# It doesn't make sense that you don't like modern music



## millionrainbows

That's right; It doesn't make sense that you don't like modern music. It's just sound, and in many cases, beautiful, harmonic sound, and also discreet pitches and linear elements which are fascinating. It has moments of harmonic 'happenings' and single, isolated, beautiful pitches.

What is wrong is your expectations. The music itself is usually made from the same pitches as all music. How can we rationally accept that you "don't like it" when it's made of the same stuff, usually, as Beethoven?


----------



## eugeneonagain

Diamonds are made of graphite like pencils, but I know the difference.

However, I do like (some) modern music.


----------



## mtmailey

WELL YOU SEE MOST MODERN MUSIC IS CRAP & boring like rap/hip hop .It sounds to stiff & unnatural.They often do not use acoustic music.Also most songs are boring they just rehash them.


----------



## Gordontrek

If I were to buy a house, I would want it to be well-designed and up to my standards. If someone built me one and it didn't live up to my expectations, it would not matter if he used the finest materials and tools available. I don't like the house, and that's that. I would find another house that I like better. It would be made up of the same stuff, would it not? A foundation, walls, brick and mortar, same as the one I didn't like, but it suits my purposes better. 
Your argument that I should like modern music simply because it's made up of the "same stuff" as more traditional music is shaky at best. There is a lot of modern music I love and a lot that I find repugnant. It doesn't really matter how it's made up; if I don't like how it sounds then that's that.


----------



## Xaltotun

A bold statement, millionrainbows! Rather solid, too, if one accepts the premise that music is sound - that's where eugeneonagain's analogy leads us. No one likes a diamond for its graphite. People like diamonds because of their... expectations. Are they wrong?


----------



## Robert Gamble

It doesn't make sense that you don't like to drink Hydrogen Peroxide when you like to drink Hydrogen Dioxide. They are both made of Oxygen and Hydrogen. 

Ok, so that's a bit (a lot) facetious. But the OP's comment, if taken to the logical extreme would mean that everyone should like all music equally the same no matter the style or era. Does the OP like Rap, Pop, Metal, Jazz, Blues, etc as much as Modern Classical? Since the statement that All music is made up of the same pitches was invoked, they should!


----------



## isorhythm

It doesn't "make sense" to like or not like any music.


----------



## Schumanniac

Does any art, an abstract form of expression ever make logical sense? Look at this Pollock painting and try to comprehend his status as a genius (sorry art enthusiasts):

https://www.google.dk/search?q=poll...AUICSgB&biw=640&bih=335#imgrc=cIiR0NG0PRYM-M:

The very beauty of art is its removal from the rational but grounded in the complex sphere of consciousness, in the subjective perception of each individual. It is internal and introspective, wired in the strange mechanisms of the emotional aspects of our mind, rather than the cold analytical intelligence thats so similar in us all. Sense should rarely factor into music  Sure all music is essentially made of the same fabric, a succesion of notes, pitches and vibrations on a variety of instruments, but its ability to connect with that lucid, emotional part of us that define our species is of far greater variety than any arrangement of notes and instruments. Play a piece to a 100 different people and it will affect them in a 100 different ways. "Sense" is the quality we all share except to different degrees of magnitude, the music we "like" represent what seperates us. The world would be a sterile place should everything be logical.

And i, good sir, do *generally* not like modern classical, much less the majority of popular modern music


----------



## Xaltotun

Some philosophers have taken the stance that art appreciation can "make sense", though.


----------



## topo morto

millionrainbows said:


> That's right; It doesn't make sense that you don't like modern music. It's just sound, and in many cases, beautiful, harmonic sound, and also discreet pitches and linear elements which are fascinating. It has moIments of harmonic 'happenings' and single, isolated, beautiful pitches.
> 
> What is wrong is your expectations. The music itself is usually made from the same pitches as all music. How can we rationally accept that you "don't like it" when it's made of the same stuff, usually, as Beethoven?


I resonate with this to the extent that I think it's a bit weird for any real music fan to draw any arbitrary line through the musical universe - chronological, stylistic, geographical, methodological, theoretical... and say "I like all the stuff on that side of the line; I don't like the stuff on the other side of the line".


----------



## DaveM

millionrainbows said:


> That's right; It doesn't make sense that you don't like modern music. It's just sound, and in many cases, beautiful, harmonic sound, and also discreet pitches and linear elements which are fascinating. It has moments of harmonic 'happenings' and single, isolated, beautiful pitches.
> 
> What is wrong is your expectations. The music itself is usually made from the same pitches as all music. How can we rationally accept that you "don't like it" when it's made of the same stuff, usually, as Beethoven?


Where to start. My interpretation of the above is that modern music is made of bits and pieces (discreet, single, isolated pitches, linear elements, moments of harmonic happenings) of the same music I prefer. It's almost as if the case is being made for why I shouldn't like modern music.


----------



## Forss

I'd like to answer this by quoting Wittgenstein, who says: "The music of past times always corresponds to certain maxims of the good and the right of that time. We recognize Keller's principles in Brahms, etc. etc. Thus good music, which is being conceived today or has been conceived recently, that is to say modern, must seem absurd; for if it corresponds to any of the maxims _pronounced_ today, then it must be rubbish. This sentence is not easy to understand but this is how things are: today no one is clever enough to formulate what is right, and _all_ formulas and maxims that are pronounced are nonsense. The truth would sound _quite_ paradoxical to everyone. And the composer who feels this within him must stand with this feeling in opposition to everything that is nowadays pronounced, and thus must seem by the present standards absurd, foolish. But not absurd in the _attractive_ sense (for that is basically what the contemporary view corresponds to), but rather in the sense of _saying nothing_. Labor is an example of this, where he really created something important, as he did in some few pieces."


----------



## hpowders

But I DO like Modern Music.

My two favorite centuries for CM are the 18th and 20th.


----------



## Xaltotun

Wittgenstein seems _very_ Hegelian there. Which is good!


----------



## Bettina

I like modern music - but I don't enjoy it as much as common-practice tonal music. I do try to approach modern music with an open mind: when I listen to modern music, I try to put aside my tonal expectations (with varying degrees of success) and I try to focus on whatever rhythmic/timbral/motivic patterns are tying the music together. 

However, my experiences with modern music have not (yet) been as satisfying as the experiences that I have with many tonal works. I love the way that common-practice tonality works - the sense of anticipation, waiting for resolution, the ways that a composer might hint at resolution or postpone it for a while. The tonal language, which is based on tension and delayed gratification, gives me emotional and intellectual thrills that (so far) have not happened when I listen to non-tonal music.


----------



## Tallisman

Are you talking about Modern music as in 20th century classical music (ie; Modernist music, avant-garde etc) that is widely seen as difficult and jarring, or about modern music as in Pop music?

Are you attacking musical philistinism or musical snobbery?

Modern is a rather large term


----------



## DeepR

I like some modern music. Is that OK or must I like everything?
What modern music do you dislike?


----------



## Barbebleu

I think we could easily apply the theory of Schrödinger's cat to modern music. Only in this case we should never open the box!


----------



## Tallisman

Schumanniac said:


> Does any art, an abstract form of expression ever make logical sense? Look at this Pollock painting and try to comprehend his status as a genius (sorry art enthusiasts):


U dissing Pollock, friend?


----------



## Tristan

So what about not liking baroque or Classical or romantic? Why is it always modern that "not liking" is such a problem for? After all, isn't baroque "made of the same stuff" as modern? So why do some modern music fans not like baroque?


----------



## Schumanniac

Tallisman said:


> U dissing Pollock, friend?


Its open to interpretation, i suppose :lol: As the paragraph below the quote cryptically tries to convey is the subjectivity of art, and its relationship with the creative, abstract part of our mentality, our human part rather than the lizard brain. Pollock is a fine example of that as what appears to be random urinating with paint on a canvas has propelled him to worldwide fame. Cause "sense" sure as hell doesnt factor into that, haha.

But im not visually inclined, it undoubtedly resonate within many who works radically different from me. And that was my entire message. Oh, fine, yeah i was having a jab at Pollock in the process  Two birds. One bloody stone.


----------



## Tallisman

Schumanniac said:


> Its open to interpretation, i suppose :lol: As the paragraph below the quote cryptically tries to convey is the subjectivity of art, and its relationship with the creative, abstract part of our mentality, our human part rather than the lizard brain. Pollock is a fine example of that as what appears to be random urinating with paint on a canvas has propelled him to worldwide fame. Cause "sense" sure as hell doesnt factor into that, haha.
> 
> But im not visually inclined, it undoubtedly resonate within many who works radically different from me. And that was my entire message. Oh, fine, yeah i was having a jab at Pollock in the process  Two birds. One bloody stone.


I think he's definitely one of those artists that has to be seen in the flesh. I don't like all of his work, but I can't help but admire the extraordinary frenetic energy he managed to trap in one canvas (both he and his wife Lee Krasner too)


----------



## eugeneonagain

I'm now not sure what the original post is including. Is it about modern music in the sense of modern 'art music' or just popular music? I like a good deal of both. 

In the case of art music it seems to me obvious that there would be some resistance to the deliberate breaking of deeply-rooted tonal structures. If it wasn't controversial there wouldn't be anything to discuss. If we just consider the building blocks, see they are the same and assume they produce the same we make a crucial mistake: a house is made of bricks, a church is made of bricks and a wall is made of bricks. They all have the same elements so they are the same, right. Well no, they aren't.

With regard to popular music I can't take seriously the out-of-hand condemnations of genres like hip-hop/rap. It may not be as 'artistic' (though that is a matter of degree/taste/style/genre what-have-you), but it actually does represent living culture and speaks to people. This is pop music's great strength.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Tristan said:


> So what about not liking baroque or Classical or romantic? Why is it always modern that "not liking" is such a problem for? After all, isn't baroque "made of the same stuff" as modern? So why do some modern music fans not like baroque?


That's a great point. In many ways baroque and 20th century 'atonal' music share some similarities. The complexity perhaps, the dissonances? Many more casual listeners prefer the simple clarity of the classical period and early romantics.


----------



## Xaltotun

I think it pretty clear that he's talking about modern art music, arguing against a dismissal of it on formal grounds.


----------



## hpowders

isorhythm said:


> It doesn't "make sense" to like or not like any music.


Well, that would be logical. Stop it!!! :lol:


----------



## Chronochromie

eugeneonagain said:


> That's a great point. In many ways baroque and 20th century 'atonal' music share some similarities. The complexity perhaps, the dissonances? Many more casual listeners prefer the simple clarity of the classical period and early romantics.


The way some people seem to conflate all of it with one composer who isn't really representative of all or most of it (Bach and Schoenberg)?


----------



## Gordontrek

Perhaps a better title for this thread would be "It doesn't make sense that you hold opinions and tastes contrary to my own."

DARN I wish Mahlerian was here.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Chronochromie said:


> The way some people seem to conflate all of it with one composer who isn't really representative of all or most of it (Bach and Schoenberg)?


Not sure I follow.


----------



## Barbebleu

hpowders said:


> Well, that would be logical. Stop it!!! :lol:


Are you saying "Stop Making Sense"?  modern music at its best!


----------



## Xaltotun

Gordontrek said:


> Perhaps a better title for this thread would be "It doesn't make sense that you hold opinions and tastes contrary to my own."


But under certain conditions and premises, one could say that.

For example, IF
-you and I have similar perception and cognitive systems
-art should be judged on how the object of art affects these perception and cognitive systems, causing pleasure
-we observe the same object
-and I believe I have come to the right judgement, properly shutting out secondary judging methods like personal associations

then I could say that if your opinion is different than mine, you are wrong.

millionrainbows might be saying something like that, since he criticized the objective, formal dismissal of modern music.


----------



## Bulldog

I think the OP is just playing games with us to elicit responses.


----------



## Xaltotun

Bulldog said:


> I think the OP is just playing games with us to elicit responses.


He's provocative, yes, but I think there's much more Socrates than Troll to him.


----------



## Phil loves classical

To like a lot of modern and post-modern classical, you need to disassociate certain things. It follows different conventions. To blame someone for not being able to make these disassociations, is to blame someone for not liking coffee black.

For those who don't try and just put the music down, I just look at it as their loss.


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> That's right; It doesn't make sense that you don't like modern music. It's just sound, and in many cases, beautiful, harmonic sound, and also discreet pitches and linear elements which are fascinating. It has moments of harmonic 'happenings' and single, isolated, beautiful pitches.
> 
> What is wrong is your expectations. The music itself is usually made from the same pitches as all music. How can we rationally accept that you "don't like it" when it's made of the same stuff, usually, as Beethoven?


Diseased rats are made up more or less of the same stuff as my mom - organs, skin, hair, bones, nerves, bacteria. How can I love one and want to exterminate the others? 

I can't believe anyone is taking the bait on this content-free provocation.



Xaltotun said:


> He's provocative, yes, but I think there's much more Socrates than Troll to him.


What did Socrates ever do to you?


----------



## Annied

Schumanniac said:


> Does any art, an abstract form of expression ever make logical sense? Look at this Pollock painting and try to comprehend his status as a genius (sorry art enthusiasts):
> https://www.google.dk/search?q=poll...AUICSgB&biw=640&bih=335#imgrc=cIiR0NG0PRYM-M:


I like bits and pieces of all kinds of music, but there's no particular genre where I could say I like more than a relatively small part of it.

As for Jackson Pollock, some of his paintings look like the marbled papers I use on my antiquarian books. Perhaps I should just frame one of those and hang it on the wall!


----------



## Blancrocher

EdwardBast said:


> Diseased rats are made up more or less of the same stuff as my mom - organs, skin, hair, bones, nerves, bacteria. How can I love one and want to exterminate the others?


I know your heart's in the right place, but I worry that your mother still wouldn't care for this post, Edward.


----------



## JeffD

Here is the thing.

There are some discussions I refuse to have. 

If someone says, "hey, try this, I find it interesting because ...." I am all ears. I love it.

If someone says it doesn't make sense that I don't like something, there is an implication that it is my fault. That I am not sophisticated enough or smart enough or open minded enough, because if I was, clearly, I would agree with them. In which case I just don't have that discussion with that person.

Win me over by explaining what is cool or interesting or beautiful about something and why I might want to try it, don't try to make me feel guilty for not liking it.


----------



## EdwardBast

Blancrocher said:


> I know your heart's in the right place, but I worry that your mother still wouldn't care for this post, Edward.


Funny you should say that! Right after I posted it occurred to me that I hadn't talked to my mom for a while. So I called and, after hearing about her search for lost film of baby raccoons in the neighbors' rafters, I told her what I had written and why. She was mildly amused. I think.


----------



## Gordontrek

Xaltotun said:


> But under certain conditions and premises, one could say that.
> 
> For example, IF
> -you and I have similar perception and cognitive systems
> -art should be judged on how the object of art affects these perception and cognitive systems, causing pleasure
> -we observe the same object
> -and I believe I have come to the right judgement, properly shutting out secondary judging methods like personal associations
> 
> then I could say that if your opinion is different than mine, you are wrong.
> 
> millionrainbows might be saying something like that, since he criticized the objective, formal dismissal of modern music.


This implies that at a certain level of cognitive and perceptive ability, any evaluation of any work of art will inevitably come to the same conclusion, for any person. I don't see the logic in this. I think that people with the proper tools will always use them to come to the conclusion that a given work is a worthy piece of art, but whether it will please them aesthetically is up in the air. If we were both experienced food connoisseurs, we would both be able to take a given dish and agree that it is well made and prepared. But we will _always_ have differing tastes. You might eat it and love it; I might try it and gag on it. It doesn't mean I don't appreciate it for what it is, I just don't find the taste palatable.


----------



## MarkW

Well, there's a lot of modern music I do like. But I do think that the motif B-A-C-H is an ugly-sounding motif, and all of the (mostly 19th c.) variations and fantasias etc. based on it are ugly variations and fantasias etc.


----------



## Mandryka

Forss said:


> I'd like to answer this by quoting Wittgenstein, who says: "The music of past times always corresponds to certain maxims of the good and the right of that time. We recognize Keller's principles in Brahms, etc. etc. Thus good music, which is being conceived today or has been conceived recently, that is to say modern, must seem absurd; for if it corresponds to any of the maxims _pronounced_ today, then it must be rubbish. This sentence is not easy to understand but this is how things are: today no one is clever enough to formulate what is right, and _all_ formulas and maxims that are pronounced are nonsense. The truth would sound _quite_ paradoxical to everyone. And the composer who feels this within him must stand with this feeling in opposition to everything that is nowadays pronounced, and thus must seem by the present standards absurd, foolish. But not absurd in the _attractive_ sense (for that is basically what the contemporary view corresponds to), but rather in the sense of _saying nothing_. Labor is an example of this, where he really created something important, as he did in some few pieces."


Does Wittgenstein say why he thinks all modern ideas are nonsense?


----------



## Forss

Mandryka said:


> Does Wittgenstein say why he thinks all modern ideas are nonsense?


No, not explicitly, but I think he's referring to the Darkness of his time (i.e. the time of the second world war) and to the so-called Scientism that was (and still is, indeed) on the rise in Europe. These words of his sums it up fairly well, I think: "I was walking about in Cambridge and passed a bookshop, and in the window were portraits of Russell, Freud and Einstein. A little further on, in a music shop, I saw portraits of Beethoven, Schubert and Chopin. Comparing these portraits I felt intensely the terrible degeneration that had come over the human spirit in the course of only a hundred years."


----------



## Ingélou

I like some modern music, and I'm always prepared to listen and would never dismiss a whole genre out of hand. Still, it's true to say that it isn't my favourite era/style and that my heart sinks sometimes when I try something out.

But *thanks!!!* for saying that my opinion doesn't *make sense, OP - * *hey, man,* speaking as someone who was a sixties teenager, it's good to know that I can still be *zany*, *wacky* and* quirky*.


----------



## Xaltotun

JeffD said:


> Here is the thing.
> 
> There are some discussions I refuse to have.
> 
> If someone says, "hey, try this, I find it interesting because ...." I am all ears. I love it.
> 
> If someone says it doesn't make sense that I don't like something, there is an implication that it is my fault. That I am not sophisticated enough or smart enough or open minded enough, because if I was, clearly, I would agree with them. In which case I just don't have that discussion with that person.
> 
> Win me over by explaining what is cool or interesting or beautiful about something and why I might want to try it, don't try to make me feel guilty for not liking it.





Gordontrek said:


> This implies that at a certain level of cognitive and perceptive ability, any evaluation of any work of art will inevitably come to the same conclusion, for any person. I don't see the logic in this. I think that people with the proper tools will always use them to come to the conclusion that a given work is a worthy piece of art, but whether it will please them aesthetically is up in the air. If we were both experienced food connoisseurs, we would both be able to take a given dish and agree that it is well made and prepared. But we will _always_ have differing tastes. You might eat it and love it; I might try it and gag on it. It doesn't mean I don't appreciate it for what it is, I just don't find the taste palatable.


Well, my argument was largely based on Kant, and even he's not arguing for complete objectivity in aesthetic judgement, but rather a subjective universality. But also people like Hume can be seen inhabiting the same boat - his "true judges" (people who have experience in aesthetic judgement) reach a consensus, after all. Kant explicitly differentiates food and art - food is judged completely subjectively. But in his view, art (or rather: things that may or may not be beautiful and/or sublime) is judged differently. It's a massive subject and I won't go into it in detail here.

But what's interesting here is the validity of aesthetic judgement. Are my judgements concerning the beautiful always valid? It messes up things here that in our late capitalistic system, desire, and by its extension, judgement, are seen as sacred - or rather, _natural._ Subjective judgement is seen as natural, because it's always right; it's always right, because it's natural. But let's not go into politics - I digress. On my part, I'm very interested if someone says that my taste is _wrong._ I don't see my taste as natural, because I'm not 100% self-aware and conscious of all my thought-processes. What if my taste _is_ wrong, what if I have made a wrong judgement call or used wrong reasons to make the judgement? I'm not saying here that I should follow the dogma of another, superior person, not the slightest. I'm saying here that I think it is possible that another person can show me that I have made a wrong judgement call _by strictly applying my own criteria._ Someone can reveal to me my own thought-process; suddenly I realize _why_ I have made this judgement. Then I can judge for myself, whether my own judgement is valid, because now I know how I arrived to it.


----------



## Mandryka

Forss said:


> No, not explicitly, but I think he's referring to the Darkness of his time (i.e. the time of the second world war) and to the so-called Scientism that was (and still is, indeed) on the rise in Europe. These words of his sums it up fairly well, I think: "I was walking about in Cambridge and passed a bookshop, and in the window were portraits of Russell, Freud and Einstein. A little further on, in a music shop, I saw portraits of Beethoven, Schubert and Chopin. Comparing these portraits I felt intensely the terrible degeneration that had come over the human spirit in the course of only a hundred years."


I haven't read the Lectures and Conversations on Aesthetics, Psychology, and Religious Beliefs. Maybe I should get hold of a copy.


----------



## Mandryka

Xaltotun said:


> Well, my argument was largely based on Kant, and even he's not arguing for complete objectivity in aesthetic judgement, but rather a subjective universality. But also people like Hume can be seen inhabiting the same boat - his "true judges" (people who have experience in aesthetic judgement) reach a consensus, after all. Kant explicitly differentiates food and art - food is judged completely subjectively. But in his view, art (or rather: things that may or may not be beautiful and/or sublime) is judged differently. It's a massive subject and I won't go into it in detail here.
> 
> But what's interesting here is the validity of aesthetic judgement. Are my judgements concerning the beautiful always valid? It messes up things here that in our late capitalistic system, desire, and by its extension, judgement, are seen as sacred - or rather, _natural._ Subjective judgement is seen as natural, because it's always right; it's always right, because it's natural. But let's not go into politics - I digress. On my part, I'm very interested if someone says that my taste is _wrong._ I don't see my taste as natural, because I'm not 100% self-aware and conscious of all my thought-processes. What if my taste _is_ wrong, what if I have made a wrong judgement call or used wrong reasons to make the judgement? I'm not saying here that I should follow the dogma of another, superior person, not the slightest. I'm saying here that I think it is possible that another person can show me that I have made a wrong judgement call _by strictly applying my own criteria._ Someone can reveal to me my own thought-process; suddenly I realize _why_ I have made this judgement. Then I can judge for myself, whether my own judgement is valid, because now I know how I arrived to it.


There's an essay by Hume on this called "On the standard of taste"


----------



## Xaltotun

Mandryka said:


> There's an essay by Hume on this called "On the standard of taste"


Yes, it's what I call "mandatory reading".


----------



## Barbebleu

Phil loves classical said:


> For those who don't try and just put the music down, I just look at it as their loss.


Heres the thing. I would never put the music down but life's too short to try and listen to music that doesn't do anything for me. I barely have time to listen to the stuff I actually enjoy without making time to, as another post put it, listen "intelligently" to music that fails on every level to engage with me emotionally or intellectually. BTW the emotional aspect is by far the most important thing for me. To my ears an awful lot of atonal and/or modern classical music sounds too much like compositional exercises or experiments in seeing how far you can push technique without any thought for who might actually want to listen to the end product.


----------



## Agamemnon

I tend to agree with the topic starter. Actually, it is quite ridiculous to dislike modern music: it makes you a Don Quixotte who lives in the wrong era. On the other hand there could be some truth in Spengler's notorious thesis that the creative highlight of our culture is behind us so that in our times our culture is exhausted and cannot be truly creative anymore... Or maybe Hegel is right that it is inevitable that our art progresses into conceptual art and philosophy...


----------



## Razumovskymas

eugeneonagain said:


> Diamonds are made of graphite like pencils, but I know the difference.
> 
> However, I do like (some) modern music.


What a nice metaphor!


----------



## Forss

Agamemnon said:


> I tend to agree with the topic starter. Actually, it is quite ridiculous to dislike modern music: it makes you a Don Quixotte who lives in the wrong era. On the other hand there could be some truth in Spengler's notorious thesis that the creative highlight of our culture is behind us so that in our times our culture is exhausted and cannot be truly creative anymore... Or maybe Hegel is right that it is inevitable that our art progresses into conceptual art and philosophy...


I certainly agree with Spengler on this very issue, and that was also the point of Wittgenstein's remark (which I quoted in length earlier). Ours is a most dreary civilization, indeed, and we're simply incapable of bringing the dead art forms of the past to _life_. They're like empty shells from some extinct species who's just lying there in the sun, as it were, disintegrating and becoming one with Nature again. _Then_, when they rise anew like a daisy on fresh soil, we can speak of Culture-again.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Is it possible that this kind of music may never appeal to some, no matter how hard they try to like it, or how many ways they listen to it with? Maybe it just won't connect with a certain brain chemistry. Anyone tried for years, and seeked out other ways of listening, and just couldn't like it in the end?


----------



## Razumovskymas

EdwardBast said:


> Diseased rats


we should hold a contest in this thread for who can come up with the best metaphor for modern music!

This one being maybe a bit on the strong side


----------



## Mandryka

Forss said:


> I certainly agree with Spengler on this very issue, and that was also the point of Wittgenstein's remark (which I quoted in length earlier). Ours is a most dreary civilization, indeed, and we're simply incapable of bringing the dead art forms of the past to _life_. They're like empty shells from some extinct species who's just lying there in the sun, as it were, disintegrating and becoming one with Nature again. _Then_, when they rise anew like a daisy on fresh soil, we can speak of Culture-again.


You know there have been some exciting things done with traditional art forms recently, think Paart's Fourth Symphony, or Mathias Enard's Zone.


----------



## Mandryka

Phil loves classical said:


> Is it possible that this kind of music may never appeal to some, no matter how hard they try to like it, or how many ways they listen to it with? Maybe it just won't connect with a certain brain chemistry. Anyone tried for years, and seeked out other ways of listening, and just couldn't like it in the end?


This is close to saying that some people are too stupid to appreciate modern art.

I've tried for years, without success, to appreciate middle period Beethoven.


----------



## Razumovskymas

Forss said:


> I'd like to answer this by quoting Wittgenstein, who says: "The music of past times always corresponds to certain maxims of the good and the right of that time. We recognize Keller's principles in Brahms, etc. etc. Thus good music, which is being conceived today or has been conceived recently, that is to say modern, must seem absurd; for if it corresponds to any of the maxims _pronounced_ today, then it must be rubbish. This sentence is not easy to understand but this is how things are: today no one is clever enough to formulate what is right, and _all_ formulas and maxims that are pronounced are nonsense. The truth would sound _quite_ paradoxical to everyone. And the composer who feels this within him must stand with this feeling in opposition to everything that is nowadays pronounced, and thus must seem by the present standards absurd, foolish. But not absurd in the _attractive_ sense (for that is basically what the contemporary view corresponds to), but rather in the sense of _saying nothing_. Labor is an example of this, where he really created something important, as he did in some few pieces."


This quote must be the closest to how I see contemporary music and in addition all contemporary art. It's like all art has become meta-art.

And maybe I would add hesitatingly (and without any moral judgement) that when there's no connection anymore between moral value and art/music you get what it is today. Not saying that's a bad thing but at least it's an important difference I think.

Me myself would find contemporary art/music that connects some kind of moral value to it very suspicious. Paradoxically I prefer art/music (of past times) that in some kind of way actually does that but in these times I would find it a bit "disturbing" if it would still work that way.


----------



## JeffD

Xaltotun said:


> But what's interesting here is the validity of aesthetic judgement. Are my judgements concerning the beautiful always valid? ... Someone can reveal to me my own thought-process; suddenly I realize _why_ I have made this judgement. Then I can judge for myself, whether my own judgement is valid, because now I know how I arrived to it.


I think everyone has a very innocent and earnest desire to share their enthusiasm with others. And when the others don't "get it" one can feel rejected. My comment was focused on how to engage me with your enthusiasm for something new, and how not to.

But your point is very important, (and well above my pay grade). If there is an objective aesthetic standard, it might be possible that modern music is just less good, and that enthusiasm for it is a case of the emperors new clothes. Its like in pop music the suspicion that anything can become a hit if it is played enough and if the right people in the world like it.

I am not saying this is true. The ultimate things about truth and beauty have boggled greater minds than mine.

