# Music that is OK to deride



## Enthusiast

We all have different tastes. We may look down on the tastes of people who like music that we don't like but we rarely say so. That would be rude and unhelpful. Mostly, we don't talk about what we don't like except maybe to say that we don't like it and perhaps to give a brief reason. When the music we don't like is established or widely seen as great, some of us think that it is _*we *_who are not getting it and others are more inclined to think the music is deficient in some way that its fans have somehow missed. But we don't take it too far. Except, that is, for contemporary music (the serial or the discordant varieties, not the New Agey stuff) and Mozart. These are apparently OK to deride at length and in quite a heated way. It seems it is OK with these to criticise the motives of those who apparently like these musics and to find all sorts of technical weaknesses in the music itself.

What I wonder is whether this is because these types of music (Mozart and "ugly contemporary music") are disliked by people who tend to be also somewhat angry by nature? Or is it that the music that gives rise to these controversies is in some way "marmite music" (music that you can't be merely ambivalent about)?


----------



## Art Rock

No music is OK to deride, period. It's fine to say you don't like (or even hate) something, preferably with reason, but not that the music itself is awful, rubbish or should never have been writen - thus implicitly (and sometimes explicitly: "you like this? that means you have no taste!", or the alternative "you don't like this? that means you have no taste!") attacking the people who like it.


----------



## elgar's ghost

There's much classical I don't listen to but I still consider anything I don't like or choose to ignore to be part of one big organic whole, and I certainly don't think any the less of anyone who happens to like something I don't - many of those people are extremely knowledgeable and it would be arrogant and petty-minded of me to dismiss what they have to say when espousing their choices (assuming they don't resort to unconstructively trashing anything else in order to ram home their point). 

Conversely, it's certain types of popular music which never fail to raise my hackles to the point when the more generous aspects to my nature are in short supply, which is perhaps irrational as pop/rock accounts for a mere sliver of my total listening these days. Maybe because I didn't get into classical properly until I was in my 30s it made it easier for me to be respectful of anything, whereas it's the teenage tribal aspect of pop and rock which still foments inside me over forty years later.


----------



## Larkenfield

...............


----------



## Guest

Mozart and contemporary music (and also Wagner) are my favourite things in classical music. The people who deride my favourite music must be hearing something that I'm not and I guess the fact that these opinions are in abundance probably mean that they are really actually on to something and can hear something in my favourite music that I can't, or it's just hip and cool to diss Mozart and contemporary music.

But no matter, I just love what I love even if heaps of people are telling me that it's bad music, evil music, not music, the emperor's new clothes* etc.

*if contemporary music _is_ a case of the emperor's new clothes, then I have to say that whatever I'm listening to is one damn sexy emperor


----------



## techniquest

Over the years I've heard and seen much of the music of Khachaturian, the 1812 Overture, Shostakovich's 7th and Mahler's 8th given the cold shoulder in varying degrees by those whose musical taste and musical knowledge is obviously far superior to mine.
Of these, Khachaturians' 3rd symphony is almost universally derided, followed closely by 1812.


----------



## PlaySalieri

I only tend to deride music when someone makes a fanciful claim about the era that interests me the most. Such as people who rave about Clementi at Mozart's expense. Yes - I do deride in those circumstances and feel justified in doing so. 

It baffles me why Mozart seems to be the no 1 target for derisory comments. I can only imagine it is because people who have no ear for Mozart think it's like the emperors new clothes - we're all deluded etc - and a derisory comment or two might just wake us up to all the pretty chocolate box rubbish we've been listening to all these years.


----------



## Guest

stomanek said:


> I only tend to deride music when someone makes a fanciful claim about the era that interests me the most. Such as people who rave about Clementi at Mozart's expense. Yes - I do deride in those circumstances and feel justified in doing so.
> 
> It baffles me why Mozart seems to be the no 1 target for derisory comments. I can only imagine it is because people who have no ear for Mozart think it's like the emperors new clothes - we're all deluded etc - and a derisory comment or two might just wake us up to all the pretty chocolate box rubbish we've been listening to all these years.


If you must deride at all, I hope it's the fanciful claim, not the music itself?


----------



## Art Rock

And even so, if someone clearly prefers Clementi over Mozart, why on earth would someone else feel the need to deride that preference?


----------



## Merl

Yes, there are certain types of music that "raise my hackles" (as Elgar's Ghost alluded to), namely autotuned chart music and rap, and i try not to deride it as clearly a lot of people like this kind of stuff. I just avoid it like the plague, tbh. I NEVER listen to the radio and only play my own music in the car or at home or sometimes Mrs Merl's music (which is generally rock which i like). I know Ive made the odd rude remark on here but its not to deride the music, it's done with a smile. If i genuinely upset someone I do apologise.


----------



## david johnson

Surely nobody will NOT deride the songs: "Puberty Love" and "The Words Get Stuck In My Throat"  Seriously, those who 'deride' are perhaps revealing more about themselves than about the music they grump over.


----------



## norman bates

Art Rock said:


> No music is OK to deride, period. It's fine to say you don't like (or even hate) something, preferably with reason, but not that the music itself is awful, rubbish or should never have been writen - thus implicitly (and sometimes explicitly: "you like this? that means you have no taste!", or the alternative "you don't like this? that means you have no taste!") attacking the people who like it.


this is awful.


----------



## LezLee

norman bates said:


> this is awful.


Certainly is!!..........


----------



## Strange Magic

Everybody shares my love of traditional _cante flamenco_! Don't they?? If they don't, there is clearly something terribly wrong with them .


----------



## jegreenwood

david johnson said:


> Surely nobody will NOT deride the songs: "Puberty Love" and "The Words Get Stuck In My Throat"  Seriously, those who 'deride' are perhaps revealing more about themselves than about the music they grump over.


On the other hand, "You Took the Words Right Out of My Mouth" and several other songs from Meat Loaf's debut album are on my workout mix. I have acknowledged elsewhere on this forum that he is my number one guilty pleasure. I justify it on the basis that Jim Steinman, the songwriter, claims Wagner as an influence (along with Phil Spector). 

I truly dislike it when people try to tell me what is good music and what is not, and I try not to insist my views are correct. I will correct statements that I believe to be factually inaccurate.


----------



## EdwardBast

stomanek said:


> It baffles me why Mozart seems to be the no 1 target for derisory comments.


Probably because he is the number one focus of abject, quasi-religious worship among his enthusiasts. Blow up a really big balloon and a certain segment of humanity will inevitably be looking for a pin.


----------



## fluteman

I would say, any music that reaches an audience, large or small, and is meaningful to that audience, for a significant length of time (which I'm not going to try to define, but more than one generation, and we usually know it when we see it) is successful. Even if I don't happen to be part of that audience, in many cases I'm still interested in investigating that music and figuring what what makes it successful.
Many posters here do not share that interest of mine. But what do they accomplish by deriding music they do not like?


----------



## Enthusiast

EdwardBast said:


> Probably because he is the number one focus of abject, quasi-religious worship among his enthusiasts. Blow up a really big balloon and a certain segment of humanity will inevitably be looking for a pin.


That's interesting ... but is it true? Is Mozart's fan base here more inclined to "abject, quasi-religious worship" than the fans of Beethoven or Bach are? I hadn't noticed or maybe I had read it as a response to the critique already well advanced rather than a starting point.


----------



## EdwardBast

Enthusiast said:


> That's interesting ... but *is it true?* Is Mozart's fan base here more inclined to "abject, quasi-religious worship" than the fans of Beethoven or Bach are? I hadn't noticed or maybe I had read it as *a response to the critique already well advanced rather than a starting point.*


Yes, definitely more inclined.

There is no starting point. It's a circle.


----------



## Enthusiast

EdwardBast said:


> Yes, definitely more inclined.
> 
> There is no starting point. It's a circle.


Like one of those evolutionary battles that led to some birds developing tails that are stupidly ornate.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Enthusiast said:


> That's interesting ... but is it true? Is Mozart's fan base here more inclined to "abject, quasi-religious worship" than the fans of Beethoven or Bach are? I hadn't noticed or maybe I had read it as a response to the critique already well advanced rather than a starting point.


It's not true - I could compile quite a catalogue (from TC) of swooning praise for jsB and LVB that make Mozart's fanboys seem rather a conservative crowd. But then of course - the former deserve this praise and WAM does not.


----------



## Guest

In the sense that censorship is typically a bad thing, it is ok to deride all music to a reasonable extent.

In the sense that only bitter, disruptive trolls spend time deriding music that other people love and that they are under no obligation to listen to, it is never ok to deride any music unless your goal is to be a bitter, disruptive troll.

If your goal, however, is to be a bitter, disruptive troll, deride away, I suppose. The moderation team is unlikely to stop you.


----------



## EdwardBast

stomanek said:


> It's not true - I could compile quite a catalogue (from TC) of swooning praise for jsB and LVB that make Mozart's fanboys seem rather a conservative crowd. But then of course - the former deserve this praise and WAM does not.


Has any JSB or LVB fan compiled and published a list of every encomium uttered by a famous person about their hero?


----------



## Phil loves classical

nathanb said:


> In the sense that censorship is typically a bad thing, it is ok to deride all music to a reasonable extent.
> 
> In the sense that only bitter, disruptive trolls spend time deriding music that other people love and that they are under no obligation to listen to, it is never ok to deride any music unless your goal is to be a bitter, disruptive troll.
> 
> If your goal, however, is to be a bitter, disruptive troll, deride away, I suppose. The moderation team is unlikely to stop you.


I believe in free speech. That it is ok to deride music that people love. As much as praising music others hate. I think everyone should be more tolerant of other views. I can say I hate the music of Feldman and Cage. Others can say they hate the composers I like. It could make for some stimulating conversation. Isn't that what were here for?


----------



## Enthusiast

Phil loves classical said:


> I believe in free speech. That it is ok to deride music that people love. As much as praising music others hate. I think everyone should be more tolerant of other views. I can say I hate the music of Feldman and Cage. Others can say they hate the composers I like. It could make for some stimulating conversation. Isn't that what were here for?


But when it is the same "criticisms" of the same music going round and round and never arriving at a conclusion ....? And it often ends with one side or the other (or both) being abused or laughed at ... Isn't that merely tiresome?


----------



## Strange Magic

Phil loves classical said:


> I believe in free speech. That it is ok to deride music that people love. As much as praising music others hate. I think everyone should be more tolerant of other views. I can say I hate the music of Feldman and Cage. Others can say they hate the composers I like. It could make for some stimulating conversation. Isn't that what were here for?


Reasons for telling another (or others) that you hate their music, art, etc.: It shows that you are brave and fearless. It shows that your passion for truth in these vital areas overrides anyone's feeble feelings about causing others unnecessary pain or annoyance. It shows that you see and hear things--bad things--in the others' musics and art that they don't. It can lead to firm bonds with others who hate what you hate--much better, stronger bonds than those of shared approval and enthusiasm. Many other reasons also......


----------



## Granate

norman bates said:


> this is awful.


I remember this video became viral again when it was rescued and reviewed by popular youtuber Auronplay. It's not music itself, it's a very insensitive and nonsense content that is usually spread on the internet. Fools in the past didn't count with chroma-key and an uploading platform to make their ideas public. Thank you for bringing me this video again.


----------



## Radames

norman bates said:


> this is awful.


I'm too scared to play it!!!

What about the Spice Girls? We can deride the Spice Girls, can't we? How do you keep a Spice Girl from drowning?

Shoot her before she hits the water.


----------



## PlaySalieri

EdwardBast said:


> Has any JSB or LVB fan compiled and published a list of every encomium uttered by a famous person about their hero?


I dont know.

But supposing the answer is no - what does than tell us?


----------



## Phil loves classical

Enthusiast said:


> But when it is the same "criticisms" of the same music going round and round and never arriving at a conclusion ....? And it often ends with one side or the other (or both) being abused or laughed at ... Isn't that merely tiresome?


When the discussion gets stale, it's time to move on. I would just ignore from the point on it's reduced to who has the better hair sort of argument


----------



## LezLee

I’m a Meatloaf fan too (I think he looks like Bryn Terfel) my favourite song is ‘One More Kiss’.


----------



## Joe B

Phil loves classical said:


> I believe in free speech. That it is ok to deride music that people love. As much as praising music others hate. I think everyone should be more tolerant of other views. I can say I hate the music of Feldman and Cage. Others can say they hate[/B] the composers I like. It could make for some stimulating conversation. Isn't that what were here for?


No, it's not why I'm here. I didn't join this forum to engage in online combat. I joined this forum in hopes of finding other people who share my passion for classical music.

My hope in participating at TC is to be able to get turned onto music which has slipped past my radar (almost impossible to keep current with all that's out there and all the new music being released) and to engage with people who like listening to some of the music I love.

If you believe in free speech and being tolerant of other people's views, you may want to become more aware of your diction. Rightly or wrongly, you've stated people should become more tolerant of hate speech, which you find makes for stimulating conversation.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Radames said:


> How do you keep a Spice Girl from drowning?
> 
> Shoot her before she hits the water.


The other answer I've heard is to let go of her head, but that applied to Justin Beiber as I recall.


----------



## EdwardBast

stomanek said:


> I dont know.
> 
> But supposing the answer is no - what does than tell us?


It might tell us that JSB and LVB fans on TC are less fanatical about their fandom or, at least, less demonstratively fanatical about it.


----------



## Bulldog

Enthusiast said:


> That's interesting ... but is it true? Is Mozart's fan base here more inclined to "abject, quasi-religious worship" than the fans of Beethoven or Bach are?


I don't know if Mozart fans are more into composer worship, but they sure are more vocal about it.


----------



## PlaySalieri

EdwardBast said:


> It might tell us that JSB and LVB fans on TC are less fanatical about their fandom or, at least, less demonstratively fanatical about it.


Or maybe they just couldnt find a list of quotes comparable with the Mozart lists.

It's not just fanatics on here that have been vocal about Mozart.


----------



## mbhaub

Light music. There are a lot of classical listeners who are quite snobbish about the light classics. Sometimes I just want pleasant, easy going music that has a good tune, is well orchestrated and requires little thought. I love the music of Albert Ketelby and Leroy Anderson, for example. Naxos had a large series of British Light Music. Hyperion does too, and dipped in with European and American light classics. It's not elevator music, despite what some people think. I've played an entire concert of Leroy Anderson - the audience loved it! But so many classical listeners and musicians think it's beneath them. It's cheap, trivial, corny, cheesy...I don't care. Sometimes it's all I need.


----------



## arpeggio

I have given up tying to answer this question


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> Reasons for telling another (or others) that you hate their music, art, etc.: It shows that you are brave and fearless. It shows that your passion for truth in these vital areas overrides anyone's feeble feelings about causing others unnecessary pain or annoyance. It shows that you see and hear things--bad things--in the others' musics and art that they don't. It can lead to firm bonds with others who hate what you hate--much better, stronger bonds than those of shared approval and enthusiasm. Many other reasons also......


" Many other reasons also...."

What about saving people time? There's so many recordings and so much music out there that we can't get to it all in one lifetime. We have to pick and choose. Why do we have teachers? why do we have critics and music experts?


----------



## millionrainbows

I'm an omnivore; if it sounds good, I'll consume it. Sometimes I'll hear a pop song I like. If I don't like it, it's usually because it doesn't speak to me in any significant way, and I'll just leave it on my plate.

Sometimes my dislikes have to do with the imagined demographic I think it is appealing to. If that demographic does not include me, I'm not interested. This includes music for the youth market, contemporary ethnic music, and most opera which appeals to 'specialists' in that field; but this is not written in concrete. I heard a woman named Susana Harp from Oaxaca sing, and it was so unique that I had to get it.


----------



## Varick

If someone put some children, let's say about 3 or 4 years old, in a room of instruments and told them to start playing, the cacophony that would follow might be cute for about 20-30 seconds but after a minute or so, would become unbearable and no one in their right mind would want to record it so they could enjoy such music later on.

So when adults get together, perhaps a bit more organized and maybe even some of them have some musical knowledge, produce pretty much the same result, there seems to be a segment of society, albeit small, that fool themselves into 1. Liking that music and 2. attaching some value to such music. Personally, I don't have much of a beef with #1. I mean, whatever rings your bell, but it's #2 that get's to me.

Maybe it's me, maybe it's a flawed perception of mine, but I have a very difficult time believing that everyone doesn't have some kind of objectivity in them to call garbage... well,.... garbage. Why is that necessarily wrong? You like A, I think A is horrible. I like D, you think D is horrible. I think A is horrible because of ... You think D is horrible because of ... Great. Why is this such a bad thing? It's conversation of two people who have opposing views. Have we become so hyper sensitive, so thin-skinned, that we can't take any criticism from those we hardly even know and whom we have probably less than a 1% chance of ever meeting face to face? Have we become that big of whimps, that immature, that narcissistic that our world is damaged because I stated that my favorite ice cream flavor is coffee, but you think coffee ice cream is disgusting and gross?

Now, if it starts resulting into ad hominem attacks, that's where the line has to be drawn. I have my thoughts and opinions like everyone else does. I like something you hate? That's OK, the respect comes from not calling me a #$*@ or a *^%# personally because of it.

V


----------



## Enthusiast

Varick said:


> ..... there seems to be a segment of society, albeit small, that fool themselves into 1. Liking that music and 2. attaching some value to such music. Personally, I don't have much of a beef with #1. I mean, whatever rings your bell, but it's #2 that get's to me.
> 
> .... Maybe it's me, maybe it's a flawed perception of mine, but I have a very difficult time believing that everyone doesn't have some kind of objectivity in them to call garbage... well,.... garbage.....
> 
> Now, if it starts resulting into ad hominem attacks, that's where the line has to be drawn. I have my thoughts and opinions like everyone else does. I like something you hate? That's OK, the respect comes from not calling me a #$*@ or a *^%# personally because of it.
> V


No need to insult you, really. But a simple suggestion: why not practice expressing your opinions and tastes without calling those who disagree with you idiots (as you repeatedly do above)? I could easily rewrite your entire post in a way that does not insult anyone and I am sure you could manage it, too. I could even keep your disdain for the composers who you wish to target.


----------



## DaveM

Enthusiast said:


> No need to insult you, really. But a simple suggestion: why not practice expressing your opinions and tastes without calling those who disagree with you idiots (as you repeatedly do above)? I could easily rewrite your entire post in a way that does not insult anyone and I am sure you could manage it, too. I could even keep your disdain for the composers who you wish to target.


Where is he calling anyone an idiot and repeatedly?


----------



## KenOC

EdwardBast said:


> It might tell us that JSB and LVB fans on TC are less fanatical about their fandom or, at least, less demonstratively fanatical about it.


Yes, we LvB fans are not fanatical at all. The Spirit of Beethoven, interpreted for us by his priesthood, tells us to avoid fanaticism, so of course we do. As in all things Beethoven, we obey.


----------



## Bluecrab

DaveM said:


> Where is he calling anyone an idiot and repeatedly?


I have exactly the same question.


----------



## Luchesi

Varick said:


> If someone put some children, let's say about 3 or 4 years old, in a room of instruments and told them to start playing, the cacophony that would follow might be cute for about 20-30 seconds but after a minute or so, would become unbearable and no one in their right mind would want to record it so they could enjoy such music later on.
> 
> So when adults get together, perhaps a bit more organized and maybe even some of them have some musical knowledge, produce pretty much the same result, there seems to be a segment of society, albeit small, that fool themselves into 1. Liking that music and 2. attaching some value to such music. Personally, I don't have much of a beef with #1. I mean, whatever rings your bell, but it's #2 that get's to me.
> 
> Maybe it's me, maybe it's a flawed perception of mine, but I have a very difficult time believing that everyone doesn't have some kind of objectivity in them to call garbage... well,.... garbage. Why is that necessarily wrong? You like A, I think A is horrible. I like D, you think D is horrible. I think A is horrible because of ... You think D is horrible because of ... Great. Why is this such a bad thing? It's conversation of two people who have opposing views. Have we become so hyper sensitive, so thin-skinned, that we can't take any criticism from those we hardly even know and whom we have probably less than a 1% chance of ever meeting face to face? Have we become that big of whimps, that immature, that narcissistic that our world is damaged because I stated that my favorite ice cream flavor is coffee, but you think coffee ice cream is disgusting and gross?
> 
> Now, if it starts resulting into ad hominem attacks, that's where the line has to be drawn. I have my thoughts and opinions like everyone else does. I like something you hate? That's OK, the respect comes from not calling me a #$*@ or a *^%# personally because of it.
> 
> V


Yes I agree, we should never negatively characterize someone in an anonymous forum. We surely know next to nothing about the person and his experiences and background. How stupid does that make us look?

Children love nursery rhymes at a certain age. They sing them over and over and you can see in their faces that they are really 'getting' the music, the intervals and the chord sequences. This will really wear on parents after a year so. lol Then they use the same incomplete pentatonic scale to taunt each other when playing traditional games with each other. But eventually they tire of the simplistic nursery songs and that short form --- and it's a fascinating subject because if you follow they're predctable path to higher appreciations, by and by they eventually all follow different pop and classical experiences and end up very differently in their 20s.

After the teenage peergroup tribal songs which are fashionable in that age group, some of them explore outward on their own. Some don't. It's important that they catch the (what one of my professors called because he was searching for a memorable word) the besottedness quite early. And I do remember that word..


----------



## millionrainbows

Behind every "music" is a person, so don't deride it. Respect all music and people.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> Behind every "music" is a person, so don't deride it. Respect all music and people.


Thank you for saying this.

By the way, I recently acquired a kitten and named him Karlheinz Stockhausen. This stuff is highly personal for me.


----------



## Enthusiast

DaveM said:


> Where is he calling anyone an idiot and repeatedly?


I selected it for you. When he talks about a small segment of society fooling themselves he is saying that the people who like that type of music are deluded - thereby implying that his taste is the only possible one unless you fool yourself. And when he says that the people who like that music are lacking the objectivity to call garbage ... garbage. He is not talking about any real music - his example is hypothetical - but both of these statements would imply a failure on the part of those who disagree with him to see the truth about the music.

Wouldn't it be better to just say "I find this music (eg random and lacking in meaning) and I don't understand how people could like it". He could even say "I feel that those who like this have been tricked" but that would be a slightly foolish thing to say if the music was widely admired. What I wondered is why it was necessary in this hypothetical case to actively demean the people who have different taste to him? It just comes over as arrogant and ignorant.

I may be wrong but it seems from what he wrote that he has had trouble with people taking his posts badly in the past. I hope I have made clear how this might happen. People who disagree with him will feel insulted and may react badly.


----------



## Varick

Enthusiast said:


> I selected it for you. When he talks about a small segment of society fooling themselves he is saying that the people who like that type of music are deluded - thereby implying that his taste is the only possible one unless you fool yourself. And when he says that the people who like that music are lacking the objectivity to call garbage ... garbage. He is not talking about any real music - his example is hypothetical - but both of these statements would imply a failure on the part of those who disagree with him to see the truth about the music.
> 
> Wouldn't it be better to just say "I find this music (eg random and lacking in meaning) and I don't understand how people could like it". He could even say "I feel that those who like this have been tricked" but that would be a slightly foolish thing to say if the music was widely admired. What I wondered is why it was necessary in this hypothetical case to actively demean the people who have different taste to him? It just comes over as arrogant and ignorant.


You see, you have a very different interpretation of what I wrote than obviously the other two members above. Again, that's your interpretation and you expressed your thoughts about it. That's fine. I do imply a failure on the part of those who disagree with me to see the truth about music, simply because I DO believe in a "truth" about music. If you do not, again, that's great.

These are opinions, take from them what you will. My statement is no different than someone stating Trump is an idiot, Asparagus is disgusting, Slow drivers in the left lane should be shot, or coffee ice cream is delicious. We all do it, why people fight and argue against doing it perplexes me.

V


----------



## DaveM

Varick said:


> If someone put some children, let's say about 3 or 4 years old, in a room of instruments and told them to start playing, the cacophony that would follow might be cute for about 20-30 seconds but after a minute or so, would become unbearable and no one in their right mind would want to record it so they could enjoy such music later on.
> 
> So when adults get together, perhaps a bit more organized and maybe even some of them have some musical knowledge, produce pretty much the same result, there seems to be a segment of society, albeit small, that fool themselves into 1. Liking that music and 2. attaching some value to such music. Personally, I don't have much of a beef with #1. I mean, whatever rings your bell, but it's #2 that get's to me.
> 
> Maybe it's me, maybe it's a flawed perception of mine, but I have a very difficult time believing that everyone doesn't have some kind of objectivity in them to call garbage... well,.... garbage. Why is that necessarily wrong? You like A, I think A is horrible. I like D, you think D is horrible. I think A is horrible because of ... You think D is horrible because of ... Great. Why is this such a bad thing? It's conversation of two people who have opposing views. Have we become so hyper sensitive, so thin-skinned, that we can't take any criticism from those we hardly even know and whom we have probably less than a 1% chance of ever meeting face to face? Have we become that big of whimps, that immature, that narcissistic that our world is damaged because I stated that my favorite ice cream flavor is coffee, but you think coffee ice cream is disgusting and gross?
> 
> Now, if it starts resulting into ad hominem attacks, that's where the line has to be drawn. I have my thoughts and opinions like everyone else does. I like something you hate? That's OK, the respect comes from not calling me a #$*@ or a *^%# personally because of it.
> 
> V


Well put. As long as someone isn't telling someone else what they should like, there's no reason why a civil dialogue isn't possible. However, problems arise when a few overly-sensitive individuals take everything personally and don't read carefully what is being said. I really don't care if someone hates all pre-20th century music. If someone says it sucks, no problem, but if they infer I'm crazy for liking it, then they'll get a reaction. And if someone starts in with 'You this and you that' then everything will start to fall apart.

Another thing with regards to contemporary and modern music which is the source of some of the most contentious discussions: There are those who don't seem to be able to discuss it without acting as if someone just kicked their dog. Some lament ad nauseum over how they or several others have been driven out of this or other forums. Or they whine about not being able to post on the subject.

Well, the fact is that there is every opportunity for anyone here to be able to take part in any kind of discussion they want, including those where it's a mutual admiration society. The mods have made it clear that if the title or OP makes it clear that the thread is for those who like the subject then anyone who starts criticizing the subject matter will get a warning. There are a number of ongoing threads like that. And one can start a thread.

On the other hand, where the OP raises a question, 'Do you like this work?' or 'What do you think of 20th century music?, the OP infers that it is open to all viewpoints. Yet, inevitably, there are those who, once again, think their dog has been kicked if anything negative or anything they take negativily is said against their fave music. The fact is that if all threads are supposed to avoid anything controversial or provocative then this will become one dead forum. If you don't like controversy or are too sensitive then stay out of discussions where everything isn't kumbaya; they're obviously not good for your health.


----------



## Thomyum2

Just as the same music may sound beautiful or ugly to different listeners, so too does language. People have different styles of communication even within the same communities, so what more in the diverse and multi-cultural world we are dealing with here. And on the internet where we don't have the benefits of visual or auditory cues such as facial expressions and tone of voice to inform us of the poster's intentions, and where everyone is without identity, it's very easy to offend and to take offense when it wasn't intended. I see it happen all the time in all different kinds of internet discussion boards. I try my best to write in soft and deferent terms in my posts but from the reactions I get my words sometimes seem to get taken personally in spite of the effort. And I find myself doing the same thing, sometimes reacting to a perceived slight, that when I go back and re-read the post more carefully I can imagine was not intended that way at all. 

The internet seems to me to be a sort of a Tower of Babel. It is perplexing - but fascinating too if you can develop a thick enough skin for it.


----------



## Bluecrab

Enthusiast said:


> ...thereby implying that his taste is the only possible one unless you fool yourself.


You said this recently with regard to Mozart's symphony 40: "I won't comment much on the work. It is - along with several other late Mozart symphonies - a huge achievement, a major masterpiece ... quite simply one of the greatest pieces (along with more than 100 other pieces) ever written. *If you don't know that then I feel sympathy for you as I am certain that some part of your brain is not working properly*.

So it's fine for you to say explicitly-not to imply, but state explicitly-that anybody who doesn't consider that symphony one of the greatest works ever written suffers from some kind of cerebral malady, but varick must not say essentially the same thing? How do you rationalize this?



Enthusiast said:


> Wouldn't it be better to just say...


Wouldn't it be better if you stopped preaching gratuitiously to the rest of us about how we should behave on this forum? After all, I don't see the title "Moderator" next to your name.


----------



## Thomyum2

And so, on a note related back to the topic of the OP...

I once read a story about Alan Hovhaness, which you can read on Wikipedia:

_In 1942, he won a scholarship at Tanglewood to study in Czech composer Bohuslav Martinů's master class. During a seminar in composition, while a recording of Hovhaness's first symphony was being played, Aaron Copland talked loudly in Spanish to Latin-American composers in the room; and at the end of the recording Leonard Bernstein went to the piano, played a melodic minor scale and rebuked the work as "cheap ghetto music." Apparently angered and distraught by this experience, he left Tanglewood early, abandoning his scholarship and again destroying a number of his works in the aftermath of that major disappointment._

So apparently here, Bernstein really was 'deriding' young Hovhaness' own composition. The story seems to reflect poorly on the character of Bernstein, both in his arrogance and insensitivity and also perhaps inability to recognize the talent of the young composer. Or does it? Or I guess one could say that if for those who like Hovhaness' work, that Bernstein was foolish, but if you have a low opinion of his music, then Bernstein was really right and just being brutally honest. Or perhaps even this was a pivotal moment that gave Hovhaness the push he needed to move in a new direction so that he could become the composer that he eventual was?


----------



## PlaySalieri

Bluecrab said:


> You said this recently with regard to Mozart's symphony 40: "I won't comment much on the work. It is - along with several other late Mozart symphonies - a huge achievement, a major masterpiece ... quite simply one of the greatest pieces (along with more than 100 other pieces) ever written. *If you don't know that then I feel sympathy for you as I am certain that some part of your brain is not working properly*.
> 
> So it's fine for you to say explicitly-not to imply, but state explicitly-that anybody who doesn't consider that symphony one of the greatest works ever written suffers from some kind of cerebral malady, but varick must not say essentially the same thing? How do you rationalize this?
> 
> Wouldn't it be better if you stopped preaching gratuitiously to the rest of us about how we should behave on this forum? After all, I don't see the title "Moderator" next to your name.


I think many of us get carried away at times and go too far with our enthusiasm - and Enthusiast is no exception.


----------



## DaveM

Bluecrab said:


> You said this recently with regard to Mozart's symphony 40: "I won't comment much on the work. It is - along with several other late Mozart symphonies - a huge achievement, a major masterpiece ... quite simply one of the greatest pieces (along with more than 100 other pieces) ever written. *If you don't know that then I feel sympathy for you as I am certain that some part of your brain is not working properly*.
> 
> So it's fine for you to say explicitly-not to imply, but state explicitly-that anybody who doesn't consider that symphony one of the greatest works ever written suffers from some kind of cerebral malady, but varick must not say essentially the same thing? How do you rationalize this?


The thing is that, in my experience, a comment like that will be more acceptable if a little smiley is placed after it. That indicates that nothing personal is meant.


----------



## Strange Magic

"NICHOLS: No. 
MAY: This is a. . . 
NICHOLS: It's a moral issue. 
MAY: Yes! Yes! 
NICHOLS: A moral issue. 
MAY: It is a moral issue. And to me that's so much more interesting than a real issue."

From a wonderful old Mike Nichols & Elaine May routine. 

I'm glad to see that expressing one's disgust and revulsion at another's musical choices is really a powerful moral issue serving to defend freedom of speech here in TC-World. And it fosters one's sense of self, of individualism, of standing up for one's beliefs: it's actually quite character-building. So rather than keeping silent, as I have done since becoming a member, over others' tastes in these vital issues of musical choice, I may now lash out at the ludicrous, often loathesome nonsense that certain posters claim to actually like. The feeling of personal liberation may prove wonderfully exhilarating!


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> "NICHOLS: No.
> MAY: This is a. . .
> NICHOLS: It's a moral issue.
> MAY: Yes! Yes!
> NICHOLS: A moral issue.
> MAY: It is a moral issue. And to me that's so much more interesting than a real issue."
> 
> From a wonderful old Mike Nichols & Elaine May routine.
> 
> I'm glad to see that expressing one's disgust and revulsion at another's musical choices is really a powerful moral issue serving to defend freedom of speech here in TC-World. And it fosters one's sense of self, of individualism, of standing up for one's beliefs: it's actually quite character-building. So rather than keeping silent, as I have done since becoming a member, over others' tastes in these vital issues of musical choice, I may now lash out at the ludicrous, often loathesome nonsense that certain posters claim to actually like. The feeling of personal liberation may prove wonderfully exhilarating!


You mean you'll know longer be the wilting violet you've been in expressing your opinions on other people's views in groups?


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> You mean you'll know longer be the wilting violet you've been in expressing your opinions on other people's views in groups?


Don't know about you, but politics and religion, to the extent that they profoundly impinge upon the lives and well-being of millions, is the place where the real issues get discussed.


----------



## Larkenfield

*deride; deriding*
transitive verb
1 : to laugh at or insult contemptuously: got derided by a carnival clown
2 : to subject to usually bitter or contemptuous ridicule or criticism: politicians deriding their opponents 
3 : to express a lack of respect or approval of: were derided as the weaker sex
--
The word suggests going way beyond simply disagreeing with someone.


----------



## Fredx2098

Phil loves classical said:


> I believe in free speech. That it is ok to deride music that people love. As much as praising music others hate. I think everyone should be more tolerant of other views. I can say I hate the music of Feldman and Cage. Others can say they hate the composers I like. It could make for some stimulating conversation. Isn't that what were here for?


I wish that people would say "I hate [composer]," but they don't, they say "[composer] is bad and talentless." There's a big difference.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> Don't know about you, but politics and religion, to the extent that they profoundly impinge upon the lives and well-being of millions, is the place where the real issues get discussed.


That may be so, but IMO the rules of engagement should be the same no matter what part of the forum one is in. Does one get to bash others over the head if the subject is politics and, at the same time, appear to be counselling everyone else how to post elsewhere?


----------



## EdwardBast

stomanek said:


> Or maybe they just couldnt find a list of quotes comparable with the Mozart lists.
> 
> It's not just fanatics on here that have been vocal about Mozart.


Or perhaps the JSB and LVB people are sure of their musical judgment and it wouldn't occur to them to look for second hand support.


----------



## aleazk

"Music that is OK to deride"

The music I don't like, of course. What else could it be?


----------



## mmsbls

EdwardBast said:


> It might tell us that JSB and LVB fans on TC are less fanatical about their fandom or, at least, less demonstratively fanatical about it.


I don't know how fanatical various fans are. I do know that several people used to "complain" about Beethoven fanboys and how obnoxious they were. I don't think that I've ever seen the same kind of behavior exhibited towards Beethoven and Mozart exhibited towards Bach. Anyway, I think all three's music is deserving of very strong devotion.


----------



## KenOC

EdwardBast said:


> Or perhaps the JSB and LVB people are sure of their musical judgment and it wouldn't occur to them to look for second hand support.


I think that people with fragile egos tend to gravitate to music that will increase their sense of self-worth. This means music with a certain degree of...exclusiveness. It also means that their reaction to any criticism of "their" music will be defensive, since they will feel that they themselves are being attacked.


----------



## mmsbls

Varick said:


> You see, you have a very different interpretation of what I wrote than obviously the other two members above. Again, that's your interpretation and you expressed your thoughts about it. That's fine. I do imply a failure on the part of those who disagree with me to see the truth about music, simply because I DO believe in a "truth" about music. If you do not, again, that's great.
> 
> These are opinions, take from them what you will. My statement is no different than someone stating Trump is an idiot, Asparagus is disgusting, Slow drivers in the left lane should be shot, or coffee ice cream is delicious. We all do it, why people fight and argue against doing it perplexes me.
> 
> V


The moderators try to differentiate between negative comments towards things or non-TC members and such comments towards TC members. So...

"Trump is an idiot/Wagner is awful/Asparagus is disgusting" are generally viewed as fine.

"Slow drivers in the left lane should be shot" is fine (unless the thread contains comments from people who say they drive slowly in the left lane), but "Anyone who enjoys Stockhausen is an idiot" is problematic because it refers to any TC members who enjoy Stockhausen. The comment would be even worse if members in the thread had expressed a liking for Stockhausen because the comment would be taken as an insult towards those members. We recognize that such statements are generally not meant seriously, but people _do take_ such statements seriously.

A further problematic issue is repeated, provocative negative comments. It may be fine for someone to express intense dislike in a thread by stating, for example, that Mozart's music is garbage (one member long ago used to say the music sounded like "soggy ar*e cheeks slapping together"). If someone states over and over that Mozart is garbage, we would likely consider that trolling (not because it's Mozart because it's a repeated, provocative negative comment).

So it's not so easy to determine what is OK and what is not, but generally it's probably better to say what you feel rather than what is true of others (e.g. I dislike Mozart rather than Mozart lovers are idiots).


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

I have no problem deriding music that is only music in name but lacks any interesting musical content, like much of modern pop music. So what if people like it? People can like all sorts of crap but it doesn't mean that crap is good music.

Now I distinguish crap music (example 



) from good music I don't like (eg. Wagner, for the most part), which is praiseworthy for its construction even if it doesn't speak to me much.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> That may be so, but IMO the rules of engagement should be the same no matter what part of the forum one is in. Does one get to bash others over the head if the subject is politics and, at the same time, appear to be counselling everyone else how to post elsewhere?


Short answer: Yup! I differentiate between the relative unimportance of your or my opinions on Mozart, and matters of violence against women and schoolchildren, the war against science, and death. Or are the struggles against what we don't like to be all fought with the same intensity?


----------



## Eusebius12

david johnson said:


> Surely nobody will NOT deride the songs: "Puberty Love" and "The Words Get Stuck In My Throat"  Seriously, those who 'deride' are perhaps revealing more about themselves than about the music they grump over.


Drake is one of the most awful 'musicians' it has been my misfortune to encounter. I thought his excretion 'Work' just about took the biscuit as far as mass produced drivel for an undiscerning market, but his embarassingly drivelly 'God's Plan' actually exceeds 'Work' as respects having no lyrics worth the term, a pathetic little beat that a 2 year old could beat out (but not a Mozart) and generally drivelly and whiny sentiment. Repetition and cliche, I mean if Schubert and Mozart are to be criticized on this score, this so-called 'music' is literal faecal matter. Shows how moronic the general public truly is.


----------



## Eusebius12

KenOC said:


> I think that people with fragile egos tend to gravitate to music that will increase their sense of self-worth. This means music with a certain degree of...exclusiveness. It also means that their reaction to any criticism of "their" music will be defensive, since they will feel that they themselves are being attacked.


One cannot be snobby with Mozart anymore, but one still can be with Bach. When Beethoven was de rigueur amongst classical music consumers, such snobbery vis-a-vis his music was unheard of.


----------



## Fredx2098

I think it's valid to say that commercial pop music itself is bad. It's not the same as other music, i.e. someone's personal artistic creation. The mascots whose names are attached to the music usually have little or no creative input. The songs are made by large teams of people, who don't have their names directly attached to the music, trying to make the most typical, accessible music possible to cater to the lowest common denominator and make as much money as possible. It works very well. Still I wouldn't say that it's wrong for someone to enjoy the product. The people creating and fueling the production don't have righteous artistic intentions though.


----------



## PlaySalieri

EdwardBast said:


> Or perhaps the JSB and LVB people are sure of their musical judgment and it wouldn't occur to them to look for second hand support.


I think every listener is sure of their musical judgement so I don't see how that argument stands up. How can one not be certain of one's own tastes?


----------



## PlaySalieri

mmsbls said:


> The moderators try to differentiate between negative comments towards things or non-TC members and such comments towards TC members. So...
> 
> "Trump is an idiot/Wagner is awful/Asparagus is disgusting" are generally viewed as fine.
> 
> "Slow drivers in the left lane should be shot" is fine (unless the thread contains comments from people who say they drive slowly in the left lane), but "Anyone who enjoys Stockhausen is an idiot" is problematic because it refers to any TC members who enjoy Stockhausen. The comment would be even worse if members in the thread had expressed a liking for Stockhausen because the comment would be taken as an insult towards those members. We recognize that such statements are generally not meant seriously, but people _do take_ such statements seriously.
> 
> A further problematic issue is repeated, provocative negative comments. It may be fine for someone to express intense dislike in a thread by stating, for example, that Mozart's music is garbage (one member long ago used to say the music sounded like "soggy ar*e cheeks slapping together"). If someone states over and over that Mozart is garbage, we would likely consider that trolling (not because it's Mozart because it's a repeated, provocative negative comment).
> 
> So it's not so easy to determine what is OK and what is not, but generally it's probably better to say what you feel rather than what is true of others (e.g. I dislike Mozart rather than Mozart lovers are idiots).


So then repeating the charge that Mozart's music is cliche ridden - "cliche" is a derogatory term and implies that Mozart fans have as such, poor taste. Must be trolling then as is repeated by certain members so often.


----------



## PlaySalieri

KenOC said:


> I think that people with fragile egos tend to gravitate to music that will increase their sense of self-worth. This means music with a certain degree of...exclusiveness. It also means that their reaction to any criticism of "their" music will be defensive, since they will feel that they themselves are being attacked.


Do you hear that DavidA - you've got a fragile ego and low self esteem. You need therapy old boy.

I could use some therapy too.

Thanks for the insight.


----------



## DavidA

stomanek said:


> Do you hear that DavidA - you've got a fragile ego and low self esteem. You need therapy old boy.
> 
> I could use some therapy too.
> 
> Thanks for the insight.


Don't worry I've got enough self-esteem and knowledge of psychology to know a silly statement which has absolutely no basis in fact when I see it. In fact I would think that Mozart is the most inclusive if composers as most people tend to go for him, in my experience at least. Even people I know who don't particularly like classical music enjoy Mozart. So rather than being exclusive Mozart is inclusive. I'm actually just listening to the requiem conducted by Beecham and am reminded of Beecham's words that if he were a dictator he'd make it law that everyone was to listen to at least 15 minutes Mozart a day.


----------



## Haydn man

Eusebius12 said:


> Drake is one of the most awful 'musicians' it has been my misfortune to encounter. I thought his excretion 'Work' just about took the biscuit as far as mass produced drivel for an undiscerning market, but his embarassingly drivelly 'God's Plan' actually exceeds 'Work' as respects having no lyrics worth the term, a pathetic little beat that a 2 year old could beat out (but not a Mozart) and generally drivelly and whiny sentiment. Repetition and cliche, I mean if Schubert and Mozart are to be criticized on this score, this so-called 'music' is literal faecal matter. Shows how moronic the general public truly is.


Never heard any Drake, must find some on Spotify given your hearty recommendation of the deep and meaningful content


----------



## janxharris

stomanek said:


> So then repeating the charge that Mozart's music is cliche ridden - "cliche" is a derogatory term and implies that Mozart fans have as such, poor taste. Must be trolling then as is repeated by certain members so often.


This is germane:


mmsbls said:


> ...but generally it's probably better to say what you feel rather than what is true of others (e.g. I dislike Mozart rather than Mozart lovers are idiots).


----------



## arpeggio

I am going to repeat an observation I have made many times.

When I was in the Army, I played professionally with the 75th Army Band and I also have over forty years experience playing with community bands and orchestra. I have played more than my share of crap. Yet no matter how bad the music was there were always members of the audience who liked it and sometimes we have received a standing ovation for some of the most god awful stuff imaginable.

One sure way to offend the audience is to state that music that they like is crap. And if I would tell them that the reason they are offended is because of low self-esteem they would use my bassoon to give me a proctological exam.


----------



## KenOC

DavidA said:


> Don't worry I've got enough self-esteem and knowledge of psychology to know a silly statement which has absolutely no basis in fact when I see it.


BTW I certainly wasn't speaking of Mozart and his fans. Other more appropriate examples were firmly in mind.


----------



## DavidA

arpeggio said:


> I am going to repeat an observation I have made many times.
> 
> When I was in the Army, I played professionally with the 75th Army Band and I also have over forty years experience playing with community bands and orchestra. I have played more than my share of crap. Yet no matter how bad the music was there were always members of the audience who liked it and sometimes we have received a standing ovation for some of the most god awful stuff imaginable.
> 
> One sure way to offend the audience is to state that music that they like is crap. And if I would tell them that the reason they are offended is because of low self-esteem they would use my bassoon to give me a proctological exam.


Because they enjoyed it. So you achieved the main goal of music - enjoyment


----------



## Enthusiast

Varick said:


> You see, you have a very different interpretation of what I wrote than obviously the other two members above. Again, that's your interpretation and you expressed your thoughts about it. That's fine. I do imply a failure on the part of those who disagree with me to see the truth about music, simply because I DO believe in a "truth" about music. If you do not, again, that's great.
> 
> These are opinions, take from them what you will. My statement is no different than someone stating Trump is an idiot, Asparagus is disgusting, Slow drivers in the left lane should be shot, or coffee ice cream is delicious. We all do it, why people fight and argue against doing it perplexes me.
> 
> V


It is up to you, Varick. You complained that people take offense at your posts. You provided a hypothetical case. I pointed out two places where you implied that people who like the music you didn't like were wrong in a way that seemed likely to cause offense. If you want to carry on posting in that way I suspect you will continue to get into scraps and that some forum members will resent you for disturbing the discussion. But that is your affair.

I also think that there is an objective "truth" about the quality of given music (but I don't think we can get very close to knowing it). That may be why I found your hypothetical post offensive and arrogant and advised against that approach in posting. Some people saw what I was saying and others thought your post was fine. I can only say that I have some background in counselling and do know what I am talking about. But do carry on in your own way. I'm sure we will all survive.


----------



## Enthusiast

DaveM said:


> Well put. As long as someone isn't telling someone else what they should like, there's no reason why a civil dialogue isn't possible. However, problems arise when a few overly-sensitive individuals take everything personally and don't read carefully what is being said. I really don't care if someone hates all pre-20th century music. If someone says it sucks, no problem, but if they infer I'm crazy for liking it, then they'll get a reaction.


I did point out where Varick's example would have done almost that (not implying craziness but identifying delusion as the cause of the other person liking some music).

For the rest of your post (not quoted) I do agree that contemporary music is often where the strong disagreements come. As someone who likes quite a wide range of music I often find these tiresome (as I do the Mozart-bashing). Mostly it is the way the disagreement takes over the whole thread and gets in the way of real discussion - it seems to me because the one criticising contemporary music keeps stating the same opinion rather than having their say and moving on.


----------



## Enthusiast

Bluecrab said:


> You said this recently with regard to Mozart's symphony 40: "I won't comment much on the work. It is - along with several other late Mozart symphonies - a huge achievement, a major masterpiece ... quite simply one of the greatest pieces (along with more than 100 other pieces) ever written. *If you don't know that then I feel sympathy for you as I am certain that some part of your brain is not working properly*.
> 
> So it's fine for you to say explicitly-not to imply, but state explicitly-that anybody who doesn't consider that symphony one of the greatest works ever written suffers from some kind of cerebral malady, but varick must not say essentially the same thing? How do you rationalize this?
> 
> Wouldn't it be better if you stopped preaching gratuitiously to the rest of us about how we should behave on this forum? After all, I don't see the title "Moderator" next to your name.


Fair enough! I should start using emoticons but thought readers would recognise my tone as humorous - never something one should rely on with writing. Not that I minded that much as the subject had been bashed about so much that insulting the gainsayers was all that was left! It's not the way I would start a new discussion about Mozart.

I'm sorry if you find my posts unnecessarily preachy but like other members I post what I think and try to do so in a helpful way and constructive way. If my style irritates you then I'm sure I'm not the only one to do so. There are also styles that irritate me but if that is the only thing that worries me about the post I try to let it go.

(Oh, damn! There I go preaching again!)


----------



## Enthusiast

There is music that has a strong reputation for greatness, and that musicians with enormous skill and experience devote a lot of time to performing, but that I don't like very much. This has included, for example, most early music. I would not be able to tell the difference between a great piece and a poor piece of such music and I don't think I would know a poor performance from a good one. I just don't get it. I suspect I am not alone in this but those who feel like me about it don't need to rubbish it in the forum. I have never seen posts rubbishing early music or telling those who like it that they have been tricked by critics or that they merely pretend to like it to seem intellectual.

But then I do know that the problem is me - I am not getting that music - and I don't post about how such music is cold or boring or tuneless (all parts of how I actually experience it) because the evidence (basically its reputation) suggests that it is my lacking that causes me to not get it. But when it comes to Mozart and contemporary music there are a few among the unconvinced who seem to feel ... angry ... that others like that music. I don't get why. A couple of theories have been advanced in this thread for why this is. Are there others?


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> There is music that has a strong reputation for greatness and that musicians with enormous skill and experience devote a lot of time to performing but that I don't like very much. This has included, for example, most early music. I would not be able to tell the difference between a great piece and a poor piece of such music and I don't think I would know a poor performance from a good one. I just don't get it. I suspect I am not alone in this. But I do know that the problem is me - I am not getting that music - and I don't post about how such music is cold or boring or tuneless (all parts of how I actually experience it). This is because I know given the evidence (basically its reputation) that it is my lacking that causes me to not get the music. And, as I have never seen posts rubbishing early music or telling those who like it that they have been tricked by critics or that they merely pretend to like it to seem intellectual, I assume others feel similarly. But when it comes to Mozart and contemporary music there are a few among the unconvinced who seem to feel ... angry ... that others like that music. I don't get why.


I remain skeptical about the worth of many modern pieces. Even ones I enjoy. There remains a nagging suspicion that there isn't much of any skill required in their composition. It's just a suspicion...Emperor's New Clothes and all that...

I don't feel in any way angry though.


----------



## DavidA

Enthusiast said:


> . But when it comes to Mozart and contemporary music there are a few among the unconvinced who seem to feel ... angry ... that others like that music. I don't get why.


When it comes to Mozart I am flabbergasted that anyone couldn't like his music. When it comes to some contemporary music I am flabbergasted that anyone could like it. The latter seems to me the aural equivalent of lying on a bed of nails. But everyone to his/her taste. Whatever other people's opinions, it makes absolutely no difference to my likes and dislikes, nor am I going to lose any sleep over it!.


----------



## Guest

Enthusiast said:


> What I wonder is whether this is because these types of music (Mozart and "ugly contemporary music") are disliked by people who tend to be also somewhat angry by nature? Or is it that the music that gives rise to these controversies is in some way "marmite music" (music that you can't be merely ambivalent about)?


It seems that discussion so far has concentrated on answering the first of your questions, and not the second, leading to the usual round of complainining about what we are and aren't "allowed" to say about others' musical tastes.

To redress the balance, yes, I think there _is _'Marmite' music (and let's stick to the main subject of TC and not divert to pop/popular/rock) as well as music that is more widely accepted as both enjoyable and worthy.

But your question implies that we try to identify what it is about the music that prompts the Marmite response. There seem to me to be two main reasons. The first is the _relative _inaccessibility (let me stress 'relative') of some music. It's received as either unbearable (usually not conforming to CP tonality) or adventurous and challenging but worthwhile. The second is a perception about some music that it isn't really music at all and its experimental or exploratory nature provokes the Marmite response that it is either "groundbreaking, innovative and thought-provoking" or it's an example of the Emperor's new clothes, lacking value, meaning, integrity and is probably a deliberate con.

I'm sure people can offer their own examples of what fits these criteria and their own reactions, remembering that 'Marmite' does not just mean 'negative' (I say this only because it seems to be used as a synonym for that which is disliked).



janxharris said:


> There remains a nagging suspicion that there isn't much of any skill required in their composition.


