Facts Amp Figures A Reference Guide: Fill & Download for Free

AMD's Ryzen 9 3900X is not only the best mainstream processor currently available from AMD, it is also one of the fastest. Today Intel introduced a new generation of desktop processors of the S-series, the Intel Core i7 - 6700K and Intel Xeon E5 - 6200K. Desktop processors of the S-series, including Intel's Core 2 Duo and Xeon Phi processors. But what's new about the new Intel i3 - 5200X and AMD Ryzen 7 1700X, and what about the Ryzen 5 1600X? [Sources: 3, 4]The $750 Ryzen 9 3950X is one of the fastest mainstream processors currently available on the market, with a top speed of 1.5 GHz and a maximum power consumption of 4 GB of RAM. The Ryzen 5 4600H is the most powerful desktop processor in its class and the most powerful processor of its kind. Add all the features together and the Intel Core i7 - 1165G7 has a 20% lead, with an average power of 2.1 GHz, which is a peak of 3.2 GHz. [Sources: 2, 8, 15]The Ryzen 7 4800U is 17% faster in multi-core testing, but there are some areas where the Ryzen 5 4600H is not the fastest. The number of cores and threads an AMD chip has is the difference between its performance and that of its competitors. [Sources: 8, 15]The surprise is the number of cores and threads the Ryzen 7 4700 has, at the same TDP performance as an Intel chip. You still get a 6-core processor with 12 threads, but the 3600 is up to the game in terms of multi-core performance and performance per cycle. [Sources: 7, 9]Although the i5 - 9400F may not be as fast as the Ryzen 7 4700 in our multithread tests, it is still connected to the AMD 3900X, and we recommend skipping the 3700 Z just for playing. The full-featured AMD Ryzen 5 3600 is a win, but we're ready to upgrade, so check out our CPU Buying Guide for 2020 to pick the best processor for your gaming device. If you have an Intel Core i7 - 6700K or an AMD Radeon RX 480, you will probably achieve a faster performance than you can currently achieve in effects. Future games will push its 6-core capability, although it may not even reach the same level of performance in multithreaded testing. [Sources: 0, 6, 9, 10]First of all, you want to run with a high-end processor with the highest clock speed and most cores, if possible. The faster and more powerful the CPU, the better the performance and energy efficiency of your computer. Higher CPU clock speeds lead to more cores, which helps you get through the time - and consume workloads faster. [Sources: 4, 6, 14]If you're on a tight budget and can't afford a $500 processor, AMD's Ryzen 7 CPU should be your best choice in terms of performance, power consumption and energy efficiency. [Sources: 0, 10]The Ryzen 9 3900X has superior lows in all benchmark runs, but the delta is too small to be considered a definitive lead. Once again, it is shown that the hard performance data can be directly compared with AMD's 7 nm Ryzen CPUs. Based on our tests with the AMD Ryzen9 5900x processor, our tested chip performed significantly better in terms of performance than the Ryzen 7 7-nm processor. [Sources: 1, 10, 16]With the same clock speed of 1.1 GHz, the single-core performance of both processors is very similar, but the latter outperforms the former. The high-end processors have higher clock speeds, which means that the cores are more powerful and they also have larger CPU caches. [Sources: 11, 13, 17]Simply put, we are only referring to the fact that the number of cores a particular processor has does not mean that the more cores it has, the better the processor. There is no difference between the performance of a single-core processor and a multi-core processor. [Sources: 5, 17]CPU speed is the number of computing cycles a CPU can run per second before it is considered too slow to compete in the gaming, amp streaming, etc. If you render it per core or thread, the ratio amount of cores is better, but in our research game speed - smart, Intel's Core i7 - 6700K and AMD's Xeon E5 - 7200K better. We were able to figure out what was better and correct the wrong ones. CPU speeds indicate how many processor cores per second (CPU cores processed from 08 / 10 / 2020), which takes into account the performance of a single-core processor and a multi-core processor with the same number of threads. The CPU speed indicates how many processor cycles a CPU can run per second before it is considered too fast for competition - class games or amps streaming. [Sources: 10, 12]CPUs that cost more than $500 , it is difficult to make a bad choice because of the performance you usually get, and the more money you spend, the better, but AMD and Intel are fairly balanced. The only exception is Intel's Core i9 - 10900X, which is about $200 more expensive than AMD's Ryzen 5 - 3600. If you're competing for the same amount of money as for a single-core processor, then the $200 Ryzen 4 - 3500 is probably the best gaming CPU for most people, except for the Intel Xeon E5 - 7200K. [Sources: 0, 2]Sources:[0]: What is the Best CPU for Video Editing (2019)[1]: Intel’s 10th generation desktop CPUs have arrived—still on 14nm[2]: The best CPUs for gaming: AMD Ryzen 5000 chips take aim at Intel's gaming advantage[3]: Intel Delivers World’s Fastest Gaming Processor | Intel Newsroom[4]: Best processors 2020: the best CPUs for your PC from Intel and AMD[5]: The Best Tablet Processor - A Guide to Tablet CPUs (Updated 2020)[6]: Best Gaming CPUs for 2020[7]: CES 2020: AMD’s new 64-core Threadripper processor, new graphics card, and Ryzen 4000 processor[8]: Intel Core i7-1165G7 10nm CPU Benchmarked, Up To 20% Faster Than AMD's 7nm Ryzen 4000[9]: The best CPU for gaming in 2020[10]: Amd ryzen 3600 vs 3700x[11]: MacBook Air i3 vs. i5 Buyer's Guide (2020)[12]: Am3 socket dimensions[13]: Best Mobile Processors: Top 10 High Performing Smartphones[14]: Do I Need Lots of Cores or a Faster CPU Clock Speed? | Create Pro[15]: AMD Ryzen 5 4600H Review: Fastest Entry-Level Laptop CPU Ever[16]: Amd ryzen 5000 apu[17]: Best Intel processor: Core i3, i5, i7 and i9 explained | Trusted Reviews

