# What's your ideology?-Ideologies behind music...



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I've come across quite a few ideologues on some of these internet forums (thankfully, not so many here, although we had quite a few when I first came here two years ago). Ideologues are people who tend to have a very fixed and narrow way of thinking. Here I have listed some of the ideologies to do with music. Of course the lines are sometimes not clearly drawn between them. Also, my summaries are very basic. I'd like us to discuss our ideologies, eg. the ones we find useful and the ones not. I think that all of them have their limitations, and it's good to try and see beyond these & question them.

*I'd basically categorise myself as a "soft" Modernist and "middle of the road" Post-Modernist, how about you?*

*Romantic ideologies* - These ideologies see the role of art as to be elevation of humanity towards a greater understanding of God and nature. Often they are tied in with imagining or reimagining a kind of utopia in the past (or at least engaging with the histories or stories of the past). During the Romantic era, the related ideology of Nationalism was also current, though it can also be called a kind of political ideology.

*Political ideologies* - In the c20th, these ideologies centred on the opposite extremes of Communism and Facsism. These ideologies see most things in terms of class or national struggles. A number of composers were Communists of various shades - Shostakovich, Nono, Henze - but this is not always apparent in their music.

*Anarchist ideologies* - Anarchists believe in overturning the established order and replacing it with a kind of disorder. Composers who fit into this category were John Cage and Harry Partch. They worked outside the system but many of their ideas have come into the mainstream culture - influencing trends like minimalism. Punk rockers of the early 1980's like Sid Vicious and his Sex Pistols could also be described as anarchists.

*Conservative ideologies* - The thing usually goes like this - a new and innovative thing is seen as a threat by conservatives to the established order, and therefore corrupting of public morals. This applied to modern music before WW1 when premieres of Schoenberg's and Stravinsky's music ended up in riots. The conservatives had the same reaction to the post WW2 emergence of rock n'roll - Elvis with his gyrating hips was a threat to public morals. Even 500 years ago, some criticised the dissonances and odd harmonies in Monteverdi's music as being inappropriate for sacred music!!! It's not much different from some people here at TC who rubbish certain types of music, even though their exposure to it has probably not been that great. Many conservative ideologies are based on fear of an invisible threat.

*Universalist ideologies *- Universalists believe not only that Western classical music is universal, but that some composers are more universal than others. J.S. Bach, Mozart & Wagner are seen as being universal, whereas others of supposed lesser stature are seen as merely regional. Universalists tend to cultivate composer cults, elevating their chosen composer to godly status, and skillfully dodging any questioning of that status. To be a god, you basically have to be a dead white male. Hence, it also helps if you are designated as the "father" of something - be it Baroque, Classical Era or Romantic music. Another thing is, universal composers can't be too popular otherwise they are labelled as 'trash' - which is how I've seen some people compare the exalted Wagner versus say the lowly Bizet.

*Modernist ideologies* - Modernists believe that all art is mainly about progress & innovation, barring anything else. Any kind of reference or slipping back into the past is seen as proof of retrenchment or regression. They like to see musical history as a kind of linear "grand narrative" of one development leading to another development, and so on. They also like fads, like Boulez with his post-serialist dogmas in the 1960's. In his & Adorno's ways of thinking, composers like Sibelius and Shostakovich were out, whereas guys like Webern were in (even Schoenberg was criticised as being too neo-classical by some hard Modernists).

*Post-Modernist ideologies* - Post-Modernist theory is very complex - some say it disappears up it's own backside. Basically, it tends to reduce the gap between so called "high" and "low" art, and question ideological assumptions behind the arts - in terms of production, marketing & consumption for example. There are a lot of sub-branches of Post-Modernism - with perspectives focused on gender, ethnicity, socio-economic class, the environment, etc.


----------



## Guest (Mar 26, 2011)

Andre said:


> Anarchists believe in overturning the established order and replacing it with a kind of disorder. Composers who fit into this category were John Cage and Harry Partch.


Not so. (No time to go into this now. Besides, that should have been your job when you were making these categories, eh? But I'll quote Henry Miller to point you in the right direction: "Confusion is a word we have invented for an order which is not understood.")

I don't know about Partch's ideas in any detail or with any accuracy, but his tuning system and his reliance on rhythm were both attempts to recapture an ancient order that had been lost. To be more natural, in a literal sense of that word.

As for Cage, Cage was not about disorder at all. He was very much about discipline, though. His early percussion pieces and prepared piano pieces were meticulously planned out, and when he discovered that the precise measurements of preparation made different results on different pianos, he didn't simply react with "well, it doesn't matter what we do then" but made his indeterminate scores as carefully as the other ones. And they require, to be played well, that the performers follow the directions accurately and sensitively. Kind of like how one plays Chopin, eh?