Thanks. Yes, the apparent presence or absence of technical skill is another criteria.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> When it comes to Mozart I am flabbergasted that anyone couldn't like his music. When it comes to some contemporary music I am flabbergasted that anyone could like it. The latter seems to me the aural equivalent of lying on a bed of nails. But everyone to his/her taste. Whatever other people's opinions, it makes absolutely no difference to my likes and dislikes, nor am I going to lose any sleep over it!.


Given how long you've been listening to music, hearing the opinions of others and saying that you'll lose no sleep over what they think, it seems odd that you still claim to be "flabbergasted". Oxford offers synonyms such as astonish, astound, amaze, surprise, startle, shock, take aback, take by surprise...

Really?


----------



## Enthusiast

MacLeod said:


> It seems that discussion so far has concentrated on answering the first of your questions, and not the second, leading to the usual round of complainining about what we are and aren't "allowed" to say about others' musical tastes.
> 
> To redress the balance, yes, I think there _is _'Marmite' music (and let's stick to the main subject of TC and not divert to pop/popular/rock) as well as music that is more widely accepted as both enjoyable and worthy.
> 
> But your question implies that we try to identify what it is about the music that prompts the Marmite response. There seem to me to be two main reasons. The first is the _relative _inaccessibility (let me stress 'relative') of some music. It's received as either unbearable (usually not conforming to CP tonality) or adventurous and challenging but worthwhile. The second is a perception about some music that it isn't really music at all and its experimental or exploratory nature provokes the Marmite response that it is either "groundbreaking, innovative and thought-provoking" or it's an example of the Emperor's new clothes, lacking value, meaning, integrity and is probably a deliberate con.
> 
> I'm sure people can offer their own examples of what fits these criteria and their own reactions, remembering that 'Marmite' does not just mean 'negative' (I say this only because it seems to be used as a synonym for that which is disliked).
> 
> Thanks. Yes, the apparent presence or absence of technical skill is another criteria.


Excellent post. But I would go beyond the marmite response to why those who experience it (or is it, as I think, only its negative forms?) seem unable to let it go.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> Given how long you've been listening to music, hearing the opinions of others and saying that you'll lose no sleep over what they think, it seems odd that you still claim to be "flabbergasted". Oxford offers synonyms such as astonish, astound, amaze, surprise, startle, shock, take aback, take by surprise...
> 
> Really?


If you're going to be pedantic over semantics, I used the word in the sense of 'amazed'. You can be amazed without losing sleep. I am 'flabbergasted' that certain movies win Academy Awards but I don't lose sleep over the matter. I have a lot more important things in my life than these matters. Perhaps some people don't?


----------



## Varick

Enthusiast said:


> There is music that has a strong reputation for greatness and that musicians with enormous skill and experience devote a lot of time to performing but that I don't like very much. This has included, for example, most early music. I would not be able to tell the difference between a great piece and a poor piece of such music and I don't think I would know a poor performance from a good one. I just don't get it. I suspect I am not alone in this. But I do know that the problem is me - I am not getting that music - and I don't post about how such music is cold or boring or tuneless (all parts of how I actually experience it). This is because I know given the evidence (basically its reputation) that it is my lacking that causes me to not get the music. And, as I have never seen posts rubbishing early music or telling those who like it that they have been tricked by critics or that they merely pretend to like it to seem intellectual, I assume others feel similarly. But when it comes to Mozart and contemporary music there are a few among the unconvinced who seem to feel ... angry ... that others like that music. I don't get why.


That's a great point you make, and it opens up another important question. You don't "get" most early music, but you will not criticize it. Could it be perhaps that on some level, you know that in it's time, there was greatness in it, at least in respect of the building blocks it created to advance music to a level that Bach, Beethoven, and Tchaikovsky created?

I personally don't "get" much of chamber music. However, I also know that there is greatness in much of it composed by the great masters. I don't see many people who are versed in the art of music deriding or "objectively" criticizing much of these two aformentioned genres of music. So, why the recoil when it comes to a lot of 20th/21st Century/Contemporary music? Is it possible, that maybe there isn't "greatness" where some people claim? That even though many of us who are versed and learned about music, and can extol the virtues of music we don't "get" (ie: enjoy or are moved by), could possibly understand that there is little to "extol?"

Not necessarily "rhetorical" questions, but maybe some questions to think about. I know I do. I have high praise for the works of Bartok. I can intellectually and technically break down his music and see & hear the absolute brilliance in many of his compositions, however, there is little of his work that I can say after a hard days work, I want to sit back, scotch and cigar in hand, and "unwind" to. So, I have to ask myself, why can I "appreciate" certain composer's work that I don't necessarily "enjoy," and why *can't I even* "appreciate" other composers whom I know are just as learned as others.

V


----------



## Fredx2098

Varick said:


> Not necessarily "rhetorical" questions, but maybe some questions to think about. I know I do. I have high praise for the works of Bartok. I can intellectually and technically break down his music and see & hear the absolute brilliance in many of his compositions, however, there is little of his work that I can say after a hard days work, I want to sit back, scotch and cigar in hand, and "unwind" to. So, I have to ask myself, why can I "appreciate" certain composer's work that I don't necessarily "enjoy," and why *can't I even* "appreciate" other composers whom I know are just as learned as others.


Perhaps because you have opinions and subjectivity, and when one is "learned" in music, they learn that some composers are regarded more highly than others, which can cause a bias. There are several musicians and learned people here including myself who enjoy a wide variety of music from hundreds of years ago to the present day. If you don't appreciate some music, I don't think you should immediately jump to the conclusion that they have no talent or greatness.


----------



## Enthusiast

janxharris said:


> I remain skeptical about the worth of many modern pieces. Even ones I enjoy. There remains a nagging suspicion that there isn't much of any skill required in their composition. It's just a suspicion...Emperor's New Clothes and all that...
> 
> I don't feel in any way angry though.


Very gently put! Of course, history teaches us that a very large proportion of new music will not last. It may fulfill a useful function and be enjoyed now (in its own time) but it will come to seem shallow or derivative or formulaic or just plain dull. So you are probably right about most of it. With older music we have the benefit of hindsight and can focus on what has come through.

I suspect that you will see most of the more adventurous contemporary music as the music that will die whereas I suspect it is much of the more conventional and backward looking music that is doomed. We are probably both right and both wrong - the record of our age will probably be very varied - but, however it is, music that is enjoyed now is still worthwhile even if it doesn't live forever. We, though, as a CM forum are, of course, wedded to the idea that worthwhile music lives on or is "unjustly neglected".

About that "nagging suspicion", though .... it may sound to you as though no skill is required to compose some contemporary music but you must surely _*know*_ for certain that this is not the case. After all, the composers and the performers have spent their lives learning their skills and have risen to the top of the pack of others who tried but lacked the talent or the drive. This we know for a fact.


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> About that "nagging suspicion", though .... it may sound to you as though no skill is required to compose some contemporary music but you must surely _*know*_ for certain that this is not the case. After all, the composers and the performers have spent their lives learning their skills and have risen to the top of the pack of others who tried but lacked the talent or the drive. This we know for a fact.


Without a piece achieving consistent concert hall performances then I think it's okay to be skeptical. And my skepticism is just that - it's not an affirmation in the negative.


----------



## Fredx2098

janxharris said:


> I remain skeptical about the worth of many modern pieces. Even ones I enjoy. There remains a nagging suspicion that there isn't much of any skill required in their composition. It's just a suspicion...Emperor's New Clothes and all that...
> 
> I don't feel in any way angry though.


Who do you think is wearing these new clothes though? The composer? Someone who enjoys the music? Either way, that seems like a pretty negative or insulting mindset. To compare all modern music to the emperor's new clothes seems less like a suspicion and more like a direct insult.


----------



## janxharris

Fredx2098 said:


> Who do you think is wearing these new clothes though? The composer? Someone who enjoys the music? Either way, that seems like a pretty negative or insulting mindset. To compare all modern music to the emperor's new clothes seems less like a suspicion and more like a direct insult.


I was only expressing a suspicion about whether some modern composers are merely throwing paint on a canvass and seeing where it lands - with possibly very little in the way of organization. It remains just that - a suspicion.

There is no need to feel insulted - I didn't cite any particular work and even affirmed that I enjoy some modern pieces.


----------



## Larkenfield

Saint-Saëns deriding Ravel: “If he'd been making shell cases during the war it would have been better for music." Highly doubtful in retrospect. Sometimes discretion may be the greater part of candor. Does everybody have to know the long list of composers or music that one holds in derision? The negativity of it all can make a lasting bad impression and it’s doubtful it changes anything. The lovers of CM represent only about 3% of the population, and the rest of the 97% are apparently content with their “marmite” music of something else. Everyone has to start somewhere and it’s not necessarily at the top of the aesthetic mountain. I doubt there’s one person here who hasn’t previously listened to the music that he or she now holds in contempt, but not at the time. Modern and contemporary music is more of a challenge, as awful as some of it sounds, because it hasn’t all been sorted through in its time or predigested down through the centuries.


----------



## Eusebius12

Fredx2098 said:


> I think it's valid to say that commercial pop music itself is bad. It's not the same as other music, i.e. someone's personal artistic creation. The mascots whose names are attached to the music usually have little or no creative input. The songs are made by large teams of people, who don't have their names directly attached to the music, trying to make the most typical, accessible music possible to cater to the lowest common denominator and make as much money as possible. It works very well. Still I wouldn't say that it's wrong for someone to enjoy the product. The people creating and fueling the production don't have righteous artistic intentions though.


True for the most part, although some pop music of the past has merit in my view.


----------



## Eusebius12

Haydn man said:


> Never heard any Drake, must find some on Spotify given your hearty recommendation of the deep and meaningful content


Just don't pay for it 

Listen on youtube if you have to


----------



## Eusebius12

DavidA said:


> When it comes to Mozart I am flabbergasted that anyone couldn't like his music. When it comes to some contemporary music I am flabbergasted that anyone could like it. The latter seems to me the aural equivalent of lying on a bed of nails. But everyone to his/her taste. Whatever other people's opinions, it makes absolutely no difference to my likes and dislikes, nor am I going to lose any sleep over it!.


20th and 21st century music is very varied, but I am no great fan of the barbed wire school. There has been a lot of ugliness for ugliness sake, paper composition, aural enemas, intellectual exercises, harmonic and melodic abortions. There has also been great music in every form. I enjoy dissonance, but I enjoy variety (I dislike serialism that rejects any sort of potential consonance. I dislike ugly for the sake of ugly. I dislike pointless non-musical non-artistic theatrics. I dislike ugliness that doesn't revel in it's ugliness occasionally, but just tediously plops and grinds on and on going nowhere but taking a long time about it). Anyone reading this, I realize you might have a different view on every statement in this post.


----------



## Eusebius12

Without extreme musical criticism, we wouldn't have Nicolas Slonimsky's Lexicon of Musical Invective...


----------



## janxharris

Fredx2098 said:


> I think it's valid to say that commercial pop music itself is bad. It's not the same as other music, i.e. someone's personal artistic creation. The mascots whose names are attached to the music usually have little or no creative input. The songs are made by large teams of people, who don't have their names directly attached to the music, trying to make the most typical, accessible music possible to cater to the lowest common denominator and make as much money as possible. It works very well. Still I wouldn't say that it's wrong for someone to enjoy the product. The people creating and fueling the production don't have righteous artistic intentions though.


Is this an insult to lovers of such music? I really like some of it but I am not in any way insulted by what you have written.


----------



## Eusebius12

Enthusiast said:


> Very gently put! Of course, history teaches us that a very large proportion of new music will not last. It may fulfill a useful function and be enjoyed now (in its own time)


Unfortunately that really isn't true much at all for the bulk of serial compositions. Most of Schoenberg's work (for example) suffers from the double whammy of never being popular and being fairly ephemeral. Even if the music is studied (in schools) and performed a little (generally as the 'medicine' before someone like Mozart, ironically, although performances of mature Schoenberg are becoming rare even in that context, Schoenberg in 2018 is hardly 'new music that needs to be encouraged'


----------



## Eusebius12

Varick said:


> I have high praise for the works of Bartok. I can intellectually and technically break down his music and see & hear the absolute brilliance in many of his compositions, however, there is little of his work that I can say after a hard days work, I want to sit back, scotch and cigar in hand, and "unwind" to. So, I have to ask myself, why can I "appreciate" certain composer's work that I don't necessarily "enjoy," and why *can't I even* "appreciate" other composers whom I know are just as learned as others.
> 
> V


I enjoy Bartok. He isn't a composer that I seek for every mood, but I hardly recoil from him. There is an aural logic about his work that I find inescapable. I can listen to say the sonata for solo violin or the viola concerto for pure pleasure. Dissonance doesn't scare me, (I appreciate the musical value of say the Miraculous Mandarin, or the piano concertos or the string quartets). I respond more to Bartok's concrete structures than the sometimes vaguer explorations of the 2nd Viennese School, let alone their successors.


----------



## Eusebius12

Enthusiast said:


> There is music that has a strong reputation for greatness, and that musicians with enormous skill and experience devote a lot of time to performing, but that I don't like very much. This has included, for example, most early music. I would not be able to tell the difference between a great piece and a poor piece of such music


Just regular listening has converted me to Renaissance polyphony and other things. If you listen much to the majestic rivers of polyphonic sound produced by Palestrina, Josquin, Byrd, Victoria and others it has to have an impact. Palestrina has a very pure, diatonic approach which can feel like cold water. Dufay is well worth exploring, his style can have an experimental, exploratory feel at times especially in his instrumental music and chansons. Well his style is diverse. Dufay is probably the first great composer in some senses, not doubting the genius of Guillaume de Machaut. De Vitry probably was a genius also but there isn't much work by him extant. Even Perotin and Leonin composed music that can resonate artistically with a modern ear.

To appreciate this music, one must allow a modal idiom to stretch your ears. This music may stretch your understanding, but it will never assault it. Even if Janequin's Bataille de Marignan might attempt such.


----------



## Eusebius12

I see in Schoenberg (although his output was large and I cannot give a thorough dismissal or analysis of all of it) a feeling of rootlessness, fairly rigid use of his technique to make something that looks like an interesting exercise on paper but without much aural interest, lots of large intervals for no particular reason and a general lack of rhythmic vitality. So shoot me


----------



## Fredx2098

janxharris said:


> I was only expressing a suspicion about whether some modern composers are merely throwing paint on a canvass and seeing where it lands - with possibly very little in the way of organization. It remains just that - a suspicion.
> 
> There is no need to feel insulted - I didn't cite any particular work and even affirmed that I enjoy some modern pieces.


Some people like that though. Some people like to make or enjoy art that is unorganized. The Emperor's New Clothes is about being pretentious and snobby and trying to impress people, but some people just make the art that they want to make and don't care what other people think. I see a possible reference to Pollock. I don't like his art in particular, but abstract art in general is my favorite kind of art. I like to see what cannot be seen otherwise, i.e. non-representative art. How that translates to music is I don't feel greatly interested by very formal and "proper" music, but I know how much talent it takes to create, like a masterful portrait painting. And like I said in another post, I do like a large amount of the "great" formal composers. I like a lot of music from every era, but personally I prefer modern music because I prefer chaotic, strange, confusing sounds over comfortable familiar sounds.

It seems like most people directly equate modernism with atonal serialism. Is that so in your case? I've heard many times that modernism equals serialism, and that the composers who are my favorite are post-modern, but that still has not been explained to me. It goes against everything I've read about modernism and post-modernism. Modernism is just about doing things in new ways as far as I know. Maybe they're talking about the "Modern era" which may be mostly serialists, but that isn't what I'm talking about. I wouldn't describe serialism as just throwing paint on a canvas, perhaps I'd describe it in just the opposite way. I would probably say that about indeterminacy though; it takes less talent than precisely composed music, but I do enjoy some of the sounds that are created with it, though I don't really love them by any means, and I would credit the composer less for the resulting enjoyable sounds.

(Here I go, I'm going to start talking about...) Feldman is my favorite composer because he makes music that _sounds_ chaotic and random on the surface, but it's actually all precisely composed (his later, or what I call his "serious" works, from about 1970 onward), and if you pay close attention, you'll begin to hear that it isn't random in any way and is all very deliberate. He's obviously very technically talented because he can create something that can be written off as random meaningless notes, but really each of his pieces has very important structure and development. I can obviously see why most people dislike or hate his music or think it's so boring and pointless that it doesn't even deserve a critique, but I cannot understand why people think he lacks talent as a composer. Someone once asserted that Feldman could not compose something like Beethoven in a million years (disregarding that he would not _want_ to compose like that), but I wonder if Beethoven would be able to compose something like Feldman, if it really is so boring and easy and meaningless. I understand hatred of his music, but saying that he lacks talent and direction shows a distinct lack of understanding of his style, so I believe that people make such objective insults about certain composers and styles just because they don't like how it sounds and want to insult it.

I'm not arguing with what you said; I'm just trying to make a point in favor of modern styles of music not always being pretentious. I think that if there's a suspicion like that about modern music, there should also be such a suspicion about every single kind of music. I urge people to form their own opinions and not worry about what other people think or what they say is the proper thing to enjoy.


----------



## Fredx2098

Eusebius12 said:


> True for the most part, although some pop music of the past has merit in my view.


That's why I specified "commercial pop music" i.e. music that is made solely for commercial purposes. I consider it objectively bad because of the intentions of the people who create such music. I actually do enjoy some pop hits from before 2000. When I say pop music, I'm not including things like rock music, only things that are made to attract as many people as possible and be easy to listen to.



janxharris said:


> Is this an insult to lovers of such music? I really like some of it but I am not in any way insulted by what you have written.


It wasn't an insult to people who enjoy the music. I said that it isn't wrong to enjoy the music, but I believe that the actual creation of the music and motives behind it are wrong. I'm insulting the companies, producers, and figureheads of such music. I do wish that fewer people enjoyed modern commercial pop music, because it is tarnishing the general view of what music is. Now the average person thinks the definition of "music" is a cool person who has a cool image making sounds that they don't care about as much, and the non-artists rake in pile after pile of money, which perpetuates the process and makes companies produce progressively dumber and dumber music, because they think/know that it's what people want.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> If you're going to be pedantic over semantics, I used the word in the sense of 'amazed'. You can be amazed without losing sleep. I am 'flabbergasted' that certain movies win Academy Awards but I don't lose sleep over the matter. I have a lot more important things in my life than these matters. Perhaps some people don't?


It's not pedantic to ask for clarification. Perhaps I should be more honest and ask that you give up regularly posting about how amazed you are about others' attitude to Mozart. If you are as relaxed as you claim, surely you'd give up?


----------



## janxharris

Fredx2098 said:


> That's why I specified "commercial pop music" i.e. music that is made solely for commercial purposes. I consider it objectively bad because of the intentions of the people who create such music. I actually do enjoy some pop hits from before 2000. When I say pop music, I'm not including things like rock music, only things that are made to attract as many people as possible and be easy to listen to.
> 
> It wasn't an insult to people who enjoy the music. I said that it isn't wrong to enjoy the music, but I believe that the actual creation of the music and motives behind it are wrong. I'm insulting the companies, producers, and figureheads of such music. I do wish that fewer people enjoyed modern commercial pop music, because it is tarnishing the general view of what music is. Now the average person thinks the definition of "music" is a cool person who has a cool image making sounds that they don't care about as much, and the non-artists rake in pile after pile of money, which perpetuates the process and makes companies produce progressively dumber and dumber music, because they think/know that it's what people want.


Without citing specific songs it's difficult to know how to respond.


----------



## Fredx2098

janxharris said:


> Without citing specific songs it's difficult to know how to respond.


Citing specific songs that are created only for commercial purposes? It's not so much a type of song but a concept and method of mass-producing music like a factory or a fast food restaurant. Some figureheads who are associated with that are Justin Bieber, Drake, Kanye West, One Direction (most "boy bands" are perfect examples of this kind of thing), Migos, Nicki Minaj, etc. I would recommend not to listen to things like that, but if you'd like some examples:




































Notice how many views each of these have. Here's the most viewed youtube video of all time:


----------



## Enthusiast

janxharris said:


> Without a piece achieving consistent concert hall performances then I think it's okay to be skeptical. And my skepticism is just that - it's not an affirmation in the negative.


It wasn't you skepticism I argued about but your sneaking suspicion that there is no skill, knowledge or talent involved in producing that music. You can be skeptical: fair enough. But a suspicion about the level of skill and knowledge of a given composer can be tested and become either a fact or a falsehood.


----------



## Enthusiast

Eusebius12 said:


> Unfortunately that really isn't true much at all for the bulk of serial compositions. Most of Schoenberg's work (for example) suffers from the double whammy of never being popular and being fairly ephemeral. Even if the music is studied (in schools) and performed a little (generally as the 'medicine' before someone like Mozart, ironically, although performances of mature Schoenberg are becoming rare even in that context, Schoenberg in 2018 is hardly 'new music that needs to be encouraged'


I don't know how you measure that in a way that tells us much. Schoenberg is much recorded - suggesting a substantial audience - and I have seen so many posts by people with normal CM tastes about how great his music is that I don't think I would have seen ten or fifteen years ago. But the rate for quite a lot of music going from new to established has declined and modern concert audiences do seem to prefer music that uses a language that they are familiar with from their liking of, say, Mahler and Shostakovich. I am just not sure what all this means. None of us can be.

As for enjoying contemporary music for what it is now (and not worrying about posterity) - many people do enjoy it and many very gifted performers believe it is worth playing. It may not be the majority of CM listeners but it is a substantial audience. It may not include you!


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> It wasn't you skepticism I argued about but your sneaking suspicion that there is no skill, knowledge or talent involved in producing that music. You can be skeptical: fair enough. But a suspicion about the level of skill and knowledge of a given composer can be tested and become either a fact or a falsehood.


Skill as in the composer not merely presenting a tone row and fiddling with it whilst avoiding any suggestion of hierarchy. As I said, my skepticism includes pieces that I enjoy.



> ...skill and knowledge of a given composer can be tested and become either a fact or a falsehood.


You mean because it survives in the concert hall? I am not aware of any modern works (of the avant-garde type) which have. Perhaps the Berg violin concerto..


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> I don't know how you measure that in a way that tells us much. Schoenberg is much recorded * - suggesting a substantial audience* - and I have seen so many posts by people with normal CM tastes about how great his music is that I don't think I would have seen ten or fifteen years ago. But the rate for quite a lot of music going from new to established has declined and modern concert audiences do seem to prefer music that uses a language that they are familiar with from their liking of, say, Mahler and Shostakovich. I am just not sure what all this means. None of us can be.
> 
> As for enjoying contemporary music for what it is now (and not worrying about posterity) - many people do enjoy it and many very gifted performers believe it is worth playing. It may not be the majority of CM listeners but it is a substantial audience. It may not include you!


Please would you substantiate this. I regularly listen to radio 3 and I can only think of maybe 3 airings in the last year or so.


----------



## janxharris

Fredx2098 said:


> Citing specific songs that are created only for commercial purposes? It's not so much a type of song but a concept and method of mass-producing music like a factory or a fast food restaurant. Some figureheads who are associated with that are Justin Bieber, Drake, Kanye West, One Direction (most "boy bands" are perfect examples of this kind of thing), Migos, Nicki Minaj, etc. I would recommend not to listen to things like that, but if you'd like some examples:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how many views each of these have. Here's the most viewed youtube video of all time:


I think the Taylor Swift is pretty excellent but you, apparently are insulting me because it is, in your view, 'dumb' and 'bad'.

It's your definition of what's insulting.

I'm not insulted


----------



## Fredx2098

janxharris said:


> I think the Taylor Swift is pretty excellent but you, apparently are insulting me because it is, in your view, 'dumb' and 'bad'.
> 
> It's your definition of what's insulting.
> 
> I'm not insulted


I've said three times now that it's fine for someone to like the music, but the way the music itself is made isn't a very creative or artistic process, and the goal is to make money and be popular, not to make great music. What someone considers great music might come out, but it's not the intent behind the music.


----------



## Enthusiast

Eusebius12 said:


> Just regular listening has converted me to Renaissance polyphony and other things. If you listen much to the majestic rivers of polyphonic sound produced by Palestrina, Josquin, Byrd, Victoria and others it has to have an impact. Palestrina has a very pure, diatonic approach which can feel like cold water. Dufay is well worth exploring, his style can have an experimental, exploratory feel at times especially in his instrumental music and chansons. Well his style is diverse. Dufay is probably the first great composer in some senses, not doubting the genius of Guillaume de Machaut. De Vitry probably was a genius also but there isn't much work by him extant. Even Perotin and Leonin composed music that can resonate artistically with a modern ear.
> 
> To appreciate this music, one must allow a modal idiom to stretch your ears. This music may stretch your understanding, but it will never assault it. Even if Janequin's Bataille de Marignan might attempt such.


Thank you. I am getting there slowly but it will be a good while before I go to it for pleasure rather than exploration and even longer before I have the taste to recognise the difference between good and bad versions of it. But if I were not willing to trust the reputation and only trusted my first, second and third impressions I would have decided it was not that worthwhile. That is my point. Respecting the opinions of other CM fans and of excellent performers encourages us to keep our ears open.


----------



## Enthusiast

janxharris said:


> Please would you substantiate this. I regularly listen to radio 3 and I can only think of maybe 3 airings in the last year or so.


I meant no more than that record companies would not produce records and keep them on the market if there was no audience for them. As for the BBC, I am not yet over their TV broadcast policy for the Proms this year. There have been quite a few concerts with distinguished or exciting artists and music but they have chosen to broadcast mostly concerts that are barely classical. The BBC is terrified of accusations of elitism and believe this is measured by audience size - where the benchmark that they try to reach is that set by popular culture.


----------



## EdwardBast

stomanek said:


> I think every listener is sure of their musical judgement so I don't see how that argument stands up. How can one not be certain of one's own tastes?


The reason I brought it up is the quasi-religious overtones in Mozart reception. In commentary on Mozart's genius, for example, I've noticed a tendency to cite "miracles" in support of aesthetic judgments - the usual apocryphal tales of composing in his head without sketching, reproducing an entire choral work by ear, etc. People sure of their tastes shouldn't need miracles.


----------



## Enthusiast

janxharris said:


> Skill as in the composer not merely presenting a tone row and fiddling with it whilst avoiding any suggestion of hierarchy. As I said, my skepticism includes pieces that I enjoy.


I am nearly 100% ignorant of technical musical matters. I rarely know if a piece of music is serial or not and it doesn't matter to me - what matters is how it affects me. But I am convinced that the composers of music I like knew what they were doing and knew a lot more than I do about music that came before them. To take this discussion further, though, you will need to engage with someone who themselves has sound technical knowledge in music. If one comes along I will read with interest how it goes.



janxharris said:


> You mean because it survives in the concert hall? I am not aware of any modern works (of the avant-garde type) which have. Perhaps the Berg violin concerto..


This was an answer to a post about it being possible to verify that a contemporary composer does or doesn't have technical skills and knowledge. I'm afraid I don't get the answer. I meant merely by looking at their educational history. But if you want a list of a type of music (is it just serialism you are referring to?) who have become box office gold you should certainly stretch to Berg's operas and a good number of other operas. I'm a little hampered by my inability to apply the label "serial".

By the way, if we were to use numbers of performances as a measure of the success of musical works then it would be good to know where the data can be found (not just for one orchestra) and also to know what would be a good score for a piece that is less than 100 years old. It is pretty clear to me which composers would dominate such a list - many of them are among my favourites - but it is also easy to see the reasons for this popularity and to recognise that these reasons do not equate to quality.


----------



## Enthusiast

Eusebius12 said:


> I see in Schoenberg (although his output was large and I cannot give a thorough dismissal or analysis of all of it) a feeling of rootlessness, fairly rigid use of his technique to make something that looks like an interesting exercise on paper but without much aural interest, lots of large intervals for no particular reason and a general lack of rhythmic vitality. So shoot me


Who is going to shoot you? But I will reply that your impression reads like a caricature - akin to saying Mozart is all dainty and pretty music delights in formality and cliches - rather than a description of the music. It is no problem but it doesn't explain why some people find the music powerful and even overwhelming. It is, of course, when we come to that sort of question that we get into trouble (because the tendency is to insult people) or have to give up and just say "it's not for me".


----------



## cougarjuno

Art Rock said:


> No music is OK to deride, period. It's fine to say you don't like (or even hate) something, preferably with reason, but not that the music itself is awful, rubbish or should never have been writen - thus implicitly (and sometimes explicitly: "you like this? that means you have no taste!", or the alternative "you don't like this? that means you have no taste!") attacking the people who like it.


Very true. However in some cases you can understand the derision. Someone like Liberace for example whose music -- despite being a very accomplished pianist -- many times (but not always) took classical music and tried (successfully?) to make it easy listening, prettify it and in my opinion sucked all meaning from what he played. Although this might be standard (harsh) criticism of him, I think people understand how many would deride this approach to classical music -- and indeed site those who enjoy his music, as having poor taste.


----------



## Guest

Fredx2098 said:


> Citing specific songs that are created only for commercial purposes? It's not so much a type of song but a concept and method of mass-producing music like a factory or a fast food restaurant. Some figureheads who are associated with that are Justin Bieber, Drake, Kanye West, One Direction (most "boy bands" are perfect examples of this kind of thing), Migos, Nicki Minaj, etc. I would recommend not to listen to things like that [...]





Fredx2098 said:


> I've said three times now that it's fine for someone to like the music, but the way the music itself is made isn't a very creative or artistic process, and the goal is to make money and be popular, not to make great music. What someone considers great music might come out, but *it's not the intent behind the music.*


Says who? Says people who don't like the music and believe it has no value.

Given the number of people allegedly claiming that we shouldn't be deriding music, there's an ever increasing list of music that is nevertheless attracting derision. How difficult is it to grasp that, whether you like it or not, deriding music for having no value has the necessary consequence of deriding those who like it - that is, music that has no value - even if that wasn't actually the intent?

I'm no angel, btw. There is music out there I dislike, and I freely admit to the accompanying prejudice about the artists and their fans that goes with it. However, I needn't share it here.


----------



## Enthusiast

Varick said:


> That's a great point you make, and it opens up another important question. You don't "get" most early music, but you will not criticize it. Could it be perhaps that on some level, you know that in it's time, there was greatness in it, at least in respect of the building blocks it created to advance music to a level that Bach, Beethoven, and Tchaikovsky created?
> 
> I personally don't "get" much of chamber music. However, I also know that there is greatness in much of it composed by the great masters. I don't see many people who are versed in the art of music deriding or "objectively" criticizing much of these two aformentioned genres of music. So, why the recoil when it comes to a lot of 20th/21st Century/Contemporary music? Is it possible, that maybe there isn't "greatness" where some people claim? That even though many of us who are versed and learned about music, and can extol the virtues of music we don't "get" (ie: enjoy or are moved by), could possibly understand that there is little to "extol?"
> 
> Not necessarily "rhetorical" questions, but maybe some questions to think about. I know I do. I have high praise for the works of Bartok. I can intellectually and technically break down his music and see & hear the absolute brilliance in many of his compositions, however, there is little of his work that I can say after a hard days work, I want to sit back, scotch and cigar in hand, and "unwind" to. So, I have to ask myself, why can I "appreciate" certain composer's work that I don't necessarily "enjoy," and why *can't I even* "appreciate" other composers whom I know are just as learned as others.
> 
> V


I think with early music there will come a time when I actively enjoy it. It just hasn't happened yet. The first step will be wanting to listen to it at all. This is beginning to happen to me. Previously I hadn't even had the patience to do that. The second stage will come when "the music talks to me" - it will suddenly seem to contain meaning - and this leads (or has in the past with other forms of music I found difficult) either to recognising that it is empty or being moved in some rewarding way by it.

I have followed the same pattern with contemporary avant garde music. Five years ago I had an interest and bought a few records on recommendation. I found them completely unintelligible and rarely wanted to sample them for a second opinion. Then, a couple of years ago, I found I wanted to listen to them and lo! some of them talked to me. Some of the older ones - Boulez and Carter etc - began to seem just as comprehensible as Bartok and some of the newer ones fascinated me and seemed also to hint at meanings. Not all of what I am enjoying will turn out to be immortal but I think that, as my taste becomes educated by experience, I will get pretty good at seeing which pieces will.

I am a very undisciplined listener. I let music sink in. I don't generally analyse it or even concentrate on it (it either has me or it doesn't). I know this style of listening to CM is unusual but it works for me. I don't know what would work for you.


----------



## Enthusiast

EdwardBast said:


> The reason I brought it up is the quasi-religious overtones in Mozart reception. In commentary on Mozart's genius, for example, I've noticed a tendency to cite "miracles" in support of aesthetic judgments - the usual apocryphal tales of composing in his head without sketching, reproducing an entire choral work by ear, etc. People sure of their tastes shouldn't need miracles.


Those stories are unsubstantiated but if they were true they would not be miraculous at all - they are made up of well documented if rare cognitive abilities that some people possess. Most successful composers had some extraordinary cognitive abilities - far above the norm for professional musicians.


----------



## Guest

stomanek said:


> I think every listener is sure of their musical judgement so I don't see how that argument stands up. How can one not be certain of one's own tastes?


One can be ceratin about what one likes, but uncertain about the value of what one likes.

eg "I know I like x because everybody else does and so there must be some merit in it...isn't there?" or
"I know I like y because stomanek likes it and they are a good judge of the value of that music...aren't they?" or
"No one else seems to like this, but I know I do. Does that mean I have no taste, or exclusive tastes?"

etc
etc


----------



## Fredx2098

MacLeod said:


> Says who? Says people who don't like the music and believe it has no value.
> 
> Given the number of people allegedly claiming that we shouldn't be deriding music, there's an ever increasing list of music that is nevertheless attracting derision. How difficult is it to grasp that, whether you like it or not, deriding music for having no value has the necessary consequence of deriding those who like it - that is, music that has no value - even if that wasn't actually the intent?
> 
> I'm no angel, btw. There is music out there I dislike, and I freely admit to the accompanying prejudice about the artists and their fans that goes with it. However, I needn't share it here.


I don't think I said it has no value, but when large groups of people make music based on formulas based on what makes the most money, it's a less personal and artistic process, and the person who gets famous is definitely not the most creative one, if they have any input. The concept and process behind it is what's worse than other forms of music, but that doesn't affect how people can react to it subjectively.


----------



## Guest

Fredx2098 said:


> I don't think I said it has no value, but when large groups of people make music based on formulas based on what makes the most money, *it's a less personal and artistic process*, and *the person who gets famous is definitely not the most creative one*, if they have any input. *The concept and process behind it is what's worse than other forms of music*, but that doesn't affect how people can react to it subjectively.


No, you didn't use the word 'value', but what you described and implied is that it has no value or at least, a lesser value than what you value - which is 'creative', not 'mass-produced', with a higher value 'concept'. And you've just repeated the same criticisms. People's subjective reaction is immaterial to the argument. Your statement was that these artists' only intent is to make money - something that you do not value, or rather, something you see as devaluing the creative process.


----------



## Fredx2098

MacLeod said:


> No, you didn't use the word 'value', but what you described and implied is that it has no value or at least, a lesser value than what you value - which is 'creative', not 'mass-produced', with a higher value 'concept'. And you've just repeated the same criticisms. People's subjective reaction is immaterial to the argument. Your statement was that these artists' only intent is to make money - something that you do not value, or rather, something you see as devaluing the creative process.


That is what I said. It can have just as much subjective value as anything else though.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> It's not pedantic to ask for clarification. Perhaps I should be more honest and ask that you give up regularly posting about how amazed you are about others' attitude to Mozart. If you are as relaxed as you claim, surely you'd give up?


And perhaps I should politely ask you to give up posting your opinions about what opinions other people should post. I assure you I am completely relaxed about things. Reading some of your posts it appears you are not! Perhaps as case of projection?


----------



## Barbebleu

shirime said:


> The people who deride my favourite music must be hearing something that I'm not


It's probably more likely that they're not hearing what you are!


----------



## Thomyum2

I've posted this thought before but will say again, I think that commercial/popular music and classical music are so different that it doesn't make sense to compare them, or judge one of them by the rules of the other. They are created for different purposes and really a completely different aesthetic - it's like comparing apples and oranges and isn't a productive exercise. It is akin to comparing, say, gymnastics with sumo wrestling, or ballet with hip-hop. You can achieve depth and excellence in either form, but the aesthetics don't easily translate between the two. Even within the field of classical music it is difficult to make meaningful aesthetic comparisons between composers working in different musical languages or styles - what more if moving outside of that into completely different traditions.


----------



## Guest

I think it's OK to deride rap "music." (And for those of you who do listen to rap, "deride" means to laugh at or make fun of something.)


----------



## Varick

Kontrapunctus said:


> I think it's OK to deride rap "music." (And for those of you who do listen to rap, "deride" means to laugh at or make fun of something.)


Was that a reference to the great Bob Newhart? LOL!

V


----------



## R3PL4Y

And people wonder why classical music is seen as elitist.


----------



## Luchesi

R3PL4Y said:


> And people wonder why classical music is seen as elitist.


Just like with any other serious subject there are recommended approaches for evaluating and appreciating the accomplishments.

You need to learn a little bit of music theory. How chords merge one into one another musically, and why, according to the arithmetic of their intervals. If a sequence of chords is not in the customary arithmetic sequence then you need to know why that sequence or progression actually works artistically after there's been a preparation before it in the piece.

After you're fully acquainted with these building blocks then you need to see how what you've learned can be followed logically in the centuries of development of music history. It becomes clearer and clearer what the logic was. The rise of dissonance and the various forms and more complex rhythms and counterpoint.

You actually can do this with popular music in the history of popular music from the late 1800s until today - this is a much simpler project. You'll learn why many of the Beatles songs have enduring value compared to simpler songs.

If you're not willing to put in this much effort (and it is a lot of effort for some people) and you love music, you will always be wondering how music works and what critics are talking about.


----------



## Guest

Luchesi said:


> [...] You need to learn a little bit of music theory. How chords merge one into one another musically, and why, according to the arithmetic of their intervals. [etc]


I'm sorry - I don't follow your post...who is the 'you' you are addressing, and what has learning music theory got to do with the OP?


----------



## Luchesi

MacLeod said:


> I'm sorry - I don't follow your post...who is the 'you' you are addressing, and what has learning music theory got to do with the OP?


I thought R3PLAY "people wonder why classical music is seen as elitist" was implying that we talk about music criticism and analysis too much and it sounds elitist to some people.


----------



## Guest

Luchesi said:


> I thought R3PLAY "people wonder why classical music is seen as elitist" was implying that we talk about music criticism and analysis too much and it sounds elitist to some people.


I'm sure R3PLAY can reply for him/herself, but I think it was simply a response to those deriding other musics - perhaps specifically, the post saying it's alright to deride rap.


----------



## Enthusiast

Luchesi said:


> You need to learn a little bit of music theory. How chords merge one into one another musically, and why, according to the arithmetic of their intervals. If a sequence of chords is not in the customary arithmetic sequence then you need to know why that sequence or progression actually works artistically after there's been a preparation before it in the piece.


I know nothing about chords merging and the arithmetic of intervals but I have managed to enjoy a lot of music without knowing. I have a fairly large "recognition repertoire" and could go some way towards humming the next few minutes of most of the works if they suddenly stopped. I certainly don't know very much about how music works but I sure know what it does to me.


----------



## Guest

Varick said:


> Was that a reference to the great Bob Newhart? LOL!
> 
> V


Indeed it was!


----------



## DaveM

Fredx2098 said:


> I wish that people would say "I hate [composer]," but they don't, they say "[composer] is bad and talentless." There's a big difference.





Fredx2098 said:


> ..*.If you don't appreciate some music, I don't think you should immediately jump to the conclusion that they have no talent or greatness.*





Fredx2098 said:


> Who do you think is wearing these new clothes though? The composer? Someone who enjoys the music? Either way, that seems like a pretty negative or insulting mindset. *To compare all modern music to the emperor's new clothes seems less like a suspicion and more like a direct insult*.





Fredx2098 said:


> *I think it's valid to say that commercial pop music itself is bad*. It's not the same as other music, i.e. someone's personal artistic creation. *The mascots whose names are attached to the music usually have little or no creative input.* The songs are made by large teams of people, who don't have their names directly attached to the music, trying to make the most typical, accessible music possible to cater to the lowest common denominator and make as much money as possible. It works very well. Still I wouldn't say that it's wrong for someone to enjoy the product. *The people creating and fueling the production don't have righteous artistic intentions though.*





Fredx2098 said:


> It's not so much a type of song but a concept and method of mass-producing music like a factory or a fast food restaurant. Some figureheads who are associated with that are Justin Bieber, Drake, Kanye West, One Direction (most "boy bands" are perfect examples of this kind of thing), Migos, Nicki Minaj, etc.* I would recommend not to listen to things like that*, but if you'd like some examples:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how many views each of these have. Here's the most viewed youtube video of all time:


It's rather remarkable to see someone get easily insulted when someone's fave composer or type of music appears to be disparaged with all sorts of instructions on how others should criticique them/it and then see that same someone turn around and do the same thing to another genre of music and the creators thereof.

Based on your comments above then, it is fair, when it comes to avant-garde music and composers such as Feldman, to say things like 'no righteous artistic intentions, I would recommend not to listen to things like that.'

The fact is that, especially with a song like Despacito (your last example), regardless of the commercial appeal, there is a major creative talent behind that song, an individual, at the very least, dare I say, as talented as your Feldman. And that is true of the talent behind a lot of commercial songs. Taylor Swift is an extremely talented pop composer and performer though I'm not a big fan of her music.

But just so my point isn't lost, I have no problem with your comments on commercial pop music per se. You are expressing a core dislike you have for it. Within limits, these insights into our individual tastes are part of vibrant discussion. But that means that I get to say how much I dislike Avant-garde music -and, based on your quote above, I even get to say it's bad. And I get to say that music such as Feldman, Furrer or Ferneyhough isn't good classical music because, IMO, avant-garde music isn't classical music. Fwiw, I wouldn't ever say that I would recommend not to listen to things like that as you did about commercial pop music because that's not my business.


----------



## Woodduck

Any music I would deride I would usually consider not worth taking the time to deride. The major exceptions would be music that's forced on me while I'm shopping for lettuce, or sitting at a long stoplight, or waiting to find out whether my call is really as important to them as they keep telling me it is.


----------



## eljr

Luchesi said:


> You need to learn a little bit of music theory. How chords merge one into one another musically, and why, according to the arithmetic of their intervals. If a sequence of chords is not in the customary arithmetic sequence then you need to know why that sequence or progression actually works artistically after there's been a preparation before it in the piece. .


Can't I just listen and enjoy?


----------



## eljr

Kontrapunctus said:


> I think it's OK to deride rap "music." (And for those of you who do listen to rap, "deride" means to laugh at or make fun of something.)


I respect your opinion but I firmly believe their is good music and great music, there is no bad music.


----------



## MarkW

There is music I don't like -- individual pieces and whole genres. The reasons vary: I don't know enough about the genre to appreciate what the piece or the artist is trying to do; the work has long outplayed its welcome through over-exposure; I don't like the artist; I don't like the style (i.e. sub-genre) it represents; it's contrived (often by a committee); it doesn't speak to me; or in some cases it's simply aesthetically bad (however you try to define the undefinable). Some of it, in my opinion, is worthy of derision. But I'm too much of a nice guy to ever deride someone who likes it. No harm, no foul.

[Sometimes I've been known to turn off the radio, saying to myself "I don't feel like listening to that right now. Sometimes i even follow that up by saying to myself: "Actually, I don't feel like listening to that even when I feel like listening to it." ]


----------



## endelbendel

It isn't 'no taste'. It's bad taste. Those who recite the relativist 'de gustibus' quote are people with bad taste.
As for music, eliminate and disparage pop since 1990. Not music. Noise. All egoism and violence and noise. That's rap, hip-hop and other related labels. All jazz with electric piano. Classical music that is oversung and unintellible lyrics.


----------



## endelbendel

What's wrong with elitism? Some things are better. Some people listen better.


----------



## Larkenfield

Perhaps better to avoid but not to deride, whether this could be considered the antithesis of pop music or not... Such extreme violence might possibly even be detrimental to one's health, starting with rattling the fillings in one's teeth.

https://www.talkclassical.com/56323-anyone-here-into-most-3.html#post1483766


----------



## Larkenfield

...............


----------



## Phil loves classical

janxharris said:


> I was only expressing a suspicion about *whether some modern composers are merely throwing paint on a canvass and seeing where it lands* - with possibly very little in the way of organization. It remains just that - a suspicion.
> 
> There is no need to feel insulted - I didn't cite any particular work and even affirmed that I enjoy some modern pieces.


There is some postmodern music that is basically that. I can find intriguing the statement that music is that we would interpret whichever way we like, but the composer ceases to exist. But by reason of logic, there is nothing to distinguish it as good from bad. And if random, arbitrary music is good, then anyone could be a good composer. Couldn't art or music exist without all this judgement? Is this a rhetorical question?


----------



## Luchesi

jegreenwood said:


> On the other hand, "You Took the Words Right Out of My Mouth" and several other songs from Meat Loaf's debut album are on my workout mix. I have acknowledged elsewhere on this forum that he is my number one guilty pleasure. I justify it on the basis that Jim Steinman, the songwriter, claims Wagner as an influence (along with Phil Spector).
> 
> I truly dislike it when people try to tell me what is good music and what is not, and I try not to insist my views are correct. I will correct statements that I believe to be factually inaccurate.


If music is just entertainment for you then nobody can tell you what's good and what's not.


----------



## Tallisman

The bad stuff. ..............


----------



## Luchesi

Phil loves classical said:


> There is some postmodern music that is basically that. I can find intriguing the statement that music is that we would interpret whichever way we like, but the composer ceases to exist. But by reason of logic, there is nothing to distinguish it as good from bad. And if random, arbitrary music is good, then anyone could be a good composer. Couldn't art or music exist without all this judgement? Is this a rhetorical question?


If you take classes and learn what has long been taught then I guess it's still arbitrary, but at least there are reasons and logic and erudition behind all the relativism. Ask a child what's good music. Ask a teenager what's good music. Ask a very old person what's good music. You don't first tell them about the achievements down through history then it will all depend upon their experiences.


----------



## DaveM

Phil loves classical said:


> There is some postmodern music that is basically that. I can find intriguing the statement that music is that we would interpret whichever way we like, but the composer ceases to exist. But by reason of logic, there is nothing to distinguish it as good from bad. And if random, arbitrary music is good, then anyone could be a good composer. Couldn't art or music exist without all this judgement? Is this a rhetorical question?


It's interesting that this thread is exposing certain suspicions that people have tended to skirt around. One has only to listen to some of the best late Romantic era music, particularly IMO, the slower movements, to hear the magnificent melodies and the magical development of them with several instruments presenting the themes/melodies in new and even more dramatic, endearing and moving ways and then compare that to much Avant-garde music to suspect that the Emporer forgot his outfit.

The former requires skills that one can objectively hear and appreciate, the latter, often not so much when the fact is that I could splice in some appropriate random discordant piano sounds and no one would know the difference if they hadn't heard the work before.


----------



## Tallisman

I don't know about anyone else, but if I see another person thoroughly enjoying consuming excrement, I'm afraid it's not in my nature to tip my hat and say 'you do you!'.


----------



## Varick

Larkenfield said:


> ...............


Off topic, but I have to ask Larkenfield, I have seen this post from you in a number of threads. Does this mean something? I am just curious. If I saw it once, I probably wouldn't pay any mind, but it's often enough where I think it's a statement of some kind and I'm missing it. Thx

I'm not up on the latest "abbreviations" of the cyberworld if that's what it is.

V


----------



## LezLee

Varick said:


> Off topic, but I have to ask Larkenfield, I have seen this post from you in a number of threads. Does this mean something? I am just curious. If I saw it once, I probably wouldn't pay any mind, but it's often enough where I think it's a statement of some kind and I'm missing it. Thx
> 
> I'm not up on the latest "abbreviations" of the cyberworld if that's what it is.
> 
> V


As there are 15 dots, he possibly posted something in error and not being able to delete, posted the minimum number of characters. This is something I've done myself.

Incidentally why can't we delete on these threads?


----------



## Luchesi

DaveM said:


> It's interesting that this thread is exposing certain suspicions that people have tended to skirt around. One has only to listen to some of the best late Romantic era music, particularly IMO, the slower movements, to hear the magnificent melodies and the magical development of them with several instruments presenting the themes/melodies in new and even more dramatic, endearing and moving ways and then compare that to much Avant-garde music to suspect that the Emporer forgot his outfit.
> 
> The former requires skills that one can objectively hear and appreciate, the latter, often not so much when the fact is that I could splice in some appropriate random discordant piano sounds and no one would know the difference if they hadn't heard the work before.


So even though those composers spent their whole lives studying music you think there's no logic to what they worked on and finally offered the world?


----------



## DaveM

Luchesi said:


> So even though those composers spent their whole lives studying music you think there's no logic to what they worked on and finally offered the world?


I don't know; perhaps, it's logic to them. I sometimes suspect we're hearing the product of wiring that sees some sense in discordant, random sounds with the emphasis often on the latter where the aim is to present as many different sounds from instruments that they were never intended to deliver. The piano seems to be selected for special punishment. I also feel that rather than some profound new classical music, this is a dumbing down where you don't need to bother with the challenge of coming up with melodies and the development thereof. And perhaps sometimes it's improvisation taken to an extreme.


----------



## Fredx2098

DaveM said:


> It's rather remarkable to see someone get easily insulted when someone's fave composer or type of music appears to be disparaged with all sorts of instructions on how others should criticique them/it and then see that same someone turn around and do the same thing to another genre of music and the creators thereof.
> 
> Based on your comments above then, it is fair, when it comes to avant-garde music and composers such as Feldman, to say things like 'no righteous artistic intentions, I would recommend not to listen to things like that.'
> 
> The fact is that, especially with a song like Despacito (your last example), regardless of the commercial appeal, there is a major creative talent behind that song, an individual, at the very least, dare I say, as talented as your Feldman. And that is true of the talent behind a lot of commercial songs. Taylor Swift is an extremely talented pop composer and performer though I'm not a big fan of her music.
> 
> But just so my point isn't lost, I have no problem with your comments on commercial pop music per se. You are expressing a core dislike you have for it. Within limits, these insights into our individual tastes are part of vibrant discussion. But that means that I get to say how much I dislike Avant-garde music -and, based on your quote above, I even get to say it's bad. And I get to say that music such as Feldman, Furrer or Ferneyhough isn't good classical music because, IMO, avant-garde music isn't classical music. Fwiw, I wouldn't ever say that I would recommend not to listen to things like that as you did about commercial pop music because that's not my business.


I don't know how much clearer I can be since I've described my point a few times and people still don't understand it. The music that is created isn't necessarily bad. The people involved in creating it aren't talentless. But the people who get the credit are not the ones who deserve it, and it's hard to determine who deserves it because it's built like something on an assembly line based on simple blueprints. There are big teams of people churning out this stuff. You can't point to one person or band as having or lacking talent because it's music that's essentially made by a large company based on what sells. Classical music has one compser who decides everything. Rock music has a small band that does everything. Pop music has 10 writers, 10 producers, and one figurehead who takes the credit. I'm not expressing a core dislike for the sound produced. It's about the process behind it. I don't see how a single person writing sheet music based on what they want compares to that.


