# As a Classical Fan, Can You Appreciate New Age Composers?



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I love both genres, I haven't explored New Age nearly as much though. I feel my own music fits under the category of New Age; it is a fine line between New Age and Classical. https://nakulanbala.bandcamp.com/

What do you think of New Age?


----------



## Moriarty (Feb 8, 2019)

No. It is not a music that has my approval.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I like it as background music (when we have guests), as it is not intrusive.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

I wouldn't be dismissive towards anyone for liking New Age music whether it be classical-based or anything else, but it does nothing for me at all.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Moriarty said:


> No. It is not a music that has my approval.


Sometimes you find Classical works such as Clair De Lune popping up on New Age discs.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

elgars ghost said:


> I wouldn't be dismissive towards anyone for liking New Age music whether it be classical-based or anything else, but it does nothing for me at all.


It certainly doesn't typically have as much complexity, that's certain.


----------



## Moriarty (Feb 8, 2019)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Sometimes you find Classical works such as Clair De Lune popping up on New Age discs.


I believe that these types of mixtures break the solemnity of this sonata.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Captainnumber36 said:


> It certainly doesn't typically have as much complexity, that's certain.


It's not so much that as I'm sure some of it can be quite elaborate, but the kind of soundscapes that are produced have no appeal. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if I have some works that could be lumped in with New Age music, however tenuous.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Moriarty said:


> I believe that these types of mixtures break the solemnity of this sonata.


Care to elaborate on this?


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Yes, much of the New Age music is fine. It can be comforting to the soul and spirit and is sometimes used by those under great stress or used in hospice work with the death and dying, such as Robert Gass's _Om Namah Shivaya_. After I sent a copy to my sister-in-law suffering from cancer, she played it continually before she made her transition.






I also like Deva Premal who travels all over the world performing with great musicians; some will bring tears to your eyes and I was fortunate to hear them live...






These are Mantras that are repeated within the context of the songs:


----------



## Moriarty (Feb 8, 2019)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Care to elaborate on this?


It will be a pleasure.

Beethoven's relationship with the Sonatas was intense, and at the same time conflictive. Improvised, it included elements not corresponding to the established formal norms, strengths and stridencies that reflected feelings but that were discordant with the soft harmony that until that moment was the norm. Beethoven respects the classical "architecture" of the Sonata but not its content. Haydn was a "prince" musician, he made music to his liking. Mozart instead was due to the public but the intention of that audience was similar to that of the prince. The emotional crises of Mozart are what caused their best music. Beethoven never let himself be managed by patrons, his character was of constant challenge to the world. He could not stand having a single patron like Haydn, and he could not devote himself to being "popular" and giving in to the taste of theater audiences. He was a free man but tormented by his deafness and his inner life in search of virtue, he had patrons but he did not let them influence anything in his work.

I think breaking the solemnity of certain sonatas by introducing modern elements is an insult to Beethoven's memory and spoils his music. I can understand that there are those who have other musical tastes and they may like this particular genre but I particularly dislike it, it is a personal opinion, but it is still an interesting debate.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

*As a Classical Fan, Can You Appreciate New Age Composers?*

As a classical fan, I can appreciate whatever music genre I wish, including New Age, and I don't care if someone says that I cannot.

*What do you think of New Age?*

I don't know this genre so well, but I enjoy songs by Enya, Celtic Woman and Vangelis.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Allerius said:


> *As a Classical Fan, Can You Appreciate New Age Composers?*
> 
> As a classical fan, I can appreciate whatever music genre I wish, including New Age, and I don't care if someone says that I cannot.
> 
> ...


My question is really stemming from the fact that I view my own compositions as inferior being that they are New Age. I'm also really starting to hone in on my strengths/weaknesses as a player!


----------



## LezLee (Feb 21, 2014)

I don’t know what New Age means. Who decides on these labels? I don’t really understand categorisation of music. 
How does one differentiate between Einaudi, Satie, the OP’s own composition, Debussy, Philip Glass, Brian Eno, Tubular Bells etc.? Does it matter? If so, to whom and why?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

LezLee said:


> I don't know what New Age means. Who decides on these labels? I don't really understand categorisation of music.
> How does one differentiate between Einaudi, Satie, the OP's own composition, Debussy, Philip Glass, Brian Eno, Tubular Bells etc.? Does it matter? If so, to whom and why?


True, it's mostly for labels I think to help sell the music. Thanks for putting my music in a list of some great talent, especially Debussy, a huge hero of mine.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

This album by Yanni is really nice: Piano solo with ambient accompaniment!


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> This album by Yanni is really nice: Piano solo with ambient accompaniment!


Yanni? Good lord, man-have some respect for your ears. :tiphat:


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Red Terror said:


> Yanni? Good lord, man-have some respect for your ears. :tiphat:


I love it..........


----------



## LezLee (Feb 21, 2014)

Oh dear, no disrespect but that’s really boring


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

LezLee said:


> Oh dear, no disrespect but that's really boring


Nothing is for everyone,


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

I'm not really into New Age music, but this is pretty much epic, perhaps the most epic thing after Carmina Burana:






When I was a kid, I was afraid of this song. It sounded like apocalypse soundtrack.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

This one will also always be remembered:


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Does "New Age" mean that synthesized instruments are used, or that the focus is some sort of non-Abrahamic spirituality?

Anyway, I don't discriminate against a piece of music because of its genre. If it's meaningful and makes me feel something, it's fine and dandy.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I distinguish between good "new age" and cheesy "new age," if we must call it that; but I don't, and I call "good" new age music by who made it: Eno is Eno, Wendy Carlos is Wendy Carlos, but Yanni is "new age." Sorry, Yanni fans.

"Good" new age music will be good for musical and artful reasons, or it will have a hard-core utilitarian use, such as trance-inducing or meditation.

Just in case this thread was started as a marketing gesture for the OP's own music, here is mine, suitable for inducing mediative states if listened to long enough. If you have never mediated, and get irritated by this sort of thing, it is obviously not for you, so spare us the criticisms.


__
https://soundcloud.com/millionrainbows%2Fambient-piece-1


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

For the most part, no. The genre seems to be targeted at passive listeners, which I am not.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> I distinguish between good "new age" and cheesy "new age," if we must call it that; but I don't, and I call "good" new age music by who made it: Eno is Eno, Wendy Carlos is Wendy Carlos, but Yanni is "new age." Sorry, Yanni fans.
> 
> "Good" new age music will be good for musical and artful reasons, or it will have a hard-core utilitarian use, such as trance-inducing or meditation.
> 
> ...


Your music does it's job!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Thank ye, Captain! It does sound very similar to Eno's "Discreet Music" because I made it in a similar way, using a keyboard with a repeating loop. 
Now, you're getting sleepy...eyelids are heavy...let's go back to your childhood, childhood, childhood...


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> Thank ye, Captain! It does sound very similar to Eno's "Discreet Music" because I made it in a similar way, using a keyboard with a repeating loop.
> Now, you're getting sleepy...eyelids are heavy...let's go back to your childhood, childhood, childhood...


Did you take a listen to any of my music? Would you call it New Age?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Did you take a listen to any of my music? Would you call it New Age?


Wikipedia defines New Age music as: 
"New-age music is a genre of music intended to create artistic inspiration, relaxation, and optimism."

I sort of like Enya, it can be quite nice sometimes, and is not blantantly cheesy like Yanni to me. I would say only some of your music can be called New Age. It isn't quite classical, because of the dominant use of riffs. It is more Pop than anything I believe.


----------



## Andolink (Oct 29, 2012)

Any heavily repetitive music is inherently boring to me, be it "New Age" or Minimalism.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I didn't like new age when it first reared its head, and my opinion has not changed.


----------



## Felix Mendelssohn (Jan 18, 2019)

I'd rather listen to music that has historical and cultural context. Without those, music is less soulful.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Bulldog said:


> I didn't like new age when it first reared its head, and my opinion has not changed.