I have long ago stopped justifying my tastes, or even questioning my own judgment. It helps to be untrained. It really does. I like what I like and I am an utter fan boy, capable of ridiculous heights of enthusiasm and transcendence and goose bumps in response to music - and I like to think that by banishing any vestiges of self-consciousness I end up enjoying more and having a fuller life. Its like falling in love over and over again, you want ever more intimate interaction with the music, you hear it, you want to read up on it, you want to follow the score, you want to play it, you want to be seen with it.

What is it they used to say about Cindy Crawford - everybody either wanted to date her, be her, or do her hair.


----------



## jegreenwood

Barbebleu said:


> Heres the thing. I would never put the music down but life's too short to try and listen to music that doesn't do anything for me. I barely have time to listen to the stuff I actually enjoy without making time to, as another post put it, listen "intelligently" to music that fails on every level to engage with me emotionally or intellectually. BTW the emotional aspect is by far the most important thing for me. To my ears an awful lot of atonal and/or modern classical music sounds too much like compositional exercises or experiments in seeing how far you can push technique without any thought for who might actually want to listen to the end product.


Just curious in light of your avatar. Do you enjoy Ornette's free jazz?

As for me over time (many years) I have grown to accept, and even appreciate, dissonance then chromaticism then atonality (the last still a work in progress). I recall a time when I didn't "get" Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra or Shostakovich's string quartets. I also recall the day that I played Pollini's album of Schoenberg's piano music and said aha! We grow up with tonal music all around us, so I had to learn to listen differently. Frankly, this was done in part by letting 20th century music play in the background. There are still places I don't go. I finally found a Xenakis album I could listen to - because it is transcribed for vibes, marimba etc. I am not fond of Ligeti's soundscapes unless leavened by Kubrick. But every once in a while I'll play them. Some day.

I also recall my first exposure to Coltrane's "Ascension" - it was actually my first exposure to Coltrane many, many years ago. WTF! But last month I bought a copy.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Mandryka said:


> This is close to saying that some people are too stupid to appreciate modern art.
> 
> I've tried for years, without success, to appreciate middle period Beethoven.


It may sound like it. But seriously I think the music may just not connect, even if they get it. You may analyse the music and think so what? Does not mean that person is incapable in any way.

I used to have certain music I can identify with more, and other music I can't identify with at all. Over time by pounding my brain with the music I identified with less, I was able to appreciate it to various degrees, but in the process also lost the close identity with the other ones I had previously. It sort of just normalized, for better or worse.


----------



## Nereffid

Phil loves classical said:


> Is it possible that this kind of music may never appeal to some, no matter how hard they try to like it, or how many ways they listen to it with? Maybe it just won't connect with a certain brain chemistry. Anyone tried for years, and seeked out other ways of listening, and just couldn't like it in the end?


I basically have that view, though to be clear I don't think the notion of "brain chemistry" is in any way straightforward - it's not like there's a gene for liking modern music. There's so many influences on the development of who we are that the die could well be mostly cast before we even hear a note of _any_ classical music, modern or not.
Some people love living in busy cities; other people love living in the great outdoors. It's who they are. Love modern music, hate modern music, be indifferent - that's who people are. Of course they might change; but they might not.


----------



## Barbebleu

jegreenwood said:


> Just curious in light of your avatar. Do you enjoy Ornette's free jazz?
> 
> As for me over time (many years) I have grown to accept, and even appreciate, dissonance then chromaticism then atonality (the last still a work in progress). I recall a time when I didn't "get" Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra or Shostakovich's string quartets. I also recall the day that I played Pollini's album of Schoenberg's piano music and said aha! We grow up with tonal music all around us, so I had to learn to listen differently. Frankly, this was done in part by letting 20th century music play in the background. There are still places I don't go. I finally found a Xenakis album I could listen to - because it is transcribed for vibes, marimba etc. I am not fond of Ligeti's soundscapes unless leavened by Kubrick. But every once in a while I'll play them. Some day.
> 
> I also recall my first exposure to Coltrane's "Ascension" - it was actually my first exposure to Coltrane many, many years ago. WTF! But last month I bought a copy.


Very much a huge fan of Ornette. And of course Coltrane (Ascension is just immense - also, if you haven't heard it, try out Carla Bley's Escalator Over The Hill or Jazz Composers Orchestra stuff), Cecil Taylor, Albert Ayler, Archie Shepp, Don Cherry, Steve Lacy, Gunther Schüller, Roswell Rudd, all the avant-garde/free jazz players that confounded music in the sixties. And I do listen to a lot of Berg, Krenek and Schönberg but mainly their solo and chamber music output. Not too keen on dense orchestral structures. I would of course add Britten and Shostakovich to the roster of twentieth century composers that I love.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Barbebleu said:


> Very much a huge fan of Ornette. And of course Coltrane (Ascension is just immense - also, if you haven't heard it, try out Carla Bley's Escalator Over The Hill or Jazz Composers Orchestra stuff), Cecil Taylor, Albert Ayler, Archie Shepp, Don Cherry, Steve Lacy, Gunther Schüller, Roswell Rudd, all the avant-garde/free jazz players that confounded music in the sixties. And I do listen to a lot of Berg, Krenek and Schönberg but mainly their solo and chamber music output. Not too keen on dense orchestral structures. I would of course add Britten and Shostakovich to the roster of twentieth century composers that I love.


Ornette Coleman could be included as one of the most revolutionary 20th century composers. The journey from Shape of Jazz to Free Jazz is epic.


----------



## Barbebleu

I was into avant - garde jazz a couple of years before I discovered classical music. It remains one of my enduring loves musically. I feel that it kind of ran out of steam in the eighties although I am aware that there are still a few younger guys who still plough that furrow. There seems to be a movement back to a more structured approach to modern jazz with the likes of Kamasi Washington but I do miss the iconoclasts of the sixties where every new album that came out seemed to break new ground and move the goalposts even further.


----------



## isorhythm

Phil loves classical said:


> Anyone tried for years, and seeked out other ways of listening, and just couldn't like it in the end?


I've certainly never done this with any music and wouldn't recommend that anyone else do it. Life is too short.


----------



## Chronochromie

Razumovskymas said:


> This quote must be the closest to how I see contemporary music and in addition all contemporary art. It's like all art has become meta-art.


Interesting, I haven't noticed this, why do you think so?


----------



## Agamemnon

I think it's true. Contemporary art is postmodern art which is 'ironic': it doesn't believe in The Truth anymore so it just reflects on all past truths (or it cynically comments on the emptiness of contemporary culture including itself). To put it in Spengler's philosophy: every culture starts off with a (new) religion which contains The Truth for that people and era. Art communicates that Thruth (as all culture does: even mathematics finds it's impulse and aim in the religion of it's participants). In music Bach, Mozart and Beethoven were on top of that Western, christian Truth. Together with the dissolution of christian religion Western art has been emptied, thus finding itself in a position it only can reflect on itself and it's history. Western art has become self-aware of it's historical and spatial relativity. I think composers like Stockhausen have tried to find a new universal Truth which integrates all the cultures in the world, but maybe these modern truths are too rationally constructed: we cannot _believe _in this truth which is perhaps why we aren't as deeply moved by Stockhausen's music as we are by Bach's or Beethoven's...


----------



## Agamemnon

"Some people love living in busy cities; other people love living in the great outdoors. It's who they are. Love modern music, hate modern music, be indifferent - that's who people are." 

I think the analogy is real. Modernity = industrialisation = urbanization. And living in the city is stressful so modern music is stressful: like the city it is noisy, smelly, hyperactive and ugly. Like modern life modern music is neurotic. Like romanticism tries to escape modern neurotic city life by going back to nature and the country side and find inner and outer peace again, so a lot of people like the 'old' music of the 17th and 18th century to escape modernity and find peace again... These people are romantics.


----------



## Chronochromie

Agamemnon said:


> I think it's true. Contemporary art is postmodern art which is 'ironic': it doesn't believe in The Truth anymore so it just reflects on all past truths (or it cynically comments on the emptiness of contemporary culture including itself). To put it in Spengler's philosophy: every culture starts off with a (new) religion which contains The Truth for that people and era. Art communicates that Thruth (as all culture does: even mathematics finds it's impulse and aim in the religion of it's participants). In music Bach, Mozart and Beethoven were on top of that Western, christian Truth. Together with the dissolution of christian religion Western art has been emptied, thus finding itself in a position it only can reflect on itself and it's history. Western art has become self-aware of it's historical and spatial relativity. I think composers like Stockhausen have tried to find a new universal Truth which integrates all the cultures in the world, but maybe these modern truths are too rationally constructed: we cannot _believe _in this truth which is perhaps why we aren't as deeply moved by Stockhausen's music as we are by Bach's or Beethoven's...


But I'm as deeply moved by Messiaen and Ligeti as by those two.


----------



## Xaltotun

Agamemnon said:


> "Some people love living in busy cities; other people love living in the great outdoors. It's who they are. Love modern music, hate modern music, be indifferent - that's who people are."
> 
> I think the analogy is real. Modernity = industrialisation = urbanization. And living in the city is stressful so modern music is stressful: like the city it is noisy, smelly, hyperactive and ugly. Like modern life modern music is neurotic. Like romanticism tries to escape modern neurotic city life by going back to nature and the country side and find inner and outer peace again, so a lot of people like the 'old' music of the 17th and 18th century to escape modernity and find peace again... These people are romantics.


Maybe we should do a poll on people's music tastes crossed with their preference of countryside or cities; it might reveal something.


----------



## Agamemnon

Me too (Messiaen more than Ligety)! In that sense, Spengler's thesis might not be true.


----------



## Nereffid

Agamemnon said:


> "Some people love living in busy cities; other people love living in the great outdoors. It's who they are. Love modern music, hate modern music, be indifferent - that's who people are."
> 
> I think the analogy is real. Modernity = industrialisation = urbanization. And living in the city is stressful so modern music is stressful: like the city it is noisy, smelly, hyperactive and ugly. Like modern life modern music is neurotic. Like romanticism tries to escape modern neurotic city life by going back to nature and the country side and find inner and outer peace again, so a lot of people like the 'old' music of the 17th and 18th century to escape modernity and find peace again... These people are romantics.


The analogy only works the way you see it if living in the city is, by definition, stressful, and living in the countryside is, by definition, not. Which is the exact opposite of the point I was making.


----------



## isorhythm

Agamemnon said:


> Me too (Messiaen more than Ligety)! In that sense, Spengler's thesis might not be true.


The relative popularity of Messiaen among postwar composers might support the thesis, since he was a devout Christian, not a postmodernist.

Ligeti's music could be fairly described as postmodern, but if you read interviews of him and recollections of his students, it's clear that he was a very sincere, philosophically minded person, trying to construct a kind of humanistic art out of what was available. I do think that comes across in his music as well.


----------



## Agamemnon

Here is the poll, Xaltotun:
http://www.talkclassical.com/49347-do-lovers-classical-music.html


----------



## Agamemnon

Nereffid said:


> The analogy only works the way you see it if living in the city is, by definition, stressful, and living in the countryside is, by definition, not. Which is the exact opposite of the point I was making.


Of course you are right: I tried to explain the aversion to modern music form the aversion to modern big city life. If you like the modern big city life then it works the other way around: my thesis would be that you find the countryside archaic and boring and that you like modern music because it is the music that suits the interesting life of the modern city.


----------



## JeffD

There was a paper, years back, in a psychology journal, about the narrative logic of music. How music is about itself. How music communicates and how the human mind receives and "decodes" that communication.

One of the interesting theses of the paper was that some music, "modern" say, goes about deliberately frustrating the human "narrative receptors", so the audience is always "trying to make sense of things", as opposed to enjoying the "story". A simile was made to trying to follow a sentence with more and more embedded subordinate clauses and nested parenthetical statements, until the thread is broken.

The upshot was that the human "pattern recognition" software and "narrative receptors" were continuously being turned on and turned off, teased as it were, and that this is not a pleasant experience to most people. It is our pattern recognition software and narrative receptors that differentiate between noise (sound with no meaning, no information) and music. And to hear sounds that are deliberate, and at the same time seemingly meaningless, is a painful cognitive dissonance.

The argument to this (if indeed it has any substance to it) is that perhaps discerning and appreciating the narrative is not the only way to enjoy music. That there are other ways music can be enjoyable, beautiful or moving, if not explicitly meaningful.

And, for the record, The Book of the Thousand Nights and a Night (A Thousand and One Arabian Nights) is nothing but nested stories, like an infinite set of Matryoshka dolls that cannot be reassembled. And I loved it. Finding the narrative string was quickly besides the point.

If it is not patently obvious, I am shooting in the dark without proper training.


----------



## lextune

Who says I don't?



:cheers:


----------



## Portamento

I like most modern music like stravinsky and ligeti. But i don't like XXenaxis or zappa. they do not appeall to me so much because of too much dissonance.


----------



## Agamemnon

To JeffD: this reminds me of Foucaults famous essay on Nietzsche's genealogy. Nietzsche criticized 'metaphysical' history which makes a story (Greeks would say: myth) of history because it presumes an origin and an inevitable outcome from it. It has a religious undertone because everything happens for a reason: everything moves from the origin to the conclusion. Art makes a story out of reality (because in art we recreate the universe) but reality is not a story: everything is an undetermined product of forces without an origin or a goal. Perhaps modern art is trying to represent true reality by dismissing the 'metaphysical' story and it's continuousness, giving space to chance and small causalities in stead of a grand development from origin to conclusion.


----------



## JeffD

Agamemnon said:


> Perhaps modern art is trying to represent true reality by dismissing the 'metaphysical' story and it's continuousness, giving space to chance and small causalities in stead of a grand development from origin to conclusion.


Thinking out loud, that perhaps explains something. Random meaningless reality exists, its everywhere. Reality is not a story, has no story. Audible and visual noise, the stuff we have evolved to know better than to pay particular attention to.

Perhaps those who look to art to get away from noise will be disappointed by (your conception of) modern art. Those who turn to art to escape the meaningless chaos, find some organization of the visual or audible elements inspired by a person deliberately trying to communicate, will be jarred by the cognitive dissonance of someone deliberately going about the task of communicating nothing.

One of the fun things about music, and art, is that it repays the exploration. Working hard to understand a Bach piece pays you back with wondrous beauty, crystal like complexity emerging from the very simple. So here is this other kind of art, where working hard to understand it is a fools errand. No pay off, because there is no intended meaning, except the deliberate abandonment of rationality, narrative, or pattern, in favor of emulating the chaos we are already surrounded by.

Certainly that is not the only reason to turn to art, but I can understand the discomfort for those who seek art for those reasons.


----------



## JeffD

OK now I have to really rethink everything I have said. I have been reading about some of the reviews that Beethoven string quartets got upon first hearing. "Those listeners who objected to Beethoven's middle style [quartets] did so because the music was too traumatic - full of bizarre and seemingly lawless contrasts that induced unpredictable feelings."

So there is another axis to look at, that runs along with familiarity and background culture.

Nothing, it seems is simple.


----------



## Pugg

JeffD said:


> OK now I have to really rethink everything I have said. I have been reading about some of the reviews that Beethoven string quartets got upon first hearing. "Those listeners who objected to Beethoven's middle style [quartets] did so because the music was too traumatic - full of bizarre and seemingly lawless contrasts that induced unpredictable feelings."
> 
> So there is another axis to look at, that runs along with familiarity and background culture.
> 
> Nothing, it seems is simple.


Seeing this is a good sign , for yourself and everybody else for that matter .


----------



## JeffD

Had I some formal training in music I would have known it all along. Then again had I formal training in music I would spend my time on the knife collectors forum.


----------



## Strange Magic

The dialog between JeffD and Agamemnon provokes these comments:

First, JeffD's remembered paper in the psychology journal very probably referenced Leonard Meyer's seminal writing on fulfilled/denied expectations as being at the heart of how music works. Some may groan at my again mentioning Meyer, but let them groan: Meyer's two books, _Emotion and Meaning in Music_; and _Music, the Arts, and Ideas_ essentially identified and defined this extraordinarily fruitful approach that links information theory with aesthetics. I again urge those unfamiliar with Meyer's work to read them, with the latter book being the somewhat more accessible. _Music, the Arts, and Ideas_ also offers Meyer's explication of the New Stasis in the Arts, so it's an amazing twofer!

Second, we must be careful about using phrases and terms such as "Random meaningless reality exists, it's everywhere. Reality is not a story, has no story.", "meaningless chaos", and "[E]verything is an undetermined product of forces without an origin or a goal." While it may be true that much recent art reflects or mimics or seeks to point out the artist's perception of the meaninglessness or chaos of reality, on the level at which we live our lives there is a very large measure of structure and form and intent, imposed by the laws of physics and biology. There is cause and effect, there is communication. While there is no ultimate purpose or goal toward which reality is focused, there is still plenty of comprehensibility and order about, and human reason and observation is quite capable of perceiving it. It remains largely how we live our lives. "Chaotic" things happen, yet the chaos is usually found to be understandable after all.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Quite agreed. Methodologies such as that of Schoenberg already recognise the power of existing structures and their deeply-rooted position in human emotion/psyche. Serialism is a method. It aims to create just a different sort of structure and that is totally at odds with any sort of 'chaos'. Talk about chaos is usually waffle, it really means: not knowing the chains of events or reasons or decisions that lie behind certain events or phenomena. Only under those circumstances does 'chaos' appear random.

I don't even think what Schoenberg did was really new. It was novel to create a method for manipulating tones, but the tones were already there and many times throughout history they have been used in similar or the same ways according to various cultures and their knowledge structures. In fact such a large portion of the 'new' or the 'original' is so often neither. The 'great harmonic/structural' collapse of late 19th and early 20th century music is really a just a cultural discomfort. People on the whole like familiarity and order - despite what is often said about requiring novelty. It is entertainment and diversion people seek more than anything; perhaps in a different place (with the same things in a different order). This is why holidays (vacations) appear so novel when really you just do mostly the same things as at home, but somewhere else.

When the rearranged furniture has been so rearranged for a good while, it too becomes tedious. Sometimes the new arrangement was only new and not really that entertaining or clever so you put things back where they were before and they seem to fit correctly.


----------



## EdwardBast

eugeneonagain said:


> The 'great harmonic/structural' collapse of late 19th and early 20th century music is really a just a cultural discomfort.


It is also a fiction (which might explain your scare quotes?). Of course many composers experimented with and exploited new language and resources in this period. But nothing collapsed. Most of the world went on using tonal or extended triadic language throughout the 20thc. Those who propagate this fiction are trying to reduce great cultural complexity down to a simple narrative of stylistic evolution. History doesn't and didn't work that way.


----------



## millionrainbows

I had always heard that music is the "most abstract" of all art forms, devoid of specific referential meaning. Now I see how that hole is filled; now we have "grand narratives" which stimulate the "narrative receptors" of human perception, except that modern music is somehow devoid of the stuff we recognize as "patterns."

I'm not sold on that idea. I think the reason many people don't like modern music is for some vague, undefinable reason.


----------



## JAS

millionrainbows said:


> I think the reason many people don't like modern music is for some vague, undefinable reason.


I think the reason that some people _do_ like modern music is for some vague, undefinable reason.


----------



## Strange Magic

millionrainbows said:


> I had always heard that music is the "most abstract" of all art forms, devoid of specific referential meaning. Now I see how that hole is filled; now we have "grand narratives" which stimulate the "narrative receptors" of human perception, except that modern music is somehow devoid of the stuff we recognize as "patterns."
> 
> I'm not sold on that idea. I think the reason many people don't like modern music is for some vague, undefinable reason.


You are just the person to benefit from reading Leonard Meyer! :tiphat:


----------



## millionrainbows

JAS said:


> I think the reason that some people _do_ like modern music is for some vague, undefinable reason.


It seems like people who _don't_ like modern music are _very sure_ about why that is, and fabricate all sorts of specific, logical reasons for that. In the end, these reasons turn out to be vague and illogical.


----------



## millionrainbows

Strange Magic said:


> You are just the person to benefit from reading Leonard Meyer!


That about sums it all up: most listeners' negative responses to serial or modern music is based on "_physiological mechanisms" _which are "_poorly defined" _and are the_ "__end products of perception without providing much insight into the processes that lead to perception."_


----------



## Strange Magic

millionrainbows, seriously, just try reading Meyer. You may get a different perspective. Or, alternately, you may come up with a killer refutation that will stupefy his adherents, and become world famous. It could happen!


----------



## millionrainbows

Strange Magic said:


> millionrainbows, seriously, just try reading Meyer. You may get a different perspective. Or, alternately, you may come up with a killer refutation that will stupefy his adherents, and become world famous. It could happen!


I'm not sure about Meyer: Is he on my side or not?


----------



## JAS

millionrainbows said:


> It seems like people who _don't_ like modern music are _very sure_ about why that is, and fabricate all sorts of specific, logical reasons for that. In the end, these reasons turn out to be vague and illogical.


Again, the identical statement could be made switching "people who don't like modern music" and "people who do like modern music." In a way, you have a point, not about people who do or do not like modern music, but about people who have their opinions about music of any kind. (Presumably, this covers pretty much all of us, and I am not excluding myself.) We like what we like, and we don't like what we don't like. That reaction isn't necessarily logical, except perhaps in the sense that it may be more or less consistent. (And even when reasons are offered, we often find that we have a serious disagreement on terminology, such as the meaning or identification of "melody.") It is one of the reasons that most of the objective claim discussions tend to quickly go down in flames.


----------



## millionrainbows

JAS said:


> ...We like what we like, and we don't like what we don't like. That reaction isn't necessarily logical, *except perhaps in the sense that it may be more or less consistent.*


If it's consistent, then there is some sort of pattern there, which is reinforced by some sort of illogical reasoning or bias. It's not in the music.


----------



## eugeneonagain

EdwardBast said:


> It is also a fiction (which might explain your scare quotes?). Of course many composers experimented with and exploited new language and resources in this period. But nothing collapsed. Most of the world went on using tonal or extended triadic language throughout the 20thc. Those who propagate this fiction are trying to reduce great cultural complexity down to a simple narrative of stylistic evolution. History doesn't and didn't work that way.


Well yes, this is basically the gist of what I wrote. Except of course that non-tonal music held sway (and continues to hold sway) over the progress of modern art music. The tonal music that dominated before say 1910-20 is now not at the forefront of art-music composition and is still not considered as that produced by the 'serious' composer.

Also that it's not a complete fiction that harmony and form was deliberately disrupted, with varying success. And it _is_ chiefly harmony, because certain things very basic to music, like e.g. cadence structure, can't be completed fractured without the music being near-incomprehensible. Anything very long is like reading those over-long sentences where you begin to lose the sense of meaning. Too short and it's just a phrase, a jingle. The majority of modern music is still bound by certain principles that were familiar to Mozart: e.g melodic shape and movement and direction; chord progression and voice leading. If it wasn't it would do anything at all.

I think one of the errors in listening to modern music is that listeners are inclined to assume that everything produced is worthy or legit. Its less-accessible nature gets in the way of judgement. Just like you can have a Bach fugue, but also a not-very-good fugue from someone not as talented, there are pieces of modern music which are just not all that good. A lot of listening helps and also the fact that there is structure even behind the most seemingly abstract creations. Not everything calling itself art is fantastic.


----------



## JAS

What is illogical is the entire basis for the argument of this thread. Like it or not, all art is transactional. To use a metaphor, if someone is selling a car, and I happen to want to buy a car, the seller posts an advertisement, or perhaps I hear about it through a mutual friend or however I happen to obtain information that such and such a car (make, model, year, etc) is for sale at such and such a location. If the information is at least somewhat interesting, I arrange to see the car, and perhaps give it a test drive. If I like the car, it adequately suits my needs and preferences, and I am willing and able to accept the specified price, we can successfully complete the transaction. If I really don't like the car, or I refuse to pay the requested price, or to make an counteroffer that the seller is willing to accept, or at the last minute the seller decides that he just cannot part with the car after all, no transaction takes place. Such a transaction may have more than two parties, which just makes it all the more complicated. In any case, there are at least two independent actors in the transaction, and the key is that while there may be a number of variations that produce a successful transaction, there is a far greater number of scenarios by which no transaction will take place.

There seems to be this very odd (to me) insistence repeatedly made in these forums (as far as I know only on the side of advocates of modern music) that the "problem isn't in the music" or that it isn't "_inherently_ in the music," which completely misunderstands or misrepresents what is taking place. Worse yet is the supposition in the original post of this thread that some sad listener has "wrong expectations." What we have is quite simply a mismatched transaction, a combination of factors that fail to produce a successful transaction precisely due to that mismatch.

An artist gets to produce whatever he or she wishes, setting and executing whatever rules (or lack of rules) he or she wants in producing the work. But there is a separate element to the transaction, _which is the reception of the work_, and the artist has no right of any kind to dictate that reception. What audacious nonsense it is to insist that the listener "is wrong." Every listener has the absolute right to a personal response, and that response is _necessarily_ valid --- _always_, even if it might change over time or under slightly different circumstances. In effect, each listener gets the final word at any point and time of his or her choosing, and there is no useful reason in complaining about the imbalance of power in the transaction. You might as well argue that a seller of a car should have the right to come to my house and insist that I buy a car that I don't want.

A given listener probably does indeed have a set of expectations, and there is nothing "wrong" with that. Those expectations may or may be fulfilled when experiencing the music, but absolutely _cannot_ be wrong. (Those expectations may be for a wide variety of what the listener does and does not want to hear, not necessarily demanding a perfect combination but certainly a strong preponderance of agreement.) A composer may write music that does or does not fulfil some or all of those expectations. If the music does not meet that personal standard of a preponderance of agreement, then the transaction is not successful, end of story. If "blame" must be assigned, then it must be assigned more or less equally. The listener had expectations that inherently did not agree with the music, and the music inherently had characteristics that did not meet those expectations. (If the response differs considerably from what might be the overwhelming majority of responses to the same experience, it might be said that the response is out of the norm, but not that it is "wrong.")

There may be many illogical aspects of this attempted transaction. It would be illogical, for example, for a composer to create music with no consideration for how it might be received in a fairly predictable circumstance, and complain when the reception turns out not to go in accordance with his own preferences. Indeed, there is nothing illogical in this outcome.


----------



## eugeneonagain

JAS said:


> Every listener has the absolute right to a personal response, and that response is _necessarily_ valid --- _always_, even if it might change over time or under slightly different circumstances. In effect, each listener gets the final word at any point and time of his or her choosing, and there is no useful reason in complaining about the imbalance of power in the transaction. You might as well argue that a seller of a car should have the right to come to my house and insist that I buy a car that I don't want.


These two are not exactly the same. The thing about modern music is it arouses an emotional response and judgement from people who claim they don't listen to it or have listened and don't like it.

A listener is indeed entitled to pass a personal opinion upon a piece of music, but to be taken seriously as a judgement it has to be based upon some kind of knowledge as well as just personal taste.

My neighbour has a poor opinion of jazz and it is because she has only really been in contact with straight tonal music and church music at that. She thinks all the harmonies and melodies are 'wrong'. She even remarked upon a piece I was arranging as 'not difficult because you can basically do what you want and put any harmony anywhere'. Her ignorance of jazz doesn't entitle her to any judgement above her personal opinion.

The listener also needs to be a critical listener, not just a knee-jerk critic according to his own tastes.


----------



## millionrainbows

This kind of reasoning is too vague. There are 12 notes in the octave, and chromaticism has been with us for many years. It makes no sense that, for example, the color turquoise could not be used in a painting because it is a new, different color. Color is color, and sound is sound. These vague arguments about the self-sufficiency of personal opinion begin to fail in the light of formalist elements.

All art is transactional, for sure, but we must assume and recognize the existence of 'experts' or 'professionals' or 'masters' in the fields of history. Otherwise, there is no difference between Brittney Spears, or Wourinen and Schoenberg.

Humble yourself in the presence of art! Be receptive! Assume that you are stupid and uninformed, and then maybe you can be suited to approach art! Yes, that's right: art is transactional, but _you must approach art,_ not the other way around.

If you want your "art" to _come to you,_ then go for passive entertainment! Watch TV, or listen to pop music.

I'm tired of making concessions to uninformed opinion of the masses! Serious art is a complex process which has to meet certain requirements in order to even be presented or recorded.




> ...there is a separate element to the transaction, which is the reception of the work, and the artist has no right of any kind to dictate that reception. What audacious nonsense it is to insist that the listener "is wrong." Every listener has the absolute right to a personal response, and that response is necessarily valid…


This bias towards the 'audience' is backward! It is the reverse: you have a responsibility to prepare and inform yourself before trying to engage with great art! This "hubris of the masses" is a direct consequence of the internet, and its 'empowering' ability to amplify meaningless, uninformed opinion.