As a major Thor fan: Well, yeah. He’s Superman. And you just need the right Superman for the job.*Strap in, kids. This post is pushing 3.5k words. But hey, at least I actually read the comics!Superman (Kal-El of Krypton) is likely the most powerful Superhero on DC’s Earth and a top contender in the universal arena. I’m sure there are many that would dispute that, but none can deny that he is a being of exceptional power. He boasts not only incredible durability, nearly unrivaled strength, and the speed to match, but he also has heat vision that can match the intensity of the sun, freeze breath that can reach absolute zero, extremely heightened senses, X-Ray vision, a genius level intellect (under the right writers), and an entire sanctum filled with advanced alien technology, some by his own design.Did I mention how skilled he is at using each and every one of his skills and powers? The fact that he can hit an ordinary human without turning them into a paste-like substance of bloody meat and bone fragments is incredible in and of itself. Every battle Superman participates in, he uses his senses to figure out how much damage his enemies can potentially take before he throws the first punch, using far less force than he could actually output.The only time he tends to fully let loose is when he’s away from civilians and fighting a being in or above his weight-class, such as Doomsday or the Ruler of Apokolips, Darkseid.Can this being, an icon who stands in a class unique to him, defeat Thor the Rune King? Not as he is. Yes, I’m saying normal Superman is not up to snuff to defeating the Rune King.But who is the Rune King?I’m going to try to summarize it quickly, but completely. I’m doing this mainly because . . . honestly, I don’t think most people have read the story of the Rune King or the preceding stories that provide the proper context. Reading some of the answers and comments strewn about this page has confirmed this suspicion.Rune King Thor is the end-result of Odin’s great plan to end the cycle of Ragnaroks, put in place by the Ones Who Sit Above In Shadow. To do so, Thor needed several things:To possess the Odinforce, a powerful reservoir of magic created by Odin from the lifeforces of his two brothers, Vili and Ve. Since Odin died for Thor to inherit it, it is now complete with the life-forces of Vili, Ve, AND Odin. Harnessing this incredible magical force would allow Thor to do what needed to be done. But how would he know what to do?“In your hands, my power was used as a cure-all, and yet you learned nothing from its use! You cannot use such power without understanding!” — The incarnation of the OdinpowerTo drink from the Well of Mimir. It would grant Thor some of the wisdom he would need in his quest. Thor ripped out one of his eyes and tossed into the Well. As Odin had previously done this, the Well found it insufficient and Thor was forced to sacrifice his remaining eye. In return, however, he was granted incredible foresight.“You cannot walk the path already taken! Repeating your father’s deed is an empty gesture! Empty!” — The Odinpower after Thor sacrifices a single eye.“With your eyes forever closed, see now with all of your being! Now you journey into mystery!” — After sacrificing his second eye, Thor receives the Wisdom he needsTo hang himself from Yggdrasil the World-Tree. Previously, Odin hung himself from the tree for nine days, only descending when he was on the brink of death. However, Thor went beyond this brink and died. Hela, Goddess of Death, nearly claimed his soul, but Thor, using his knowledge of the Runes, summoned his father’s spirit to defend him. Upon returning from death, he possessed an equal, if not greater, foresight and understanding of the runes than even his father.“The Magic of the Runes and Wisdom from the Well of Mimir give Thor the power to know the past, to control the present, and to guide the future!”“Children, that is all you are. You who sit and watch, you who laugh and smile at our lives and deaths.” — Thor describing They Who Sit AboveThe Ones Who Sit Above In Shadow, or the Shadow Gods, are celestial beings, Gods to the Gods, towering over even the inheritor of the Odinforce. For untold eons, they fed off the death wrought by Ragnarok, untold divine deaths empowered these beings as they lived below whispers and above pondering.Their true strength is unknown; however, it is enough to cow even the rather hard-headed and prideful Odin, someone who would even stand in the path of the mighty Celestial Host and the World-Devourer, Galactus. I’m not saying the Shadow Gods are stronger than the Celestials or Galactus, but, for some reason, Odin had greater cause to fear these beings than the many cosmic titans. It is likely they simply possess greater cruelty and/or pettiness than the Celestials, who would simply move on after dealing with Odin.There is also a theory, put forward by Loki the God of Stories (who calls it the “realistic explanation”), that they were stray Beyonders who adopted their current personas and appearances for their own reasons. In the same issue, they actually quote the original Beyonder, but I’ll let Davi Lopes provide a more complete answer (with scans). Obviously, if this theory is true, their power is far beyond what was originally believed and it makes Rune King Thor all the more impressive. Unfortunately, it’s unlikely to ever be confirmed or disproved. *Unless I specify otherwise, I’m going to assume it is untrue.