists out there make great use of autotune.
Not just autotune, but other ways of enhancing production values. Sure it is overused in a lot of songs, but that doesn't necessarily mean the technology hasn't been good for music. Plenty of artists out there make great use of autotune.
Different ways, yes. Better ways, nope.
So according to this logic, The best photoshop person will outdo a renaissance man. No, you're dead wrong. We may have better technology, but things like music and art don't necessarily IMPROVE with technology. Leonardo da vinci will always beat photoshop.
[QUOTE="shakmaster13"] Not just autotune, but other ways of enhancing production values. Sure it is overused in a lot of songs, but that doesn't necessarily mean the technology hasn't been good for music. Plenty of artists out there make great use of autotune.SaintWalrus
Different ways, yes. Better ways, nope.
So according to this logic, The best photoshop person will outdo a renaissance man. No, you're dead wrong. We may have better technology, but things like music and art don't necessarily IMPROVE with technology. Leonardo da vinci will always beat photoshop.
So according to this logic, The best photoshop person will outdo a renaissance man. No, you're dead wrong. We may have better technology, but things like music and art don't necessarily IMPROVE with technology. Leonardo da vinci will always beat photoshop.
Dude that was what i was saying.
Yeah, sorry I accidentally got your quote in there too.
[QUOTE="shakmaster13"] Not just autotune, but other ways of enhancing production values. Sure it is overused in a lot of songs, but that doesn't necessarily mean the technology hasn't been good for music. Plenty of artists out there make great use of autotune.SaintWalrus
Different ways, yes. Better ways, nope.
So according to this logic, The best photoshop person will outdo a renaissance man. No, you're dead wrong. We may have better technology, but things like music and art don't necessarily IMPROVE with technology. Leonardo da vinci will always beat photoshop. Yes they do. Da Vinci would have been a beast with photoshop. The paintings are only impressive because of the simple tools used to create them. If the renaissance men had better technology they would have made even better art.
So according to this logic, The best photoshop person will outdo a renaissance man. No, you're dead wrong. We may have better technology, but things like music and art don't necessarily IMPROVE with technology. Leonardo da vinci will always beat photoshop. Yes they do. Da Vinci would have been a beast with photoshop. The paintings are only impressive because of the simple tools used to create them. If the renaissance men had better technology they would have made even better art. Not necessarily. Photoshop improves quality yes. But you still need to know the basics of art. Which requires no use of technology. And really, photoshop is just to make it look better. If you actually learn a thing or two about art, it's not about precision. It's about the message. And what he tried to accomplish was realism, which he did. I don't see how photoshop would have made it better. Infact, it would have made it worse
And you're dead wrong about it being awesome just because of the simple tools.
This man studied hours and hours and dissected hundreds of dead bodies to get the human anatomy done right.
This is a feat that MANY art students today cannot do.
[QUOTE="shakmaster13"][QUOTE="SaintWalrus"] So according to this logic, The best photoshop person will outdo a renaissance man. No, you're dead wrong. We may have better technology, but things like music and art don't necessarily IMPROVE with technology. Leonardo da vinci will always beat photoshop.SaintWalrus
Yes they do. Da Vinci would have been a beast with photoshop. The paintings are only impressive because of the simple tools used to create them. If the renaissance men had better technology they would have made even better art. Not necessarily. Photoshop improves quality yes. But you still need to know the basics of art. Which requires no use of technology. And really, photoshop is just to make it look better. If you actually learn a thing or two about art, it's not about precision. It's about the message. And what he tried to accomplish was realism, which he did. I don't see how photoshop would have made it better. Infact, it would have made it worse
And you're dead wrong about it being awesome just because of the simple tools.
This man studied hours and hours and dissected hundreds of dead bodies to get the human anatomy done right.
This is a feat that MANY art students today cannot do.
That doesn't change the fact that the dude could have made better art with better technology...
[QUOTE="shakmaster13"] Yes they do. Da Vinci would have been a beast with photoshop. The paintings are only impressive because of the simple tools used to create them. If the renaissance men had better technology they would have made even better art.shakmaster13
Not necessarily. Photoshop improves quality yes. But you still need to know the basics of art. Which requires no use of technology. And really, photoshop is just to make it look better. If you actually learn a thing or two about art, it's not about precision. It's about the message. And what he tried to accomplish was realism, which he did. I don't see how photoshop would have made it better. Infact, it would have made it worse
And you're dead wrong about it being awesome just because of the simple tools.
This man studied hours and hours and dissected hundreds of dead bodies to get the human anatomy done right.
This is a feat that MANY art students today cannot do.
That doesn't change the fact that the dude could have made better art with better technology... How so? Do you think the last supper's meaning would have been improved ten fold by some vectors? No. Better quality paper does not improve the writing that is on it.
Log in to comment