----------



## Bulldog

millionrainbows said:


> This bias towards the 'audience' is backward! It is the reverse: you have a responsibility to prepare and inform yourself before trying to engage with great art! This "hubris of the masses" is a direct consequence of the internet, and its 'empowering' ability to amplify meaningless, uninformed opinion.[/COLOR]


I don't agree. The listener has no responsibility at all, and the composers/producers of music have no responsibility to consider the listener. All are free to do whatever they want. Millionrainbows can give himself a responsibility, but he can't pass it on to others.


----------



## JAS

eugeneonagain said:


> These two are not exactly the same. The thing about modern music is it arouses an emotional response and judgement from people who claim they don't listen to it or have listened and don't like it.


I think the emotional response is mostly to the sneering comments, which have regularly been made, that not liking modern music is a sign of some kind of personal deficiency, intellectual or otherwise. There is also some response to the insistence that we, those of us who tend not to like modern music (loosely defined), are somehow obligated to endure and support it, even when sincere and repeated efforts have consistently shown that there is nothing at all in the music for us. (See, for example, the post just a little above this one.)



eugeneonagain said:


> A listener is indeed entitled to pass a personal opinion upon a piece of music, but to be taken seriously as a judgement it has to be based upon some kind of knowledge as well as just personal taste.


Actually, the listener is under no such obligation, unless he or she is attempting to persuade others to share the response. As noted, I have repeatedly been told that I need to give credence to this music, to value it even if I may not like it. I have yet to see anyone argue that someone who does like modern music should not like it. (I have see inquiries for why they might like it, as a matter of intellectual curiosity, and these inquiries have not infrequently been misinterpreted as criticism. )



eugeneonagain said:


> My neighbour has a poor opinion of jazz and it is because she has only really been in contact with straight tonal music and church music at that. She thinks all the harmonies and melodies are 'wrong'. She even remarked upon a piece I was arranging as 'not difficult because you can basically do what you want and put any harmony anywhere'. Her ignorance of jazz doesn't entitle her to any judgement above her personal opinion.


As long as she has actually heard the music she is criticizing, I would say that her opinion is valid. It doesn't matter that you don't share it, and you don't need to do so. (Now, we might have a problem if we go so far as to have someone who insists that a flute is a violin, but this is more of a flagrant disagreement with accepted definitions. If she doesn't like the sound of the thing that she misidentifies with the word "violin," her opinion is still valid, even if poorly expressed and bound to cause confusion.)



eugeneonagain said:


> The listener also needs to be a critical listener, not just a knee-jerk critic according to his own tastes.


Again, this is simply not true. I may have more respect for someone who can back up the simple summary opinion with layers of explanation, but it is not required. And no one is obligated to expend the time and effort to hear every work by a composer, or a style of composition, before making a general judgement. A reasonable representative sampling is the most that can be expected.


----------



## DaveM

millionrainbows said:


> ...Humble yourself in the presence of art! Be receptive! Assume that you are stupid and uninformed, and then maybe you can be suited to approach art! Yes, that's right: art is transactional, but _you must approach art,_ not the other way around.
> 
> If you want your "art" to _come to you,_ then go for passive entertainment! Watch TV, or listen to pop music.
> 
> I'm tired of making concessions to uninformed opinion of the masses! Serious art is a complex process which has to meet certain requirements in order to even be presented or recorded.
> 
> This bias towards the 'audience' is backward! It is the reverse: _you have a responsibility to prepare and inform yourself before trying to engage with great art! This "hubris of the masses"_ is a direct consequence of the internet, and its 'empowering' ability to amplify meaningless, uninformed opinion.[/COLOR]


I'd say that it is hubris of the artist who believes that the primary responsibility is on the listener. Who determines what is 'great art'? The artist? I don't think so.


----------



## millionrainbows

Bulldog said:


> ...The listener has no responsibility at all, and the composers/producers of music have no responsibility to consider the listener.


I think that attitude does a disservice to audiences and artists alike. All performances have some sort of assumed guidelines of participation, even Brittney Spears.

You demonstrate your participation by buying the recordings and supporting the artists. In classical, the art is presented by experts who have prepared for many years to reach a level of proficiency, so your responsibility, if you choose to participate, is to inform and prepare yourself. Like any human relationship, it is most effective if both parties are attempting to communicate. But art can be demanding; it's not like a casual teenage date.

All art assumes genetically inherent abilities and skills. To some people, this comes naturally and immediately. But all skills benefit by training and study, and in the case of classical, this is paramount.

It is human to consume art and performance; to state otherwise is absurd.



> All are free to do whatever they want. Millionrainbows can give himself a responsibility, but he can't pass it on to others.


No, that's not my responsibility; art is voluntary. I'm saying that to be in a rewarding and effective relationship with art, one needs to participate in a meaningful way, not just be a mindless couch potato. And respect _all_ art, as well; Brittney Spears has just a much right to thrive and exist as Beethoven's music.


----------



## DeepR

millionrainbows said:


> This kind of reasoning is too vague. There are 12 notes in the octave, and chromaticism has been with us for many years. It makes no sense that, for example, the color turquoise could not be used in a painting because it is a new, different color. Color is color, and sound is sound. These vague arguments about the self-sufficiency of personal opinion begin to fail in the light of formalist elements.
> 
> All art is transactional, for sure, but we must assume and recognize the existence of 'experts' or 'professionals' or 'masters' in the fields of history. Otherwise, there is no difference between Brittney Spears, or Wourinen and Schoenberg.
> 
> Humble yourself in the presence of art! Be receptive! Assume that you are stupid and uninformed, and then maybe you can be suited to approach art! Yes, that's right: art is transactional, but _you must approach art,_ not the other way around.
> 
> If you want your "art" to _come to you,_ then go for passive entertainment! Watch TV, or listen to pop music.
> 
> I'm tired of making concessions to uninformed opinion of the masses! Serious art is a complex process which has to meet certain requirements in order to even be presented or recorded.
> 
> 
> 
> This bias towards the 'audience' is backward! It is the reverse: you have a responsibility to prepare and inform yourself before trying to engage with great art! This "hubris of the masses" is a direct consequence of the internet, and its 'empowering' ability to amplify meaningless, uninformed opinion.


You seem to have a hard time making distinctions between information and knowledge and personal preference and taste, objective vs subjective. For me the objective part is interesting but I don't let it interfere with or influence the subjective. At least not beforehand. 
I'm not under any obligation to prepare or inform myself. In fact, nothing is of worth to me, until I make a connection to it - independently and in complete isolation from anything but the music. I'm supposed to be humble? I think not. I follow my own highly personal feelings, thoughts, intuition and experience. Yes, I embrace total subjectivity! To me this is the only logical and sincere path. Let your inner self speak and remain true to it. You can always inform yourself later, but information doesn't make me like or dislike music. That's just... artificial.


----------



## millionrainbows

JAS said:


> I think the emotional response is mostly to the sneering comments, which have regularly been made, that not liking modern music is a sign of some kind of personal deficiency, intellectual or otherwise.


Well, if some critic chooses to publicly voice their uninformed, inaccurate negative generalities about Anton Webern's music, then I can only make the assumption that the critic is ignorant and rude.



JAS said:


> There is also some response to the insistence that we, those of us who tend not to like modern music (loosely defined), are somehow obligated to endure and support it, even when sincere and repeated efforts have consistently shown that there is nothing at all in the music for us.


No, but you must respect it, and not enter into thread discussions in a trolling manner.



JAS said:


> I have yet to see anyone argue that someone who _does _like modern music should _not_ like it.


That's because modernist listeners exemplify "expanded appreciation" of classical music, including Beethoven and Mozart, so it's not necessary to convince them to like traditional classical. They are _inclusive_ in their tastes; they are omnivores.

Not so with critics of modernism, who are coming from a negative space. Their taste _excludes_ modernism. They have _objectified_ that which they dislike.


----------



## Bulldog

millionrainbows said:


> You demonstrate your participation by buying the recordings and supporting the artists. In classical, the art is presented by experts who have prepared for many years to reach a level of proficiency, so your responsibility, if you choose to participate, is to inform and prepare yourself.


Well, I'm just in it for pleasure. Fortunately, the responsibility you mention is optional.


----------



## Tristan

millionrainbows said:


> That's because modernist listeners exemplify "expanded appreciation" of classical music, including Beethoven and Mozart, so it's not necessary to convince them to like traditional classical. They are _inclusive_ in their tastes; they are omnivores.


I don't agree with that at all. I've seen numerous users here claim to only or almost exclusively like modern music and have a distaste for most of what came before it. So in some cases, it's hardly expanded.

Are these people subject to the same judgment as the people who "exclude" modern music?


----------



## eugeneonagain

JAS said:


> I think the emotional response is mostly to the sneering comments, which have regularly been made, that not liking modern music is a sign of some kind of personal deficiency, intellectual or otherwise. There is also some response to the insistence that we, those of us who tend not to like modern music (loosely defined), are somehow obligated to endure and support it, even when sincere and repeated efforts have consistently shown that there is nothing at all in the music for us. (See, for example, the post just a little above this one.)


This is not the case. There may be people who say that it should be supported and not liking it is the fault of the listener, but I already said that it is subject to normal musical analysis as much as tonal music. also to taste. No-one can force anyone to either listen to it or like it and not all of it is good anyway.



JAS said:


> Actually, the listener is under no such obligation, unless he or she is attempting to persuade others to share the response.


Yes, the listener _is_ under an obligation to justify a shared opinion (which is obviously the one I was talking about). To listen, then have an opinion and not share it is something other people won't even encounter, so that doesn't matter.



JAS said:


> *As long as she has actually heard the music she is criticizing*, I would say that her opinion is valid. It doesn't matter that you don't share it, and you don't need to do so. (Now, we might have a problem if we go so far as to have someone who insists that a flute is a violin, but this is more of a flagrant disagreement with accepted definitions. If she doesn't like the sound of the thing that she misidentifies with the word "violin," her opinion is still valid, even if poorly expressed and bound to cause confusion.)


Her opinion is not valid because it is based upon complete ignorance. This is not a game of 'free speech' where people say stuff and we all take it as valid because people are supposed to be entitled to their opinions. Anyone offering a critique of something either needs to provide an argument or simply put it down to taste and simply say they dislike it.



JAS said:


> Again, this is simply not true. I may have more respect for someone who can back up the simple summary opinion with layers of explanation, but it is not required. And no one is obligated to expend the time and effort to hear every work by a composer, or a style of composition, before making a general judgement. A reasonable representative sampling is the most that can be expected.


A person is entitled to say 'it is not to my taste', but not to form a judgement about it's inherent qualities or lack of qualities based upon personal preferences.


----------



## millionrainbows

DaveM said:


> I'd say that it is hubris of the artist who believes that the primary responsibility is on the listener. Who determines what is 'great art'? The artist? I don't think so.


Art is a two-way street; the artist creates a "map" of his experience, and the audience "overlays" his own map of experience on to this. The "greatness" is determined by the quality of the experience _(if the audience is worthy and prepared to experience the art; not drunk, stoned, ignorant, etc.)_ and this is not "declared" beforehand, unless you want to ignore recognized greatness in art history (not a good idea).


----------



## millionrainbows

Bulldog said:


> Well, I'm just in it for pleasure. Fortunately, the responsibility you mention is optional.


So you don't care, I take it. You have no "horse" in this race. For you, it could be Beethoven or Brittney. You just wanna be "entertained" by any means necessary.


----------



## JAS

eugeneonagain said:


> Her opinion is not valid because it is based upon complete ignorance. This is not a game of 'free speech' where people say stuff and we all take it as valid because people are supposed to be entitled to their opinions. Anyone offering a critique of something either needs to provide an argument or simply put it down to taste and simply say they dislike it.


Obviously, on these points, we have significant differences. I would be happy to clarify a point, but since no such clarification has been requested, I see no point in simply repeating what I have already stated.


----------



## JAS

millionrainbows said:


> No, but you must respect it, and not enter into thread discussions in a trolling manner.


No, I don't need to respect it or support it. And I have NEVER trolled anyone. NEVER! (A few overly sensitive souls may misinterpret any attempt at extended discussion however they wish.)


----------



## Tristan

JAS said:


> No, I don't need to respect it or support it. And I have NEVER trolled anyone. NEVER!


I seriously question whether this demand for respect is even two-way. Every day I see certain types of music here put down and disrespected, and it is not just modern music.


----------



## millionrainbows

Tristan said:


> I don't agree with that at all. I've seen numerous users here claim to only or almost exclusively like modern music and have a distaste for most of what came before it. So in some cases, it's hardly expanded.


I think it's a more accurate generalization to say that traditional classicisists tend to be more exclusive and specialized. "Modern" music covers a wide range of sounds, and kinds of music, so modernists naturally have a wide taste range which usually includes Beethoven, Mozart, Mahler, Schoenberg, Webern, Varese, Debussy, and Stravinsky.



Tristan said:


> Are these people subject to the same judgment as the people who "exclude" modern music?


The only "negative" criticism I've seen of traditional classical has been on these threads which proclaim "I don't get Mozart" or "Why don't I appreciate Brahms?", and these are rather neutral, noncommittal responses, not outright venom, such as has been seen about Schoenberg or serialism. These people don't claim to be exclusive modernists, but seem to be rather apologetic about their inability to like Brahms or whatever. At least they are attempting to respect the music, and seem to be asking for help in understanding it, not issuing forth indictments of it.


----------



## millionrainbows

JAS said:


> No, I don't need to respect it or support it. And I have NEVER trolled anyone. NEVER! (A few overly sensitive souls may misinterpret any attempt at extended discussion however they wish.)


I didn't accuse you, I just said you must approach it with respect. You can "respect" and "support" other's like of modernism _passively,_ by avoiding discussions of music you do not like. Just passively ignore it. Like driving a car, learn to "yield" and it will be better for all.


----------



## millionrainbows

Tristan said:


> I seriously question whether this demand for respect is even two-way. Every day I see certain types of music here put down and disrespected, and it is not just modern music.


For civilized people who were raised correctly by their parents, "respect" is a given. Of course, the internet has changed all that.

I think we should _all _respect all forms of art, and be glad that they exist. _All_ forms of art and human expression have a right to exist.


----------



## Tristan

millionrainbows said:


> I didn't accuse you, I just said you must approach it with respect. You can "respect" and "support" other's like of modernism _passively,_ by avoiding discussions of music you do not like. Just passively ignore it. Like driving a car, learn to "yield" and it will be better for all.


This is one thing that I don't disagree with here. I think part of the problem that often pits the modernists against the non- is that people feel the need to come into threads about modern music and talk about how they don't like it or go into "objective" reasons why it's terrible (which amount to little more than opinion stated as fact). I've made this analogy many times before, but it's similar to what I see on tech forums I post on: someone will ask a question about which Mac to buy and the responses will be "Macs are overpriced crap; get a PC". These responses are fundamentally unhelpful and disrespectful to the person who asked the initial question. If you don't like something, stay out threads about it, unless the thread is specifically about whether or not you like it--in that case, everyone should feel free to share their opinion.


----------



## millionrainbows

Tristan said:


> This is one thing that I don't disagree with here. I think part of the problem that often pits the modernists against the non- is that people feel the need to come into threads about modern music and talk about how they don't like it or go into "objective" reasons why it's terrible (which amount to little more than opinion stated as fact). I've made this analogy many times before, but it's similar to what I see on tech forums I post on: someone will ask a question about which Mac to buy and the responses will be "Macs are overpriced crap; get a PC". These responses are fundamentally unhelpful and disrespectful to the person who asked the initial question. If you don't like something, stay out threads about it, unless the thread is specifically about whether or not you like it--in that case, everyone should feel free to share their opinion.


I agree, and I've seen it too. It's called "trollish" behavior.


----------



## DaveM

eugeneonagain said:


> ...*The tonal music that dominated before say 1910-20 is now not at the forefront of art-music composition and is still not considered as that produced by the 'serious' composer.*
> 
> Also that it's not a complete fiction that harmony and form was deliberately disrupted, with varying success. And it _is_ chiefly harmony, because *certain things very basic to music, like e.g. cadence structure, can't be completed fractured without the music being near-incomprehensible.* Anything very long is like reading those over-long sentences where you begin to lose the sense of meaning. Too short and it's just a phrase, a jingle. The majority of modern music is still bound by certain principles that were familiar to Mozart: e.g melodic shape and movement and direction; chord progression and voice leading. If it wasn't it would do anything at all.
> 
> I think one of the errors in listening to modern music is that listeners are inclined to assume that everything produced is worthy or legit. Its less-accessible nature gets in the way of judgement. Just like you can have a Bach fugue, but also a not-very-good fugue from someone not as talented, there are pieces of modern music which are just not all that good. A lot of listening helps and also the fact that there is structure even behind the most seemingly abstract creations. *Not everything calling itself art is fantastic.*


I believe that some of the points you make above (the parts that particularly resonate in bold) to be at the heart of the problem for those of us who don't like a lot of what passes for modern music. For a start, why has the tonal music that dominated prior to most of the 20th century become unacceptable to the 'serious' composer? I'm not suggesting that all, or even most, classical music should have stayed that way, but why did 'traditional' classical music have to disappear almost completely?

And, as you say, harmony and form were deliberately disrupted with varying success and not everything calling itself art is fantastic. The rules of the classical music game have changed in a major way to the point that names have been given to all sorts of sub categories (minimalism, serialism etc.) each having its own adherents. As I see it, the problem in broadly defending modern music is that it can't easily be defended broadly because there is no single consistent category. So, there is some of it that, even though I may not be drawn to it, I can understand why others might find it attractive. On the other hand, some of it is (perhaps a minority) to my ears, bordering on the bizarre ie. 'not everything calling itself art is fantastic'. I don't know of any music that, for me, fits into the bizarre category in the 19th century or prior to that.


----------



## JeffD

The above discussion is great, really good. Stuff to think about.

One aspect, however, that has not been addressed which I think is important here.

We are all influenced by what our friends and chosen mentors think, of music, art, literature, movies, television, whatever. I have taken many suggestions from many folks more knowledgeable than me, and many times gave the piece a real try, trusting that my knowledgeable friend knows something I don't. So I go in hoping to like what he recommends.

And when I don't, there is a strong pressure to blame myself. Especially if the music has a considerable fan base. I really try to like it or at least appreciate why someone would like it.

But I sometimes wonder how many people take the next step, and pretend to like it. Oh of course nobody will say that, but the peer pressure is not small. At that point we generate an emperor's new clothes phenomenon, where everyone pretending to like it because everyone else appears to be liking it.

OTOH one can't go the other way, and be totally cynical, and figure everyone is a poser and nobody can be trusted.






The element of peer pressure, balanced by the fear of being "taken in" by a poser, these things are very real and not to be entirely ignored.


----------



## Strange Magic

millionrainbows, despite your assumption that there both is and ought to be a hierarchy, an aristocracy of taste and therefore some sort of "objective" hierarchy of goodness, greatness, whateverness in the Arts, in truth it is entirely personal and subjective. To repeat a sad but true analogue, we are talking about comparing colors, or flavors of ice cream. We can discuss 'til the end of time whether more people or better people like your stuff more than mine, but there is no getting around that our tastes are idiosyncratic and tell us nothing about the "quality", whatever that is, of what we like or dislike. I agree that there is no intrinsic reason to dislike "modern music" or to like it either, other than natural inclination, but your ire at this audacity of personal inclination is utterly misplaced. It suggests a tyranny of aesthetics that cannot be supported by the facts: is chocolate really so much better than vanilla? Complex better than simple? Long better than short? What if I like vanilla, simple, short?


----------



## DaveM

millionrainbows said:


> I agree, and I've seen it too. It's called "trollish" behavior.


I don't think it is helpful to inject the subject of 'trolling' into a discussion which has been a respectful one. The OP is _'It doesn't make sense that you don't like modern music.'_ We are addressing the subject raised.


----------



## millionrainbows

DaveM said:


> I believe that the some of the points you make above (I've italicized the parts that particularly resonate) to be at the heart of the problem for those of us who don't like a lot of what passes for modern music. For a start, why has the tonal music that dominated prior to most of the 20th century become unacceptable to the 'serious' composer? I'm not suggesting that all, or even most, classical music should have stayed that way, but why did new 'traditional' classical music have to disappear almost completely?


It hasn't. It still lives on in concert performances and soundtracks. "Dune" sounds like Sheherazhade, science fiction uses "The Planets" all the time…video game music…there's plenty of CP tonality out there. John Williams, Jerry Goldsmith...[/QUOTE]



DaveM said:


> And, as you say, harmony and form was deliberately disrupted with varying success and not everything calling itself art is fantastic. The rules of the classical music game have changed in a major way to the point that names have been given to all sorts of sub categories (minimalism, serialism etc.) each having its own adherents.


Music is melody, not harmony. It started out as single-lines. Harmony has existed a relatively short time. If you can't listen linearly, then listen to Tchaikovsky and stop complaining.



DaveM said:


> As I see it, the problem in broadly defending modern music is that it can't easily be defended broadly because there is no single consistent category. So, there is some of it that, even though I may not be drawn to it, I can understand why others might find it attractive. On the other hand, some of it is (perhaps a minority) to my ears, bordering on the bizarre ie. 'not everything calling itself art is fantastic'. I don't know of any music that, for me, fits into the bizarre category in the 19th century or prior to that.


What you are hearing is "modernism" like Debussy and Stravinsky, the structure of which is harmonically derived. It's not CP, but it's still harmonic, and still tonal. The stylistic differences are inconsequential. My grandmother likes Claire de Lune.

What you are complaining about, and drawing a line with, is "non-harmonic linear music" like Schoenberg, Webern and serialism. It's true, it is totally different, and you have to listen linearly to get it, and know what NOT to expect from it; in other words, you have to discard all your baggage of harmonic expectations.

Or John Cage's music, which doesn't obey any traditional rules. Gee, can we live with that?


----------



## eugeneonagain

DaveM said:


> I believe that the some of the points you make above (I've italicized the parts that particularly resonate) to be at the heart of the problem for those of us who don't like a lot of what passes for modern music. For a start, why has the tonal music that dominated prior to most of the 20th century become unacceptable to the 'serious' composer? I'm not suggesting that all, or even most, classical music should have stayed that way, but why did new 'traditional' classical music have to disappear almost completely?
> 
> And, as you say, harmony and form was deliberately disrupted with varying success and not everything calling itself art is fantastic. The rules of the classical music game have changed in a major way to the point that names have been given to all sorts of sub categories (minimalism, serialism etc.) each having its own adherents. As I see it, the problem in broadly defending modern music is that it can't easily be defended broadly because there is no single consistent category. So, there is some of it that, even though I may not be drawn to it, I can understand why others might find it attractive. On the other hand, some of it is (perhaps a minority) to my ears, bordering on the bizarre ie. 'not everything calling itself art is fantastic'. I don't know of any music that, for me, fits into the bizarre category in the 19th century or prior to that.


It's a pertinent question as to why older-style tonal music has lost its position among composers. Certainly it's partly to do with adhering to change. Hardly anyone producing new paintings and calling oneself an 'artist' is painting like Caravaggio or Joshua Reynolds and it's not necessarily because they don't like it, but because that style was almost fully explored by those artists at the top of their game. There surely comes a point when the cutting edge of art can no longer be sustained by the existing methodologies alone. The same or similar is true in science. Also it is the thrill of using a new method, new tools, new possibilities. If, say, architecture only produced basic buildings, with uniform walls and a roof it becomes, at some point, merely functional rather than 'art' or a medium for unique expression.

I like a lot of modern music (if modern includes things from the late 19thC onward), but I also find some modern art-music drivel. The way I see it, the tools and methods of almost everything change or develop; I say develop because it's possible to have much of what went before alongside current ideas.

I don't know if it's a problem that modern music has many strands or categories. They're all united fundamentally. Popular music has many genres and they manage to exist fairly well alongside one another with some crossover listeners.


----------



## millionrainbows

JeffD said:


> The above discussion is great, really good. Stuff to think about.
> 
> One aspect, however, that has not been addressed which I think is important here.
> 
> We are all influenced by what our friends and chosen mentors think, of music, art, literature, movies, television, whatever. I have taken many suggestions from many folks more knowledgeable than me, and many times gave the piece a real try, trusting that my knowledgeable friend knows something I don't. So I go in hoping to like what he recommends.
> 
> And when I don't, there is a strong pressure to blame myself. Especially if the music has a considerable fan base. I really try to like it or at least appreciate why someone would like it.
> 
> But I sometimes wonder how many people take the next step, and pretend to like it. Oh of course nobody will say that, but the peer pressure is not small. At that point we generate an emperor's new clothes phenomenon, where everyone pretending to like it because everyone else appears to be liking it.
> 
> OTOH one can't go the other way, and be totally cynical, and figure everyone is a poser and nobody can be trusted.
> 
> The element of peer pressure, balanced by the fear of being "taken in" by a poser, these things are very real and not to be entirely ignored.


I'm just the polar opposite; my friends were always liking some stupid stuff, like Lynnrd Skynnrd, Free Bird, or Billy Joel, and I was always resisting that.


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> Music is melody, not harmony. It started out as single-lines. Harmony has existed a relatively short time. If you can't listen linearly, then listen to Tchaikovsky and stop complaining.


I'm not in conflict with you in this thread, but I don't fully agree with the quoted statement. It's true that harmony is far younger than melody, but this is a relative statement with regard to the development of the tonal music that is being discussed in this thread. Harmony is under discussion more than anything because this is what modern music has most notably altered. In any case music is not solely defined as melody.


----------



## millionrainbows

Strange Magic said:


> millionrainbows, despite your assumption that there both is and ought to be a hierarchy, an aristocracy of taste and therefore some sort of "objective" hierarchy of goodness, greatness, whateverness in the Arts, in truth it is entirely personal and subjective.


No, dude, when you are in the presence of genius _you will know it!_



Strange Magic said:


> To repeat a sad but true analogue, we are talking about comparing colors, or flavors of ice cream.


No; we are talking about the human experience, not bubble-gum!



Strange Magic said:


> We can discuss 'til the end of time whether more people or better people like your stuff more than mine, but there is no getting around that our tastes are idiosyncratic and tell us nothing about the "quality", whatever that is, of what we like or dislike.


Art is not "objective" like a rock, not is it totally subjective; it is a two-way sharing of human experience! The composer and artist "maps" his experience in to the work or "object," and we "map" our own experience on top of this. In this way, Man's "soul" is no longer invisible, but becomes a partially shared experience._ Isn't this wonderful?_



Strange Magic said:


> I agree that there is no intrinsic reason to dislike "modern music" or to like it either, other than natural inclination, but your ire at this audacity of personal inclination is utterly misplaced. It suggests a tyranny of aesthetics that cannot be supported by the facts.


No, not my tyranny; simply the ignorance of the uninformed.



Strange Magic said:


> Is chocolate really so much better than vanilla? Complex better than simple? Long better than short? What if I like vanilla, simple, short?


You better hurry, dude, the snack bar is about to close! You don't want to miss the ending of that Pauley Shore movie!


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> It's a pertinent question as to why older-style tonal music has lost its position among composers. Certainly it's partly to do with adhering to change. Hardly anyone producing new paintings and calling oneself an 'artist' is painting like Caravaggio or Joshua Reynolds and it's not necessarily because they don't like it, but because that style was almost fully explored by those artists at the top of their game. There surely comes a point when the cutting edge of art can no longer be sustained by the existing methodologies alone. The same or similar is true in science. Also it is the thrill of using a new method, new tools, new possibilities. If, say, architecture only produced basic buildings, with uniform walls and a roof it becomes, at some point, merely functional rather than 'art' or a medium for unique expression.


Yes, now it's called "post modernism," but it's not that simple. You can't just copy Beethoven. You have to put a twist on it. Like that guy Max Richter: it's tonal, it's normal, but it is unique. It's not Vivaldi, but is based on it.








eugeneonagain said:


> I like a lot of modern music (if modern includes things from the late 19thC onward), but I also find some modern art-music drivel. The way I see it, the tools and methods of almost everything change or develop; I say develop because it's possible to have much of what went before alongside current ideas.


So? I find a lot of Mozart (the flute concertos, early sonatas) to be "drivel" as you call it. Am I supposed to worship everything he did?