*Alternate reality versions of them (found in the “What If?” Vol 2. Issue 12) were capable of sending Loki to the end of time where he could “rule” Asgard undisputed, as there was no one left to compete with; right on time for Loki and the ruins of Asgard to come into contact with a black hole. Unfortunately, beyond that, they rarely seem to use their power for any offensive purpose instead using it to maintain their unending lifespans and manipulate the events of the Nine Realms.Alright, enough with the Shadow Gods.Now, one common misconception is that Rune King Thor was able to vanquish these mighty beings with a single blow. That is not quite what happened.In truth, Rune King Thor outsmarted them. He played off of their arrogance and made them pay for it. He knew the limits of their foresight (they could see everything that would happen in the Nine Realms except for Thor’s mortal influence, Donald Blake) and played them, allowing him to be where he needed to be. By the time the Ones Above realized they had been outmaneuvered, it was too late.The Ones Who Sit Above In Shadow were not dealt a direct blow; they seemed beyond the reach of any God. Instead Thor destroyed the Tapestry of Fate, the cyclical instrument that defines the past, present, and future of the Nine Realms, and, in doing so, cut off the Shadow Gods from their source of power.However, he did still destroy the Tapestry of Fate (something believed by the Fates to be impossible) and the World-Tree, Yggdrasil, as well as the Nine Realms. It’s hard to say whether the destruction of the Nine Realms was caused by the Rune King’s power or by the Tapestry being destroyed, as if he tore the seams rather than the clothing itself. In any case, his actions directly resulted in the destruction of the Nine Realms, which are theorized to actually be entire universes, but this changes based on the whims of the writer; the most recent writer, Jason Aaron, had the Shi’ar warrior, Gladiator, travel to Asgard through Space. Under old writers, I do not believe this would be possible, even for the mighty Kallark.Oh look, here he is, meeting the God of Bouncers, HeimdallHowever, at this time, Yggdrasil could be considered a “small” multiverse as the Realms did not exist on the same plane. Make of that multi-universal destruction what you will, but I think it’s time we sum up the Rune King, yeah?What can the Rune King do?Possessing a more complete form of the Odinpower than even his father before him, Thor at this time had incredible magical power. The God of Thunder has always had more magic than he knew what to do with (so he usually just hit people), but now that’s taken to the extreme. Rune King Thor is, in all ways, more powerful than Odin. This was by Odin’s very design.But the Rune King is not power alone. Through his death at the Tree of Gallows, he attained Knowledge of the Runes. He knew them and knew how to use them. He could effortlessly halt strikes from the Mangog (more on him in a second), escape death itself, and best an amped Loki in a magical duel with a literal wave of his hand. Under his own power, Loki has proven capable of challenging the mystic might of Dr. Stephen Strange, the Sorcerer Supreme.Prior to this, Loki had siphoned magic from the mighty Mangog, a creature created from the anger and hatred of a billion, billion slain beings (basically, think of the Red Lantern Atrocitus only magical and he wrestles Skyfathers). It didn’t help.Speaking of the Walking Ragnarok, Mangog, though weakened magically, was still his usual physical powerhouse, star-destroyer cannon-tanking self and he was eager to let Thor know it. Unfortunately for him, Thor was able to hold him back with an arm and use a combination of Runes to block the Mangog’s earth-shaking blows. It would only take one more Rune for Thor to release the billion, billion beings contained with the Mangog and banish him forever . . . until the finale for the Jason Foster arc 12 years later.Using Mjolnir (newly reforged by Surtur, King of the Fire Giants), Thor blasted a path all the way to Valhalla. This is either a continental feat or more of a dimensional thing; we don’t know where Surtur was relative to Valhalla, or even whether he was in the same dimension. But why did he have to use Mjolnir? And why did Surtur have to repair it? He didn’t. Thor just thought it was fitting for Mjolnir to be repaired by Surtur.“It is only fitting. He who destroyed my father, he who is the greatest enemy of the gods, will restore our greatest weapon using the mold that brought about the end of times . . . and the beginning of this journey.”Finally, he was able to destroy the Tapestry of Fate, destroying or sealing away the Norns and the Ones Who Sit Above In Shadow. He also possibly destroyed Yggdrasil, a multiverse, but it’s hard to tell whether it was his doing or a side effect of destroying the Tapestry. Hell, I’m not even sure if there’s a difference.Final Verdict on Rune King Thor:Rune King Thor is naturally above his father, Odin, given the increased potency of the Odinpower. Using this massive reservoir and his own incredible skill, it's possible he might even possess powers equal to his mother, the Elder Goddess Gaea, a being surpassed only by her most powerful siblings or the mightiest cosmic titans, such as the insatiable Galactus, the innumerable Celestials, the mysterious Abstracts, and dimensional invaders, such as the Many-Angled Ones or