----------



## Fredx2098

Larkenfield said:


> Perhaps better to avoid but not to deride, whether this could be considered the antithesis of pop music or not... Such extreme violence might possibly even be detrimental to one's health, starting with rattling the fillings in one's teeth.
> 
> https://www.talkclassical.com/56323-anyone-here-into-most-3.html#post1483766


I have recommended not to listen to that unless you know you want to, similar to pop music.  But that music is made by a few people who are extremely skilled with their instruments and voice, not like a person singing along with a pre-made instrumental and then having their voice auto-tuned.


----------



## Luchesi

DaveM said:


> I don't know; perhaps, it's logic to them. I sometimes suspect we're hearing the product of wiring that sees some sense in discordant, random sounds with the emphasis often on the latter where the aim is to present as many different sounds from instruments that they were never intended to deliver. The piano seems to be selected for special punishment. I also feel that rather than some profound new classical music, this is a dumbing down where you don't need to bother with the challenge of coming up with melodies and the development thereof. And perhaps sometimes it's improvisation taken to an extreme.


There are two things which have happened in the last 50 to 100 years that are regrettable.

The first thing is that every field in modern life has necessarily become so specialized and so complex that the average person will be intelligent in some areas of life but have less awareness in any specialized fields. We all know that science and the arts are especially 'advanced' today. I'm a pianist and I teach piano and i tune pianos etc., but I make my living in scientific research. So I see it everyday as we work with visiting experimenters on projects in a geophysical lab.

The second thing is when we prepare to perform a modern piece we learn about it and we rehearse and rehearse. We get to know it and we memorize what we need to memorize. By the time we perform it we usually deeply appreciate it. But the audience hears it ONE time and there's just no way that they can take in a modern complex conception with only one hearing. I know I couldn't…

If you ask the composer he can tell you all about the analysis and where his ideas came from and what he was trying to do and the meaningfulness of it in his own estimation.


----------



## MarkW

DaveM said:


> I don't know; perhaps, it's logic to them. I sometimes suspect we're hearing the product of wiring that sees some sense in discordant, random sounds with the emphasis often on the latter where the aim is to present as many different sounds from instruments that they were never intended to deliver. The piano seems to be selected for special punishment. I also feel that rather than some profound new classical music, this is a dumbing down where you don't need to bother with the challenge of coming up with melodies and the development thereof. And perhaps sometimes it's improvisation taken to an extreme.


I'm curious. On what end of the spectrum do you ploace ther more pointillistic works of Webern -- and why?


----------



## eljr

Eusebius12 said:


> Drake is one of the most awful 'musicians' it has been my misfortune to encounter. I thought his excretion 'Work' just about took the biscuit as far as mass produced drivel for an undiscerning market, but his embarassingly drivelly 'God's Plan' actually exceeds 'Work' as respects having no lyrics worth the term, a pathetic little beat that a 2 year old could beat out (but not a Mozart) and generally drivelly and whiny sentiment. Repetition and cliche, I mean if Schubert and Mozart are to be criticized on this score, this so-called 'music' is literal faecal matter. Shows how moronic the general public truly is.


are you sure you are not just valuing your culture over another's?

Doing so would sound arrogant.

Arrogance is a false sense of superiority born of underlying insecurities.

just sayin'


----------



## Luchesi

endelbendel said:


> What's wrong with elitism? Some things are better. Some people listen better.


Learning is good whether you're trying to play chess or play tennis or appreciate music.

Especially in the USA there's recently been a movement toward anti-intellectualism and anti-science because people are naturally suspicious and jealous and embarrassed and their needs aren't being met (according to Maslow). This is so human that everybody understands it and hardly even thinks about it. What could be more natural?

Laziness has an age-old survival value. Ask any house cat.


----------



## eljr

Luchesi said:


> Learning is good whether you're trying to play chess or play tennis or appreciate music.
> 
> Especially in the USA there's recently been a movement toward anti-intellectualism and anti-science because people are naturally suspicious and jealous and embarrassed and their needs aren't being met (according to Maslow). This is so human that everybody understands it and hardly even thinks about it. What could be more natural?
> 
> Laziness has an age-old survival value. Ask any house cat.


sounds like something i wrote on my political forum


----------



## DaveM

Luchesi said:


> There are two things which have happened in the last 50 to 100 years that are regrettable.
> 
> The first thing is that every field in modern life has necessarily become so specialized and so complex that the average person will be intelligent in some areas of life but have less awareness in any specialized fields. We all know that science and the arts are especially 'advanced' today. I'm a pianist and I teach piano and i tune pianos etc., but I make my living in scientific research. So I see it everyday as we work with visiting experimenters on projects in a geophysical lab.
> 
> The second thing is when we compare to perform on modern piece we learn about it and we rehearse and rehearse. We get to know it and we memorize what we need to memorize. By the time we perform it we usually deeply appreciate it. But the audience hears it ONE time and there's just no way that they can take in a modern complex conception with only one hearing. I know I couldn't…
> 
> If you ask the composer he can tell you all about the analysis and where his ideas came from and what he was trying to do and the meaningfulness of it in his own estimation.


But then, isn't this now all about the composer and the performer and the audience largely be damned? When the music is now accessible only to an 'informed' few, it is now in a narrow niche and, in the case of avant-garde, a genre separate from classical music.


----------



## DaveM

MarkW said:


> I'm curious. On what end of the spectrum do you ploace ther more pointillistic works of Webern -- and why?


Professor, is this a short answer or essay question? Is there a time limit? Will I be graded on curve? Can I phone a friend? 

But seriously, I'll bite. I would put Webern's op 21 which is considered as one of his pointillistic works more in the spectrum of 12 tone serialism. Whether that is true of all his pontillistic works, I'm not sure, but I suspect so. Here's a comparison of op21 with a Ferneyhough work which is out-and-out avant-garde.


----------



## Luchesi

DaveM said:


> But then, isn't this now all about the composer and the performer and the audience largely be damned? When the music is now accessible only to an 'informed' few, it is now in a narrow niche and, in the case of avant-garde, a genre separate from classical music.


It's an evolving art, it's always been an evolving art. People in general didn't appreciate Beethoven's late works.

There's plenty of music that is very fulfilling and serious for music lovers. I think you can spend a whole lifetime on music before 1900.


----------



## Luchesi

eljr said:


> sounds like something i wrote on my political forum


Yes, run-away and crazy politics is invading music and science and sports and...?


----------



## MarkW

DaveM said:


> Professor, is this a short answer or essay question? Is there a time limit? Will I be graded on curve? Can I phone a friend?
> 
> But seriously, I'll bite. I would put Webern's op 21 which is considered as one of his pointillistic works more in the spectrum of 12 tone serialism. Whether that is true of all his pontillistic works, I'm not sure, but I suspect so. Here's a comparison of op21 with a Ferneyhough work which out-and-out avant-garde.


No curve -- everythiing on a scale of 0 - 100. 

No, I was just curious because there are certainly people who could hear them and equate it with your hypothetical children playing random notes. Just as there are still people who will see a Jackson Pollack drip painting and say something to the effect that "My five-year-old could do that," despite the fact that neither he nor his five-year-old actually could.

cheers --


----------



## Strange Magic

endelbendel said:


> What's wrong with elitism? Some things are better. Some people listen better.


In music and the arts, some things are better for who?. For you maybe, A is better than B, but is A really, provably _better_ than B? More popular with a select group, with aesthete elitists such as yourself (I assume). I get it, it must be better because a select group likes it; it's more popular. That's the tautological proof of its betterness.

Fact: there is no good or bad in music and the arts. There are just our individual opinions about it. I like this; you like that, and we have whole hierarchies and lists of what's bad, good, better, best--I know I do, as an individual, unique to myself. But when one attempts to overlay one's one individual or group preferences--what's good, what's bad--onto other individuals or groups, the whole enterprise collapses due to a lack of foundation of demonstrable intrinsic "quality" in the music and art itself; it just is. All we can legitimately say about works of art are: who created them, when, their dimensions/colors/durations, degree of complexity, the name given to the work, what it cost/sold for, history, what people said/say about it, etc. Get the drift?

This is why the ancient wise expression _de gustibus non disputandum est_ remains eternally valid.


----------



## DaveM

Luchesi said:


> It's an evolving art, it's always been an evolving art. People in general didn't appreciate Beethoven's late works.


Evolving art like that after Beethoven's late works? I don't think so. I stand by my premise that Avant-garde is not classical music and as a separate genre is a dead end one at that. There will continue to be composers of it because the skillset required is less than that of classical music. My guess is that the audience will stay small and not grow with time.



> There's plenty of music that is very fulfilling and serious for music lovers. I think you can spend a whole lifetime on music before 1900.


 Thankfully. And God bless the record companies that continue to find 'new' works from that period.


----------



## Eusebius12

Enthusiast said:


> I meant no more than that record companies would not produce records and keep them on the market if there was no audience for them. As for the BBC, I am not yet over their TV broadcast policy for the Proms this year. There have been quite a few concerts with distinguished or exciting artists and music but they have chosen to broadcast mostly concerts that are barely classical. The BBC is terrified of accusations of elitism and believe this is measured by audience size - where the benchmark that they try to reach is that set by popular culture.


Recordings of Schoenberg and Webern are rare and getting rarer by proportion. I feel pretty certain in saying this. The appeal of serialist compositions (not a uniform bunch necessarily, admittedly) I feel pretty certain is far smaller than for early music, and that is more than 400 years old. Why are so many modern listeners 'prejudiced' against music that is 100 years old, rather than 4 or 5 hundred? The long promised epiphany when Schoenberg was going to be spoken of in the same breath as Beethoven has never arrived and will never arrive. Why do certain kinds of 'new music' (and yes Schoenberg's 'mature' style started crustallizing nearly 110 years ago) attract the label of elitist? Is it always the audiences fault? New releases of Schoenberg attract pitifully few buyers. These recordings are 'worthy' projects, done at the behest of famous artists generally, sometimes combined with other repertoire.


----------



## Eusebius12

Enthusiast said:


> I don't know how you measure that in a way that tells us much. Schoenberg is much recorded - suggesting a substantial audience
> 
> (edit)
> 
> As for enjoying contemporary music for what it is now (and not worrying about posterity) - many people do enjoy it and many very gifted performers believe it is worth playing. It may not be the majority of CM listeners but it is a substantial audience. It may not include you!


Contemporary music is a much wider field than serialism or 'happenings' or plodding and ugly counterpoint. It is a varied garden (with many weeds, admittedly). I don't accept that Schoenberg is 'much recorded'. His entries in the Penguin Guide are usually fairly small.


----------



## Eusebius12

Enthusiast said:


> Who is going to shoot you? But I will reply that your impression reads like a caricature - akin to saying Mozart is all dainty and pretty music delights in formality and cliches - rather than a description of the music. It is no problem but it doesn't explain why some people find the music powerful and even overwhelming. It is, of course, when we come to that sort of question that we get into trouble (because the tendency is to insult people) or have to give up and just say "it's not for me".


I could go into a more detailed critique if you like. I admit that this was a potted summary. I respond to nearly all types of music. I can see reasons, logical reasons, why this music does very little for me. Schoenberg had a large output, there are pieces in there that I can respond to. I can discuss them if you like.


----------



## Eusebius12

Luchesi said:


> So even though those composers spent their whole lives studying music you think there's no logic to what they worked on and finally offered the world?


Just because somebody studied somewhere doesn't mean what they have produced is good.


----------



## Eusebius12

MarkW said:


> I'm curious. On what end of the spectrum do you ploace ther more pointillistic works of Webern -- and why?


I'll jump in and say I find them dry and tedious. What skill was involved is more evident to the eye than the ear, if any. I'd rather chew cardboard than go to a concert featuring such things.


----------



## Eusebius12

DaveM said:


> Evolving art like that after Beethoven's late works? I don't think so. I stand by my premise that Avant-garde is not classical music and as a separate genre is a dead end one at that. There will continue to be composers of it because the skillset required is less than that of classical music. My guess is that the audience will stay small and not grow with time.


Beethoven's late music was quite conservative in many ways, just like late Bach. The demand for 'avant-garde' music I believe has lessened over recent decades. Many composers write in more tonal styles today and over the last 3 decades. The extreme barbed wire school has never won much of an audience. Many composers of now prefer to be more communicative with their audiences rather than show their superiority to them, or cause them great tedium or (in some cases) real physical pain. Also 'installations' are essentially a waste of time and taxpayer's money.


----------



## KenOC

On the popularity of Arnold Schoenberg’s music in the US: His works were programmed 5 times in the 2015-2016 orchestral season (the latest I have). 5 Separate works were programmed by 5 orchestras for a total of 11 performances.

As a comparison, Dmitri Shostakovich was programmed 75 times, including most of his symphonies, for a total of 169 performances.


----------



## Fredx2098

People are still talking about how music's ability to attract an audience is equal to its value and the talent required to make it? The majority of people don't think that much about music. They're not going to performances of Beethoven and avoiding performances of Schoenberg because they're discerning listeners; it's because they recognize one name and don't recognize the other. Performances and recordings are made with money, to make money. Obviously music that is more popular is better for that. To think that's an argument for the value of one and the lack of value of another is ridiculous. The way things are going, it seems like eventually everything except commercial pop will be all but forgotten. With new technology, the world has shown what is actually popular.


----------



## KenOC

Fredx2098 said:


> People are still talking about how music's ability to attract an audience is equal to its value and the talent required to make it?


Hmmm, did somebody do that? I didn't notice it, for sure. Is any discussion about the popularity (or otherwise) of music totally off-limits? If so, why?


----------



## Fredx2098

KenOC said:


> Hmmm, did somebody do that? I didn't notice it, for sure. Is any discussion about the popularity (or otherwise) of music totally off-limits? If so, why?


Yes, just check the last 10 posts or so. I wasn't referring to you. But I don't think it's relevant to mention general popularity when talking about the artistic value of something, unless someone intends to imply that less popular art has less artistic value. I don't get the discussion of popularity. I don't feel better for liking something that's popular or, to address the "modern music is pretentious" mindset, feel better for liking something that is less popular. It's just irrelevant to how I think about or enjoy art. It seems like people are confident in the composers they enjoy because they are widely known, performed, and recorded, which isn't a good basis for appreciating art in my opinion. It's at least not a basis for deriding art that isn't popular, to go along with the point of the thread.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> On the popularity of Arnold Schoenberg's music in the US: His works were programmed 5 times in the 2015-2016 orchestral season (the latest I have). 5 Separate works were programmed by 5 orchestras for a total of 11 performances.
> 
> As a comparison, Dmitri Shostakovich was programmed 75 times, including most of his symphonies, for a total of 169 performances.


Orchestral repertoire and performance are the result of one type of performance tradition where popularity of certain repertoire is created through a feedback loop of how often certain repertoire is performed based on what artistic directors and conductors want to perform based on popular repertoire, which has been made popular based on how often certain repertoire is performed based on what artistic directors want to perform based on popular repertoire, which has been made popular based on how often certain repertoire is performed. In the 19th century, when the canon of orchestral repertoire was first invented, this usually only came about due to the performance context, if the composer was friends with certain music publishers, musicians and orchestral society board members and managers. Shostakovich is an interesting composer because his music fits the mould of this tradition quite well, i.e. musical forms associated with 19th century public concert music, or the orchestral canon of repertoire. Schoenberg's music is still performed in these contexts, perhaps not as much in the US (where arts funding is generally worse than in Europe resulting in tastes that are generally more conservative), so it would be interesting to see how he is compared with someone else, like Nikos Skalkottas. Or perhaps someone more 'conservative' in aesthetic and style than Schoenberg was: Hendrik Bouman.


----------



## DaveM

shirime said:


> Orchestral repertoire and performance are the result of one type of performance tradition where popularity of certain repertoire is created through a feedback loop of how often certain repertoire is performed based on what artistic directors and conductors want to perform based on popular repertoire, which has been made popular based on how often certain repertoire is performed based on what artistic directors want to perform...


Well, in the end, it starts with the popular repertoire which gets to be popular because the music is great and the audiences predictably like it. We all know that the warhorses get overplayed and the orchestras need to fill the halls to pay the bills. But the corollary is not that a lot of atonal music and virtually all of avant-garde music doesn't get played in moderate to large venues because it is great, but just can't get its foot in the door. Much of it simply isn't great and it will continue to find its own level in the realm of mediocrity.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> *In music and the arts, some things are better for who?.* For you maybe, A is better than B, but is A really, provably _better_ than B? *More popular with a select group, with aesthete elitists such as yourself (I assume). I get it, it must be better because a select group likes it; it's more popular. That's the tautological proof of its betterness.*
> 
> *Fact: there is no good or bad in music and the arts. * *There are just our individual opinions about it. I like this; you like that*, and we have whole hierarchies and lists of what's bad, good, better, best--I know I do, as an individual, unique to myself. But when one attempts to overlay one's one individual or group preferences--what's good, what's bad--onto other individuals or groups, the whole enterprise collapses due to a lack of foundation of demonstrable intrinsic "quality" in the music and art itself; it just is. *All we can legitimately say about works of art are: who created them, when, their dimensions/colors/durations, degree of complexity, the name given to the work, what it cost/sold for, history, what people said/say about it, etc.* Get the drift?
> 
> *This is why the ancient wise expression de gustibus non disputandum est remains eternally valid.*


This argument conveniently overlooks the question of _why_ certain composers and works are widely perceived to be superior to others. There's no getting around the fact that they are, and that with the passage of time those perceived as superior tend to be more enduring and to sustain their reputations for superiority. Mozart was recognized by other composers of his day as being superior to them, and posterity has confirmed their judgment with virtually no controversy, not only in the relative popularity of Mozart among the public interested in the kind of music he wrote, but in the esteem of musicians and in the quantity and quality of analysis devoted to his works by those capable of it. We can legitimately say, and people have legitimately said, much more about works of art than "who created them, when, their dimensions/colors/durations, degree of complexity, the name given to the work, what it cost/sold for, history, what people said/say about it, etc."

We do, though, have to be careful about what we're comparing with what, and in what respect. The fact that Mozart's music may be meaningless or incomprehensible to certain lovers of rap is really not very interesting, is it? In fact, saying that Mozart is no better "objectively" than Eminem is not much more meaningful than saying that Mozart is no better "objectively" than asparagus. It's a category error. After all, many people surely prefer asparagus to Mozart! But the criteria of excellence are different: each thing is to be judged in terms of the kind of thing it is. A classical symphony or opera is a different kind of thing than a vegetable, or a rap "song" (I'm not sure that's the right word).
_
De gustibus non disputandum est_ is indeed eternally valid. But it's irrelevant to the question of quality. The knowledge that Mozart's music is superior on the whole to Vanhal's needn't compromise or invalidate anyone's enjoyment of a work by Vanhal, but it's no less true that that someone's enjoyment of, or even preference for, Vanhal doesn't invalidate the fact that Mozart is the greater composer.


----------



## Varick

I put this in another thread. This sums up my thoughts well on a good deal of modern music, even though this 5 minute video is about art.






V


----------



## DavidA

eljr said:


> Can't I just listen and enjoy?


Absolutely! I listen to music I enjoy. If I don't enjoy it, I don't listen.


----------



## DavidA

Eusebius12 said:


> Beethoven's late music was quite conservative in many ways, just like late Bach. The demand for 'avant-garde' music I believe has lessened over recent decades. Many composers write in more tonal styles today and over the last 3 decades. *The extreme barbed wire school has never won much of an audience.* Many composers of now prefer to be more communicative with their audiences rather than show their superiority to them, or cause them great tedium or (in some cases) real physical pain. Also 'installations' are essentially a waste of time and taxpayer's money.


When I was a little boy I tried climbing a barbed wire fence and still bear the scars on my leg some 60+ years later. I decided barbed wire and myself did not go together - same with the music. Why should I listen to the stuff?


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> Well, in the end, it starts with the popular repertoire which gets to be popular because the music is great and the audiences predictably like it. We all know that the warhorses get overplayed and the orchestras need to fill the halls to pay the bills. But the corollary is not that a lot of atonal music and virtually all of avant-garde music doesn't get played in moderate to large venues because it is great, but just can't get its foot in the door. Much of it simply isn't great and it will continue to find its own level in the realm of mediocrity.


Yes, the avant-garde of the 20th century and today is not suited to the kind of business model that large symphony orchestras and opera houses run.

But also, a lot of what is performed in festivals for New Music (like at Donaueschingen, for example) as well as a lot of New Music that thrives in other performance contexts is actually perfectly great to listen to, if you want to listen to it.


----------



## Fredx2098

Varick said:


> I put this in another thread. This sums up my thoughts well on a good deal of modern music, even though this 5 minute video is about art.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> V


That's a pretty silly video. It's the definition of elitism and snobbery. What really makes it silly though is that he's comparing what he thinks is the best art from a several-hundred-year timespan with what he considers the worst from a hundred-year timespan. Not all pre-modern art consists of masterpieces, and not all modern art consists of talentless pretentious expression.


----------



## Guest

I agree; the guy in the video is extremely pretentious. There was a thread here ages ago that looked at this video in relation to music. I don't remember what happened specifically, but generally it just resulted in a lot of argumentative debates between those who admire a snobby/pretentious/elitist outlook on art and those who don't support it.


----------



## janxharris

Luchesi said:


> There are two things which have happened in the last 50 to 100 years that are regrettable.
> 
> The first thing is that every field in modern life has necessarily become so specialized and so complex that the average person will be intelligent in some areas of life but have less awareness in any specialized fields. We all know that science and the arts are especially 'advanced' today. I'm a pianist and I teach piano and i tune pianos etc., but I make my living in scientific research. So I see it everyday as we work with visiting experimenters on projects in a geophysical lab.
> 
> The second thing is when we prepare to perform a modern piece we learn about it and we rehearse and rehearse. We get to know it and we memorize what we need to memorize. By the time we perform it we usually deeply appreciate it. But the audience hears it ONE time and there's just no way that they can take in a modern complex conception with only one hearing. I know I couldn't…
> 
> If you ask the composer he can tell you all about the analysis and where his ideas came from and what he was trying to do and the meaningfulness of it in his own estimation.


I agree that repeated listening can help but there is no assumption that a composer has created a masterpiece and we just need to learn to 'get it'. And, of course, the obverse holds true - no assumption of mediocrity.


----------



## Guest

Fredx2098 said:


> I don't know how much clearer I can be since I've described my point a few times and people still don't understand it. [...]Pop music has 10 writers, 10 producers, and one figurehead who takes the credit.


The trouble you're having is that you claim to be clear, yet say things like the above, which is patently untrue of much pop. I suppose one might agree that there is a narrow field of "factory pop", and of course you can point to bands who have been put together by producers, but to make the sweeping claim you do about pop having 10 writers is absurd.

Anyway, the answer to the OP is that, yes, there is music to deride (it's called "whatever music I find valueless"), and yes, it's OK to deride it, because here people are, eating excrement and snagging their knees on barbed wire.


----------



## DaveM

MacLeod said:


> ... because here people are, eating excrement and snagging their knees on barbed wire.


Yes, this is just one big POW camp.


----------



## KenOC

It’s interesting to think about the relationship between art (esp. composing) and money. Since well before the baroque, almost all music we value today was written for money – either from the church, nobility, rich patrons, publishers, concert impresarios, or others. This is because the composers were professionals, “engaged in a specified activity as one's main paid occupation rather than as a pastime” as the dictionary tells us. They had to put food on the table, pay the rent, send the kids to school, and all the rest. Mostly, it was a pretty rough life.

Today, there seems to be a not-uncommon viewpoint that composing for money is bad. However, many current composers depend on university salaries or government stipends, and the value of their music is never tested by the willingness of the public to pay for it. The very idea that it should have value in that sense seems to be anathema to some.

Meanwhile, audiences are paying the big bucks for rap, pop/rock, and other popular genres. Composers, arrangers, and performers are all buying their mansions on the cliffs above Malibu. No handouts for them, they don’t need it!

I’d bet that the “serious music” of the future will arise from their art, not from the moribund and desiccated remains of what we call “classical music.”


----------



## PlaySalieri

EdwardBast said:


> The reason I brought it up is the quasi-religious overtones in Mozart reception. In commentary on Mozart's genius, for example, I've noticed a tendency to cite "miracles" in support of aesthetic judgments - the usual apocryphal tales of composing in his head without sketching, reproducing an entire choral work by ear, etc. People sure of their tastes shouldn't need miracles.


I could point you to scores of youtube comments on Beethoven/bach pieces "this music is miraculous"

dont pretend that only Mozart fans are capable of this.

It translates into: I love this music.

It probably irks you more when you see these comments about Mozart because there are so many Mozart fans, you dont like the music - and some do get carried away.


----------



## janxharris

Eusebius12 said:


> Beethoven's late music was quite conservative in many ways, just like late Bach. The demand for 'avant-garde' music I believe has lessened over recent decades. Many composers write in more tonal styles today and over the last 3 decades. The extreme barbed wire school has never won much of an audience. Many composers of now prefer to be more communicative with their audiences rather than show their superiority to them, or cause them great tedium or (in some cases) real physical pain. Also '*installations*' are essentially a waste of time and taxpayer's money.


???
.................................


----------



## DaveM

KenOC said:


> It's interesting to think about the relationship between art (esp. composing) and money. Since well before the baroque, almost all music we value today was written for money - either from the church, nobility, rich patrons, publishers, concert impresarios, or others. This is because the composers were professionals, "engaged in a specified activity as one's main paid occupation rather than as a pastime" as the dictionary tells us. They had to put food on the table, pay the rent, send the kids to school, and all the rest. Mostly, it was a pretty rough life.
> 
> Today, there seems to be a not-uncommon viewpoint that composing for money is bad. However, many current composers depend on university salaries or government stipends, and the value of their music is never tested by the willingness of the public to pay for it. The very idea that it should have value in that sense seems to be anathema to some.
> 
> Meanwhile, audiences are paying the big bucks for rap, pop/rock, and other popular genres. Composers, arrangers, and performers are all buying their mansions on the cliffs above Malibu. No handouts for them, they don't need it!
> 
> I'd bet that the "serious music" of the future will arise from their art, not from the moribund and desiccated remains of what we call "classical music."


And that, folks, is the name of that tune!


----------



## janxharris

Anyone hear like to defend Ferneyhough's 'La Terre est Un Homme' from the h_yperthetical _charge that '...anyone could do that - just throw whatever at a canvass (though perhaps include some repeated motifs with their inversions and retrogrades etc)'?


----------



## DavidA

KenOC said:


> It's interesting to think about the relationship between art (esp. composing) and money. Since well before the baroque, almost all music we value today was written for money - either from the church, nobility, rich patrons, publishers, concert impresarios, or others. This is because the composers were professionals, "engaged in a specified activity as one's main paid occupation rather than as a pastime" as the dictionary tells us. They had to put food on the table, pay the rent, send the kids to school, and all the rest. Mostly, it was a pretty rough life.
> 
> *Today, there seems to be a not-uncommon viewpoint that composing for money is bad*. However, many current composers depend on university salaries or government stipends, and the value of their music is never tested by the willingness of the public to pay for it. The very idea that it should have value in that sense seems to be anathema to some.
> 
> Meanwhile, audiences are paying the big bucks for rap, pop/rock, and other popular genres. Composers, arrangers, and performers are all buying their mansions on the cliffs above Malibu. No handouts for them, they don't need it!
> 
> I'd bet that the "serious music" of the future will arise from their art, not from the moribund and desiccated remains of what we call "classical music."


Quite ridiculous and naive view of so-called 'high art'. Mind you I bet certain contemporary composers are glad of their university stipends, etc, as no-one would actually want to pay for their music. At least Beethoven et al had to produce music people wanted to hear


----------



## IpadComposer

Hi, I am brand new to this forum. This is my first post! I have a particular reason for joining, and that is to talk about music composition on the iOS platform, or the iPad. However, before I can seriously tell people about my experience I need ten posts! This subject interests me a lot. My first response is a knee jerk reaction. All music has its listeners. Nothing to criticize in a person's tastes. However, in looking at SoundCloud where I post my music, I saw the top listened to track... 4.5 million downloads! And what was this track? The most base, profane concoction of the lowest impulses of human nature short of cannibalism. The production was marvelous, making it all the worse because of its musical hooks to attract the ears of young listeners. This music I deride and condemn. Everything else.... make music not war.


----------



## janxharris

IpadComposer said:


> Hi, I am brand new to this forum. This is my first post! I have a particular reason for joining, and that is to talk about music composition on the iOS platform, or the iPad. However, before I can seriously tell people about my experience I need ten posts! This subject interests me a lot. My first response is a knee jerk reaction. All music has its listeners. Nothing to criticize in a person's tastes. However, in looking at SoundCloud where I post my music, I saw the top listened to track... 4.5 million downloads! And what was this track? The most base, profane concoction of the lowest impulses of human nature short of cannibalism. The production was marvelous, making it all the worse because of its musical hooks to attract the ears of young listeners. This music I deride and condemn. Everything else.... make music not war.


Hello IpadComposer 

What was the track?


----------



## Eusebius12

Fredx2098 said:


> Yes, just check the last 10 posts or so. I wasn't referring to you. But I don't think it's relevant to mention general popularity when talking about the artistic value of something, unless someone intends to imply that less popular art has less artistic value. I don't get the discussion of popularity. I don't feel better for liking something that's popular or, to address the "modern music is pretentious" mindset, feel better for liking something that is less popular. It's just irrelevant to how I think about or enjoy art. It seems like people are confident in the composers they enjoy because they are widely known, performed, and recorded, which isn't a good basis for appreciating art in my opinion. It's at least not a basis for deriding art that isn't popular, to go along with the point of the thread.


It isn't about popularity as such, at all. If music has next to no audience after decades and decades of it being rammed down people's throats (that is, concert goers, radio listeners, conservatory students) then that says something significant about it. Schoenberg and Webern are 'extremely' well known names really. They are in every serious music textbook. Elliot Carter is as well known as anyone from the last 50 years. Ditto Milton Babbitt. Without some kind of subsidy or propaganda, these composers would disappear totally. This is significant because one of the key arguments of certain composers is the 'not-understood-in-one's-lifetime' canard. Also, if the music doesn't speak to any more than a handful (some perhaps of those may be of the supercilious non-pleb crowd) then many others may feel safe to disregard it. Especially after giving their aural senses a good workout with it.


----------



## Eusebius12

DavidA said:


> When I was a little boy I tried climbing a barbed wire fence and still bear the scars on my leg some 60+ years later. I decided barbed wire and myself did not go together - same with the music. Why should I listen to the stuff?


Life is too short to inflict something on yourself that you hate/dislike/find uncongenial. I put Schoenberg into the last category. I don't find his music congenial. I used to hate Philip Glass but then I heard some things of his I actually liked. One need not satisfy the Gods of fashion and arbiters of Art in forming one's own preferences.


----------



## Eusebius12

DaveM said:


> Professor, is this a short answer or essay question? Is there a time limit? Will I be graded on curve? Can I phone a friend?
> 
> But seriously, I'll bite. I would put Webern's op 21 which is considered as one of his pointillistic works more in the spectrum of 12 tone serialism. Whether that is true of all his pontillistic works, I'm not sure, but I suspect so. Here's a comparison of op21 with a Ferneyhough work which is out-and-out avant-garde.


I find the Ferneyhough to at least be more visceral. The Webern is bitty, repetitive of the same rhythmic and melodic pattern on and on (which wasn't interesting in the first place). At least to the point I stopped listening.

I actually find this more interesting:


----------



## Fredx2098

janxharris said:


> Anyone hear like to defend Ferneyhough's 'La Terre est Un Homme' from the h_yperthetical _charge that '...anyone could do that - just throw whatever at a canvass (though perhaps include some repeated motifs with their inversions and retrogrades etc)'?


If you think that sounds like randomly throwing paint at a canvas, I'm not sure what you're listening to. Perhaps to prove your point you should compose something similar.


----------



## janxharris

Fredx2098 said:


> If you think that sounds like randomly throwing paint at a canvas...


I haven't said so.


----------



## Fredx2098

janxharris said:


> I haven't said so.


What were you saying about it then? It sounds very precise to me. What sounds random and less creative to me are indeterminate works, because they are truly random to an extent.


----------



## Eusebius12

Fredx2098 said:


> That's a pretty silly video. It's the definition of elitism and snobbery. What really makes it silly though is that he's comparing what he thinks is the best art from a several-hundred-year timespan with what he considers the worst from a hundred-year timespan. Not all pre-modern art consists of masterpieces, and not all modern art consists of talentless pretentious expression.


To channel someone, 'he's a professor with years of education so his piece must be based on truth'. Also, classical music is an elitist form whether we like it or not. But who is the real elitist, one who speaks to the heart of humanity or the one who refuses to communicate? Any expressed view can be subject to the deconstructive brickbats of textual critique, but overall he made some decent points. There is an element of truth to what he said, otherwise people wouldn't be riled by it.


----------



## janxharris

Fredx2098 said:


> What were you saying about it then?


Nothing yet. I always want to listen multiple times to such pieces before I hazard an opinion.


----------



## IpadComposer

I must respectfully disagree, @DavidA. KenOC's remarks do not seem naive at all, unless you misread his remarks about university
Stipends. Music that has value but a very small audience relative to mass produced genres needs to find a way to subsist. The financial struggle of the artist is myths. The squashing of the great by the less than great who pander to the tastes and pockets of the prevalent musical norms is often played out in the history of western music. Mozart and Salieri for example, so stunning a major motion picture was made out of a successful, factionalized play. But the point is there. Money drives music. Charles Ives had to make his living selling insurance and hiring popular musicale orchestras to play his music. 

As far as Beethoven is concerned, I really don't agree. Beethoven made a living early on by playing down for audiences. He even improvised tunes based on number series suggested by listeners as Jose Melis did on the old Jack Paar show by asking for telephone numbers. But when it came to composing he only followed his genius. Fidelio was totally panned, the symphonies had to drag the ears of people like Haydn into the 19th century. The last string quartets were unlistenable to contemporary fans of what went before.
So, I don't think LVB made music people wanted to hear. He made music people would have to catch up with in order to love.Beethoven was supported by patrons. He was constantly fighting with concert producers for a bigger share of very meager receipts.
These are only my personal opinions, of course. But somewhere is the truth and tospeak about the past and how things worked is fraught with danger.


----------



## Fredx2098

Eusebius12 said:


> It isn't about popularity as such, at all. If music has next to no audience after decades and decades of it being rammed down people's throats (that is, concert goers, radio listeners, conservatory students) then that says something significant about it. Schoenberg and Webern are 'extremely' well known names really. They are in every serious music textbook. Elliot Carter is as well known as anyone from the last 50 years. Ditto Milton Babbitt. Without some kind of subsidy or propaganda, these composers would disappear totally. This is significant because one of the key arguments of certain composers is the 'not-understood-in-one's-lifetime' canard. Also, if the music doesn't speak to any more than a handful (some perhaps of those may be of the supercilious non-pleb crowd) then many others may feel safe to disregard it. Especially after giving their aural senses a good workout with it.





Eusebius12 said:


> Life is too short to inflict something on yourself that you hate/dislike/find uncongenial. I put Schoenberg into the last category. I don't find his music congenial. I used to hate Philip Glass but then I heard some things of his I actually liked. One need not satisfy the Gods of fashion and arbiters of Art in forming one's own preferences.


Some people just like different kinds of music. It may be hard to believe. Not everyone who likes what you dislike is a pretentious musical academic. My non-musical friends are the ones who introduced me to very "ugly" dissonant, noisy music, classical and otherwise. It's what some people like. It's what a lot of people dislike. What kind of propaganda is there? I haven't encountered any. I seek out strange music. Every music teacher I've had scoffs at modern composers and talks about them reluctantly if at all, and they all say their favorite composer is Bach, so I haven't felt any push to enjoy modern music. If you dislike modern music, that's great, but why try to demean it? What's the point, do you want people to stop creating and enjoying the music they want to, and just listen to old composers or try to copy them?


----------



## Eusebius12

IpadComposer said:


> Hi, I am brand new to this forum. This is my first post! I have a particular reason for joining, and that is to talk about music composition on the iOS platform, or the iPad. However, before I can seriously tell people about my experience I need ten posts! This subject interests me a lot. My first response is a knee jerk reaction. All music has its listeners. Nothing to criticize in a person's tastes. However, in looking at SoundCloud where I post my music, I saw the top listened to track... 4.5 million downloads! And what was this track? The most base, profane concoction of the lowest impulses of human nature short of cannibalism. The production was marvelous, making it all the worse because of its musical hooks to attract the ears of young listeners. This music I deride and condemn. Everything else.... make music not war.


Of course the most horrific abortions are committed in the name of mass music, but this is more of a recent phenomenon in my view. Certainly the last 15 years have been especially bad and are getting worse. You consider the Gods of this generation, Rihanna, Drake, Bieber etc. and they are as empty as anything in the history of mankind.

As a corrective, how about great music with no youtube views, therefore evidently no popularity:





Richard Meale, a great composer, who wrote 2 of the greatest operas of the 20th century, started as a fairly pointillist composer, ending as a neo-romantic (but not backward looking imo)


----------



## Eusebius12




----------



## Fredx2098

Eusebius12 said:


> To channel someone, 'he's a professor with years of education so his piece must be based on truth'. Also, classical music is an elitist form whether we like it or not. But who is the real elitist, one who speaks to the heart of humanity or the one who refuses to communicate? Any expressed view can be subject to the deconstructive brickbats of textual critique, but overall he made some decent points. There is an element of truth to what he said, otherwise people wouldn't be riled by it.


What are the points? I didn't notice any good ones. I watched and listened with an open mind. It only sounded like elitist propaganda to me. He used very subjective words to describe the "objective aesthetic criteria" or whatever, and like I said, he was extremely biased with the art he compared. One particularly striking moment of aloof pretentiousness was when he talked about fooling people with a fake Pollock painting, and I instantly knew that it wasn't him even though I'm not a fan, because he does have his own style. Some people are famous who we don't enjoy.


----------



## DavidA

IpadComposer said:


> I must respectfully disagree, @DavidA. *KenOC's remarks do not seem naive at all*, unless you misread his remarks about university
> Stipends. Music that has value but a very small audience relative to mass produced genres needs to find a way to subsist. The financial struggle of the artist is myths. The squashing of the great by the less than great who pander to the tastes and pockets of the prevalent musical norms is often played out in the history of western music. Mozart and Salieri for example, so stunning a major motion picture was made out of a successful, factionalized play. But the point is there. Money drives music. Charles Ives had to make his living selling insurance and hiring popular musicale orchestras to play his music.
> 
> As far as Beethoven is concerned, I really don't agree. Beethoven made a living early on by playing down for audiences. He even improvised tunes based on number series suggested by listeners as Jose Melis did on the old Jack Paar show by asking for telephone numbers. But when it came to composing he only followed his genius. Fidelio was totally panned, the symphonies had to drag the ears of people like Haydn into the 19th century. The last string quartets were unlistenable to contemporary fans of what went before.
> So, I don't think LVB made music people wanted to hear. He made music people would have to catch up with in order to love.Beethoven was supported by patrons. He was constantly fighting with concert producers for a bigger share of very meager receipts.
> These are only my personal opinions, of course. But somewhere is the truth and tospeak about the past and how things worked is fraught with danger.


You have actually misread my remarks about Ken's post. I was actually agreeing with the point t he was making!


----------



## Guest

Eusebius12 said:


> Of course the most *horrific abortions *are committed in the name of mass music, [...] Certainly the last 15 years have been especially bad and are getting worse. You consider the Gods of this generation, Rihanna, Drake, Bieber etc. and they are as empty as anything in the history of mankind.


What a wholly unpleasant, unnecessary and inappropriate image.

_You _may find the music empty, but there are plenty of people out there who find it serves a purpose for _them_.


----------



## Eusebius12

Fredx2098 said:


> Some people just like different kinds of music. It may be hard to believe. Not everyone who likes what you dislike is a pretentious musical academic. My non-musical friends are the ones who introduced me to very "ugly" dissonant, noisy music, classical and otherwise. It's what some people like. It's what a lot of people dislike. What kind of propaganda is there? I haven't encountered any. I seek out strange music. Every music teacher I've had scoffs at modern composers and talks about them reluctantly if at all, and they all say their favorite composer is Bach, so I haven't felt any push to enjoy modern music. If you dislike modern music, that's great, but why try to demean it? What's the point, do you want people to stop creating and enjoying the music they want to, and just listen to old composers or try to copy them?


If you want to just enjoy what you like, what is there to criticize? I come from an era (not that long ago) when the culture warriors were propagandizing serialism and other isms, and my visceral reaction to that kind of propagandizing still festers in my soul. I find some music tonal abuse as well (not that whatever you like necessarily falls into this category). This is not a personal assault on _you_, as I don't know you and have no idea what music rocks your boat. I have no problem whatever with what _you_ like, and in any case I realize you are eclectic in your tastes. There might be an element of post-trauma (decades old) in my 'kulturkampf', but it isn't directed at you. But the warfare of the avant-garde has had an impact on _me_, on what I listen to and what I have composed and how I would like to approach composition.


----------



## Eusebius12

IpadComposer said:


> I must respectfully disagree, @DavidA. KenOC's remarks do not seem naive at all, unless you misread his remarks about university
> Stipends. Music that has value but a very small audience relative to mass produced genres needs to find a way to subsist. The financial struggle of the artist is myths. The squashing of the great by the less than great who pander to the tastes and pockets of the prevalent musical norms is often played out in the history of western music. Mozart and Salieri for example, so stunning a major motion picture was made out of a successful, factionalized play. But the point is there. Money drives music. Charles Ives had to make his living selling insurance and hiring popular musicale orchestras to play his music.
> 
> As far as Beethoven is concerned, I really don't agree. Beethoven made a living early on by playing down for audiences. He even improvised tunes based on number series suggested by listeners as Jose Melis did on the old Jack Paar show by asking for telephone numbers. But when it came to composing he only followed his genius. Fidelio was totally panned, the symphonies had to drag the ears of people like Haydn into the 19th century. The last string quartets were unlistenable to contemporary fans of what went before.
> So, I don't think LVB made music people wanted to hear. He made music people would have to catch up with in order to love.Beethoven was supported by patrons. He was constantly fighting with concert producers for a bigger share of very meager receipts.
> These are only my personal opinions, of course. But somewhere is the truth and tospeak about the past and how things worked is fraught with danger.


Beethoven was a successful commercial entity in his own lifetime. Schubert was not. Beethoven had more business acumen. Schubert sold enough music to make himself prosperous. Honestly the remarks about Salieri and Mozart are probably not based on reality, as more of Salieri's work becomes known. I agree with the notion that music has never not been about money.


----------



## Eusebius12

Fredx2098 said:


> What are the points? I didn't notice any good ones. I watched and listened with an open mind. It only sounded like elitist propaganda to me. He used very subjective words to describe the "objective aesthetic criteria" or whatever, and like I said, he was extremely biased with the art he compared. One particularly striking moment of aloof pretentiousness was when he talked about fooling people with a fake Pollock painting, and I instantly knew that it wasn't him even though I'm not a fan, because he does have his own style. Some people are famous who we don't enjoy.


Art in the past seemed to fulfill the categories of noble intent married with craftsmanship better than much of what is considered avant-garde today. I feel that is an undoubted truth. Have you seen the Dead Cow, **** Christ, and many other examples. Where is the ennoblement in 4'33, the joy, the vision, in much of the serialist work that audiences have been subjected to (without necessarily wanting to). I could also point to many names who combine modernist tendencies with a serious attempt to communicate. Gorecki, Part, Tavener, Ginastera, Meale (whom I have mentioned already), Sculthorpe, Ades, MacMillan, Adams, Tormis, Vasks, Kilar, Sallinen and even Henze, Nono, Berio and Kokkonen at times. I enjoy a vast bulk of material, but I will dismiss something I view as empty, boring, pretentious, or irredeemably ugly. As we all should. My opinion of what that constitutes will be different from yours. I have no problem with people slagging of Mozart or whatever. So long as they can articulate their reasons. I most likely present an opposing view.

I certainly don't believe that all music is equal and that with effort or understanding everything that is claimed to be a masterwork will be revealed as such, whether or not this is a caricature of your views one feels that with certain kulturkampfers.


----------



## Eusebius12

MacLeod said:


> What a wholly unpleasant, unnecessary and inappropriate image.


No, this is the exact image I was looking for. Without the variance or the turning of a shadow.



> _You _may find the music empty, but there are plenty of people out there who find it serves a purpose for _them_.


Yes, and this says everything about their tastes and something about them as human beings.


----------



## arpeggio

DaveM said:


> But then, isn't this now all about the composer and the performer and the audience largely be damned? When the music is now accessible only to an 'informed' few, it is now in a narrow niche and, *in the case of avant-garde, a genre separate from classical music.*


Question; Do you believe that avant-garde music is not classical music and there should not be any threads about avant-garde music in a classical music forum?


----------



## Fredx2098

Eusebius12 said:


> If you want to just enjoy what you like, what is there to criticize? I come from an era (not that long ago) when the culture warriors were propagandizing serialism and other isms, and my visceral reaction to that kind of propagandizing still festers in my soul. I find some music tonal abuse as well (not that whatever you like necessarily falls into this category). This is not a personal assault on _you_, as I don't know you and have no idea what music rocks your boat. I have no problem whatever with what _you_ like, and in any case I realize you are eclectic in your tastes. There might be an element of post-trauma (decades old) in my 'kulturkampf', but it isn't directed at you. But the warfare of the avant-garde has had an impact on _me_, on what I listen to and what I have composed and how I would like to approach composition.


I'm criticizing people who write off entire styles/eras of music as lacking talent and value. I've never heard of any avant-garde propaganda, and you haven't given much information about it. In my experience in real life and on this website, people seem viciously anti-modern. There was some random short period where people were trying to push it on people? I've never heard of anything like that. It sounds like you should be directing your disdain towards some aggressive people and not the art. I don't believe that aggressive snobs are confined to modern art. I don't quite understand the point of your negative words on modern music and composers. I have very eclectic tastes including what people consider to be real classical music, but many people feel the need to mock me or my tastes because I like some things that they don't like. It doesn't affect me except that I'm very confused why someone would do that.


----------



## Guest

Eusebius12 said:


> No, this is the exact image I was looking for. Without the variance or the turning of a shadow.
> 
> Yes, and this says everything about their tastes and something about them as human beings.


And your choice of terminology, and your attitude to "[them] and their tastes" says something about you as a human being too.


----------



## Eusebius12

Fredx2098 said:


> I'm criticizing people who write off entire styles/eras of music as lacking talent and value. I've never heard of any avant-garde propaganda, and you haven't given much information about it. In my experience in real life and on this website, people seem viciously anti-modern. There was some random short period where people were trying to push it on people? I've never heard of anything like that. It sounds like you should be directing your disdain towards some aggressive people and not the art. I don't believe that aggressive snobs are confined to modern art. I don't quite understand the point of your negative words on modern music and composers. I have very eclectic tastes including what people consider to be real classical music, but many people feel the need to mock me or my tastes because I like some things that they don't like. It doesn't affect me except that I'm very confused why someone would do that.


Random short period? Do you mean the 20s to the 80s? Perhaps you weren't around then. There is a reason why nearly every composer from the 50s-70s wrote in a relentlessly modernist style. I don't know what your tastes are because you haven't specified them in any post of yours I've read. I am not mocking you, nor do I feel mocked by people who don't 'get' Mozart or find his music cliched or whatever. I do feel that the worm has turned in terms of prevailing musical styles and general aesthetics, in my view that is a good thing, although perhaps too late.

The words I use I only use on behalf of what I believe to be good and true in Art. I have seen several posts here on a range of subjects by you that I find I am in sympathy with, perhaps less on this subject. Perhaps we would agree wholeheartedly on some things and vociferously disagree on others. I note and respect your difference of view on this (although you aren't being explicit as to which music I have 'mocked' and you like). I have as I've said a fairly extensive repertoire of 20th century likes as well.


----------



## Eusebius12

MacLeod said:


> And your choice of terminology, and your attitude to "[them] and their tastes" says something about you as a human being too.


Your opinion is noted.


----------



## Eusebius12

MacLeod said:


> And your choice of terminology, and your attitude to "[them] and their tastes" says something about you as a human being too.


So let me get this straight. I'm not really allowed to dislike certain types of music and express that verbally(and with relish), but the content of my posts and the _words_ I use are subject to your value judgements and censoriousness? How interesting.


----------



## Enthusiast

Eusebius12 said:


> To channel someone, 'he's a professor with years of education so his piece must be based on truth'. Also, classical music is an elitist form whether we like it or not. But who is the real elitist, one who speaks to the heart of humanity or the one who refuses to communicate? Any expressed view can be subject to the deconstructive brickbats of textual critique, but overall he made some decent points. There is an element of truth to what he said, otherwise people wouldn't be riled by it.


Why not bash straw men?

Oh, you already have.

You define a generic type of music as unpleasant etc and then ask who could love something unpleasant? You're not alone in doing that but you get the prize for determination as you have posted the same argument countless times. Why are you ignoring all those who are saying I love lots of it?


----------



## Eusebius12

Enthusiast said:


> Why not bash straw men?
> 
> Oh, you already have.
> 
> You define a generic type of music as unpleasant etc and then ask who could love something unpleasant? You're not alone in doing that but you get the prize for determination as you have posted the same argument countless times. Why are you ignoring all those who are saying I love lots of it?


Pour le crapaud, le crapaude est belle.

I didn't define anything. For whatever the description fits, no doubt deserves it. And what is 'it', exactly? I have no preconceptions as to your tastes. Countless times? I've told you a billion times, stop exaggerating.

Why do you respond reflexively in a defensive way? Perhaps there is something a priori that we know fits the description.


----------



## Guest

arpeggio said:


> Question; Do you believe that avant-garde music is not classical music and there should not be any threads about avant-garde music in a classical music forum?


It would be very strange to not include 'avant-garde' music in a classical music forum, as quite a number of people who listen to 'avant-garde' music and enjoy it also enjoy an enormous amount of older classical music in addition......'Classical music' in general covers the music of the 20th and 21st centuries, doesn't it? There _is_ some kind of equivalence to Chaya Czernowin composing a string quartet and having it performed and Dvorak composing a string quartet and having it performed, right?


----------



## Enthusiast

Eusebius12 said:


> Random short period? Do you mean the 20s to the 80s? Perhaps you weren't around then. There is a reason why nearly every composer from the 50s-70s wrote in a relentlessly modernist style. I don't know what your tastes are because you haven't specified them in any post of yours I've read. I am not mocking you, nor do I feel mocked by people who don't 'get' Mozart or find his music cliched or whatever. I do feel that the worm has turned in terms of prevailing musical styles and general aesthetics, in my view that is a good thing, although perhaps too late.


There were many composers using a fairly conventional language in the 50s-80s period - including Britten and Shostakovich - so it was hardly "nearly every composer" writing relentlessly modern music. And yet you sound as if you really suffered during that period! Also, some of that music that _did _sound relentlessly modern in the 50s, doesn't sound so now. What I don't get is the fairly political approach you take to this. Some people enjoy music you hate. Why can't you let them? The type of music you love is plentiful and sufficiently popular to be regularly programmed. Where is your problem?


----------



## Enthusiast

Eusebius12 said:


> Pour le crapaud, le crapaude est belle.
> 
> I didn't define anything. For whatever the description fits, no doubt deserves it. And what is 'it', exactly? I have no preconceptions as to your tastes. Countless times? I've told you a billion times, stop exaggerating.
> 
> Why do you respond reflexively in a defensive way? Perhaps there is something a priori that we know fits the description.