----------



## Bulldog

millionrainbows said:


> So you don't care, I take it. You have no "horse" in this race. For you, it could be Beethoven or Brittney. You just wanna be "entertained" by any means necessary.


I don't want you to get a swelled head, but I often find your postings entertaining. By the way, I derive much more pleasure from Beethoven than from Brittney.


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, now it's called "post modernism," but it's not that simple. You can't just copy Beethoven. You have to put a twist on it. Like that guy Max Richter: it's tonal, it's normal, but it is unique. It's not Vivaldi, but is based on it.
> 
> So? I find a lot of Mozart (the flute concertos, early sonatas) to be "drivel" as you call it. Am I supposed to worship everything he did?


I don't quite understand why you are adopting that tone. If you've been reading other posts in this thread and not just ones you feel like dismembering, you'll see that I am a defender of modern music and never even suggested you should like or hate anything, modern or traditional.

You are not being asked to 'worship' everything, but in the same way there is no reason (or argument) for you to tell people to accept and respect what you want them to respect - the total output of modern music without exception it seems - or face the charge of 'luddite'.

You've rather undermined yourself.


----------



## Blancrocher

Strange Magic said:


> It suggests a tyranny of aesthetics that cannot be supported by the facts: is chocolate really so much better than vanilla? Complex better than simple? Long better than short? What if I like vanilla, simple, short?


It's hard for me to enjoy certain foods when a so-called "supertaster" casts a negative verdict. Same thing when the damned audiophiles point out imperfections in legendary recordings.


----------



## Bettina

Blancrocher said:


> It's hard for me to enjoy certain foods when a so-called "supertaster" casts a negative verdict. Same thing when the damned audiophiles point out imperfections in legendary recordings.


It never bothers me at all when that happens! It actually makes me feel grateful that I don't have such picky standards. :lol:


----------



## Tristan

Bulldog said:


> I don't want you to get a swelled head, but I often find your postings entertaining. By the way, I derive much more pleasure from Beethoven than from Brittney.


I enjoy both Britney and Beethoven, though I recognize they're on completely different planes.

I'd be skeptical of a modern music fan who doesn't get some kind of pleasure out of listening to it.


----------



## ArtMusic

millionrainbows said:


> That's right; It doesn't make sense that you don't like modern music. It's just sound, and in many cases, beautiful, harmonic sound, and also discreet pitches and linear elements which are fascinating. It has moments of harmonic 'happenings' and single, isolated, beautiful pitches.
> 
> What is wrong is your expectations. The music itself is usually made from the same pitches as all music. How can we rationally accept that you "don't like it" when it's made of the same stuff, usually, as Beethoven?


What is "modern" music?

Schoenberg's music is about one hundred years old. _Pierrot Lunaire_ is over one hundred years old. (Bach's Brandenburg Concertos and Beethoven's 9th symphony were separated by about 100 years too).

John Cage's music is over fifty years old.

What is modern music? I do enjoy the new music of Alma Deutscher, composed a few years ago to last year. There is nothing wrong with that. So, I do listen to modern music and there is nothing wrong with that.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

This kind of reasoning is too vague. There are 12 notes in the octave, and chromaticism has been with us for many years. It makes no sense that, for example, the color turquoise could not be used in a painting because it is a new, different color. Color is color, and sound is sound. These vague arguments about the self-sufficiency of personal opinion begin to fail in the light of formalist elements. 

If you are going to make an analogy to the visual arts, then you would do better to compare atonal music with abstraction... which has historically been just as problematic for many viewers as a lot of atonal/Modernist music is with many listeners.

All art is transactional, for sure, but we must assume and recognize the existence of 'experts' or 'professionals' or 'masters' in the fields of history. Otherwise, there is no difference between Brittney Spears, or Wourinen and Schoenberg.

So the arts are only for the experts? Those properly "educated" (or indoctrinated?) according to whom? I call bunk. Yes, having a greater knowledge of the history of a given art form and the artist's intentions may allow me to appreciate a given work on further levels... but in no way does my experience or expertise in painting (for example) negate the opinion of the "uninitiated" who are moved by the color and emotional response they feel from a painting by Monet or Degas. Ultimately, we all bring prior knowledge and experiences to our experience of art. There is no single correct and essential body of prior knowledge and experience needed before an individual's experience of a work of art may be deemed proper.

Humble yourself in the presence of art! Be receptive! Assume that you are stupid and uninformed, and then maybe you can be suited to approach art! Yes, that's right: art is transactional, but you must approach art, not the other way around.

Oh, please! If someone dislikes my paintings I should expect them to humble themselves and bow before my work and assume that the failing is wholly theirs? Maybe there is no failing at all. Maybe not all art is for everybody. Actually, this sounds a lot like my studio mate, who assumes the audience are all morons.

If you want your "art" to come to you, then go for passive entertainment! Watch TV, or listen to pop music.

More pretentious twaddle. A good portion of all art is entertainment to a greater or lesser extent. And a lot of entertainment also exhibits aesthetic brilliance.

I'm tired of making concessions to uninformed opinion of the masses! Serious art is a complex process which has to meet certain requirements in order to even be presented or recorded.

Romanticism is over with. The notion of the visionary... and misunderstood genius artist is dead and buried. If artists today turn up their noses to the taste of the masses it is because they are marketing toward a wealthier "elite".

As Bill Watterson noted in his comic strip, Calvin and Hobbes:
"People make the mistake of thinking art is created for them. But really, art is a private language for sophisticates to congratulate themselves on their superiority to the rest of the world."










...my friends were always liking some stupid stuff, like Lynnrd Skynnrd, Free Bird, or Billy Joel, and I was always resisting that.

Congratulations! Your taste is so clearly superior to those friends listening to all that "stupid" stuff.


----------



## Becca

millionrainbows said:


> No, not my tyranny; simply the ignorance of the uninformed.


When it comes to the subjective such as opinions about any form of art, there is a fine line between that statement and "the arrogance of those who think they know better."


----------



## dillonp2020

I will write devoid of the esoteric words used by others. I don't like most modern classical music. Maybe it is my own prejudice that clouds my judgement, doesn't change the fact that I don't like it. I don't like most modern operas. For me, a two hour modern opera is a task as opposed to the delight of Wagner. By the same argument you are using, I should like all books as they are just combinations of the same 26 letters. You have to acknowledge the difference between Thus Spoke Zarathustra (Not Strauss) and Mein Kampf, and why one might like the former over the latter (or vice versa for some creepy bald-headed ********).


----------



## Strange Magic

miliionrainbows is one of those sort who listen to certain musics not solely or even primarily because they like them but because of a curious aesthetic ideology that actually compels them to listen to those particular musics. They feel free but actually are in fetters. And they would have others also in fetters. I freely affirm that I have made a god of my own tastes and inclinations, and I will not concede aesthetic decisions to anyone else. Genius is spoken of, and the responsibility, the obligation, of the auditor to reach out to the composer, to study, familiarize, embrace the composer's world and truth as one's own. This is all fine as a matter of private and personal inclination, and I often do just that. But I will not have it thrust upon me as a requirement, as millionrainbows and his ilk would have it. Their aesthetic ideology may be fine for them; it gives them perhaps a comforting structure wth which to establish hierarchies of taste--sheep are separated from goats; the good is isolated from the bad--but it smacks to me of a deep uncertainty about the validity of their preferences apart from the comfort of the ideology. For myself, I have no guiding compass; I go where my internal honey guide leads me. Sometimes it leads me to Lynyrd Skynyrd.


----------



## Chronochromie

dillonp2020 said:


> I will write devoid of the esoteric words used by others. I don't like most modern classical music. Maybe it is my own prejudice that clouds my judgement, doesn't change the fact that I don't like it. I don't like most modern operas. For me, a two hour modern opera is a task as opposed to the delight of Wagner. By the same argument you are using, I should like all books as they are just combinations of the same 26 letters. You have to acknowledge the difference between Thus Spoke Zarathustra (Not Strauss) and Mein Kampf, and why one might like the former over the latter (or vice versa for some creepy bald-headed ********).


While I mostly agree, maybe that's not the best example...


----------



## dillonp2020

Chronochromie said:


> While I mostly agree, maybe that's not the best example...


Agreed. I believe the analogy holds true, but the comparison was poorly thought out. Perhaps the analogy by itself would have been better.


----------



## Lenny

Lots of interesting discussion here!

I approach music and arts in two different directions. First, music is a written history that for me is more honest than the "real" written history. As someone said here in the forum (I'm sorry, I cannot remember who said that), music doesn't lie. So from this perspective, it doesn't make any sense to say that baroque or modernism is more to some taste. Or it makes as much sense to say "I like more antique than the 50's - it pleases more my imagination".

Secondly, I follow my overall dialectic thinking also in music, pretty much the same as millionrainbows is saying here: art is two ways. There is no more objective than there is subjective, they are in dialectic relation. It is a horrible mistake to say that it's only me, and myself, I will decide what pleases me. If I feel something is art, then it is art. Because of this dialectic relation, you can say this, of course. You can even convince yourself to see any crap as a highest form of art (in extreme case, invoke totality from nothingness), but is it then real art, or pure imagination?

So from the postmodern, I accept this idea of active participation in music, and that is really what dialectic thinking is about. But it cannot, and will not take a way the real substance from music.


----------



## Barbebleu

millionrainbows said:


> So? I find a lot of Mozart (the flute concertos, early sonatas) to be "drivel" as you call it. Am I supposed to worship everything he did?


You are clearly not listening to it "intelligently" or correctly.


----------



## Resurrexit

millionrainbows said:


> I'm just the polar opposite; my friends were always liking some stupid stuff, like Lynnrd Skynnrd, Free Bird, or Billy Joel, and I was always resisting that.


Stupid stuff? That doesn't sound very "respectful" of human and artistic creation, in all its forms.


----------



## Gordontrek

Irrelevant note- this thread appeared just below the "Current Listening IV" thread in the forum list. I thought it had 1045 pages for a moment. Didn't surprise me.


----------



## Strange Magic

My preceding post on millionrainbow's processing of music was actually only half the story. In that post I postulated that mr's aesthetic ideology compelled him to prefer certain musics over others. This isn't exactly how it works in practice; in the real world. What happens is this: he (and this applies to us all) hears a piece of music, and likes it. Likes it a lot. Then, _ex post facto,_ we reach into our Theory of Aesthetics grab-bag and rummage for those traits and attributes that we can then use to explain to ourselves and others--to justify and to rationalize to ourselves and others--why it was inevitable and just and right that we like that piece and why others really ought to like it also. I have done this retrospective analysis of why I like certain pieces of music--especially Top Ten whatevers--and have come to certain conclusions having to do with plangency or with cusp phenomena or with sensations of irresistable forward or upward motion or of other factors. But these are uniquely my own influences and reactions and should not--cannot--be imposed upon anyone else. Just think about all those musics that you like that close friends and acquaintances do not (to your wonderment and chagrin), and also how you may mystify others by your likes and dislikes. This is enough to strangle in the cradle any notions of millionrainbow-variety aesthetic universals that work to praise or condemn one's personal artistic choices.


----------



## Forss

Bach wore wigs, long coats with braided gold, shirts with ruffles or fine lace, knee-length breeches, silk stockings and so on, and for him it was simply convention, his (and his neighbour's) natural attire. For _us_, on the other hand, we poor spirits of the 21st century, were _we_ to dress in a like fashion, we would call it _costume_, since that is what it would be _on us_: something playful, artificial, even bizarre, whilst in search of lost time, etc. This argument can (and should, in my opinion) easily be applied to music. Boulez had no choice but to explore modern, atonal music, and so did Steve Jobs wear a black polo neck, simple blue jeans and a pair of ordinary sneakers. They were True to our (non-)culture! I admire Boulez for this reason, but still prefer the music of Beethoven or Mahler. "The evolution of culture is synonymous with the removal of ornament," as Adolf Loos famously said.


----------



## Strange Magic

Forss said:


> "The evolution of culture is synonymous with the removal of ornament," as Adolf Loos famously said.


It perhaps comes and goes. I look at all the tattooed people about; others with bizarre piercings. I look at photos of The Who, Led Zep, The Beatles in their fine plumage back not all that long ago. I also look at photos of crowds of men in the 1930s, all in suit and tie, all hatted, all in uniform, and contrast that to today's mottled, polychrome crowds. These days, anything goes.


----------



## JeffD

Strange Magic said:


> . What happens is this: he (and this applies to us all) hears a piece of music, and likes it. Likes it a lot. Then, _ex post facto,_ we reach into our Theory of Aesthetics grab-bag and rummage for those traits and attributes that we can then use to explain to ourselves and others--to justify and to rationalize to ourselves and others--why it was inevitable and just and right that we like that piece and why others really ought to like it also. .


I think this is true. More true more often than not.

Another layer add is that we may not know why that initial attraction occurred.

The ultimate initial causes of attraction, (or perhaps reasons we even gave the new music a chance), may not be very flattering. Do I like it because my father liked it. Do I like it because someone I was trying to impress liked it. Do I like it because she smiled so engagingly when she listened to it. Do I like it because I agreed with its implied politics. Do I like it because it is loud and exciting and little boys (and the little boys inside of most men) love things that are loud and exciting.

But yea,_ after _we acknowledge we like it, is often we come up with an intellectual backfilling to explain and justify. We make a narrative where there was only wonder.


----------



## Razumovskymas

millionrainbows said:


> That's right; It doesn't make sense that you don't like modern music. It's just sound, and in many cases, beautiful, harmonic sound, and also discreet pitches and linear elements which are fascinating. It has moments of harmonic 'happenings' and single, isolated, beautiful pitches.
> 
> *What is wrong is your expectations.* The music itself is usually made from the same pitches as all music. How can we rationally accept that you "don't like it" when it's made of the same stuff, usually, as Beethoven?


With all respect but this sounds like a very suspicious sales pitch. You can sell anything with this line.

I give modern music a go now and then but until now: nope! My expectations keep getting in the way. When I want to hear "just sounds" that sound good, I go on a hike and listen to the sounds of nature, much better!

I guess Prokofiev is as modern as it gets with me.


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> I don't quite understand why you are adopting that tone. If you've been reading other posts in this thread and not just ones you feel like dismembering, you'll see that I am a defender of modern music and never even suggested you should like or hate anything, modern or traditional.
> 
> You are not being asked to 'worship' everything, but in the same way there is no reason (or argument) for you to tell people to accept and respect what you want them to respect - the total output of modern music without exception it seems - or face the charge of 'luddite'.
> 
> You've rather undermined yourself.


Well, I got accused of being a tyrant. I can live with it. And I'm just saying "respect," as in, if you don't like it, walk away, don't attack. Passive strategy.


----------



## millionrainbows

Sorry, but I can't agree with a "totally subjective" theory of art. Art is two-way, and there are different levels of deepness and meaning, such as Brittney and Bach.

Plus, I'm looking at purely formal factors, such as Bach having more actual musical information than Jay-Z.

Subjectivity and opinion have their place, but the internet has distorted this way out of proportion. There are still "masters" and experts. There are different 'game levels'.

I think the reason many people do not like serialism such as Wuorinen, Webern, Babbitt, and Boulez, is because they do not have the tools to deal with it in a meaningful way. I had to "develop" my listening habits, and supplement it with extra-musical knowledge, and this took work.

But first, like all music, you have to simply listen. Then, you can hope to develop some "expertise" in dealing with this music.

There are opera experts, piano experts, and all sorts of experts in the listening field. I think this is a far more attractive idea than "everything is equal and depends solely on my opinion."


----------



## millionrainbows

Razumovskymas said:


> With all respect but this sounds like a very suspicious sales pitch. You can sell anything with this line.
> 
> I give modern music a go now and then but until now: nope! My expectations keep getting in the way. When I want to hear "just sounds" that sound good, I go on a hike and listen to the sounds of nature, much better!
> 
> I guess Prokofiev is as modern as it gets with me.


That's fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I have an opinion of your opinion, too.


----------



## Razumovskymas

millionrainbows said:


> That's fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I have an opinion of your opinion, too.


Thanks for pointing that out.

And I respect your opinion of my opinion.

My opinion of your opinion of my opinion would lead us too far!

For example it could lead to you having an opinion of my opinion of your opinion of my opinion.


----------



## millionrainbows

If you are going to make an analogy to the visual arts, then you would do better to compare atonal music with abstraction... which has historically been just as problematic for many viewers as a lot of atonal/Modernist music is with many listeners.

Then it's a good analogy, for that very reason.

So the arts are only for the experts? Those properly "educated" (or indoctrinated?) according to whom? 

Meaningful engagement with say, serial music, requires a different set of tools. These usually have to be learned.

Yes, having a greater knowledge of the history of a given art form and the artist's intentions may allow me to appreciate a given work on further levels... but in no way does my experience or expertise in painting (for example) negate the opinion of the "uninitiated" who are moved by the color and emotional response they feel from a painting by Monet or Degas. 

You are using a positive example. Uninformed, negative responses to serial music are usually just that. My understanding does not negate anyone else, but it can expose their miscomprehension when they voice it unthinkingly.

Ultimately, we all bring prior knowledge and experiences to our experience of art. There is no single correct and essential body of prior knowledge and experience needed before an individual's experience of a work of art may be deemed proper. 

I disagree. I think much modern/serial music, and even minimalism, requires a different way of listening, and a different set of expectations, and ultimately, a different set of tools.

If someone dislikes my paintings I should expect them to humble themselves and bow before my work and assume that the failing is wholly theirs? Maybe there is no failing at all. Maybe not all art is for everybody. Actually, this sounds a lot like my studio mate, who assumes the audience are all morons.

I would not say "morons", but simply unequipped to handle the information that is presented to them in a meaningful, productive way.

A good portion of all art is entertainment to a greater or lesser extent. And a lot of entertainment also exhibits aesthetic brilliance.

To me, "entertainment" implies a certain passivity. Really good art is a more profound experience. It is entertaining on a certain level as well.

Romanticism is over with. The notion of the visionary... and misunderstood genius artist is dead and buried. If artists today turn up their noses to the taste of the masses it is because they are marketing toward a wealthier "elite". 

I don't think so. There is still art which is made for non-utilitarian purposes, not light entertainment.

"People make the mistake of thinking art is created for them. But really, art is a private language for sophisticates to congratulate themselves on their superiority to the rest of the world."

That's a gross exaggeration, but there is a grain of truth in it. Porches were not built for little old ladies, custom-made silver flutes were not made for beginners, New York Time crossword puzzles were not made for novices, etc.

Congratulations! Your taste is so clearly superior to those friends listening to all that "stupid" stuff.

I just didn't like that stuff, and I still don't. And it turns out that I _really was_ of superior intelligence to many of them.


----------



## arpeggio

I do not understand how some people feel that if they do not like or understand something it must be bad.


----------



## Barbebleu

millionrainbows said:


> I just didn't like that stuff, and I still don't. And it turns out that I _really was_ of superior intelligence to many of them.




Perhaps the reason you don't like "that stuff" is because you haven't put the work into listening to it "intelligently".

And clearly you are not only of superior intelligence to many of your friends, who I suspect may no longer be friends, but also you are clearly on another level of arrogance to them.


----------



## Razumovskymas

millionrainbows said:


> That's right; It doesn't make sense that you don't like modern music. It's just sound, and in many cases, beautiful, harmonic sound, and also discreet pitches and linear elements which are fascinating. It has moments of harmonic 'happenings' and single, isolated, beautiful pitches.
> 
> What is wrong is your expectations. The music itself is usually made from the same pitches as all music. How can we rationally accept that you "don't like it" when it's made of the same stuff, usually, as Beethoven?


Sorry, I can't help it millionrainbows, for what I read diagonally here and there in this thread I assume you kind of enjoy going into discussion about this so here I go just for fun:

WHAT IF:

The "common man" (or let us say "the masses") in the street, not really gifted with a more than average intelligence, only having modest cultural background and only interested in popular culture. What if that common man starts to appreciate modern contemporary classical music. So modern classical music really kind of becomes the music of the masses. Would you be relieved and say: "finally things start to make some sense now" or would you rather go: "impossible that that "kind" of people can appreciate this kind of music" or maybe you would just freak out and panic 

I'm not trying to prove any point here (I wouldn't even know what point). It's just a kind of thought experiment that I sometimes dwell on, in my case rather about the music I personally appreciate. Me too I'm convinced that the music I appreciate needs some work and effort but I often ask myself: "why am I doing the effort?" "what would happen if the masses would start to appreciate the music I appreciate?" Would I go: "finally" or would I freak out, questioning the exclusivity of that music and as a result questioning my own "special abilities" to appreciate "higher art forms"

So what do you think? Would it be nice to be able to discuss the finesses of modern classical with your baker, grocery store keeper, bus-driver, plumber......in short: everybody? Or would it freak you out and give you doubts about the meaning of that music?


----------



## millionrainbows

Perhaps the reason you don't like "that stuff" is because you haven't put the work into listening to it "intelligently". 

No, the "stuff" was designed to entertain the lowest common denominator. I call it "filler rock." It is fun to denigrate it, though. But see all the flack it attracts when you talk about things you don't like?

And clearly you are not only of superior intelligence to many of your friends, who I suspect may no longer be friends, but also you are clearly on another level of arrogance to them.

I have somehow managed to survive without them, and now listen to Ferneyhough, while they wallow in squalor.


----------



## Barbebleu

millionrainbows said:


> Perhaps the reason you don't like "that stuff" is because you haven't put the work into listening to it "intelligently".
> 
> No, the "stuff" was designed to entertain the lowest common denominator. I call it "filler rock." It is fun to denigrate it, though. But see all the flack it attracts when you talk about things you don't like?
> 
> And clearly you are not only of superior intelligence to many of your friends, who I suspect may no longer be friends, but also you are clearly on another level of arrogance to them.
> 
> I have somehow managed to survive without them, and now listen to Ferneyhough, while they wallow in squalor.


Mmm! BTW its flak, not flack! But you are saying that we are not putting the effort into listening to the stuff that you like and we don't, but it seems you are unwilling or unable to do the same. Try harder to understand Billy Joel and Lynyrd Skynyrd and I'm sure you'll be suitably rewarded by what is revealed. And I'll do the same with Fernyhough. But I won't hold my breath!


----------



## Gordontrek

I have a few "clarifying" questions for millionrainbows. Perhaps these have already been answered; if so there was a wall of text somewhere I forgot to wade through. 
1. Consider a person who has the "tools" and listening skills, as you say, to understand modern music. In other words, someone at or near your level of expertise. Do you believe that someone like this is _incapable_ of disliking modern music? Please note the use of "dislike" rather than "unappreciative."
2. Where do you draw the line between art and entertainment? Is there a mark in the sand beyond which something is "too entertaining" to be art? From what I've gathered, there exists in your mind a spectrum of sorts where the reactions that different kinds of music elicit determine where they place along the spectrum. Jay-Z makes his listeners head-bang, so it qualifies as entertainment, on the primitive end of the spectrum. Very little listening skills required, am I right? Ferneyhough makes his listeners contemplative, inspired, soul-searching, whatever sophisticated term you want to use. High listening skills required, so it's art, on the sophisticated end. Is this about how you determine it? In general, the less entertained you are by what you're listening to, the more artistic it is. Am I right?
3. Suppose you saw someone "rocking out" to Stravinsky, or even Ferneyhough (extremely unlikely, but still). Meaning, they are very entertained by what they hear. How would you evaluate this? Since the music elicits a more "primitive" reaction, does the fault lie in the music, or the listener for not having the skills to allow for a more "sophisticated" reaction?


----------



## Strange Magic

If we make a Venn diagram showing what art, music, etc. I like as one circle, and what millionrainbows thinks I ought to like and to dislike on "theoretical" grounds as another circle, there is no overlap of circles, as his criteria do not exist within my circle; only in his. There are likely oodles of things we like in common, or dislike in common, but that is another Venn diagram entirely.


----------



## DeepR

millionrainbows said:


> Sorry, but I can't agree with a "totally subjective" theory of art. Art is two-way, and there are different levels of deepness and meaning, such as Brittney and Bach.
> 
> Plus, I'm looking at purely formal factors, such as Bach having more actual musical information than Jay-Z.
> 
> Subjectivity and opinion have their place, but the internet has distorted this way out of proportion. There are still "masters" and experts. There are different 'game levels'.
> 
> I think the reason many people do not like serialism such as Wuorinen, Webern, Babbitt, and Boulez, is because they do not have the tools to deal with it in a meaningful way. I had to "develop" my listening habits, and supplement it with extra-musical knowledge, and this took work.
> 
> But first, like all music, you have to simply listen. Then, you can hope to develop some "expertise" in dealing with this music.
> 
> There are opera experts, piano experts, and all sorts of experts in the listening field. I think this is a far more attractive idea than "everything is equal and depends solely on my opinion."


Whether I like something or not is indeed solely dependent on my opinion. No matter how good certain music is deemed to be, I can personally reject it if don't like it. Also when I'm completely uninformed. There doesn't have to be any rational explanation for my personal dislike. That's the freedom I have as a listener. I'm not saying that acquiring knowledge is useless, not at all, it can enhance the experience, but I do consider it optional. It shouldn't be required, unless perhaps the composer specifically intended for extra-musical information to go along with the music.
Suppressing the ego when approaching art is an illusion.


----------



## millionrainbows

Barbebleu said:


> Mmm! BTW its flak, not flack! But you are saying that we are not putting the effort into listening to the stuff that you like and we don't, but it seems you are unwilling or unable to do the same. Try harder to understand Billy Joel and Lynyrd Skynyrd and I'm sure you'll be suitably rewarded by what is revealed. And I'll do the same with Fernyhough. But I won't hold my breath!


Boy, you really got me on that "flak" thing!


----------



## millionrainbows

Gordontrek said:


> I have a few "clarifying" questions for millionrainbows. Perhaps these have already been answered; if so there was a wall of text somewhere I forgot to wade through.
> 1. Consider a person who has the "tools" and listening skills, as you say, to understand modern music. In other words, someone at or near your level of expertise. Do you believe that someone like this is _incapable_ of disliking modern music? Please note the use of "dislike" rather than "unappreciative."
> 2. Where do you draw the line between art and entertainment? Is there a mark in the sand beyond which something is "too entertaining" to be art? From what I've gathered, there exists in your mind a spectrum of sorts where the reactions that different kinds of music elicit determine where they place along the spectrum. Jay-Z makes his listeners head-bang, so it qualifies as entertainment, on the primitive end of the spectrum. Very little listening skills required, am I right? Ferneyhough makes his listeners contemplative, inspired, soul-searching, whatever sophisticated term you want to use. High listening skills required, so it's art, on the sophisticated end. Is this about how you determine it? In general, the less entertained you are by what you're listening to, the more artistic it is. Am I right?
> 3. Suppose you saw someone "rocking out" to Stravinsky, or even Ferneyhough (extremely unlikely, but still). Meaning, they are very entertained by what they hear. How would you evaluate this? Since the music elicits a more "primitive" reaction, does the fault lie in the music, or the listener for not having the skills to allow for a more "sophisticated" reaction?


It's not just a matter of "Complexity vs. Primitive," but in having the right orientation and expectations, in knowing 'how to listen.' All you have to do in serialism is listen more linearly, and stop expecting harmonic logic to operate as it does in tonality. Many people are halfway there if they can listen to Messiaen and Varese, and like it.

Entertainment: more passive. Art: more involved.


----------



## millionrainbows

Strange Magic said:


> If we make a Venn diagram showing what art, music, etc. I like as one circle, and what millionrainbows thinks I ought to like and to dislike on "theoretical" grounds as another circle, there is no overlap of circles, as his criteria do not exist within my circle; only in his. There are likely oodles of things we like in common, or dislike in common, but that is another Venn diagram entirely.


I'm not saying that you _have _to like it; only that the reason you don't is not validly informed enough to be credible.


----------



## topo morto

millionrainbows said:


> Plus, I'm looking at purely formal factors, such as Bach having more actual musical information than Jay-Z.


Personally I think Jay-Z is pretty wack and would agree, but is amount of 'actual musical information' something for which there actually is a formal measure?


----------



## Petwhac

millionrainbows said:


> Sorry, but I can't agree with a "totally subjective" theory of art. Art is two-way, and there are different levels of deepness and meaning, such as Brittney and Bach.
> 
> Plus, I'm looking at purely formal factors, such as Bach having more actual musical information than Jay-Z.
> "


Then it is you who are perhaps not listening correctly to those pop artistes. I'm serious. You are guilty of looking for things in pop that you expect to find in Bach.