the incomparable Beyonders.While Rune King Thor won't be setting the seeds for the next incarnations of the greater multiverse or reworking the foundations of the fabric of reality, he is a being of incredible power. Were you, an average denizen of the universe, to come across him in some dimensional byway, there is a good chance he is the most powerful being you would ever lay eyes on. And, for the most versions of Superman, that would prove sufficient.Thor, as the Rune King, possesses magic that is far too powerful and far too versatile for Superman to contend. From one of my comments:But if he [Superman] takes too long or doesn't knock out Thor in one hit, he's toast. He's either getting slowed by magic and wrestled down by a magically-strengthened Thor, teleported into a red sun, or torn apart by kryptonite shards as Thor's cosmic senses locate and collect every last scrap of kryptonite in the Milky Way Galaxy.“For the moment, I think, I will rest. I’ll lie still and silent. Strip my mind of thoughts. I shall close my eyes and breathe deep the slumber of gods. For awhile, at least…”How does Superman match up?*Disclaimer: Let me add that comparing high-end characters from different companies like this is next to impossible to do properly. The universes follow different ways of thinking and, for characters as old as Superman and Thor, those ways of thinking can change over time. Two examples from the Silver Age, which was full of inconsistencies:One writer had Superman chasing after Kara’s spirit, reaching speeds high enough to the point that he escaped infinity and almost enter the Afterlife until he was stopped by the Spectre.Another writer would have Superman get his red-briefs kicked by Solomon Grundy or the Shaggy Man. Not exactly cosmic powerhouses, those ones.Basically, Superman (and Thor) have plenty of high-showings. Insanely high-showings that don’t make any sense, you know, scientifically. However, they’ve also got plenty of low-showings whether it’s Superman nearly get hitting by kryptonite boulder launched from a fucking catapult or Thor barely outpacing Loki escaping on a flock of mind-controlled pigeons. Yes, both of those things happened. All that to say, don’t get on me for missing this or that specific feat unless it’s something they did consistently.Now, your average Superman doesn’t measure up to the Rune King. Although Superman’s powerset is awesome and versatile, it’s nothing that Thor hasn’t dealt with (perhaps not quite to the extent of Kal-El). With the Rune King, however, he is on a far greater level, able to brush aside creatures such as the Mangog and confront beings such as Surtur unopposed and unafraid.As an individual possessing the complete knowledge of the Runes and an incredibly potent pool of magic to call upon, Thor has an answer for everything:Super strength punching? Runes to protect from physical damage (used against the mighty Mangog).Heat vision/freeze breath? Runes to create a shield that can withstand the destruction of Asgard (used in his “fight” with Loki).Attempting to escape or speedblitz? Runes to teleport him into a red sun (used against Beta Ray Bill—minus the red sun part). Repeat, if need be.Take a bit of damage? Rewind time and start again (used by King Thor).(Faster than) Lightspeed punch? Freeze time. Speed is distance divided by time. Take time out of the equation and speed becomes null. (again, used by King Thor)For those who doubt these abilities would work on the Man of Steel, bear in mind magic has been used against him to great effect and by beings far less powerful than Rune King Thor, such as the Enchantress and Shazam. While Superman can resist harmful magics for a time, he ultimately has a lack of options for combating it. Against ordinary Thor, this wouldn't be an instant win because Superman can simply target Thor himself while attempting to dodge the hammer and lightning. Rune King Thor, however, uses and has access to a greater variety and potency of magic.So yes, I do not have high hopes for your average Kal-El, but luckily for us, there are others. I would say there are three that have a good shot, if not a very, very great shot.Strange Visitor SupermanStrange Visitor Superman is a non-canonical version of Superman at the end of time. Superman has lived an unfathomably long time; outliving even the gods themselves, Superman was stated to be the last life in the universe (likely excluding certain beings such as the Endless). He is well-known for being able to produce seemingly thousands of clones that surveyed the decaying universe and delayed its entropic death.As I mentioned, he is the last biological life-form left in the universe after the god Anu’s passing (overseen by Superman MMXCIX). After Superman Null, who had been holding together the center of the universe, absorbs the other Super-Sentries, he is able to outrace universal decay. He is seen off by the ghost of Lois Lane, perhaps one final gift from Death to the last living being in the universe.Near the end of the story, after Superman’s multitude of clones return to him, he is able to tear a hole into the Sixth Dimension, something even Mr. Mxyzptlk seemed wary of trying. He rescues a rocket ship that had been trapped in the Sixth Dimension for billions of years (though from their perspective, it had been five minutes) and ushers them into the next universe.Given Strange Visitor Superman’s role as the usher of the next universe and his ability to resist not only red kryptonite radiation and universal decay, but also the chaos of the Sixth Dimension, it’s almost a certainty he could resist even the magics of the Rune King. At the end of the