I'd agree generally speaking but what about this by Enya - The Longships:


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

janxharris said:


> I'd agree generally speaking but what about this by Enya - The Longships:


A promising tune that goes nowhere architecturally or emotionally.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Bulldog said:


> A promising tune that goes nowhere architecturally or emotionally.


Okay - but no more than many short classical pieces. I do prefer longer fully developed pieces myself, so I know where you are coming from.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

ZJovicic said:


> This one will also always be remembered:


Karl Jenkins is a pretty accomplished composer, I guess, but I wish he didn't use nonsense words in works like "Adiemus". A bit like the ersatz Latin in the Harry Potter books - "expelliarmus" for casting a spell, "wingardium leviosa" to levitate, etc - I find it an unnecessary dumbing-down. What's wrong with proper Latin? At least that way folks might learn something useful or interesting.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Nothing is for everyone,


Yanni? I guess there might be a need for a musical emetic.

My word! What a thread! Anything called New Age in any field must be very suspect. In music the results of New Ageism are anti-music, music with all the goodness and nourishment removed from it. Music for the spiritually dead. In other areas of life it leads to the denying of scientific knowledge so that it is OK to say that there is no such thing as evolution, that vaccinations are bad for your children and that global warming is not caused by human agency - all with very serious consequences.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Enthusiast said:


> Yanni? I guess there might be a need for a musical emetic.
> 
> My word! What a thread! Anything called New Age in any field must be very suspect. In music the results of New Ageism are anti-music, music with all the goodness and nourishment removed from it. Music for the spiritually dead. In other areas of life it leads to the denying of scientific knowledge so that it is OK to say that there is no such thing as evolution, that vaccinations are bad for your children and that global warming is not caused by human agency - all with very serious consequences.


I don't follow your logic here Enthusiast.

And there is nothing wrong with questioning neo-Darwinism; it's healthy.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^^^ No logic - just an observation that the term New Age is often used for groups and people who argue against rationalism, preferring magic and dreams. And, as you probably know, I am not arguing against questioning neo-Darwinism but am arguing against using arguments that are irrational, dismissing evidence as fake. Some will take my position as anti-religion but it need not be so. Certainly, much of Christianity found it possible to live with Darwinism - albeit at the "expense" or acknowledging that the Bible is not literally true (which really ought to be a relief to most Christians!) - and their faith. But the reaction against rationality is dangerous and is making many people into fools.


----------



## fliege (Nov 7, 2017)

I like Adiemus but I've never sat down purposefully to listen to it. A few years ago I would sometimes put on a Buddha Bar CD as background music but IIRC a lot of that isn't really new age. Otherwise, pretty much the whole genre is out for me.

I am averse to the ambient synths, the tinkling noises, etc. I don't know why it rubs me the wrong way. Maybe I find it aimless and lacking in content or maybe because it sounds like what would play in shops that sell crystals and smelly oils. In general this music sounds empty, hollow, and is trying way too hard to achieve something that makes no sense.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

I'm not age biased, though I rank with "old age" persons of whatever ilk. If a youthful composer makes good music, that's wonderful. And so too if the composer is older.

Now, don't bother me while I get back to listening to my Narada Collection.


----------



## RockyIII (Jan 21, 2019)

I can appreciate New Age music for the talented composers and musicians, and I understand that many people enjoy it. However, mostly what I've heard of it isn't my cup of tea.

I take that back. There was a time in the 1990s that I enjoyed Enya for about an hour.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

janxharris said:


> I'd agree generally speaking but what about this by Enya - The Longships:


I think it's beautiful, thanks!


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

*As a Classical Fan, Can You Appreciate New Age Composers?
*
Sure, it makes the trip up or down in the lift/elevator pass so much quicker.


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> Karl Jenkins is a pretty accomplished composer, I guess, but I wish he didn't use nonsense words in works like "Adiemus". A bit like the ersatz Latin in the Harry Potter books - "expelliarmus" for casting a spell, "wingardium leviosa" to levitate, etc - I find it an unnecessary dumbing-down. What's wrong with proper Latin? At least that way folks might learn something useful or interesting.


For those who are worried about dumbing down Latin, I always say, in a reassuring tone, "non illegitimae carborundum"...:angel:


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think it's beautiful, thanks!


You never heard it before? It's from the 'Watermark' album if you didn't know - a great album.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

janxharris said:


> You never heard it before? It's from the 'Watermark' album if you didn't know - a great album.


I'm sure I have, I've heard that album in it's entirety.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I listened to Watermark the other day after recalling I sort of liked some Enya songs, but that album was torture.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> I listened to Watermark the other day after recalling I sort of liked some Enya songs, but that album was torture.


Do you like other albums be her? That's probably her biggest one!


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Well, not so much New Age, but Ambient music I do like. The good stuff that is. In fact, I love it far more than any other non-classical genre. Ambient has its own magic. If you can appreciate it, without the expectations that come with "normal" music. 
I love synthesizers, electronic sounds and atmospheres. Ambient music, electronic music, space music. It takes me to places, far out of reach for other music. Also, it's often relaxing. Yes, nothing wrong with that. It's a positive effect. 

So here's how I see it. For active listening to engaging music: Classical music all the way. This is where all the "typical" aspects of music and composition and its expressive power are explored with tremendous depth and brought to its highest potential; other genres of music pale in comparison.

For "passive" listening to unobtrusive music: Ambient music... not music in the traditional sense, based on sound, texture, atmosphere, background, mood enhancing. There's no intent or pretense to be like "normal" music. It's primarily composition of sound. Sound painting.

Anything in between is less interesting to me. Generally speaking: Rock music, meh. Jazz music, OKish. Pop music, bleh.

There may be some overlap between Ambient and New Age music, but who cares. New Age is a silly genre description. I usually don't care for typical New Age music such as Yanni and Enya, especially when it's melodic.


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

*Can You Appreciate New Age Composers?
*No

*What do you think of New Age?
*Musical wallpaper


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

My love for classical does not in any way relate to New Age music. 

New Age music is meant to be relaxing, optimistic, inspirational, create a peaceful atmosphere, decrease stress, etc. Much of it can be listened to without much thought, and can easily become part of pleasant environments.

Might the OP be making the assumption that all classical music has those attributes? I might be making the false assumptions here. 

None of the classical music I listen to has any relation the above attributes. 

Now, there is a lot of music, that I listen to, that has been loosely lumped into the New Age genre. The band Oregon, for example, is often considered New Age. But I don't hear it. There is just way too much complexity and improvisation going on. 

Also, Vangelis, in his early days, was not New Age, although his later stuff probably is. His early material was much more in the prog-rock vein.

And then there is the entire "Berlin School" of electronic music (which was a major influence on New Age music), but hardly New Age.


----------



## KarlHeinz (May 31, 2016)

It's an alternative to silence


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Kind of like Delius -- to whomI also have little affinity.


----------



## Martyn Harper (Jan 27, 2016)

New Age is pretty
Classical Music is far more than that.

It’s like trying to compare a nursery rhyme with ‘Hamlet’.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Every genre of music has its purpose-value—to make people feel better on some human level—or it wouldn't exist in the first place... It fills an insatiable need no matter how much others may disapprove of the other half.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Bulldog said:


> A promising tune that goes nowhere architecturally or emotionally.


It goes perhaps as far as any classical miniature goes; you dislike short pieces?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

The only good Karl Jenkins is his "Diamond Music" CD.

"New Age" as a genre is designed as "utilitarian" music with a non-artistic purpose.