As for there being more musical information in Bach than Jay Z, you are limiting your definition of musical information to include only those elements which are important in Bach.

Perhaps you perceive more 'meaning' in Ferneyhough's impossible to execute duplets than there actually is. And perhaps you miss the 'meaning' in the subtle rhythmic and timbral inflections, the manipulation of sound for it's own sake and the hypnotic intensity of rappers like Jay Z.

In the end composers/songwriters/rappers make music, performers play music and listeners listen to music for one thing and only one thing. Pleasure.

The experience of music is deeply personal and one just cannot explain why one reacts to a specific musical utterance in a given way. Though try as one may to describe it.

There is a chord in Chopin's A minor grand waltz. It's a pivot chord leading from the end of a phrase to a repeat of a section. It's basically a D minor 7 chord sandwiched between A minor and G major. Nothing remarkable or clever there at all. Yet, in the context, when I hear it for it's fleeting one quarter note length, it's as if all the melancholy in the world is contained in it. If I ever find a moment to compare with that feeling in Bruno Maderna or Ferneyhough, I'll let you know. And yes, I have tried.


----------



## millionrainbows

1. Consider a person who has the "tools" and listening skills, as you say, to understand modern music. In other words, someone at or near your level of expertise. Do you believe that someone like this is _incapable_ of disliking modern music? Please note the use of "dislike" rather than "unappreciative."

No; there are some serial works that I like better than others. But as a genre, I do not blanketly dislike it.

2. Where do you draw the line between art and entertainment? Is there a mark in the sand beyond which something is "too entertaining" to be art?

No, not always, but generally, entertainment is lighter and less demanding.

From what I've gathered, there exists in your mind a spectrum of sorts where the reactions that different kinds of music elicit determine where they place along the spectrum. Jay-Z makes his listeners head-bang, so it qualifies as entertainment, on the primitive end of the spectrum. Very little listening skills required, am I right? 

No, things aren't always that linear. Jay-Z serves a social function; much of what he does has more social significance than purely musical. That's fine, but when I listen to composers, I'm looking for musical content.

Ferneyhough makes his listeners contemplative, inspired, soul-searching, whatever sophisticated term you want to use. High listening skills required, so it's art, on the sophisticated end.

Ferneyhough, to me, is like John Cage, but you have to consider that he notates everything down to the last detail, much of it unplayable, yet including this "unplayability" into the mix as a sort of "chance" factor. Not "complex," but you need to understand what he is doing. I do not claim to fully understand his music yet. This is not always easy, because that information (including scores) is not easy to come by.

By the same token, someone who knows Jay-Z's "back story" will be better equipped to appreciate him, and whatever references he makes in his songs. This is part of my general art aesthetic; art does not exist in a vacuum.
A lot of Ferneyhough sounds like just sounds, almost noise, and is not concerned with pitch as such. For that reason, I'm not really into him. I'd rather hear Cage.

Is this about how you determine it? In general, the less entertained you are by what you're listening to, the more artistic it is. Am I right?

No; all great art must be rewarding on some level. There are different "levels" of this, and if it is in the shallow end, it's more like entertainment. _Surely_ you must acknowledge that there are differences between Beethoven's Ninth and a Pauly Shore movie that exemplify this.

Suppose you saw someone "rocking out" to Stravinsky, or even Ferneyhough (extremely unlikely, but still). Meaning, they are very entertained by what they hear. How would you evaluate this? Since the music elicits a more "primitive" reaction, does the fault lie in the music, or the listener for not having the skills to allow for a more "sophisticated" reaction?

If I am "entertained" by Anton Webern's music, that means I like it. You're conflating the meaning of the term "entertainment."


----------



## millionrainbows

Whether I like something or not is indeed solely dependent on my opinion.

I can't argue with that. But I have an opinion about your opinion, which makes it credible to me or not.

No matter how good certain music is deemed to be, I can personally reject it if don't like it. 

That's true. That says nothing about my experience of the music, though.

Also when I'm completely uninformed. There doesn't have to be any rational explanation for my personal dislike. That's the freedom I have as a listener.

OK, but if you are uninformed, I will think your opinion is uninformed as well, and I will reject it.

I'm not saying that acquiring knowledge is useless, not at all, it can enhance the experience, but I do consider it optional. It shouldn't be required, unless perhaps the composer specifically intended for extra-musical information to go along with the music.

The kind of knowledge I'm talking about concerns the materials, syntax, and form of the art itself; how it is constructed, and what its intent is. Some music needs little explanation. Serialism does, in that it requires a different kind of listening skill set, which is unlike our habitual way of listening.

Good art will always have a universal appeal in itself, but it deepens the experience to be informed. Art does not exist in a vacuum, ideally.

Suppressing the ego when approaching art is an illusion.

To receive art, you must be receptive. This means a certain kind of faith or confidence in the composer and his art. In the case of serious classical, you need to tacitly agree that these are masters, and that you are approaching their music with respect.


----------



## Blancrocher

Aesthetic judgments, in the final analysis, are merely subjective tokens expressing pleasure or dislike. That's why it's so unfortunate for all of us that I'm an idiot.


----------



## Strange Magic

millionrainbows said:


> I'm not saying that you _have _to like it; only that the reason you don't is not validly informed enough to be credible.


If we look carefully at this seemingly glib throwaway sentence, what we find it actually says is: If you don't like what I like, you're an idiot. "Not validly informed enough to be credible". I like this way of calling people idiots; silent but deadly.


----------



## DaveM

millionrainbows said:


> Sorry, but I can't agree with a "totally subjective" theory of art. Art is two-way, and there are different levels of deepness and meaning, such as Brittney and Bach.
> 
> Subjectivity and opinion have their place, but the internet has distorted this way out of proportion. There are still "masters" and experts. There are different 'game levels'.
> 
> I think the reason many people do not like serialism such as Wuorinen, Webern, Babbitt, and Boulez, is because they do not have the tools to deal with it in a meaningful way. I had to "develop" my listening habits, and supplement it with extra-musical knowledge, and this took work.
> 
> But first, like all music, you have to simply listen. Then, you can hope to develop some "expertise" in dealing with this music.
> 
> There are opera experts, piano experts, and all sorts of experts in the listening field. I think this is a far more attractive idea than "everything is equal and depends solely on my opinion."





millionrainbows said:


> Ferneyhough, to me, is like John Cage, but you have to consider that he notates everything down to the last detail, much of it unplayable, yet including this "unplayability" into the mix as a sort of "chance" factor. Not "complex," but you need to understand what he is doing. I do not claim to fully understand his music yet. This is not always easy, because that information (including scores) is not easy to come by.





millionrainbows said:


> Good art will always have a universal appeal in itself, but it deepens the experience to be informed. Art does not exist in a vacuum, ideally.
> 
> To receive art, you must be receptive. This means a certain kind of faith or confidence in the composer and his art. In the case of serious classical, you need to tacitly agree that these are masters, and that you are approaching their music with respect.


I don't think you've really thought this subject through in its entirety. It appears that you are fixating on an almost mathematical view of listening to modern music ie. the more you study it, the better you are at it. That ignores the fact that art appeals to the senses and what appeals to an individual's senses is complex and does not necessarily correlate with one's education or the amount of 'work' put into, in this case, listening to music.

It's also interesting to me that from what you say, it is much of modern/post-modern music that requires this extra work. That supports my perspective that a turning point occurred after the 19th century whereby some of the 'newer' classical music appeals to a much narrower audience because music, prior to the 20th century did not require a lot of work and education to enjoy.

I also find it interesting that you say '_Good art will always have a universal appeal in itself_' Do you actually believe that Ferneyhough and Cage have universal appeal?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

If we look carefully at this seemingly glib throwaway sentence, what we find it actually says is: If you don't like what I like, you're an idiot. "Not validly informed enough to be credible". I like this way of calling people idiots; silent but deadly.

I have long suspected that one of the reasons that many lovers of classical music are turned off by the contemporary _avant-garde_ of classical music is due to the fact that there are more than a few champions of such music who are truly arrogant gits good at calling others "idiots" in an indirect manner.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Do you actually believe that Ferneyhough and Cage have universal appeal?

Of course he might respond that they have a universal appeal to those with superior taste and intellect.


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> Well, I got accused of being a tyrant. I can live with it. And I'm just saying "respect," as in, if you don't like it, walk away, don't attack. Passive strategy.


At first I thought you were initiating an argument in this thread for not dismissing modern music out of hand, but I rapidly realised that you are not merely doing that. It's really just a cobbled-together idea about opinions with one of them being superior or 'correct' for no discernible reason above personal judgement. You don't seem to be able to acknowledge the idea that it's possible to understand a thing and still not like it...even though this is incidentally the claim you seem to be making about your experience of so-called 'inferior music'.

I would agree that listening to new things requires new ways of listening and comprehending and often includes acquiring extra knowledge. I've experienced it a few times (first when transitioning from big band to bebop listening as a teenager and later following a modern harmony course).

Unfortunately I think you have manoeuvred yourself into a corner, for reasons I can't quite fathom. A position where you are telling people that rejection of modern art-music is always a result of a failure to comprehend it, yet, as barbebleu demonstrated, the same shaky argument could be employed for explaining your apparent failure to enjoy other music.

To a certain point a person's tastes probably do demonstrate some measure of their intellect, but I'm highly suspicious of people who can't enjoy simple pleasures alongside more complex pursuits. It's not a very rounded sort of development.


----------



## JeffD

Razumovskymas said:


> What if that common man starts to appreciate modern contemporary classical music. So modern classical music really kind of becomes the music of the masses. Would you be relieved and say: "finally things start to make some sense now" or would you rather go: "impossible that that "kind" of people can appreciate this kind of music" or maybe you would just freak out and panic.


Or would some folks, (I am thinking of a particular friend of mine), unable to accept that their tastes have become common, look for something even more esoteric and obscure to more exclusively enjoy, so as to retain their position of champion of tastes so refined and intellectually challenging as to escape most people. Just sayin...


----------



## JeffD

Quite honestly there is a lot of truth to go around. Especially when I know my tastes have changed with exposure and experience.

I just read about an early concert of Beethoven's Quartet #12 Op. 127, where it was played twice in a row, at the same concert. The audience sat for two back to back playings.

The idea was that with repeated listening Beethoven's piece became easier to understand. One was no longer overwhelmed with surprise and could get at it better.

At the same time, older music has been vetted by time, i.e. the cream has risen and the dross has been ignored and forgotten. With modern music this process has not yet taken place, or not to the same extent. What will be considered good in 100 years? 

I am not saying that time has in and of itself a particular wisdom, but more that it kind of does have the last say in these matters.

So now I have to worry not only about being taken in by a pseudo-intellectual fad, but I also have to worry about being laughed at 100 years from now for following a pony into a ditch.

This stuff is hard people.


----------



## KenOC

Some time back the perennial modern music dispute led to a series of answers to the question: “Why don’t people like the music I like?” Among the answers I remember, it’s because listeners are:

- Severely inbred, with family trees that look like telephone polls
- Mind-slaves of the Krell
- Accustomed to performers who bite the heads off small animals in performance

There were a lot of other answers as well, which readers are free to imagine and, if they like, post here.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

JeffD said:


> So now I have to worry not only about being taken in a pseudo-intellectual fad, but I also have to worry about being laughed at 100 years from now for following a pony into a ditch.
> 
> This stuff is hard people.


The moral fears of Mankind: to be judged my people we'll never meet or see. Just the knowledge of the idea that we will be judged is enough to stifle our present-day joy and make us give up freedom for the sake of security... fascinating stuff!

Why can't we just let it go?


----------



## DaveM

KenOC said:


> Some time back the perennial modern music dispute led to a series of answers to the question: "Why don't people like the music I like?" Among the answers I remember, it's because listeners are:
> 
> - Severely inbred, with family trees that look like telephone polls
> - Mind-slaves of the Krell
> - Accustomed to performers who bite the heads off small animals in performance
> 
> There were a lot of other answers as well, which readers are free to imagine and, if they like, post here.


Listeners:

-Are frequently under the influence of substances originating from various species of mushrooms.
-Are often deaf from listening to heavy metal and refuse to wear their hearing aids.
-Are sure that the greatest music is yet to be discovered and are working on their own concerto for triangle and tambourine.


----------



## Nereffid

DaveM said:


> I also find it interesting that you say '_Good art will always have a universal appeal in itself_' Do you actually believe that Ferneyhough and Cage have universal appeal?


Of course they have universal appeal! You just have to slightly redefine the scope of the word "universal"... :lol:


----------



## Daniel Atkinson

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Do you actually believe that Ferneyhough and Cage have universal appeal?


"Art" and "universal appeal" is an oxymoron. Not only does nothing in existence have a "universal appeal", but so-called "good art" is also a contradiction in itself.

Daniel


----------



## JeffD

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Why can't we just let it go?


"But this is a thing more ardently to be wished than seriously to be expected."

Hamilton


----------



## millionrainbows

Stupid stuff? That doesn't sound very "respectful" of human and artistic creation, in all its forms. 

When I listen to music, or encounter any form of art, I have certain criteria which I apply. If it passes those criteria, I consider it to be a 'higher' or more profound work of art by comparison to those works which do not pass. This levels the playing field: if something is good, if it is a true and sincere expression of the human soul, or has other redeeming characteristics, it is "fine art" to me, whether it is a Bob Dylan song, Son House, Merle Haggard, or Beethoven.

Lynnrd Skynnrd and early-period Billy Joel did not pass my criteria. I still respect its right to exist, and would not censor it, and whomever wants to consume that kind of music is welcome to do so with no protest from me.


----------



## millionrainbows

If we look carefully at this seemingly glib throwaway sentence, what we find it actually says is: If you don't like what I like, you're an idiot. "Not validly informed enough to be credible". I like this way of calling people idiots; silent but deadly.

I did not issue any ad hominems, silent or otherwise. I never called anyone an idiot. I'm simply stating facts. Readers can agree or disagree, but no one should be accused of ad hominems if it is not true.


----------



## millionrainbows

I don't think you've really thought this subject through in its entirety. It appears that you are fixating on an almost mathematical view of listening to modern music ie. the more you study it, the better you are at it. That ignores the fact that art appeals to the senses and what appeals to an individual's senses is complex and does not necessarily correlate with one's education or the amount of 'work' put into, in this case, listening to music.

On the other hand, the reasons people say they don't like serial music are always vague and undefined. "Modern music" is stereotyped as a convenience for blanketly dismissing it, which is too vague to be credible. "I don't think they've really thought this subject through in its entirety."

It's also interesting to me that from what you say, it is much of modern/post-modern music that requires this extra work. That supports my perspective that a turning point occurred after the 19th century whereby some of the 'newer' classical music appeals to a much narrower audience because music, prior to the 20th century did not require a lot of work and education to enjoy.

On the harmonic level, tonality is a totally integrated system, and its structures are referenced throughout all its levels. It's almost a "self-explanatory" system, mainly because it is based on natural harmonic phenomena which are apprehended sensually and viscerally, by the ears. The "advanced" listeners of tonality will be hearing larger structural connections and patterns over longer stretches, but these 'cerebral' aspects are still reinforced by reference to a tonic.

Serial music, or other music which does not derive its structure from harmonic considerations, or is not tonal, is necessarily more linear and motivic, and also more 'cerebral' in a sense, although its harmonic flavors are more 'in the moment' and do not produce long-term connections in the same way as tonality. The long-term reference to a tonic note is simply not there. All the relations are 'relative' and must be apprehended in different ways than tonality.

I also find it interesting that you say '_Good art will always have a universal appeal in itself_' Do you actually believe that Ferneyhough and Cage have universal appeal?

If someone hears something and likes it, or it has meaning to them, and they are relatively uninformed, then there must be some level on which the music operates that creates a "universal" appeal beyond its specific context. I'm speaking very generally. Whether or not you think anybody will like Ferneyhough is totally conjecture, and I cannot apply a general axiom which might demonstrate one way or the other.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

You were stating that someone else's taste was at least partially uninformed and therefore "not credible". Leaving aside the question whether taste can meaningfully be described as "credible" at all, let alone meaningfully criticised for not being so, your "not validly informed enough [etc.]" says that the other guy literally doesn't know what he's talking about, a message reinforced by your claim now that, in saying so, you are "simply stating facts". You are of course doing no such thing.


----------



## isorhythm

No art has "universal appeal," no matter how great. I don't see how that could be disputed.


----------



## millionrainbows

I have long suspected that one of the reasons that many lovers of classical music are turned off by the contemporary _avant-garde_ of classical music is due to the fact that there are more than a few champions of such music who are truly arrogant gits good at calling others "idiots" in an indirect manner.

If someone blankly rejects "modernism" as a convenient stereotype, and then broadcasts it to people who do, then there is really no substance to their opinion.

Generalized "opinion" does not mean much to me; it is too vague to have credibility. This applies to any music.

If someone says "I don't like Brahms' music," and they offer no reasoning, then what good is their opinion? Its says nothing about the actual music, and everything about them.

The music we discuss here has been composed by real composers who were, and are, professionals and 'masters' or experts at what they do. They have been recognized, recorded, and published.

Whether or not someone likes or dislikes it is irrelevant in the larger scheme of things; it only serves a social, "chat" or discussion function, to entertain us. It does not affect the music at all. If the music survives, it will be for greater reasons.

Beethoven's Ninth exists, and to "like or dislike" it is essentially meaningless to other people, except for that single person. It exists because of many other reasons. It is assumed that Beethoven was a master at what he did. The same applies to other composers, including John Cage and Pierre Boulez.

I am not responsible for "turning anyone off" to the avant-garde.


----------



## millionrainbows

At first I thought you were initiating an argument in this thread for not dismissing modern music out of hand, but I rapidly realised that you are not merely doing that. It's really just a cobbled-together idea about opinions with one of them being superior or 'correct' for no discernible reason above personal judgement.

I have certain criteria I apply to all art. Some art, and music, is simply not intended for the uninformed masses, who would rather be sitting in a sports arena watching a hockey game.

 You don't seem to be able to acknowledge the idea that it's possible to understand a thing and still not like it...even though this is incidentally the claim you seem to be making about your experience of so-called 'inferior music'.

I applied that criteria to Lynnrd Skynnrd, and they did not pass. If someone voices an intelligent opinion about specific music, I will recognize that. But generalized stereotyping of music that people say they don't like are useless opinions which serve no purpose except as social aggression: barbs to create conflict. This essentially has nothing to do with music, and everything with some sort of social conflict which people seem to delight in engaging. It's like an ugly sports game, but not about aesthetics or music.

I would agree that listening to new things requires new ways of listening and comprehending and often includes acquiring extra knowledge. I've experienced it a few times (first when transitioning from big band to bebop listening as a teenager and later following a modern harmony course). Unfortunately I think you have manoeuvred yourself into a corner, for reasons I can't quite fathom. A position where you are telling people that rejection of modern art-music is always a result of a failure to comprehend it, yet, as barbebleu demonstrated, the same shaky argument could be employed for explaining your apparent failure to enjoy other music.

There are different levels and aspects and functions to music, and whatever criteria you wish to apply to them is fine. For example, 15 year old girls like 'boy bands' and this serves a valuable social function as they strive to establish their identity. This is more social than musical, and that's fine.
But my criteria is for musical substance, and music which serves mainly to express musical ideas.

Lynnrd Skynnrd seves a social function as well, giving reinforcement and identity to a faction of largely Southern, male, blue-collar listeners. That's fine for them, but I choose not to identify with that demographic.

To a certain point a person's tastes probably do demonstrate some measure of their intellect, but I'm highly suspicious of people who can't enjoy simple pleasures alongside more complex pursuits. It's not a very rounded sort of development.

America seems to distrust 'smart' people, I've noticed. I guess you are saying that I should get a bag of Cheetos, a bottle of Budweiser, and watch some football. Sorry to disappoint.


----------



## millionrainbows

You were stating that someone else's taste was at least partially uninformed and therefore "not credible". Leaving aside the question whether taste can meaningfully be described as "credible" at all, let alone meaningfully criticised for not being so, your "not validly informed enough [etc.]" says that the other guy literally doesn't know what he's talking about, a message reinforced by your claim now that, in saying so, you are "simply stating facts". You are of course doing no such thing.

When someone voices a vague, stereotypical dislike for a whole area of music, without giving good reasons, then I reject that opinion as uninformed. The "fact" is, I listen to difficult music with understanding, and have already demonstrated this process to my best ability to communicate it, with the Sessions/Wolpe/Babbitt CD discussion.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

Taste is not the same as musicological judgment, however hard you may try to conflate the two. If someone purports to criticise certain music on musicological grounds, such an attempt can be agreed or disagreed with on objective criteria of the kind to which you seem so attached. If someone says on the other hand that certain music is not to their taste, that's a different matter altogether and in no way reducible to the kind of template into which you seem rather desperate to try and force it. Vaughan Williams couldn't stand Beethoven's music but still managed to write an essay which unpacks the greatness of the Choral Symphony. He knew and respected the difference between subjective taste and objective judgment even if, with respect, you apparently can't.


----------



## millionrainbows

Some time back the perennial modern music dispute led to a series of answers to the question: "Why don't people like the music I like?" 

Aww, that poor guy, such a victim. That's a subtle reversal, but it should read "Why do people like the music I hate?"

If those who "hate" voice this, it's only natural to expect conflict to arise.


----------



## Taggart

Members are reminded to be civil. Please also avoid politics. Some posts have been removed.


----------



## millionrainbows

No art has "universal appeal," no matter how great. I don't see how that could be disputed.

No, I said if art is "great" (by consensus of history), then its "greatness" will turn out to be a universal quality which transcends culture and time. This has already been indisputably demonstrated by countless works of art.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

isorhythm said:


> No art has "universal appeal," no matter how great. I don't see how that could be disputed.


Even the aborigens or the aliens that have never heard western concert music can recognize and appreciate the musical patterns and the development of the motives in Beethoven's 5th...


----------



## millionrainbows

BabyGiraffe said:


> Even the aborigens or the aliens that have never heard western concert music can recognize and appreciate the musical patterns and the development of the motives in Beethoven's 5th...


And even sophisticated, intelligent Westerners can recognize and appreciate "primitive" art from "alien" cultures.


----------



## fluteman

millionrainbows said:


> Sorry, but I can't agree with a "totally subjective" theory of art. Art is two-way, and there are different levels of deepness and meaning, such as Brittney and Bach.
> 
> Plus, I'm looking at purely formal factors, such as Bach having more actual musical information than Jay-Z.
> 
> Subjectivity and opinion have their place, but the internet has distorted this way out of proportion. There are still "masters" and experts. There are different 'game levels'.
> 
> I think the reason many people do not like serialism such as Wuorinen, Webern, Babbitt, and Boulez, is because they do not have the tools to deal with it in a meaningful way. I had to "develop" my listening habits, and supplement it with extra-musical knowledge, and this took work.
> 
> But first, like all music, you have to simply listen. Then, you can hope to develop some "expertise" in dealing with this music.
> 
> There are opera experts, piano experts, and all sorts of experts in the listening field. I think this is a far more attractive idea than "everything is equal and depends solely on my opinion."


Yes, millionrainbows. Art is almost always created for a particular audience of a particular time and place, and a particular cultural and educational background. And if you don't happen to be of that particular time and/or place and/or culture, yet another layer of education may be needed before that art can communicate fully and effectively with you. But it really is at least in part a matter of subjective taste as to whether one feels developing the necessary "expertise", as you put it, is worth the time and effort. Some may have more talent and ability for learning how to understand a particular form of art as well as the inclination and opportunity, and that enters into it too. Where people sometimes go off the rails is in thinking that their own lack of inclination, and/or opportunity, and/or ability to understand an art form somehow implies something about the intrinsic value of the art form. I see a lot of that at talkclassical, unfortunately. But its equally wrong to criticize those who don't want or aren't able to develop expertise, especially since the greatest art, and especially the greatest music, may require expertise to understand more fully, but also communicates on a more universal level, even to those with less expertise. That's why it survives and reaches past its own time, place and culture.


----------



## millionrainbows

fluteman said:


> Yes, millionrainbows. Art is almost always created for a particular audience of a particular time and place, and a particular cultural and educational background. And if you don't happen to be of that particular time and/or place and/or culture, yet another layer of education may be needed before that art can communicate fully and effectively with you.
> 
> But it really is at least in part a matter of subjective taste as to whether one feels developing the necessary "expertise", as you put it, is worth the time and effort.
> Some may have more talent and ability for learning how to understand a particular form of art as well as the inclination and opportunity, and that enters into it too.
> Where people sometimes go off the rails is in thinking that their own lack of inclination, and/or opportunity, and/or ability to understand an art form somehow implies something about the intrinsic value of the art form. I see a lot of that at talkclassical, unfortunately.
> 
> But its equally wrong to criticize those who don't want or aren't able to develop expertise, especially since the greatest art, and especially the greatest music, may require expertise to understand more fully, but also communicates on a more universal level, even to those with less expertise. That's why it survives and reaches past its own time, place and culture.


That's good. I'm not criticizing 'lack of expertise', but willful ignorance, and a refusal to even engage on a primary level with art that is unfamiliar or challenges our accepted conventions and expectations, and then to go to the trouble of broadcasting this publicly, to those who do like it.

Part of it is psychological: a challenge has been presented, and they (the uncomprehending haters) have failed. The reason they might think that their own lack of inclination, and/or opportunity, and/or ability to understand an art form somehow implies something about the intrinsic value of the art form is simply the result of feelings of _defeat_ and _inferiority,_ of being _"shamed"_ by the experience into thinking they are somehow stupid, and then lashing out and "projecting" these feelings of inferiority back at the work of art, and whomever is a supporter of such art. In this way, they have preserved their identity, which they felt was under attack.

But they are really not inferior, or stupid. This shows how hatred and negativity makes anyone feel worse, and makes them appear to be deficient in some way.


----------



## millionrainbows

Just look at other threads in this forum which are positive in nature and intent: "Your favorite Beethoven symphony," for example. The posting never devolve into conflict because everyone is talking about things they like. It's really as simple as that.


----------



## DaveM

millionrainbows said:


> Part of it is psychological: a challenge has been presented, and they (the uncomprehending haters) have failed. The reason they might think that their own lack of inclination, and/or opportunity, and/or ability to understand an art form somehow implies something about the intrinsic value of the art form is simply the result of feelings of _defeat_ and _inferiority,_ of being _"shamed"_ by the experience into thinking they are somehow stupid, and then lashing out and "projecting" these feelings of inferiority back at the work of art, and whomever is a supporter of such art. In this way, they have preserved their identity, which they felt was under attack.
> 
> But they are really not inferior, or stupid. This shows how hatred and negativity makes anyone feel worse, and makes them appear to be deficient in some way.


Well, a sense of hatred, negative and pure unadulterated venom is palpable in your comment above, not to mention the presumptuous armchair psychology: 'defeat', 'inferiority'', 'being shamed', 'lashing out and projecting these feelings of inferiority back at the work of art'.

I will be the first one to admit that I have had to learn -and am still learning- how to best discuss this subject in a way that is respectful and not demeaning. I can honestly say that I never meant to be disrespectful, but it is much harder to explain one's perspective and feelings without insult on a forum than it is face to face.

However, it's very much a two-way street.


----------



## millionrainbows

Well, a sense of hatred, negative and pure unadulterated venom is palpable in your comment above...

I don't see it that way. It's just human nature. I'm not going to get emotional about it. I see much _more_ venom being directed in my direction. I've remained civil and impersonal where possible, with no ad hominems being hurled as they were hurled at me.

...not to mention the presumptuous armchair psychology: 'defeat', 'inferiority'', 'being shamed', 'lashing out and projecting these feelings of inferiority back at the work of art'. 

I'm sorry you disagree, but I can "read" people pretty well, and these are just basic psychological mechanisms. You don't have to be a genius to figure this stuff out.

I will be the first one to admit that I have had to learn -and am still learning- how to best discuss this subject in a way that is respectful and not demeaning.

I'm not sure what that statement is implying or is leading up to, but I'm simply stating some basic facts. If you don't like what I am saying, please control your response, for your own sake. The fact is, I simply don't see the logic to any of these off-the-wall generalizations about what music people don't like. It's pretty meaningless, and I see much _more_ venom directed at me for saying this.