day, Rune King Thor was the biggest fish in the pond, but the SV Superman was the biggest and last fish thriving in the ocean. While it was being boiled by a tumultuous, dying star.Cosmic Armor SupermanA union of Superman and Ultraman (evil Superman) that exists in a very meta-driven story. Cosmic Armor Superman is meant to represent the Ultimate Hero as he battles Mandrakk the Ultimate Villain. I’ve always dug the message of replacing an evil, malignant story with a greater, benevolent story: the story of Superman, the last child of a dying world. If only Mandrakk wasn’t as boring as sin.A ploy by the Monitors, the Cosmic Armor holds incredible power, able to battle the Dark Monitor, a being that previously defeated the Spectre, for the fate of the DC Multiverse. The Monitors exist outside the Multiverse and observe the happenings within. They are likely the most technologically advanced race to ever exist.Made of divine metal, the Cosmic Armor is able to adapt to nearly any situation, a necessity when battling the vampiric Monitor.The Cosmic Armor possessed some awareness of the reader, though not the context, referring to the place beyond as Limbo. Few in the DC universe have been able to even glimpse beyond the page, but they are often beings of incredible magical power, such as Mr. Mxyzptlk or Zatanna Zatara while harnessing the Living Language or Mordru's Ruby of Life.Again, I’m confident Cosmic Armor Superman would be able to resist (or, in this case, adapt to) the Rune King’s awesome magics. Once that’s done with, I don’t see Thor having much of a chance of winning.Superman Prime One MillionWhile the hype surrounding Superman Prime One Million has died down a bit, there’s no denying he’s guaranteed to be a powerhouse. He’s just a powerhouse we unfortunately won’t likely see in the future. Still, he’s another take on what Superman can become and, needless to say, it’s pretty awe-inspiring.After traveling the universe, honing his abilities to an insane degree, Kal-El enter the sun to mediate for thousands of years. But not before bestowing a portion of his power onto some of his descendants, granting them power comparable to your average Kryptonian, at least. The El Dynasty would eventually attain more power by marrying other metahumans, including a 5D Imp, which gave the following descendants 10 extra senses (including a form of telepathy).Despite his descendants gaining additional powers, none surpassed the original, who’s millennia and a half long sundip left him more powerful than ever.Unfortunately, this version of Kal-El doesn’t do too much directly. He makes the futuristic setting possible, but all he does on-panel is kill a weakened Solaris (living sun) with a Green Lantern Ring. Impressive, but I don’t think it’s the best he can do. Unfortunately, we don’t know the best he can do. Still, I think he’s on the level of the Rune King.What about the Beyonder=OWSAIS Theory?Guess I should address that. Considering the Rune King didn’t battle them, I don’t think it’s enough to say he is more powerful than a Beyonder. He’s still limited in some unique ways, as are the Ones Who Sit Above. It’s definitely a possible theory—and a very interesting one. It would likely be the final push to make me definitively push Rune King Thor over Superman Prime One Million, given what we know, but I’d still bet on Strange Visitor and Cosmic Armor.Who is still reading this?Well, those are my opinions at least. I’m not as knowledgeable of Superman as I am of Thor, but I think I represented him well (though I’m sure some will disagree).You might also notice the absence of that big Rebirth feat where Superman cleans the World-Forger’s clock (how nice of him!) and Rebirth Superman in general. I haven’t read the Justice League: Rebirth series, but I'd like to get my hands on it in the next few weeks. I admit to being skeptical of that “multiversal punch” feat I've heard so much about and want to actually read the story leading up to it before I give any sort of opinion on it. I may also address that, if I feel inclined to after reading it.That’s all I’ve got. This monster of a post is complete and my own personal Ragnarok is finally over.And thanks for reading!

This is a very good question, and a very sad question.The answer is not about creativity and integrity, so much as about prestige and poor education.In order to answer it, we have to take a bit of a detour.Of all the arts, music is the least referential.It’s very hard to put your finger on what, if anything, music is about. Literature uses words; the visual arts refer to the visual world (except in the case of some of my beloved 20th century high modernism). But music just is.We talk about certain musicians as having a ‘musical language’, and non-musicians tend to get very confused by such language, because it makes it seem like music maps directly onto certain meanings— that there are certain elements of music that inevitably mean ‘sadness’ or ‘happiness’ or ‘melancholy’, or whatever. Hence the frequency of hopeful but doomed questions on Quora about What’s the best chord progression for…?For example, one of the biggest clichés about music is that major key=happy/positive and minor key=sad/negative, but anyone acquainted with Franz Schubert’s music knows that some of his most heart-rending music is in major keys: ‘Das Wirtshaus’, for example, from Die Winterreise:It’s not just classical music, either. Richard Rodgers and Lorenz Hart’s ‘It Never Entered My Mind’ is another major key tear-jerker, whether it’s performed by Frank Sinatra, Miles Davis or, as in this majestic version, by Bud Powell:‘It Never Entered My Mind’ was written