If any "new age" music is truly artful, it has transcended and surpassed its genre requirements and should be identified by composer, not the label.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Sometimes Vangelis's music is categorized as progressive new age. If that label fits, then I think he's a great example of a composer of artistic new age music - I define "art" as "applied intelligence" -, for he surely did many experimentations with his music, that have an unique and in my perspective very interesting sound. The soundtrack of Bladerunner for instance is very different from any other sountracks by other composers I have listened so far. Vangelis is a true master of his art and in my opinion one of the greatest contemporary composers I know.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Allerius said:


> Sometimes Vangelis's music is categorized as progressive new age. If that label fits, than I think he's a great example of a composer of artistic new age music - I define "art" as "applied intelligence" -, for he surely did many experimentations with his music, that have an unique and in my perspective very interesting sound. The soundtrack of Bladerunner for instance is very different from any other sountracks by other composers I have listened so far. Vangelis is a true master of his art and in my opinion one of the greatest contemporary composers I know.


Have you seen the more recent Blade Runner? I've never seen either, and I've never listened to this soundtrack, but I don't think Vangelis came back for the more recent one; how do you think it sounds in comparison to the OG?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

The best Vangelis is "China," then "Beauborg." The rest is questionable.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> The best Vangelis is "China," then "Beauborg." The rest is questionable.


His new release this year, "Nocturnes", is pretty awful imo.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

janxharris said:


> It goes perhaps as far as any classical miniature goes; you dislike short pieces?


No, I tend to love miniatures, especially Bach's which go much further than the linked example.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

The classics of all classic "new age" music are Ravi Shankar, Wendy Carlos' "Sonic Seasonings," and Brian Eno. This was before the term "new age" was invented for the convenience of those who dislike such music, and has become flypaper for the unartful and the unintelligent, who need musical wallpaper to decorate the walls of their empty lives, now that Bob Seeger and Lynrd Skynrd have replaced Mantovani in grocery-store Muzak playlists. This may vary according to your demographic.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

I'd argue more that some of the purveyors of what you are identifying as 'new-age' music are just a bit second-rate. Brian Eno is interesting, but he's spent a lifetime (apart from Roxy Music) giving us Satie's _musique d'ameublement _and calling it 'ambient'. None of it requires artfulness or intelligence, it really is 'wallpaper music'.

I wouldn't call Wendy Carlos's most known work 'new-age' (and I assume you mean that in terms of it being 'new' rather than 'woo'). It's Bach through the medium of a Moog.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Most of it's just dandy for its intended purpose, which is relaxation/meditation, and I can generally enjoy stuff by Enya and Vangelis, but it's rarely something I'd put on and sit down to listen to. For that kind of spacey music, I prefer stuff like Brian Eno, or Miles Davis's In a Silent Way. Something like the latter has a similar meditative, spacious, floating quality to it as well, without being completely empty, musically speaking. Perhaps it's not as superficially pretty/calming, but it does the job for me:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

eugeneonagain said:


> I'd argue more that some of the purveyors of what you are identifying as 'new-age' music are just a bit second-rate. Brian Eno is interesting, but he's spent a lifetime (apart from Roxy Music) giving us Satie's _musique d'ameublement _and calling it 'ambient'. None of it requires artfulness or intelligence, it really is 'wallpaper music'.
> 
> I wouldn't call Wendy Carlos's most known work 'new-age' (and I assume you mean that in terms of it being 'new' rather than 'woo'). It's Bach through the medium of a Moog.


Mandryka listens to all the medieval singing, and that's just another version of 'new age' music. In fact the whole history of Western music, starting with chant, is 'new age.' Just listen to this:






After listening to this, it's hard for me to recognize a genre like "new age" as anything more than the same old thing dressed-up in a different robe. I wonder what it would sound like if I copied the tracks 4 times, offset them to the original by a measure each, and ran it through a digital delay unit?


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

I see; so 'new-age' is actually 'old-age'...

Well this has turned an interesting corner.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I'm just trying to create some interest, eugene. What's so fabulous about Ockeghem, other than the fact that his music is centuries old? Does that give it some sort of historical "cred" or immunity, that gives critics free license to denigrate the music of our era? I think not.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Have you noticed? that with one letter change, "new age" becomes "sewage."


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> Have you noticed? that with one letter change, "new age" becomes "sewage."


lol....that's funny!


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Bulldog said:


> No, I tend to love miniatures, especially Bach's which go much further than the linked example.


The harmony in the 'B' section of the Enya is pretty exquisite I'd say.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Ambient music is not the same as New Age music although there tends to be some overlap. To some people it's all the same, I guess. But those people probably haven't listened much to these genres at all and don't really know what they're talking about.
I posted before that ambient is my favorite genre of music next to classical music and I think it can be artful and intelligent music, so there's that. At least a lot more artful and intelligent than most non-classical music.


----------



## Flutter (Mar 26, 2019)

New age music? depends what it is really, I love some of it but it's not a genre I race towards though


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

millionrainbows said:


> Mandryka listens to all the medieval singing, and that's just another version of 'new age' music. In fact the whole history of Western music, starting with chant, is 'new age.' Just listen to this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Enya's rhythms, melodies, harmonies, textures and "orchestrations" (Is this term correct for the use of an array of sounds produced by synthetizers or other electronic instruments?) are very distinct from those of Renaissance composers such as Ockeghen. The same can be said about Vangelis and other new age composers. One may like this genre or not, but to deny it's unique style is to push it.











Vangelis has many tracks that in my opinion make clever use of the sounds of a synthetizer, he has an individual voice and is a master of exposing interesting themes that repeat "reorchestrated" until reaching a climax, and has won awards for his feats with this technique (that has already been used in classical, for example in Ravel's Bolero). More than that, the man can express musically what he wants. Be the theme a spiral of sounds, a futuristic love scene, a world cup or an helicopter reaching China, Vangelis can make interesting music out of it. This for me is "intelligence applied to music" or, according to what I believe, "art music".

Popularity does not mean inartistic, and impopularity does not mean artistic. A very complex technical showpiece that almost nobody can play nor appreciate, created in the "modern classical music way", is not necessarily art in my opinion.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

My real intention in making this thread was to seek validation in that I was thinking I am a new age composer so I wanted to see if this forum respected such composers.

In the end, there really isn't much New Age that I actually really love and enjoy listening to in any serious kind of manner and I don't really know where my music fits in, but I enjoy it. I do consider myself a composer of sorts though.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

DeepR said:


> Ambient music is not the same as New Age music although there tends to be some overlap. To some people it's all the same, I guess. But those people probably haven't listened much to these genres at all and don't really know what they're talking about.
> I posted before that ambient is my favorite genre of music next to classical music and I think *it can be artful and intelligent music*, so there's that. At least a lot more artful and intelligent than most non-classical music.


To spring off this post, and instead of making a whole new thread, do you really think there is such thing as "intelligent music" and "unintelligent music?" Is that the right word?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Maybe we should consult this book:


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

There's one more thing I'd like to add with regards to Ambient music in particular.
It is obviously not rooted in the grand tradition of classical music and musical composition. In fact, in many cases there is barely anything going on in terms of melody, development, rhythm, etc. In that way, ambient music can have less "musical content" than even the most generic pop song. But that is not what ambient music is about. The artful aspects of ambient music can be found in its elegant and sophisticated (sound) design, its intricate layering, modification and structuring of sounds and the resulting textures and atmospheres that can be very specific, transporting and "visual", yet intangible, in a way no other music can achieve.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

DeepR said:


> There's one more thing I'd like to add with regards to Ambient music in particular.
> It is obviously not rooted in the grand tradition of classical music and musical composition. In fact, in many cases there is barely anything going on in terms of melody, development, rhythm, etc. In that way, ambient music can have less "musical content" than even the most generic pop song. But that is not what ambient music is about. The artful aspects of ambient music can be found in its elegant and sophisticated (sound) design, its intricate layering, modification and structuring of sounds and the resulting textures and atmospheres that can be very specific, transporting and "visual", yet intangible, in a way no other music can achieve.


It's ok that you love ambient music and your thoughts are well articulated here on why you do which is the only way to be intelligent about art!


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> To spring off this post, and instead of making a whole new thread, do you really think there is such thing as "intelligent music" and "unintelligent music?" Is that the right word?