I'm not sure you have told me to stop exaggerating before. Perhaps we all seem the same to you! If you can't see that my description of your posting style on this subject is accurate I would suggest you reread your posts in this thread.


----------



## Enthusiast

arpeggio said:


> Question; Do you believe that avant-garde music is not classical music and there should not be any threads about avant-garde music in a classical music forum?


You wouldn't be encouraging his inner censor to step out into the open, would you?


----------



## Eusebius12

Enthusiast said:


> There were many composers using a fairly conventional language in the 50s-80s period - including Britten and Shostakovich - so it was hardly "nearly every composer" writing relentlessly modern music. And yet you sound as if you really suffered during that period! Also, some of that music that _did _sound relentlessly modern in the 50s, doesn't sound so now. What I don't get is the fairly political approach you take to this. Some people enjoy music you hate. Why can't you let them? The type of music you love is plentiful and sufficiently popular to be regularly programmed. Where is your problem?


Britten and Shostakovitch weren't 'from the 50s' in any meaningful sense, and were definitely on the outer in that period. Well Shostakovitch less so but he was 'foreign'. Any American composer writing quasi-neo-tonal stuff would have struggled to graduate from a conservatory. Some people hate music you presumably love. Why try to censor them? And where is my above post indicative of a 'problem'? Is merely voicing an opinion about certain types of music verboten to you? This is related to the 50s serial totalitarianism. In those days non-serial composers were just about non people, whereas the supporters of serialism now they are on the defensive, strenuously seek to shut down any criticism of their affinities. The two are related I feel.

Perhaps the totalitarian/rigidly defensive responses are somehow related to the music itself.


----------



## Enthusiast

DaveM said:


> Well, in the end, it starts with the popular repertoire which gets to be popular because the music is great and the audiences predictably like it. We all know that the warhorses get overplayed and the orchestras need to fill the halls to pay the bills. But the corollary is not that a lot of atonal music and virtually all of avant-garde music doesn't get played in moderate to large venues because it is great, but just can't get its foot in the door. Much of it simply isn't great and it will continue to find its own level in the realm of mediocrity.


I am at a loss to understand why anyone on a CM forum might continually advance the theory that popularity equates to merit. Of course, I can't disagree with your statement that "much" atonal music is not great. The same is true of any type of music you could name. We all know that.


----------



## Eusebius12

Enthusiast said:


> I'm not sure you have told me to stop exaggerating before. Perhaps we all seem the same to you! If you can't see that my description of your posting style on this subject is accurate I would suggest you reread your posts in this thread.


Irony not your strong point either I can see. I am not terribly interested in what you think my posting style is. Actually, I enjoy my posting style and I consider it art, so how dare you insult what I enjoy- I mean art is all the same and I have a degree to prove it


----------



## Eusebius12

Enthusiast said:


> I am at a loss to understand why anyone on a CM forum might continually advance the theory that popularity equates to merit. Of course, I can't disagree with your statement that "much" atonal music is not great. The same is true of any type of music you could name. We all know that.


Yes I am at a loss as to how someone could be so consistently uncomprehending of simple statements and be able to twist them into something so completely unrelated. It takes a certain kind of dogged mediocrity to do this. Something along the lines of certain types of compositions which are so doggedly dull and mediocre that the soul cries and bleeds. But I won't say which compositions these are because I could offend some people.


----------



## Enthusiast

DavidA said:


> Absolutely! I listen to music I enjoy. If I don't enjoy it, I don't listen.


Has there ever been a piece you didn't like and then grew to like? How did that happen? Or, perhaps you go by what immediately appeals?


----------



## Guest

Eusebius12 said:


> So let me get this straight. I'm not really allowed to dislike certain types of music and express that verbally(and with relish), but the content of my posts and the _words_ I use are subject to your value judgements and censoriousness? How interesting.


"Interesting"? If you say so.

Btw, who said you're not really allowed to dislike certain kinds of music? Certainly not me. I am opposed to public derision, however, a point I made very clear in an earlier post.

Obviously, with each of us "allowed" to post what we like, you can use the terms you wish, and I can express my opinion on those terms.


----------



## DavidA

Enthusiast said:


> Has there ever been a piece you didn't like and then grew to like? How did that happen? Or, perhaps you go by what immediately appeals?


There has been music I didn't like at first and then grew to like. But having listened to classical music for around 55 years I'm pretty well decided in my tastes. There is also music I have tried to like and have now given up. But the sort of 'music' that makes a horrible noise is not for me.


----------



## Enthusiast

Eusebius12 said:


> Britten and Shostakovitch weren't 'from the 50s' in any meaningful sense, and were definitely on the outer in that period. Well Shostakovitch less so but he was 'foreign'. Any American composer writing quasi-neo-tonal stuff would have struggled to graduate from a conservatory. Some people hate music you presumably love. Why try to censor them? And where is my above post indicative of a 'problem'? Is merely voicing an opinion about certain types of music verboten to you? This is related to the 50s serial totalitarianism. In those days non-serial composers were just about non people, whereas the supporters of serialism now they are on the defensive, strenuously seek to shut down any criticism of their affinities. The two are related I feel.


Well, both were at their height in the 50s. You answer my questions by not answering them but asking them back to me. Still, it is polite to reply so I will reply. I don't wish to censor anyone but it would be great not to see essentially the same posts repeated on and on with answers to them ignored or answered with a question! It would be very nice if that could stop. I can't talk about educational practices in USA but I was certainly required to learn about stuff that I disliked when I was at university. How else could I be sure of my take on it and effective in my critique of it? I don't remember a time when it was forbidden to criticise serial music and I'm in my 60s. Some critics might have lent in that direction but far more went the other way. Perhaps you mixed with the wrong people for you?



Eusebius12 said:


> Perhaps the totalitarian/rigidly defensive responses are somehow related to the music itself.


I really can't read those responses (including my own) that way. I have seen lots of exasperation at you responding tactics - rarely taking the point or answering it, hitting back with essentially the same post. I would answer you by asking to post your examples of defensive and totalitarian responses in favour of avant garde music but feel fairly certain I would not get an answer.


----------



## Enthusiast

Eusebius12 said:


> Yes I am at a loss as to how someone could be so consistently uncomprehending of simple statements and be able to twist them into something so completely unrelated. It takes a certain kind of dogged mediocrity to do this. Something along the lines of certain types of compositions which are so doggedly dull and mediocre that the soul cries and bleeds. But I won't say which compositions these are because I could offend some people.


We have all heard you. We understand your view. Some of us disagree. The discussion on this with you seems to go no further. You can't name the works you are thinking of for fear of offending someone which sounds passive aggressive to me. And yet you post that those who disagree with you are showing "dogged mediocrity"!

Are you frustrated that we are not all saying "ah, he's right - why didn't I realise before"? Or - passive aggression is often legitimate for those with no power to defend themselves against the powerful - perhaps you feel you lack the words and knowledge to advance a case that you are sure is right?


----------



## PlaySalieri

A lot of bickering going on - I like a good old slanging match about something really worthwhile - but this is anything but. BORING!


----------



## Guest

stomanek said:


> A lot of bickering going on - I like a good old slanging match about something really worthwhile - but this is anything but. BORING!


I think you'll find that what is going is germane to the OP. If you're not interested in the topic, please feel free to move along.


----------



## Strange Magic

> *Woodduck:* "This argument conveniently overlooks the question of why certain composers and works are widely perceived to be superior to others. There's no getting around the fact that they are, and that with the passage of time those perceived as superior tend to be more enduring and to sustain their reputations for superiority. Mozart was recognized by other composers of his day as being superior to them, and posterity has confirmed their judgment with virtually no controversy, not only in the relative popularity of Mozart among the public interested in the kind of music he wrote, but in the esteem of musicians and in the quantity and quality of analysis devoted to his works by those capable of it. We can legitimately say, and people have legitimately said, much more about works of art than "who created them, when, their dimensions/colors/durations, degree of complexity, the name given to the work, what it cost/sold for, history, what people said/say about it, etc."'


A most excellent distillation of the argument that there is something intrinsic--inherent--within the art object that makes it bad/good/inferior/superior. Using this inherent something, we can then look at Davids by Donatello, Bernini, Michelangelo, and tell which are the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. No, it doesn't work. I know that we want there to be "objective" reasons to support the aesthetic choices we make, but, upon closer examination, we find a defense, a demonstration of such reasons and standards to be anchored on a bed of assertions plucked out of thin air. The heart of the above arguments rest upon "passage of time", "widely perceived" (by some defined group of perceivers), and variations on "widely agreed".

I sense the yearning for transcendence, for art to be somehow bigger than all this nasty, dull, brutish world below, and the art/music I love does lift me up and away. But it's all in the unique relationship between my busy brain and the essentially mute, forceless art materials before me, neither good nor bad unless I make them so. Art just is.


----------



## Enthusiast

stomanek said:


> A lot of bickering going on - I like a good old slanging match about something really worthwhile - but this is anything but. BORING!


For my part in that I apologise to any disturbed forum members. I have the bad habit of responding when someone seems to have insulted me or gratuitously (so it seems) misuses something I said to mean something very different. Probably I should just walk away at some point (as I planned to after my last post) or should at least not fan the flames! But the alternative seemed to be to allow a false version of what I was saying to be an end point. I find it hard to let that happen.

That said, this thread is about why do discussions about two topics - Mozart and contemporary music - so often become bitter battle grounds. So, the material available here - and it is very similar to many other threads - might enable you to hazard guesses about what it is that happens and why? Why with Mozart and contemporary music more than any other subjects?


----------



## IpadComposer

Wow, guys, I am new to this forum. Maybe this thread is really controversial but much of this sounds like someone fighting with his wife. Sorry for you, really. I am just trying to get my ten posts in so I can explain to young composers that iOS/iPad is a great way to go for an affordable, user friendly experience and that you can make totally professional recordings with great sounding instruments for just a few hundred dollars. As to the topic, hyperbolic profanity is about the only music I can't abide.


----------



## Joe B

...................................


----------



## TurnaboutVox

I'd also like to see contributions to this thread stick to the thread topic. Sometimes posts have come a bit close to crossing the borderline between legitimate debate and personal remarks / ad hominem comments.

Please let's stick to discussing whether there's music that it's OK to deride and countering other posters' arguments.


----------



## PlaySalieri

TurnaboutVox said:


> I'd also like to see contributions to this thread stick to the thread topic. Sometimes posts have come a bit close to crossing the borderline between legitimate debate and personal remarks / ad hominem comments.
> 
> Please let's stick to discussing whether there's music that it's OK to deride and countering other posters' arguments.


You see McCleod - it's not just me. Im talking about the jibes at fellow poster's lack of intelligence etc.


----------



## Guest

stomanek said:


> You see McCleod - it's not just me.


Quite. It's me too, which is why I've been posting my objections - but to specific posts. I was responding to your generalised "bickering" and "boring". If you don't like what someone posts, by all means say so, as it helps us all understand what we think is acceptable and what is not. In the absence of moderation, it's all we've got left (though obviously I recognise TVox's intervention here - I mean to make a general point).


----------



## Guest

IpadComposer said:


> Wow, guys, I am new to this forum. Maybe this thread is really controversial but much of this *sounds like someone fighting with his wife.*



That sums it up!


----------



## Byron

Strange Magic said:


> A most excellent distillation of the argument that there is something intrinsic--inherent--within the art object that makes it bad/good/inferior/superior. Using this inherent something, we can then look at Davids by Donatello, Bernini, Michelangelo, and tell which are the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. No, it doesn't work. I know that we want there to be "objective" reasons to support the aesthetic choices we make, but, upon closer examination, we find a defense, a demonstration of such reasons and standards to be anchored on a bed of assertions plucked out of thin air. The heart of the above arguments rest upon "passage of time", "widely perceived" (by some defined group of perceivers), and variations on "widely agreed".
> 
> I sense the yearning for transcendence, for art to be somehow bigger than all this nasty, dull, brutish world below, and the art/music I love does lift me up and away. But it's all in the unique relationship between my busy brain and the essentially mute, forceless art materials before me, neither good nor bad unless I make them so. Art just is.


An interesting point of view, but art is not a rock or a product of nature, like a sunset. It is something that has been designed with a specific aesthetic goal and with a desired effect upon an audience. It can be judged on how successfully and creatively it meets it's goal within the parameters it set for itself, and also be measured against other works in those parameters. In fact I would say the parameters themselves can be judged, as some parameters are loftier and more ambitious. Of course someone may not respond to a particular aesthetic, and some can indeed recognize the deep meaning and value of something and not enjoy it personally. Those who are familiar with art of a particular aesthetic are also more discerning than those who are not.


----------



## Strange Magic

Byron said:


> An interesting point of view, but art is not a rock or a product of nature, like a sunset. It is something that has been designed with a specific aesthetic goal and with a desired effect upon an audience. It can be judged on how successfully and creatively it meets it's goal within the parameters it set for itself, and also be measured against other works in those parameters. In fact I would say the parameters themselves can be judged, as some parameters are loftier and more ambitious. Of course someone may not respond to a particular aesthetic, and some can indeed recognize the deep meaning and value of something and not enjoy it personally. Those who are familiar with art of a particular aesthetic are also more discerning than those who are not.


Nicely put. Nevertheless it is a restatement of Woodduck's thesis. "a specific aesthetic goal and with a desired effect upon an audience": unless the artist has shared this information with us, we-you--infer this from your reaction to the work. As an exercise, Which of the three Davids, by Donatello, Bernini, and Michelangelo, best succeeds in meeting a specific, defined aesthetic goal? What is the goal for each? Is one sculpture better than the others? If so, which, and why? What if the machinery of measuring and comparing comes up with one particular "best" David, but I much prefer another?

Just doesn't work.


----------



## Byron

Strange Magic said:


> Nicely put. Nevertheless it is a restatement of Woodduck's thesis. "a specific aesthetic goal and with a desired effect upon an audience": unless the artist has shared this information with us, we-you--infer this from your reaction to the work. As an exercise, Which of the three Davids, by Donatello, Bernini, and Michelangelo, best succeeds in meeting a specific, defined aesthetic goal? What is the goal for each? Is one sculpture better than the others? If so, which, and why? What if the machinery of measuring and comparing comes up with one particular "best" David, but I much prefer another?
> 
> Just doesn't work.


Well, I don't think it's so much the artist's intent as much as it what the work itself sets up and achieves. An artist could conceivably set about to paint a tree in an accurate, detailed, realistic way, but for any number of reasons, be it lack of skill in a particular aesthetic or an inability to gauge their true artistic motivations and talents, create and expressionist masterpiece. Of course this is would obviously be an extreme example. In any case, even within a particular aesthetic, different works can excel in different ways and trying to determine which one is "better" would only be a pointless exercise. I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree however, because I don't believe that since something objective aesthetic criteria cannot be defined in any meaningful way, it does not mean aesthetic quality cannot be perceived and understood. 

Even so, let me just say I believe to a large extent value is relative. Art fills a number of purposes across a broad spectrum, and while a popular song that's created with the purpose of engaging as many listeners as possible by using a catchy earworm paired with a socially topical lyric is usually determined as having less value than a musical work that can stir a listener's deepest emotions and transform and heighten their consciousness if the listener is attuned and receptive, some listeners are simply not interested in music than anything more as light entertainment. So for them that pop song has all the value they are looking for. Even then, some pop songs are better crafted and more successful than others.


----------



## Strange Magic

Aesthetic quality can indeed be perceived and understood--all of us do it all the time, as individuals.. We each carry within our heads our own judging, evaluating, rating machinery--the misconception arises when we seek to universalize our particular reactions to art, to infer that others do, must, will, should react as we do. Our reaction to art is entirely subjective, relative, as the post above demonstrates, though Byron attempts to somehow find some bridge over to some kind of trans-personal aesthetic that overrides or supersedes or validates the strictly individual and subjective. I salute him for his effort. But the best that can be achieved is by identifying--and identifying with--a peer audience who agree with one that art A is better than art B, and so we're back to a popularity contest, which is basically where all aesthetic arguments both begin and end .


----------



## Joe B

.............................................................


----------



## Guest

Byron said:


> Well, I don't think it's so much the artist's intent as much as it what the work itself sets up and achieves.


You mean a work of art can achieve something all on its own, without the artist's intent?


----------



## MarkW

All right, I don't agree with Professor Art-Basher either, but it's an old and unwinnable argument. I will repeat what I've said many times before: A surprising percentage of all art (95%+) is bad. (How many of the estimated 10,000 operas comosed since 1600 are in the repertory we see today?) For contemporary music, the winnowing hasn't happened enough, so people are reacting to what will likely be judged a lot of bad stuff. And remember, Beethoven's most popular work in his lifetime was the dreadful "Wellington's Victory."


----------



## DaveM

arpeggio said:


> Question; Do you believe that avant-garde music is not classical music and there should not be any threads about avant-garde music in a classical music forum?


I believe that it is not classical music and I wouldn't miss it if it weren't on this forum. But there are always a few people who like Avant-garde as well as classical and since I doubt that an Avant-garde-only forum would survive very long, they would have nowhere to go so I don't have a problem with it being here or on other forums.


----------



## Byron

Strange Magic said:


> Aesthetic quality can indeed be perceived and understood--all of us do it all the time, as individuals.. We each carry within our heads our own judging, evaluating, rating machinery--the misconception arises when we seek to universalize our particular reactions to art, to infer that others do, must, will, should react as we do. Our reaction to art is entirely subjective, relative, as the post above demonstrates, though Byron attempts to somehow find some bridge over to some kind of trans-personal aesthetic that overrides or supersedes or validates the strictly individual and subjective. I salute him for his effort. But the best that can be achieved is by identifying--and identifying with--a peer audience who agree with one that art A is better than art B, and so we're back to a popularity contest, which is basically where all aesthetic arguments both begin and end .


I'm not disagreeing. Of course art is subjective. I don't think discussions on aesthetics are meaningless however -- attempting to express why or how a work moves us can be incredibly insightful and help elucidate the meaning of the work.



MacLeod said:


> You mean a work of art can achieve something all on its own, without the artist's intent?


In a way, yes. The creation of a work of art is often based largely on intuition and it's possible that the artist himself is not able to fully grasp it's significance and scope in the moment of inspiration.


----------



## Thomyum2

Strange Magic said:


> Aesthetic quality can indeed be perceived and understood--all of us do it all the time, as individuals.. We each carry within our heads our own judging, evaluating, rating machinery--the misconception arises when we seek to universalize our particular reactions to art, to infer that others do, must, will, should react as we do. Our reaction to art is entirely subjective, relative, as the post above demonstrates, though Byron attempts to somehow find some bridge over to some kind of trans-personal aesthetic that overrides or supersedes or validates the strictly individual and subjective. I salute him for his effort. But the best that can be achieved is by identifying--and identifying with--a peer audience who agree with one that art A is better than art B, and so we're back to a popularity contest, which is basically where all aesthetic arguments both begin and end .


I disagree here - I think that taste is something individual that cannot be challenged (hence 'de gustibus non est disputandum'), but aesthetics is something that is imbedded in a culture or community - it is in a sense a shared taste. There is a real distinction between saying 'I like' and 'It is good' - the latter suggests a belief that something has a tangible and objective quality that goes beyond just a personal feeling of what an individual likes. Now we may not all agree on what makes something good or not good, but that's different from saying that everything is simply a matter of individual preference.

I think we run into two problems in these discussions about the quality of art - first, is that in trying to in make very broad generalities, we run the risk of over-simplifying things; and second, by doings so we get into the trap of trying to create a way of ranking various works or categories of work as to what is better and what is worse. Aesthetics is not about either of these things - I often say that unless you're in the business of judging a competition, there isn't much point in this exercise. Understanding the quality of a piece of music, or any work of art, is about a careful examination of the specifics of that work - the craftsmanship, the details, the historical and cultural context, the innovations, etc. - this is how we develop an 'appreciation' for what the composer has accomplished. When we recognize these things, we can appreciate the quality of a work and the 'greatness', so to speak, of a work of art or an artist. So I think aesthetics is about examining a work with a view to understanding it better - and this is a shared activity that we do together by reaching out to each other to hear each others' reactions and insights and to learn from each other. It's not about ranking works for purposes of deciding which, or who, is better or worse. There is no first prize or gold medal in aesthetics, and there should be no winners and losers - there is plenty of room for many things to be great at the same time. In objectively discussing the specifics of works rather than arguing in abstractions, we can grow and come to appreciate more things and expand our horizons.

This humorous exchange in the 2009 movie 'Fame' that comes to mind: 
_
*Shorofsky: *One man is not an orchestra. 
*Bruno Martelli: *Who needs orchestras? You can do it all with a keyboard, an amp and enough power. 
*Shorofsky: *You going to play all by yourself? 
*Bruno Martelli:* You don't need anybody else. 
*Shorofsky: *That's not music, Martelli. That's ************. _


----------



## Guest

Byron said:


> In a way, yes. [...]it's possible that the artist himself is not able to fully grasp it's significance and scope in the moment of inspiration.


I can agree with this, but unless we have some sense of the artist's purpose, how can we measure the extent of the success of the composition? It's obviously possible to determine _some _success (or failure) based on a positive audience response, regardless of intent, but in the more general point made several times in this thread, music that is written for teenagers to dance to needs to be judged within that parameter, not within the "great symphony" parameter.


----------



## Thomyum2

And that was the forum that censored the word not me! So you can look it up it you don't know the word that was used.


----------



## Byron

MacLeod said:


> I can agree with this, but unless we have some sense of the artist's purpose, how can we measure the extent of the success of the composition? It's obviously possible to determine _some _success (or failure) based on a positive audience response, regardless of intent, but in the more general point made several times in this thread, music that is written for teenagers to dance to needs to be judged within that parameter, not within the "great symphony" parameter.


I think we can take the artist's intentions into account of course, although often the artist doesn't state them and we have no idea what they are. So we have to determine its success based on the qualities it posesses and what it achieves, or where it falls short. As for your point about parameters, I fully agree.


----------



## DaveM

Enthusiast said:


> I am at a loss to understand why anyone on a CM forum might continually advance the theory that popularity equates to merit. Of course, I can't disagree with your statement that "much" atonal music is not great. The same is true of any type of music you could name. We all know that.


I'm at a loss to understand why anyone would discount popularity as one of the indicators of possible merit. Popularity does not equal or guarantee merit, especially in the broad scale of music, otherwise classical music, all things being equal, would be more popular than pop music. (The 'all thing being equal' takes into account that when classical music went in the atonal direction, classical music became less accessible and today it is sadly rather stagnant. IMO pop music isn't as good as it used to be, but it isn't stagnant.)

As far as classical music goes, the well known composers were or are popular. However, we know that a number of composers with merit in the 19th century were not so popular. But we also know that that was often because of limitations in those days: no recordings, limited influential positions, limited sponsorship, inability or unwillingness to do what was necessary to get the music published.

What's amazing is is that a company like Hyperion appears to be making money by releasing recordings of 19th century music by lesser known composers. The latter must have some merit after all and they are becoming more popular.


----------



## DaveM

Enthusiast said:


> You wouldn't be encouraging his inner censor to step out into the open, would you?


What an unnecessary, snarky comment.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> A most excellent distillation of *the argument that there is something intrinsic--inherent--within the art object that makes it bad/good/inferior/superior. * Using this inherent something, we can then look at Davids by Donatello, Bernini, Michelangelo, and tell which are the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. No, it doesn't work. I know that we want there to be "objective" reasons to support the aesthetic choices we make, but, upon closer examination, we find a defense, a demonstration of *such reasons and standards to be anchored on a bed of assertions plucked out of thin air.* The heart of the above arguments rest upon "passage of time", "widely perceived" (by some defined group of perceivers), and variations on "widely agreed".
> 
> I sense the yearning for transcendence, for art to be somehow bigger than all this nasty, dull, brutish world below, and the art/music I love does lift me up and away. But it's all in the unique relationship between my busy brain and the essentially mute, forceless art materials before me, *neither good nor bad unless I make them so*. Art just is.


You're applying the wrong criteria to art. Not everything which can be known can be proved. Logical propositions can be proved, but statements which are reports of perception cannot. Artistic judgments are not anchored on "assertions," but on perceptions. They are therefore unprovable, but may nonetheless be true.

The fact that Brahms's mastery of musical form can't be proved doesn't make it unreal. A great deal that's meaningful can be said about a work of music, but it will only be meaningful to one capable of hearing it. Being able to hear it, I can say with certainty that a quintet by Brahms is superb, while a similar work of, say, Goldmark is merely very good, and a similar work by Reger is fascinating but diffuse and confused. I may be able to say these things even if, today, I find Goldmark or Reger more congenial than Brahms. And I'm not less confident in saying them merely because many other people can't hear what I hear. Those people are free to ignore me and listen to whatever they want in blissful ignorance. But they can't tell me that I don't understand the excellence that Brahms has achieved, or that there's no such thing as excellence. I do understand it, and understanding it is a pleasure. Maybe, if they keep listening, they'll come to understand it too.


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> ...Being able to hear it, I can say with certainty that a quintet by Brahms is superb, while a similar work of, say, Goldmark is merely very good, and a similar work by Reger is fascinating but diffuse and confused.


You may be quite certain indeed. The problem is that there will always be others, just as certain as you, who hold different opinions.


----------



## Thomyum2

KenOC said:


> You may be quite certain indeed. The problem is that there will always be others, just as certain as you, who hold different opinions.


Yes, opinions may vary, but I think the point Woodduck is making (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that an aesthetic opinion about art is of a different level than just whether or not you happen to share the same taste for a particular piece or work. I read recently that Kant believed that "aesthetics arises from a faculty of disinterested judgment" which I think sums it up well - that the aesthetic value of a piece of music is not dependent on who likes or dislikes it, but comes from an objective examination of that work within the context of that artistic tradition, from the community and culture in which it exists and from which it emerged. It is subject to dispute, just as people argue about what is right vs. wrong or true vs. false, but it not simply a matter of taste or of personal reaction - it is an assessment made, with the use of the intellect, after an evaluation of the objective qualities of the work.


----------



## DaveM

I think that the Brahms>Goldmark>Reger premise would be upheld by the great majority of the classical-informed listening public, recording companies, musicologists, publishers and classical musicians.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> You're applying the wrong criteria to art. Not everything which can be known can be proved. Logical propositions can be proved, but statements which are reports of perception cannot. Artistic judgments are not anchored on "assertions," but on perceptions. They are therefore unprovable, but may nonetheless be true.
> 
> The fact that Brahms's mastery of musical form can't be proved doesn't make it unreal. A great deal that's meaningful can be said about a work of music, but it will only be meaningful to one capable of hearing it. Being able to hear it, I can say with certainty that a quintet by Brahms is superb, while a similar work of, say, Goldmark is merely very good, and a similar work by Reger is fascinating but diffuse and confused. I may be able to say these things even if, today, I find Goldmark or Reger more congenial than Brahms. And I'm not less confident in saying them merely because many other people can't hear what I hear. Those people are free to ignore me and listen to whatever they want in blissful ignorance. But they can't tell me that I don't understand the excellence that Brahms has achieved, or that there's no such thing as excellence. I do understand it, and understanding it is a pleasure. Maybe, if they keep listening, they'll come to understand it too.


How any of the above, as clearly stated and excellent as it is, is not an expression of subjective, individual opinion, I surely do not know. But the confidence is bracing, and refreshing, and Woodduck and I are each both sure of our taste and happy with what pleases us (as we certainly should be!). He likes what he likes because there are good extrapersonal reasons for him to do so. I like what I like because of unique personal reasons which I may share with others. But either way, it's all good .


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> You may be quite certain indeed. The problem is that there will always be others, just as certain as you, who hold different opinions.


Yes, and there are people who are "certain" that by blowing up the world and themselves they will spend eternity enjoying the favors of seventy-two virgins.


----------



## Woodduck

DaveM said:


> I think that the Brahms>Goldmark>Reger premise would be upheld by the great majority of the classical-informed listening public, recording companies, musicologists, publishers and classical musicians.


Yes, the ability to hear is widely shared.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> I think that the Brahms>Goldmark>Reger premise would be upheld by the great majority of the classical-informed listening public, recording companies, musicologists, publishers and classical musicians.


I agree completely. But, as LBJ was fond of saying, "Therefore, what?" How is this not a popularity contest argument? I prefer vanilla, as do hundreds of millions. Is it better than pistachio?


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> How any of the above, as clearly stated and excellent as it is, is not an expression of subjective, individual opinion, I surely do not know. But the confidence is bracing, and refreshing, and Woodduck and I are each both sure of our taste and happy with what pleases us (as we certainly should be!). He likes what he likes because there are good extrapersonal reasons for him to do so. I like what I like because of unique personal reasons which I may share with others. But either way, it's all good .


Your belief that all aesthetic judgment is purely subjective is purely subjective.


----------



## Fredx2098

I think it's fine to say that some art is objectively good. It seems like it could be met with agreement or disagreement. But the way I see it, to claim that some art is objectively bad and/or mock it, instead of stating an opinion and ideally elaborating with reasons, seems likely to be met with either brooding agreement or offense.


----------



## KenOC

DaveM said:


> I think that the Brahms>Goldmark>Reger premise would be upheld by the great majority of the classical-informed listening public, recording companies, musicologists, publishers and classical musicians.


However, Woodduck was speaking of quality, not popularity.


----------



## Strange Magic

KenOC said:


> However, Woodduck was speaking of quality, not popularity.


Sorry! I was derailed by the term "great majority". A head fake, maybe?


----------



## DaveM

KenOC said:


> However, Woodduck was speaking of quality, not popularity.


In this case, as in many others like it in the classical world, the two often go hand-in-hand. Mention one and the other is, not always, but often assumed.


----------



## Varick

Fredx2098 said:


> That's a pretty silly video. It's the definition of elitism and snobbery. What really makes it silly though is that he's comparing what he thinks is the best art from a several-hundred-year timespan with what he considers the worst from a hundred-year timespan. Not all pre-modern art consists of masterpieces, and not all modern art consists of talentless pretentious expression.





shirime said:


> I agree; the guy in the video is extremely pretentious. There was a thread here ages ago that looked at this video in relation to music. I don't remember what happened specifically, but generally it just resulted in a lot of argumentative debates between those who admire a snobby/pretentious/elitist outlook on art and those who don't support it.


Well, I always say, I'd rather have clarity than agreement. Let's be clear on where we differ. This is a case of parallel worlds. Robert Florczak (The presenter of the video) is arguing against elitism, snobbery, and pretentiousness and then he is called those very same words. I do believe we are living in an increasingly inverted world. I'm not quite sure how calling a 37 ton Rock "art" isn't elitist, snobbish, and pretentious. I'm not quite sure how calling a statue of a police woman squatting and urinating "art" isn't elitist, snobbish, and pretentious. But hey, that's what makes a ball game, and now we are clear that I believe those works of "art" are the very definition of elitist, snobbery, and pretentiousness, others call criticizing that "art" is the definition of those words.



Woodduck said:


> Yes, and there are people who are "certain" that by blowing up the world and themselves they will spend eternity enjoying the favors of seventy-two virgins.


I've always wondered, has anyone ever asked how the 72 virgins might feel about having to spend eternity with such a man???

Oh, the thoughts that go through my head....

V


----------



## DaveM

Varick said:


> I've always wondered, has anyone ever asked how the 72 virgins might feel about having to spend eternity with such a man???
> 
> V


I've often wondered why it is assumed that the 72 virgins aren't going to insist on staying virgins.


----------



## Fredx2098

Varick said:


> Well, I always say, I'd rather have clarity than agreement. Let's be clear on where we differ. This is a case of parallel worlds. Robert Florczak (The presenter of the video) is arguing against elitism, snobbery, and pretentiousness and then he is called those very same words. I do believe we are living in an increasingly inverted world. I'm not quite sure how calling a 37 ton Rock "art" isn't elitist, snobbish, and pretentious. I'm not quite sure how calling a statue of a police woman squatting and urinating "art" isn't elitist, snobbish, and pretentious. But hey, that's what makes a ball game, and now we are clear that I believe those works of "art" are the very definition of elitist, snobbery, and pretentiousness, others call criticizing that "art" is the definition of those words.


Those "works of art" certainly are those things, but like I said, the problem is that he was comparing what he considers the best art with what he considers the worst art, which is a biased comparison, and advocating elitism to avoid that kind of art rather than letting time do the work or, absurdly, letting people interpret art for themselves. He was essentially equating modern art with pretentious snobby art, and pre-modern art with masterpieces. I would assume that in each era of art there are great artists and hacks. I don't think that the people who are considered the "great artists" were the only people creating art at those times. I would guess they're a small minority. The modern artists who I consider great are certainly a small minority.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> You're applying the wrong criteria to art. Not everything which can be known can be proved. Logical propositions can be proved, but statements which are reports of perception cannot. Artistic judgments are not anchored on "assertions," but on perceptions. They are therefore unprovable, but may nonetheless be true.
> 
> The fact that Brahms's mastery of musical form can't be proved doesn't make it unreal. A great deal that's meaningful can be said about a work of music, but it will only be meaningful to one capable of hearing it. Being able to hear it, I can say with certainty that a quintet by Brahms is superb, while a similar work of, say, Goldmark is merely very good, and a similar work by Reger is fascinating but diffuse and confused. I may be able to say these things even if, today, I find Goldmark or Reger more congenial than Brahms. And I'm not less confident in saying them merely because many other people can't hear what I hear. Those people are free to ignore me and listen to whatever they want in blissful ignorance. But they can't tell me that I don't understand the excellence that Brahms has achieved, or that there's no such thing as excellence. I do understand it, and understanding it is a pleasure. Maybe, if they keep listening, they'll come to understand it too.


I think Strange Magic makes an important point here that you gloss over, and here is why: There is an important distinction between art that is "good" (and I'll deal with what that may mean in a moment) and art that is successful. To me, art is successful when it reaches, communicates with and has a significant and lasting impact on an audience. The most successful art has a far-ranging cultural impact, sometimes obvious, sometimes subtle, that gives it an element of permanence even if the artist's own identity and work fades away.
Good or great art is a related but distinct concept, and can apply to the talent and technical skill of the artist, and even his grasp of the traditions of his genre and ability to apply them in imaginative new ways. While whether art is good or bad is fundamentally a subjective question, one could define objective criteria that have broad support among practitioners of a genre. That is why meaningful classical music performance competitions are possible. The best judges in a well-run competition can skillfully determine who is good and who is not good, or less good. But they can't determine who is or will be most successful.
For art to be successful, it is helpful for it to be good, one could argue it is all but necessary, at least in many common contexts. But it is not sufficient. There is an additional factor or ingredient that is impossible to define in a general way, an "it" factor that results in the art connecting with the audience in a profound and lasting way. Only the audience can make that determination, and generally not in one concert, but over many decades. That is why music competitions are inherently limited no matter how skilled the judges, and why the winner of the Van Cliburn or Tchaikovsky doesn't always turn out, in fact more often than not does not turn out, to be the most successful artist of his or her generation, or even the most successful of the contestants who competed.
In the fullness of time, we have seen the success of the music of Brahms, one of the most important composers in Western history. You could write a book of many volumes explaining why his music is great without coming anywhere near explaining why it is so important, or significant, or successful.


----------



## DaveM

I’m not a classical music judge and I will never be a classical music judge, but even I would have been able to say with some authority that Yuja Wang was good and would be successful. Somehow, I just know these things.


----------



## Fredx2098

I think Feldman is objectively a very great (unless that means popular), talented, and creative composer. There is certainly no chance for his later work, nearly all of which I consider to be stunning masterpieces, to ever be popular. It's simply too long, undynamic, and lacking in bombastic energy to hold the attention of the average listener. But I am shocked when people here mock him or my tastes and say he is talentless and uncreative, and that his music is meaningless, pointless, and goes nowhere. It's empirically false even if you hate the music with all of your being.


----------



## IpadComposer

Rumi: "There is a field beyond right and wrong. I will meet you there". Chinese aristocratic ladies of the past painted their teeth black. Right or wrong? Beautiful or ugly? Good or bad? I respect the intellects speaking here. Some are profound thinkers perhaps.
But what is the purpose of all this argument and haranguing? Tell me it is just for the fun of it, please!


----------



## DaveM

Fredx2098 said:


> I think Feldman is objectively a very great (unless that means popular), talented, and creative composer. There is certainly no chance for his later work, nearly all of which I consider to be stunning masterpieces, to ever be popular. It's simply too long, undynamic, and lacking in bombastic energy to hold the attention of the average listener. But I am shocked when people here mock him or my tastes and say he is talentless and uncreative, and that his music is meaningless, pointless, and goes nowhere. It's empirically false even if you hate the music with all of your being.


If you're going to take this so personally, you should avoid threads where people are free to air out their likes and dislikes, the latter particularly in a thread with this OP. Start a thread something like The Best of Avant-garde. The posts will all be positive and supportive.


----------



## DaveM

IpadComposer said:


> Rumi: "There is a field beyond right and wrong. I will meet you there". Chinese aristocratic ladies of the past painted their teeth black. Right or wrong? Beautiful or ugly? Good or bad? I respect the intellects speaking here. Some are profound thinkers perhaps.
> But what is the purpose of all this argument and haranguing? Tell me it is just for the fun of it, please!


You're new here. Might be best to hang around a little longer before appearing to judge what's going on in a thread like this. The OP is provocative so the discourse is provocative, even confrontational at times. That isn't true of anywhere near all the threads in this forum. I've been in several forums of very different subjects over the years. The ones that avoid anything provocative or anything that gets people fired up with and about their opinions tend to languish over time


----------



## Fredx2098

DaveM said:


> If you're going to take this so personally, you should avoid threads where people are free to air out their likes and dislikes, the latter particularly in a thread with this OP. Start a thread something like The Best of Avant-garde. The posts will all be positive and supportive.


I have no problem with people hating what I love, I'm very used to it, but I do have a problem with blatant ignorant insults. It doesn't affect me personally, like I said earlier in this thread. I'm simply confused why someone would want to be so vindictive and feel the urge to say things like that instead of just saying they dislike it or hate it and that it's not a style that they enjoy, not just in the case of Feldman.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> I think Strange Magic makes *an important point here that you gloss over, and here is why: There is an important distinction between art that is "good"... and art that is successful.* To me, art is successful when it reaches, communicates with and has a significant and lasting impact on an audience. *The most successful art has a far-ranging cultural impact*, sometimes obvious, sometimes subtle, that gives it an element of permanence even if the artist's own identity and work fades away.
> Good or great art is a related but distinct concept, and can apply to the talent and technical skill of the artist, and even his grasp of the traditions of his genre and ability to apply them in imaginative new ways. While whether art is good or bad is fundamentally a subjective question, one could define objective criteria that have broad support among practitioners of a genre. That is why meaningful classical music performance competitions are possible. The best judges in a well-run competition can skillfully determine who is good and who is not good, or less good. But they can't determine who is or will be most successful.
> *For art to be successful, it is helpful for it to be good, one could argue it is all but necessary, at least in many common contexts. But it is not sufficient.* *There is an additional factor or ingredient that is impossible to define in a general way, an "it" factor that results in the art connecting with the audience in a profound and lasting way. Only the audience can make that determination, and generally not in one concert, but over many decades.* That is why music competitions are inherently limited no matter how skilled the judges, and why the winner of the Van Cliburn or Tchaikovsky doesn't always turn out, in fact more often than not does not turn out, to be the most successful artist of his or her generation, or even the most successful of the contestants who competed.
> In the fullness of time, we have seen the success of the music of Brahms, one of the most important composers in Western history. *You could write a book of many volumes explaining why his music is great without coming anywhere near explaining why it is so important, or significant, or successful.*


I haven't overlooked the distinction you make, and you haven't contradicted me.

We do have to distinguish conceptually between the intrinsic qualities we perceive in art and the art's impact (its "success," in a sense greater than popularity) on human beings. But we can't understand and value properly either of these aspects of art without seeing the relationship between them - without understanding how and why the intrinsic qualities of art affect human beings the way they do. Dependent as it is on aesthetic perceptions and intuitions as well as objective knowledge, any part of which may be difficult to obtain, this understanding is never complete (hence the "it" factor), but I believe that as a general rule the greater the art in question the greater will be the rewards of making the attempt. I'd venture to say that the power of art to connect with broader perceptions of life, and its fecundity in inspiring meaningful interpretation, are the chief external indicators of its greatness.

The full extent of art's power is revealed over time as works of art live among us. This kind of "success" is not to be equated with popularity, which is determined by a variety of factors. But popularity is nevertheless likely to be an aspect of it.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Fredx2098 said:


> I have no problem with people hating what I love, I'm very used to it, but I do have a problem with blatant ignorant insults. It doesn't affect me personally, like I said earlier in this thread. I'm simply confused why someone would want to be so vindictive and feel the urge to say things like that instead of just saying they dislike it or hate it and that it's not a style that they enjoy, not just in the case of Feldman.


I think people are allowed to give the reasons they dislike something just as they are allowed to give the reasons they like something. For example, you were highly against me stating Zappa was in bad taste on the Uncle Meat album, but that was my opinion and you were trying to stop me from stating it and even trying to force me to change it.

That isn't fair.

Just b/c you find my opinion offensive, though you aren't taking it personally, doesn't mean I don't have a right to have it and state it politely and respectfully.

Stating something is in bad taste is a socially accepted idiom utilized by Art Critics alike.


----------



## Fredx2098

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think people are allowed to give the reasons they dislike something just as they are allowed to give the reasons they like something. For example, you were highly against me stating Zappa was in bad taste on the Uncle Meat album, but that was my opinion and you were trying to stop me from stating it and even trying to force me to change it.
> 
> That isn't fair.
> 
> Just b/c you find my opinion offensive, though you aren't taking it personally, doesn't mean I don't have a right to have it and state it politely and respectfully.
> 
> Stating something is in bad taste is a socially accepted idiom utilized by Art Critics alike.


Yes, I'm all for people saying that they dislike things and giving reasons for it, not for boldly claiming that a piece of art is bad. I was not trying to get you to change your opinion at all. At most I wanted you to change the wording. You didn't just say "it's in bad taste" meaning it has inappropriate themes. You also said that Zappa is tasteless and creates bad art. He is certainly not tasteless even if you don't like his taste, and he is a very talented artist which you do agree with occasionally. I don't see how you can appreciate some of his work and then not even appreciate others.


----------



## Strange Magic

IpadComposer said:


> Rumi: "There is a field beyond right and wrong. I will meet you there". Chinese aristocratic ladies of the past painted their teeth black. Right or wrong? Beautiful or ugly? Good or bad? I respect the intellects speaking here. Some are profound thinkers perhaps.
> But what is the purpose of all this argument and haranguing? Tell me it is just for the fun of it, please!


Mostly it's for the fun of it. But it's also a way to explore the shadow-area that lies between fact and opinion; to test one's own beliefs and how they are arrived at and supported; to test one's rhetorical skills; to locate others who share one's views in part or whole; and just possibly to change one's mind or learn something new .


----------



## Captainnumber36

Fredx2098 said:


> Yes, I'm all for people saying that they dislike things and giving reasons for it, not for boldly claiming that a piece of art is bad. I was not trying to get you to change your opinion at all. At most I wanted you to change the wording. You didn't just say "it's in bad taste" meaning it has inappropriate themes. You also said that Zappa is tasteless and creates bad art. He is certainly not tasteless even if you don't like his taste, and he is a very talented artist which you do agree with occasionally. I don't see how you can appreciate some of his work and then not even appreciate others.


You kind of pushed me to be a bit impolite in my wording, but I do find some of Zappa's lyrics unenjoyable and in bad taste. Tasteless was not the word I wanted to use, so I take that back, even though I think someone could subjectively hold that opinion. He pushed for breaking censorship with a lot of his lyrical content, that was the motivation, which if fine, I just don't love it all. I appreciate most of the composition components of Zappa, even if I don't love them all.


----------



## Varick

IpadComposer said:


> Rumi: "There is a field beyond right and wrong. I will meet you there". Chinese aristocratic ladies of the past painted their teeth black. Right or wrong? Beautiful or ugly? Good or bad? I respect the intellects speaking here. Some are profound thinkers perhaps.
> But what is the purpose of all this argument and haranguing? Tell me it is just for the fun of it, please!


The purpose of all this argument and haranguing is life. There is a bit of "fun" in it as long as it doesn't resort to ad hominum attacks. There are some very intelligent, thoughtful, and insightful people here on this thread, let alone this entire web site. I include many here I don't usually agree with. But that's the beauty isn't it? People exchanging ideas, working out issues, debating important issues that affect society, the arts, our own lives and how we view it.

Just because there is conflict, conflict which hurts no one, it doesn't mean it's necessarily bad. I personally enjoy watching two or three or four learned people intellectually sparring with each other. I often learn something from both, even if it's someone I happen to be arguing with.

It's the human condition my friend. I wouldn't want it any other way.

V


----------



## Captainnumber36

I can also subjectively think a work is bad, though respect someone else's opinion on loving it.


----------



## Varick

Fredx2098 said:


> Those "works of art" certainly are those things, but like I said, the problem is that he was comparing what he considers the best art with what he considers the worst art, which is a biased comparison, and advocating elitism to avoid that kind of art rather than letting time do the work or, absurdly, letting people interpret art for themselves.


It's not what he and he alone considers the best art, he's using examples of what his solidly in the canon of art and has been for some time now. How about his argument that a lot of modern artists have embraced the "ugly" and the "profane" as part of "great art?" There are art professors, critics, and artists themselves who have written and advocated such things. He never once insisted that we shouldn't let people interpret for themselves.



Fredx2098 said:


> He was essentially equating modern art with pretentious snobby art, and pre-modern art with masterpieces.


 And some of it is and some of it was. I agree.



Fredx2098 said:


> I would assume that in each era of art there are great artists and hacks. I don't think that the people who are considered the "great artists" were the only people creating art at those times. I would guess they're a small minority. The modern artists who I consider great are certainly a small minority.


I couldn't agree more and I don't think he implied anywhere in that video anything different.

V


----------



## Fredx2098

Varick said:


> It's not what he and he alone considers the best art, he's using examples of what his solidly in the canon of art and has been for some time now. How about his argument that a lot of modern artists have embraced the "ugly" and the "profane" as part of "great art?" There are art professors, critics, and artists themselves who have written and advocated such things. He never once insisted that we shouldn't let people interpret for themselves.
> 
> And some of it is and some of it was. I agree.
> 
> I couldn't agree more and I don't think he implied anywhere in that video anything different.
> 
> V


It sounded like he was saying "Why is modern art bad? Because it is not all masterpieces like these famous old works," pointing to the worst art he could find as the archetypical examples of modern art, which I don't consider to be a valid comparison. He implied that the value of art should be determined by an elite group, i.e. elitism.


----------



## eljr

Luchesi said:


> Yes, run-away and crazy politics is invading music and science and sports and...?


in the USA, I believe we may soon see "blue" and "red" stores and restaurants

a sad time indeed


----------



## Eusebius12

MarkW said:


> All right, I don't agree with Professor Art-Basher either, but it's an old and unwinnable argument. I will repeat what I've said many times before: A surprising percentage of all art (95%+) is bad. (How many of the estimated 10,000 operas comosed since 1600 are in the repertory we see today?) For contemporary music, the winnowing hasn't happened enough, so people are reacting to what will likely be judged a lot of bad stuff. And remember, Beethoven's most popular work in his lifetime was the dreadful "Wellington's Victory."


How do you determine 'badness' then? There will always be someone willing to defend the worst of the worst. Why then is 'Wellington's Victory' dreadful? Then you are stating aesthetic absolutes which are totally verboten for some in relation to modern music. Exactly the same arguments could be made on behalf what perhaps you or I consider bad music of the past, that is made for music of the present. Some will not concede an inch.


----------



## Eusebius12

Strange Magic said:


> Nicely put. Nevertheless it is a restatement of Woodduck's thesis. "a specific aesthetic goal and with a desired effect upon an audience": unless the artist has shared this information with us, we-you--infer this from your reaction to the work. As an exercise, Which of the three Davids, by Donatello, Bernini, and Michelangelo, best succeeds in meeting a specific, defined aesthetic goal? What is the goal for each? Is one sculpture better than the others? If so, which, and why? What if the machinery of measuring and comparing comes up with one particular "best" David, but I much prefer another?
> 
> Just doesn't work.


There must be aesthetic values. Why are Donatello, Michelangelo and Bernini singled out? Why are they superior to Ghiberti, Nicola Pisano and Canova, if they are? Why are they superior to a heap of rubbish bins? Why is Beethoven superior to someone banging on a heap of rubbish bins? One can analyze the different Davids though. Michelangelo's has certain qualities that strike us as monumental in a way that Donatello's does not.


----------



## Eusebius12

MacLeod said:


> "Interesting"? If you say so.
> 
> Btw, who said you're not really allowed to dislike certain kinds of music? Certainly not me. I am opposed to public derision, however, a point I made very clear in an earlier post.
> 
> Obviously, with each of us "allowed" to post what we like, you can use the terms you wish, and I can express my opinion on those terms.


You are trying to police language.


----------



## Eusebius12

Enthusiast said:


> Well, both were at their height in the 50s. You answer my questions by not answering them but asking them back to me. Still, it is polite to reply so I will reply. I don't wish to censor anyone but it would be great not to see essentially the same posts repeated on and on with answers to them ignored or answered with a question! It would be very nice if that could stop. I can't talk about educational practices in USA but I was certainly required to learn about stuff that I disliked when I was at university. How else could I be sure of my take on it and effective in my critique of it? I don't remember a time when it was forbidden to criticise serial music and I'm in my 60s. Some critics might have lent in that direction but far more went the other way. Perhaps you mixed with the wrong people for you?
> 
> I really can't read those responses (including my own) that way. I have seen lots of exasperation at you responding tactics - rarely taking the point or answering it, hitting back with essentially the same post. I would answer you by asking to post your examples of defensive and totalitarian responses in favour of avant garde music but feel fairly certain I would not get an answer.


Serial music for decades was the received style. Anyone composing outside of that style was considered hopelessly old-fashioned and generally ignored. Especially in the United States. Lots of exasperation? By two people? Your response seems rather defensive. I've obviously pressed some buttons there. I have named works and composers that I dislike, Carter Schoenberg and Webern for example. I haven't been exhaustive, but although you feel I'm being vague "We have all heard you. We understand your view." Well then I don't need to elaborate.
Somehow your comprehension skills could improve, and I realize not to use irony or anything like that in response to you as it most likely will remain undetected.


----------



## Eusebius12

Thomyum2 said:


> Yes, opinions may vary, but I think the point Woodduck is making (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that an aesthetic opinion about art is of a different level than just whether or not you happen to share the same taste for a particular piece or work. I read recently that Kant believed that "aesthetics arises from a faculty of disinterested judgment" which I think sums it up well - that the aesthetic value of a piece of music is not dependent on who likes or dislikes it, but comes from an objective examination of that work within the context of that artistic tradition, from the community and culture in which it exists and from which it emerged. It is subject to dispute, just as people argue about what is right vs. wrong or true vs. false, but it not simply a matter of taste or of personal reaction - it is an assessment made, with the use of the intellect, after an evaluation of the objective qualities of the work.


Beware though if you make any such criticisms of what is generally labelled new music. The caterwauling and jeremiads will waken the dead.


----------



## Eusebius12

Woodduck said:


> You're applying the wrong criteria to art. Not everything which can be known can be proved. Logical propositions can be proved, but statements which are reports of perception cannot. Artistic judgments are not anchored on "assertions," but on perceptions. They are therefore unprovable, but may nonetheless be true.
> 
> The fact that Brahms's mastery of musical form can't be proved doesn't make it unreal.