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

I generally find myself leaning toward the "Romantic" ideology. Music is enlivening, exalting stuff.

I'm not really an ideologue, as I'm not really strict about the way I look at and hear music, but that is just what I tend toward; if I were a dyed-in-the-wool ideologue, I would be that kind.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Yes, I do think Cage is a rather misunderstood composer. I quite like a lot of his ideas. much of his music is very well thought out and even in some cases mathematical employing algorithms from the I-Ching.

I think early Penderecki who - to loosely quote him 'tried to completely liberate sound from all barriers' type thing _was_ closer to the anarchist model, but even here I'm not sure that it quite fits. Admiteddly I am far from an expert on these types of categories.

I also don't think I fit any category neatly, but would probably be closest to the Romantic ideology of seeing music as elevating towards a greater understanding of God and nature. However I imagine this tying into a kind of utopian future more so than a past.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Thank you all for your comments.

@ some guy, tdc

I wasn't really saying Cage's music wasn't "well thought out" but rather that he wrote music that was completely different in terms of notation and performance to what had went before. I have read that he did things like write a score on perspex, so that it could be turned upside down and back to front. Some of his pieces like the _Piano Concert_ can be played at the same time as other works of his - I have it on a recording played simultaneously with two other works - solos for voice 1 & 2. then there were scores of his that just consisted of things like perforations on a piece of cardboard. I highly doubt that composers such as Chopin were doing things like this (although I know that you're not saying this is the case).

As for Partch, he invented either totally new and until then unheard instruments to play his highly complex music, or built instruments that had not seen the light of day since for example Ancient Greek times.



tdc said:


> Admiteddly I am far from an expert on these types of categories.


Neither am I an expert, and anyone is free to question my own ideologies behind my list, as they are welcome to add their own ideologies...


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

I believe all of these are valid and justifiable ideologies.

When I approach a piece of music i shift into the ideology within which the piece was composed.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

I'm definitely affected by "Ideology." I would call myself a Romantic-Conservative-Modernist, if that's not contradictory... I'm definitely an optimist-idealist. 

The thing with conservatism/modernism is, it's not a matter of progression or non-progression. For me, it's only about what's right. Both can be right. Both can be wrong. If it is aesthetically pleasing in some way, simple or complex, it's good. I'm more willing to say "I like/dislike" rather than to pass judgment on something as "bad/good" because I admit to liking a lot of stereotypically "bad" stuff and disliking a lot of "good" stuff.

As my signature suggests...


----------



## Comus (Sep 20, 2010)

Romantic-modernist. Progress iterates into infinity, embracing the endless mystery at the end of time, the attractor that becomes more manifest with each iteration.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

When I first read the list, I was confused because I agreed with nothing. Having thought a bit more about the categories, I perhaps can back into mine by excluding things I know I am not.

I'm not sure I understand post-modernism in music, but in other areas (philosophy for example) I think it's intellectual crap. As a scientist, I abhor anarchy (I love order), and I view conservatism as a threat to seeking the truth. I understand that Shostakovich wrote political music, but I feel music is a particularly poor medium for political views.

That leaves Romanticism, Modernism, and Universalism. 

I do not believe that art should be primarily about progress and innovation, but in visual art I am most drawn to modern art and love to see new ideas (even though I may decide that many are ultimately failures). I like to see experimentation in visual art, but so far I'm not thrilled with modern music.

I do believe that there is much universal in music, but for me this is more a statement about the physics of the interaction of sounds with the human brain. I absolutely do not believe in composer cults, superiority of "dead white males", or popularity being negative in relation to quality. 

So this leaves Romanticism. I strongly disbelieve that the "role of art as to be elevation of humanity towards a greater understanding of God and nature." But as World Violinist said, "Music is enlivening, exalting stuff." For me music is to be beautiful and interesting. That is its purpose and great music is the most beautiful and most interesting. Maybe this is another aspect of Romanticism in music.

So perhaps I am mostly a Romantic with a hint of Modernism.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

emiellucifuge said:


> I believe all of these are valid and justifiable ideologies.
> 
> When I approach a piece of music i shift into the ideology within which the piece was composed.