Unintelligent music:






Intelligent music:


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Allerius said:


> Unintelligent music:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's different and serves a different purpose. I don't believe there is intelligent and unintelligent Art, there is scholarly Art though, whatever meaning/value we attach to that.

I believe the only way to be intelligent in the Arts is to Articulate what it is you like/dislike about a work.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Captainnumber36 said:


> It's different and serves a different purpose. I don't believe there is intelligent and unintelligent Art, there is scholarly Art though, whatever meaning/value we attach to that.
> 
> I believe the only way to be intelligent in the Arts is to Articulate what it is you like/dislike about a work.


You're completely right about this and you've been leading a good thread here.

My own judgment - "judgment" in the sense of opinions that aspire to be held as facts - is that a lot of very popular classical music - I shrink in cowardice from naming names - is really just New Age music. It's very pretty, relaxing, beautiful... but there isn't a lot of intellectual meat to it. The distinction has mostly been about instrumentation. (To a lesser extent, it's about the way that the music is used, but actually an awful lot of "listening to" classical music is people using it as background music, and a bit of New Age music is meant to be listened to attentively, even in concert.)

I don't know what's going on in the world of New Age music, but classical music has been changing in ways that are blurring the distinction between New Age and classical music. Basically, whenever New Age music impresses enough classical listeners, we reclassify it as classical, and that will happen more often as we (classical people) become more interested in and open to the use of electronic music and non-western instruments - as we learn to see the exploration of such instrumentation and timbres as a intellectual or artistic exercise that is as legitimate as exploring various harmonies and rhythms.

A lot of the really interesting, innovative music being made today is not very easy to pin down to a particular genre; it's a little bit country, a little bit rock and--no, sorry, it's a little bit classical, a little bit jazz, a little bit "world" music, a little bit electronic.... It's just creative people using all kinds of ideas. If I were talented enough to create valuable music, I would probably do that too. That's why terms like "art music" are increasingly appropriate. If the world goes on long enough, which is not guaranteed, I believe we'll eventually reach some revolutionary point when we'll abandon a term like "art music" will eclipse "classical music."


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

science said:


> You're completely right about this and you've been leading a good thread here.
> 
> My own judgment - "judgment" in the sense of opinions that aspire to be held as facts - is that a lot of very popular classical music - I shrink in cowardice from naming names - is really just New Age music. It's very pretty, relaxing, beautiful... but there isn't a lot of intellectual meat to it. The distinction has mostly been about instrumentation. (To a lesser extent, it's about the way that the music is used, but actually an awful lot of "listening to" classical music is people using it as background music, and a bit of New Age music is meant to be listened to attentively, even in concert.)
> 
> ...


I agree many listen to Classical Music as background music and use it in a similar fashion as New Age fans, and I think that's a good point worth noting, however, does it offer more to a hungrier listener that wants to dig beneath the surface than another work? I'd say no, I think there are literally endless discussions that can be had dissecting any work of Art.

I'm not sure what you mean by "intellectual meat" and having it lacking from a work. We attach concepts to works of Art, and if for a work to have intellectual meat means for it to have a conceptual identity, the intellectual meat of a work is derived within each listener.

I personally have a hard time giving electronic music a chance, I'm very much conservative in this area always to prefer the violins/cellos/horns.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Why do you personally enjoy Classical Music? (This question is directed at all)

For me, Classical Music makes me feel classy and sophisticated. This is not b/c of the crowd it draws or the way the performers or audience members dress/conduct themselves at concerts, it's just a feeling that lays within the music that stirs something in me.

I also prefer 19th/20th century literature. Now the language used in those texts is certainly cleaner, primp and proper making them clearly classier works of literature.


----------



## Open Book (Aug 14, 2018)

I was introduced to the music of Jean-Michel Jarre by someone and enjoyed his albums "Oxygene" and "Equinoxe" a great deal. Electronic, synthesizers. Haven't heard him in a while.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Why do you personally enjoy Classical Music? (This question is directed at all)


I was thinking about starting a thread about this exact question.


----------



## skim1124 (Mar 6, 2019)

I know very little about New Age music, so I can't say much about appreciating it, but I think I know enough about it to say this much: I'd much rather spend the limited time I have on appreciating and learning more about classical music (and also jazz). I'm not saying New Age music might not be worth anyone's time or enjoyable, but I'm not going to go out of my way to seek it out.


----------



## jazzthieve (Feb 7, 2013)

What would be considered "New Age music". Some people probably have entirely different notions as to what that is. As to the original question, that would depend on the composer of said new age music. I don't like to define what I like categorized in genres but rather by artist.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> I was thinking about starting a thread about this exact question.


Why do you enjoy it, then?


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> It's different and serves a different purpose. *I don't believe there is intelligent and unintelligent Art*, there is scholarly Art though, whatever meaning/value we attach to that.
> 
> I believe the only way to be intelligent in the Arts is to Articulate what it is you like/dislike about a work.


I didn't say that there is intelligent and unintelligent art, I said that it's possible to apply or not intelligence to something, and that if this is the case with music then for me it can be called "art music". I don't agree that a commercial, badly made song composed to please the masses can be said to be art just because the other guy thinks that it is - in my opinion the notion of what is art is not completely relative like you're wanting to infer.

The first video I showed you in my last post is not art in my perspective - it is music, it is culture, but not art. And I disagree vehemently with anyone who says that it can be.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> *Why do you personally enjoy Classical Music?* (This question is directed at all)
> 
> For me, Classical Music makes me feel classy and sophisticated. This is not b/c of the crowd it draws or the way the performers or audience members dress/conduct themselves at concerts, it's just a feeling that lays within the music that stirs something in me.
> 
> I also prefer 19th/20th century literature. Now the language used in those texts is certainly cleaner, primp and proper making them clearly classier works of literature.


Assuming that you mean the genre, not the era:

Because it has the most expressive, profound music I have ever heard, because it's usually rich in details, because it usually involves intelectual depth, because it gives me more goosebumps of intense pleasure than any other genre. Because I think that there's more art to classical than to other genres (although I totally disagree that "classical music" is a synonym to "art music"). I don't give a **** about it being "classy and sophisticated", I listen to it because I like.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Allerius said:


> I didn't say that there is intelligent and unintelligent art, I said that it's possible to apply or not intelligence to something, and that if this is the case with music then for me it can be called "art music". I don't agree that a commercial, badly made song composed to please the masses can be said to be art just because the other guy thinks that it is - in my opinion the notion of what is art is not completely relative like you're wanting to infer.
> 
> The first video I showed you in my last post is not art in my perspective - it is music, it is culture, but not art. And I disagree vehemently with anyone who says that it can be.


To be fair, you didn't say much of anything but offered examples of what you thought were intelligent and unintelligent works. If you think it's not completely subjective, then you get in to the area of superiority, which is territory I like to stay away from and argue and orient my thinking against.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Allerius said:


> Assuming that you mean the genre, not the era:
> 
> Because it has the most expressive, profound music I have ever heard, because it's usually rich in details, because it usually involves intelectual depth, because it gives me more goosebumps of intense pleasure than any other genre. Because I think that there's more art to classical than to other genres (although I totally disagree that "classical music" is a synonym to "art music"). I don't give a **** about it being "classy and sophisticated", I listen to it because I like.


I did mean the genre and not the era. I feel attacked by your last statement there about not caring about it being classy or not. What I was trying to articulate was a feeling of pride, class and sophistication that the music evokes within me; it lays within the music almost completely and has very little to do with the scene.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I did mean the genre and not the era. I feel attacked by your last statement there about not caring about it being classy or not. What I was trying to articulate was a feeling of pride, class and sophistication that the music evokes within me; it lays within the music almost completely and has very little to do with the scene.


I apologize if I offended you somehow. I felt compelled to write that because for me classical is much, much more than just class and sophistication, although I agree that those adjectives can be applied to many works of the genre.