It can be demonstrated through analysis, examples, and informed and sympathetic listening. That is pretty close to 'proof'. I think certain types of scientific discourse have infected the lexicon, and people imagine that the only things that can be proved are those that you can examine in a test tube. Also the whole post modernist approach which denies the possibility of absolute truth (to be reductionist for a moment) at times has had a cancerous effect on thought and discourse. Empirically based and defensible statements should always be respected.


----------



## arpeggio

According to the vast majority of the music history books, articles and other sources that I have read avant-garde/atonal music is an extension of the classical European concert music tradition.


----------



## Eusebius12

Fredx2098 said:


> I think it's fine to say that some art is objectively good. It seems like it could be met with agreement or disagreement. But the way I see it, to claim that some art is objectively bad and/or mock it, instead of stating an opinion and ideally elaborating with reasons, seems likely to be met with either brooding agreement or offense.


Fredx, you are sulking. I described listening to Webern like 'eating dried cardboard', but then I went into details about the specific piece posted (later in the thread, I noted its utter repetitiveness, of a motif with no particular remarkable qualities, which he just repeated for minutes really going nowhere. I think that's an aesthetic judgment, based on the history of art music as I understand it. I might cite some examples from Brahms which I also fail in a similar way. For example the second piano Ballade also has a longish digression in which the piano repeats a totally uninteresting phrase, without variation, for what seems quite a long time.) I don't need to change your mind or have an argument, just state my views.


----------



## Eusebius12

DaveM said:


> In this case, as in many others like it in the classical world, the two often go hand-in-hand. Mention one and the other is, not always, but often assumed.


And now we have travelled full circle.


----------



## Eusebius12

Fredx2098 said:


> I think Feldman is objectively a very great (unless that means popular), talented, and creative composer. There is certainly no chance for his later work, nearly all of which I consider to be stunning masterpieces, to ever be popular. It's simply too long, undynamic, and lacking in bombastic energy to hold the attention of the average listener. But I am shocked when people here mock him or my tastes and say he is talentless and uncreative, and that his music is meaningless, pointless, and goes nowhere. It's empirically false even if you hate the music with all of your being.


Where has Feldman been mocked in this thread? I have seen perhaps your advocacy of his music teased, perhaps in an eye-rolling way, but I can't recall who has mentioned Feldman other than you. I have stated that I enjoy lots of post-1900 music. I haven't commented on Feldman directly because I don't know his work well. What I have heard strikes me as not uninteresting, sonically or structurally. His works can be very long. There is something of minimalism in this music. I don't mock you for admiring this composer.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> The full extent of art's power is revealed over time as works of art live among us. This kind of "success" is not to be equated with popularity, which is determined by a variety of factors. But popularity is nevertheless likely to be an aspect of it.


Yes, your whole post is well stated, especially this final statement. The distinction I was trying to make, and it's clearly one you understand from your statements, is between music's "greatness" that can be analyzed in a technical and more or less objective way, at least by those with sufficient musical training and/or abilities, and greatness that I was calling "success" that is certainly related to the former concept of greatness, but goes beyond that and defies full description through technical analysis. That's why Strange Magic can say great art "just is."


----------



## Eusebius12

One can use relatively non-subjective criteria for art, in that they are agreed upon independently by, not the 'mob' of popularity (I don't think that is the appropriate term), but by the body of educated tasteful practitioners and listeners. This is rather like how science proceeds. This is not elitism any more than allowing an astronomer to speak about black holes rather than a ditch digger. There is a received wisdom, which is subject to challenge, as are any of the received aesthetic criteria. Vigorous challenge. But we don't discard all our aesthetic criteria just because they are not subject to proof in a testtube and the fact that these are subject to debate. Within these aesthetic criteria (let us say, form, proportion, beauty, overall interest and interest of details, use of materials, in a musical context word setting, instrumentation, emotional coherence, dramatic effectiveness in operatic terms) there will also be a level of consensus, not uniformity by any means, but something near the truth can be arrived through such. Now, the aesthetics, the degree of consensus there derived, and the canon are not set in stone, they are in flux and continue to evolve.


----------



## Eusebius12

arpeggio said:


> According to the vast majority of the music history books, articles and other sources that I have read avant-garde/atonal music is an extension of the classical European concert music tradition.


Yes of course it is. Is it a successful one? And if so, which particular works? Is the consensus an academic one, or does it extend to performers and other composers? If so, then it is still open to challenge according to the various aesthetic criteria and informed listeners and practitioners are free to debate its merits or otherwise.


----------



## fluteman

DaveM said:


> I'm not a classical music judge and I will never be a classical music judge, but even I would have been able to say with some authority that Yuja Wang was good and would be successful. Somehow, I just know these things.


Not "somehow" -- you are part of a considerable audience for whom Yuja Wang's music is beautiful, or moving, or meaningful, and that is the very definition of success. With all due respect, you have no "authority" on the topic whatsoever, and you don't need any. 
Of course, my definition of success requires that the audience persist for several decades, well past the time when Ms. Wang becomes old and fat and wrinkled, or has even passed away, and there are other beautiful young virtuoso superstars on the scene. But there's no point in speculating or arguing about that now.


----------



## Luchesi

Eusebius12 said:


> One can use relatively non-subjective criteria for art, in that they are agreed upon independently by, not the 'mob' of popularity (I don't think that is the appropriate term), but by the body of educated tasteful practitioners and listeners. This is rather like how science proceeds. This is not elitism any more than allowing an astronomer to speak about black holes rather than a ditch digger. There is a received wisdom, which is subject to challenge, as are any of the received aesthetic criteria. Vigorous challenge. But we don't discard all our aesthetic criteria just because they are not subject to proof in a testtube and the fact that these are subject to debate. Within these aesthetic criteria (let us say, form, proportion, beauty, overall interest and interest of details, use of materials, in a musical context word setting, instrumentation, emotional coherence, dramatic effectiveness in operatic terms) there will also be a level of consensus, not uniformity by any means, but something near the truth can be arrived through such. Now, the aesthetics, the degree of consensus there derived, and the canon are not set in stone, they are in flux and continue to evolve.


You didn't mention the furtherance of the art. Developing an art beyond what a composer, or a painter etc., was taught, usually by the earlier generation, has been seen as progress down through the centuries. This seems to be a reliable criterion, used with what you've mentioned, for predicting enduring value and artistic significance.

Art can be merely entertaining, but we're talking about serious creators who devoted their whole lives to the seriousness of it. We're not talking about entertainment. It's not about "liking".


----------



## fluteman

Eusebius12 said:


> One can use relatively non-subjective criteria for art, in that they are agreed upon independently by, not the 'mob' of popularity (I don't think that is the appropriate term), but by the body of educated tasteful practitioners and listeners. This is rather like how science proceeds.


True, and that's why there are musicologists. But such analyses take you only so far. Ultimately it's the long-term impact on the audience, and on our culture in general, including our popular culture, that really count. And don't discount popular culture, because in the long run it tends to significantly influence our "serious" or "high" culture.


----------



## Fredx2098

Eusebius12 said:


> Where has Feldman been mocked in this thread? I have seen perhaps your advocacy of his music teased, perhaps in an eye-rolling way, but I can't recall who has mentioned Feldman other than you. I have stated that I enjoy lots of post-1900 music. I haven't commented on Feldman directly because I don't know his work well. What I have heard strikes me as not uninteresting, sonically or structurally. His works can be very long. There is something of minimalism in this music. I don't mock you for admiring this composer.


I wasn't referring to you or this thread, but in other threads he has been mocked. Most of his music really isn't minimal except dynamically. It's perfectly fine to not be interested in it, but the only way to appreciate his talent is to listen to his music closely all the way through, ideally multiple times. Obviously most people are not willing to do that, which is fine, but listening to a little bit of his music and tuning it out as background music presuming that it's boring and structureless doesn't lend itself to understanding the music. Too many people are ready to assert that he is a bad composer after doing just that.


----------



## Eusebius12

Luchesi said:


> You didn't mention the furtherance of the art. Developing an art beyond what a composer, or a painter etc., was taught, usually by the earlier generation, has been seen as progress down through the centuries. This seems to be a reliable criterion, used with what you've mentioned, for predicting enduring value and artistic significance.
> 
> Art can be merely entertaining, but we're talking about serious creators who devoted their whole lives to the seriousness of it. We're not talking about entertainment. It's not about "liking".


Yes, and no doubt there are other aesthetic criteria. These were the ones that I was thinking of. Furtherance of art though is something that is extremely difficult to perceive at the time of composition and 1st performance.


----------



## Fredx2098

The only other thread about Feldman from long before I came described his music as "easily accessible" but also boring, meaningless, pointless, uncreative, random, etc. Nearly every time I mention him someone has to make a point to say that his music is boring, meaningless, and pointless.


----------



## Eusebius12

fluteman said:


> True, and that's why there are musicologists. But such analyses take you only so far. Ultimately it's the long-term impact on the audience, and on our culture in general, including our popular culture, that really count. And don't discount popular culture, because in the long run it tends to significantly influence our "serious" or "high" culture.


mmmyes, that is important, but the intrinsic merit of the works themselves to me is paramount. But I don't deny the importance of communication.


----------



## Eusebius12

Fredx2098 said:


> The only other thread about Feldman from long before I came described his music as "easily accessible" but also boring, meaningless, pointless, uncreative, random, etc. Nearly every time I mention him someone has to make a point to say that his music is boring, meaningless, and pointless.


It is true that there will always be someone with 'an original idea' that you've encountered 1000 times and which you are heartily sick of being confronted with. One is that 'Schumann is a poor orchestrator'. I won't argue that point here but the fact is tired old cliches are trotted out by some as if they are the discoverers of quantum mechanics. So I empathise with your feelings here.

No offense was ever intended to you by me. I am determined to give Feldman more than a casual ear when I get the chance.


----------



## DaveM

Above is a post stating that everything read about avant-garde music says that it comes from European clasical tradition. I have read so much hooey about avant-garde music that the hooey might as well be Kool-Aid.

A writer in The Guardian talks about a composer, Alan Gilbert, who presented his work wherein car parts were used for percussion and that the audience accepted the work because Gilbert used deferential humor in explaining the work. The article ends with this quote:

“For too long, we have placed the classical masters in a gilded cage. It is time to let them out.”

Oh poor babies, they’ve been forced all these years to write something that had, at least, a chance to appeal to audiences and now they must be free to express their formerly imprisoned selves.

In the Wiki is the statement: “A commonly cited example of avant-garde music is John Cage's 4'33", a piece which instructs the performer(s) not to play their instrument(s) during its entire duration.”

It is actually called an avant-garde piece! This has got to be the poster child for the Emporer has no clothes and an example of how whacky this has all become. And yes I understand what Cage was getting at and it might have served well as a Meditation aide. But calling it a piece?

It’s this kind of thing along with so many of avant-garde works that often sound like a very dysfunctional orchestra tuning itself (think Ferneyhough) or someone who is try to transmit some kind of mental cacophony that is giving classical music a bad name.

And so, the reason that I have simply lost patience with this stuff is that IMO it has contributed to what is the apparent slow death of classical music. I’m well aware that there is more than one reason why classical music is losing popularity, but the loss of accessibility by the common man/woman that started with atonal music and the insult on injury that is avant-garde music may be the final nail in the coffin. We did survive the atonal era, but it remains to be seen whether the limited recent return to more conventional tonality will put a stop to the downward turn.

P.S. I am using the OP of this thread to get this off my chest once and for all. I will be trying to restrain myself from repeating it in the future...unless perhaps provoked.


----------



## Fredx2098

I think a big problem surrounding avant-garde music is that the most well-known and talked about pieces are sensational novelty pieces like 4'33". Real music doesn't get mentioned because it doesn't get page views like an article about how deep and profound this piece consisting of silence is.


----------



## KenOC

Fredx2098 said:


> The only other thread about Feldman from long before I came...


There are 64 posts in the Morton Feldman entry in Composers Guestbooks.

Morton Feldman


----------



## Fredx2098

Eusebius12 said:


> It is true that there will always be someone with 'an original idea' that you've encountered 1000 times and which you are heartily sick of being confronted with. One is that 'Schumann is a poor orchestrator'. I won't argue that point here but the fact is tired old cliches are trotted out by some as if they are the discoverers of quantum mechanics. So I empathise with your feelings here.
> 
> No offense was ever intended to you by me. I am determined to give Feldman more than a casual ear when I get the chance.


He has plenty of more normal length pieces, but if you want to jump right in and you have 5 hours to spare, I think For Philip Guston is his "magnum opus" and some others here have said the same. It's a stunning example of how important it is to concentrate on it, because if you do, the last half hour is indescribably amazing, but only when you hear it after all of the preceding music. It all comes together and makes sense in the end. At least that's what I've found, as well as some others.


----------



## Fredx2098

KenOC said:


> There are 64 posts in the Morton Feldman entry in Composers Guestbooks.
> 
> Morton Feldman


That's the one I'm talking about. It's full of people mocking him and mischaracterizing his music, from what I've read of it. There are some people who "get it", but for sometime describe his music as sheer repetition without development they must have their ears plugged.


----------



## DaveM

Fredx2098 said:


> That's the one I'm talking about. It's full of people mocking him and mischaracterizing his music, from what I've read of it.


I'm rather amazed at how high your antenna is for insult. That thread is overwhelmingly pro-Feldman.


----------



## MarkW

Let's not confuse "the worst of the worst" (which seldom gets recorded) with the most obnoxious (which gets people's hackles up), the most challenging (which takes time and erudition to sort out), and the most novel (whose odds of being a successful piece of art are not necessarily high, despite short-term notoriety). Judging quality in art is not for the faint of heart, although sometimes recognizable by some of them. I can call Wellington's Victory dreadful because in my estimation, like Gertrude Stein's Oakland, there is no there there. That doesn't make me right, nor the thousands of musicians, musicologists, and listeners since who have echoed that appraisal. But I do tend to trust more the opinions of musicians, who have a finite amount of time to learn pieces to play out of lifetimes worth of works. For that reason, although I don't "get" Bruckner, I don't belittle him because many musicians I respect (to say nothing of TC posters) like and play him. On a more lopsided scale, I have to respect Schoenberg, because orchestras, opera companies, and chamber ensembles find in him enough merit to continue to program, learn, and play his music. And I can't believe, with so much to chose from, it's out of obligation. (Members of a professional string quartet I knew well gave me all the usual reasons for giving his music a chance -- so it clearly speaks to knowledgeable people.) 

I've come to my own appreciation of modern visual art. I disasgree with those who attack it broadside -- but there is surely
"bad" art not worth defending.

cheers --


----------



## Fredx2098

DaveM said:


> I'm rather amazed at how high your antenna is for insult. That thread is overwhelmingly pro-Feldman.


Like I've said, I'm not really insulted but confused by certain things. Like, where do the ideas that his music is extremely accessible, not likely to cause offense, and consist of sheer repetition come from? Most people I've interacted with find it inaccessible and offensively boring, which is a fine opinion, but it also seems like the more common opinion. There are a lot of nice posts there now that I've read the whole thing.


----------



## Strange Magic

Eusebius12 said:


> There must be aesthetic values. Why are Donatello, Michelangelo and Bernini singled out? Why are they superior to Ghiberti, Nicola Pisano and Canova, if they are? Why are they superior to a heap of rubbish bins? Why is Beethoven superior to someone banging on a heap of rubbish bins? One can analyze the different Davids though. Michelangelo's has certain qualities that strike us as monumental in a way that Donatello's does not.


This is a dog's breakfast. "There must be aesthetic values.". But must they be universal, or can they be particular to each individual? Then follows a bunch of rhetorical "whys", like confetti thrown into the air, but showing our concern that standards be maintained yet no real answers provided, except that "Michelangelo's had certain qualities that strike us (you maybe) as monumental in a way that Donatello's does not.". What if I'm not in the market for monumental? What if I prefer the youthful, almost playful innocence of Donatello or the fierce teen determination of Bernini? What if I prefer Giacometti? Or Saint Gaudens?

No, it just doesn't work. We have three statues; three flavors: chocolate, vanilla, strawberry. You like X, I like Y, and Mary Jane likes Z. My aesthetics works for me, yours for you, hers for her. The statues, the flavors just are.


----------



## Strange Magic

Eusebius12 said:


> One can use relatively non-subjective criteria for art, in that they are agreed upon independently by, not the 'mob' of popularity (I don't think that is the appropriate term), but by the body of educated tasteful practitioners and listeners. This is rather like how science proceeds. This is not elitism any more than allowing an astronomer to speak about black holes rather than a ditch digger. There is a received wisdom, which is subject to challenge, as are any of the received aesthetic criteria. Vigorous challenge. But we don't discard all our aesthetic criteria just because they are not subject to proof in a testtube and the fact that these are subject to debate. Within these aesthetic criteria (let us say, form, proportion, beauty, overall interest and interest of details, use of materials, in a musical context word setting, instrumentation, emotional coherence, dramatic effectiveness in operatic terms) there will also be a level of consensus, not uniformity by any means, but something near the truth can be arrived through such. Now, the aesthetics, the degree of consensus there derived, and the canon are not set in stone, they are in flux and continue to evolve.


I think not. Art, and one's own interaction with and evaluation of it, is too important to be left to "the body of educated tasteful practitioners and listeners." Or to the mob of popularity either. One must fashion or evolve one's own aesthetic, and believe it is authentic and of value (because it really is). It is fine and good to examine and consider the opinions of others and to glean whatever information one can about a work, but--cap in hand--to approach a work and then parrot the received "wisdom" of the cognoscenti about it is to betray one's sense of the value of one's own judgement. What a dull world this would be if we liked only what we were told to like!

Not at all sure the analogy with science is accurate. Astronomers are always looking for more data, more accurate data, more precise and repeatable measurements. Their agreement on what constitutes valid criteria, valid data, is considerably more constricted than that of aestheticians.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> This is a dog's breakfast. "There must be aesthetic values.". But must they be universal, or can they be particular to each individual? Then follows a bunch of rhetorical "whys", like confetti thrown into the air, but showing our concern that standards be maintained yet no real answers provided, except that "Michelangelo's had certain qualities that strike us (you maybe) as monumental in a way that Donatello's does not.". What if I'm not in the market for monumental? What if I prefer the youthful, almost playful innocence of Donatello or the fierce teen determination of Bernini? What if I prefer Giacometti? Or Saint Gaudens?
> 
> No, it just doesn't work. We have three statues; three flavors: chocolate, vanilla, strawberry. You like X, I like Y, and Mary Jane likes Z. My aesthetics works for me, yours for you, hers for her. The statues, the flavors just are.


"The statues, the flavors just are."

When you say that you're not saving anyone time. Rankings have value for listeners --- and viewers of art or cinematic works or sculpture etc. Aesthetics tells us what has been learned and discovered.


----------



## DaveM

This premise that works of artists and the artists themselves do not have objective qualitative distinguishing features to the point that every evaluation of them is a matter of opinion, no matter how educated or not, has been thrown out so often as a canned response that it has become nothing more than a platitude with nothing to support it.

Under this premise Meryl Streep may or may not be a great actress, regardless of the number of Academy Awards,

Michelangelo may or may not have been greater than Donatello,

Leonardo da Vinci’s Sistine Chapel work is only as good as the next person’s opinion,

Aaron Rodgers is only as great a quarterback as what individual fans think he is regardless of his record stats,

Einstein may have been no greater than my 12th grade science teacher,

I think that after decades of listening to wide ranges of classical music Beethoven is one of the greatest composers, but my son who doesn’t much care for classical music disagrees so it’s a wash because, hey, it’s just two different opinions.


----------



## Guest

Varick said:


> Well, I always say, I'd rather have clarity than agreement. Let's be clear on where we differ. This is a case of parallel worlds. Robert Florczak (The presenter of the video) is arguing against elitism, snobbery, and pretentiousness and then he is called those very same words. I do believe we are living in an increasingly inverted world. I'm not quite sure how calling a 37 ton Rock "art" isn't elitist, snobbish, and pretentious. I'm not quite sure how calling a statue of a police woman squatting and urinating "art" isn't elitist, snobbish, and pretentious. But hey, that's what makes a ball game, and now we are clear that I believe those works of "art" are the very definition of elitist, snobbery, and pretentiousness, others call criticizing that "art" is the definition of those words.


Hmmmm, well, yes I would rather have clarity as well rather than agreement. However, I do think that having to reduce art history down to a rather erroneous grand narrative to substantiate his claim doesn't do much to promote an appreciation of art in general. In fact, it promotes the rejection of any art and a rejection of the appreciation of art that doesn't fit neatly within his preferred definition of what great art is and that is pretty much a dictionary definition of a snob.


----------



## Varick

shirime said:


> Hmmmm, well, yes I would rather have clarity as well rather than agreement. However, I do think that having to reduce art history down to a rather erroneous grand narrative to substantiate his claim doesn't do much to promote an appreciation of art in general. In fact, it promotes the rejection of any art and a rejection of the appreciation of art that doesn't fit neatly within his preferred definition of what great art is and that is pretty much a dictionary definition of a snob.


"His" preferred definition of great art? It's been the canon of art history that has defined great art. He just gave examples. So I guess you think the canon gives an erroneous grand narrative. Ok then. Clarity.

V


----------



## arpeggio

*I am not interested in playing this game*



Eusebius12 said:


> Yes of course it is. Is it a successful one? And if so, which particular works? Is the consensus an academic one, or does it extend to performers and other composers? If so, then it is still open to challenge according to the various aesthetic criteria and informed listeners and practitioners are free to debate its merits or otherwise.


I am not interested in playing this game. Why do I have to provide such a list?

If you want performers all one has to do is go to Arkive Music or Amazon and find the names of performers who have recorded such music.

I seriously doubt that the JACK Quartet recorded the complete String Quartets of Xenakis or the Pacifica Quartet recorded the complete String Quartets of Carter because they hate them.

I know Levine, even with his sullied reputation, recorded a lot of this music. I think the best performance I have heard of Cage's _Atlas Elipticalis_ was conducted by Levine.

Do I have to provide the forum a copy of all of the programs from the Ojai Festival that I have attended?

At the 2014 Festival I learned that Charles Rosen, the noted classical pianist and writer: _The Classical Style_ was a proponent of contemporary music and recorded the piano music of Boulez: http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/Drilldown?name_id1=17159&name_role1=2&bcorder=2&name_role=1&name_id=1379

At one concert at the 2014 festival Jeremy Denk performed the Ligeti _Piano Études Books I & II_.

Over the years I have submitted to the forum many programs of festivals I have attended that featured contemporary music.

How many more do I need to list?

Better yet why don't those who have a problem with this music provide us with a list of current music scholars, music critics and/or performers that think this music is invalid.

(Note: Let us see if anyone can come up with the ones I am familiar with.)


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> *Art, and one's own interaction with and evaluation of it, is too important to be left to "the body of educated tasteful practitioners and listeners." Or to the mob of popularity either. One must fashion or evolve one's own aesthetic, and believe it is authentic and of value (because it really is).* It is fine and good to examine and consider the opinions of others and to glean whatever information one can about a work, but--cap in hand--to approach a work and then parrot the received "wisdom" of the cognoscenti about it is to betray one's sense of the value of one's own judgement. What a dull world this would be if we liked only what we were told to like!


This is a straw man argument. No one is saying that others should determine our personal values in art. Eusebius12 said:

"There is a received wisdom, _which is subject to challenge, as are any of the received aesthetic criteria._ Vigorous challenge. But we don't discard all our aesthetic criteria just because they are not subject to proof in a testtube and the fact that these are subject to debate. Within these aesthetic criteria (let us say, form, proportion, beauty, overall interest and interest of details, use of materials, in a musical context word setting, instrumentation, emotional coherence, dramatic effectiveness in operatic terms) _there will also be a level of consensus, not uniformity by any means, but something near the truth can be arrived [at] through such."_ (Emphasis mine)

Widespread consensus concerning the quality of art certainly shouldn't dictate or invalidate our preferences. But we impoverish ourselves when we ignore or disparage it. If we step outside our self-derived and self-reinforcing frame of reference and consider thoughtfully and feelingly not only what a work of art contains but what informed others have thought and felt about it, our view of the work may very well change. If it does, we may come to view subsequent artistic experiences, art as a whole, and life itself, differently. This is not mere hypothesizing or speculation. It's common experience. It's what is popularly called art appreciation and, on a higher level, connoisseurship.

Why resist having this experience? Why reject out of hand the perceptions, knowledge and wisdom of those who've lived long, felt deeply and thought hard, on the automatic assumption that their opinions are of no more value than ours but merely represent "tastes" equivalent to our own? Why dismiss the collective thought of the ages as mere historical accident? If everything points to the idea that Bach - or Ali Akbar Khan, or Miles Davis - is a great musician, does it really make sense to assume that the mere fact that we personally may not value their work invalidates the whole notion of artistic greatness? Is it not more sensible - not only in the realm of art but in life generally - to begin with the assumption that there is probably something of merit there, something which has earned not only the enjoyment but the esteem of mankind, something which, though we may not value it now, we might at least come to appreciate at some level, or even come to enjoy, if we should choose to make the effort?

Common experience shows that we do learn to appreciate artistic values through open-minded exposure to art - that art changes our perception if we let it (and sometimes even if we resist such change). Certainly, not all art is (or should be) equally capable of thus enlarging us; art differs in its ambitiousness, in its richness and beauty of form and content, in its imaginative scope, in its mastery of materials and technique, in its ability to convey ideas with clarity and force. Nothing requires that we enjoy any work of art, and we may not want to spend enough time with a work to realize the extent to which these values are present. But who can reasonably deny that such things are indeed values, that they are good in themselves wherever they are manifested, that they transcend personal interest, and that a person devoted to the experience and understanding of art can come to distinguish levels of attainment with respect to them?


----------



## Guest

Luchesi said:


> Aesthetics tells us what has been learned and discovered.


If it "tells" us anything, it's what's been decided (is or is not beauty, for example). In fact, "aesthetics" is just another field, like "philosophy" in which things are discussed, but _not _decided. In another thread on this same topic, I brought up the example of the "Golden Ratio (Section) (Mean)" as something that was agreed played a part in our analysis of aesthetic standards. Others argued that this has not been "decided" on at all.


----------



## Guest

...............


----------



## Enthusiast

Eusebius12 said:


> One can use relatively non-subjective criteria for art, in that they are agreed upon independently by, not the 'mob' of popularity (I don't think that is the appropriate term), but by the body of educated tasteful practitioners and listeners. This is rather like how science proceeds. This is not elitism any more than allowing an astronomer to speak about black holes rather than a ditch digger. There is a received wisdom, which is subject to challenge, as are any of the received aesthetic criteria. Vigorous challenge. But we don't discard all our aesthetic criteria just because they are not subject to proof in a testtube and the fact that these are subject to debate. Within these aesthetic criteria (let us say, form, proportion, beauty, overall interest and interest of details, use of materials, in a musical context word setting, instrumentation, emotional coherence, dramatic effectiveness in operatic terms) there will also be a level of consensus, not uniformity by any means, but something near the truth can be arrived through such. Now, the aesthetics, the degree of consensus there derived, and the canon are not set in stone, they are in flux and continue to evolve.


Yes. I think that is broadly right. But I would add an observation to it. The "body of educated tasteful practitioners and listeners" is likely to only have the expertise required for playing this role in a fairly limited field and will need to bow to others outside of that field. Some will be limited to baroque only, others to baroque and classical and so on. Some might only do, say, chamber music or choral .... . As you say, their "expert opinion" can be challenged. And, as we know, fashions will change and the "expert" view will change as well. So it is not exactly objective.


----------



## Enthusiast

Strange Magic said:


> This is a dog's breakfast. "There must be aesthetic values.". But must they be universal, or can they be particular to each individual? Then follows a bunch of rhetorical "whys", like confetti thrown into the air, but showing our concern that standards be maintained yet no real answers provided, except that "Michelangelo's had certain qualities that strike us (you maybe) as monumental in a way that Donatello's does not.". What if I'm not in the market for monumental? What if I prefer the youthful, almost playful innocence of Donatello or the fierce teen determination of Bernini? What if I prefer Giacometti? Or Saint Gaudens?
> 
> No, it just doesn't work. We have three statues; three flavors: chocolate, vanilla, strawberry. You like X, I like Y, and Mary Jane likes Z. My aesthetics works for me, yours for you, hers for her. The statues, the flavors just are.


But we can be almost certain that none of them will like the dog's excrement flavour. Objectivity works at a crude level?


----------



## Enthusiast

Strange Magic said:


> I think not. Art, and one's own interaction with and evaluation of it, is too important to be left to "the body of educated tasteful practitioners and listeners." Or to the mob of popularity either. One must fashion or evolve one's own aesthetic, and believe it is authentic and of value (because it really is). It is fine and good to examine and consider the opinions of others and to glean whatever information one can about a work, but--cap in hand--to approach a work and then parrot the received "wisdom" of the cognoscenti about it is to betray one's sense of the value of one's own judgement. What a dull world this would be if we liked only what we were told to like!
> 
> Not at all sure the analogy with science is accurate. Astronomers are always looking for more data, more accurate data, more precise and repeatable measurements. Their agreement on what constitutes valid criteria, valid data, is considerably more constricted than that of aestheticians.


Absolutely. But you don't need to picture a body of experts who are not in touch with _their _audience (us). They might play a role that includes hearing and evaluating what others are thinking and saying. Like it or not they are there and they do influence our collective tastes. And we, I suspect, influence theirs to some extent - especially in this age of anti-elitism. I look back at critical opinion in Britain about Mahler. Until the late 50s (or maybe the 60s) Mahler was interesting but crude and vulgar. Then he became so deep that only the most experienced and wise conductors could be expected to play him. Now, of course, he is just a great composer, comparable to the other greats. I don't know what role the audience played in that development but am pretty certain that the extraordinary popularity of Mahler in the 1960s (concerts with a Mahler symphony would usually sell out first) played a big role.


----------



## Eusebius12

MarkW said:


> I can call Wellington's Victory dreadful because in my estimation, like Gertrude Stein's Oakland, there is no there there. That doesn't make me right, nor the thousands of musicians, musicologists, and listeners since who have echoed that appraisal. But I do tend to trust more the opinions of musicians, who have a finite amount of time to learn pieces to play out of lifetimes worth of works. For that reason, although I don't "get" Bruckner, I don't belittle him because many musicians I respect (to say nothing of TC posters) like and play him.


(edited)

For what it's worth, I agree with what you say, which is also a way of rebutting StrangeMusic's later post. My earlier response was more along the lines of 'Devil's Advocacy'. Received wisdom is not infallible obviously, and I don't rely on it absolutely. In Bruckner's case, yes the weaknesses are obvious and have been pointed out by highly qualified authorities. The beauty and sometimes overwhelming power of his music are still there all the same.


----------



## Eusebius12

Strange Magic said:


> This is a dog's breakfast. "There must be aesthetic values.". But must they be universal, or can they be particular to each individual? Then follows a bunch of rhetorical "whys", like confetti thrown into the air, but showing our concern that standards be maintained yet no real answers provided, except that "Michelangelo's had certain qualities that strike us (you maybe) as monumental in a way that Donatello's does not.". What if I'm not in the market for monumental? What if I prefer the youthful, almost playful innocence of Donatello or the fierce teen determination of Bernini? What if I prefer Giacometti? Or Saint Gaudens?
> 
> No, it just doesn't work. We have three statues; three flavors: chocolate, vanilla, strawberry. You like X, I like Y, and Mary Jane likes Z. My aesthetics works for me, yours for you, hers for her. The statues, the flavors just are.


This is complete rubbish frankly. You throw out 4000 years of art appreciation for your own arbitrary values. You are welcome to it (a literal dog's breakfast) but let me be free of any obligation of acknowledging or being influenced by your standards.


----------



## Eusebius12

DaveM said:


> This premise that works of artists and the artists themselves do not have objective qualitative distinguishing features to the point that every evaluation of them is a matter of opinion, no matter how educated or not, has been thrown out so often as a canned response that it has become nothing more than a platitude with nothing to support it.
> 
> Under this premise Meryl Streep may or may not be a great actress, regardless of the number of Academy Awards,
> 
> Michelangelo may or may not have been greater than Donatello,
> 
> Leonardo da Vinci's Sistine Chapel work is only as good as the next person's opinion,
> 
> Aaron Rodgers is only as great a quarterback as what individual fans think he is regardless of his record stats,
> 
> Einstein may have been no greater than my 12th grade science teacher,
> 
> I think that after decades of listening to wide ranges of classical music Beethoven is one of the greatest composers, but my son who doesn't much care for classical music disagrees so it's a wash because, hey, it's just two different opinions.


Exactly, except that the Sistine Chapel was painted by Michelangelo


----------



## Eusebius12

arpeggio said:


> I am not interested in playing this game. Why do I have to provide such a list?
> 
> If you want performers all one has to do is go to Arkive Music or Amazon and find the names of performers who have recorded such music.
> 
> I seriously doubt that the JACK Quartet recorded the complete String Quartets of Xenakis or the Pacifica Quartet recorded the complete String Quartets of Carter because they hate them.
> 
> I know Levine, even with his sullied reputation, recorded a lot of this music. I think the best performance I have heard of Cage's _Atlas Elipticalis_ was conducted by Levine.
> 
> Do I have to provide the forum a copy of all of the programs from the Ojai Festival that I have attended?
> 
> At the 2014 Festival I learned that Charles Rosen, the noted classical pianist and writer: _The Classical Style_ was a proponent of contemporary music and recorded the piano music of Boulez: http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/Drilldown?name_id1=17159&name_role1=2&bcorder=2&name_role=1&name_id=1379
> 
> At one concert at the 2014 festival Jeremy Denk performed the Ligeti _Piano Études Books I & II_.
> 
> Over the years I have submitted to the forum many programs of festivals I have attended that featured contemporary music.
> 
> How many more do I need to list?
> 
> Better yet why don't those who have a problem with this music provide us with a list of current music scholars, music critics and/or performers that think this music is invalid.
> 
> (Note: Let us see if anyone can come up with the ones I am familiar with.)


You, like another poster earlier in the thread (starting with E  ), completely missed the rhetorical nature of my remarks.


----------



## Eusebius12

MacLeod said:


> If it "tells" us anything, it's what's been decided (is or is not beauty, for example). In fact, "aesthetics" is just another field, like "philosophy" in which things are discussed, but _not _decided. In another thread on this same topic, I brought up the example of the "Golden Ratio (Section) (Mean)" as something that was agreed played a part in our analysis of aesthetic standards. Others argued that this has not been "decided" on at all.


They were wrong. Some aesthetic principles have been 'decided'; perhaps they weren't really decided, merely 'discovered'. A perfect fifth, just like the Golden Mean, is a mathematical ratio after all. Aesthetic standards are decided by experts in aesthetics, just as paths of philosophical enquiry are pursued by philosophers. They aren't immutable, but they still exist. One can have a certain expertise or natural affinity for aesthetics (or philosophy, but _that_ is an incredibly specialized field nowadays) without a degree, but no doubt continued exposure and study and natural ability helps to develop one's sensibility in whatever field.


----------



## Eusebius12

Woodduck said:


> This is a straw man argument. No one is saying that others should determine our personal values in art. Eusebius12 said:
> 
> "There is a received wisdom, _which is subject to challenge, as are any of the received aesthetic criteria._ Vigorous challenge. But we don't discard all our aesthetic criteria just because they are not subject to proof in a testtube and the fact that these are subject to debate. Within these aesthetic criteria (let us say, form, proportion, beauty, overall interest and interest of details, use of materials, in a musical context word setting, instrumentation, emotional coherence, dramatic effectiveness in operatic terms) _there will also be a level of consensus, not uniformity by any means, but something near the truth can be arrived [at] through such."_ (Emphasis mine)
> 
> Widespread consensus concerning the quality of art certainly shouldn't dictate or invalidate our preferences. But we impoverish ourselves when we ignore or disparage it. If we step outside our self-derived and self-reinforcing frame of reference and consider thoughtfully and feelingly not only what a work of art contains but what informed others have thought and felt about it, our view of the work may very well change. If it does, we may come to view subsequent artistic experiences, art as a whole, and life itself, differently. This is not mere hypothesizing or speculation. It's common experience. It's what is popularly called art appreciation and, on a higher level, connoisseurship.
> 
> Why resist having this experience? Why reject out of hand the perceptions, knowledge and wisdom of those who've lived long, felt deeply and thought hard, on the automatic assumption that their opinions are of no more value than ours but merely represent "tastes" equivalent to our own? Why dismiss the collective thought of the ages as mere historical accident? If everything points to the idea that Bach - or Ali Akbar Khan, or Miles Davis - is a great musician, does it really make sense to assume that the mere fact that we personally may not value their work invalidates the whole notion of artistic greatness?
> ...
> Common experience shows that we do learn to appreciate artistic values through open-minded exposure to art - that art changes our perception if we let it (and sometimes even if we resist such change). Certainly, not all art is (or should be) equally capable of thus enlarging us; art differs in its ambitiousness, in its richness and beauty of form and content, in its imaginative scope, in its mastery of materials and technique, in its ability to convey ideas with clarity and force...
> But who can reasonably deny that such things are indeed values, that they are good in themselves wherever they are manifested, that they transcend personal interest, and that a person devoted to the experience and understanding of art can come to distinguish levels of attainment with respect to them?


Eloquently put, and excellent post imo, I concur 100% with everything you've said.


----------



## Eusebius12

Enthusiast said:


> Yes. I think that is broadly right. But I would add an observation to it. The "body of educated tasteful practitioners and listeners" is likely to only have the expertise required for playing this role in a fairly limited field and will need to bow to others outside of that field. Some will be limited to baroque only, others to baroque and classical and so on. Some might only do, say, chamber music or choral .... . As you say, their "expert opinion" can be challenged. And, as we know, fashions will change and the "expert" view will change as well. So it is not exactly objective.


Everything in the world is becoming more specialized. Still some are more 'all-rounders' than others. Simon Rattle is a name that comes to mind who's repertoire is remarkably catholic (although not noticeably Catholic  ). Objectivity may be a phantom and not particularly desirable goal, except to say that aesthetics is not wholly subjective and can be based on quasi-objective ideas. In any case, we are not dictating other's preferences, or trying to set anything in stone to restrict other's experiences. Each generation though influences the taste and experiences of the next so by seeking that which is the most valuable in our culture we may contribute to the intellectual and creative life of future generations.


----------



## Eusebius12

Enthusiast said:


> But we can be almost certain that none of them will like the dog's excrement flavour. Objectivity works at a crude level?


Have you not heard of this?

https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/manzoni-artists-****-t07667

Manzoni might have just been having a lend, but read the explanatory comments on the page for someone willing to buy the Emperor's New Clothes with bells on.


----------



## Fredx2098

What makes someone liable to pass judgment on art? Having some art degree? Agreeing with what past critics have said? I wouldn't put all my trust in that. I don't have an art degree, but I was working towards one until I had to stop for health reasons. I've studied art intently for many years (relative to my young age). I agree with the "established aesthetics" but I also find a lot of value in modern art, a proportionate amount, so if a critic writes off all art from the 20th century onwards, I'm not going to trust that person's opinion. Like it's been said, there are some critics and people with degrees who praise pretentious art, so how do you differentiate between someone with a valid opinion and someone without? I feel like people just point to critics, usually a strawman, who agree with what they like and use that to claim that they're right for liking what they like and hating what they hate.


----------



## Guest

Eusebius12 said:


> Have you not heard of this?
> 
> https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/manzoni-artists-****-t07667


You know, this is actually kind of playful, hilarious and an interesting thing to discuss when it comes to talking about the separability or inseparability of the creator and the creation. Not only that, but it really does make a point of collectors collecting art based on the reputation of the artist versus the art itself, amongst other points of discussion about commodities and products we buy in our everyday life. To me, it's pretty creative with layers of playful (and serious) irony.


----------



## Larkenfield

Eusebius12 said:


> Have you not heard of this?
> 
> https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/manzoni-artists-****-t07667
> 
> Manzoni might have just been having a lend, but read the explanatory comments on the page for someone willing to buy the Emperor's New Clothes with bells on.


Apparently, Manzoni also sold balloons filled with his own breath. 
https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/manzoni-artists-breath-t07589

Someday someone's may open, out of idle curiosity, one of Manzoni's cans of ***** and find out that he packaged nothing but dried bean dip, as his last laugh. I would think that a true artist would have buried the real thing in the ground to make things grow and immortalize the flower. But no-o-o. Lol.


----------



## Fredx2098

I love the tin can, printed paper, and excrement medium. Very moving. Bowel moving.


----------



## Eusebius12

Fredx2098 said:


> What makes someone liable to pass judgment on art? Having some art degree? Agreeing with what past critics have said? I wouldn't put all my trust in that. I don't have an art degree, but I was working towards one until I had to stop for health reasons. I've studied art intently for many years (relative to my young age). I agree with the "established aesthetics" but I also find a lot of value in modern art, a proportionate amount, so if a critic writes off all art from the 20th century onwards, I'm not going to trust that person's opinion. Like it's been said, there are some critics and people with degrees who praise pretentious art, so how do you differentiate between someone with a valid opinion and someone without? I feel like people just point to critics, usually a strawman, who agree with what they like and use that to claim that they're right for liking what they like and hating what they hate.


I agree with your post to some extent. I did mention 'consensus' or 'body of opinion', not just one or two critics. There are always outliers. There is the Emperor's New Clothes affect, in terms of some artistic or quasi-artistic works, in my opinion. That doesn't negate all 20th and 21st century art at all. And I don't exclude you from expertise necessarily (I did mention informed listeners). World recognized experts can have the most counterintuitive and almost crazy seeming opinions at times. I take them seriously at least to start with, even if I am occasionally disappointed.

We all have our own 'canon', to some degree, even if it will differ from the Platonic canon or the most important canon, the 'active repertoire'. It is difficult to break into the repertory, but the greats of any era will make it at some point in my view.


----------



## Enthusiast

Eusebius12 said:


> Have you not heard of this?
> 
> https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/manzoni-artists-****-t07667
> 
> Manzoni might have just been having a lend, but read the explanatory comments on the page for someone willing to buy the Emperor's New Clothes with bells on.


I saw on the telly the other day a scam whereby a comedian (Sacha Baron Cohen) fooled an upmarket gallery owner with artworks made of excrement. Conceptual art is not really for me - I often enjoy the concept and the social commentary but don't need to see the work (a photo is enough) - but good luck to those who do find it worthwhile and will pay good money for it.


----------



## Martin D

Getting back to the OP, could it be that "contemporary music" is particularly prone to "derision" because much of it will inevitably most probably not survive the passage of time, with much of it being discarded, as part of of the process of weeding out the best. Therefore it may seem relatively harmless to be more openly critical of it than older material which has survived the passage of time and achieved a kind of de facto merit status which many would be find it difficult to criticise harshly without risk of looking rather naive or ignorant. 

In the case of Mozart being the alleged target of much alleged derision, I would agree that he does rather seem to attract some quite extreme opinions, if the experience of T-C is anything to go by. But it works both ways, in that he also attracts a great deal of positive comment. Against this, I've seen a lot less of this kind of polarisation of views concerning Mozart on other classical music forums in the past. Maybe the clientele of T-C presents a somewhat distorted view of the real world.

As well, I'm not sure if Mozart is the only major composer who has been treated in this way at T-C. Wagner, for example, tends to attract somewhat polar views, not just becauase of his anti-semitic views but also on account of his music too. I've also seen some less than adulatory comments about some other major composers such as Liszt and Elgar, and occasionaly in respect of Handel when compared against J S Bach. I'm sure there must be other examples.

As for Mozart, perhaps he is bound to be the target of a lot of attention, both favourable and some unfavourable, simply because of the huge popularity of the triumvirate including Beethoven, Bach and Mozart. Since Beethoven and Mozart wrote music if fairly similar styles ("late classical") their music is more easily substitutable than any combination involving Bach. Whilst both composers definitely attract a lot of highly favourable comment, I would guess that since Mozart's style is somewhat older than Beethoven's, Mozart may have attracted rather more negative comment than Beethoven as Beethoven had a foot foot in both the "classical" and "romantic" camps, which for some people seems to be an attraction.


----------



## Strange Magic

Eusebius12 said:


> This is complete rubbish frankly. You throw out 4000 years of art appreciation for your own arbitrary values. You are welcome to it (a literal dog's breakfast) but let me be free of any obligation of acknowledging or being influenced by your standards.


I think you're beginning to understand. I indeed throw out 4000 years of art appreciation and replace them with my own authentic, independently-arrived-at values. These personal values, tailored uniquely to me, often coincide with the received aesthetics of "experts" and critics: "What the _Bandar-log_ think now the jungle will think later!". But just as often, actually more often, my separate way is clear and we disagree. Others gain strength in their own mind from the massed wisdom of the cognoscenti: their concurrence validates their choices and the trembling stops. That is not my path.


----------



## Strange Magic

Luchesi said:


> "The statues, the flavors just are."
> 
> When you say that you're not saving anyone time. Rankings have value for listeners --- and viewers of art or cinematic works or sculpture etc. Aesthetics tells us what has been learned and discovered.


I get it. This is a race to reach the herd grazing on the distant hillside, and join them before nightfall.

To be serious, I have no problem with consulting books, experts, looking at lists, exchanging opinions. But, for me, it's important that I make my own final choices and decisions, and live comfortably with them free of the umbilicus of the approval of others. The approval of others is welcome but unnecessary.


----------



## Enthusiast

Strange Magic said:


> I get it. This is a race to reach the herd grazing on the distant hillside, and join them before nightfall.
> 
> To be serious, I have no problem with consulting books, experts, looking at lists, exchanging opinions. But, for me, it's important that I make my own final choices and decisions, and live comfortably with them free of the umbilicus of the approval of others. The approval of others is welcome but unnecessary.


I don't think I do any different. I sometimes wonder if we do not all follow more or less the same approach to CM but put the emphasis on different aspects of the process.


----------



## Strange Magic

Enthusiast said:


> But we can be almost certain that none of them will like the dog's excrement flavour. Objectivity works at a crude level?


Dog's excrement will be appreciated by, admittedly, a select few. But isn't this (easy) argument yet another of the innumerable appeals to popularity? Have a slice of durian and a bit of this rich, odiferous cheese!


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> This premise that works of artists and the artists themselves do not have objective qualitative distinguishing features to the point that every evaluation of them is a matter of opinion, no matter how educated or not, has been thrown out so often as a canned response that it has become nothing more than a platitude with nothing to support it.
> 
> Under this premise Meryl Streep may or may not be a great actress, regardless of the number of Academy Awards,
> 
> Michelangelo may or may not have been greater than Donatello,
> 
> Leonardo da Vinci's Sistine Chapel work is only as good as the next person's opinion,
> 
> *Aaron Rodgers is only as great a quarterback as what individual fans think he is regardless of his record stats,
> 
> Einstein may have been no greater than my 12th grade science teacher,*
> 
> I think that after decades of listening to wide ranges of classical music Beethoven is one of the greatest composers, but my son who doesn't much care for classical music disagrees so it's a wash because, hey, it's just two different opinions.


Train partially off the tracks here. The bolded examples are those where we can actually make some conclusive judgements because there are some cold hard facts/stats (though your 12th grade science teacher may have been a better 12th grade science teacher than Einstein).


----------



## Enthusiast

Strange Magic said:


> Dog's excrement will be appreciated by, admittedly, a select few. But isn't this (easy) argument yet another of the innumerable appeals to popularity? Have a slice of durian and a bit of this rich, odiferous cheese!


Easy and not profound. But true enough and therefore "proof" of there being an objective standard. BTW I've eaten far worse than durian and strong cheese.


----------



## Strange Magic

Enthusiast said:


> Easy and not profound. But true enough and therefore "proof" of there being an objective standard. BTW I've eaten far worse than durian and strong cheese.


Don't tell me what! :lol:


----------



## fluteman

Martin D said:


> Getting back to the OP, could it be that "contemporary music" is particularly prone to "derision" because much of it will inevitably most probably not survive the passage of time, with much of it being discarded, as part of of the process of weeding out the best. Therefore it may seem relatively harmless to be more openly critical of it than older material which has survived the passage of time and achieved a kind of de facto merit status which many would be find it difficult to criticise harshly without risk of looking rather naive or ignorant.


You make a good point here, but I find it odd that most of the "contemporary" or "post modern" music frequently derided in this and other threads here, (that of Elliott Carter, Karlheinz Stockhausen, Morton Feldman, or Pierre Boulez, for example) is well over 50 years old at this point. (except I suppose for Carter, who lived to 104 and composed until near the end of his life). That music has already survived the passage of time.

That's why I mentioned Stockhausen's influence on the Beatles (their music is now over 50 years old too, or close to it). Since they released Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band in 1967, there have been millions of Stockhausen fans who have probably never heard of him. So in an important sense, it is too late to deride Stockhausen. Like his music or not, it has made its mark.


----------



## Thomyum2

Strange Magic said:


> This is a dog's breakfast. "There must be aesthetic values.". But must they be universal, or can they be particular to each individual? Then follows a bunch of rhetorical "whys", like confetti thrown into the air, but showing our concern that standards be maintained yet no real answers provided, except that "Michelangelo's had certain qualities that strike us (you maybe) as monumental in a way that Donatello's does not.". What if I'm not in the market for monumental? What if I prefer the youthful, almost playful innocence of Donatello or the fierce teen determination of Bernini? What if I prefer Giacometti? Or Saint Gaudens?
> 
> No, it just doesn't work. We have three statues; three flavors: chocolate, vanilla, strawberry. You like X, I like Y, and Mary Jane likes Z. *My aesthetics works for me, yours for you, hers for her. The statues, the flavors just are.*





Strange Magic said:


> To be serious, *I have no problem with consulting books, experts, looking at lists, exchanging opinions*. But, for me, it's important that I make my own final choices and decisions, and live comfortably with them free of the umbilicus of the approval of others. The approval of others is welcome but unnecessary.


I think your two posts sort of reveal that we're saying the same thing but falling into disagreement because we're speaking in broad generalizations or using words in different ways - in the first you're speaking purely of taste, a simple choice of what you like, but in the second you speak about pursuing an aesthetic that involves a discursive consideration of ideas, but you are conflating the two based on the fact that you make your 'own final choice'.

As I mentioned earlier, aesthetics is different from taste because it involves a different faculty - a 'disinterested judgment' - that there is a distinction between what one 'likes' and what one thinks is 'good'. What one likes is a purely subjective thing, but what one thinks is good is based on thoughtful consideration of its objective qualities within a context. There's nothing about aesthetics that _requires_ agreement, but that doesn't make it a purely subjective matter simply by default - that fact that you make your own final choice does not take the process out of the realm of aesthetics and make it back into a simple matter of tastes and preferences. I don't think aesthetics are universal, but that doesn't make them individual either - aesthetics, like all philosophy, is a _discursive_ process. In other words, your 'final choice' is still something based on objective qualities, isn't it? A musical composition doesn't come about at random - it involved aesthetic choices by the composer in the process of creation, so even as we like or dislike what we hear, we also judge those choices in the context of our own aesthetic. Ultimately, we can each make up our own minds about both what we like and what is good, but they are still different things.

I think the science analogy is a useful one, in that there is consensus involved in both science and aesthetics, but the analogy breaks down because the disciplines are so different. Perhaps language is a better analogy in that it involves a shared understanding even at the same time that we all use words in different ways that reflect subtly different meanings - I've always thought that music and language have much in common in the same way.


