Only in technology.
Germany, for example, was a much better state ethically in 19th century than in 1914-1945 (or numerous other 20th century examples).
And it makes no sense to say that 2015 music is necesarrily better than 18th century music or 1960 music, or 1970 music, or that a composer, just because of being born later, is better than Bach or Mozart.
Technology is exactly the same, of course. You'd be hard pressed to say the new innovations of 2015 beat the new innovations of, say, 1980. But we still have everything from 1980, so the cumulative effect is progress.
Having access to past artifacts is not the same as producing equally good things (or ever better). Accumulation is not the same as progress.
Besides having access doesn't guarantee listening to it. If tons of people listened to the Beatles in 1965 and today we have access to their catalogue, but 90% listens to inferior crap, does it still count as progress?
>Technology is exactly the same, of course. You'd be hard pressed to say the new innovations of 2015 beat the new innovations of, say, 1980.
It's not about innovations. It's that today we can build a computer 2000000x times faster, better graphics etc than an 80s computer.
But we cannot write something vastly better to Homer or Plato, or compose something vastly better to Bach (or even merely better).
Nevertheless, I think progress does not necessarily imply a value judgement, especially in humanities. The Darmstadt School composers did what they did not to produce better sounding music but to take the philosophy of the Second Viennese School and particularly Webern to its logical conclusion. Even Pierrot Lunaire has lower value than Brahms 1 to most laymen, but it is a landmark and important work for professional musicians and the history and academic research of music.
The lower value to laymen can even be argued to be, philosophically, the POINT of modernist music, to restore the elitism that was lost as technology allowed the masses to enjoy the art that was formerly the preserve of the elite, by separating them by taste instead of means (it takes some work to learn to enjoy Stockhausen, Boulez or Nono, and I suspect nobody truly enjoys Ferneyhough except as a statement or intellectual challenge). So, intellectually, Webern and Cage can be seen as greater than the much more pleasant Mendelssohn, even as the laymen prefer the latter, due to the impact of their work.
Technologically of course, all these composers had access to more as time went along. Bach's Well Tempered Clavier is even named after a recent technological improvement. Biber's extended techniques describe the frustration he had with the physical limitations of his day. The Spectral School (Grisey, Murail, etc.) arguably the "last" "innovative" movement in music (after the Second Viennese School, Darmstadt, minimalism and John Cage) is almost completely defined by technology or science.
So, I disagree with you: one can have an opinion on whether a composer in 2015 is greater than Bach or Mozart, which depends on one's values.
This aside, what did you think of the main point of my comment, an argument against the concept of the End Game?
"So, I disagree with you: one can have an opinion on whether a composer in 2015 is greater than Bach or Mozart, which depends on one's values."
You've contradicted yourself.
People may class their views or the views of others as 'progressive', but what does this really mean? Generally it means they have freed themselves of some of the dogma that is prevalent at the time. Progress in the arts then depends on clarity of thought. The time in which you were born does not guarantee that clarity, it depends on luck, being born at the right time for a particular disposition.
Technological progress is all fine and dandy, but there's an important distinction to make... Is the progress bring made in the name of humanity or in the name of technology? If new technology supports a more fulfilling lifestyle then great, but if progress is just being made to broaden the reach of technology, regardless of its impact on life here and elsewhere, then what's the point? I would argue that's the limit, when technology stops serving us then we should stop pushing for it to grow.
"does not necessarily" -> "can have an opinion [...] depends on one's values"
This was in response to your original statement: "it makes no sense to say that 2015 music is necessarily better than 18th century music".
I am stating that the superiority of one type of music, period or composer over the other is subjective, that is, that the value judgement changes depending on the person. Therefore, it does make sense to say that one is better than another, even if this value judgement varies between persons - you need to frame the argument.
This was a sideline prompted by the idea that technological progress is objective (including in music); that is, one cannot argue rationally against the idea that knowing nuclear engineering is an improvement over not knowing nuclear engineering, regardless of its usage, that ignorance is never desirable. Science is the discovery of facts about nature through reason, even if the process itself is filled with uncertainty and "progress" between dogma (the earth is flat, then round, the centre of the world, then not...). Science can approach objectivity, which the arts cannot (even that judgment is subjective).
We appear to disagree here as you do not separate the knowledge from its intended use ("Is the progress bring made in the name of humanity or in the name of technology?") and therefore create cases of "desirable ignorance". I consider that this brings unwarranted subjectivity to the argument as "humanity" needs to be defined (Imperial Japan would disagree that their defeat and restructuring in 1945 was done in the name of humanity, which much of South East Asia at the time considered a good thing; in the Japanese narrative, a global or much larger Empire of Japan would be a net positive by bringing Japanese civilisation to the barbarians). As far as I am concerned, the misuse of technology is a squarely political and/or philosophical problem separate from science and the blame goes to the users, not the scientists. Further, intention does not guarantee outcome: nuclear weapons have basically averted any new global conflict after WWII via MAD, but they were not designed with this purpose in mind. Apologies if I misunderstand your position.