I can honestly say that I never meant to be disrespectful, but it is much harder to explain one's perspective and feelings without insult on a forum than it is face to face.

That is a good skill: restraint, which I would advise everyone here learn.


----------



## JeffD

millionrainbows said:


> I have long suspected that one of the reasons that many lovers of classical music are turned off by the contemporary _avant-garde_ of classical music is due to the fact that there are more than a few champions of such music who are truly arrogant gits good at calling others "idiots" in an indirect manner.
> 
> If someone blankly rejects "modernism" as a convenient stereotype, and then broadcasts it to people who do, then there is really no substance to their opinion.


I would agree entirely. But that is not what occurred in this thread however. I was going along minding my business liking what I like and disliking what I don't and your thread came along telling me "It doesn't make sense that you don't like modern music ". Yours was the first salvo, and it wasn't an expression of enthusiasm for your aesthetic choices it was a challenge to the rationality of my tastes.

(Well, my tastes for the sake of this discussion.)


----------



## Becca

millionrainbows said:


> That is a good skill: restraint, which I would advise everyone here learn.




There is another excellent skill which I would recommend *to everyone* when it comes to making judgments about the values, motives, likes & dislikes and understanding of others, that can be summed up by a quote from Oliver Cromwell...

_"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."_

Don't be so quick to say that you can 'read' people, attribute them with wilful ignorance, call them uncomprehending haters, refer to unadulterated venom etc., etc.


----------



## isorhythm

BabyGiraffe said:


> Even the aborigens or the aliens that have never heard western concert music can recognize and appreciate the musical patterns and the development of the motives in Beethoven's 5th...


I was only saying there's no music that everyone on earth likes - it's an uncontroversial, factual statement.


----------



## JAS

millionrainbows said:


> Just look at other threads in this forum which are positive in nature and intent: "Your favorite Beethoven symphony," for example. The posting never devolve into conflict because everyone is talking about things they like. It's really as simple as that.


No. It is because they are talking about Beethoven, and for the most part Beethoven is not controversial, or at least not controversial on a CM forum. (You might be able to stir up some controversy discussing metronome markings, but generally not so much about the music itself.)


----------



## millionrainbows

DaveM said:


> I don't think you've really thought this subject through in its entirety. It appears that you are fixating on an almost mathematical view of listening to modern music ie. the more you study it, the better you are at it. That ignores the fact that art appeals to the senses and what appeals to an individual's senses is complex and does not necessarily correlate with one's education or the amount of 'work' put into, in this case, listening to music.


No, my view does not ignore or exclude the instant, sensual aspect of any art or music, including serial music. When I first heard atonal and 12-tone Schoenberg, I immediately "liked" it enough to sustain my interest. (the word "like" seems inappropriate and shallow).

It is not a requirement that one be educated, intelligent, or smart to "get into" and understand serial music more deeply. After all, this is art, and there should be an immediate visceral response.

As I have said before, tonality is based on sensual, harmonic factors. This is why many listeners have no problem with it; it has a built-in sensual advantage, because it caters to the way our ears hear; fundamental tone on bottom, with lesser harmonics on top, all related. Consonance and dissonance are physical sensations which stimulate the eardrum. Tonality is therefore a "harmonic model" of a single fundamental note and its relations to its harmonic components.

Non-harmonic and more chromatic music does not have this built-in harmonic ubiquity, so it is "biased" in a less integrated, less unified way, in which long-term harmonic associations are largely absent, and only short-term instances of harmonic color are available; long-term continuity is attempted or achieved in other ways, through motives and lines.

By the way, no real "integrated" system of serialism has been perfected, except as by George Perle and Milton Babbitt; but even that sort unity is more difficult to perceive than tonality, since it involves the symmetry of sets, and these are things that are not immediately perceivable except in a more vague, statistical way. And these ways are not sensually based; they involve "hidden" processes like symmetry.

So it's not really possible to _fully_ understand and engage with 12-tone and serial music until one is at least "aware" the there is not going to be an immediate "sensual payoff," and that one will have to supplement the visceral with some brain-work.



DaveM said:


> It's also interesting to me that from what you say, it is much of modern/post-modern music that requires this extra work. That supports my perspective that a turning point occurred after the 19th century whereby some of the 'newer' classical music appeals to a much narrower audience because music, prior to the 20th century did not require a lot of work and education to enjoy.


That's true of any tonal and harmonic music, including 99% of all folk and ethnic musics. This stuff comes naturally. Still, it is possible to "just like sounds."



DaveM said:


> I also find it interesting that you say '_Good art will always have a universal appeal in itself_' Do you actually believe that Ferneyhough and Cage have universal appeal?


Yes, because it is "just sound" and it makes "no sense" that people should "dislike sounds" unless their mind set and expectations are getting in the way, or if it's too loud, or they're trying to sleep.


----------



## JAS

millionrainbows said:


> So it's not really possible to _fully_ understand and engage with 12-tone and serial music until one is at least "aware" the there is not going to be an immediate "sensual payoff," and that one will have to supplement the visceral with some brain-work.


I think most of us are all very well aware of this, and were aware of it long before this thread. Our problem is that even with effort and attention we find no payoff at all, at least nothing very satisfying or worth the investment. The music isn't offering what we want, and it has no right to demand that appreciate it on its own terms. It probably would not be an issue of any significance except that it insists on intruding into our world. It is a large part of why I stopped attending live concerts.


----------



## millionrainbows

JeffD said:


> I would agree entirely. But that is not what occurred in this thread however. I was going along minding my business liking what I like and disliking what I don't and your thread came along telling me "It doesn't make sense that you don't like modern music ". Yours was the first salvo, and it wasn't an expression of enthusiasm for your aesthetic choices it was a challenge to the rationality of my tastes.
> 
> (Well, my tastes for the sake of this discussion.)


Mine was not exactly the "first salvo," as this subject has a long history. My intent was to attract and address those people who _actively voice_ their dislike for modern music, serialism, etc. and who do this in a trollish, confrontational, cavalier or venomous manner on other threads. I don't see why "It doesn't make sense that you don't like modern music" should be interpreted as an "attack" or salvo, but more as an invitation to explore the reasons why we feel the way we do.

So really, you are correct in that sense; this thread is really not so much about music, but just as much about people's tastes, and why they like or dislike certain combinations of sounds.

If one's taste is well-grounded in rationality, then to question that rationality would seem to be no problem.


----------



## JAS

I think a key problem here is that no one's taste is especially well-grounded in rationality (again, beyond a certain degree of consistency). As has already been suggested, I think claims to the contrary are mostly wishful illusion. If one really thinks that one side of the debate is being rational and the other is not, it is no wonder that there cannot be a meeting of the minds.


----------



## millionrainbows

Becca said:


> ...Don't be so quick to say that you can 'read' people, attribute them with wilful ignorance, call them uncomprehending haters, refer to unadulterated venom etc., etc.


Well I hope everyone here will read that and take it to heart. If you go back carefully through this thread, you will find that a lot of "venom" was hurled at _me_ specifically (and some of it had to be removed). I think enough of it remains to serve as evidence in my defense. Also, I was stereotyping and generalizing for convenience; I did not address specific people.

I do appreciate your compassionate gesture as a "peacekeeper," but you still seem subject to the basic human need to respond to negativity and challenges. "Positive" statements do not elicit such prompt responses; apparently those are boring, and offer no "sport."


----------



## millionrainbows

JAS said:


> I think a key problem here is that no one's taste is especially well-grounded in rationality (again, beyond a certain degree of consistency).


As I said, I think "tonal" taste is more grounded in the sensual, for the reasons I have already stated. This makes it _less_ rationally based, and more sensually-based. The dialectic here is "rational vs. sensual." It requires more "rational bias" to get into serial music. And that is based on actual, formal characteristics of the music, not conjecture.



JAS said:


> As has already been suggested, I think claims to the contrary are mostly wishful illusion. If one really thinks that one side of the debate is being rational and the other is not, it is no wonder that there cannot be a meeting of the minds.


As I said, this is generally based not on what we "think" is rational, but on actual, physical factors, and "rationality vs. sensuality." How about a 'meeting of the senses?' That makes more rational sense to me.


----------



## millionrainbows

JAS said:


> I think most of us are all very well aware of this, and were aware of it long before this thread. Our problem is that even with effort and attention we find no payoff at all, at least nothing very satisfying or worth the investment. The music isn't offering what we want, and it has no right to demand that appreciate it on its own terms. It probably would not be an issue of any significance except that it insists on intruding into our world. It is a large part of why I stopped attending live concerts.


Then you truly are a harmonic sensualist listener, with strict expectations that music serve a certain systematic function, which is tonality, exclusive to all other possible functions.

I like sound itself; for no other reason than that I _like_ it. If I hear a flute playing a 12-tone row, I like it _at least_ to the degree that I like the sound of a flute. I also like percussion noises, like drums and rattles and bells.

I'm not that "in love" with tonality; in fact, it all begins to sound the same after a while. Ironically, other forum members have also felt this same way, and were drawn to ancient, pre-harmonic music from the Middle Ages and the Medieval eras.


----------



## JAS

At the risk of incurring the wrath of the moderators, I would like to pursue these thoughts a little bit more. (Surely no one can claim that the discussion is derailing the thread given its obvious intent.)

I really do think that we are having a severe word and concept problem here. First, I question the use of the word "rational" in this context, particularly in the sense of an appreciation of the music. There is certainly a pleasurable, and thus at least arguably sensual (if one insists on that term) appeal to most classical music composed along traditional lines (and I do mean to include traditional lines as far back as we can reasonably trace them, even as many of the conventions changed). The use of recognizable patterns and rules that are based on long years of experience and allow for some predictability in the product cannot reasonably be dismissed as irrational, or even non-rational (if we want to grant some kind of middle ground). It is a carefully determined system, and thus necessarily rational. There appears to be a different kind of organization behind the various forms of more modern music, one that is, apparently, less readily accessible (to use the common term). That may also be rational, but cannot be more so than for music composed in more traditional forms. Thus, both forms have a rational basis, even if the more traditional forms also have what you have preferred to call a sensual aspect. The presence of this second aspect in no way diminishes the presence of the first, even if it might necessarily limit the choices available to the composer. The absence of this second aspect from more modern music (relying somewhat on your arguments as presented) does not increase the degree of the other as they are not inherently contradictory elements.


----------



## JAS

millionrainbows said:


> Then you truly are a harmonic sensualist listener, with strict expectations that music serve a certain systematic function, which is tonality, exclusive to all other possible functions.


That may be at least close enough to true for me to agree with it. I certainly do not consider all sound to be music. I do not necessarily consider even all musical sounds to be music. I have a strong expectation that music must appeal to me on a melodic level. Is there a problem with that?



millionrainbows said:


> I'm not that "in love" with tonality; in fact, it all begins to sound the same after a while. Ironically, other forum members have also felt this same way, and were drawn to ancient, pre-harmonic music from the Middle Ages and the Medieval eras.


This is quite ironic because although I recognize distinctions between many of the various forms of modern music, examples from each of those forms pretty much sound the same to me almost immediately. I like a good deal of Medieval eras, although it is not necessarily my first choice.


----------



## 20centrfuge

People have made great points on both sides of this issue. Here's my 2 cents:

I share millionrainbows frustration. It feels like a large part of our classical-music-loving-community have closed themselves off from contemporary works. It is unhealthy for our art form. It is frustrating. BUT, on the other side, I do recognize that much of what is being written now is difficult to listen to.

I would say to the "old-school" classical music buffs: Please actively search for that which is good in what is being written now! Don't just lump all new music together as a collective blob of Boulezian-minimalist-psychotic-computer-generated-non-melodic-drivel. *Don't give up! It is a BIG MUSICAL UNIVERSE! There IS current music out there that YOU will like. You just haven't found it! It just might take some work on your part to find it. *

So, go out there and find it and then champion your young composer and his/her work! Locking yourselves in the closet of the past threatens the future health of this art form that we all love!

.....End Rant


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> Some time back the perennial modern music dispute led to a series of answers to the question: "Why don't people like the music I like?"


So you remember the perennial modern music dispute that way? I remember it as "Why do these people insist on _telling me_ that they _hate_ the music I like?" Among the answers I remember, it's because these listeners are:

- Ill at ease with themselves and seeking conflict
- Elitists and traditional specialists who believe that there is only one kind of really great music, tonal
- Whose idea of Dionysian abandon is tapping their foot
- Who disapprove of the "negro rhythms" of rock music, which might lead to unwanted pregnancies of their daughters
- Are sure that the greatest music has already been composed, and are working on their 14th set of Beethoven piano sonatas


----------



## millionrainbows

JAS said:


> At the risk of incurring the wrath of the moderators, I would like to pursue these thoughts a little bit more. (Surely no one can claim that the discussion is derailing the thread given its obvious intent.)


My intentions should not be assumed to be malicious, and there are moderators present, as I speak. They're keeping a close eye on this thread.



JAS said:


> I really do think that we are having a severe word and concept problem here. First, I question the use of the word "rational" in this context, particularly in the sense of an appreciation of the music. There is certainly a pleasurable, and thus at least arguably sensual (if one insists on that term) appeal to most classical music composed along traditional lines (and I do mean to include traditional lines as far back as we can reasonably trace them, even as many of the conventions changed).


I agree with this, so far.



JAS said:


> The use of recognizable patterns and rules that are based on long years of experience and allow for some predictability in the product cannot reasonably be dismissed as irrational, or even non-rational (if we want to grant some kind of middle ground). It is a carefully determined system, and thus necessarily rational.


You're veering off of my dialectic, which is "rational vs. sensual," not "rational vs. irrational," which is a different thing.



JAS said:


> There appears to be a different kind of organization behind the various forms of more modern music, one that is, apparently, less readily accessible (to use the common term). That may also be rational, but cannot be more so than for music composed in more traditional forms. Thus, both forms have a rational basis, even if the more traditional forms also have what you have preferred to call a sensual aspect. The presence of this second aspect in no way diminishes the presence of the first, even if it might necessarily limit the choices available to the composer. The absence of this second aspect from more modern music (relying somewhat on your arguments as presented) does not increase the degree of the other as they are not inherently contradictory elements.


The conflict, or difference, between the sensual and the rational is a valid one, and I stand fully behind this view.

Music has _always_ embodied this conflict, and there has _always_ been a dialectic between the purely sensual aspects and the 'rationality' and geometric division which crept in as chromaticism.

This is why: tonality was originally based on the _consonance_ of triads, a _sensual_ phenomenon. What is "not sensual" is that the 7-note scale became gradually replaced by the 12 notes of the chromatic scale. This is where the geometric division of the octave into 12 parts, and the ramifications of that (geometric symmetry and smaller component divisions of 3 and 4 rather than tonality's 5 and 7), became more and more prevalent.

The 12-division of the octave is _in itself_ an arbitrary thing which favors fifths (a mere 2 cents flat), not major thirds (which are a full 14 cents flat) and was derived from Pythagorean procedures of trying to derive a scale from stacking perfect 3:2 fifths and still close the octave, which is impossible, thus the "Pythagoran comma" compromise.

Music developed away from its sensual roots, and thus we have the equal-tempered scale and lots of modulations. The conflict between sensual tonality and rational "modernism" are still in conflict to this day.


----------



## JAS

millionrainbows said:


> You're veering off of my dialectic, which is "rational vs. sensual," not "rational vs. irrational," which is a different thing. The conflict, or difference, between the sensual and the rational is a valid one, and I stand fully behind this view. Music has _always_ embodied this conflict, and there has _always_ been a dialectic between the purely sensual aspects and the 'rationality' and geometric division which crept in as chromaticism.


I see no genuine conflict between what you are calling rational and sensual. None. Indeed, a large part of the sensual appeal of music demands a logical basis. Mozart is not eminently rational? Chausson is not rational? Ferneyhough is more rational simply because he cannot be bothered to write music that has sensual appeal (or is even necessarily playable)? That claim seems to me on its face to be hogwash. To me, Modern music did not so much embrace something new as throw away what made music worthwhile.


----------



## eugeneonagain

When pointing out the fact of changing music and current developments in modern music, it also has to be faced that this development is not particularly taking place in art-music anyway. Without a doubt some of the biggest developments in 20th century music took place in popular music - in jazz and rock music - not the world of classical concertos or sonatas for oscilloscopes and prepared pianos.

Jazz in particular totally eclipsed so-called serious-music in terms of variety, of novelty of invention, composition, performance developments (both tonal and non-tonal) incorporating ideas from art-music. Along with an ability to still capture a large audience of listeners. It was in fact the actual next step in music while the serialists were still groping about in the dark among the ashes of late romanticism. The melding of popular music and elements of avant-garde music and traditional instrumentation e.g. in The Beatles and later progressive rock, is just a much a legitimate heir.

The social critic Theodore Adorno (and also composer, here's one of his piano works famously thought jazz was merely a cheap mass-consumer commodity. It seems that like Schoenberg he felt that to be serious or authentic you had to make music as disagreeable as possible (since aesthetic enjoyment of music is taken to be a sign of its mediocrity for the early avant-garde). This mentality has done much harm to modern art-music's development and reception and left a bit of a residue. It was also oddly lacking in perception since for a long time jazz was always considered as tonally degenerate and 'difficult' by most conservative art-music critics.

Modern art music now even freely borrows from popular music. Steve Reich remarked that hip hop and street music is the real art-music of the moment reflecting reality. Reich is in any case both a figure of 'modern music' and also a tonal musician, so I don't know how he fares among judges of modern music.

To get anything from any art it has to speak to you in some way and the fact is a lot of modern art-music doesn't do this for a lot of people. There may well be an element of listener laziness. There are a lot of classical music listeners who are not _art-music_ fans in the sense of art as something continually under development and change or reflecting current ideas and I don't think any argument will make them want to listen to current art-music. Listening to what pleases you is fine.

In any case, in the same way that a person can read Plato's Dialogues _and_ perhaps a play by Jez Butterworth, thereby enjoying the fruits of over a thousand years of literary culture, it's also possible to enjoy Mozart _and_ cutting-edge art-music. We have the gift of being able to be eclectic.


----------



## KenOC

millionrainbows said:


> - Ill at ease with themselves and seeking conflict
> - Elitists and traditional specialists who believe that there is only one kind of really great music, tonal
> - Whose idea of Dionysian abandon is tapping their foot
> - Who disapprove of the "negro rhythms" of rock music, which might lead to unwanted pregnancies of their daughters
> - Are sure that the greatest music has already been composed, and are working on their 14th set of Beethoven piano sonatas


MR, you've convinced me! See, who says you can't win an Internet argument? I admit that people who don't like the music you like are, almost without exception, deplorables! 

BTW I've e-mailed old JS Bach to let him know his music is purely sensual, worthy of being ranked with Rimsky-Korsakoff but ill-fitted to better company. I used your name as a reference, hope you don't mind.


----------



## topo morto

millionrainbows said:


> This is why: tonality was originally based on the _consonance_ of triads, a _sensual_ phenomenon. What is "not sensual" is that the 7-note scale became gradually replaced by the 12 notes of the chromatic scale. This is where the geometric division of the octave into 12 parts, and the ramifications of that (geometric symmetry and smaller component divisions of 3 and 4 rather than tonality's 5 and 7), became more and more prevalent.


The seven-note scale already allows for some very dissonant possibilities. It is, in itself, a compromise between 'keeping things consonant' and 'allowing for some interest'. The 12-tone scale, and notably 12-TET, arguably represents simply a different set of compromises. But the interesting possibilities allowed (in each of these cases) can't be seen as non-sensual; the 12-TET scale (for example) allows harmonic possibilities, and thereby, sensual experiences that restriction to the diatonic wouldn't allow.

You could also argue that allowing the tuning compromises necessary for ET are based in certain sensual realities about the ways the ear perceives frequency ratios - they don't have to be all that exact for harmonic relationships to work. And it's a good thing too, as almost no real-world acoustic instrument can produce a genuinely periodic sound of a definite pitch.


----------



## Chronochromie

eugeneonagain said:


> It seems that like Schoenberg he (Adorno) felt that to be serious or authentic you had to make music as disagreeable as possible (since aesthetic enjoyment of music is taken to be a sign of its mediocrity for the early avant-garde).


Huh? When did Schoenberg state anything like that? I'm under the impression that he hoped, like most composers, that his music be well received by the masses.



eugeneonagain said:


> Modern art music now even freely borrows from popular music. Steve Reich remarked that hip hop and street music is the real art-music of the moment reflecting reality. Reich is in any case both a figure of 'modern music' and also a tonal musician, so I don't know how he fares among judges of modern music.


Classical borrowing from non-classical has always happened, and the other way around too.

Reich fares very well critically as far as I can tell, even on this forum he does ok while other minimalists like Glass are blasted by everyone.


----------



## Bulldog

It doesn't make sense to keep listening to music you don't enjoy. My best advice is to set that music aside and give it another shot in a few months. If that doesn't do the trick, set it aside and wait a few years to re-listen. More than likely, you'll be dead before appreciation sets in. If not, you can consider yourself a member of the intellectual elite.


----------



## Guest

It makes perfect sense that people don't like modern music.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

When I listen to music, or encounter any form of art, I have certain criteria which I apply. If it passes those criteria, I consider it to be a 'higher' or more profound work of art by comparison to those works which do not pass. This levels the playing field...

Again, this sounds like my studio partner... an old tied-in-the-wool Romantic/Modernist. Attempting to prove that the artists he liked were "great" while those he disliked failed in some way, he devised an 18-point rubric which was every bit as subjective as if he simply were to admit that he just liked something because it gave him pleasure in one way or another.

His 18-point rubric has become a running joke in the studio. Just today he was telling us about some porno film he had seen when another studio mate asked him if he had thought of applying an 18-point rubric test to porno stars. :lol::devil:


----------



## JeffD

I think I might be the guilty party who introduced the word "rational" into the discussion. I was referring to the implication of the title of the thread, loosely equating something that doesn't make sense with not being rational. I was referring to the rationality (or lack) with regard to musical taste, as opposed to the rationality of the music itself.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

If someone blankly rejects "modernism" as a convenient stereotype, and then broadcasts it to people who do, then there is really no substance to their opinion.

I have seldom come across anyone who rejects the whole of Modernism... or any other musical style for that matter. They may dislike a lot of what they have heard in a given musical form... and isn't that what the OP addressed: the notion that it makes no sense to dislike Modern music (and by extention... any other musical language)? I'm not overly fond of Hip-Hop/Rap, Heavy Metal, Chinese Opera, and Xenakis. Having listened to a good deal of music from across a broad spectrum, I feel wholly qualified to express my dislike. Perhaps if I invested a good deal more time in exploring these bodies of music that I currently dislike, I may find myself taking pleasure in them. Then again... it is quite possible/probable I will still dislike them. No matter how much I read up and study... and eat Lima Beans... I'm still not going to like them. Ultimately, my time would be better spent eating and listening to that which gives me pleasure. Pleasure itself may be quite irrational... but liking that which gives us pleaure (and disliking that which does the opposite) seems nothing but rational to me.

Generalized "opinion" does not mean much to me; it is too vague to have credibility. This applies to any music.

If someone says "I don't like Brahms' music," and they offer no reasoning, then what good is their opinion? Its says nothing about the actual music, and everything about them.

Unless one is a critic, one need not defend why one likes or dislikes something.

The music we discuss here has been composed by real composers who were, and are, professionals and 'masters' or experts at what they do. They have been recognized, recorded, and published.

And? History is full of "professional" artists... once thought of as masters... who have been in most cases deservedly forgotton. The fact that someone has been recognized, published, and recorded doesn't make them "great" artists... and doesn't mean I or anyone else are required to like them.

Whether or not someone likes or dislikes it is irrelevant in the larger scheme of things; it only serves a social, "chat" or discussion function, to entertain us. It does not affect the music at all. If the music survives, it will be for greater reasons.

Ultimately, any music... any art whatsoever... that survives, does so because it is liked... it gives pleasure in one form or another to the audience that follows a given art form.

It is assumed that Beethoven was a master at what he did. The same applies to other composers, including John Cage and Pierre Boulez.

More people... more people who follow classical music seriously... take great pleasure from Beethoven than they do from Cage or Boulez. Judging contemporary and near contemporary art has always been a crap shoot... and anyone making bets on the survival of one contemporary over another is playing a fools game. It is quite possible... more than likely even... that a lot of music you deem mere trite entertainment may survive long after Xenakis, Stockhausen, and others are long forgotten.

I am not responsible for "turning anyone off" to the avant-garde.

Arrogantly dismissing the opinions of those who don't like the music you like... or don't take the approach to music that you take... certainly doesn't do a great deal to promote your side of the debate.


----------



## Blancrocher

To hell with it, let's all just chill out and listen to some Beat Furrer.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Chronochromie said:


> Huh? When did Schoenberg state anything like that? I'm under the impression that he hoped, like most composers, that his music be well received by the masses.


I assume you are a Schoenberg fan, because this is the second time you've questioned me on such matters. Well, I also like Schoenberg's music. I'm agree he wanted people to love his music as much as he did, but he had odd ideas and suspicions about musical value and its reception. Here is a direct quote from _Style and Idea_ (I have the book open in front of me):


> 'My works were played everywhere and acclaimed in such a manner that I started to doubt the value of my music. This may seem like a joke, but of course there is some truth in it. If previously my music had been difficult to understand on account of the peculiarities of my ideas and the way in which I expressed them, how could it happen that now, all of a sudden, everyone could follow my ideas and like them? Either the music or the audience was worthless.'


This is the work just before he started 12 tone composition. He then explains how composition is some sort of duty he has for the 'future of music', like some kind of prophet whose path is chosen for him by a higher power. He says he realised that hardly anyone actually liked the music. So this appears not to be about music made for an audience or for the aesthetic pleasure of an audience. He also remarks about people temporarily liking his music as "the time when everyone made believe they understood Einstein's theories", which is a telling remark for some of today's self-appointed art audiences.


----------



## arpeggio

millionrainbows said:


> Just look at other threads in this forum which are positive in nature and intent: "Your favorite Beethoven symphony," for example. The posting never devolve into conflict because everyone is talking about things they like. It's really as simple as that.


Very good point :tiphat:


----------



## DaveM

JAS said:


> No. It is because they are talking about Beethoven, and for the most part Beethoven is not controversial, or at least not controversial on a CM forum. (You might be able to stir up some controversy discussing metronome markings, but generally not so much about the music itself.)


Very good point :tiphat:


----------



## Chronochromie

DaveM said:


> Very good point :tiphat:


The Grosse Fugue has been known to cause controversy still. Oh, Beethoven, you rascal...


----------



## KenOC

Chronochromie said:


> The Grosse Fugue has been known to cause controversy still. Oh, Beethoven, you rascal...


Sadly, the Grosse Fuge is now totally respectable. I believe it's even heard occasionally as elevator music, or in commercials for upscale motor cars...


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> That's right; It doesn't make sense that you don't like modern music. It's just sound, and in many cases, beautiful, harmonic sound, and also discreet pitches and linear elements which are fascinating. It has moments of harmonic 'happenings' and single, isolated, beautiful pitches.
> 
> What is wrong is your expectations. The music itself is usually made from the same pitches as all music. How can we rationally accept that you "don't like it" when it's made of the same stuff, usually, as Beethoven?


Did anyone ask who the 'you' is that you are addressing?


----------



## Nereffid

millionrainbows said:


> Just look at other threads in this forum which are positive in nature and intent: "Your favorite Beethoven symphony," for example. The posting never devolve into conflict because everyone is talking about things they like. It's really as simple as that.


The "21st Century Classical" thread's another good example.
http://www.talkclassical.com/47037-21st-century-classical.html

Or am I missing your point?


----------



## Barbebleu

millionrainbows said:


> When I listen to music, or encounter any form of art, I have certain criteria which I apply. If it passes those criteria, I consider it to be a 'higher' or more profound work of art by comparison to those works which do not pass.


I'm curious to know what criteria you apply. I would assume that they are purely objective. Otherwise it would be deemed possible to just dislike something on the grounds that it doesn't do anything for you personally.


----------



## JAS

Chronochromie said:


> The Grosse Fugue has been known to cause controversy still. Oh, Beethoven, you rascal...