----------



## Strange Magic

I will not extensively quote Woodduck's most excellent post #341--it is long, yet beautifully expressive of his views, and I urge others to re-read it. However, it purports to urge me, and those who may hold similar views, not to cut ourselves off from the informed opinions of others. He then launches into a wonderful paean of appreciation for the expanding, uplifting, transforming properties of Art--with which I entirely agree.

But the nuanced truth of my position is not blind, blanket rejection "out of hand [of] the perceptions, knowledge and wisdom of those who've lived long, felt deeply and thought hard...". Rather, it is the rejection of the idea that, at the end of the day, after that exposure and evaluation of the views of The Elders, I must (or ought to) bend the knee in conformity to their received communal (sometimes, sometimes not) consensus, whether I like a piece or not. To quote Blake: "The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction". And, as I've previously posted, Art is too important (to me anyway) to be left to the professional aesthetes. Maybe I prefer Giorgione to Leonardo; if so (and it is so), then no amount of demonstration to the contrary will avail. The deal is--if in Art the wisdom of the ages agrees with me, then I'll agree with it, on the basis that I am the senior partner.


----------



## Strange Magic

> Thomyum2: "What one likes is a purely subjective thing, but what one thinks is good is based on thoughtful consideration of its objective qualities within a context."


But we've spent weeks previously disputing what constitutes "objective" qualities in works of art. I've offered things like: who created it, when, size, shape, color, weight, medium, duration, note sequence, degree of complexity, opinions of others, popularity, sales price, etc. However without my goodness meter, there is no way of determining a work's goodness from its objective qualities. Lest I alarm, I rush to affirm that I like good things .


----------



## arpeggio

One of the problems with these debates is when the rhetoric of some members clashes with the real life experiences of other members.

A good example of this is the debate over whether or not Gustav Holst was a one hit wonder. There are members who have spent a life time performing the band works of Holst. Yet many members felt that their rhetoric invalidated our experiences.


----------



## WildThing

arpeggio said:


> One of the problems with these debates is when the rhetoric of some members clashes with the real life experiences of other members.
> 
> A good example of this is the debate over whether or not Gustav Holst was a one hit wonder. There are members who have spent a life time performing the band works of Holst. Yet many members felt that their rhetoric invalidated our experiences.


I don't see how those two thing are contradictory. Holst may have one "hit" that has gained popularity with a much wider listening audience, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have other works that aren't of quality. No experiences are being invalidated.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> I get it. This is a race to reach the herd grazing on the distant hillside, and join them before nightfall.
> 
> To be serious, I have no problem with consulting books, experts, looking at lists, exchanging opinions. But, for me, it's important that I make my own final choices and decisions, and live comfortably with them free of the umbilicus of the approval of others. The approval of others is welcome but unnecessary.


You might have experienced changes in your 'taste' and favorites down through the decades of your life. This is the process. I imagine if intelligent people live long enough and apply themselves they will come to generally the same conclusions that most people have in the many music listening and analyzing generations before us. But maybe it's only the types of people who play the music and/or dissect the music.

Music can be reduced just like any phenomena in science so that you can appreciate the whole picture as it smacks you in the face, so to speak.

... Or maybe I'm deluding myself because I've been doing this for so long. How can we really tell in such a psychologically-packed subject like this one?


----------



## Luchesi

Woodduck said:


> This is a straw man argument. No one is saying that others should determine our personal values in art. Eusebius12 said:
> 
> "There is a received wisdom, _which is subject to challenge, as are any of the received aesthetic criteria._ Vigorous challenge. But we don't discard all our aesthetic criteria just because they are not subject to proof in a testtube and the fact that these are subject to debate. Within these aesthetic criteria (let us say, form, proportion, beauty, overall interest and interest of details, use of materials, in a musical context word setting, instrumentation, emotional coherence, dramatic effectiveness in operatic terms) _there will also be a level of consensus, not uniformity by any means, but something near the truth can be arrived [at] through such."_ (Emphasis mine)
> 
> Widespread consensus concerning the quality of art certainly shouldn't dictate or invalidate our preferences. But we impoverish ourselves when we ignore or disparage it. If we step outside our self-derived and self-reinforcing frame of reference and consider thoughtfully and feelingly not only what a work of art contains but what informed others have thought and felt about it, our view of the work may very well change. If it does, we may come to view subsequent artistic experiences, art as a whole, and life itself, differently. This is not mere hypothesizing or speculation. It's common experience. It's what is popularly called art appreciation and, on a higher level, connoisseurship.
> 
> Why resist having this experience? Why reject out of hand the perceptions, knowledge and wisdom of those who've lived long, felt deeply and thought hard, on the automatic assumption that their opinions are of no more value than ours but merely represent "tastes" equivalent to our own? Why dismiss the collective thought of the ages as mere historical accident? If everything points to the idea that Bach - or Ali Akbar Khan, or Miles Davis - is a great musician, does it really make sense to assume that the mere fact that we personally may not value their work invalidates the whole notion of artistic greatness? Is it not more sensible - not only in the realm of art but in life generally - to begin with the assumption that there is probably something of merit there, something which has earned not only the enjoyment but the esteem of mankind, something which, though we may not value it now, we might at least come to appreciate at some level, or even come to enjoy, if we should choose to make the effort?
> 
> Common experience shows that we do learn to appreciate artistic values through open-minded exposure to art - that art changes our perception if we let it (and sometimes even if we resist such change). Certainly, not all art is (or should be) equally capable of thus enlarging us; art differs in its ambitiousness, in its richness and beauty of form and content, in its imaginative scope, in its mastery of materials and technique, in its ability to convey ideas with clarity and force. Nothing requires that we enjoy any work of art, and we may not want to spend enough time with a work to realize the extent to which these values are present. But who can reasonably deny that such things are indeed values, that they are good in themselves wherever they are manifested, that they transcend personal interest, and that a person devoted to the experience and understanding of art can come to distinguish levels of attainment with respect to them?


* 
I think mature and self-aware people know this but they rebel against it in their personal quiet time. It's not even a conscious rebellion.

Maybe years ago when they were young someone said to them, well you know you don't have to like this or that. And that chimed a chord in them, but it's not conscious. It occurred at the right time in their life. It's power! It becomes an unconscious form of self-preservation and self-worth. 
I don't see anything wrong with it and unless it becomes an obstacle to further exploration of what the great artists have accomplished.

A student of music would go on to a bigger view and more quickly assimilate the values that are out there.

I might be totally wrong and off-base about this. It's what I've observed over many decades. How do I interpret it? It's an attitude that we've all heard from people, and from some people it surprises us.


----------



## DaveM

Eusebius12 said:


> Exactly, except that the Sistine Chapel was painted by Michelangelo


Oh drat! What a frickin' stupid mistake! It's on a par with the other night at a party when I said that the Haitians were hired by the British during the American Revolution when I meant to say the Hessians. Who knows, maybe there were some soldiers from Haiti there too.


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> You make a good point here, but I find it odd that most of the "contemporary" or "post modern" music frequently derided in this and other threads here, (that of Elliott Carter, Karlheinz Stockhausen, Morton Feldman, or Pierre Boulez, for example) is well over 50 years old at this point. (except I suppose for Carter, who lived to 104 and composed until near the end of his life). That music has already survived the passage of time.
> 
> That's why I mentioned Stockhausen's influence on the Beatles (their music is now over 50 years old too, or close to it). Since they released Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band in 1967, there have been millions of Stockhausen fans who have probably never heard of him. So in an important sense, it is too late to deride Stockhausen. Like his music or not, it has made its mark.


Your post reminds me of this entertaining video;

He says some silly things but it's very visually entertaining.

The Beatles: a musical appreciation and analysis, by composer, Howard Goodall CBE


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> You make a good point here, but *I find it odd that most of the "contemporary" or "post modern" music frequently derided in this and other threads here, (that of Elliott Carter, Karlheinz Stockhausen, Morton Feldman, or Pierre Boulez, for example) is well over 50 years old at this point.* (except I suppose for Carter, who lived to 104 and composed until near the end of his life). *That music has already survived the passage of time.
> *
> That's why I mentioned Stockhausen's influence on the Beatles (their music is now over 50 years old too, or close to it). Since they released Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band in 1967, there have been millions of Stockhausen fans who have probably never heard of him. So in an important sense, *it is too late to deride Stockhausen. * Like his music or not, it has made its mark.


Without wanting to approve the impulse to "deride" any music, I would nevertheless suggest that we need to be careful in touting the longevity and value of the music of the last 50 (or even 100) years compared with that of earlier times. I see several difficulties.

1.) What does it mean, in an age when the music of the past can be mechanically preserved and when virtually every sort of music ever produced is revived and marketed to some niche audience, for music to "survive the passage of time"? What music, nowadays, has _not_ survived the passage of time?

2.) When we speak of music which is no longer "contemporary" and can therefore be judged on its "survival" value, what exactly do we mean? In 1850, it was easy to say with considerable precision what music was contemporary and what wasn't, since popular taste and performance programming did not lag too far behind the creative efforts of composers, audiences were eager for new music, and major musical ensembles were mainly occupied with providing it. If _Don Giovanni_ was still loved and still held the stage in 1850, when opera was a popular art form and Verdi's and Wagner's new works were filling houses, one could confidently say that Mozart, despite being half a century old and obviously "old-fashioned", had survived the passage of time, and that it would have been absurd to deride him. Can the same be said about the music of Stockhausen? Has he become "old-fashioned" enough after 50 years for his "survival" to be significant? What does it mean that his work has not vanished? In what form and to what extent has it, in fact, survived? And to what should we attribute that survival?

3.) The 20th century is peculiar, not only in that technology and scholarship have preserved the culture of the world and and of the past - thus ensuring the "survival" of everything and making everything "contemporary" - but in the undeniable fact that classical composers, in an accelerating pursuit of novelty, left much (most?) of their audience behind, with the result that music which has not actually been contemporary for 50 years or longer still seems strange, unappealing or incomprehensible to vast numbers of listeners who are not necessarily musically unsophisticated. To say that Elliot Carter's "barbed wire" music has "survived the passage of time" and that it's too late now to deride it ignores the fact that time has not passed, for the musical culture of our age, at the pace and in the manner of time two centuries ago. As Hamlet would say, "the time is out of joint."


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> Train partially off the tracks here. The bolded examples are those where we can actually make some conclusive judgements because there are some cold hard facts/stats (though your 12th grade science teacher may have been a better 12th grade science teacher than Einstein).


No, the train is very much on the tracks. I threw those in as ringers because with Meryl Streep's 3 Academy Awards and 21 nominations one has objective information that she's a great actress. It is close to being comparable to Aaron Rodgers' records. Yes I understand that Rodgers' records are based on objective scoring, but in the arts, we often get a consensus over time and with consistent information from many different sources, educated and otherwise that an artist is great.


----------



## Strange Magic

^^^^We do live in a strange new world when and where everything is instantly and abundantly available, and everything is therefore both contemporary and instantly disposable/replaceable.


----------



## DaveM

fluteman said:


> You make a good point here, but I find it odd that most of the "contemporary" or "post modern" music frequently derided in this and other threads here, (that of Elliott Carter, Karlheinz Stockhausen, Morton Feldman, or Pierre Boulez, for example) is well over 50 years old at this point. (except I suppose for Carter, who lived to 104 and composed until near the end of his life). That music has already survived the passage of time.
> 
> That's why I mentioned Stockhausen's influence on the Beatles (their music is now over 50 years old too, or close to it). Since they released Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band in 1967, there have been millions of Stockhausen fans who have probably never heard of him. So in an important sense, it is too late to deride Stockhausen. Like his music or not, it has made its mark.


Like one drop in a rainstorm.


----------



## Thomyum2

Strange Magic said:


> But we've spent weeks previously disputing what constitutes "objective" qualities in works of art. I've offered things like: who created it, when, size, shape, color, weight, medium, duration, note sequence, degree of complexity, opinions of others, popularity, sales price, etc. However without my goodness meter, there is no way of determining a work's goodness from its objective qualities. Lest I alarm, I rush to affirm that I like good things .


Yes, I like good things too! 

But my point is not that an aesthetic is just a purely objective thing. Aesthetics, in a sense, emerges out of a relationship between the objective and the subjective. Saying 'I like' is a purely subjective response to something - it is entirely rooted in one's self, in one's own experience, it is independent of others. Saying 'It is good' (or 'it is beautiful' or 'it is true') is no longer an individual thing - it involves another person or persons. In making such a statement you are no longer operating as an isolated person - it is making a judgment that there is a quality in the thing that exists outside of you as an individual, and that this quality is something that can shared between you and that other person or persons. That is what artistic traditions are, in a real sense - they are how we represent our shared experiences of quality. We don't just create music for ourselves - we create it for each other. (Now the question of which or how many, people will share it is an entirely different one.)

So even if a person listens to a piece of music in solitude, you are at least sharing that experience with the artist or artists who brought it into being, not to mention that one cannot help but bring one's expectations, learning, and past experience to that listening, so one hears it in the context of a tradition or culture. We don't enjoy a composition simply because is has nice sounds - we enjoy it also because those sounds are 'composed' into an order that makes sense to used based on how we have learned to hear them. Aesthetics is more than just a sense-experience that brings pleasure.


----------



## Fredx2098

Hasn't time relative to art sped up with the progression of technology? Was Bach not considered a great composer in the Classical era? Was Mozart not considered a great composer in the Romantic era, Beethoven during the late romantic era, Brahms during the modern era, etc.? Time has been passing and composers have been remembered. I just wish people wouldn't make sweeping generalizations like that video, that all modern and contemporary art is bad, rather than looking for the cream of the crop as an "aesthetician" should do, which is what I do.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> No, the train is very much on the tracks. I threw those in as ringers because with Meryl Streep's 3 Academy Awards and 21 nominations one has objective information that she's a great actress. It is close to being comparable to Aaron Rodgers' records. Yes I understand that Rodgers' records are based on objective scoring, but in the arts, we often get a consensus over time and with consistent information from many different sources, educated and otherwise that an artist is great.


The Rodgers example is legit. Meryl Streep--another amazing product of Nova Caesarea--is another story. I think she is the finest, most versatile actress in the history of American film, and I'm happy the Academy agrees with me. But their awards and nominations are of a different, lesser order than the stats of sports statistics. I also think that Robert Redford was a wooden--nay, leaden--actor (in case anyone cares).


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> I will not extensively quote Woodduck's most excellent post #341--it is long, yet beautifully expressive of his views, and I urge others to re-read it. However, it purports to urge me, and those who may hold similar views, not to cut ourselves off from the informed opinions of others. He then launches into a wonderful paean of appreciation for the expanding, uplifting, transforming properties of Art--with which I entirely agree.
> 
> But the nuanced truth of my position is not blind, blanket rejection "out of hand [of] the perceptions, knowledge and wisdom of those who've lived long, felt deeply and thought hard...". Rather, it is the rejection of the idea that, at the end of the day, after that exposure and evaluation of the views of The Elders, I must (or ought to) bend the knee in conformity to their received communal (sometimes, sometimes not) consensus, whether I like a piece or not. To quote Blake: "The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction". And, as I've previously posted, Art is too important (to me anyway) to be left to the professional aesthetes. Maybe I prefer Giorgione to Leonardo; if so (and it is so), then no amount of demonstration to the contrary will avail. The deal is--if in Art the wisdom of the ages agrees with me, then I'll agree with it, on the basis that I am the senior partner.


Yes, very true, and in fact that would be true whether you thought so or not. It takes no intellectual discipline on your part to assert your independence, as you are one of the stones in the edifice that is The Wisdom Of The Ages, or at least a grain of sand in the mortar. From your comments, you seem to make good use of the accumulated wisdom of the past, which I think is an intelligent thing to do, but then you add your own independent judgment, which I think is the only thing you can do.


----------



## Guest

This thread is full of magical thinking. It seems like people assume there is some canon of "classical music" and that a higher intelligence embodied by people of elevated aesthetic taste includes or excludes music based on merit.

"Classical music" is a catch-all phrase that is attached to a loosely defined cluster of musical styles, in which the common thread seems to be groups of acoustic instruments performing meticulously scored music in a concert hall. Probably "concert music" would be a more apropos moniker. It is an commercial category as much a musical category. The suggestion that such-and-such music doesn't qualify because it doesn't meet some sort of high aesthetic standard strike me as absurd. If the people who like it overlap enough with the people who like Mozart it is "classical."

I have no problem with a broad tent view of classical music and the only variety of music that I sometimes think doesn't really go is electronic music. That's because I it strikes me that the fact that the music is purely acoustic is an important part of what makes classical music what it is. But I feel no temptation to rant against it. I just don't listen to it.


----------



## fluteman

DaveM said:


> Like one drop in a rainstorm.


The mightiest rainstorm is entirely made up of tiny drops.


----------



## Fredx2098

Baron Scarpia said:


> This thread is full of magical thinking. It seems like people assume there is some canon of "classical music" and that a higher intelligence embodied by people of elevated aesthetic taste includes or excludes music based on merit.
> 
> "Classical music" is a catch-all phrase that is attached to a loosely defined cluster of musical styles, in which the common thread seems to be groups of acoustic instruments performing meticulously scored music in a concert hall. Probably "concert music" would be a more apropos moniker. It is an commercial category as much a musical category. The suggestion that such-and-such music doesn't qualify because it doesn't meet some sort of high aesthetic standard strike me as absurd. If the people who like it overlap enough with the people who like Mozart it is "classical."
> 
> I have no problem with a broad tent view of classical music and the only variety of music that I sometimes think doesn't really go is electronic music, because I feel fact that the music is purely acoustic is an important part of what makes classical music what it is. But I feel no temptation to rant against it. I just don't listen to it.


I personally prefer purely acoustic classical music (part of the reason I love Feldman), but I do enjoy some pieces that have acoustic instruments and a smaller amount of electronic instruments.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> Without wanting to approve the impulse to "deride" any music, I would nevertheless suggest that we need to be careful in touting the longevity and value of the music of the last 50 (or even 100) years compared with that of earlier times. I see several difficulties.
> 
> 1.) What does it mean, in an age when the music of the past can be mechanically preserved and when virtually every sort of music ever produced is revived and marketed to some niche audience, for music to "survive the passage of time"? What music, nowadays, has _not_ survived the passage of time?
> 
> 2.) When we speak of music which is no longer "contemporary" and can therefore be judged on its "survival" value, what exactly do we mean? In 1850, it was easy to say with considerable precision what music was contemporary and what wasn't, since popular taste and performance programming did not lag too far behind the creative efforts of composers, audiences were eager for new music, and major musical ensembles were mainly occupied with providing it. If _Don Giovanni_ was still loved and still held the stage in 1850, when opera was a popular art form and Verdi's and Wagner's new works were filling houses, one could confidently say that Mozart, despite being half a century old and obviously "old-fashioned", had survived the passage of time, and that it would have been absurd to deride him. Can the same be said about the music of Stockhausen? Has he become "old-fashioned" enough after 50 years for his "survival" to be significant? What does it mean that his work has not vanished? In what form and to what extent has it, in fact, survived? And to what should we attribute that survival?
> 
> 3.) The 20th century is peculiar, not only in that technology and scholarship have preserved the culture of the world and and of the past - thus ensuring the "survival" of everything and making everything "contemporary" - but in the undeniable fact that classical composers, in an accelerating pursuit of novelty, left much (most?) of their audience behind, with the result that music which has not actually been contemporary for 50 years or longer still seems strange, unappealing or incomprehensible to vast numbers of listeners who are not necessarily musically unsophisticated. To say that Elliot Carter's "barbed wire" music has "survived the passage of time" and that it's too late now to deride it ignores the fact that time has not passed, for the musical culture of our age, at the pace and in the manner of time two centuries ago. As Hamlet would say, "the time is out of joint."


You mean, the twentieth century *was* peculiar. It's been over for quite some time.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> The Rodgers example is legit. Meryl Streep--another amazing product of Nova Caesarea--is another story. I think she is the finest, most versatile actress in the history of American film, and I'm happy the Academy agrees with me. But their awards and nominations are of a different, lesser order than the stats of sports statistics. I also think that Robert Redford was a wooden--nay, leaden--actor (in case anyone cares).


But you often revert to the subject of what an individual likes. A single or a few uneducated, anecdotal opinions don't mean much. But the arts, as practiced by professionals, are a craft. When an artist, such as Streep, over and over and consistently over many years, excels at her craft, according to fellow actors, producers and directors who work with her and according to Academy voters who vote over years and according to millions of viewers who pay to see her movies, then you have an objective record that this person is one of the greats at their craft just as Rodgers is. It floors me that a few will still dismiss this as irrelevant.


----------



## Guest

I also don't take to the implication that if some music of today is not going to be remembered in future epochs then it is somehow illegitimate and not worth listening to. We should enjoy it now that we have it. Perhaps people in the future will not have the context to appreciate it, that doesn't make it any less valuable today. And the independent record labels have found and recorded oceans of music that was forgotten, but which reveals itself to be of great quality nevertheless.


----------



## DaveM

fluteman said:


> The mightiest rainstorm is entirely made up of tiny drops.


One drop doesn't make a rainstorm.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> You mean, the twentieth century *was* peculiar. It's been over for quite some time.


Has it? Is time that clearly marked nowadays? Has the situation of classical music changed significantly during the small piece of the 21st century we've lived through?


----------



## Strange Magic

> Thomyum2: "Saying 'I like' is a purely subjective response to something - it is entirely rooted in one's self, in one's own experience, it is independent of others. Saying 'It is good' (or 'it is beautiful' or 'it is true') is no longer an individual thing - it involves another person or persons. In making such a statement you are no longer operating as an isolated person - it is making a judgment that there is a quality in the thing that exists outside of you as an individual, and that this quality is something that can shared between you and that other person or persons. That is what artistic traditions are, in a real sense - they are how we represent our shared experiences of quality."


What if, in our modesty, we say "*I think* it is good, beautiful, true?". My exquisite concern that I not impose my aesthetic views upon others but rather hope to mingle among like-minded aficionados, prevents me from uttering such pronunciamenti as "It is good!". I emphatically do not wish to assert a universal, intrinsic quality within a piece of art, extrinsic to me, that accounts for its "goodness" and thus is the agent of adhesion that binds me to others who like a work. We can discuss and agree that it is X that draws us to a given piece, or, just as useful, it may be X for me and Y for you. But I balk at liking something, or thinking I ought to, because it's good, beautiful, true.


----------



## Strange Magic

"But you often revert to the subject of what an individual likes.". Yes I do. In fact, I don't "revert" to it; it is my default state and initial starting point in these discussions of what to like, what is worthy of liking, etc. 98% of my association with Art is finding out what I like, and then indulging myself in experiencing it. 98% of my posting, however, appears to be my (successful) attempts to free myself from the thrown, entangling net that seeks to lash my judgements to those of some body of received and ancient wisdom.


----------



## DaveM

Baron Scarpia said:


> This thread is full of magical thinking. It seems like people assume there is some canon of "classical music" and that a higher intelligence embodied by people of elevated aesthetic taste includes or excludes music based on merit.
> 
> "Classical music" is a catch-all phrase that is attached to a loosely defined cluster of musical styles, in which the common thread seems to be groups of acoustic instruments performing meticulously scored music in a concert hall. Probably "concert music" would be a more apropos moniker. It is an commercial category as much a musical category. The suggestion that such-and-such music doesn't qualify because it doesn't meet some sort of high aesthetic standard strike me as absurd. If the people who like it overlap enough with the people who like Mozart it is "classical."
> 
> I have no problem with a broad tent view of classical music and the only variety of music that I sometimes think doesn't really go is electronic music. That's because I it strikes me that the fact that the music is purely acoustic is an important part of what makes classical music what it is. But I feel no temptation to rant against it. I just don't listen to it.


It's interesting that you begin by essentially saying that there is no canon of classical music and end by saying that electronic music shouldn't fall under classical music. Hmm, apparently there is a canon.

IMO Avant-garde music is similar to much electronic music in that, for the most part, it is a random cacophony of various sounds without melody, development or structure. If there is no canon of classical music, then there must be no canon for any other form of music. So, just for giggles, why don't we make Avant-garde part of country music.


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> It's interesting that you begin by essentially saying that there is no canon of classical music and end by saying that electronic music shouldn't fall under classical music. Hmm, apparently there is a canon.


You decided to accuse me of contradicting myself by blatantly misstating what I said. I did not use the loaded word "should." I only said "I sometimes think" it "doesn't really go." I never claimed or implied that electronic music is not "legitimate" classical music, just the connection between electronic music and consensus "classical music" does not resonate with me.



DaveM said:


> IMO Avant-garde music is similar to much electronic music in that, for the most part, it is a random cacophony of various sounds without melody, development or structure. If there is no canon of classical music, then there must be no canon for any other form of music. So, just for giggles, why don't we make Avant-garde part of country music.


Electronic music could be classical music _and_ country music, if there were enough country music fans who though of electronic music as part of their thing. It is my impression that is not the case.


----------



## DaveM

Baron Scarpia said:


> You decided to accuse me of contradicting myself by blatantly misstating what I said. I did not use the loaded word "should." I only said "I sometimes think" it "doesn't really go." I never claimed or implied that electronic music is not "legitimate" classical music, just the connection between electronic music and consensus "classical music" does not resonate with me.


Okay then, you're conflicted over whether there is a canon.


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> Okay then, you're conflicted over whether there is a canon.


I view the "canon" as a nebulous thing which is mainly a statistical clustering of pieces of music that have some similar features and which tend to be enjoyed by the same cohort of people.


----------



## Guest

Eusebius12 said:


> They were wrong. Some aesthetic principles have been 'decided'; perhaps they weren't really decided, merely 'discovered'. A perfect fifth, just like the Golden Mean, is a mathematical ratio after all. Aesthetic standards are decided by experts in aesthetics, just as paths of philosophical enquiry are pursued by philosophers. They aren't immutable, but they still exist. One can have a certain expertise or natural affinity for aesthetics (or philosophy, but _that_ is an incredibly specialized field nowadays) without a degree, but no doubt continued exposure and study and natural ability helps to develop one's sensibility in whatever field.


I don't think the dispute was about the maths, but about the relevance and application to what is deemed aesthetically pleasing. In that same thread (https://www.talkclassical.com/55350-assumption-greatness-23.html?highlight=#post1451118 ) some of us were considering the extent to which the brain may be hard wired to find certain shapes, lines, proportions, colours more "pleasing" than others. However, others argue that the brain is more plastic that used to be thought, and consequently, what we find aesthetically pleasing may be more varied than "aesthetic experts" decided for us.

That's assuming that we have to take as read the principles that aesthetic experts have offered us. We don't. I'm not wholly with Strange Magic on the far end of "there are no rules", but I'm near that end, for similar reasons. I've got one life, and one mind and whilst learning about what the ancients had to say can help me understand the arts, I'm not a slave to the idea that what they've said must be so.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> Is time that clearly marked nowadays?


Now you are venturing into deep water. Or is that just a reference to indeterminacy?

Quick story: Pierre Boulez wrote his Sonatine for flute and piano in 1946 for his friend, the great French flutist Jean-Pierre Rampal. One feature of that formidable piece is the illusion of random or indeterminate rhythmic changes created with meticulous and strictly notated rhythmic shifts of dizzying speed and complexity. Rampal had an amazing ability to learn prodigious amounts of music almost immediately, which is one reason he could give over 100 concerts and make as many as 10 recordings per year at the peak of his career. But in 1946 he had just made his first recordings and was busy getting an international solo career started. Even he couldn't master that piece without a lot of time and effort that he was not willing to devote, and to my knowledge he never recorded or even performed it in public, though it was dedicated to him and is a flute repertoire standard today. I count at least eight different recordings that are in print right now. So the situation of classical music certainly has changed significantly since 1946.


----------



## Lisztian

Baron Scarpia said:


> This thread is full of magical thinking. It seems like people assume there is some canon of "classical music" and that a higher intelligence embodied by people of elevated aesthetic taste includes or excludes music based on merit.
> 
> "Classical music" is a catch-all phrase that is attached to a loosely defined cluster of musical styles, in which the common thread seems to be groups of acoustic instruments performing meticulously scored music in a concert hall. Probably "concert music" would be a more apropos moniker. It is an commercial category as much a musical category. The suggestion that such-and-such music doesn't qualify because it doesn't meet some sort of high aesthetic standard strike me as absurd. If the people who like it overlap enough with the people who like Mozart it is "classical."
> 
> I have no problem with a broad tent view of classical music and the only variety of music that I sometimes think doesn't really go is electronic music. That's because I it strikes me that the fact that the music is purely acoustic is an important part of what makes classical music what it is. But I feel no temptation to rant against it. I just don't listen to it.


Nice post. I definitely think certain electronic musics should be considered 'Classical Music' though: they just have to be 'part of the tradition.' Why should _Gruppen_ be considered Classical but not _Gesang der Junglinge_, for example? I don't think that 'because it's Electronic' should be an answer: composers have always made use of new means to create new sounds. Should we not call Beethoven's piano music 'classical' because he uses a piano instead of a harpsichord? A lot of electronic works are written to be experienced in a concert setting, too.


----------



## Art Rock

I have found the opinions of experts very useful for the first few years of my journey into classical music (before internet, so no YouTube, no on-line reviews, no discussion boards). In those years I explored the composers and works that were considered the most important in the books I had on the subject. As time went on, and I listened to a more and more music, I gradually realized that my taste was not 100% in line with what I was reading - at best 50% and probably less. At that point I realized that it was normal NOT to love all the works and composers that were supposedly the best of all time. And I've enjoyed listening to the hundreds of composers and works that I do love (be it Bach or Takemitsu) for the past three decades.


----------



## Guest

Lisztian said:


> Nice post. I definitely think certain electronic musics should be considered 'Classical Music' though: they just have to be 'part of the tradition.' Why should _Gruppen_ be considered Classical but not _Gesang der Junglinge_, for example? I don't think that 'because it's Electronic' should be an answer: composers have always made use of new means to create new sounds. Should we not call Beethoven's piano music 'classical' because he uses a piano instead of a harpsichord? A lot of electronic works are written to be experienced in a concert setting, too.


I would not argue with anyone who said they include electronic music in their notion of classical music, although you'll have a difficult time convincing me to listen to it. 

The point is, I think, that it is impossible to draw a sharp demarkation line between what is and what isn't, nor should be try.


----------



## Thomyum2

Strange Magic said:


> What if, in our modesty, we say "*I think* it is good, beautiful, true?". My exquisite concern that I not impose my aesthetic views upon others but rather hope to mingle among like-minded aficionados, prevents me from uttering such pronunciamenti as "It is good!". I emphatically do not wish to assert a universal, intrinsic quality within a piece of art, extrinsic to me, that accounts for its "goodness" and thus is the agent of adhesion that binds me to others who like a work. We can discuss and agree that it is X that draws us to a given piece, or, just as useful, it may be X for me and Y for you. But I balk at liking something, or thinking I ought to, because it's good, beautiful, true.


I hear you, and that's why I think we're saying the same thing and misunderstanding each other at the same time. I'm not prescribing a particular behavior or advocating for a particular aesthetic - just more along the lines of describing that there are different levels of enjoying and appreciating art. And at the same time, you're saying you do have 'aesthetic views', so it sounds like you agree with that if you do have them. I guess where I make a distinction is by saying that these things can't be just a matter of an individual's taste. We develop our aesthetics through a process of interaction with others - I don't believe it's something that can happen in complete isolation. Again, it's like a language - we learn the meanings of words by understanding how they're used by others and I think that art works in a similar way.


----------



## Guest

fluteman said:


> Quick story: Pierre Boulez wrote his Sonatine for flute and piano in 1946 for his friend, the great French flutist Jean-Pierre Rampal. One feature of that formidable piece is the illusion of random or indeterminate rhythmic changes created with meticulous and strictly notated rhythmic shifts of dizzying speed and complexity. Rampal had an amazing ability to learn prodigious amounts of music almost immediately, which is one reason he could give over 100 concerts and make as many as 10 recordings per year at the peak of his career. But in 1946 he had just made his first recordings and was busy getting an international solo career started. Even he couldn't master that piece without a lot of time and effort that he was not willing to devote, and to my knowledge he never recorded or even performed it in public, though it was dedicated to him and is a flute repertoire standard today. I count at least eight different recordings that are in print right now. So the situation of classical music certainly has changed significantly since 1946.


That is an amazing piece!


----------



## Lisztian

Baron Scarpia said:


> I would not argue with anyone who said they include electronic music in their notion of classical music, although you'll have a difficult time convincing me to listen to it.
> 
> The point is, I think, that it is impossible to draw a sharp demarkation line between what is and what isn't, nor should be try.


Fair enough  I definitely agree with the last line. Especially in the post-modern age genre labels for new music are very frequently reductive and not of much use except for ease of reference and in superficial conversation.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> What if, in our modesty, we say "*I think* it is good, beautiful, true?". My exquisite concern that I not impose my aesthetic views upon others but rather hope to mingle among like-minded aficionados, prevents me from uttering such pronunciamenti as "It is good!". I emphatically do not wish to assert a universal, intrinsic quality within a piece of art, extrinsic to me, that accounts for its "goodness" and thus is the agent of adhesion that binds me to others who like a work. We can discuss and agree that it is X that draws us to a given piece, or, just as useful, it may be X for me and Y for you. But I balk at liking something, or thinking I ought to, because it's good, beautiful, true.


 "But I balk at liking something, or thinking I ought to, because it's good, beautiful, true."

If somebody with experience says that something is good, beautiful and/or true, they're saving you time. They're filtering for you. It'll save you time. It might focus you. This is what all criticism and learning is about. Life is very short and we all want it all..

This has been said so many times in these debates, here and on other discussion platforms. I should prolly just post a reading of Four Quartets by TS Eliot instead. <grin>


----------



## fluteman

Luchesi said:


> "But I balk at liking something, or thinking I ought to, because it's good, beautiful, true."
> 
> If somebody with experience says that something is good, beautiful and/or true, they're saving you time. They're filtering for you. t'll save you time. It might focus you. This is what all criticism and learning is about. Life is very short and we all want it all..
> 
> This has been said so many times in these debates, here and on other discussion platforms. I should prolly just post a reading of The Four Quartets by TS Eliot instead. <grin>


Don't worry about Strange Magic, I'm sure he makes good use of music scholarship and criticism, despite his comments here, which in any event are not inconsistent with a familiarity with some good scholarship.


----------



## arpeggio

WildThing said:


> I don't see how those two thing are contradictory. Holst may have one "hit" that has gained popularity with a much wider listening audience, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have other works that aren't of quality. No experiences are being invalidated.


I just used the Holst as an example. How many do you want?

I am not going to go to the Holst thread and regurgitate all of the arguments.

Maybe I should stop using examples.


----------



## Strange Magic

> Thomyum2: "... these things can't be just a matter of an individual's taste. We develop our aesthetics through a process of interaction with others - I don't believe it's something that can happen in complete isolation. Again, it's like a language - we learn the meanings of words by understanding how they're used by others and I think that art works in a similar way."


Actually they can be a matter of an individual's taste. While I was exposed to _cante flamenco_ in my teens, via a few TV appearances by José Greco, my _afición_ was developed for years in complete isolation from other enthusiasts. It was only much later that I found others with whom to interact, and, as usual, our tastes often differed. Books (acquired much later, after I found out they existed on flamenco) certainly helped, as did recordings, to familiarize myself with the dimensions of the art, but flamenco--like every other art--is riven with disagreement over bad, good, better, best. Same fights, different forums and subjects.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> Now you are venturing into deep water. Or is that just a reference to indeterminacy?
> 
> Quick story: Pierre Boulez wrote his Sonatine for flute and piano in 1946 for his friend, the great French flutist Jean-Pierre Rampal. One feature of that formidable piece is the illusion of random or indeterminate rhythmic changes created with meticulous and strictly notated rhythmic shifts of dizzying speed and complexity. Rampal had an amazing ability to learn prodigious amounts of music almost immediately, which is one reason he could give over 100 concerts and make as many as 10 recordings per year at the peak of his career. But in 1946 he had just made his first recordings and was busy getting an international solo career started. Even he couldn't master that piece without a lot of time and effort that he was not willing to devote, and to my knowledge he never recorded or even performed it in public, though it was dedicated to him and is a flute repertoire standard today. I count at least eight different recordings that are in print right now. So the situation of classical music certainly has changed significantly since 1946.


I can't relate this anecdote to my original post, to the ideas of which you didn't respond. So what are we talking about?


----------



## WildThing

arpeggio said:


> I just used the Holst as an example. How many do you want?


Examples of what exactly?


----------



## Strange Magic

Luchesi said:


> "But I balk at liking something, or thinking I ought to, because it's good, beautiful, true."
> 
> If somebody with experience says that something is good, beautiful and/or true, they're saving you time. They're filtering for you. t'll save you time. It might focus you. This is what all criticism and learning is about. Life is very short and we all want it all..


It's very often the art that drops into my lap, unexpected, uninvited, that most deeply and strongly appeals to me. Many, many examples can be provided upon request. Besides, what's your hurry--you seem to be in a race against time. And I don't need to be (more) focused; is that like electroshock?


----------



## DaveM

The prognosis for the future of classical music is even more dismal than it is if the definition is watered down to the point that any kind of fringe music is deemed part of it. Avant-garde music and electronic may have value as individual genres. A given Avant-garde work may be a wonderful example of avant-garde, but as classical music, no.

What would happen if a country music band started playing random sounds with sudden screeches from the guitars and tried to pass that off as country? How long would that fly?


----------



## Aloevera

I think the reason for debate on these matters is because we there is an inescapable form of ideology and values underneath the music - something that might not be so easily put to rest. 

It seems to me when someone is inclined to praise something they are more or less without knowing subscribing to a particular value system. When one is subscribed to that particular value system, the composer's victories become your victories. If I subscribe to the music of Mozart and then listen to the 38th symphony, I know damn well that I will never be able to compose such a symphony yet this never rattles me in the slightest. If anything it inspires me in seeing endless potential to drive towards. However I'll admit that when I hear something of musical flavor from let us say Liszt, it may rub me the wrong way as in my dogma may be in denial of the musicality in it because it in many ways goes against the musical system that I have subscribed to. 

I think because of this, it seems reasonable to stay open minded to some extent. The only problem is that form of dogma is a bit difficult avoid because there always becomes some set of values that takes its place. For example, pop music is something I personally enjoy a lot. What I particularly dislike is it does end up setting up a hierarchy of values in which one is made to be driven to create music that is popular, and someone with different motives might not particularly be given a place in society. I think it is this aspect of pop music - the fact that in some sense creates a hierarchy of its own is something which is to be attacked, not pop music in itself. I think why we might be inclined to criticize contemporary music, is not because of the "lack of talent" but I think because it presents itself as "anticlassicial" meaning that it seems to derive its worth from the flaws of classical thinking (which I will admit are many) rather than standing by itself. One cannot help but hear this ideological statement presented in it. 

One example of the passive aggression in music is: 
ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzaQixVGoQg

Is Mozart really just taking a dump on people who's musical abilities don't come so easily to them? Of course not. What he is attacking is the notion of the upper class making music to feel part in the aristocratic order without any real commitment to spirit. And more importantly this mindset gaining the authority in music - this is what he is "mocking" not lack of "talent". 

Now we can ask ourselves why the classical scholars are so inclined to place Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart at the head of classical music. I think we often ignore that a major component of these three is less their 'untouchability' but their moderation (of course there are many other reasons). It tells us that classical music is not about the excess of passions or drive for power so I suppose if one aspired to be a classical composer following these composers would be more healthy than if we were to place Liszt and Chopin for their virtuosity in their instruments which we can argue that their skill in the instrument exceeds the original three though I would say not in musicality. Does this mean that those three composers can never be touched, and we should be dogmatic and judge all future music by its resemblance to the three? No, all I'm saying is that the discussion on these topics have a deeper implication than what we might realize.


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> Don't worry about Strange Magic, I'm sure he makes good use of music scholarship and criticism, despite his comments here, which in any event are not inconsistent with a familiarity with some good scholarship.


Yes, he's adept at keeping interesting thoughts flowing, no matter the subject matter..


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> I can't relate this anecdote to my original post, to the ideas of which you didn't respond. So what are we talking about?


I was just trying to say, time is still passing much as it always has. Though it can be harder to see it when you're living through it. To quote Messrs. Bock and Harnick:
Is this the little girl I carried?
Is this the little boy at play?
I don't remember growing older,
When did they?


----------



## Thomyum2

Strange Magic said:


> Actually they can be a matter of an individual's taste. While I was exposed to _cante flamenco_ in my teens, via a few TV appearances by José Greco, my _afición_ was developed for years in complete isolation from other enthusiasts. It was only much later that I found others with whom to interact, and, as usual, our tastes often differed. Books (acquired much later, after I found out they existed on flamenco) certainly helped, as did recordings, to familiarize myself with the dimensions of the art, but flamenco--like every other art--is riven with disagreement over bad, good, better, best. Same fights, different forums and subjects.


That's not in isolation - you just said you were introduced to it by José Greco! That's a perfect case in point as to how an art was effectively communicated to you by someone.


----------



## arpeggio

WildThing said:


> Examples of what exactly?


I refuse to believe that a person of your intelligence does not already know the answer.


----------



## philoctetes

The music that is ok to deride is that which you don't like. Community approval is unnecessary. Otherwise critics would have nothing to do.


----------



## Tristan

I like the term "marmite music", that's funny.

All I have to contribute is: don't call me stupid for not liking the music you like or for liking music you don't like.

Otherwise, I'm not too interested in people's likes and dislikes other than as a means of discovering new music or having something in common with a person. I don't spend much of my energy deriding music I don't like. I just like discovering music that I like


----------



## Strange Magic

Thomyum2 said:


> That's not in isolation - you just said you were introduced to it by José Greco! That's a perfect case in point as to how an art was effectively communicated to you by someone.


Oh, please! Stop! I'm a dues-paying member of the League of United Solipsists, and we invent our own art forms all by ourselves. .


----------



## Fredx2098

philoctetes said:


> The music that is ok to deride is that which you don't like. Community approval is unnecessary. Otherwise critics would have nothing to do.


I don't think a critic's job should be to just insult music they don't like, or broadly insult entire styles or eras of art, without giving an explanation or having integrity. If a critic just said "this art has no value," I would not value their criticism. If someone writes off all modern art as bad, I would not respect their opinion, let alone consider them a valid critic. That's just a silly individual who gets off on being negative and snobby.


----------



## philoctetes

But we are talking about derision, not praise, or even constructive criticism. Still, if I don't like something, I don't have to care what others think. Not only that but I can change my mind. It's just music.


----------



## fluteman

DaveM said:


> The prognosis for the future of classical music is even more dismal than it is if the definition is watered down to the point that any kind of fringe music is deemed part of it. Avant-garde music and electronic may have value as individual genres. A given Avant-garde work may be a wonderful example of avant-garde, but as classical music, no.


On the other hand, your prognosis for the future of classical music may be completely wrong, as this one was:

"The Heroic [i.e., Beethoven's Third] Symphony contains much to admire, but it is difficult to keep up admiration of this kind during three long quarters of an hour. It is infinitely too lengthy… If this symphony is not by some means abridged, it will soon fall into disuse."
(The Harmonicon, London, April 1829)

Few things are easier to get wrong than predictions of the future.


----------



## philoctetes

I cannot fathom how the electronic nature of an instrument can make it unfit for the future of classical music. That would be a future where classical music ceases to exist entirely, given everything else that is pressuring it into obsolescence. 

This idea that CM should be sealed off from contamination by outside musical forces gets a little absurd when you look at how the music evolved, and how it needs nourishment to keep evolving or die...


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> I was just trying to say, time is still passing much as it always has.


Only if you tell time by the clock. Clock time doesn't govern cultural evolution. Cultural time may lag in some respects, hurry in others. And in the 20th century, with recordings and a global musical smorgasbord, time came to a complete halt, or went into reverse, for anyone who wanted it to. The flip from 1999 to 2000 changed nothing in that respect except to introduce more and subtler technologies to make controlling time even easier. Thus Josquin Desprez can now be more contemporary for me than Thomas Ades. Both will survive the passage of (clock) time, and we'll need something more to tell us who it's "too late to deride."


----------



## Lisztian

DaveM said:


> The prognosis for the future of classical music is even more dismal than it is if the definition is watered down to the point that any kind of fringe music is deemed part of it. Avant-garde music and electronic may have value as individual genres. A given Avant-garde work may be a wonderful example of avant-garde, but as classical music, no.
> 
> What would happen if a country music band started playing random sounds with sudden screeches from the guitars and tried to pass that off as country? How long would that fly?


It didn't happen suddenly though. I'm just wondering when it stopped being 'Classical'? Was it with Liszt's quartal harmonies and atonal leanings in his late works? Was it Debussy and his use of chords as sounds rather than devices with horizontal harmonic function? Debussy's late, more abstract works? Is it in the second string quartet of Schoenberg, where we suddenly feel air from another planet? But what about his influences, such as Wagner and Strauss pushing chromaticism to the breaking point. Were they almost not classical, and did Schoenberg suddenly become non-classical when he went from a late-romantic idiom into atonality? Did Stravinsky stop being classical when he started writing 12-tone music? Did Varese when he wrote _Poeme Electronique?_.

These people built on previous examples: they went further along paths that interested them. Beethoven's _Eroica_ and Berlioz' _Symphonie Fantastique_ also went further, building on what came before them. Are they not classical?


----------



## philoctetes

There is a musically genetic thread linking Mozart to Schoenberg through Schubert and Strauss, moving forward through almost two centuries. IMO Brahms went sideways more than forward, and gave everyone this crazy idea that it should continue to go sideways. At least he left a lot of chamber music that will provide repertory for small ensembles of the future.


----------



## KenOC

philoctetes said:


> I cannot fathom how the electronic nature of an instrument can make it unfit for the future of classical music. That would be a future where classical music ceases to exist entirely, given everything else that is pressuring it into obsolescence.
> 
> This idea that CM should be sealed off from contamination by outside musical forces gets a little absurd when you look at how the music evolved, and how it needs nourishment to keep evolving or die...


Electronic instruments are being used increasingly in classical music. Chapela wrote _Magnetar_, a very good concerto for the electronic cello (the Yamaha "silent cello") and John Adams's _The Dharma at Big Sur_, a concerto for an amplified electric violin, is well-known and quite popular. I believe the electric guitar has been used in some works.

More obviously "pure" electronic music has been used for over half a century either as the primary means of music production or in concert with vocals and traditional instruments.

I don't remember any controversy over whether any of this was or was not "classical music."


----------



## philoctetes

All our CDs have been mixer-processed, band-limited, bit-limited, A2D-sampled, perhaps compressed and decompressed, and finally crushed through a D2A before they ever reach your ears. Not to mention all those op amps... but don't ever pass that fiddle through a vacuum tube or else!

Pretty much everybody is using electronics in new music now, and new music is getting more Disneyfied, where it's not such a challenge anymore. Going sideways again perhaps. This gives the turn of the century some significance to me, for better or worse...


----------



## DaveM

fluteman said:


> On the other hand, your prognosis for the future of classical music may be completely wrong, as this one was:
> 
> "The Heroic [i.e., Beethoven's Third] Symphony contains much to admire, but it is difficult to keep up admiration of this kind during three long quarters of an hour. It is infinitely too lengthy… If this symphony is not by some means abridged, it will soon fall into disuse."
> (The Harmonicon, London, April 1829)
> 
> Few things are easier to get wrong than predictions of the future.


That's probably true and I hope I'm wrong, but the history of the last few decades is not encouraging. Still, an anecdote of a single quote about a single work is not particularly relevant.


----------



## DaveM

Lisztian said:


> It didn't happen suddenly though. I'm just wondering when it stopped being 'Classical'? Was it with Liszt's quartal harmonies and atonal leanings in his late works? Was it Debussy and his use of chords as sounds rather than devices with horizontal harmonic function? Debussy's late, more abstract works? Is it in the second string quartet of Schoenberg, where we suddenly feel air from another planet? But what about his influences, such as Wagner and Strauss pushing chromaticism to the breaking point. Were they almost not classical, and did Schoenberg suddenly become non-classical when he went from a late-romantic idiom into atonality? Did Stravinsky stop being classical when he started writing 12-tone music? Did Varese when he wrote _Poeme Electronique?_.
> 
> These people built on previous examples: they went further along paths that interested them. Beethoven's _Eroica_ and Berlioz' _Symphonie Fantastique_ also went further, building on what came before them. Are they not classical?


Atonal and atonal-like music didn't do it, per se. IMO, the downturn occurred when it was somehow decreed from on high that traditional tonal music was passé in academia and the works of traditional composers were ignored. If traditional tonal music had been allowed to continue along side by side with atonal we might have seen some talented composers continue to put out accessible works. (Yes, there is some return to tonal now, but it may be too little too late.)

But as I've said before, the development of avant-garde music was a Thelma & Louise for classical music. It has left us with a head-scratching public, wondering whether they are being punked.


----------



## philoctetes

Keeping CM alive will take many efforts on many fronts. We probably have to give up on producing grand massive music unless it is state-sponsored because it's unaffordable. It was always the music of kings anyway, but they now listen to Twaddle the Rapper. 

The CM future is already about cultish listeners, smaller ensembles, smaller venues, and compositions that exploit these factors. It won't survive if it clings to its anachronistic vanishing eliteness.


----------



## Lisztian

DaveM said:


> IMO, the downturn occurred when it was somehow decreed from on high that traditional tonal music was passé in academia and the works of traditional composers were ignored. If traditional tonal music had been allowed to continue along side by side with atonal we might have seen some talented composers continue to put out accessible works. (Yes, there is some return to tonal now, but it may be too little too late.)


I do agree that the attitudes of much of academia toward tonal music was often reprehensible and probably damaging as far as negating the individuality of students. There were, however, some fantastic tonal composers (who were quite popular) writing in these times, such as Britten, Shostakovich, Copland (after his early modernist period), Barber, Poulenc, Walton, and many more.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> Only if you tell time by the clock. Clock time doesn't govern cultural evolution. Cultural time may lag in some respects, hurry in others. And in the 20th century, with recordings and a global musical smorgasbord, time came to a complete halt, or went into reverse, for anyone who wanted it to. The flip from 1999 to 2000 changed nothing in that respect except to introduce more and subtler technologies to make controlling time even easier. Thus Josquin Desprez can now be more contemporary for me than Thomas Ades. Both will survive the passage of (clock) time, and we'll need something more to tell us who it's "too late to deride."


If you think time has come to a complete halt, you must not have teen-aged, much less adult, children.


----------



## jegreenwood

It bothers me that on a music forum a thread titled "Music That is OK to Deride" has reached 30 pages in 4 days.


----------



## KenOC

fluteman said:


> On the other hand, your prognosis for the future of classical music may be completely wrong, as this one was:
> 
> "The Heroic [i.e., Beethoven's Third] Symphony contains much to admire, but it is difficult to keep up admiration of this kind during three long quarters of an hour. It is infinitely too lengthy… If this symphony is not by some means abridged, it will soon fall into disuse."
> (The Harmonicon, London, April 1829)
> 
> Few things are easier to get wrong than predictions of the future.


Regardless of what Ayrton had to say in his 1829 Harmonicon review of the Eroica Symphony, it was already a favorite in England and could easily withstand his snipes at its length. It was more controversial in France, and it wouldn't even be heard in Italy for another 30 years. In Vienna and Germany, of course, it was well-established after almost a quarter century of performances.

The point is that Beethoven's Eroica survived and flourished because it was popular, and its popularity grew over time. The situation with "modernist" music may be different, but time will tell.


----------



## Luchesi

jegreenwood said:


> It bothers me that on a music forum a thread titled "Music That is OK to Deride" has reached 30 pages in 4 days.