This is exactly my sentiment. In me, different modes of thought are compartmentalized and I can slip from one to another quite easily, with the possible exception of conservatism. I have taken personality tests to confirm this. For me, the world, the arts, life -- these things are not black and white, they are millions of shades of gray. No, not even that. They are millions of nuances of marvelous colors.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

I can't find much in the list to identify with. I think my approach to music has pretty well always complied with what CS Lewis said about great literature: 
_
Literary experience heals the wound, without undermining the privilege, of individuality. In reading great literature I become a thousand men and yet remain myself. ... I see with a myriad eyes, yet it is still I who see. Here, I transcend myself; and am never more myself than when I do._

Replace 'literary' with 'musical', and 'reading great literature' with 'listening to great music', and you pretty well have it. Through music (or any art) it becomes possible for the artist to say, 'I've seen this. Let me show you.'

Of course not all music 'shows' me things I want to hear (and similarly not all art shows me things I want to see), but the principle is the thing.


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

To an extent, I believe that progress and innovation are continuously necessary to have a thriving musical culture. On the other hand, many of the most successful composers worked within the framework of a certain established compositional style with certain established rules (to be bent and broken at the composer's will).

I'm sure we can all think of well-known examples of this. Bach worked in strict rule-based counterpoint his whole life, but he revolutionized the style through Vivaldi's influence. 

Mozart worked in rule-based opera his whole life, but he revolutionized the style by making the plot most important above the soprano's virtuosity.

Beethoven worked in rule-based sonata-form his whole life, but he revolutionized the style by seriously expanding the dimensions.



It seems very rare that a composer can create something completely unique and fascinating that actually WORKS on a musical level. The big example here would be Wagner's operas, where he combined his ideas into something completely new nobody had ever heard before: continuous music without aria/recitative, leitmotifs, and of course his unresolving harmonies. 

From what I've read, Wagner's achievements in harmony became the building blocks of almost every composer to follow in the 20th century, for better (Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Debussy, Ravel) or for worse (Schoenberg).



So unless you're a Wagner, it seems dangerous to try to create something completely unique and you're better off trying to work within established conventions.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Andre said:


> I've come across quite a few ideologues on some of these internet forums (thankfully, not so many here, although we had quite a few when I first came here two years ago). Ideologues are people who tend to have a very fixed and narrow way of thinking. Here I have listed some of the ideologies to do with music. Of course the lines are sometimes not clearly drawn between them. Also, my summaries are very basic. I'd like us to discuss our ideologies, eg. the ones we find useful and the ones not. I think that all of them have their limitations, and it's good to try and see beyond these & question them.


Interesting list there, Andre. I presume these are based on your thoughts? It's always tempting to let individuals put themselves into nice "slots" but of course, human nature is often not that simple. I couldn't really see myself sitting clearly in any one category but maybe a bit of several. I found it interesting to read the various categories rather than think about which I may belong to.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Andre, I would have to say that my own artistic ideology is most closely with the ideologies of the *late 19th century Post-Romantic/Symbolist/art pour l'art ideologies* as best expressed in the writings of Walter Pater, Theophile Gautier, J.K. Huysmans, Baudelaire, Proust and Oscar Wilde centered upon the concept that the central purpose of art is the creation of beauty and it's chief value is to bring pleasure. This ideology, often mistaken or simplified as purely hedonistic, is rather rooted in the notion that beauty and pleasure are essential to humanity... that art is not merely a mirror of reality but rather a further creation of beauty... of the ideal that humanity can aspire to. Beyond this, I am most impacted by elements of what you have defined as *Modernist* and *Post-Modernist* ideologies. The element of Modernism which most appeals to me is that of the rejection of a single ideal by which all art must be measured and an openness to the achievements of other times and other cultures (ie. "primitive" and medieval art, non-Western art, the art of "outsiders", etc...) The elements that least appeal to me are the continued belief in a single linear narrative of the history of art and the obsession with "novelty" and "innovation" for its own sake. From Post-Modernism I admire the challenges put forth to the dominant Modernist ideologies (I have no use for the self-serving ideologies of Clement Greenberg, Theodor Adorno, Pierre Boulez, etc...), especially some of the feminist challenges to the misogynistic beliefs that undervalued emotions, beauty, sensuality, and the "feminine" as opposed to the "greater" intellect, the sublime, and the "masculine". I also admire the Post-Modern recognition that the idea of "progress" in art is dead... "progress" not change... and that novelty for its own sake is of far less worth than the achievement that an individual artist of true originality may aspire to using what others imagine is an outdated artistic language or vocabulary.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

emiellucifuge said:


> When I approach a piece of music i shift into the ideology within which the piece was composed.


I agree. Often, there's no solid, hard and fast distinctions between these & other ideologies. It's a good idea to take each piece of music on it's own terms. There's simply no use in directly comparing say a Mozart sonata with say a Cage sonata - they are miles apart, completely different from eachother.



Huilunsoittaja said:


> I'm definitely affected by "Ideology." I would call myself a Romantic-Conservative-Modernist, if that's not contradictory... I'm definitely an optimist-idealist.