Captainnumber36 said:


> To be fair, you didn't say much of anything but offered examples of what you thought were intelligent and unintelligent works. If you think it's not completely subjective, then you get in to the area of superiority, which is territory I like to stay away from and argue and orient my thinking against.


I said in post #59 that for me "art" is "applied intelligence". This is a personal perspective, and I defended my point in the end of post #75, while arguing that Vangelis can make "art music". Post #81 was a direct answer to what I understood as your suggestion in post #77 that there's no such thing as intelligence applied to music, and I expected that the two examples provided could change your mind due to their notable differences.

We have distinct views regarding artistic value, it seems. For me, a Michelangelo sculpture, a Shakespeare play or a van Gogh painting have much more value than what is usually produced in their respective fields in the arts. They have historical importance, influence, details, clever conceptions etc. that go far beyond the average, and to me they are, indeed, "superior". And the same can be implied when we talk about music. If you agree that there are "great composers", then it's clear that they are "superior" to the "not-so-great" ones. If musical value was completely relative, then what would be the point of learning techniques applied to harmony, counterpoint, orchestration...? We should stop trying to improve, since that everything is relative, and keep singing _Frère Jacques_ forever.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Allerius said:


> I apologize if I offended you somehow. I felt compelled to write that because for me classical is much, much more than just class and sophistication, although I agree that those adjectives can be applied to many works of the genre.
> 
> I said in post #59 that for me "art" is "applied intelligence". This is a personal perspective, and I defended my point in the end of post #75, while arguing that Vangelis can make "art music". Post #81 was a direct answer to what I understood as your suggestion in post #77 that there's no such thing as intelligence applied to music, and I expected that the two examples provided could change your mind due to their notable differences.
> 
> We have distinct views regarding artistic value, it seems. For me, a Michelangelo sculpture, a Shakespeare play or a van Gogh painting have much more value than what is usually produced in their respective fields in the arts. They have historical importance, influence, details, clever conceptions etc. that go far beyond the average, and to me they are, indeed, "superior". And the same can be implied when we talk about music. If you agree that there are "great composers", then it's clear that they are "superior" to the "not-so-great" ones. If musical value was completely relative, then what would be the point of learning techniques such as harmony, counterpoint, orchestration...? We should stop trying to improve, since that everything is relative, and keep singing _Frère Jacques_ forever.


I think, to go off your notions, we apply intelligence to all creative feats.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think, to go off your notions, *we apply intelligence to all creative feats*.


Indeed. But could something like "Ai se eu te pego" be considered a feat?

Note that this notion of art I have is very personal, but also very broad; creative feats may happen in any field, from music and painting to maths and cooking. "Art" in my perception is something that can exist in many human experiences.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Allerius said:


> If musical value was completely relative, then what would be the point of learning techniques applied to harmony, counterpoint, orchestration...?


To learn the techniques that are valuable _relative_ to the people who think they're valuable, of course. This would be no different than learning the techniques that are valuable relative to the fans of any genre of music.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Why do you personally enjoy Classical Music? (This question is directed at all)
> 
> For me, Classical Music makes me feel classy and sophisticated. This is not b/c of the crowd it draws or the way the performers or audience members dress/conduct themselves at concerts, it's just a feeling that lays within the music that stirs something in me.
> 
> I also prefer 19th/20th century literature. Now the language used in those texts is certainly cleaner, primp and proper making them clearly classier works of literature.


Why? Probably different eras give me different things but broadly I enjoy classical music because it takes me to wonderful places and makes me feel amazing things. Given that it sounds like I should enjoy new age music but I don't. I find it lacking in new and authentic ideas and a very poor way of feeling the things that I know music can make me feel. Whatever the new age music is trying to do I think there is a better way of getting that. I also enjoy quite a lot of jazz and music that can be broadly - very broadly because I include hip hop in this - described as "rock" again because of what it makes me feel.

I'm not sure I get your motive - it makes you feel classy and sophisticated - as those are feelings I personally do not crave at all. They are the last things I want to feel. But probably I am misunderstanding what you are saying?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

science said:


> You're completely right about this and you've been leading a good thread here.
> 
> My own judgment - "judgment" in the sense of opinions that aspire to be held as facts - is that a lot of very popular classical music - I shrink in cowardice from naming names - is really just New Age music. It's very pretty, relaxing, beautiful... but there isn't a lot of intellectual meat to it. The distinction has mostly been about instrumentation. (To a lesser extent, it's about the way that the music is used, but actually an awful lot of "listening to" classical music is people using it as background music, and a bit of New Age music is meant to be listened to attentively, even in concert.)
> 
> ...


I wish you would give examples as I am not sure I can think of any classical music - even works that I deplore - that is as empty as the new age music that I have heard. And I don't think I can think of any works that started life as new age but became adopted by classical fans. I suppose music of the various minimalist schools comes closest but for the examples I can think of - Reich, Glass, Adams, Part, Vasks - all seem to have much more rigour and "apparent serious intent" than any new age music I have heard. Perhaps recent Glass comes close to being that empty (to my ears) and there are composers like Nyman who come close to being "merely" new age! But to understand how far are you going with your statements here ... let's have some examples. Sorry.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> To learn the techniques that are valuable _relative_ to the people who think they're valuable, of course. This would be no different than learning the techniques that are valuable relative to the fans of any genre of music.


Ok, but don't you agree that applying different techniques to a musical piece, independently of it's genre, can enrich it, improve it? Couldn't we say that the high polyphony of the music of a Bach or of a great Renaissance composer is more intellectually rewarding and thus more interesting to the non-passive listener than the monody of the average medieval composer? And couldn't we agree that active listeners are more able to discern art in music than the passive, casual ones? Some people cannot distinguish real from costume jewelry; others can.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Allerius said:


> Ok, but don't you agree that applying different techniques to a musical piece, independently of it's genre, can enrich it, improve it? Couldn't we say that the high polyphony of the music of a Bach or of a great Renaissance composer is more intellectually rewarding and thus more interesting to the non-passive listener than the monody of the average medieval composer? And couldn't we agree that active listeners are more able to discern art in music that the passive, casual ones? Some people cannot discern between real and costume jewelry; others can.


It will enrich/improve it in the minds of people that value those techniques, and will either not improve or degrade it in the minds of people that don't. Polyphony will be valuable to a listener (active or passive) that prefers polyphony over monody. An active listener will probably be more likely to discern the craft that's gone into the music, but that's no more objectively valuable than casual listeners who just react to music on an emotional/intuitive level.

The point being is that you haven't removed relativity, which is an impossibility, you're just arguing that some relative perspectives are more valuable to you than others. We may share those same values, but that wouldn't make them non-relative.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> Why? Probably different eras give me different things but broadly I enjoy classical music because it takes me to wonderful places and makes me feel amazing things. Given that it sounds like I should enjoy new age music but I don't. I find it lacking in new and authentic ideas and a very poor way of feeling the things that I know music can make me feel. Whatever the new age music is trying to do I think there is a better way of getting that. I also enjoy quite a lot of jazz and music that can be broadly - very broadly because I include hip hop in this - described as "rock" again because of what it makes me feel.
> 
> I'm not sure I get your motive - it makes you feel classy and sophisticated - as those are feelings I personally do not crave at all. They are the last things I want to feel. But probably I am misunderstanding what you are saying?


It makes me feel a healthy sense of pride and fills me with vigor. It refines my concentration skills, and I associate such skills with being sophisticated, thus it makes me feel as such.

I think the aversion of this board towards labeling Classical as Classy/Sophisticated or being as such is justified, but let's not get carried away with it.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> It will enrich/improve it in the minds of people that value those techniques, and will either not improve or degrade it in the minds of people that don't. Polyphony will be valuable to a listener (active or passive) that prefers polyphony over monody. An active listener will probably be more likely to discern the craft that's gone into the music, but that's no more objectively valuable than casual listeners who just react to music on an emotional/intuitive level.
> 
> The point being is that you haven't removed relativity, which is an impossibility, you're just arguing that some relative perspectives are more valuable to you than others. We may share those same values, but that wouldn't make them non-relative.