for the 1940 Broadway musical Higher and Higher, which starred Jack Haley, best known as the Tin Man in The Wizard of Oz. It was originally sung by Shirley Ross, in the role of Sandy Moore. Ross, who died in 1975 aged 62, is now remembered, if she’s remembered at all, for singing ‘Thanks for the Memory’ with Bob Hope in The Big Broadcast of 1938.But here she is singing ‘It Never Entered My Mind’. This is, if you like, ‘the original version’:Why am I delving into forgotten versions of songs that you, unless you’re a fan of classical music or jazz, have probably never even heard of? What’s this got to do with the idea, proposed in the question, that music performed by others lacks integrity?My point is that some skills in music are more highly valued, by some members of the listening public, than others.Songs like ‘Das Wirtshaus’ and ‘It Never Entered My Mind’ are part of our common repertoire of music. We would be the poorer without them. They are there for anyone to perform.But somewhere along the way, in some of the most popular genres of popular music, particularly in rock music, we came to think that we have to perform our own music.That we have to be original.That if we are performing someone else’s music, then the music didn’t come from us.And that that’s bad.And also, that if we are listening to a rock band that isn’t performing their own music, that’s also bad, because they are just a covers band.How did this happen?And what does this attitude do to us?Let us cast our minds back to the early 20th century.It’s worth reminding ourselves that, up until the end of the 19th century, musical skills and musical literacy were more widely distributed among the general public than they are now.Why? Because, for most of human history, we haven’t had recorded music. If you wanted to hear music before the invention of recorded music, you had two options:Go somewhere where musicians are playing music;Play it yourself.The very wealthy could afford to have their own musicians on the payroll, but those musicians played for their wealthy employers. (Wu-Tang Clan’s 2014 album Once Upon A Time in Shaolin, issued as a single copy and bought by disgraced pharmaceutics magnate and convicted criminal Martin Shkreli, is firmly within the long tradition of court musicians playing music solely for the benefit of their rich patrons.) It wasn’t until the rise of the middle classes that we saw the rise of the concert room as a place where the general public could go to hear music.The social history of the piano is itself a fascinating subject. Women in the 18th and 19th centuries were discouraged from pursuing careers as professional musicians, but the ability to play the piano was a valuable social skill. Emma Darwin, Charles Darwin’s wife, took piano lessons from Frédéric Chopin, of all people, and played the piano every day.In these situations, the standard practice was to play existing music written by someone else.The Victorian wife sitting at her piano wasn’t expected to write her own songs and play them. She played things like Mendelssohn’s Lieder ohne Worte, and simpler pieces by Chopin, Brahms, Schumann and other composers. This was the music that people wanted to hear, and it’s easier to learn to play music than it is to write it.But with the arrival of the player piano, and then the phonograph, people realised that they no longer had to go to the trouble of learning to play the music, when they could listen to someone else playing it, whether it was the piano roll, or a cylinder, or a record.This was epoch-making.This changed our entire relationship to music.Music went from being something that we did and enjoyed, like cooking food for friends, or taking exercise, and became something that we consumed.Over time, we saw the rise of the record collector, and the rise of the recording star. One of my favourite examples is the Irish fiddler Michael Coleman, who emigrated from Sligo to the USA in 1914 and made a bunch of records with many labels from 1921 to 1936.These recordings made their way back to Ireland, where they acquired so much prestige that local fiddlers stopped being welcomed to play at dances. Coleman’s records got played instead, because the physical existence of commercial recordings of him drove home the ‘fact’ that he must be ‘better than’ Jim the Local Guy, or whoever.As the publicity machines got going, synchronising radio and print advertising with film appearances, the emphasis drifted further away from the music itself and more towards the performer.Singers like Bing Crosby and Frank Sinatra, the Boswell Sisters and the Andrews Sisters became huge stars, but they didn’t sing their own songs.They were objects of fascination to their fans. Look at the attention to visual detail in this photo of the Boswell Sisters, with their matching spit-curls on the left temple:Ten years later, the Andrews Sisters were more willing to show a little skin:Popular singers turned up in parodies. Frank Tashlin’s 1944 cartoon The Swooner Crooner features parodies of Sinatra and Crosby. Tex Avery’s 1948 Little Tinker is another Sinatra parody:Crosby breezed through a successful movie career with the same rather hollow insouciance that he did everything else. Sinatra re-started his career after it had stalled in the late 40s, by doggedly refusing to lie down—he proved himself as an actor and rethought his approach to singing.But all of this served to cement the performer, rather than the song, as the centre of the audience’s attention and, indeed, fascination.Jazz raised in the audience’s mind an expectation that performers were creative. But with the rise of bebop, the mass audience turned