Virtually everything is contradictory in the world of art, culture, science, politics, etc. especially when we talk about them. Even in terms of the experiences of two different people. There are very few absolutes, it's not about BLACK versus WHITE or RIGHT and WRONG, it's all about various shades of grey...



Huilunsoittaja said:


> I'm more willing to say "I like/dislike" rather than to pass judgment on something as "bad/good" because I admit to liking a lot of stereotypically "bad" stuff and disliking a lot of "good" stuff.


That's how I tend to take things as well, if I like it, I go with it. If I don't, I might shut the door and say "no thanks," but other times I keep the door open, so to speak, give myself an opportunity to reassess my initial "gut" reactions later. Whatever others may think of J. S. Bach or Brahms or Stockhausen has little to do with how I actually approach the music of these guys, it's mainly based on my actual experience for better or worse...



mmsbls said:


> When I first read the list, I was confused because I agreed with nothing. Having thought a bit more about the categories, I perhaps can back into mine by excluding things I know I am not.


As I said, there are no clear distinctions & you can mix and match to create your own "ideology." Maybe some guy was right, perhaps the likes of Cage and Partch were not really "anarchists" but "libertarians." I might as well been talking about "progressivist ideologies" rather than "modernist ideologies." I'm not very knowledgeable about this, my opening post was more to stimulate debate than shut it down or control it in a certain direction.



Weston said:


> For me, the world, the arts, life -- these things are not black and white, they are millions of shades of gray. No, not even that. They are millions of nuances of marvelous colors.


I agree with this 100 per cent (see my reply above to Huilunsoittaja).



Elgarian said:


> I can't find much in the list to identify with. I think my approach to music has pretty well always complied with what CS Lewis said about great literature:
> 
> Literary experience heals the wound, without undermining the privilege, of individuality. In reading great literature I become a thousand men and yet remain myself. ... I see with a myriad eyes, yet it is still I who see. Here, I transcend myself; and am never more myself than when I do.
> 
> ...


Well it sounds like C.S. Lewis was prefiguring what some of the more recent post modernist thought focuses on, the multiplicity of viewpoints that creations of art have to offer.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Ravellian said:


> It seems very rare that a composer can create something completely unique and fascinating that actually WORKS on a musical level. The big example here would be Wagner's operas, where he combined his ideas into something completely new nobody had ever heard before: continuous music without aria/recitative, leitmotifs, and of course his unresolving harmonies.
> 
> From what I've read, Wagner's achievements in harmony became the building blocks of almost every composer to follow in the 20th century, for better (Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Debussy, Ravel) or for worse (Schoenberg).


Well it seems that you are elevating Wagner - similar in how I described "universalist" ideology! He was hugely influenced by guys like Berlioz and Weber in terms of how to compose an opera. Perhaps more importantly, he was influenced by Liszt in his experiments and inquiry into less conventional approaches to tonality and moving towards chromaticism. There's nothing new under the sun, imo. BTW, I strongly disagree with your assessment of Schoenberg, but I won't go into that 



Ravellian said:


> ...So unless you're a Wagner, it seems dangerous to try to create something completely unique and you're better off trying to work within established conventions.


I think it's "dangerous" to create any work of art - witness how here at TC, various composers have posted clips of their music - whether it be dangerously radical or safely conservative & have been heavily criticised in the process...



HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Interesting list there, Andre. I presume these are based on your thoughts?


Yes, based on my thoughts, particuarly about reading between the lines of people who write about & comment on music, whether it's here or in published CD reviews or more scholarly books on music & ideas...



Stlukesguildohio said:


> ...the idea of "progress" in art is dead... "progress" not change...


Yes, I think it's useful to distinguish between things like "progress" and "change"...


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I'm probably a post-modernist, but I'd qualify that I believe there is music of greater and lesser quality. One kind of quality is virtuosity, another is emotional impact and expressiveness, and another is intellectual (surprising variations on melody, surprising harmonies and rhythms, and so on). There are surely others, but that's off the top of my head. I like to think about issues such as socioeconomic class and ethnicity, but I think they tell us a lot about the audience and something about the musicians, but not often much about the itself.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

_Musically_, I would label myself a kind of 'New' Romantic ideologue, in the sense that I shed any notion of self-improvment/God/nationalism from my appreciation of music, but strongly believe that the capacity of music to exploit good and bad emotions is a fundamentally important exploration of the human experience.

Also important to me is the idea that art should always seek to provoke original emotions and reactions, but, to achieve this, it is _not_ necessary to utilise original forms, styles, techniques or structures.


----------

