Quote:
Originally Posted by zachsd
I really disagree with this. I stand by my opinion that the Middle Ages were comparatively culturally stagnant in comparison to other historical periods. The Renaissance owes a lot to the Middle Ages, but in my opinion it owes vastly more to the classical era, which was preserved through the monastic efforts of European monks and Arab advancement in the Middle East and Asia Minor. Yes, there were small centers of intellectual and creative output during the Middle Ages, which were largely limited within the confines of a very restrictive church.
|
The fact that the culture of Middle Ages was under the strong Church influence and therefore hieratic, ascetic etc doesn't say anything about its value. It just says that it's a different culture from that of Classical Antiquity or Modern World. Also, when you mention small centers of creative output, you're obviously forgetting the high culture of Byzantine Empire, and also the highly creative Romanesque and especially Gothic periods. One other thing, the main carrier of classical traditions throughout the Middle Ages was in fact Byzantine Empire.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zachsd
The main thing, however, was that the general population during the Dark or Middle Ages was extremely uneducated and overworked, thus eliminated from the creative process. Logically, in my opinion, this led to the era being less of a creative and cultural powerhouse than other periods. With that being said, why can't this same rule (albeit with different variables) be applied to musical decades
|
OK, the bold part is really interesting. How does that make Middle Ages any different from Classical Greco-Roman world or Early Modern Era for that matter? In all past centuries the general population was uneducated and the main creative process was always in the hands of the elite. That started to change gradually with the development of civil society and especially with the Industrial Revolution, so that's a relatively recent history. The point is, when we talk about these big historical periods, we shouldn't place value judgments on them from the perspective of our time, but understand them on their own merits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zachsd
My point was that these periods were comparatively stagnant. The 80s, etc. were comparatively stagnant to the 60s in my opinion. Yes, there was creative expansion in more stagnant decades, but in modern music history little compares to the 60s and early 70s.
|
And this brings me to the main point. The whole view that there are progressive, stagnant and declining periods has one fatal flaw. It applies the 19 c. scientific, evolutionist model to culture. It says that culture (and art) is developing progressively like science or technology. It implies that there is a predetermined high point in the future that culture strives to reach. Therefore, it judges different cultures and periods according to that ideal model. And that is wrong, because different cultures and periods have different goals and desires. When you apply this to the modern music, we're faced with different generations that have different views and longings and should be judged accordingly. That's why I think it's pointless to say that music was better in this or that period.