Hence "for the most part." The Grosse Fugue is almost never brought up except by fans of modern music seeking a historical instance to lend credibility, or just to "get the goat" of modern music non-fans. Outside of such matters, the closest one usually gets to a heated argument in Beethoven threads is weighing specific performances or interpretations. More modern music, stylistically speaking, is inherently controversial because much of it is based on a premise that basically dismisses earlier forms. (For example, the absurd idea that more overtly appealing, or sensual if we must, music is somehow less intellectual, or rational, in nature.) There is no way to make such a conjecture without sticking ones thumb in the eye of those who prefer the earlier forms. To ask us to endure that thumb, and stay absolutely quiet is equally absurd.


----------



## Petwhac

Barbebleu said:


> I'm curious to know what criteria you apply. I would assume that they are purely objective. Otherwise it would be deemed possible to just dislike something on the grounds that it doesn't do anything for you personally.


Although your comment was directed at millionrainbows's post, I'd say there are no truly objective criteria. We just try to rationalise or even justify our response to different music. 
As far as I'm concerned, there is only one thing we have to do in order to validate our opinions of composer X or piece X. That is, to be familiar with it. To have listened attentively numerous times and give the music a chance to work it's magic, if it ever does. It's not about education, intelligence or listening differently, it's just about listening.

The casual pop music lover may find Wagner or Debussy excruciatingly boring on first hearing. But with repeated listening the music may grow more attractive as it becomes more familiar.

However, just as millionrainbows makes generalisations regarding Rap or Pop, people are going to do the same for contemporary classical. It's not so much a case of knowing what you're going to get but knowing what you're _not going to get_.


----------



## Barbebleu

Petwhac said:


> Although your comment was directed at millionrainbows's post, I'd say there are no truly objective criteria. We just try to rationalise or even justify our response to different music.
> As far as I'm concerned, there is only one thing we have to do in order to validate our opinions of composer X or piece X. That is, to be familiar with it. To have listened attentively numerous times and give the music a chance to work it's magic, if it ever does. It's not about education, intelligence or listening differently, it's just about listening.
> 
> The casual pop music lover may find Wagner or Debussy excruciatingly boring on first hearing. But with repeated listening the music may grow more attractive as it becomes more familiar.
> 
> However, just as millionrainbows makes generalisations regarding Rap or Pop, people are going to do the same for contemporary classical. It's not so much a case of knowing what you're going to get but knowing what you're _not going to get_.


But at what point do you stop listening? After 100 hours, 200 hours, 1year, 5 years. You said it yourself, give it a chance to work its magic, if it ever does, but it may never do.


----------



## Strange Magic

*"It doesn't make sense that you don't like modern music."*

If only millionrainbows had posted that it didn't make sense _to him alone, personally,_ then we would not be having the thread we're having. But, being the Universal Human that he is, mr assumed/assumes that whatever he experiences or believes as the Right and the Good either is or must be thought Right and Good by everyone else. For me alone , personally, this thread has nothing to do with modern music. It has everything to do with the breezy assertion of the premise that You--everyone out there who isn't mr and who doesn't like whatever mr defines as Modern Music (whenever that was supposed to occur)--Must Like What He Likes (Or Else)! This is a hackle-raiser for me and maybe for others; there may even be a whiff of the troll in the wording of the post's title. If millionrainbows is troubled by others not liking exactly what he likes and not having what he believes is a Good Reason for not liking it, therapy might help him deal with this issue . Amen.


----------



## Petwhac

Barbebleu said:


> But at what point do you stop listening? After 100 hours, 200 hours, 1year, 5 years. You said it yourself, give it a chance to work its magic, if it ever does, but it may never do.


That's the 64 thousand dollar question! Everyone has their own limit, I suppose it's a personal thing (as always). You have to *want* to get to like some music. And then, even though you try, you may never come to enjoy it at all.

I'm sure most of us have given up on a novel that's too hard going and too little rewarding even though it may be admired and respected by others. If you get half way through, you've given it a fair shot and can validly say "it's not for me because...." but if you've only read the first few pages then your opinion will be considered dismissive. You don't have to be an expert in literature or a scholar or a professional writer to have an opinion as long as it's backed up by acquaintance.

I don't see why I should be expected to listen differently or read differently or watch differently unless I can quite quickly see the potential for a rewarding, pleasurable experience.

There is no correct opinion even among the most informed. Stravinsky and Maxwell Davies were both very critical of Ives. Stravinsky more or less called him a charlatan and Maxwell Davies more diplomatically just said he didn't 'get' Ives. When someone with the modernist, technical and scholarly credentials as Maxwell Davies says that, it's tantamount to saying Ives is crap. Others champion Ives. Who's right? Everyone.

It's quite impossible to explain in words what is great about Bach, Babbit or Brittney, except in vague generalisations. If you don't hear it, you don't hear it.


----------



## JeffD

millionrainbows said:


> When I listen to music, or encounter any form of art, I have certain criteria which I apply. If it passes those criteria, I consider it to be a 'higher' or more profound work of art by comparison to those works which do not pass. This levels the playing field: if something is good, if it is a true and sincere expression of the human soul, or has other redeeming characteristics, it is "fine art" to me, whether it is a Bob Dylan song, Son House, Merle Haggard, or Beethoven.


So if some talented composer, very adept, very historically informed, were to go about rationally crafting music that avoided "sincere expressions of the human soul", and went for mathematical precision, or played with contrasting tone qualities or non repeating rhythmic experiments, whatever, no matter how good or how well executed, you could not consider that person's work to be high art or good art?

I have a friend of mine, a farmer, who loves pastoral paintings. One of his "criteria" is how accurate the portrayal of the livestock. Would sheet clump up like that, would cows face into the sun like that. Should we applaud him for at least having a criteria?

The more I think about it, the more unfathomable this topic becomes, and the best I can hope to do is respect the complexity of the human heart.


----------



## Barbebleu

Petwhac said:


> It's quite impossible to explain in words what is great about Bach, Babbit or Brittney, except in vague generalisations. If you don't hear it, you don't hear it.


MR doesn't see it like that. His criteria principle rejects this simplistic way of thinking because you're just not trying hard enough. His OP stated that it's all just sound but I much prefer what Mahler does with those sounds than say, Stockhausen, but that doesn't mean I am right. It's what I hear or don't hear and really that's all that matters. I look forward to reading MRs non subjective criteria for raising Beethoven above Britney in the pantheon of musicians!


----------



## Petwhac

Barbebleu said:


> MR doesn't see it like that. His criteria principle rejects this simplistic way of thinking because you're just not trying hard enough. His OP stated that it's all just sound but I much prefer what Mahler does with those sounds than say, Stockhausen, but that doesn't mean I am right. It's what I hear or don't hear and really that's all that matters. I look forward to reading MRs non subjective criteria for raising Beethoven above Britney in the pantheon of musicians!


But we all have our own personal criteria. I find I might easily become bored as quickly with a Tippet piano sonata as with some Dub-Step track or some Baroque trio sonata or some Steve Reich.

It's not really fair to compare Beethoven with Ms Spears as the latter is more of a performer/singer than a composer (don't know if she even writes). But as a listening experience, a well produced pop record can have many layers of sonic complexity and subtlety even if the basic musical material is limited to a couple of chords. I'll concede that more complex, larger scale works may invite prolonged engagement and that one can grow bored if one has digested all that's in a piece after a few listenings. But only if what's in the piece doesn't resonate. Even the most simple music can delight time after time, it's entirely subjective. I'll probably never grow bored of Mark Morrison's 'Return Of The Mack' but I'm bored listening to Klavierstuck X within a few minutes.

In the end, familiarity is an aid to 'understanding' or 'getting' different music but there's a law of diminishing returns. You can become ever more familiar with something and find that your response never exceeds the level of indifference.


----------



## isorhythm

millionrainbows, I always enjoy your music-theoretical and philosophical musings, so I hope you won't take what I'm about to say as a criticism.

One thing I (and others) have noted in the past is that the modern vs. traditionalist "war" is one-sided: people who don't like modern music constantly feel the need to attack it, while modern music fans just want to be left alone to enjoy our music.

I still think this is _generally_ true, but lately there is a big exception, which is you. You have really been going on the attack on behalf of modern music, and I'm wondering what is motivating you. I understand the impulse to share music you love with others, who may not always be immediately receptive, but do you think this is the best way to do it? Could it ever change anyone's mind?


----------



## millionrainbows

JAS said:


> I see no genuine conflict between what you are calling rational and sensual. None. Indeed, a large part of the sensual appeal of music demands a logical basis. Mozart is not eminently rational? Chausson is not rational? Ferneyhough is more rational simply because he cannot be bothered to write music that has sensual appeal (or is even necessarily playable)? That claim seems to me on its face to be hogwash. To me, Modern music did not so much embrace something new as throw away what made music worthwhile.


You're sort of using my analogy backwards. Mozart and Chausson wrote tonal music, so there is a built-in sensual component to his music which makes it more naturally accessible to the human ear: tonality.

This next example is unclear, because Ferneyhough is what I call a postmodernist. Ferneyhough's music, if you've ever looked at a score, is extremely complexly notated. That's rational, but he twists it to serve his own agenda, using the "unplayability" of it as part of a random element which he desires.

Simply put, all I'm saying is that tonality is more naturally accessible because it is based on sensual harmonic principles. Modernism is interested in things like symmetry, which is based on the geometry of 12-note chromaticism.


----------



## Guest

isorhythm said:


> millionrainbows, I always enjoy your music-theoretical and philosophical musings, so I hope you won't take what I'm about to say as a criticism.
> 
> One thing I (and others) have noted in the past is that the modern vs. traditionalist "war" is one-sided: people who don't like modern music constantly feel the need to attack it, while modern music fans just want to be left alone to enjoy our music.
> 
> I still think this is _generally_ true, but lately there is a big exception, which is you. You have really been going on the attack on behalf of modern music, and I'm wondering what is motivating you. I understand the impulse to share music you love with others, who may not always be immediately receptive, but do you think this is the best way to do it? Could it ever change anyone's mind?


I agree with every word here.


----------



## Petwhac

millionrainbows said:


> You're sort of using my analogy backwards. Mozart and Chausson wrote tonal music, so there is a built-in sensual component to his music which makes it more naturally accessible to the human ear: tonality.
> 
> This next example is unclear, because Ferneyhough is what I call a postmodernist. Ferneyhough's music, if you've ever looked at a score, is extremely complexly notated. That's rational, but he twists it to serve his own agenda, using the "unplayability" of it as part of a random element which he desires.
> 
> Simply put, all I'm saying is that tonality is more naturally accessible because it is based on sensual harmonic principles. Modernism is interested in things like symmetry, which is based on the geometry of 12-note chromaticism.


But modernism includes Tristan Mural's Winter Fragments or Stockhausen's Gruppen, what music is based more on the sensual than those? In my view, tonal music is less about sensual things and more about story telling. Unless you are using the term in a different way.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

millionrainbows said:


> You're sort of using my analogy backwards. Mozart and Chausson wrote tonal music, so there is a built-in sensual component to his music which makes it more naturally accessible to the human ear: tonality.
> 
> This next example is unclear, because Ferneyhough is what I call a postmodernist. Ferneyhough's music, if you've ever looked at a score, is extremely complexly notated. That's rational, but he twists it to serve his own agenda, using the "unplayability" of it as part of a random element which he desires.
> 
> Simply put, all I'm saying is that tonality is more naturally accessible because it is based on sensual harmonic principles. Modernism is interested in things like symmetry, which is based on the geometry of 12-note chromaticism.


There is plenty of symmetry in the tonal systems - they are based on ratios pulled from the harmonic series. It's not hard to find different mathematical principles in the traditional tonal music.
The problem with most of the "avantgarde" composers is that they use the symmetry to confuse the listeners all the time, instead of using these techniques to add interest.
Too confusing = boring, too predictable = boring. Balanced = interesting.
Also, using compositional system that doesn't translate to any cognition doesn't help.
When you need relative pitch (or even better - perfect pitch) and detailed program notes and explanaition on the intentions of the composers to understand what is going on, well things aren't going to be popular.


----------



## millionrainbows

topo morto said:


> The seven-note scale already allows for some very dissonant possibilities. It is, in itself, a compromise between 'keeping things consonant' and 'allowing for some interest'.


That's true. The major scale (C-D-E-F-G-A-B) has a built-in dissonance. C-D-E-F, with E seen as a "leading tone" to F, actually leads us _away_ from C tonic to F (encouraging travel to other keys). G-A-B-C _does_ reinforce C as root, with leading tone B.

George Russell, the jazz composer, extrapolated from this that the lydian scale was actually _more stable and tonal:_ F-G-A-B-C-D-E.

F-G-A-B "leads" us more naturally to C, which is the fifth scale degree, and then C-D-E-F brings us firmly back to F, the tonic.
This is based on the observation that any fifth (F-C) is heard as "root on bottom" (F), and any fourth (C-F) is heard as "root on top" (also F). Simple and effective, and based on harmonic principles.



topo morto said:


> The 12-tone scale, and notably 12-TET, arguably represents simply a different set of compromises. But the interesting possibilities allowed (in each of these cases) can't be seen as non-sensual; the 12-TET scale (for example) allows harmonic possibilities, and thereby, sensual experiences that restriction to the diatonic wouldn't allow.


I disagree with this. "12-ness" itself is arbitrary, and is based on only one interval, the fifth.

The "sensual" numbers in ET (intervals in half-steps) are therefore 7 (fifth) and its inversion, 5 (fourth) (forget about the major third). Fifths and fourths are sensual, tonal intervals. These are not factors of 12, because 7x12=84, and 5x12=60.

All the other intervals _are_ factors of 12: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6. These are geometric in nature: minor second, major second, minor third, major third, and tritone.



topo morto said:


> You could also argue that allowing the tuning compromises necessary for ET are based in certain sensual realities about the ways the ear perceives frequency ratios - they don't have to be all that exact for harmonic relationships to work.


True, the 12-note division, and the means of deriving it, never were _perfect,_ but an approximation, a compromise of 2 cents per fifth. 12-note ET _favors _the fifth, because that is what it is based on: the attempt at cycling of perfect 3:2 fifths, stopping at 12 to close the octave (with a comma). All the mean-tone tuning systems which keyboardists struggled with are the result of dissatisfaction with the major thirds produced by the 12-ness, and in ET these are a full 14 cents flat.

The only thing "sensual" about ET is its bias towards the fifth, which does, admittedly, give triads stability.

And also recognize that all this modulation you are celebrating works _only_ because of the stable fifth.


----------



## millionrainbows

Bulldog said:


> It doesn't make sense to keep listening to music you don't enjoy. My best advice is to set that music aside and give it another shot in a few months. If that doesn't do the trick, set it aside and wait a few years to re-listen. More than likely, you'll be dead before appreciation sets in. If not, you can consider yourself a member of the intellectual elite.


_"Music you don't enjoy?"_ Why not see it as _"music that remains a mystery to me?"_ 
You suspend your judgement, because the music isn't really all that 'ugly', it's just _incomprehensible_ to me: a _mystery_ as of now.

Do you really only "enjoy" or "like" music that you _totally_ comprehend? Not me; I like a "mystery" factor in my music.


----------



## millionrainbows

nathanb said:


> It makes perfect sense that people don't like modern music.


Not to me. I think their reasons are irrational, based on erroneous subjective factors.


----------



## Star

Of course it makes sense I don't like certain kinds of music - modern or otherwise. We are creatures with differing tastes. F someone wants to listen to what passes for music then good luck to them. Just isn't my taste.


----------



## millionrainbows

StlukesguildOhio said:


> When I listen to music, or encounter any form of art, I have certain criteria which I apply. If it passes those criteria, I consider it to be a 'higher' or more profound work of art by comparison to those works which do not pass. This levels the playing field...
> 
> Again, this sounds like my studio partner... an old tied-in-the-wool Romantic/Modernist. Attempting to prove that the artists he liked were "great" while those he disliked failed in some way, he devised an 18-point rubric which was every bit as subjective as if he simply were to admit that he just liked something because it gave him pleasure in one way or another.
> 
> His 18-point rubric has become a running joke in the studio. Just today he was telling us about some porno film he had seen when another studio mate asked him if he had thought of applying an 18-point rubric test to porno stars.


So you're saying that he should like Brittney Spears as much as he likes Beethoven. :lol: She's more "porno," for sure.


----------



## Bulldog

millionrainbows said:


> _"Music you don't enjoy?"_ Why not see it as _"music that remains a mystery to me?"_
> You suspend your judgement, because the music isn't really all that 'ugly', it's just _incomprehensible_ to me: a _mystery_ as of now.
> 
> Do you really only "enjoy" or "like" music that you _totally_ comprehend? Not me; I like a "mystery" factor in my music.


You're making left-field assumptions about me. Also, I have no idea why you like to complicate matters. Music you are not enjoying is just that. I dislike plenty of music that I fully understand. You can keep calling it a "mystery" factor; I'll just keep calling it "crap" to myself.

As a point of reference, I grew up in a highly intellectual household and hated that aspect of my upbringing. As I matured, I became a regular person, one of the masses that you detest and mock. I just happen to love classical music; the other high art categories hold no interest. So, you and I are about as opposite as can be; I trust we both like it that way.


----------



## fluteman

Aggggh. Art is a language, a method of communication. Like all languages, there is always a rational, logical organizational system behind it. But aesthetic beauty, desirability, power, and so forth, are never solely a product of rationality or logic. (I'd say "almost never", but as my mathematics professors might say, "Give a counterexample!") There is always a strong subjective element, tied to the time, place, cultural, social and economic background of the audience, and particular circumstances unique to any particular beholder. That's why it can never be right to say, "It makes no sense you don't like [insert art genre here]". With art and aesthetics generally, it is never wholly and solely an issue of logic or intellect. And that very much applies to any form of "modern" music, including music that abandons the principles of conventional western harmony.


----------



## millionrainbows

I have seldom come across anyone who rejects the whole of Modernism... or any other musical style for that matter. 

That's because, usually they are unable to articulate "serialism" from other types of "modernism." If they could, though, they would single-out "non-harmonically derived music" like serialism for dislike. But even their grandmother likes Debussy's _Claire de Lune._

They may dislike a lot of what they have heard in a given musical form... and isn't that what the OP addressed: the notion that it makes no sense to dislike Modern music (and by extention... any other musical language)? I'm not overly fond of Hip-Hop/Rap, Heavy Metal, Chinese Opera, and Xenakis. Having listened to a good deal of music from across a broad spectrum, I feel wholly qualified to express my dislike.

But surely you would not go onto a serious hip-hop site and broadcast your dislike of hip-hop, and expect the "experts" and aficionados there to take your "opinion" seriously.

Perhaps if I invested a good deal more time in exploring these bodies of music that I currently dislike, I may find myself taking pleasure in them. Then again... it is quite possible/probable I will still dislike them. No matter how much I read up and study... and eat Lima Beans... I'm still not going to like them. Ultimately, my time would be better spent eating and listening to that which gives me pleasure. Pleasure itself may be quite irrational... but liking that which gives us pleaure (and disliking that which does the opposite) seems nothing but rational to me. 

But a "discussion" of lima beans with "lima bean lovers and experts" is another thing. Your pleasure or displeasure is irrelevant in such an environment.

Also, you have to be more objective: having logical, realistic criteria allows you to "respect" other genres, and avoid making absurd comparisons. Knowing that Brittney Spears and other pop music serves as much _social identity functio_n as anything allows you to "let it exist" for those 15-year-olds who wish to consume it, without having to bother to "dislike it" or "dismiss" it. This allows you to "think positively."

You therefore do not "need" to "dislike" any music on the grounds that it doesn't do anything for you personally; that would be illogical, wouldn't it? Illogical because it ignores the intended use and purpose of the music. The world doesn't revolve around my taste, after all.

I'm not saying that you can not "dislike" some music, but you have to put this dislike into the proper perspective in the larger scheme of things.

Unless one is a critic, one need not defend why one likes or dislikes something.

Well, critics have to be responsible. We should be more like them.

Unless it's a discussion about something in which the expression of "dislike" is considered an irrelevant distraction, then "dislike" is put into a proper perspective.

History is full of "professional" artists... once thought of as masters... who have been in most cases deservedly forgotton. The fact that someone has been recognized, published, and recorded doesn't make them "great" artists... and doesn't mean I or anyone else are required to like them. 

That doesn't mean that random opinions on the internet should be taken seriously. Artist's credentials give them more credibility than that.

Ultimately, any music... any art whatsoever... that survives, does so because it is liked... it gives pleasure in one form or another to the audience that follows a given art form. 

A work of art or music can survive because it is "recognized" as being pivotal, or for breaking new ground. To say "like" is such a shallow, inadequate term. It also verges on turning real art into mere "titillation" or entertainment.


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> Did anyone ask who the 'you' is that you are addressing?


Yes, it's YOU, Joe Public. :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

Barbebleu said:


> I'm curious to know what criteria you apply. I would assume that they are purely objective. Otherwise it would be deemed possible to just dislike something on the grounds that it doesn't do anything for you personally.


Well, they are approached objectively, and are "objective" in their being "logical" and taking in to account the purpose and intended use of the music (or art).

First, you have to have criteria which suit your own personal goals and desires for that particular "use" of music; I can "use" music in different ways.

For example, if I want "pure musical idea," I go to classical and contemporary. It is usually notated, and contains more "musical info" per square inch than pop music.

Then again, good jazz can also serve that need for "musical idea". Or good rock.

I can put on "ambient" music by Brian Eno when I want to read or think, or chill out;

"Sound itself" can be a criteria: do I want to hear flutes or pianos?

If you are informed as to the intended "purpose" of the music, you can go to it with reasonable expectations: doo *** music of the 1950s is going to stay within certain parameters. On the other hand, don't assume too much: sometimes "gems" can be found in ostensibly "consumer" genres like pop, which transcend the original boundaries of what "pop" music is supposed to be: The Beatles' "I Am the Walrus" is a good example.

Also, having logical, realistic criteria allows you to "respect" other genres, and avoid making absurd comparisons. Knowing that Brittney Spears and other pop music serves as much _social identity functio_n as anything allows you to "let it exist" for those 15-year-olds who wish to consume it, without having to bother to "dislike it" or "dismiss" it. This allows you to "think positively."

You therefore do not "need" to "dislike" any music on the grounds that it doesn't do anything for you personally; that would be illogical, wouldn't it? Illogical because it ignores the intended use and purpose of the music. The world doesn't revolve around my taste, after all.


----------



## millionrainbows

JAS said:


> ...the absurd idea that more overtly appealing, or sensual if we must, music is somehow less intellectual, or rational, in nature...There is no way to make such a conjecture without sticking ones thumb in the eye of those who prefer the earlier forms. To ask us to endure that thumb, and stay absolutely quiet is equally absurd.


I'm sorry, I thought tonalists would _like_ the argument that their music is more based on sensual, beautiful aspects of sound, rather than dry, scientific rationality. :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

Petwhac said:


> Although your comment was directed at millionrainbows's post, I'd say there are no truly objective criteria. We just try to rationalise or even justify our response to different music.


Well, I think a more considerate, "objective" approach to our tastes in music is more "logical" and works out better for everyone. This means putting our own "dislikes" into the proper perspective, and not let them dictate how we interact in foreign or diverse musical environments in which we have no vested interest.



Petwhac said:


> s far as I'm concerned, there is only one thing we have to do in order to validate our opinions of composer X or piece X. That is, to be familiar with it. To have listened attentively numerous times and give the music a chance to work it's magic, if it ever does. It's not about education, intelligence or listening differently, it's just about listening.


That's a healthy approach, but it applies to validating your own opinion, which is not enough. The "validation" is really not the important thing; it's how we put that validation, or qualified dislike into perspective, and what criteria that is based on.

For example, you could carefully study Brittney Spears until you understood all of its musical aspects, but this is not enough. You also have to understand and acknowledge the intended use of the music. Brittney Spears' music serves a social identity function for 15 year olds, and that is largely its intended utility. Until you understand that, and stop basing your "dislike" on the wrong factors, then you do not really "need" to be an expert or go to the trouble of "disliking" it. You can be more objective, and simply leave that music to serve its purpose for those people it was intended for.



Petwhac said:


> However, just as millionrainbows makes generalisations regarding Rap or Pop, people are going to do the same for contemporary classical. It's not so much a case of knowing what you're going to get but knowing what you're _not going to get_.


I agree.


----------



## JAS

There is a lot of talk about rational and logical analysis, and the idea seemed interesting until I came to realize that your principles and criteria and your argument are neither rational nor logical. You need to do a good deal more work on it before you offer it in public.


----------



## millionrainbows

Barbebleu said:


> But at what point do you stop listening? After 100 hours, 200 hours, 1year, 5 years. You said it yourself, give it a chance to work its magic, if it ever does, but it may never do.


At some point, you should recognize that this music is not for you, and walk away from it silently, without uttering a word of contempt. And from now on, don't let anybody tell you what you "should" listen to, especially me. :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

*"It doesn't make sense that you like modern music."*

"If only those critical anti-modernists had _not_ posted that modern music didn't make sense _to them alone, personally,_ regardless of those who _do _like it, then we would not be having the thread we're having.

But, being the Universal Humans that they are, these modernist nay-sayers assume that whatever they experience or believe is Bad Music either _is _or _must be_ thought to be Bad by everyone else who dislikes "that" music.

For them alone, personally, this thread has nothing to do with modern music. It has everything to do with the breezy assertion of the premise that my opinion -- and anyone who dislikes what "I" define as Bad Music -- Must Hate What I Hate (Or Else)!

This is a hackle-raiser for me and maybe for others; there may even be a whiff of the troll in the wording of the post's title _(one good troll deserves another - ed.)_ If these music-haters are troubled by others liking this music, and voicing that love of exactly what they like, and having what they believe is a Good Reason for liking it, anger-management therapy might help them deal with this issue. Shalom."


----------



## DaveM

I evaluate my perspective on any category of music, modern or otherwise based on a) my personal individual response to it and b) as objective information as possible of what public acceptance of it is.

My personal individual response is my own business and nobody else's. I find it presumptuous and an insult when someone infers that I need to educate myself and 'do the work' and if I do so correctly, I will come to like and appreciate such and such music. Well, no thank you. I've been around the block when it comes to listening to music. I know what music attracts me and what music repels me.

As for objective information of public acceptance, I try to keep my personal views out of it as much as possible. That a number of modern composers have strong followings is a fact. That even some of the more 'extreme' modern composers such as Ferneyhough and Cage have a following is a fact.

But then the question in my mind is whether the audience for these works is large enough to sustain a healthy interest in classical music going forward without the foundation of pre-20th century music. I don't think it is. There are so many categories broadly starting from 'tonal' to 'close to tonal' all the way to 'totally bizarre'. 

In my area of Southern California where there are several orchestras, large and small, relatively few concerts have a program of totally 'modern' music. Almost always, a modern work is sandwiched into a program of traditional tonal works, in many cases, so that the audience shows up and, hopefully, doesn't walk out. I take note of the relatively many works that are commissioned by the Los Angeles Philharmonic. I never see nor hear of them again.

None of the above infers that modern music has little or no value and is likely to disappear. All I'm saying is that it appears to me that if this situation continues, classical music in the foreseeable future is not going to be anything more than the niche that it is today. There just isn't enough that is accessible to the general public to bring in fresh blood and larger audiences.


----------



## millionrainbows

_When I listen to music, or encounter any form of art, I have certain criteria which I apply. If it passes those criteria, I consider it to be a 'higher' or more profound work of art by comparison to those works which do not pass. This levels the playing field: if something is good, if it is a true and sincere expression of the human soul, or has other redeeming characteristics, it is "fine art" to me, whether it is a Bob Dylan song, Son House, Merle Haggard, or Beethoven._



JeffD said:


> So if some talented composer, very adept, very historically informed, were to go about rationally crafting music that avoided "sincere expressions of the human soul", and went for mathematical precision, or played with contrasting tone qualities or non repeating rhythmic experiments, whatever, no matter how good or how well executed, you could not consider that person's work to be high art or good art?


Yes, I would consider that as good art. Infact, John Cage has already done this, and Boulez in his "Structures". "Expression of the Human Soul" is not my only, exclusive criteria.



JeffD said:


> I have a friend of mine, a farmer, who loves pastoral paintings. One of his "criteria" is how accurate the portrayal of the livestock. Would sheet clump up like that, would cows face into the sun like that. Should we applaud him for at least having a criteria?


