Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
JD Halperin

GET UPDATES FROM JD Halperin
 

A History of Music in Under 500 Words

Posted: 09/21/2012 12:20 pm

Before Bach, there was no music. This seriously hampered the soundtracks of movies. This glorious music required specially commissioned music halls and churches with perfect acoustics. For hundreds of years, Italians sang Opera and various European composers arranged notes this way and that.

This lasted until black slaves sang while being exploited in fields, paving the way for blues, jazz, and rock & roll. This was by far the most positive thing to come out of slavery, though some countries that got rich may disagree. At about the same time, deep in the backwoods of various small American towns, hillbillies played guitars, banjos, and had sex with their immediate relatives. Elvis was a revelation because he showed white people could sing like black people, even if they couldn't yet drink from the same water fountains. Then, psychedelic drugs rendered black music trippy enough and sufficiently different to be considered not really black music any more.

Strangely, glam rock took off at the same time as heavy metal. Wardrobes were weird. Then, musicians traded instruments for turntables, and the machine that used to play music started creating it. Rap was a perfect medium for protesting and lamenting the sad state of affairs in black America. White people ate it up in droves. Simultaneously, grunge became the perfect medium for white people to vent about all the hardships suffered by the unoppressed. Seattle became internationally renowned for rain, coffee, and angst.

The Internet allowed everyone everywhere to hear everything, and we haven't seen a distinct style of music since. Modern bands are accurately described with paradoxical composite adjectives: "They're a soul, poppy jam band, with blues roots and an old-school urban, rural, new-wave feel."

Sexy music videos brought in money, so the highest paid musicians were no longer burdened with time-consuming things like writing songs, singing, or playing their own music. Autotune could give a goat a honeyed voice in perfect pitch. Meanwhile computers liberated musicians from those old historical obstacles like money, instruments, and talent. Rhythms and melodic samples could be found ready-made for click and drag stitching together. Music has evolved to great heights so that now being a musician no longer requires being a musician. And all this on little speakers that fit inside our ears so we can listen to music while doing something else.

We went from Bach to this.

A version of this first appeared at Vivoscene.com

 

Follow JD Halperin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JDhalperin

FOLLOW CANADA MUSIC
 
 
  • Comments
  • 7
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
toofarleft4thisworld
The Right Is So Wrong
09:24 AM on 09/22/2012
if you're lamenting the state of recorded music perhaps it's time to get back to the small time. lots of great live music available in small clubs everywhere.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
OSullivan
05:10 AM on 09/23/2012
I agree. There are even still many great pop groups writing today and I have never fallen for the silly idea that music has gotten steadily worse. There have always been mostly crappy musicians and a few good ones, and it will probably always be that way. You just have to listen for the good stuff and then pursue it.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Imma Okay
02:41 PM on 09/23/2012
Pop cannot be good.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
OSullivan
04:10 AM on 09/22/2012
Why does this article equate Bach, a composer of art music in the 18th century, with the pop music of today? It's a bad comparison. There was simplistic folk music during Bach's time which served as the pop music of the era, and there is still sophisticated art music produced today. Granted, the distinction between art and popular music gets blurry at times, but to do a fair evaluation of music through the ages, stick to one tradition. Comparing Bach to Lady Gaga is just as silly as comparing Arvo Part to some poor 18th century bard.
photo
Billk29
Justified Ancient of Mu
03:19 AM on 09/23/2012
I dunno.Bach,Beethoven,Brahms etc were the rockstars of their time and according to people spending the cash these days Gaga ,Bieber,Rhianna,are the rockstars of today.
Comparing the thought,skills and quality of the music isn't such a stretch.
It would be interesting to see what people are listening to 100 yrs from today.
I'll bet classical music will still be around though.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
OSullivan
05:07 AM on 09/23/2012
It's not that no comparison can be made, but simply what comparisons can we fairly make? Using the term "rockstar" is a bit of an anachronism, since there was no such thing at the time. But they were certainly celebrities, in a sense. But does that mean we can compare Steven Spielberg to Picasso? They are (or were) both celebrities, but comparing them as artists is a bit pointless.

My point is that, typically, we hold composers of art music and composers of pop music to different standards. Would it be fair to criticize Bob Dylan for not making music as sophisticated as the music of his contemporary, John Williams? Or would it be unfair, since they are writing in distinctly different mediums? I believe it is the latter. As much as I dislike some modern pop music, to measure it against the music of Bach is a categorical error and therefore not a fair critique.