"Talking about music is like dancing about architecture " ..and it never ends

I teach approaches to sight reading for youngsters and beginner adults and I'm tickled by;

Erroll Garner said, "No One Can Hear You Read."


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> If you think time has come to a complete halt, you must not have teen-aged, much less adult, children.


How can you so persistently miss, or ignore, the point of a conversation you're nominally engaged in? Do I need a remedial writing course?

I believe a review of posts #369 and #379 might help you stay on track - if you care to.


----------



## philoctetes

"wondering whether they are being punked"

A LOT of music does that to me actually. Sometimes I like being punked and don't care. Many Zappa and Cage fans probably feel that way. With John Luther Adams, I know I'm being punked and reject it. Different strokes.


----------



## Eusebius12

Enthusiast said:


> I saw on the telly the other day a scam whereby a comedian (Sacha Baron Cohen) fooled an upmarket gallery owner with artworks made of excrement. Conceptual art is not really for me - I often enjoy the concept and the social commentary but don't need to see the work (a photo is enough) - but good luck to those who do find it worthwhile and will pay good money for it.


More fool them I should say 

Although I add the caveat that there may be such works that fit my and others' criteria of art or even great art, I am just not personally acquainted with such. Dead Cow doesn't do a great deal for me either though.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> How can you so persistently miss, or ignore, the point of a conversation you're nominally engaged in? Do I need a remedial writing course?
> 
> I believe a review of posts #369 and #379 might help you stay on track - if you care to.


Oh, all right. I just finished up a session of playing Bach unaccompanied violin and cello sonatas, and so I'm in a better frame of mind to focus on your point more closely. First, permit me to comment on my post 369, since you brought it up. I never thought I would be put in a position where I felt it necessary to defend, much less champion, the work of Karlheinz Stockhausen, although one of my teachers studied with him as a Fulbright scholar. He and John Cage, another bête noire here, are part of our mid-20th century legacy, but so are Aaron Copland, Olivier Messiaen, Henri Dutilleux and Gyorgy Ligeti, for example, all important composers who went in entirely different directions. There is no reason to define the mid-20th century as the era of Stockhausen and Cage.

I feel that the mid-20th century is now far enough past that there is a need to put Stockhausen and Cage in historical perspective if one wants to discuss them seriously. Naysayers could respond that this alone is an indication that they were minor composers who will be forgotten entirely by future generations. I have no desire to debate that. Of course, it might be true, as one can never predict the future with certainty. And I can't say that anyone has to like their music, or that it is inherently "good", however one defines that term. But I can say that they played a significant role in the cultural environment of their time, and had their impact, on other musicians, other artists, and our culture generally. And that is really all an artist can hope to achieve.

As for your post 379, there isn't a great deal I can say. I would suggest that our modern technology, that allows anyone anywhere in the world to hear any music from anywhere instantaneously, or almost so, could be having the opposite effect from that which you suggest, i.e., that of making time speed up. People can form judgments, accepting or rejecting new music, vote with their money by deciding to download or stream or not, and pass their opinions on to everyone else around the globe, almost immediately. In contrast, Beethoven's 5th symphony was not performed in Paris until after his death. My first piano teacher's husband, the Swiss composer, conductor and pianist Ernst Levy, led the very first French performance of the Brahms Requiem in Paris in the 1920s.

It's a new world now, and while I can't claim that new artists with new ideas emerge more quickly, they certainly don't emerge more slowly. They just aren't emerging in the same places. A technological change that has had a major impact on issues raised repeatedly in threads here, including this one, that began in the early 20th century and continues today, is the transition away from live, non-amplified acoustical music and the traditional concert or opera hall. Many people, including I think some posters here, can't or won't separate their idea of "classical" music, or art music, or serious music, if one prefers those terms, from that context, one that is gradually becoming obsolete. In an effort to serve or at least comfort them, most orchestras still dress in black formal attire that one sees almost nowhere else nowadays, and I am surprised at the success of this charade. For these patrons, perhaps time is coming to a halt as you say. And I suppose it's not too surprising they would be particularly annoyed at Stockhausen and Cage. The former, for pointing towards the electronic future, and the later for being a gleeful provocateur, thumbing his nose at sacred traditions.

In an interview, Zubin Mehta once described the concert hall as a museum. I agree entirely. It is a venue for celebrating our glorious cultural heritage. And while there is nothing wrong with a museum featuring more recent and even some contemporary art along with more traditional fare, the central purpose of a museum is not to serve as a contemporary cultural breeding ground or laboratory, but to provide education and inspiration from our past. To me, those who have concluded that great music ends with the end of the non-amplified, acoustic era, greatly underestimate and disrespect the creative potential of the human mind. In any event, if they didn't like mid- or late-20th century music, I suspect they are bound to like 21st century music even less.


----------



## Eusebius12

DaveM said:


> The prognosis for the future of classical music is even more dismal than it is if the definition is watered down to the point that any kind of fringe music is deemed part of it. Avant-garde music and electronic may have value as individual genres. A given Avant-garde work may be a wonderful example of avant-garde, but as classical music, no.
> 
> What would happen if a country music band started playing random sounds with sudden screeches from the guitars and tried to pass that off as country? How long would that fly?


I don't fully agree, but it is true to say that much avant-garde is a far higher wall to cross for the casual listener, especially the mass casual listener


----------



## Eusebius12

philoctetes said:


> But we are talking about derision, not praise, or even constructive criticism. Still, if I don't like something, I don't have to care what others think. Not only that but I can change my mind. It's just music.


Constructive criticism is essential. As is praise. Without constructive criticism or praise, modern music will (and often does) languish. Because some artists are hypersensitive, the public doesn't often know what critics really think. Without differentiation of some kind, all new music is lumped together. Without differentiation, works cannot fail, or be really successful. This does disservice to the artists. We must criticize what we feel to be weak in order to praise what we believe to be good. And this benefits artists and living music in the long run.


----------



## Eusebius12

fluteman said:


> On the other hand, your prognosis for the future of classical music may be completely wrong, as this one was:
> 
> "The Heroic [i.e., Beethoven's Third] Symphony contains much to admire, but it is difficult to keep up admiration of this kind during three long quarters of an hour. It is infinitely too lengthy… If this symphony is not by some means abridged, it will soon fall into disuse."
> (The Harmonicon, London, April 1829)
> 
> Few things are easier to get wrong than predictions of the future.


I think it is somewhat disingenuous to compare the critical reception of someone like Beethoven to some in the avant garde or even the serialists as a whole. Beethoven's music was in accepted forms, was really not that difficult to process, and within a few years of his death nearly everything he wrote was in the active repertory. Similarly, Wagner had many brickbats of critical opprobrium hurled his way during his lifetime, but had legions of fans. His music was commercially viable in his lifetime. As composers stretched the harmonic vocabulary, the vocabulary of vitriol of the critics was similarly expanded. The critical reaction of Beethoven's late works paled in comparison with Schoenberg's first essays in atonalism. But even Schoenberg's work seemed to be more part of a living performing tradition in 1920 than many modern composers, whose work is generally ignored or pulled out for a very occasional performance with a major orchestra. There are a few exceptions, but not many. On the other hand, everything Beethoven wrote was performed, analyzed, purchased, by the musical world.


----------



## Eusebius12

philoctetes said:


> There is a musically genetic thread linking Mozart to Schoenberg through Schubert and Strauss, moving forward through almost two centuries. IMO Brahms went sideways more than forward, and gave everyone this crazy idea that it should continue to go sideways. At least he left a lot of chamber music that will provide repertory for small ensembles of the future.


There are connections, just as there are connections between Wagner and Daffy Duck. 
But Schoenberg obviously proceeds from Strauss and Wagner, just as Debussy and Scriabin represent tonal evolution. I feel that rigid serialism was a bit of a blind alley though.


----------



## Eusebius12

DaveM said:


> it was somehow decreed from on high that traditional tonal music was passé in academia and the works of traditional composers were ignored. If traditional tonal music had been allowed to continue along side by side with atonal we might have seen some talented composers continue to put out accessible works. (Yes, there is some return to tonal now, but it may be too little too late.)


(edit)

I do believe that many talents were maimed by the force feeding of avant garde procedures.


----------



## Larkenfield

Eusebius12 said:


> There are connections, just as there are connections between Wagner and Daffy Duck...


For fun. Not Daffy Duck but perhaps close enough...






Posted only for a silly lighthearted diversion. :tiphat:


----------



## KenOC

Eusebius12 said:


> (edit)
> 
> I do believe that many talents were maimed by the force feeding of avant garde procedures.


John Adams describes his relations with his composition teacher, Roger Sessions, as "difficult." Sessions was largely a serialist. Adams reports that when he would present some of his work, largely tonal, Sessions would say, "Don't bring that stuff in here."


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> Atonal and atonal-like music didn't do it, per se. IMO, the downturn occurred when it was somehow decreed from on high that traditional tonal music was passé in academia and the works of traditional composers were ignored. If traditional tonal music had been allowed to continue along side by side with atonal we might have seen some talented composers continue to put out accessible works. (Yes, there is some return to tonal now, but it may be too little too late.)
> 
> But as I've said before, the development of avant-garde music was a Thelma & Louise for classical music. It has left us with a head-scratching public, wondering whether they are being punked.


I find it puzzling that people think that "academics" could somehow prevent tonal music from being written and performed, especially since most music written and performed after Schoenberg was tonal, and in every other field of endeavor students are quite free to ignore their teachers once they get their degrees.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> John Adams describes his relations with his composition teacher, Roger Sessions, as "difficult." Sessions was largely a serialist. Adams reports that when he would present some of his work, largely tonal, Sessions would say, "Don't bring that stuff in here."


And so what? Adams is clearly more popular and widely performed than Sessions. How the the fact that Sessions was not interested in some of Adams' tonal works cause harm? We're supposedly talking about the successors the Beethoven here, not timid students who crave the approval of their teachers. If Mozart told young Beethoven that his music was too brash, would Beethoven have gone home sniveling and start writing dainty minuets?


----------



## Ariasexta

To talk about musical criticism, lets not pretend that music is something detached from the general thinking of our modern age. Be noted that some people will use science as a replacement to everything classical in terms of human ideology. Marx use science to attack traditional values, faith, even distinctive cultures, although he himself know about science as much as a high schooler of his time. So that marxists can separate the chain of cause and effect, putting every people into an impasse while trying to see the whole picture of the corruption. It is like saying, individual crime has nothing to do with government, corporate crime is not a form of power corruption, just simply economic crime.Our society is full of such excuses to circumvent our attention. The same thing happens to musical field as well, so purely music for music is in fact almost impossible in practise, nobody can produce a piece of genuine baroque style music in our day, not even reproduce the genuine effect of them. So we are inseparably bound by our age, do not try to deny this. 

To be fair, I will confess a hypocrisy of mine baroque taste, the vbrato, I hate much vibrato in baroque music, but in fact, I do not totally deny the possibility that many period singers used vibrato as early as in 1600, I still pretend that vibrato is inauthentic. The hatred for vibrato may be my own guilt of ignorance but I do not care anymore. So I highly probably have just gone along with our modern imaginary picture of the period, and abused genuine period style. Guess what, I do not care.This is what I want, and I am alsso a modernist myself. Mbaye, my vehement hostility toward progressivist music is just another side of coin of my ingrained modernism. It is an incurable modern hypocrisy of me, and I confess and continue to justify myself. 

So it all comes down to What is wrong with modern thoughts? Somehow in our age, giving authority to a person seem to give exemption from all kind of restrain by common senses, which are so much under attack from the so call intellectuals today. They over-stretch their inherent hypocrisy, that it is. If they do not want to make a confession like me, they should keep silent where they should.


----------



## KenOC

Baron Scarpia said:


> And so what? Adams is clearly more popular and widely performed than Sessions. How the the fact that Sessions was not interested in some of Adams' tonal works cause harm? We're supposedly talking about the successors the Beethoven here, not timid students who crave the approval of their teachers.


Probably caused no great harm in this case! However most students might want to have a chance for a passing grade.


----------



## Ariasexta

To deride music of any specific kind? deride yourself first, just like I have just done in above post. I exposed my own hypocrisy, but I still uphold my own prejudice toward some kind of music. It is me, it is incurable.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> Probably caused no great harm in this case! However most students might want to have a chance for a passing grade.


You get your passing grade, you get your diploma, and you do what you want. We are taking about composers, not certified public accountants.


----------



## KenOC

Baron Scarpia said:


> You get your passing grade, you get your diploma, and you do what you want. We are taking about composers, not certified public accountants.


Hmmm. An interesting view on the roles of musical conservatories. Thanks for sharing!


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> I feel that the mid-20th century is now far enough past that there is a need to put Stockhausen and Cage in historical perspective if one wants to discuss them seriously. Naysayers could respond that this alone is an indication that they were minor composers who will be forgotten entirely by future generations. I have no desire to debate that...I can't say that anyone has to like their music, or that it is inherently "good", however one defines that term. But I can say that they played a significant role in the cultural environment of their time, and had their impact, on other musicians, other artists, and our culture generally.
> 
> As for your post 379, there isn't a great deal I can say. I would suggest that our modern technology, that allows anyone anywhere in the world to hear any music from anywhere instantaneously, or almost so, could be having the opposite effect from that which you suggest, i.e., that of making time speed up. People can form judgments, accepting or rejecting new music, vote with their money by deciding to download or stream or not, and pass their opinions on to everyone else around the globe, almost immediately. In contrast, Beethoven's 5th symphony was not performed in Paris until after his death. My first piano teacher's husband, the Swiss composer, conductor and pianist Ernst Levy, led the very first French performance of the Brahms Requiem in Paris in the 1920s.
> 
> It's a new world now, and while I can't claim that new artists with new ideas emerge more quickly, they certainly don't emerge more slowly. They just aren't emerging in the same places. A technological change that has had a major impact on issues raised repeatedly in threads here, including this one, that began in the early 20th century and continues today, is the transition away from live, non-amplified acoustical music and the traditional concert or opera hall.
> 
> In an interview, Zubin Mehta once described the concert hall as a museum. I agree entirely. It is a venue for celebrating our glorious cultural heritage. And while there is nothing wrong with a museum featuring more recent and even some contemporary art along with more traditional fare, the central purpose of a museum is not to serve as a contemporary cultural breeding ground or laboratory, but to provide education and inspiration from our past.


I can't take exception to any of this. However, my intention in post #379 was to respond to this statement of yours: _'I find it odd that most of the "contemporary" or "post modern" music frequently derided in this and other threads here, (that of Elliott Carter, Karlheinz Stockhausen, Morton Feldman, or Pierre Boulez, for example) is well over 50 years old at this point. That music has already survived the passage of time...So in an important sense, it is too late to deride Stockhausen.'
_
My reaction boils down to: it is not odd, and it is not too late. Being over 50 years old doesn't put art into a glass case; music's age doesn't assure it a clear position in history or take it out of the contemporary arena of discussion and debate. Things were different once: in 1850, music composed in 1790 would have long since been "processed" by the classical music audience, it would have been considered "old music," and its survival in the repertoire would have been a tribute to its broad and enduring appeal. But in 20i8, even some music composed a century ago is still widely felt to be "modern," and its survival has to be attributed to something other than broad public interest.

This represents a historical shift in the evolution of musical culture. Contributing factors are accumulating scholarship, the proliferation of musical institutions, and especially recording technology, which have allowed music of every time and place to be available and "contemporary." People have easy access to whatever sort of music they prefer and not only to what's being offered them by the current representatives of the classical tradition. Under these circumstances the age and survival of any music is no longer the meaningful thing it once was; in an era when all music can be kept alive and can attract listeners as well as influence composers, survival and influence are no longer such clear indicators of any composer's importance or value. And where all music, past and present, is available for comparison and criticism, all music is going to receive the full range of responses from a public that has the whole history of the art as context for the formation of its values. Personally, I find this invigorating, and see no reason why Mr. Stockhausen (or any other composer of 50-year-old music) shouldn't take his knocks. After all, Mozart does.


----------



## DaveM

Baron Scarpia said:


> And so what? Adams is clearly more popular and widely performed than Sessions. How the the fact that Sessions was not interested in some of Adams' tonal works cause harm? We're supposedly talking about the successors the Beethoven here, not timid students who crave the approval of their teachers. If Mozart told young Beethoven that his music was too brash, would Beethoven have gone home sniveling and start writing dainty minuets?


So your perspective comes from the belief that the composing environment in the 20th century was the same as in the first half of the 19th? And Adams was a successor of Beethoven?


----------



## Woodduck

Baron Scarpia said:


> I find it puzzling that people think that "academics" could somehow prevent tonal music from being written and performed, especially since most music written and performed after Schoenberg was tonal, and in every other field of endeavor students are quite free to ignore their teachers once they get their degrees.


Anyone can write whatever they wish, but most composers also hope that their work will be performed, that they'll find positions in the educational establishment (since few can survive solely by composing), and that they'll make enough money to live on. There is such a thing as the politics of the art world. You should read up on the politics of the American musical academy during the days of serialist hegemony. I'm sure someone here could direct you to good sources.


----------



## mmsbls

DaveM said:


> The prognosis for the future of classical music is even more dismal than it is if the definition is watered down to the point that any kind of fringe music is deemed part of it. Avant-garde music and electronic may have value as individual genres. A given Avant-garde work may be a wonderful example of avant-garde, but as classical music, no.
> 
> What would happen if a country music band started playing random sounds with sudden screeches from the guitars and tried to pass that off as country? How long would that fly?


Several people in this thread have talked about avant-garde music, but I'm not sure I know exactly what they mean by avant-garde. Could you give examples of avant-garde composers? Do you mean Debussy, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Varese, Stockhausen, Cage, Boulez? Do you mean less well known modern composers?

Also I have trouble believing that you honestly think most avant-garde music is comprised of random sounds. I remember awhile ago when I was very unfamiliar with modern music, many works _sounded to me_ as though they contained random notes, but I never imagined that the average modern composer actually used random sounds. I simply thought I didn't know how to listen well.


----------



## KenOC

There seems to be a view that music often must be a trial to listen to, that a lot of work and repeated hearings are needed to “appreciate” it. That it may sound ugly, but that hearing it again and again, and perhaps reading a few key texts, will bring about an acceptance.

What balderedash. Not one person in a thousand is willing to make such an “investment,” for that is what it is. With that thinking, is it any wonder that “our” kind of music makes up less than three percent of the market? And that most of that three percent was written two centuries ago?


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> There seems to be a view that music often must be a trial to listen to, that a lot of work and repeated hearings are needed to "appreciate" it. That it may sound ugly, but that hearing it again and again, and perhaps reading a few key texts, will bring about an acceptance.
> 
> What balderedash. Not one person in a thousand is willing to make such an "investment," for that is what it is. With that thinking, is it any wonder that "our" kind of music makes up less than three percent of the market? And that most of that three percent was written two centuries ago?


I agree that the notion that music should require hard work is perverse, but I don't think that notion has much to do with the classical music market share.


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> I agree that the notion that music should require hard work is perverse, but I don't think that notion has much to do with the classical music market share.


I think there is a connection. Any genre that is not creating new music that excites people is seen (rightly) as dead, and there's little happening in our kind of music to make anybody's pulse beat faster.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> I think there is a connection. Any genre that is not creating new music that excites people is seen (rightly) as dead, and there's little happening in our kind of music to make anybody's pulse beat faster.


If the idea that musical enjoyment should require a special education and hard labor is determining the kind of music composers write - which it probably is in some cases - then yes, I see a connection to classical music's failure to attract larger audiences. But the solution isn't obvious. "Write stuff people will like" isn't as simple as it sounds.


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> If the idea that musical enjoyment should require a special education and hard labor is determining the kind of music composers write - which it probably is in some cases - then yes, I see a connection to classical music's failure to attract larger audiences. But the solution isn't obvious. "Write stuff people will like" isn't as simple as it sounds.


What other advice could we ever have offered anyone? But in fact there are plenty of people writing music people like. Just not in our little mud puddle. And so it goes.


----------



## haydnguy

About 7 or 8 years ago I got on a chat support line on Amazon. They had come out with a feature that if you bought a CD that they would put it up in their cloud drive and you could listen to it anywhere, such as your phone. 

The problem was that they would only copy a certain number of tracks from each CD and each track that was copied seemed random with no discernible way that you could see why it copied one track and not another. As I was telling the support person, that is fine for a Taylor Swift CD but it totally useless for a classical fan because pieces are viewed as a whole. (A symphony might be 4 movements). The CM was being split up by tracks so that you might only hear the 3rd movement of a symphony.

I finally got the person at Amazon to realize what I was talking about. (He probably knew nothing about CM). But he did ask his supervisor and they said there was nothing they could do about it, which was honest.

Now I hear that DG and some other labels have a deal with Apple to give Apple the right to play these labels CM on Apple's iTunes. I believe the same problem might happen with Apple that happened with Amazon. The whole setup is designed for pop music where each track (song) is independent. If so, that would be a terrible blow to classical music because younger people and people who didn't know better would only be hearing one movement here and one movement there. 

No doubt the labels got some needed cash from Apple but they must be pretty desperate to agree to an arrangement like that. I hope I'm wrong but that's the impression I got from what I read.

Lastly, one thing that struck me when I first started listening to classical music was that performers that were advertised and newly in the spotlight were virtually ignored on the forums. I'm not talking about the music, I'm speaking of performers. 

Thinking off the top of my head, I would say Daniil Trifonov is fairly new on the scene and has gotten respect. If I were just starting to listen to CM he would catch my ear and I would probably always like his playing because I would associate him with when I first started listening. But he is probably the exception.


----------



## DavidA

I think a whole lot of modern composers were writing to please the 'in' crowd rather than writing what people liked. Composers who wrote tonal music were derided but now it is their compositions that are played mainly not the atonal stuff. The reason? They actually wrote what people enjoyed. Rachmaninov is a prime example. Grove said he was rubbish and no-one would listen to him in 40 years. Amazing how people can be wrong`?


----------



## Enthusiast

Isn't it rather familiar, the idea that some "authority" imposed music we don't like upon us? Doesn't it lead to the backwoods and a large stock of weapons and ammunition? OK, an exaggeration but let's have some rigour here. Was there ever a time when the big names of tonal music in the 20th Century were ignored and widely derided in favour of more experimental forms and approaches? No, I don't think there was. Sibelius, Prokofiev, Shostakovich and Britten have always been relatively popular, Rachmaninov was a staple composer for young lovers in Hollywood films and so on. The resistance to them was as much (or more) from the traditionalists as from the intellectual fans of the avant garde and, certainly, the traditionalist argument had more influence over concert programming. Yes, there were people who loved Stockhausen and laughed at Shostakovich. So what? The century was vibrant: there was incredible variety and there were many battles but I don't think there was ever a time when the popularity of the more accessible composers - or those who had real merit, anyway - was threatened. Those battles are perhaps over now but we seem to be fighting them still. I don't know why. 

Nor do I get the claim from the more traditionally minded that the music they approve of has been unfairly neglected. As the passion they put into their advocacy rests on that feeling this seems fairly important.


----------



## Enthusiast

Would Bach have used a synthesiser if he had had one. Possibly. Probably. Why does classical music have to be acoustic? Because it was and it is defined by many as a music of the past. But is it really difficult to accept new instruments? Classical music did during its history. 

What matters is the music and whether or not it works. Personally, I find most purely electronic music I have heard to be a little sterile (so it may not work for me). But this is very similar to my attitude to organ music - not a genre I spend a lot of time with. And I know quite a few pieces where electronic sounds are included in the orchestral or chamber music sound mix very powerfully. For me, a definition of classical music has to include electronic instruments and this is because they are there and it works.


----------



## Lisztian

"writing what people liked"

"They actually wrote what people enjoyed"

"plenty of people writing music people like. Just not in our little mud puddle"

"little happening in our kind of music to make anybody's pulse beat faster."

I wasn't aware that creatures such as myself, Enthusiast, shirime, aleazk, Andrew Ford (whose great book 'illegal harmonies' I am currently reading), Samuel Andreyev (whose youtube channel I've been enjoying lately and recommend), to name just a few that I've noticed while wriggling along the last few days, are not human. 

'People' don't like Shostakovich and Britten either: just compare their fan-bases with that of Kendrick Lamar! Or, from their time, The Beatles or The Rolling Stones.


----------



## Enthusiast

KenOC said:


> There seems to be a view that music often must be a trial to listen to, that a lot of work and repeated hearings are needed to "appreciate" it. That it may sound ugly, but that hearing it again and again, and perhaps reading a few key texts, will bring about an acceptance.
> 
> What balderedash. Not one person in a thousand is willing to make such an "investment," for that is what it is. With that thinking, is it any wonder that "our" kind of music makes up less than three percent of the market? And that most of that three percent was written two centuries ago?


Dogs and rats will painfully cross an electrified grid to reach an anticipated reward. I have found that the most rewarding books often took considerably more effort than pot boilers but they gave back more. Fortunately, they are often very memorable so I can put a great book down for a month or more and, when I pick it up again, it is as if I was reading it the day before. It is as if within their denseness - the denseness that can make them hard work - is real energy and life. That is what keeps me going - there are plenty of books that I have abandoned as merely hard work - but you do sometimes have to postpone the main reward in the knowledge that it will be greater.


----------



## Guest

Electronic music sterile? My man, you have some some homework to do! 

I assign you to listen to the following:


----------



## Enthusiast

^ I will try  .... and actually I have known and liked the Stockhausen for decades. But I hope this isn't going to be like my exploration of organ music ... music that impressed but didn't get inside me.


----------



## Guest

Enthusiast said:


> ^ I will try  .... and actually I have known and liked the Stockhausen for decades. But I hope this isn't going to be like my exploration of organ music ... music that impressed but didn't get inside me.


That's probably my favourite early Stockhausen work actually!

Hmmm....what organ music have you heard? There was a really cool piece by (I think) a Korean composer I heard recently which I thought was particularly musical and inventive in its use of the colours possible on the organ. (lemme go find it........)


----------



## Guest

Ah yes here is the organ piece. Honestly, to me it's the best organ work I've ever heard.*






*Dang it I just remembered there's also a Hölszky CD released by WERGO that has a significant amount of organ music on it. From what I remember, it wasn't as colourful as this piece is and it also included some other instruments in each piece. But it's worth hearing I reckon.


----------



## Triplets

As a latecomer to the thread....I think it’s ok to criticize anything. It leads to discussion. Hopefully that discussion can be reasonable. Even if it isn’t it’s more interesting than consensus without analysis


----------



## DavidA

Lisztian said:


> "writing what people liked"
> 
> "They actually wrote what people enjoyed"
> 
> "plenty of people writing music people like. Just not in our little mud puddle"
> 
> "little happening in our kind of music to make anybody's pulse beat faster."
> 
> I wasn't aware that creatures such as myself, Enthusiast, shirime, aleazk, Andrew Ford (whose great book 'illegal harmonies' I am currently reading), Samuel Andreyev (whose youtube channel I've been enjoying lately and recommend), to name just a few that I've noticed while wriggling along the last few days, are not human.
> 
> 'People' don't like Shostakovich and Britten either: just compare their fan-bases with that of Kendrick Lamar! Or, from their time, The Beatles or The Rolling Stones.


You are being somewhat pedantic here over the use of semantics. I we just think about this for a moment - we are on a Classical Music forum which wipes out admirers of the Beatles and the Rolling Stones in how we use the word 'people' here. We therefore use 'people' in the sense of 'people [in general] who like classical music'. So when we talk about a composer writing 'music that people like' we mean 'music that the mainstream of classical music lovers like'. I think you will agree that Beethoven and Mozart have a rather wider fan base than, say, Stockhausen. Having said that I am in no way saying that people shouldn't listen to Stockhausen - as long as I'm not present when they do!


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> There seems to be a view that music often must be a trial to listen to, that a lot of work and repeated hearings are needed to "appreciate" it. That it may sound ugly, but that hearing it again and again, and perhaps reading a few key texts, will bring about an acceptance.
> 
> What balderedash.


Well if you present "a view" in this slightly extreme way, it might seem "balderdash" to you. In fact, there is a slightly lesser view that for some listeners, repeated listenings are needed for the worth of a work to be fully appreciated.

This is not a matter of compulsion (no one is forced to listen repeadtedly to what they dislike). But nor is the opposite a requirement: that the composer must only write what provides immediate gratification.

To my ears on first listening, Mahler was largely unrewarding. I decided to persevere, to make an effort, to put in some "hard work" (which I'm still doing) and I have found his work rewarding as a result. On the other hand, I've put in less work with the more accessible composers (Mozart being one example) as I don't consider it worth the effort. My loss, perhaps, but let's not throw out the idea that concentrated effort is sometimes required for the rewards to follow; or that "hard work" will always yield rewards. Sometimes you decide to give up - the "ugliness" isn't going away!


----------



## Lisztian

DavidA said:


> You are being somewhat pedantic here over the use of semantics. I we just think about this for a moment - we are on a Classical Music forum which wipes out admirers of the Beatles and the Rolling Stones in how we use the word 'people' here. We therefore use 'people' in the sense of 'people [in general] who like classical music'. So when we talk about a composer writing 'music that people like' we mean 'music that the mainstream of classical music lovers like'. I think you will agree that Beethoven and Mozart have a rather wider fan base than, say, Stockhausen. Having said that I am in no way saying that people shouldn't listen to Stockhausen - as long as I'm not present when they do!


I see what you're saying and I was indeed being pedantic. I don't like the idea regardless as it suggests that the 'mainstream of classical music lovers,' however vague that is (the mainstream have different common practice likes and dislikes), is the most important group of listeners and that composers should write specifically for them (I must say I have more of a problem with the content of what Ken said than what you said). That is not what made classical music the vibrant art form it was (and for people like me, what it is now). I much prefer the idea that composers should choose freely what to write based on their aesthetic ideas after a dispassionate study of tradition as well as the present. This of course does mean I have some sympathy with the 'other side,' because at times in the 20thC composers were not encouraged to write what they thought was interesting but rather what their teachers found to be interesting.

Fair enough about your last line re Stockhausen.


----------



## Ariasexta

Even though popular market is necessary for thr revival, it does not mean sufficient appreciation is as up to the popular market as is the financing for revival. Also it does not mean that popular opinion however transcient is unimportant, it is indeed important for the manifest of our thinking as a benchmark of our Age. However, almost fascist-like fellowship of some taste will come as destined as the rule of day and night. When there is progressivism, there will be conservatism, the bitterness will be apparent for those who have serious ideas in debates. Just like avant-guard artists who taste the bitterness of derision and competition. Remind yourself of the bitterness Monteverdi tasted for his book 8th of madrigals, JS Bach`s criticism for piano, and Mozart`s austere musical tastes etc. Maybe, it is difficult to revive genuine period effect, but classical austerity remains and will continue to survive and challenge all forms of progressivism.


----------



## Thomyum2

MacLeod said:


> Well if you present "a view" in this slightly extreme way, it might seem "balderdash" to you. In fact, there is a slightly lesser view that for some listeners, repeated listenings are needed for the worth of a work to be fully appreciated.
> 
> This is not a matter of compulsion (no one is forced to listen repeadtedly to what they dislike). But nor is the opposite a requirement: that the composer must only write what provides immediate gratification.
> 
> To my ears on first listening, Mahler was largely unrewarding. I decided to persevere, to make an effort, to put in some "hard work" (which I'm still doing) and I have found his work rewarding as a result. On the other hand, I've put in less work with the more accessible composers (Mozart being one example) as I don't consider it worth the effort. My loss, perhaps, but let's not throw out the idea that concentrated effort is sometimes required for the rewards to follow; or that "hard work" will always yield rewards. Sometimes you decide to give up - the "ugliness" isn't going away!


Yes, well said - I'd also add that for a composer to only write to please their audience is a near impossible task - audiences and composers alike are so diverse in tastes that there's no way to satisfy everyone. I think most composers want to be true to themselves and to their vision and inspiration of what is good in music and they hope that they will find an audience that appreciates what they do. I for one, am grateful for those who take this approach rather than just trying to find a market, as it opens up new worlds of music to experience and enjoy.

And on the second point, I really don't think the task of learning to appreciate unfamiliar music is 'hard work' - any more than solving a challenging crossword puzzle is hard work for someone who enjoys doing them. After all, we're talking about the investment of a little time and attention and curiosity here. Listening to and discovering new things is an adventure! No, it doesn't always turn out perfectly, but the rewards I've gained in doing this far exceed the costs.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> I can't take exception to any of this. However, my intention in post #379 was to respond to this statement of yours: _'I find it odd that most of the "contemporary" or "post modern" music frequently derided in this and other threads here, (that of Elliott Carter, Karlheinz Stockhausen, Morton Feldman, or Pierre Boulez, for example) is well over 50 years old at this point. That music has already survived the passage of time...So in an important sense, it is too late to deride Stockhausen.'
> _
> My reaction boils down to: it is not odd, and it is not too late. Being over 50 years old doesn't put art into a glass case; music's age doesn't assure it a clear position in history or take it out of the contemporary arena of discussion and debate. Things were different once: in 1850, music composed in 1790 would have long since been "processed" by the classical music audience, it would have been considered "old music," and its survival in the repertoire would have been a tribute to its broad and enduring appeal. But in 20i8, even some music composed a century ago is still widely felt to be "modern," and its survival has to be attributed to something other than broad public interest.
> 
> This represents a historical shift in the evolution of musical culture. Contributing factors are accumulating scholarship, the proliferation of musical institutions, and especially recording technology, which have allowed music of every time and place to be available and "contemporary." People have easy access to whatever sort of music they prefer and not only to what's being offered them by the current representatives of the classical tradition. Under these circumstances the age and survival of any music is no longer the meaningful thing it once was; in an era when all music can be kept alive and can attract listeners as well as influence composers, survival and influence are no longer such clear indicators of any composer's importance or value. And where all music, past and present, is available for comparison and criticism, all music is going to receive the full range of responses from a public that has the whole history of the art as context for the formation of its values. Personally, I find this invigorating, and see no reason why Mr. Stockhausen (or any other composer of 50-year-old music) shouldn't take his knocks. After all, Mozart does.


All fair enough. But my point (no doubt poorly expressed) was, one still needs historical perspective, and that hasn't changed due to the instant judgments possible today, if anything more historical perspective is needed to let the noise die down. Eras featuring major shifts in basic cultural paradigms in particular need both rabble rousers and provocateurs and reactionaries and traditionalists until new paradigms are established and generally accepted. The end results reflect the contributions from all sides. So there isn't much point in attacking or ridiculing Stockhausen or Cage, or championing them as "great composers", for that matter. They were products of their era, and played their role, which was an important one, in my opinion.


----------



## Ariasexta

Giving chances to some kinds of music is not about forcing oneself to adjust, but rather, is about assuming a manner in learning. The decisive attitude starts not from when you fall in love with the piece but which you choose. Something I will just never like, I will not give any chance to it, but the point is not being beautiful or not, it is that I am totally bound by preoccupation, giving me no spare time for levity. (Or, I judge that outside of preoccupation is not worthy of spare time.) If any sort of music is for recreation only, why would not choose my favorite rock? The same goes for those who choose against mine as off-preoccupation, they would feel it unworthy for their time. Even given infinite lifetime, I would not try too.


----------



## arpeggio

As long as a member does not promote censorship, I really do not care what they think. They can hate whatever to their hearts content.


----------



## Guest

arpeggio said:


> As long as a member does not promote censorship


This is an interesting point. I suspect that the notion of "freedom of speech" is viewed rather differently in different parts of the world. The concept is framed differently in legislation and constitutions, where they exist, and is, of course connected to the notion of freedom of thought.

Consequently, it shouldn't be assumed that "freedom of speech" means the same thing everywhere, or that it is some universal absolute to which we must all subscribe. Therefore, we also need to recognise that "censorship" also means different things to different cultures, even within the allegedly "free Western democracies".

Personally, I don't subscribe to the idea that _everyone _is entitled to say, literally, _anything _they like, regardless of context or consequence. I also don't subscribe to the notion that everyone is entitled to think anything they like either.

In the context of music, that's because I think dialogue that explores difference of opinion is helped by moderation in expression, not hindered. It's possible to express oneself forcefully without being deliberately abusive or insulting. A call for restraint in expression is not, IMO, censorship, but I can see how those who advocate total freedom of speech might regard it as such.


----------



## Enthusiast

arpeggio said:


> As long as a member does not promote censorship, I really do not care what they think. They can hate whatever to their hearts content.


There has been a suggestion (in this thread, I think) that discussions avant garde music (I think - it may have been serial music) should be excluded from this forum (on the grounds that this is a classical music forum). One or two supported it but most ignored it. Strangely, the suggestion came from people who expend quite a lot of effort talking about avant garde music. Maybe they wanted a rest rather than to close down discussions.


----------



## Luchesi

Ariasexta said:


> Even though popular market is necessary for thr revival, it does not mean sufficient appreciation is as up to the popular market as is the financing for revival. Also it does not mean that popular opinion however transcient is unimportant, it is indeed important for the manifest of our thinking as a benchmark of our Age. However, almost fascist-like fellowship of some taste will come as destined as the rule of day and night. When there is progressivism, there will be conservatism, the bitterness will be apparent for those who have serious ideas in debates. Just like avant-guard artists who taste the bitterness of derision and competition. Remind yourself of the bitterness Monteverdi tasted for his book 8th of madrigals, JS Bach`s criticism for piano, and Mozart`s austere musical tastes etc. Maybe, it is difficult to revive genuine period effect, but classical austerity remains and will continue to survive and challenge all forms of progressivism.


Thanks for bringing up that compilation by Monteverdi. I looked up Book 8.

"Published by Alessandro Vincenti in Venice in 1638, the extensive Eighth Book of Madrigals contains many emblematic works of Monteverdi's later years, not to mention some of the greatest masterpieces in the history of music. Despite the considerable renown of the works contained within its pages, which ensured the composer's lasting fame, it was never reprinted. Today, only three complete copies survive, housed in libraries in Bologna, Paris and Washington.
Book Eight was published a full nineteen years after its immediate predecessor, the Seventh Book 'Concerto' (Naxos 8.555314-16), and five years before the composer's death. A collection of Scherzi musicali had appeared in 1632, while the Ninth Book of Madrigals was issued posthumously, in 1651 (these will both appear on Naxos 8.555318); a small number of other pieces were included in various different collections (these can be heard on Naxos 8.555312-13).
The Eighth Book is dedicated to Ferdinand III, who had become Holy Roman Emperor in 1637. In all likelihood, Monteverdi had intended it to be a homage to the latter's father, Ferdinand II, and his second wife Eleanor Gonzaga, princess of Mantua (the pair had married in 1622). Ferdinand II died in 1636, which is probably when this volume should have been ready for publication. Book Eight may look north to the Holy Roman Empire, but it also reveals the lasting ties of affection that bound its composer to Mantua and its ruling family, whom he had served for so many years. Monteverdi was by this time happily installed in Venice, having been appointed Maestro di Cappella della Serenissima Repubblica (as proudly emblazoned on the title page of the Eighth Book). After years of publishing silence, he gathered together what he considered to be his most significant works in this single, substantial volume. In a description that could equally be applied to his Venetian anthology of sacred music, the Selva morale e spirituale (1640), the Eighth Book has been called "the most disparate, the most piecemeal, truly the most diverse [of Monteverdi's madrigal collections], at least as regards its aims and purposes. The many-hued soundworld announced by the books of 1605 and 1614 explodes in its sumptuous gallery-polyphony begins to break down, the continuo conjures a halo of instrumental effects, the conventional vocal forces change, all kinds of new qualities of sound are sought out." (Claudio Gallico, Monteverdi, 1979)"

much more at

https://www.naxos.com/mainsite/blur...iletype=About this Recording&language=English


----------



## Enthusiast

I hope I haven't already said this but one thing I did at some point at least plan to say is that it is one thing to criticise this or that music (piece, composer) but another to _infer _a composer's motives - which can be a common way of putting down a composer we don't like - which is, I think, unhelpful at best. Even worse is inferring an audience's motivation in liking (or not) a piece. To be told I like rubbish is OK (although ten repetitions of it can be tiresome) but being told the composer just wanted to xxx and that those who say they like it are just wanting to yyyy? Is it not a little insulting? The use of the word "pretentious" can come close to inferring a motive in some cases, too.


----------



## arpeggio

Enthusiast said:


> There has been a suggestion (in this thread, I think) that discussions avant garde music (I think - it may have been serial music) should be excluded from this forum (on the grounds that this is a classical music forum). One or two supported it but most ignored it. Strangely, the suggestion came from people who expend quite a lot of effort talking about avant garde music. Maybe they wanted a rest rather than to close down discussions.


Yes. This has occurred in other threads and was proposed in the Amazon forum. Although I brought it up, it has not been directly stated in this thread although it has been implied.

MacLoud:

This is the form of censorship that I am talking about. There are a few members here who over the years worked at getting threads concerning avant-garde or atonal music excluded from this forum. And I am not going to waste my time looking through and finding examples of who has proposed this. Anyone who is a veteran knows where they can find them.

And anyways requesting who has proposed this is just a recipe for trouble for me. If I stated that Johnson stated this on October 15, 2015 Johnson would complain to the moderators that my post was a personal attack and I would receive an infraction.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Anyone can write whatever they wish, but most composers also hope that their work will be performed, that they'll find positions in the educational establishment (since few can survive solely by composing), and that they'll make enough money to live on. There is such a thing as the politics of the art world. You should read up on the politics of the American musical academy during the days of serialist hegemony. I'm sure someone here could direct you to good sources.


Do you know of any other field of art where "academics" provide the main content? Was "Seinfeld" produced by professors of comedy at Harvard? My observation is that professors of composition generally write a ceaseless stream of turds that no one wants to hear. Your point is we need more tonal turds?

For new classical music we should look to the same source as in past generations, conductors and performers who write for themselves, their ensembles, and whose stuff is good enough that others want to play it. That's how we got Mahler, Rachmaninoff, Liszt, Hindemith, Medtner, and for that matter, Beethoven and Mozart. Today we should look to the same source, to artists such as Salonen. It would be nice if the U.S. would provide some level of support to cultural institutions such as orchestras and chamber ensembles so they would have some resources to explore new sources of music (as seems common in Europe). Clearly that isn't going to happen, but I don't think what we need is universities with endowed chairs of sappy romantic composition.


----------



## Enthusiast

shirime said:


> Electronic music sterile? My man, you have some some homework to do!
> 
> I assign you to listen to the following:


Well, it is early days but I wasn't so taken with those. I suppose the Natasha Barrett was the best for me but I'm not sure I would listen again. I also reminded myself of the Stockhausen piece and asked myself why I like it more (apart from knowing it). I'm not sure I came up with an answer - did it seem more structured and varied? But thanks for an interesting experience.

I did enjoy playing the first two simultaneously - which you can do when they are all in a post together. Is that sacrilege?


----------



## Thomyum2

Baron Scarpia said:


> Do you know of any other field of art where "academics" provide the main content? Was "Seinfeld" produced by professors of comedy at Harvard? My observation is that professors of composition generally write a ceaseless stream of turds that no one wants to hear. Your point is we need more tonal turds?
> 
> For new classical music we should look to the same source as in past generations, conductors and performers who write for themselves, their ensembles, and whose stuff is good enough that others want to play it. That's how we got Mahler, Rachmaninoff, Liszt, Hindemith, Medtner, and for that matter, Beethoven and Mozart. Today we should look to the same source, to artists such as Salonen. It would be nice if the U.S. would provide some level of support to cultural institutions such as orchestras and chamber ensembles so they would have some resources to explore new sources of music (as seems common in Europe). Clearly that isn't going to happen, but I don't think what we need is universities with endowed chairs of sappy romantic composition.


Do academicians or professors really have that much influence? My impression has been that a lot of the real power over what gets performed is the board members and wealthy donors to the arts organizations who insist as a condition for their continued support on frequent performances of their favorite pieces!


----------



## Enthusiast

shirime said:


> Ah yes here is the organ piece. Honestly, to me it's the best organ work I've ever heard.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Dang it I just remembered there's also a Hölszky CD released by WERGO that has a significant amount of organ music on it. From what I remember, it wasn't as colourful as this piece is and it also included some other instruments in each piece. But it's worth hearing I reckon.


Yeah. Maybe you softened me up with the animal sounds first but this one was interesting and I will listen to it again. Thanks.

When I said I had tried a fair bit of organ music but it hadn't really taken root for me I meant the usuals - Bach, Franck and Messiean. The Bach and Franck were enjoyable enough but there is plenty of Bach and some Franck that I love more and Messiean is a gap for me, anyway: impressive but not a composer who I have yet taken to.


----------



## philoctetes

Nothing ventured, nothing gained. 

Listening to music is not hard work.

A kid who loves rock at age 7 can grow up to be a composer, but that would take some work. 

Sessions was honest and kind to Adams, if "don't bring that here" was the worst he said. Indeed, this is not accounting. We all have to be true to ourselves in the art of living, finding a niche to survive on.

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.


----------



## Lisztian

Enthusiast said:


> Yeah. Maybe you softened me up with the animal sounds first but this one was interesting and I will listen to it again. Thanks.
> 
> When I said I had tried a fair bit of organ music but it hadn't really taken root for me I meant the usuals - Bach, Franck and Messiean. The Bach and Franck were enjoyable enough but there is plenty of Bach and some Franck that I love more and Messiean is a gap for me, anyway: impressive but not a composer who I have yet taken to.


Have you tried Ligeti's organ works, such as the organ studies and Volumina? I like them quite a bit personally. If you haven't, I can't recommend recordings as I've only listened to one myself...


----------



## DaveM

Woodduck said:


> If the idea that musical enjoyment should require a special education and hard labor is determining the kind of music composers write - which it probably is in some cases - then yes, I see a connection to classical music's failure to attract larger audiences. But the solution isn't obvious. "*Write stuff people will like" isn't as simple as it sounds.*


Ah, now you may be on to something. I have had a theory for some time -one that I probably can't prove- that that was a factor in the changes that occurred in the early 20th century. I believe that the late Romantic period reached a pinnacle of thematic/melodic development. Coming up with an original melody is difficult enough; coming up with 2 or 3 of them in one movement and then developing them in increasingly complex ways must be daunting. I understand that this process was in practice in music of the earlier 19th century, but I believe the composers later in the century took it to a whole new level; think Mahler and Bruckner.

The Adagio/Andante of the Bruckner Symphony #2 is an astounding work. I'm amazed that it doesn't get the same attention as his later works. He rewrote the thing, to a greater or lesser extent, several times; it must have been an agonizing process. Most of the changes would have been obvious to listeners (which is important to the point I will make below) -the process wouldn't be as difficult if changes to the work would not be something the audience could discern to begin with. Anyway, in the first version, the work opens with a simple statement of the main theme/melody. Later it returns more fully fleshed out and then towards the end it returns yet again in a magnificently gorgeous developed form; romanticism incarnate! 

This music is particularly difficult to compose; perhaps more difficult than much of the music of the past. It is obvious to me that Bruckner was trying to write music that people would like, but also in an original way -this was not pandering to the audience.

My point is that perhaps one of the reasons classical music underwent some of the changes it did, including the turn to atonal is that the challenge of continuing to write music, as described above, was just too daunting. Dumbing it down, by largely removing the need for melody and its development, made the whole process easier, while at the same time having the convenient excuse that it was now more innovative and progressive in its atonal form, or later, avant-garde form. Creating music people liked was now replaced with creating music that fit the needs and limitations of the composer.


----------



## philoctetes

Those who never see live music might be more conservative in their tastes. Just speculating...

Critics say the music isn't memorable, and I can understand why if you only listen at home. But the most memorable concerts I've attended were mostly new music, and continue to be. As I've said before, it's the virtuosity on display that impresses, seeing musicians do things rarely heard before, but recordings don't quite do justice to this aspect. And many older recordings of 20C music are not quite up to current standards, as younger generations have less trouble adapting to that music.

Everyone should hear Varese live at least once, just for example. Or Dutilleux. Or Xenakis, whatever. It's incredible.


----------



## Lisztian

DaveM said:


> My point is that perhaps one of the reasons classical music underwent some of the changes it did, including the turn to atonal is that the challenge of continuing to write music, as described above, was just too daunting. Dumbing it down, by largely removing the need for melody and its development, made the whole process easier, while at the same time having the convenient excuse that it was now more innovative and progressive in its atonal form. Creating music people liked was now replaced with creating music that fit the needs and limitations of the composer.


Keep in mind, though, that Schoenberg's early, late romantic works are excellent and certainly don't betray a composer who feels the need to dumb things down or fit things to his limitations. Instead, they strike me as being inspired works of burgeoning genius.

Of course you can't always trust what a composer says about his own music, but Schoenberg was dismissive of the positive reception of his late-romantic _Gurrelieder_, and later wrote about the work:

"I certainly do not look down on this work, as the journalists always suppose. For although I have certainly developed very much since those days, I have not improved, but my style has simply got better ... I consider it important that people give credence to the elements in this work which I retained later."

Instead of giving into limitations, he personally thought his style had developed and gotten better.


----------



## philoctetes

Some are fond of Adams as a moderator of all things modern, but I find that repeated listenings to his stuff is not so rewarding for me. I really liked Dharma at Big Sur the first 3 or 4 times but now I just hear Tracy Silverman sawing away against a bunch of clustered chords. Pretty much the same for the sax concertos. His old minimalist stuff seems to age the best... I've ingested enough new music that Adams seems interesting but ultimately superficial. Being punked again!

OTOH, Lisztian mentions Ligeti, who has taken the opposite trajectory in my esteem. I used to think he was punking me, semi-static, hazy, shimmery, but over time I decided I like it, I can hear the universal humanity of it. Again, it was live concerts that made the difference, the last one being the Cello Concerto played by a student orchestra... so I need to hear that organ stuff...


----------



## fluteman

DaveM said:


> Creating music people liked was now replaced with creating music that fit the needs and limitations of the composer.


I might agree with that conclusion, or at least find it reasonable, spectacularly broad generalization though it is, with a couple of edits: "Creating music [DaveM] liked was now replaced with creating music that fit the needs [of people other than DaveM]."

Why you and others here feel the need to pronounce the likes, needs, or limitations of people other than yourselves I'll never know. I like Bruckner's 2nd symphony, by the way.


----------



## KenOC

philoctetes said:


> ...Sessions was honest and kind to Adams, if "don't bring that here" was the worst he said. Indeed, this is not accounting. We all have to be true to ourselves in the art of living, finding a niche to survive on.


You may be right, but it sounds more to me (and evidently to Adams) that Sessions was not saying "Be true to yourself." He was saying, "Be true to what _I_ prefer."


----------



## DaveM

fluteman said:


> I might agree with that conclusion, or at least find it reasonable, spectacularly broad generalization though it is, with a couple of edits: "Creating music [DaveM] liked was now replaced with creating music that fit the needs [of people other than DaveM]."
> 
> Why you and others here feel the need to pronounce the likes, needs, or limitations of people other than yourselves I'll never know. I like Bruckner's 2nd symphony, by the way.


Trust you [Fluteman] to take something that had no personal content and make it personal. My statement that suggests something to do with the 'needs and limitations' of some long dead composers is now turned by you [Fluteman] into some broad statement that you [Fluteman] apparently take personally.


----------



## KenOC

philoctetes said:


> Some are fond of Adams as a moderator of all things modern, but I find that repeated listenings to his stuff is not so rewarding for me. I really liked Dharma at Big Sur the first 3 or 4 times but now I just hear Tracy Silverman sawing away against a bunch of clustered chords. Pretty much the same for the sax concertos. His old minimalist stuff seems to age the best... I've ingested enough new music that Adams seems interesting but ultimately superficial. Being punked again!