to singers and simpler, more danceable music.In the 1950s, rock and roll happened, and some performers wrote their own material, and some didn’t.Of the original generation of rock and rollers, by 1962:Elvis was in movies, having done his military service like the good boy he was;Little Richard was doing gospel;Chuck Berry was in prison;Eddie Cochran was dead;Buddy Holly was dead;Richie Valens was dead;Gene Vincent was battling chronic pain with alcohol.In folk music, Bob Dylan was beginning to make his name as a singer-songwriter.Most pop music had reverted back to the way it was pre-rock & roll: singers singing songs written by other people, possibly years earlier, and backed by session musicians.Into this arena stepped The Beatles.I’m not going to recapitulate their early career here, as everyone else has done so, extensively.The two things that the Beatles had going for them, in their early years, were massive self-confidence, and songwriting talent. They picked up, from the early rock and rollers, that you could and should write your own songs. That was what attracted them to figures like Berry and Holly and Cochran.By the time they went to an America, a huge audience existed that was ready and positively squeeing with excitement at the possibility of seeing them.Now, we need to avoid the ‘great men’ theory of history here: the Beatles did not single-handedly change the musical industry overnight so that everyone had to start writing their own songs.But as I’ve tried to show, the historical situation was such that audiences were fascinated by performers, and the Beatles struck them as unusually and excitingly self-sufficient.This could not have happened unless the times were right, and an audience that was tired of one thing wanted to have something else quite different.The Beatles sang their own songs, but they also played them, but they also wrote them. People who weren’t attracted to their music dismissed them as manufactured rubbish, but they were a small minority.Somewhere in Postmodernism, Frederic Jameson defined the concept of the ‘groupie’ as someone who fantasises that another community is more coherent and organic than their own. That’s what struck people about the Beatles.The Beatles were initially marketed in such a way as to emphasise their grungy authenticity:This is them in 1962, standing in some Liverpool bombsite.But as rival bands began to spring up, such as the Stones, who tapped straight into the more conventional authenticity of the blues, the Beatles’ marketing changed (well, nobody could compete with the Stones as far as grunginess was concerned), and the emphasis was shifted to what Ian Macdonald called their ‘uncanny, clone-like similarity’:1964.Successful bands are gangs. People want to join gangs.We need to return, at this point, to Bob Dylan.Dylan’s influence was not so much that he got famous performing his own material, so much as that his material was perceived as having a kind of seriousness that was lacking in other music. Dylan, if you like, had a kind of dignity that the Beatles were not initially perceived as having.This was, of course, just as much a feature of his marketing as of his music. Nat Hentoff’s liner notes to The Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan, his breakthrough album, captured it beautifully:Of all the precipitously emergent singers of folk songs in the continuing renascence of that self-assertive tradition, none has equaled Bob Dylan singularity of impact. As Harry Jackson, a cowboy singer and a painter, has exclaimed: "He's so goddamned real it's unbelievable!"He’s so goddamned real it’s unbelievable. That’s precisely what sold Dylan: the impression of authenticity. It was articulated by Dylan himself later in the same notes:I'm my own person. I've got basic common rights-whether I'm here in this country or any other place. I'll never finish saying everything I feel, but I'll be doing my part to make some sense out of the way we're living, and not living, now. All I'm doing is saying what's on my mind the best way I know how. And whatever else you say about me, everything I do and sing and write comes out of me.Emphasis added. And yet Hentoff’s liner note makes clear that so many of the songs were rewrites of old songs, or Dylan’s version of someone else’s version of an old song.It didn’t matter. The point was to assert the individuality and authority of the singer. —That, incidentally, is something that Dylan himself, with his ceaseless insistence that it’s the songs that matter, has probably mildly resented since.The Beatles saw Dylan’s prestige, and learned from it. When a journalist commented to Lennon that his songs weren’t as original as his writings, Lennon’s response was to write the Beatles’ first masterpiece, ‘In My Life’.As other musicians realised that writing your own music meant more money for the writer, fewer and fewer bands wanted to accept work from professional songwriters.Bands came to be valued for what they had to say, not how well they performed the existing repertoire.Pete Townshend of The Who positioned himself as the Voice of Disaffected Youth. Ray Davies of the Kinks was the Creator of Bittersweet Suburban Vignettes. The Stones were Rebellion and, to a certain extent, Excess.Jimi Hendrix, on the back cover of Are You Experienced?, phrased his ambition thus:‘I came to England, picked out the two best musicians, the best equipment, and all we are trying to do now is create, create, create, music, our own personal sound, our own personal being...’Our own personal sound.Our own personal being.Even musicians who weren’t natural songwriters, at that time, had to be talked about