Very well articulated! Bravo.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

When was really little my parents played me George Winston tapes to help me go to sleep: 




I still have a soft spot for that music, which I think is considered New Age. Some of Keith Jarrett's solo piano improvisations also have a New Age vibe and I like those.

There's some New Age-y classical music that I like. John Adams' _The Dharma at Big Sur_ uses much more sophisticated means than New Age music, but as far as I can tell they're put to basically the same ends. I don't mind.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

New Age music is often used in hospice work and with the death and dying. What's the substitute? The Verdi Requiem? The Mozart Requiem? Erik Satie's Gymnopedies? Even a Bach Cantata? Maybe sometimes, but in general, I don't think so. Most classical music is simply too busy and active. It's more stimulating than relaxing. It's not meditative. New Age is associated with inner peace and calm... letting go of worldly concerns, stress, and burdens where inner healing can take place... What some listeners hear as bland, others hear as calming and emotionally soothing.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Faure's Requiem is one of the few that seeks to console ... but even then it is for those who remain rather than the dying. New age music on my death bed would probably lead to me wanting to speed up the process.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Larkenfield said:


> New Age music is often used in hospice work and with the death and dying. What's s the substitute? The Verdi Requiem? The Mozart Requiem? Erik Satie's Gymnopedies? Even a Bach Cantata? Maybe sometimes, but in general, I don't think so. Most classical music is simply too busy and active. It's more stimulating than relaxing. It's not meditative. New Age is associated with inner peace and calm... letting go of worldly concerns, stress, and burdens where inner healing can sometimes take place... What some listeners hear as bland, others hear as calming and emotionally soothing.


New age music does not have the Western Christian associations that Bach & Mozart has, so it's probably used in hospices to avoid offending people of disparate religious views.

Can you imagine an old Jewish guy dying of cancer, and the attendant says, "Here, listen to this recording of Karajan conducting Mozart's Requiem." :lol:


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

millionrainbows said:


> New age music does not have the Western Christian associations that Bach & Mozart has, so it's probably used in hospices to avoid offending people of disparate religious views.
> 
> *Can you imagine an old Jewish guy dying of cancer, and the attendant says, "Here, listen to this recording of Karajan conducting Mozart's Requiem.*" :lol:


Karajan married with a Jew. What would have been the problem?


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> It will enrich/improve it in the minds of people that value those techniques, and will either not improve or degrade it in the minds of people that don't. Polyphony will be valuable to a listener (active or passive) that prefers polyphony over monody. An active listener will probably be more likely to discern the craft that's gone into the music, but that's no more objectively valuable than casual listeners who just react to music on an emotional/intuitive level.
> 
> The point being is that you haven't removed relativity, which is an impossibility, *you're just arguing that some relative perspectives are more valuable to you than others*. We may share those same values, but that wouldn't make them non-relative.


This is the point. Some perspectives _are_ more valuable to me than others. If I had a difficult maths question to solve, and a maths teacher at Oxford and a student that was reproved in this school subject gave me answers to it that differ one from the other, who should I believe?

Some people _have_ more natural and/or acquired skills in certain fields than others, and if you agree with me that music is a language, then follows that some people may have more or less ease to understand and interpret it, like it happens with other languages. Some people for example _need_ lyrics to follow the expression of music due to their poor interpretative skills, while others can go through a Brahms symphony without prejudice. I believe that people who are skilled in music (what is not measurable due subjectivity, but also not relative in my opinion) tend to enjoy certain genres/authors/bands that differ from the musical choices of those who aren't. For me, there are degrees of musical value, and the high degrees can only be appreciated by those who have a certain skill with music. Each degree will be relative in it's musical choices due to personal taste, culture and other ambiental biases, but there are different degrees, what suggests that musical value isn't _completely_ relative, what is my point. I believe that it's difficult to say which is the greatest piece between Bach's _Goldberg variations_ and the _Musical Offering_, for they have a similar artistic degree, but it's obvious that both are artistically superior to "ai se eu te pego", with is in another, lower, one.

So, I agree with you that musical value is relative, but with an addendum that for me it's only to a certain point. Like the resulting magnitude of the sum of two Euclidean vectors from R² of magnitude _a_: It is relative, for it depends on the angle between both vectors, but it's absolute value cannot be superior to |2_a_|, thus it's not _totally_ relative.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Allerius said:


> This is the point. Some perspectives _are_ more valuable to me than others. If I had a difficult maths question to solve, and a maths teacher at Oxford and a student that was reproved in this school subject gave me answers to it that differ one from the other, who should I believe?
> 
> Some people _have_ more natural and/or acquired skills in certain fields than others, and if you agree with me that music is a language, then follows that some people may have more or less ease to understand and interpret it, like it happens with other languages. Some people for example _need_ lyrics to follow the expression of music due to their poor interpretative skills, while others can go through a Brahms symphony without prejudice. I believe that people who are skilled in music (what is not measurable due subjectivity, but also not relative in my opinion) tend to enjoy certain genres/authors/bands that differ from the musical choices of those who aren't. For me, there are degrees of musical value, and the high degrees can only be appreciated by those who have a certain skill with music. Each degree will be relative in it's musical choices due to personal taste, culture and other ambiental biases, but there are different degrees, what suggests that musical value isn't _completely_ relative, what is my point. I believe that it's difficult to say which is the greatest piece between Bach's _Goldberg variations_ and the _Musical Offering_, for they have a similar artistic degree, but it's obvious that both are artistically superior to "ai se eu te pego", with is in another, lower, one.
> 
> So, I agree with you that musical value is relative, but with an addendum that for me it's only to a certain point. Like the resulting magnitude of the sum of two Euclidean vectors from R² of magnitude _a_: It is relative, for it depends on the angle between both vectors, but it's absolute value cannot be superior to |2_a_|, thus it's not _totally_ relative.


One must make a distinction, though, between values-based systems (aesthetics, ethics) and fact-based systems (math, science). Questions pertaining to the former do not have "correct answers" except in relation to whatever value system we're talking about. Questions pertaining to the latter do have "correct answers" as they are, in the case of math, based on axioms and rules of inference, thus "true by definition."

When it comes to art, "skill" is synonymous with "being able to create art that appeals to certain subjective minds." Music might be a language, but if so it's like language itself in that there are, in fact, many different languages that speak to people in different ways, and which require different skills to be fluent in. Just because one "poet" writes well in English doesn't mean they'll write well in Japanese. And just as it would be foolish to argue that English is a better language than Japanese, it's foolish to argue that some genres are innately better than others, or some speakers/listeners of one language are innately better than another.

As for "high degrees of musical value can only be appreciated by those who have a certain skill in music;" upon what are you basing this? That seems like an incredible claim to try to untangle and define, much less to actually verify. What counts as "high degrees of musical value?" What counts as "appreciation?" How do we determine those with high musical skills from low from medium? How to do we determine how or what or why they appreciate any music? Seems you'd really have to open up a can of worms to try to untangle that mess!

Further, I don't know what any of that has to do with suggesting that musical value isn't "completely relative." Where in any of that did you remove the relativity? You haven't even proved that Bach's _Goldberg Variations_ is more valuable than _ai se eu te pego_. How do you prove its value without it being relative to what people subjectively value in music?


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> One must make a distinction, though, between values-based systems (aesthetics, ethics) and fact-based systems (math, science), though. *Questions pertaining to the former do not have "correct answers" except in relation to whatever value system we're talking about.* Questions pertaining to the latter do have "correct answers" as they are, in the case of math, based on axioms and rules of inference, thus "true by definition."
> 
> When it comes to art, "skill" is synonymous with "being able to create art that appeals to certain subjective minds." Music might be a language, but if so it's language itself in that there are, in fact, many different languages that speak to people in different ways, and which require different skills to be fluent in. Just because one "poet" writes well in English doesn't mean they'll write well in Japanese. And just as it would be foolish to argue that English is a better language than Japanese, it's foolish to argue that some genres are innately better than others, or some speakers/listeners of one language innately better than another.
> 
> ...