Yes, but more importantly, we should applaud him because he is going for what he likes, and what satisfies his own criteria, as long as he doesn't use that to "dislike" or put-down other art. The problems begin when we place our own personal criteria - "likes" or "dislikes" - into an unrealistic or absurd perspective, and allow them to cause us to ignore the more 'objective', basic, practical criteria, such as: different musics have different functions and purposes. It is absurd to compare Lynnrd Skynnrd with Wagner, for example, unless you clearly define the criteria for making such a comparison. To simply say "Lynnrd Skynnrd is better than Wagner" is not enough.



JeffD said:


> The more I think about it, the more unfathomable this topic becomes, and the best I can hope to do is respect the complexity of the human heart.


That's a very nice thing to say.


----------



## Chronochromie

DaveM said:


> In my area of Southern California where there are several orchestras, large and small, relatively few concerts have a program of totally 'modern' music. Almost always, a modern work is sandwiched into a program of traditional tonal works, in many cases, so that the audience shows up and, hopefully, doesn't walk out. I take note of the relatively many works that are commissioned by the Los Angeles Philharmonic. I never see nor hear of them again.
> 
> None of the above infers that modern music has little or no value and is likely to disappear. All I'm saying is that it appears to me that if this situation continues, classical music in the foreseeable future is not going to be anything more than the niche that it is today. There just isn't enough that is accessible to the general public to bring in fresh blood and larger audiences.


The vast majority of compositions of any era are forgettable and mediocre. Not saying that that is the reason for those works to disappear after their premiere, who can know that, but it's something to consider.

But the obvious middle ground is that composers don't purposefully alienate audiences and don't pander to them either. And I like to think that most living composers do just that, hopeful that many will like them yet not compromising their vision.
If classical keeps being a niche interest because of that I think that's perfectly fine. As for contemporary classical that appeals to a wider audience than usual we'll always have well-respected composers like John Adams and Arvo Pärt and even pop classical like Whitacre and Einaudi, if we want to go to those who are _really_ popular.

Edit: Fixed, thanks to DaveM


----------



## millionrainbows

Bulldog said:


> ...Music you are not enjoying is just that. I dislike plenty of music that I fully understand. You can keep calling it a "mystery" factor; I'll just keep calling it "crap" to myself.


Oh, I assumed you were talking about music that was incomprehensible to you because it presented a challenge.

If you think the music is "crap," then you should also recognize why that is, and recognize the criteria you are using, and determine if your dislike is relevant or not in the context of that music's intended function or purpose.

For example, if you don't like Heavy Metal music, which is intended for adolescents, then your recognition of this music's utility and purpose should be enough to put your "dislike" into a more realistic, socially objective perspective, without your having to go onto a Metal Music forum and broadcast your dislike of the genre.



JeffD said:


> As a point of reference, I grew up in a highly intellectual household and hated that aspect of my upbringing. As I matured, I became a regular person, one of the masses that you detest and mock.


You really should try some Lynnrd Skynnrd; the first album is the best.





JeffD said:


> I just happen to love classical music; the other high art categories hold no interest. So, you and I are about as opposite as can be; I trust we both like it that way.


I happy.


----------



## millionrainbows

JAS said:


> There is a lot of talk about rational and logical analysis, and the idea seemed interesting until I came to realize that your principles and criteria and your argument are neither rational nor logical. You need to do a good deal more work on it before you offer it in public.


Boy, you really hurt my feelings bad.


----------



## DaveM

Chronochromie said:


> The vast majority of compositions of any era are forgettable and mediocre. Not saying that that is the reason for those works to disappear after their premiere, who can know that, but it's something to consider.
> 
> But the obvious middle ground is that composers don't purposefully alienate audiences and don't pander to them either. And I like to think that most living composers do just that, hopeful that many will like them yet not compromising their vision.
> If classical keeps being a niche interest because of that I think that's perfectly fine. As for contemporary classical that appeals to a wider audience than usual we'll always have well-respected composers like John Adams and Arvo Pärt and even pop classical like Whitacre and Einaudi, if we want to go to those who are _really_ popular.


Since I don't want to saddle JAS with the responsibility for my output, that was my quote you were responding to.


----------



## Chronochromie

DaveM said:


> Since I don't want to saddle JAS with the responsibility for my output, that was my quote you were responding to.


Wait whaaat? Oh...Now where did I put my response to JAS's post?


----------



## Petwhac

millionrainbows said:


> For example, you could carefully study Brittney Spears until you understood all of its musical aspects, but this is not enough. You also have to understand and acknowledge the intended use of the music. Brittney Spears' music serves a social identity function for 15 year olds, and that is largely its intended utility. Until you understand that, and stop basing your "dislike" on the wrong factors, then you do not really "need" to be an expert or go to the trouble of "disliking" it. You can be more objective, and simply leave that music to serve its purpose for those people it was intended for.


Mmmm, I think you are making assumptions about intent that could apply to any music you choose. The team that is behind a Britney Spears record, writers, producers, the singer herself, would doubtless be aiming for as wide an appeal as possible whether or not the majority of the people who listen to it represent a certain demographic.

Similarly, I'm certain that Brian Ferneyhough like most post war classical composers would love to make a living purely from mechanical or performance royalties and commissions. To be able to compose full time without having to lecture in conservatoires or colleges. For whom is Ferneyhoughs music intended? Fellow academics, scholars, a small clique of performers and listeners? If you are not included in that particular demographic you can also simply leave it to serve it's purpose for those for whom it was intended

I don't think you have to understand the intended use of any music in order to fully appreciate, like or dislike it. If I like or dislike a piece it's because of the sound it makes and to be more accurate, it's usually a matter of being indifferent rather that actively disliking. Except in certain cases that I shan't mention!


----------



## Barbebleu

millionrainbows said:


> Well, they are approached objectively, and are "objective" in their being "logical" and taking in to account the purpose and intended use of the music (or art).
> 
> First, you have to have criteria which suit your own personal goals and desires for that particular "use" of music; I can "use" music in different ways.
> 
> For example, if I want "pure musical idea," I go to classical and contemporary. It is usually notated, and contains more "musical info" per square inch than pop music.
> 
> Then again, good jazz can also serve that need for "musical idea". Or good rock.
> 
> I can put on "ambient" music by Brian Eno when I want to read or think, or chill out;
> 
> "Sound itself" can be a criteria: do I want to hear flutes or pianos?
> 
> If you are informed as to the intended "purpose" of the music, you can go to it with reasonable expectations: doo *** music of the 1950s is going to stay within certain parameters. On the other hand, don't assume too much: sometimes "gems" can be found in ostensibly "consumer" genres like pop, which transcend the original boundaries of what "pop" music is supposed to be: The Beatles' "I Am the Walrus" is a good example.
> 
> Also, having logical, realistic criteria allows you to "respect" other genres, and avoid making absurd comparisons. Knowing that Brittney Spears and other pop music serves as much _social identity functio_n as anything allows you to "let it exist" for those 15-year-olds who wish to consume it, without having to bother to "dislike it" or "dismiss" it. This allows you to "think positively."
> 
> You therefore do not "need" to "dislike" any music on the grounds that it doesn't do anything for you personally; that would be illogical, wouldn't it? Illogical because it ignores the intended use and purpose of the music. The world doesn't revolve around my taste, after all.


You haven't answered my question. What are your objective criteria for judging music. Too many notes, majesty, in a bar, too much reliance on diminished chords, etc? Why is Billy Joel not as worthy of attention as Alban Berg, or perhaps by your criteria he is?


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, it's YOU, Joe Public. :lol:


Oh that's alright then. I can't be held responsibile for the tastes of Joe Public - which are broader than you allow, since there is no such person and no such thing - so your diatribe against his tastes are not really worth exploring.


----------



## Strange Magic

millionrainbows said:


> *"It doesn't make sense that you like modern music."*
> 
> "If only those critical anti-modernists had _not_ posted that modern music didn't make sense _to them alone, personally,_ regardless of those who _do _like it, then we would not be having the thread we're having.
> 
> But, being the Universal Humans that they are, these modernist nay-sayers assume that whatever they experience or believe is Bad Music either _is _or _must be_ thought to be Bad by everyone else who dislikes "that" music.
> 
> For them alone, personally, this thread has nothing to do with modern music. It has everything to do with the breezy assertion of the premise that my opinion -- and anyone who dislikes what "I" define as Bad Music -- Must Hate What I Hate (Or Else)!
> 
> This is a hackle-raiser for me and maybe for others; there may even be a whiff of the troll in the wording of the post's title _(one good troll deserves another - ed.)_ If these music-haters are troubled by others liking this music, and voicing that love of exactly what they like, and having what they believe is a Good Reason for liking it, anger-management therapy might help them deal with this issue. Shalom."


millionrainbows, I appreciate your turn-the-tables intention here, and it sort of works except for the clash between your first and second paragraphs. Look especially at your insertion of the added, italicized "not" in your very first sentence and rethink whether it belongs there in light of that second sentence/paragraph. While we both agree that we dislike having others trash our pet sounds, where we disagree is in how best to cope with that particular situation--and, more importantly--how best to approach issues like appreciation of Art in general.

My approach has been to almost exclusively discuss what I like and to emphasize the positive aspect of sharing common appreciations with others. And if I have nothing to say or nothing positive to say about your art or music, to remain silent. If only more followed my example! Mind you, we both know that I hold my own opinion about what I like and dislike in Art to be supreme in my own case, and impregnable against alleged "refutation" by aesthetic theoreticians seeking to establish what is Good or Bad in the arts, or that any such distinction is "objectively" possible. The closest anybody has come to figuring out how music works is Leonard Meyer, and I don't think even his analysis fully covers the subject, as he himself chooses not to discuss what he terms the purely "sensual" aspects of music.

It seems that you prefer to provoke; to poke back at the bear because you are tired of the bear poking you perhaps(?). Or maybe you're the Zen Master striking an inapt pupil on the head, to foster enlightenment? But you must concede that your original post title is intentionally provocative, and the bears are provoked. But the goal--what about the goal? If it is to win friends and understanding for "modern music", then you are retarding the process, as has been pointed out several times. Maybe it's best to turn the other cheek, ignore the nay-sayers, but inwardly denounce them as idiots who know not what they do. Works for me.

Also, please spell Lynyrd Skynyrd correctly, unless your idiosyncratic spelling is itself meant to be a provocation. _Paz!_


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

_SLG-I have seldom come across anyone who rejects the whole of Modernism... or any other musical style for that matter._

That's because, usually they are unable to articulate "serialism" from other types of "modernism." If they could, though, they would single-out "non-harmonically derived music" like serialism for dislike. But even their grandmother likes Debussy's Claire de Lune.

Being able to differentiate and define and work of art and articulate this employing the critical/historical language of a given art form in no way impacts whether an individual likes, dislikes, or is indifferent to a given work. The value of a work of art for the individual lies in the experience of that work of art. I suspect that most classical listeners enjoy at least some works by not merely Debussy and Ravel but also Shostakovitch, Prokofiev, Stravinsky, Bartok, Poulenc, Satie, Barber, Satie, Kodaly, Respighi, Lutoslawski, Janáček, Bernstein... and maybe even Glass, Riley, Pärt, Gorecki, Takemitsu, etc... It seems to me that you can't define individuals as disliking Modern music merely because they dislike certain Modern/Contemporary composers... even those you like. Many listeners who like Romantic music dislike Romantic opera or lieder or certain composers. Returning to your OP statement that it doesn't make sense that an indisvidual doesn't like Modern music... this is certainly true... because our likes and dislikes... what gives us pleasure... is not logical or rational.

But surely you would not go onto a serious hip-hop site and broadcast your dislike of hip-hop, and expect the "experts" and aficionados there to take your "opinion" seriously.

The problem with that comparison is that what we term "classical music" embraces music from the Middle Ages (or earlier) through the present across a broad range of styles and genre. There are such incredible differences between a Renaissance Madrigal, a Romantic Lieder Cycle, a Classical Symphony, a Modernist Ballet, etc... that it is easy to understand (to me anyway) that most individuals who "love classical music" will not love everything across this entire spectrum. By the same token, I can easily imagine an individual participating upon a Popular Music formum may express a liking for Bluegrass, Jazz, Blues, Rock, etc... but dislike most Heavy Metal or Rap. I suspect this would be even more likely if others went out of their way to suggest that the music they liked (shall we say Heavy Metal and Rap?) was the greatest music of the era and that not appreciating such was a failing and ignorance on the part of the listener.

But a "discussion" of lima beans with "lima bean lovers and experts" is another thing. Your pleasure or displeasure is irrelevant in such an environment.

So are you defining yourself as a musical "expert"? Are you of the mistaken notion that the purpose of Talk Classical is for the sharing of esoteric musical theory and critical commentary among music "experts?" I might go further and ask: "Why do you listen to music?" I suspect most of us here would suggest (in one way or another) that we listen to music because it gives us pleasure. As an "expert" in the visual arts (someone who creates art and has a broad background in art theory, art criticism, art history, etc...) I still turn to the visual art because it gives me pleasure.

Also, you have to be more objective: having logical, realistic criteria allows you to "respect" other genres, and avoid making absurd comparisons. Knowing that Brittney Spears and other pop music serves as much social identity function as anything allows you to "let it exist" for those 15-year-olds who wish to consume it, without having to bother to "dislike it" or "dismiss" it. This allows you to "think positively."

One always needs to recognize that "What I Like" and "What I Dislike" are not identical with "What is Good" and "What is Bad." I'm not certain that this demands some objective criteria? Is this even possible? The goals and standards of various art forms and styles differ greatly.

You therefore do not "need" to "dislike" any music on the grounds that it doesn't do anything for you personally; that would be illogical, wouldn't it? Illogical because it ignores the intended use and purpose of the music. The world doesn't revolve around my taste, after all.

For the individual, its does. Being informed as to the purpose, the historical evolution, the innovations, etc... of a given work of art is in no way going to make me take pleasure in a work that does nothing for me.

I'm not saying that you can not "dislike" some music, but you have to put this dislike into the proper perspective in the larger scheme of things.

Please do inform us just what is the larger scheme of things that is more important than our taking pleasure in a work of art/music?

_SLG- Unless one is a critic, one need not defend why one likes or dislikes something._

Well, critics have to be responsible. We should be more like them.

Why? And honestly, critics speak of art in terms of what they like and what they dislike. They may be able to put this within a framework of history, theory, and criticism... but ultimately, they employ this in defence of their taste... of what they like/dislike.

_History is full of "professional" artists... once thought of as masters... who have been in most cases deservedly forgotton. The fact that someone has been recognized, published, and recorded doesn't make them "great" artists... and doesn't mean I or anyone else are required to like them._

That doesn't mean that random opinions on the internet should be taken seriously. Artist's credentials give them more credibility than that.

I don't think most of us give such credibility to any random opinion. With time it becomes obvious who knows what they are talking about and who doesn't. Even then... even among the "experts"... opinions vary greatly.

_Ultimately, any music... any art whatsoever... that survives, does so because it is liked... it gives pleasure in one form or another to the audience that follows a given art form._

A work of art or music can survive because it is "recognized" as being pivotal, or for breaking new ground. To say "like" is such a shallow, inadequate term. It also verges on turning real art into mere "titillation" or entertainment.

Our perception of Art is experiential. When I listen to a given work of music I'm not overly concerned with its importance in the development of music as a whole, its innovations or breaking ground... if I'm even aware of those things. How important are great innovations to the continued survival and admiration of a work of art? The development of linear perspective was perhaps the single greatest innovation of Renaissance painting? How many even know who the artist behind this innovation was? What matters in art is what you take pleasure in... even if the pleaure you derive is from imagining that you have a far more profound understanding of art than the rest of the mere mortals on TC.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Most of this thread (including my own posts) is really a pseudo-philosophy hour of 'aesthetic discussion' regarding the arts in general; I'd like to see some actual discussion of the music itself. The discussion of new harmonic ideas, melodic ideas and of structure. Perhaps this will help people understand better. Perhaps Million Rainbows can assist by explaining the pieces or perhaps an opinion about their place in 'modern music'? I do not mean this in a sardonic or cynical way. I think perhaps it might also be useful for people to hear some of this music in case they are not listeners.

I'm choosing five pieces of music which I'll post below (I like all of them). One is very modern (2013), two are late 20thC and the other two are from the inter-war years. Perhaps people can comment about them in both terms of taste (in lesser measure) and what they think about them structurally. I chose the shorter pieces to lighten the burden:tiphat:

The videos are courtesy of George Gianopoulous's channel:

Tatev Amiryan - Ortus for Piano (2013)





Robert Muczynski - Sonata for Alto Saxophone and Piano, Op. 29 (1970)





Pierre Boulez - Memoriale... (1985)





Benjamin Britten - Two Insect Pieces for Oboe and Piano (1935)





Darius Milhaud - Concerto for Percussion and Orchestra, Op. 109 (1929)


----------



## JeffD

I am reading a fascinating "companion" to the Beethoven String Quartets. And just about every emphatic statement I have said about "modernity" in music, pro or con, has been said more eloquently for much more more than 100 years, and contradicted very eloquently for more than 100 years. Leaving me a bit befuddled. Likely a lot more than 100 years, likely since the beginning of time, when Og and Charlie first argued about the paintings on the cave wall.

The argument that there is this objective standard of "beauty" and the distance from it can be estimated or measured, is just as right and just as wrong as the reverse, that first we like something for who the heck knows why and then we justify our tastes with logical argument.

I am soooooooooo glad I don't have to understand aesthetic theory in order to enjoy music. And perhaps for the first time really grasping the depth of this topic, I am loath to contribute meaningfully to the discussion, as I fear looking foolish a lot more than being wrong. Or right.


----------



## JeffD

I sometimes wonder if I am missing the subtext. (I work from the prejudice that what people mean is what they have said. Boy oh boy have I gotten a ration for that assumption.)

Why would anyone care if I, or anyone else liked modern music?

And for some folks, the fun is the obscurity - being able to ask folks these questions. I mean - if millions of people suddenly slapped their forehead and said, "oh yea, I get it now. I might just love this stuff. Lemme take another listen," I am sure that more than a few folks would be disconcerted that their own tastes suddenly lined up with the popular culture. 

The question isn't always to get an answer, or to inform folks, sometimes it is a disguised way of saying, "I am not one of you, I like different stuff, I like being special, but you never appreciate me and recognize my specialness unless I bring it to your attention."

I discovered the way to have life long friends is to steps. One: imagine everyone is wearing a placard that says: "I am special, ask me how." And then Two: treat everyone as if they really are who they want you to think they are. With those two steps one could probably be the mayor.


----------



## DaveM

So did you resurrect this thread just to say there's no point to continue it on?


----------



## Minor Sixthist

In all honesty as I'm reading this, your claim continues to seem pretty little one-sided. You're saying that I 'should' enjoy contemporary music because "it's just sound, and in many cases, beautiful, harmonic sound" - completely subjective claims. That is your experience, and in the tradition of all subjective observations, there's no practical way to justify it in other people.

From my conscious perspective, before I first heard the second movement of Dvorak 9, I had no expectations and no biases. I fell in love with it the first time I heard it. From that same objective, non-biased perspective, I listened to Boulez' Pli Selon Pli and hated it. I could rattle off the reasons for that, but I won't primarily because I don't feel I need to justify my not achieving an emotional connection with the piece, and a majority of the other contemporary pieces I've listened to.

Maybe we just have different opinions, but you're trying to sensibly and rationally justify emotions that are invoked when I listen to a piece of music. It's emotional and it's the senses, and mainly, it's different for everyone. I love romantic music. I hate contemporary. I don't feel that needs justification. And I especially can't agree that it does not make sense.


----------



## Haydn70

millionrainbows said:


> That's right; It doesn't make sense that you don't like modern music. It's just sound, and in many cases, beautiful, harmonic sound, and also discreet pitches and linear elements which are fascinating. It has moments of harmonic 'happenings' and single, isolated, beautiful pitches.
> 
> What is wrong is your expectations. The music itself is usually made from the same pitches as all music. How can we rationally accept that you "don't like it" when it's made of the same stuff, usually, as Beethoven?


I don't dislike modern music per se...I dislike, or I should say hate, ugly music...and most modern music is ugly.

There are some living composers who write beautiful music...such as this piece:


----------



## Madiel

ArsMusica said:


> I don't dislike modern music per se...I dislike, or I should say hate, ugly music...and most modern music is ugly.


ugliness/beauty are subjective perceptions, Umberto Eco wrote a couple of interesting books dedicated to how such perceptions have changed along the centuries. You can dislike/hate/ despise/whatever modern music, but that's just you and you are not enough to make modern music ugly, just like my appreciation of modern music is not enough to make it beautiful, while these categories can be useful to describe our subjective appreciation of a work of art, they become completely useless when the scope is to discuss/evaluate a work of art.


----------



## Haydn70

Madiel said:


> ugliness/beauty are subjective perceptions, Umberto Eco wrote a couple of interesting books dedicated to how such perceptions have changed along the centuries. You can dislike/hate/ despise/whatever modern music, but that's just you and you are not enough to make modern music ugly, just like my appreciation of modern music is not enough to make it beautiful, while these categories can be useful to describe our subjective appreciation of a work of art, they become completely useless when the scope is to discuss/evaluate a work of art.


They are not useless at all...but it is useless discussing this with you.


----------



## Madiel

ArsMusica said:


> They are not useless at all...but it is useless discussing this with you.


discussing would require to elevate your discourse, self-centered people usually are unwilling to realize that, bye


----------



## millionrainbows

ArsMusica said:


> I don't dislike modern music per se...I dislike, or I should say hate, ugly music...and most modern music is ugly.


I like "ugly" dissonant music. Charles Ives is a good example of this, as he often wrote intentionally dissonant music. But I don't see *most* modern music as being dissonant or ugly. Copland's Appalachian Spring is simply beautiful.

So we really can't, in this context, use the term "modern" to mean "ugly." It can mean other things, such as chronological, or a 'modern' way of thinking, but these are objective uses of the term.

"Ugly" is a totally subjective term.


----------



## Steve Mc

While, I don't like Ives or Ligeti all that much, there is much depth to be found even in modern music that is not all that consonant.
I particularly like it when composers find a way to blend dissonance and consonance, have them coexist. 
Britten, Piazzolla, Rozsa, Bartok, and some of Williams's output cones to mind.


----------



## millionrainbows

Yes; even older stuff like Gesualdo had dissonance and was "ugly" compared to its surrounding music.


----------



## Classicalinheart

Modern music is many genres and some will appeal to someone while others will not. Out of those genres, some songs will appeal more while others wont.. 

As someone who found love for the classical music I cant say that I am overly bothered with the modern music even thou, I don't really like most of it..


----------



## Enthusiast

millionrainbows said:


> I like "ugly" dissonant music. Charles Ives is a good example of this, as he often wrote intentionally dissonant music. But I don't see *most* modern music as being dissonant or ugly. Copland's Appalachian Spring is simply beautiful.
> 
> So we really can't, in this context, use the term "modern" to mean "ugly." It can mean other things, such as chronological, or a 'modern' way of thinking, but these are objective uses of the term.
> 
> "Ugly" is a totally subjective term.


Ugly is indeed a subjective term. And, like you, I generally translate it to something like "discordant" if I want to understand what an allegation of ugliness is about. And this reminds me of Bartok's obsession with beauty - he is said to have suggested to a student who was hammering away in one of his works to try being "less Bartokian". I guess if you hate discordance you have to get over that to find the beauty within. But it also seems to me that the alleged ugly modern music was more a feature of the period between 1915 and 1960/70. More contemporary music is often more overtly obsessed with beauty.


----------



## Haydn70

Hey, Bugs likes it!






Oh, wait, sorry...I misread the thread title as "It doesn't make sense that you don't like mountain music"


----------



## regenmusic

millionrainbows said:


> That's right; It doesn't make sense that you don't like modern music. It's just sound, and in many cases, beautiful, harmonic sound, and also discreet pitches and linear elements which are fascinating. It has moments of harmonic 'happenings' and single, isolated, beautiful pitches.
> 
> What is wrong is your expectations. The music itself is usually made from the same pitches as all music. How can we rationally accept that you "don't like it" when it's made of the same stuff, usually, as Beethoven?


Why don't people realize there is no one "modern music"? I may not like someone's aggressive abrasive noise, but I love all kinds of innovative modern music, and I think most here do also. (And, hey, we are the Alpha males here, remember? And we say make exotic beautiful innovative music that's in step with the greats before the 20th Century. We don't need Alpha male wannabes making noise and telling us to like it or we are dummies). (OK, a little hyperbole to make a point).


----------



## millionrainbows

...and I hope Neil young will remember: Southern Man don't need him 'round anyhow.


----------



## Tallisman

Forss said:


> I'd like to answer this by quoting Wittgenstein, who says: "The music of past times always corresponds to certain maxims of the good and the right of that time. We recognize Keller's principles in Brahms, etc. etc. Thus good music, which is being conceived today or has been conceived recently, that is to say modern, must seem absurd; for if it corresponds to any of the maxims _pronounced_ today, then it must be rubbish. This sentence is not easy to understand but this is how things are: today no one is clever enough to formulate what is right, and _all_ formulas and maxims that are pronounced are nonsense. The truth would sound _quite_ paradoxical to everyone. And the composer who feels this within him must stand with this feeling in opposition to everything that is nowadays pronounced, and thus must seem by the present standards absurd, foolish. But not absurd in the _attractive_ sense (for that is basically what the contemporary view corresponds to), but rather in the sense of _saying nothing_. Labor is an example of this, where he really created something important, as he did in some few pieces."


Marvellous...........


----------



## millionrainbows

There is no single "modern" music, or even "tonal" music; there is only an octave, divided into twelve notes. What happens with these twelve notes is anybody's guess. I suspect that they have, and will be, used to create music, which is art; and that we shall sublimely contemplate this art, and perceive whether it reinforces our ideas of what music should be, or not. If we are in an arena of music history, we shall be on two sides, and root for our team for a while; then we will go home, and go back to being individuals, untamable, and uncontrollable.


----------



## Nikoleta

I hate atonal music too. But I need to compose it in order to finish music academy successfully. I'm currently trying to compose an atonal piece for piano, but I have a constant feeling that everyone can compose atonal music, so I'm kind of scared to add more atonality and unrecognizable rhythm into it. OK, I can compose it easily, but... the guilt... In my opinion, it's harder to compose an original tonal melody that can be remembered for a long time than to simply jump on a piano and write down what you've just heard calling it 'original'. And I'm not talking about hatred towards dissonances (cause I love them), I'm talking about atonality and those two aren't the same thing. My question is: how do I compose atonal music without a feeling of guilt?


----------



## Enthusiast

Nikoleta said:


> My question is: how do I compose atonal music without a feeling of guilt?


I don't understand or agree with what you say but in answer to your question: alcohol is often used in such circumstances.


----------



## millionrainbows

I love atonal music. When I listen to Webern's lieder, I love the way a good soprano makes the melody sound. It wanders, it leaps, it lands on places you wouldn't expect. And the music itself has such an austere, abstract feeling. I am transported into a mysterious world, a world of emotions and colors.


----------



## mathisdermaler

millionrainbows said:


> I love atonal music. When I listen to Webern's lieder, I love the way a good soprano makes the melody sound. It wanders, it leaps, it lands on places you wouldn't expect. And the music itself has such an austere, abstract feeling. I am transported into a mysterious world, a world of emotions and colors.


Webern is singular, and your description of why his lieder is great really captures it for me. Just listen to the first of these three songs, its incredible


----------



## Bulldog

Nikoleta said:


> I hate atonal music too. But I need to compose it in order to finish music academy successfully. I'm currently trying to compose an atonal piece for piano, but I have a constant feeling that everyone can compose atonal music, so I'm kind of scared to add more atonality and unrecognizable rhythm into it. OK, I can compose it easily, but... the guilt... In my opinion, it's harder to compose an original tonal melody that can be remembered for a long time than to simply jump on a piano and write down what you've just heard calling it 'original'. And I'm not talking about hatred towards dissonances (cause I love them), I'm talking about atonality and those two aren't the same thing. My question is: how do I compose atonal music without a feeling of guilt?


Guilt has nothing to do with your mission. You have academic requirements to accomplish, so get to it and compose the best atonal piece you are capable of writing. *Change your attitude.*


----------