in terms of ‘authenticity’: Eric Clapton, on the cover of Cream’s first album, was described as a ‘true rustic’, even though he hailed from Ripley in Surrey, about as unlike the Mississippi delta as can be imagined. Ripley is in the solidly middle-class constituency of Woking, which has never elected anyone other than a Conservative candidate since its foundation in 1950.By the early 1970s, a precondition of being taken seriously as a certain kind of rock musician was that you created your own music.The explosion of songwriting bands in the British Invasion, and the US and other cultures which had been affected by that explosion (such as Brazil and Mexico), had created an entirely new repertoire, and shown entirely new directions. Nobody except nostalgia acts wanted to go on playing 50s rock and roll. Guitar and amp technology had developed to reflect the need to play louder, to bigger audiences. New sounds were available. New sounds, in their turn, inspired new music.(Bonus answer to the common Quora question Why don’t people make more music like classic rock anymore? Answer: Because we haven’t recently invented an entirely new way of playing that music which excites anyone enough to come up with a new approach. We already know pretty much everything that can be done with loud guitars.)This new repertoire of rock music—the contents of, say, a typical copy of the Rolling Stone Record Guide—soon became the only music that younger musicians listened to.Lennon and McCartney and Davies and Townshend and their songwriting peers grew up listening to the music of the 40s and 50s and anything else that took their fancy. Richard Thompson of Fairport Convention loved the folk music his Scottish dad played. Bob Dylan became a walking encyclopedia of traditional American song.Songs from the Great American Songbook had been part of the Beatles’ repertoire: the week that their first single entered the charts, one of the top ten hits was Frank Ifield’s version of Victor Scherzinger and Johnny Mercer’s 1941 song ‘I Remember You’, sung by Dorothy Lamour in The Fleet’s In:The Beatles had sung that song in Hamburg, among others like it.But younger musicians growing up in the 70s and 80s and 90s were not, on the whole, listening to ‘I Remember You’.Or ‘It Never Entered My Mind’.Or Schubert’s ‘Das Wirtshaus’.Over time, the idea became cemented in the minds of young musicians that if you didn’t write your own music, you weren’t being yourself.The lingering glamour, and the carefully crafted image of authenticity presented by the musicians of the 60s, as well as, sure, their songwriting gifts, made them the most prestigious people to emulate. This is why Noel Gallagher of Oasis claimed that his songwriting influences were Lennon, Davies and Townshend, instead of his legally demonstrated influences of Neil Innes, the New Seekers and Stevie Wonder.And so, eventually, an entire community of musicians—those working within popular music genres influenced mainly by rock—lost touch with the idea that good music was something that flowed through them from the past to the future, and that there was potentially as much dignity and truth in performing someone else’s song as if you meant it, and that saying things that had been said before was worth doing, if you could say them in such a way that people heard them as if they were fresh and new.These musicians, largely ignorant of traditions of music other than their own, came to be convinced that if you didn’t write your own music, then you had nothing to say.We still have good songwriters.But we also have good musicians who are mediocre songwriters, because they are obliged to write songs. Their audience won’t listen to them if they don’t write their own material.I said at the beginning of this answer that it’s easier to play music than it is to write it. And that’s true; but that means that when musicians are obliged to write their own material, they aren’t necessarily doing what they’re best at. They might be better musicians, making better and more communicative and more interesting music, if they weren’t always under such pressure to write it themselves.When all the musicians in a given genre—such as, say, indie rock—are obliged to write their own material, the result is a genre where there’s an awful lot of mediocre music, because there’s only so many really worthwhile composers in a generation.(I personally think that this tends to be especially true of indie rock, where other, more conventional musical skills are often actually frowned upon as ‘showing off’, or whatever. But that’s merely my opinion.)Traditional musicians don’t have to worry so much about this. In classical music, of course, performers are not expected to write their own material. In jazz and improvised music, the boundary between composition and improvisation is more blurred.Musicians who are convinced that they amount to nothing if they can’t write their own music, ought to have our pity.But musicians who think that musicians who don’t write their own music are to be looked down upon, no matter how much more gifted those other musicians might happen to be, are in need of correction and education.It is a mistake to think that the practice of my art has become easy to me. I assure you, dear friend, no one has given so much care to the study of composition as I. There is scarcely a famous master in music whose works I have not frequently and diligently studied.-Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, comment to a conductor of his work, Prague, 1787Immature artists imitate. Mature artists steal.-T.S. EliotOnly those with no memory insist on their originality.-Coco Chanel