A can of worms? Just because I'm admitting that different people have distinct skills? I don't get it. The ability to read a text and comprehend it fully is not shared by all, and this is a fact. Want a proof? Look at the exams to enter in any competitive university. People will have to read texts and understand them to get good grades; if they aren't good enough, their lack of skill will be reflected upon their grade. You can measure this skill objectively.

Art is subjective, and thus you don't have an accurate system of measuring the degree of skill that people have in it. But you also _can't_ infer that subjectivity means total relativity. Just because a process can't be fully, objectively comprehended it doesn't mean that it does not exist or that it doesn't have an inner logic. I challenge you to prove me the statement you did which I marked in bold in my quote. You can't. And, concerning music in particular, if you agree that it's a language, even if it's a subjective one and it's ramificated into various sublanguages, then understanding it is analogue to do so to a text, and from that we can apprehend from what was discussed in the previous paragraph that some people may have more or less skill to understand it. Complex music is not for everyone. And if the composer did his work using the analogue of "Japanese" or of "English" in music, you can be fluent in that by studying and having direct contact with it. It would be foolish to rate music based in the sublanguage that it used, I agree, and so I don't believe that there's a genre that is absolutely better than another all the time. But there _is_ a quality regarding each text in terms of it's ideas, expression, technical details, complexity, articulation etc. You can distinguish a well written article from a bad written one. The former is "better" than the latter. And this notion can be applied to music aswell in my opinion.

Regarding the _ai se eu te pego_ and the _Musical Offering_... is it really needed for one to prove that the latter is in an artistic level that surpass everything about the former? Can't we just consider it an axiomatic, self-evident truth? Did you actually took the time to carefully listen to both (I included links to them in the post #81 of this thread) and build your personal perception of them?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Allerius said:


> A can of worms? Just because I'm admitting that different people have distinct skills? I don't get it. The ability to read a text and comprehend it fully is not shared by all, and this is a fact. Want a proof? Look at the exams to enter in any competitive university. People will have to read texts and understand them to get good grades; if they aren't good enough, their lack of skill will be reflected upon their grade. You can measure this skill objectively.
> 
> Art is subjective, and thus you don't have an accurate system of measuring the degree of skill that people have in it. But you also _can't_ infer that subjectivity means total relativity. Just because a process can't be fully, objectively comprehended it doesn't mean that it does not exist or that it doesn't have an inner logic. I challenge you to prove me the statement you did which I marked in bold in my quote. You can't. And, concerning music in particular, if you agree that it's a language, even if it's a subjective one and it's ramificated into various sublanguages, then understanding it is analogue to do so to a text, and from that we can apprehend from what was discussed in the previous paragraph that some people may have more or less skill to understand it. Complex music is not for everyone. And if the composer did his work using the analogue of "Japanese" or of "English" in music, you can be fluent in that by studying and having direct contact with it. It would be foolish to rate music based in the sublanguage that it used, I agree, and so I don't believe that there's a genre that is absolutely better than another all the time. But there _is_ a quality regarding each text in terms of it's ideas, expression, technical details, complexity, articulation etc. You can distinguish a well written article from a bad written one. The former is "better" than the latter. And this notion can be applied to music aswell in my opinion.


No, a can of worms because you'd have great difficulty trying to prove what you're claiming. I have less objection to the claim that we could, in theory, and up to a point, define and determine "musical skill" with a kind of university-like test in being able to read and comprehend, say, a score; the bigger problem is in the claim that such understanding leads to an accurate of appraisal of "high musical value." There's no logical, factual way to move from an understanding of something to an appraisal of that something being "good" or "bad." This is Hume's classic "no ought from is" in another guise.

Further, I have a problem in general with the suggestion that musical value should require any such intellectual understanding at all. Part of the magic of music is that it can speak emotionally and intuitively to everyone from the most knowledgeable professional musician to the child hearing his first notes. In a way, the comparison of music to language dilutes the real power of music as a universal language that doesn't require learning to be understood, and the value for most is found more in that initial emotional involvement than anything we understand afterward. To me, the intellectual understanding of music should serve as a tool for understanding why music has such affects on us; not as a tool for determining musical value to begin with. The latter seems to be putting the cart before the horse.

I can infer that subjectivity means total relativity when any value assessments must be judged based on values that are always, inherently, subjective. If you can never judge statements based on things that are external to the human mind--like in science and other fields that study the objective world of facts--then they must be subjective/relative by definition. As for proving what I said in bold, it's a universal statement based on induction and thus can't be proved (again, we have Hume to thank). The burden would be on people claiming that aesthetic value statements can be factual to take any such statement and show how its based in objective facts. Any one example would disprove my claim. If an example can't be provided, then it would suggest my claim is true. To use the famous example, it's reasonable to make the claim "all swans are white" If you've only ever encountered white swans; you can't prove the statement, but someone claiming that not all swans are white would merely have to produce one non-white swan to disprove it, so the burden is on them.



> Regarding the _ai se eu te pego_ and the _Musical Offering_... is it really needed for one to prove that the latter is in an artistic level that surpass everything about the former? Can't we just consider it an axiomatic, self-evident truth?


Yes, there is really the need, and, no, it's definitely not an axiomatic, self-evident truth. If the latter were true, then you wouldn't find anyone who prefers the former to the latter, yet I'd be willing to bet a large sum you could. As for the former, it's important to understand that, just because we agree on something--like Musical Offering being better--doesn't mean that it's a philosophically sound position to state that something is objectively true.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Yes, music is an expression of Man's "being."






Blind Willie Johnson's composition, Dark Was The Night--Cold Was The Ground, was included on a golden record that was sent in the Voyager space probe. The hymn from which Blind Willie Johnson derived this song comes from the story about Christ...his suffering, pain & crucifixion. This is a masterpiece.


----------



## Hiawatha (Mar 13, 2013)

Because it gets a bad press, I tend to speak up for new age music. When I do, though, I have a very small number of discs, one era, one record label and one radio presenter in mind, That suggests to me a key question is about its breadth and depth or lack of. Certainly it is true that many a meditation disc or background accompaniment to walking around a gift shop focussed on "spirituality" is little more musically than its principal function.

The label is Windham Hill. The era is the late 1980s/1990s when the ex Pink Floydists and Tangerine Dreamists, who were older than me, had by-passed the so-called punk revolution of 1977 to consider classical music and stumbled on something that was arguably between those rock acts and classicism. The other part of that weave was commercial minimalism which was on the rise not least with "Glassworks" and there is at least some connection between that minimalism and new age at its best.

The radio presenter was the late Mike Sparrow who was on the BBC in London. The programme was niche. The listening figures were generally low. But - and here are the examples - there was something in the music which resonated with the place and the times, as well as beyond, perhaps especially on quiet weekend afternoons in the suburbs. From that distance, and especially with the first and third, there was some sense that it enhanced the concept of city life, albeit in a dream like state:

Michael Hedges - Aerial Boundaries






Will Ackerman - The Bricklayer's Beautiful Daughter






Mark Isham - On The Threshold of Liberty


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> No, a can of worms because you'd have great difficulty trying to prove what you're claiming. I have less objection to the claim that we could, in theory, and up to a point, define and determine "musical skill" with a kind of university-like test in being able to read and comprehend, say, a score; the bigger problem is in the claim that such understanding leads to an accurate of appraisal of "high musical value." There's no logical, factual way to move from an understanding of something to an appraisal of that something being "good" or "bad." This is Hume's classic "no ought from is" in another guise.
> 
> Further, I have a problem in general with the suggestion that musical value should require any such intellectual understanding at all. Part of the magic of music is that it can speak emotionally and intuitively to everyone from the most knowledgeable professional musician to the child hearing his first notes. In a way, the comparison of music to language dilutes the real power of music as a universal language that doesn't require learning to be understood, and the value for most is found more in that initial emotional involvement than anything we understand afterward. To me, the intellectual understanding of music should serve as a tool for understanding why music has such affects on us; not as a tool for determining musical value to begin with. The latter seems to be putting the cart before the horse.


By "musical skill" I mean not only technical abilities, that can be measured, but also overall intuitive understanding of the musical meaning, which is subjective, but in my opinion not relative. You don't need to know grammar to infer the meaning of a text, although it would be interesting that you did. In a purely intuitive level one can still measure the degree of importance of it, or of a music, to him/her. We both agree with everything I said until here I suppose. My point is that _for me_ there _is_ an universal truth regarding artistic value, that is subjective because it can't be achieved through reason (I can't prove this, it's a conviction), but that _is not_ completely relative, and that certain people are nearer this "truth" than others, like some people are more prone to understand the meaning and value of well written texts than others. Intuitively. Although a technical analysis could be an useful tool to further improve this notion.

I also think that the closer the artistic value between two works, the harder it is to evaluate this difference. So, it makes sense to me that it's better to consider degrees or art or, even better, degrees of culture, that may or may not be art. The value of something in a degree would be relative, but only to other things in that same degree.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> *I can infer that subjectivity means total relativity when any value assessments must be judged based on values that are always, inherently, subjective.* If you can never judge statements based on things that are external to the human mind--like in science and other fields that study the objective world of facts--then they must be subjective/relative by definition.


Can you? How? You can't prove it, so this is also a belief. Like mine, but opposed to it. It would be a contradiction if both views were right at the same time, as they seem to be mutually exclusive. So, one of us must be right and the other wrong then, but we and others who read this discussion can't really judge this matter except by personal conviction.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> As for proving what I said in bold, it's a universal statement based on induction and thus can't be proved (again, we have Hume to thank).


You have faith in this Hume's belief. I don't. What more could I say?



Eva Yojimbo said:


> The burden would be on people claiming that aesthetic value statements can be factual to take any such statement and show how its based in objective facts. Any one example would disprove my claim. If an example can't be provided, then it would suggest my claim is true. To use the famous example, it's reasonable to make the claim "all swans are white" If you've only ever encountered white swans; you can't prove the statement, but someone claiming that not all swans are white would merely have to produce one non-white swan to disprove it, so the burden is on them.


I don't agree with this. The burden of proving any statement of unknown vality should be shared by both it's supporters and it's deniers. The claim you cited is an example of why. What if one couldn't find a black swan? This would exempt who made this false claim of it's responsability of proving it? This would lead people to wrong assumptions, what is bad.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> Yes, there is really the need, and, no, it's definitely not an axiomatic, self-evident truth. If the latter were true, then you wouldn't find anyone who prefers the former to the latter, yet I'd be willing to bet a large sum you could. As for the former, it's important to understand that, just because we agree on something--like Musical Offering being better--doesn't mean that it's a philosophically sound position to state that something is objectively true.


For me it's an axiom. I can't prove that "in a plane, given a line and a point not on it, at most one line parallel to the given line can be drawn through the point." And I can't prove that Bach has more, much, much more artistic value as a composer than Michel Teló. But both statements seem quite obvious to me.

This discussion seems to not be going anywhere. Let's agree to disagree, shall we?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Trout's excellent endeavour that is reported on in the thread "A Contemporary Music Repertoire" has gotten around to Terry Riley, a composer who I really like (even though he doesn't fit into the "what I usually like box"). Some people consider Riley to be a new age composer. I think that is an insult but I can see why they say it.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

So as to prevent this exchange from getting too unwieldy, I'll try to pare this down to our central points of disagreement, so apologies if I excise anything you felt was important/worth addressing.



Allerius said:


> My point is that _for me_ there _is_ an universal truth regarding artistic value, that is subjective because it can't be achieved through reason (I can't prove this, it's a conviction), but that _is not_ completely relative, and that certain people are nearer this "truth" than others, like some people are more prone to understand the meaning and value of well written texts than others. Intuitively. Although a technical analysis could be an useful tool to further improve this notion.


Saying that "_for me_ there _is_ an universal truth regarding artistic value..." doesn't really make sense rationally. It would be like saying "for me the sun objectively exists." The entire point of objectivity and "universal truths" as concepts is that they don't depend on what "we" think. What piece of hypothetical evidence could you offer that would prove the value of any work of art? There is no objective fact you can say about art that can, in itself, prove its worth without also pointing out that some human mind(s) value such a feature.



Allerius said:


> You have faith in this Hume's belief. I don't. What more could I say?


There's no faith required. Hume was a skeptic who pointed out problems in existing philosophical systems. The two problems I've cited here are the Problem of Induction and the Is-Ought problem. These problems haven't been solved since Hume posed them centuries ago. I'd argue they're unsolvable as they point to chasms that separate subjective perception from the objective world of facts.



Allerius said:


> I don't agree with this. The burden of proving any statement of unknown vality should be shared by both it's supporters and it's deniers. The claim you cited is an example of why. What if one couldn't find a black swan? This would exempt who made this false claim of it's responsability of proving it? This would lead people to wrong assumptions, what is bad.


People making universal claims like "all swans are white" literally cannot prove their position. In order to prove such a thing one would have to produce every swan in existence, and that is not possible both practically and theoretically--how would one even know if one HAD produced every swan in existence? However, if every swan that's been encountered is white, it's reasonable to make the claim "all swans are white." To disprove the claim, one merely needs to produce one non-white swan. If one cannot do that, then it's reasonable to assume the universal from induction. Having wrong assumptions isn't actually bad. It's only wrong to hold on to such assumptions in the face of contradicting evidence. We assume general truths about reality from induction all the time. We couldn't live and function otherwise.



Allerius said:


> For me it's an axiom. I can't prove that "in a plane, given a line and a point not on it, at most one line parallel to the given line can be drawn through the point." And I can't prove that Bach has more, much, much more artistic value as a composer than Michel Teló. But both statements seem quite obvious to me.


Nobody disagrees with the axioms of geometry; plenty of people disagree with "axioms" regarding musical value. There's a reason why that is.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> New age music does not have the Western Christian associations that Bach & Mozart has, so it's probably used in hospices to avoid offending people of disparate religious views.
> 
> Can you imagine an old Jewish guy dying of cancer, and the attendant says, "Here, listen to this recording of Karajan conducting Mozart's Requiem." :lol:


Well, maybe for some. But I doubt if it's mainly used "to avoid offending people of disparate religious views." That suggests a negative reason why someone might benefit from it, an avoidance. I question that. I believe that it's more the meditative mood and the calmness behind it, its serenity, a sense of experiencing something ineffable that's beyond words and dogmas... something more than about thinking and beliefs... It can be highly effective and powerful when one is passing out of this world, and my sister-in-law greatly benefiting from one of the classic new age albums... Robert Gass's beautiful "Om Namah Shivaya" chanted by a choir. She died in peace from cancer and my brother said that she played it over and over. Would anyone like to put a price on that or quibble about its value or whether the music was "art" or not?... So this music can be intimate, healing, soothing, deeply personal and private and it's not conceived for the concert halls, nor do I believe that's it's composed with "art" in mind... There may be an art to it, but it's the calming, meditative, peaceful mood and intent behind it that gives it its value, plus its ability to help dissipate fear and the fear of the unknown.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Used in hospice work with the death and dying for those who request it because of its loving, peaceful energy... I love Ms. Kaur's voice... and yes, she does use the G-word. At the end, there's only stillness and silence.






Ong Namo - I bow to the subtle divine wisdom
Guru Dev Namo - I bow to the divine teacher within


----------