Although I like Adams's music well enough, this is probably a fair comment. Though I still like The Dharma at Big Sur!


----------



## philoctetes

Re electronics... they will be more widely accepted if and when someone composes a "breakthrough" piece that uses them... some kind of tipping point, like Bitches Brew in jazz, or Coleman's Prime Time, which divided older and younger listeners, but now are foundations of a large territory in jazz explored by advanced improvisors...

Dharma attempts to be that breakthrough... Murail used dual electric guitars in a recent composition with fascinating results... I think the spectralists are on the good foot with a different harmonic approach, more suited to electronics, more appealing to casual listeners...


----------



## Woodduck

Baron Scarpia said:


> Do you know of any other field of art where "academics" provide the main content? Was "Seinfeld" produced by professors of comedy at Harvard? My observation is that professors of composition generally write a ceaseless stream of turds that no one wants to hear. Your point is we need more tonal turds?
> 
> For new classical music we should look to the same source as in past generations, conductors and performers who write for themselves, their ensembles, and whose stuff is good enough that others want to play it. That's how we got Mahler, Rachmaninoff, Liszt, Hindemith, Medtner, and for that matter, Beethoven and Mozart. Today we should look to the same source, to artists such as Salonen. It would be nice if the U.S. would provide some level of support to cultural institutions such as orchestras and chamber ensembles so they would have some resources to explore new sources of music (as seems common in Europe). Clearly that isn't going to happen, but I don't think what we need is universities with endowed chairs of sappy romantic composition.


If I had meant to say that "'academics' provide the main content" in the field of music, that "we need more tonal turds," or that "what we need is universities with endowed chairs of sappy romantic composition," I would have said those things explicitly. What I personally think music "needs" is unimportant. I only wanted to counter your impression that academic biases didn't have a significant effect on the 20th-century music scene and on musicians who wanted to be a part of it.

It's pretty generally accepted that inhabitants of the prestigious musical academies in mid-20th century America turned out a ceaseless stream, not of _tonal,_ but of _atonal_ "turds that no one wants to hear," and that aspiring composers who resisted the program were considered amusing fossils or contemptible traitors and were likely to be passed over for grants, performance opportunities and university chairs. Accounts by musicians who experienced that environment are numerous. Anthony Tommasini writes for the N.Y. Times:

_"The scientific aura, novelty and intellectual chic of 12-tone theory appealed to composers who were steadily losing an audience among mainstream concertgoers and who, disastrously, reacted to the situation by retreating into academic havens, where their complex works at least provoked discussions among their colleagues.

Prestige cannot be measured with charts and data bases. You had to have been caught in the battle to understand the tyranny, as it was experienced by the tonalists. The trenches were in the classrooms, recital halls and lunch hangouts of every American university with an important music department. On these campuses, the most formidably complex serialist and 12-tone composers were intimidating figures. And vulnerable composition students were easily intimidated.

It's hard to report on the climate of the times without resorting to personal recollections, and everyone who went through the period had them. As a music student at Yale in the early 1970's, I remember countless instances in which the prejudice against tonal music was voiced unabashedly. One fellow student, a fine young tenor, was ridiculed by a group of faculty and student composers at lunch one day for daring to suggest that Britten's song cycle 'Winter Words,' which he intended to sing in his degree recital, was an important contemporary work.

Once, a professor in a 20th-century analysis course would not allow my choice of a Shostakovich string quartet as a topic for a paper. Just try back then to defend Copland as a composer worthy of attention, and you would be greeted by condescending scoffs. Even Stravinsky's Neo-Classical works were regarded by many composers in the modernist camp as really rather slight.

It is important to understand that ingenious serialist composers everywhere were writing exciting and provocative works. The problem arose when young composers slavishly tried to imitate their teachers. There was nothing stranger than hearing rigorous, humorless, dry-as-dust 12-tone works by young Americans who had grown up with the Beatles and the Band.

One telling incident truly captured the tense climate of the times. The composer Marvin David Levy received a commission from the Metropolitan Opera to help celebrate the opening of its new house at Lincoln Center. Mr. Levy's work, 'Mourning Becomes Electra,' based on the O'Neill play, was given its premiere in 1967. Mr. Levy, then 35, was no tepid tonal composer. His music was gritty, thickly chromatic, pungent with dissonance. But as if to appease the academics, he force-fed his score with tone rows and reined in its lyricism. This wound up pleasing neither Met audiences nor the 12-tone dogmatists. The failure crushed him.

Some 30 years later, he was invited to revise the work for a revival at the Lyric Opera of Chicago. Though he did not radically change the music, he cleared it of extraneous 12-tone complexities and allowed it to sing more lyrically. He essentially composed the work he had wanted to write in the first place, he has said in interviews. It was performed during the 1998-99 season in Chicago to critical and popular acclaim.

Established composers were also casualties of the battle. One is Harold Shapero, born in 1921. In the 1940's and 50's, Mr. Shapero was one of the most original and accomplished American Neo-Classical composers. But during the 1960's and afterward, while he continued to teach at Brandeis University, his output slowed to almost a standstill. Although he does not like to talk about it today, he could not bring himself to embrace 12-tone techniques that his Neo-Classical colleagues on the faculty, like Arthur Berger and Irving Fine, did. The dismissal of his tonal music in academic circles eventually defeated him.

...I, like many critics and musicians, will never be argued out of my view that the dogma of the 12-tone composers during those decades had an intimidating and, on balance, hurtful impact on American composers, especially young ones. I was there during the battle, in the trenches, even if I was mostly just ducking for cover and waiting for the fighting to subside."_

You can find many other such first-hand accounts of what it was like to be at Juilliard or Curtis during those years.


----------



## philoctetes

Reminds me of the alleged superstring cabal in Physics nowadays.

It does seem that serialism is often cited as an academic villain. I just wish good composers, the ones who were better than teachers, starting with Schoenberg, wouldn't be rounded up among the accused. There is a big difference between innovators and their slavish followers.

It's unfortunate that these trends make losers out of good people. It's called politics for that reason. All those comic books with mad scientists are the daydream diaries of layed-off engineers.


----------



## KenOC

On another forum, a lady wrote of her personal experience during that period at the music department of a large university. Some students and faculty banded together and destroyed – literally destroyed – all of the school’s musical scores that weren’t in the 12-tone idiom.

I’ve never heard that story otherwise, but she seemed quite serious.


----------



## philoctetes

When I count how many new music recordings I really treasure, I sometimes blame the record companies for not doing better. The famous yellow label's engineers gladly mutilated von Karajan and later Boulez. Both conductors were primary sources for recordings of the Second Viennese School, but DG found a way to freeze their efforts under glassy productions that accelerate their way to obsolescence.

When Boulez released that CD of Ligeti concertos on DG, I thought we's been blessed from above until I played it and wondered where did the %$#@ music go? The engineers completely ruined what should have been a monumental document. Same for his Ravel.


----------



## Fredx2098

philoctetes said:


> Re electronics... they will be more widely accepted if and when someone composes a "breakthrough" piece that uses them... some kind of tipping point, like Bitches Brew in jazz, or Coleman's Prime Time, which divided older and younger listeners, but now are foundations of a large territory in jazz explored by advanced improvisors...
> 
> Dharma attempts to be that breakthrough... Murail used dual electric guitars in a recent composition with fascinating results... I think the spectralists are on the good foot with a different harmonic approach, more suited to electronics, more appealing to casual listeners...


I would consider Messiaen's Turangalîla-Symphonie to be a breakthrough piece with electronics, though I guess it's not in-your-face, which I like. It doesn't use electronics as a gimmick.


----------



## Guest

Fredx2098 said:


> I would consider Messiaen's Turangalîla-Symphonie to be a breakthrough piece with electronics, though I guess it's not in-your-face, which I like. It doesn't use electronics as a gimmick.


IMO, the ondes martenot in Messiaen is worse than a gimmick. It turns what could have been a great piece to dreck. Just my opinion, of course. The same for all that Koechlin.


----------



## Fredx2098

Baron Scarpia said:


> IMO, the ondes martenot in Messiaen is worse than a gimmick. It turns what could have been a great piece to dreck. Just my opinion, of course. The same for all that Koechlin.


That sounds like a bit of an exaggeration, because the instrument seems at most like something to add a little atmosphere, I don't think it takes over the piece. It doesn't seem like the difference between masterpiece and dreck to me. It could almost be ignored. In fact, I heard the piece a few times and didn't even notice anything electronic until I watched a video of a performance. Of course that's a fine opinion though. I'm just a bit confused, because I've talked to others who say they dislike Turangalîla-Symphonie but enjoy his other pieces like Quatour pour la Fin du Temps. I don't get the disconnect. Both of those pieces sounds extremely beautiful to me.


----------



## fluteman

DaveM said:


> Trust you [Fluteman] to take something that had no personal content and make it personal. My statement that suggests something to do with the 'needs and limitations' of some long dead composers is now turned by you [Fluteman] into some broad statement that you [Fluteman] apparently take personally.


Nothing personal. You wrote, "creating music people liked was replaced with ..." something else. That necessarily implies a judgment by you about what kind of music "people like", when you are only competent to talk about what music you like, not what music other people, or people in general, like. Then you compound your mistake by concluding that the composers who wrote music you don't like must not be as talented and capable as the composers who wrote music you do like. Don't feel too bad about it, though, this is a mistake routinely made here, including by at least one of the moderators. And I agree with you regarding Bruckner's 2nd symphony, so that should count for something.


----------



## Guest

Enthusiast said:


> Well, it is early days but I wasn't so taken with those. I suppose the Natasha Barrett was the best for me but I'm not sure I would listen again. I also reminded myself of the Stockhausen piece and asked myself why I like it more (apart from knowing it). I'm not sure I came up with an answer - did it seem more structured and varied? But thanks for an interesting experience.
> 
> I did enjoy playing the first two simultaneously - which you can do when they are all in a post together. Is that sacrilege?


Fair enough! I don't believe it to be sacrilege at all.


----------



## millionrainbows

Very generally speaking, I think people get art mixed up with entertainment. 

Just as photography took over the "realistic" aspects of painting (it could do it easier, faster, and more accurately), painting had to take on a new role, and Picasso and Matisse gave it that. Painting became "modern" by necessity; it had to now be a language of its own, referring to its own history, and be self-contained as an art form. 

Depicting "great events" was also one of the old functions of painting, but communication and news took that over, along with photography and newspapers.

It's easy to draw the same parallels with music; with the advent of recording, music became accessible to all, and proliferated; it was everywhere, in homes, not just the concert hall. Why dress in a tuxedo to go hear Beethoven in a hall, when you could stay at home and listen to Louis Armstrong in your underwear?

Music has a new "art" role now. Music derived from the classical tradition, like modernism, is not the only game in town, as concert music used to be. Composers like Milton Babbitt, who compose in ivory towers in Princeton University, are largely correct when the said "Who cares if you listen?"....

Music is now an art unto itself, with new parameters to develop. It is no longer subject to the whims of style, popularity, and the "public," whoever that is...Art is art, and if you can't understand art, and want entertainment, there's plenty of it out there in many forms.


----------



## Strange Magic

^^^^Yet another manifestation of the New Stasis......


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Music is now an art unto itself, with new parameters to develop. It is no longer subject to the whims of style, popularity, and the "public," whoever that is...Art is art, and if you can't understand art, and want entertainment, there's plenty of it out there in many forms.


Sure. The serious artist can now forget about both the aristocrats and the groundlings and write for his own pleasure. No one has to pay the piper now since, as we all know, staff paper is edible and art comes to us for free.


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> Sure. The serious artist can now forget about both the aristocrats and the groundlings and write for his own pleasure. No one has to pay the piper now since, as we all know, staff paper is edible and art comes to us for free.


Babbitt, in his well-known essay, argues just that. However he solves the money problem by saying that society, even though it may not want his music, should give him a well-paying sinecure in academia anyway. After all, today's advanced composers are really more scientists that musicians, right? And don't scientists get paid for writing things that common people don't understand?

His logic is either inescapable or indigestible.

http://palestrant.com/babbitt.html


----------



## fluteman

millionrainbows said:


> I think people get art mixed up with entertainment.


I think Charles Wuorinen does a good job of explaining the distinction:

I don't think anyone in his right mind could possibly have an objection to entertainment! We all need it, we all want it, and there are times when it's absolutely indispensable and far more important for our lives and well-being than the highest achievements of the human race! This is understandable, and yet those highest achievements of the human race, as manifested in musical terms in the works of the great composers of the past and present may be entertaining. Some of them are, some of them are not, but all of them are demanding. I think that is the fundamental difference that one needs to draw between the two spheres. Entertainment does not demand. It presents the hearer or the viewer - the spectator - with something that can be received without effort and can be enjoyed, whether the enjoyment consists of titillation or some other form of encounter with what is being presented. Whereas art demands a kind of active participation which entertainment does not.

But there is nothing new in any of that. All I can see that is new and significant is, technology has taken music out of the concert hall and put it -- all of it -- into our shirt pockets. But nobody listens to all of it, and it is as true as ever, maybe more so, that only music that a lot of people listen to makes any money for the musicians or anyone else in the music business. So how you can say that music is no longer subject to the whims of style, popularity and the public, I do not know.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Painting became "modern" by necessity; it had to now be a language of its own, referring to its own history, and be self-contained as an art form.
> 
> It's easy to draw the same parallels with music; with the advent of recording, music became accessible to all, and proliferated; it was everywhere, in homes, not just the concert hall. Why dress in a tuxedo to go hear Beethoven in a hall, when you could stay at home and listen to Louis Armstrong in your underwear?
> 
> Music has a new "art" role now. Music derived from the classical tradition, like modernism, is not the only game in town, as concert music used to be. Composers like Milton Babbitt, who compose in ivory towers in Princeton University, are largely correct when the said "Who cares if you listen?"....
> 
> Music is now an art unto itself, with new parameters to develop. It is no longer subject to the whims of style, popularity, and the "public," whoever that is...Art is art, and if you can't understand art, and want entertainment, there's plenty of it out there in many forms.


Artistic creation as a purely egoistic indulgence. Ah yes. And why not? Everything else in modern life is designed to free people from having to consider the existence of others, so why not music? "Who cares if you listen?" Heck, who cares about you - period? The ideal will be attained when there is no longer any musical culture, and every composer's music is a precise transcription of his individual psyche and incomprehensible to everyone else. Ultimately there will be a composing app that will translate the user's brain waves into music without any effort on his part, and the composer will be replaced by Everyman as the creator of his own musical universe, which he can enjoy in solitary bliss. Beethoven's "kiss for the whole world" will be replaced by self-pleasuring before a mirror.

Art is _Art_, after all. Art for art's sake. Art for my sake. "Who cares if you" - exist?


----------



## Fredx2098

Sometimes people enjoy art that others create, no matter how much you may hate it.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> I think Charles Wuorinen does a good job of explaining the distinction:
> 
> I don't think anyone in his right mind could possibly have an objection to entertainment! We all need it, we all want it, and there are times when it's absolutely indispensable and far more important for our lives and well-being than the highest achievements of the human race! This is understandable, and yet those highest achievements of the human race, as manifested in musical terms in the works of the great composers of the past and present may be entertaining. Some of them are, some of them are not, but all of them are demanding. I think that is the fundamental difference that one needs to draw between the two spheres. *Entertainment does not demand. It presents the hearer or the viewer - the spectator - with something that can be received without effort and can be enjoyed, whether the enjoyment consists of titillation or some other form of encounter with what is being presented. Whereas art demands a kind of active participation which entertainment does not.*


I think to contrast "art" with "entertainment" is to mix categories. Art really is a thing, but entertainment is just anything done or witnessed for easy enjoyment, including a lot of art. A great deal of good music demands very little in the way of active participation beyond listening, but I wouldn't deny it the status of art on that account. I might need to pay closer attention at a comedy act or a tennis match than at a concert.


----------



## DaveM

fluteman said:


> Nothing personal.


Putting a poster's name in brackets more than once in what is a "pointing at you" criticism makes it personal. It is guaranteed to cause offense.



> You wrote, "creating music people liked was replaced with ..." something else. That necessarily implies a judgment by you about what kind of music "people like", when you are only competent to talk about what music you like, not what music other people, or people in general, like. Then you compound your mistake by concluding that the composers who wrote music you don't like must not be as talented and capable as the composers who wrote music you do like. Don't feel too bad about it, though, this is a mistake routinely made here, including by at least one of the moderators. And I agree with you regarding Bruckner's 2nd symphony, so that should count for something.


My post in question was in a response to a post where the "Write stuff people like" is not as easy as it sounds." was highlighted, hence my response in kind on the subject. Some of the recent posts in this thread address the fact that atonal composers experienced a drop in their listening audience that concerned them. That might suggest that people did not like atonal to the extent that they liked tonal. I am just as competent to voice my opinion as anyone else, certainly as much as you.

I also suggested that there was a dumbing down of music with the removal of melody as we knew it. It is a fact that melody is not a central component of atonal music -and certainly not avant-garde- as it is in romantic period tonal music. I understand that dumbing down infers that the composer isn't as challenged in composing the music. You say that is a mistake; that's your opinion. It doesn't make you right. It's nice to hear that a moderator agrees with me; moderators are always right.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Artistic creation as a purely egoistic indulgence. Ah yes. And why not? Everything else in modern life is designed to free people from having to consider the existence of others, so why not music? Who cares if you listen? Heck, who cares about you - period?


Whoa, let's get some perspective here, and stop making inflated exaggerations.

Ideally, art should be a part of a social structure, some sort of institution, or culture; but it doesn't have to, to exist as art. If art is seen as a sort of "spiritual proto-religion," then it can exist as one man's relationship to art, without any social structure or trappings. Perhaps some of the rock art that Indians made, in the Southwest US, is like that: pictures on walls of shamanistic figures and animals. Was it tribal? Or was this an individual?

Ideally, art can have collective appeal, or be a social experience, and "compete" with other art to vie for survival or success. That seems to be in keeping with the nature of Man as a social animal; but is that truly art, or some sort of social game/sport/activity?

Art, or any intellectual pursuit, can be totally subjective, and be created totally subjectively, and largely "ignore" most of the trappings, as long as it exists as art. If it has a way to be conveyed, that's great. I'm sure that even Milton Babbitt wanted his music to be heard, and facilitated its performance, and was the head of the music department at his ivory tower. Still, those needs are practical, and I don't think they were essential to Babbitt's purpose, which was to "expand the language of 12-tone syntax" along with George Perle and other composers. So its "social" context was purely intellectual, not unlike a scientist. Scientists do not "entertain;" they deal with ideas.



Woodduck said:


> The ideal will be attained when there is no longer any musical culture, and every composer's music is a precise transcription of his individual psyche and incomprehensible to everyone else.


I don't think the absence of a musical culture would necessarily make music "incomprehensible to everyone else." There are universal conditions and experiences, called human existence, which automatically create empathy among humans. And if Milton Babbitt's ideas about music are too complicated or incomprehensible to people who would rather be entertained, then that's not the musical ideas which are at fault. As Wourinen said, art demands a kind of active participation which entertainment does not.



Woodduck said:


> ...Ultimately there will be a composing app that will translate the user's brain waves into music without...etc. Art is art, after all. Art for art's sake. Art for my sake. Who cares if you - exist?


Well, to an extent that is true: who cares if you get entertained? If you're not interested in Milton Babbitt's "tone rows which retain their symmetry under inversion," then go watch re-runs of Gilligan's Island.


----------



## Eusebius12

Strange Magic said:


> I get it. This is a race to reach the herd grazing on the distant hillside, and join them before nightfall.
> 
> To be serious, I have no problem with consulting books, experts, looking at lists, exchanging opinions. But, for me, it's important that I make my own final choices and decisions, and live comfortably with them free of the umbilicus of the approval of others. The approval of others is welcome but unnecessary.


And I do the same. But I am conscious of the opinion of history and acknowledge its reality, and have been profoundly shaped by it in my taste in respect to all the arts.


----------



## Eusebius12

Strange Magic said:


> Train partially off the tracks here. The bolded examples are those where we can actually make some conclusive judgements because there are some cold hard facts/stats (though your 12th grade science teacher may have been a better 12th grade science teacher than Einstein).


Why are the arts the only area where we cannot apply standards, supposedly? If a bridge fell over, would we say that was a well constructed bridge? Why must we be relativistic ad absurdum?


----------



## fluteman

DaveM said:


> I understand that dumbing down infers that the composer isn't as challenged in composing the music. You say that is a mistake; that's your opinion. It doesn't make you right.


Your mistake is not in your opinion, which you are entitled to have and express to your heart's content, but in presuming your opinion is shared by "people" generally, i.e., everyone else. If you can't understand that, I can't help you. As I said, it's a common malady around here.


----------



## Eusebius12

fluteman said:


> You make a good point here, but I find it odd that most of the "contemporary" or "post modern" music frequently derided in this and other threads here, (that of Elliott Carter, Karlheinz Stockhausen, Morton Feldman, or Pierre Boulez, for example) is well over 50 years old at this point. (except I suppose for Carter, who lived to 104 and composed until near the end of his life). That music has already survived the passage of time.
> 
> That's why I mentioned Stockhausen's influence on the Beatles (their music is now over 50 years old too, or close to it). Since they released Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band in 1967, there have been millions of Stockhausen fans who have probably never heard of him. So in an important sense, it is too late to deride Stockhausen. Like his music or not, it has made its mark.


Merely existing for a period of time is not the same as 'surviving the passage of time'. The influence of Stockhausen on the Beatles is often noted, as well as that of Ravi Shankar, but one might say it is relatively trivial. In any case, we are talking about pop and not classical music. Raff made his mark as well and stood the test of time, for a few decades at least. Raff made far more of an effect on the awareness of the public than Carter ever did. Is that an argument from popularity? Are you making an argument from popularity? If so, know that the serialists made less impact on the public than any group of composers in the history of music.


----------



## Eusebius12

Thomyum2 said:


> I think your two posts sort of reveal that we're saying the same thing but falling into disagreement because we're speaking in broad generalizations or using words in different ways - in the first you're speaking purely of taste, a simple choice of what you like, but in the second you speak about pursuing an aesthetic that involves a discursive consideration of ideas, but you are conflating the two based on the fact that you make your 'own final choice'.
> 
> As I mentioned earlier, aesthetics is different from taste because it involves a different faculty - a 'disinterested judgment' - that there is a distinction between what one 'likes' and what one thinks is 'good'. What one likes is a purely subjective thing, but what one thinks is good is based on thoughtful consideration of its objective qualities within a context. There's nothing about aesthetics that _requires_ agreement, but that doesn't make it a purely subjective matter simply by default - that fact that you make your own final choice does not take the process out of the realm of aesthetics and make it back into a simple matter of tastes and preferences. I don't think aesthetics are universal, but that doesn't make them individual either - aesthetics, like all philosophy, is a _discursive_ process. In other words, your 'final choice' is still something based on objective qualities, isn't it? A musical composition doesn't come about at random - it involved aesthetic choices by the composer in the process of creation, so even as we like or dislike what we hear, we also judge those choices in the context of our own aesthetic. Ultimately, we can each make up our own minds about both what we like and what is good, but they are still different things.
> 
> I think the science analogy is a useful one, in that there is consensus involved in both science and aesthetics, but the analogy breaks down because the disciplines are so different. Perhaps language is a better analogy in that it involves a shared understanding even at the same time that we all use words in different ways that reflect subtly different meanings - I've always thought that music and language have much in common in the same way.


This is precisely what I was getting at but differently expressed.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> I think to contrast "art" with "entertainment" is to mix categories. Art really is a thing, but entertainment is just anything done or witnessed for easy enjoyment, including a lot of art. A great deal of good music demands very little in the way of active participation beyond listening, but I wouldn't deny it the status of art on that account. I might need to pay closer attention at a comedy act or a tennis match than at a concert.


So all that means is "entertainment" is just a larger circle which can contain some art; and the converse is true, some music produced purely for profit or a certain social function (like The Beatles) can transcend its category of entertainment, and become art, at least to those who think so. Just because Wuorinen contrasts the two does not mean they are mutually exclusive or incompatible.

If something is "art" to one person, then I think it has succeeded. If only 2,000,000 people in the world like Milton Babbitt's music, then it is still art, to those people, and entertainment as well.

It seems more & more like you are saying that music has to be established in the larger public gallery in order to have appeal, or to pass muster as "real" art, or be entertaining. I just don't think that matters, and I think the internet has proven to a lot of people that their tastes in the rare or esoteric is shared by many more others than they ever suspected.


----------



## Eusebius12

Baron Scarpia said:


> This thread is full of magical thinking. It seems like people assume there is some canon of "classical music" and that a higher intelligence embodied by people of elevated aesthetic taste includes or excludes music based on merit.
> 
> "Classical music" is a catch-all phrase that is attached to a loosely defined cluster of musical styles, in which the common thread seems to be groups of acoustic instruments performing meticulously scored music in a concert hall. Probably "concert music" would be a more apropos moniker. It is an commercial category as much a musical category. The suggestion that such-and-such music doesn't qualify because it doesn't meet some sort of high aesthetic standard strike me as absurd. If the people who like it overlap enough with the people who like Mozart it is "classical."
> 
> I have no problem with a broad tent view of classical music and the only variety of music that I sometimes think doesn't really go is electronic music. That's because I it strikes me that the fact that the music is purely acoustic is an important part of what makes classical music what it is. But I feel no temptation to rant against it. I just don't listen to it.


Western art music is a better phrase. Since it is an art, it no doubt requires certain skills? Belonging to a guild required certain abilities, certain training. Art is presumably produced by artists. If this music is merely 'acoustic', what about banging on a can randomly? Cats singing at night? Cats playing the piano? What is the difference between a talented cat pianist and an untalented one, if any? If there are no aesthetic standards, why bother speaking about music qualitatively? You cannot say that this composer or composition is 'good' if you cannot say this is 'bad'. And electronic music is just as valid as any other form of contemporary music based on so many criteria, including the 'like' factor.

I wonder how 'meticulously scored' would fit with aleatory music. Why do we listen to certain performers or ensembles? Surely they have 'qualities' that can be discerned? Not everyone will have the same tastes, but do not some performers play with more fire, more technical assurance, better ensemble, intonation, expressivity? Are these judgments purely individual? There generally is a body of opinion on such matters as well. If we can productively judge performers on aesthetic grounds then logically, inevitably, we can judge composers and compositions on the same grounds.


----------



## Eusebius12

Strange Magic said:


> What if, in our modesty, we say "*I think* it is good, beautiful, true?". My exquisite concern that I not impose my aesthetic views upon others but rather hope to mingle among like-minded aficionados, prevents me from uttering such pronunciamenti as "It is good!". I emphatically do not wish to assert a universal, intrinsic quality within a piece of art, extrinsic to me, that accounts for its "goodness" and thus is the agent of adhesion that binds me to others who like a work. We can discuss and agree that it is X that draws us to a given piece, or, just as useful, it may be X for me and Y for you. But I balk at liking something, or thinking I ought to, because it's good, beautiful, true.


This is intellectual (or pseudo-intellectual) fog, in my view.


----------



## Eusebius12

The point is, if we cannot have objective standards about music, then we cannot have objective standards about others' opinions of music. That is an impasse of logic.


----------



## Eusebius12

Woodduck said:


> Only if you tell time by the clock.


The clock is just an arbitrary series of numbers which doesn't reflect universal and atomic time. I prefer to use a stuffed chicken that I wind up every few weeks which squawks every time the sun moves 10 degrees in arc across the ecliptic.


----------



## fluteman

Eusebius12 said:


> Why are the arts the only area where we cannot apply standards, supposedly? If a bridge fell over, would we say that was a well constructed bridge? Why must we be relativistic ad absurdum?


A bridge's purpose is to enable people to travel over rivers, train racks or other obstacles. If it collapses, it isn't fulfilling its purpose. I think Art's purpose is to communicate fundamental emotions and ideas in an effective way to an audience. If it doesn't do that, it isn't fulfilling its purpose. Artistic beauty comes from an aesthetic appreciation of the effective communication of emotions and ideas that are typically hard to convey through skill, subtlety, eloquence, carefully judged economy of expression, or whatever other tools the artist has at hand.

That isn't "relativistic ad absurdum." But determining whether a work of art is successful involves more than trying to pick it apart and figure out what makes it tick. You need to look past the stage and gauge the impact it has had on the audience. That impact, or lack of one, can never be fully explained or analyzed. But it can be observed.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> *So all that means is* "entertainment" is just a larger circle which can contain some art; and the converse is true, some music produced purely for profit or a certain social function (like The Beatles) can transcend its category of entertainment, and become art, at least to those who think so. Just because Wuorinen contrasts the two does not mean they are mutually exclusive or incompatible.
> 
> If something is "art" to one person, then I think it has succeeded. If only 2,000,000 people in the world like Milton Babbitt's music, then it is still art, to those people, and entertainment as well.
> 
> *It seems more & more like you are saying* that music has to be established in the larger public gallery in order to have appeal, or to pass muster as "real" art, or be entertaining. I just don't think that matters, and I think the internet has proven to a lot of people that their tastes in the rare or esoteric is shared by many more others than they ever suspected.


That wasn't "all that I meant." What I _did_ mean was concisely stated.

What it "seems" to you isn't what it is. I would never say "music has to be established in the larger public gallery in order to have appeal, or to pass muster as 'real' art, or be entertaining." I wouldn't say it, first of all, because I wouldn't use so vague a term as "the larger public gallery." In any case that doesn't seem relevant to the post you're quoting.


----------



## Guest

art is entertainment


----------



## Eusebius12

philoctetes said:


> "wondering whether they are being punked"
> 
> A LOT of music does that to me actually. Sometimes I like being punked and don't care. Many Zappa and Cage fans probably feel that way. With John Luther Adams, I know I'm being punked and reject it. Different strokes.


What a value judgement.


----------



## Eusebius12

Baron Scarpia said:


> And so what? Adams is clearly more popular and widely performed than Sessions. How the the fact that Sessions was not interested in some of Adams' tonal works cause harm? We're supposedly talking about the successors the Beethoven here, not timid students who crave the approval of their teachers. If Mozart told young Beethoven that his music was too brash, would Beethoven have gone home sniveling and start writing dainty minuets?


Artists, let alone students are human beings. How crushing would it be for a student to be told his work was worthless? Frankly I find Sessions' work to be fairly traditional in comparison to some. I wonder whether any of Eliott Carter's students dared to present neo-tonal works to him. We are often told that female composers of the 18th and 19th centuries were crushed because no one took them seriously, etc. Were they all snowflakes in your opinion?


----------



## philoctetes

Someone somewhere must have said that if you don't like it, make your own.

I guess it has more impact if dinner is the subject.


----------



## Eusebius12

fluteman said:


> All fair enough. But my point (no doubt poorly expressed) was, one still needs historical perspective, and that hasn't changed due to the instant judgments possible today, if anything more historical perspective is needed to let the noise die down.


How many decades, or centuries, does that require?


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> I think to contrast "art" with "entertainment" is to mix categories. Art really is a thing, but entertainment is just anything done or witnessed for easy enjoyment, including a lot of art. A great deal of good music demands very little in the way of active participation beyond listening, but I wouldn't deny it the status of art on that account. I might need to pay closer attention at a comedy act or a tennis match than at a concert.


Yes, Mr. Wuorinen is probably being a bit too severe in drawing such a strict line between art and entertainment, but heck, it was a good quote, which is why I remembered it. You know how I feel about parsing subtle semantic distinctions. I'm not going to try to improve on his comment.


----------



## DaveM

fluteman said:


> Your mistake is not in your opinion, which you are entitled to have and express to your heart's content, but in presuming your opinion is shared by "people" generally, i.e., everyone else. If you can't understand that, I can't help you. As I said, it's a common malady around here.


I am expressing my opinions commensurate with the OP. A common malady around here is posters rewriting what people post -you being the poster child- to fit their agenda and schooling others as to how they should post. Who died and made you the Boss. Case in point, your assumption above "i.e. everyone else." and rewriting the post below:



fluteman said:


> I might agree with that conclusion, or at least find it reasonable, spectacularly broad generalization though it is, with a couple of edits: "Creating music [DaveM] liked was now replaced with creating music that fit the needs [of people other than DaveM]."


----------



## Eusebius12

Baron Scarpia said:


> Do you know of any other field of art where "academics" provide the main content? Was "Seinfeld" produced by professors of comedy at Harvard? My observation is that professors of composition generally write a ceaseless stream of turds that no one wants to hear. Your point is we need more tonal turds?
> 
> For new classical music we should look to the same source as in past generations, conductors and performers who write for themselves, their ensembles, and whose stuff is good enough that others want to play it. That's how we got Mahler, Rachmaninoff, Liszt, Hindemith, Medtner, and for that matter, Beethoven and Mozart. Today we should look to the same source, to artists such as Salonen. It would be nice if the U.S. would provide some level of support to cultural institutions such as orchestras and chamber ensembles so they would have some resources to explore new sources of music (as seems common in Europe). Clearly that isn't going to happen, but I don't think what we need is universities with endowed chairs of sappy romantic composition.


This has nothing to do with academicism, you are willfully misunderstanding the argument. Why is neo-romantic music 'sappy'? You are just deriding a genre of music. Do you see the irony in this?

I want music to be a living art, in some ways music is dead, because there is a gap, whether that be of interest, marketing, performance, or even superabundance (now with soundcloud etc the amount of music available in some senses is much more than anyone could process in many lifetimes) between the music and an audience. Composers generally want to communicate with a public, to bring their work to someone else. Criticism and differentiation is an essential part of this process, as you seem to demonstrate (in your utter rejection of neo-romanticism, regardless of the quality of the works themselves)


----------



## fluteman

Eusebius12 said:


> How many decades, or centuries, does that require?


Good question. Maybe, at least until the children of all those who attended the premiere reach adulthood? I don't know. But all serious students of history understand the importance of historical perspective. It's real, even if it can't be reduced to a hard and fast rule.


----------



## Eusebius12

Thomyum2 said:


> Do academicians or professors really have that much influence? My impression has been that a lot of the real power over what gets performed is the board members and wealthy donors to the arts organizations who insist as a condition for their continued support on frequent performances of their favorite pieces!


What you were replying to here was a strawman in every possible way, as well as being unawarely ironic


----------



## Woodduck

Whoa, let's get some perspective here, and stop making inflated exaggerations.

My post was humorous. Humor 101: exaggeration is a technique for conveying truth.

Ideally, art should be a part of a social structure, some sort of institution, or culture; but it doesn't have to, to exist as art. 

True.

If art is seen as a sort of "spiritual proto-religion," then it can exist as one man's relationship to art, without any social structure or trappings. Perhaps some of the rock art that Indians made, in the Southwest US, is like that: pictures on walls of shamanistic figures and animals. Was it tribal? Or was this an individual?

Yes, art can exist with no consideration of communication. It rarely does, however.

Ideally, art can have collective appeal, or be a social experience, and "compete" with other art to vie for survival or success. That seems to be in keeping with the nature of Man as a social animal; but is that truly art, or some sort of social game/sport/activity?

You're conflating several different functions/uses of art. But yes, art can be "truly art" and have collective appeal, be a social experience, and be entered into competitions (loathsome as the latter may be).

Art, or any intellectual pursuit, can be totally subjective, and be created totally subjectively, and largely "ignore" most of the trappings, as long as it exists as art. If it has a way to be conveyed, that's great. I'm sure that even Milton Babbitt wanted his music to be heard, and facilitated its performance, and was the head of the music department at his ivory tower. Still, those needs are practical, and I don't think they were essential to Babbitt's purpose, which was to "expand the language of 12-tone syntax" along with George Perle and other composers. So its "social" context was purely intellectual, not unlike a scientist. Scientists do not "entertain;" they deal with ideas.

If Babbit's purpose was to "expand the language of 12-tone syntax," and he succeeded and was satisfied, more power to him. It would certainly explain his popularity.

I don't think the absence of a musical culture would necessarily make music "incomprehensible to everyone else." 

Neither do I. Humor, humor... 

There are universal conditions and experiences, called human existence, which automatically create empathy among humans. And if Milton Babbitt's ideas about music are too complicated or incomprehensible to people who would rather be entertained, then that's not the musical ideas which are at fault. As Wourinen said, art demands a kind of active participation which entertainment does not.

No one is at fault. No one is obliged to listen, and "who cares..." anyway?

Well, to an extent that is true: who cares if you get entertained? If you're not interested in Milton Babbitt's "tone rows which retain their symmetry under inversion," then go watch re-runs of Gilligan's Island.

Precisely the attitude which has helped to endear "the expanded language of 12-tone syntax" to the public, and will ensure that Babbitt's name is a household word from generation to generation.

(Hmmm... I guess Sinclair Lewis has already seen to that.)


----------



## Eusebius12

DaveM said:


> My point is that perhaps one of the reasons classical music underwent some of the changes it did, including the turn to atonal is that the challenge of continuing to write music, as described above, was just too daunting. Dumbing it down, by largely removing the need for melody and its development, made the whole process easier, while at the same time having the convenient excuse that it was now more innovative and progressive in its atonal form, or later, avant-garde form. Creating music people liked was now replaced with creating music that fit the needs and limitations of the composer.


There is that to an extent. Also the gargantuan instrumentation often involved required extraordinary abilities of orchestration. But I might add, just off the top of my head:

1. Gargantuan romanticism represented an era (the pre WWI era) which became utterly discredited. It represented something; an arrogant aristocracy which had no regard for the welfare of its underlings. As a result, art became less serious, this is represented by Dada and other offerings which led directly to conceptual art.

2. A desire to control the creative process and eliminate the dictatorship of 'inspiration'. If we can come up with an artistic 'formula' we can create art without giving in to emotional or spiritual excesses. This has something to do with the birth of serialism, which also embodies to some degree a rejection of Mahlerian over-emotionalism.

3. A disconnect between the artist and the 'pleb' audience, informed by Marxist philosophy. Some artists came to despise their audiences and have no desire to dialogue with them. They were sustained by the public teat of tenure and state subsidy.


----------



## Fredx2098

Eusebius12 said:


> This is intellectual (or pseudo-intellectual) fog, in my view.





Eusebius12 said:


> The point is, if we cannot have objective standards about music, then we cannot have objective standards about others' opinions of music. That is an impasse of logic.


I think that arguing about the objective quality of music creates a worse fog. I think there are objective standards for artistic talent, but not for enjoying the art itself. My standard for others' opinions is that they actually state it as an opinion instead of aggressively asserting it as fact. Some people may claim they're just being hyperbolic and that saying "this music sucks and the composer has no talent" should be interpreted as "I personally don't like it, no offense to anyone who does" (not everyone though), but I'd prefer it if people said things in a way that can be understood at face value, especially through text, rather than expect people to interpret it properly and get mad when people don't.


----------



## Eusebius12

Fredx2098 said:


> I would consider Messiaen's Turangalîla-Symphonie to be a breakthrough piece with electronics, though I guess it's not in-your-face, which I like. It doesn't use electronics as a gimmick.


No, it uses the Ondes Martenot as a gimmick


----------



## Guest

The thing about the usage of the Ondes Martenot in Turangalila-Symphonie is that it is written in such a way that harks back to a tradition of soloist(s) versus orchestra, small group versus big group. The breakthrough was the invention of the instrument, the usage of it by Messiaen in this context is more like _one step forwards, two steps back_ because it didn't really lead to anything new in terms of the craft of orchestration or electroacoustic composition.


----------



## Fredx2098

Eusebius12 said:


> No, it uses the Ondes Martenot as a gimmick


Maybe, but I feel like it's in the background just adding a little color, I don't think it ruins the piece.


----------



## Eusebius12

fluteman said:


> A bridge's purpose is to enable people to travel over rivers, train racks or other obstacles. If it collapses, it isn't fulfilling its purpose. I think Art's purpose is to communicate fundamental emotions and ideas in an effective way to an audience. If it doesn't do that, it isn't fulfilling its purpose. Artistic beauty comes from an aesthetic appreciation of the effective communication of emotions and ideas that are typically hard to convey through skill, subtlety, eloquence, carefully judged economy of expression, or whatever other tools the artist has at hand.
> 
> That isn't "relativistic ad absurdum." But determining whether a work of art is successful involves more than trying to pick it apart and figure out what makes it tick. You need to look past the stage and gauge the impact it has had on the audience. That impact, or lack of one, can never be fully explained or analyzed. But it can be observed.


If art's purpose is to communicate, it cannot do so without an audience. A bridge can be judged aesthetically, it is both utilitarian and aesthetic, or we hope so. Music also has utilitarian functions. We can make educated statements about it on artistic grounds as well. These are not set in stone, not as 'objective' as mere facts, but still real, perhaps in an a priori sense. This could be reductionist, in the sense of 'picking it apart' and examining its details, but also looking in a constructionist sense. We might admire details of the bridge but also be able to admire the overall function, symmetry, blending in with the landscape, style etc.

As far as audience goes, which of the modern heroes has a great rapport with much of an audience? By contrast, Beethoven has touched the lives of millions. Given them hope in despair, been comfort and joy, given them a passion for living, for creating. Perhaps Stockhausen has done that for a few.


----------



## Eusebius12

Woodduck said:


> That wasn't "all that I meant." What I _did_ mean was concisely stated.
> 
> What it "seems" to you isn't what it is. I would never say "music has to be established in the larger public gallery in order to have appeal, or to pass muster as 'real' art, or be entertaining." I wouldn't say it, first of all, because I wouldn't use so vague a term as "the larger public gallery." In any case that doesn't seem relevant to the post you're quoting.


Some feel that they know what you say better than you do. I suppose when one is losing an argument, one has to project one's own views and prejudices.


----------



## Eusebius12

fluteman said:


> Good question. Maybe, at least until the children of all those who attended the premiere reach adulthood? I don't know. But all serious students of history understand the importance of historical perspective. It isn't something I just made up.


I agree and have referenced it earlier, however this comes under the category of 'value judgement' for some when it suits them. It is just that the disconnect for 20th century music is truly vast, much vaster than for Debussy let alone Wagner and Beethoven.


----------



## Eusebius12

Fredx2098 said:


> I think that arguing about the objective quality of music creates a worse fog. I think there are objective standards for artistic talent, but not for enjoying the art itself. My standard for others' opinions is that they actually state it as an opinion instead of aggressively asserting it as fact. Some people may claim they're just being hyperbolic and that saying "this music sucks and the composer has no talent" should be interpreted as "I personally don't like it, no offense to anyone who does" (not everyone though), but I'd prefer it if people said things in a way that can be understood at face value, especially through text, rather than expect people to interpret it properly and get mad when people don't.


Still, the point remains. If there are no objective standards for one part of creativity, why should there be objective standards for another part of that same creativity? If there cannot be objective standards for judging creativity, then there cannot be objective standards for judging the critiques of a particular creative act. These statements follow inexorably. I have pointed out what I believe to be the strengths and limitations of aesthetic criticism (not that merely saying 'this music sucks' would at all qualify as genuine aesthetic criticism).

You seem to be on a one composer crusade, perhaps by so doing you may extend the influence of that composer. There is no way to shut down critics or haters, even if one unironically believes them to be 'wrong'.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> Whoa, let's get some perspective here, and stop making inflated exaggerations.
> 
> My post was humorous. Humor 101: exaggeration is a technique for conveying truth.
> 
> Ideally, art should be a part of a social structure, some sort of institution, or culture; but it doesn't have to, to exist as art.
> 
> True.
> 
> If art is seen as a sort of "spiritual proto-religion," then it can exist as one man's relationship to art, without any social structure or trappings. Perhaps some of the rock art that Indians made, in the Southwest US, is like that: pictures on walls of shamanistic figures and animals. Was it tribal? Or was this an individual?
> 
> Yes, art can exist with no consideration of communication. It rarely does, however.
> 
> Ideally, art can have collective appeal, or be a social experience, and "compete" with other art to vie for survival or success. That seems to be in keeping with the nature of Man as a social animal; but is that truly art, or some sort of social game/sport/activity?
> 
> You're conflating several different functions/uses of art. But yes, art can be "truly art" and have collective appeal, be a social experience, and be entered into competitions (loathsome as the latter may be).
> 
> Art, or any intellectual pursuit, can be totally subjective, and be created totally subjectively, and largely "ignore" most of the trappings, as long as it exists as art. If it has a way to be conveyed, that's great. I'm sure that even Milton Babbitt wanted his music to be heard, and facilitated its performance, and was the head of the music department at his ivory tower. Still, those needs are practical, and I don't think they were essential to Babbitt's purpose, which was to "expand the language of 12-tone syntax" along with George Perle and other composers. So its "social" context was purely intellectual, not unlike a scientist. Scientists do not "entertain;" they deal with ideas.
> 
> If Babbit's purpose was to "expand the language of 12-tone syntax," and he succeeded and was satisfied, more power to him. It would certainly explain his popularity.
> 
> I don't think the absence of a musical culture would necessarily make music "incomprehensible to everyone else."
> 
> Neither do I. Humor, humor...
> 
> There are universal conditions and experiences, called human existence, which automatically create empathy among humans. And if Milton Babbitt's ideas about music are too complicated or incomprehensible to people who would rather be entertained, then that's not the musical ideas which are at fault. As Wourinen said, art demands a kind of active participation which entertainment does not.
> 
> No one is at fault. No one is obliged to listen, and "who cares..." anyway?
> 
> Well, to an extent that is true: who cares if you get entertained? If you're not interested in Milton Babbitt's "tone rows which retain their symmetry under inversion," then go watch re-runs of Gilligan's Island.
> 
> Precisely the attitude which has helped to endear "the expanded language of 12-tone syntax" to the public, and will ensure that Babbitt's name is a household word from generation to generation.
> 
> (Hmmm... I guess Sinclair Lewis has already seen to that.)


You hit the bull's eye with those comments, Woodduck, and I'm sure you have more ammunition in you quiver, as you're a real arrowsmith. But you need to stay on Main Street with this crowd, I'm afraid.


----------



## arpeggio

There have been many treatises published on esthetics. I have rarely seen any of them referenced in any of posts.


----------



## Eusebius12

fluteman said:


> You hit the bull's eye with those comments, Woodduck, and I'm sure you have more ammunition in you quiver, as you're a real arrowsmith. But you need to stay on Main Street with this crowd, I'm afraid.


I beg your pardon?


----------



## DaveM

Eusebius12 said:


> There is that to an extent. Also the gargantuan instrumentation often involved required extraordinary abilities of orchestration. But I might add, just off the top of my head:
> 
> 1. Gargantuan romanticism represented an era (the pre WWI era) which became utterly discredited. It represented something; an arrogant aristocracy which had no regard for the welfare of its underlings. As a result, art became less serious, this is represented by Dada and other offerings which led directly to conceptual art.
> 
> 2. A desire to control the creative process and eliminate the dictatorship of 'inspiration'. If we can come up with an artistic 'formula' we can create art without giving in to emotional or spiritual excesses. This has something to do with the birth of serialism, which also embodies to some degree a rejection of Mahlerian over-emotionalism.
> 
> 3. A disconnect between the artist and the 'pleb' audience, informed by Marxist philosophy. Some artists came to despise their audiences and have no desire to dialogue with them. They were sustained by the public teat of tenure and state subsidy.


That makes sense. I would mention, for the benefit of those whose hair is on fire, that I started the post you refer to as a _"theory...-one that I probably can't prove-_" and the part that you quoted starts with "perhaps" which refers to every thing that follows. I understand that some may find it provocative, but the premise behind it has nagged at me for some time. I could be wrong.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> You hit the bull's eye with those comments, Woodduck, and I'm sure you have more ammunition in you quiver, as you're a real arrowsmith. But you need to stay on Main Street with this crowd, I'm afraid.


Which way is Main Street? I've never been on it.

Yeah, I get it.


----------



## KenOC

Main Street? Heh-heh. (just to show that I get it too)


----------



## fluteman

arpeggio said:


> There have been many treatises published on esthetics. I have rarely seen any of them referenced in any of posts.


The 18th century British philosopher David Hume is a well-known author who addresses this topic in a number of essays, and in particular his essay Of the Standard of Taste deals with some of the issues I have been discussing, including the importance of judging the success of art by the impact it has on its audience.


----------



## Sid James

Enthusiast said:


> We all have different tastes. We may look down on the tastes of people who like music that we don't like but we rarely say so. That would be rude and unhelpful. Mostly, we don't talk about what we don't like except maybe to say that we don't like it and perhaps to give a brief reason. When the music we don't like is established or widely seen as great, some of us think that it is _*we *_who are not getting it and others are more inclined to think the music is deficient in some way that its fans have somehow missed. But we don't take it too far. Except, that is, for contemporary music (the serial or the discordant varieties, not the New Agey stuff) and Mozart. These are apparently OK to deride at length and in quite a heated way. It seems it is OK with these to criticise the motives of those who apparently like these musics and to find all sorts of technical weaknesses in the music itself.
> 
> What I wonder is whether this is because these types of music (Mozart and "ugly contemporary music") are disliked by people who tend to be also somewhat angry by nature? Or is it that the music that gives rise to these controversies is in some way "marmite music" (music that you can't be merely ambivalent about)?


I think an important point is that there is a difference between derision and criticism. The former, especially if mainly coming from a gut reaction to the music, is less valuable than the latter. Good criticism is a combination of not only the critic's viewpoint but also his knowledge and experience.

That's simplifying it though, because criticism can be a slave to ideology, agendas and wars. We remember some of the most withering criticism, such as Hanslick's "stinks in the ear" critique of Tchaikovsky or Boulez's views of those composers not accepting the inevitability of serialism as "useless" because these where criticisms by learned men which where clearly tainted by ideology and so on.

I personally don't mind a bit of barbed criticism, particularly if done with a bit of humour. Wagner was the biggest target of this kind of thing, and Rossini was extremely prolific here, his most famous one being about his music containing wonderful moments but terrible half hours. I think Oscar Wilde was even better at it than Rossini: "I like Wagner's music better than anybody's. It is so loud that one can talk the whole time without other people hearing what one says."

But this is not the most withering or derisive type of criticism, it is firmly tongue in cheek. Rossini and Wagner met on a number of ocassions, and as far as I know they where on friendly terms. Wilde - like almost all writers of his time - was influenced by Wagner's ideas. Pure derision usually emanates from some sort of wholly negative goal, it negates any value of the object being criticised and its aim is to elevate the critic - or his clique - above the music and the creators and listeners of such music. Its weak criticism at best, simply setting up a dichotomy between one thing being elevated and another being degraded.

At the same time we're all human. Its worse to do this if one is writing for an official publication, but on the internet it is a mistake easily made. I have done it in the past, but avoid it as much as possible now.


----------



## Fredx2098

Eusebius12 said:


> Still, the point remains. If there are no objective standards for one part of creativity, why should there be objective standards for another part of that same creativity? If there cannot be objective standards for judging creativity, then there cannot be objective standards for judging the critiques of a particular creative act. These statements follow inexorably. I have pointed out what I believe to be the strengths and limitations of aesthetic criticism (not that merely saying 'this music sucks' would at all qualify as genuine aesthetic criticism).
> 
> You seem to be on a one composer crusade, perhaps by so doing you may extend the influence of that composer. There is no way to shut down critics or haters, even if one unironically believes them to be 'wrong'.


Like I said, there are objective standards for judging creativity and talent, but not for the overall quality and enjoyment of the art produced. If someone says that a piece of art lacks talent and creativity and gave reasons for saying that, that would be fine, as long as they don't expect people to take it as gospel. I think that negative critiques should be graceful rather than hamfisted.

I'm not on a one composer crusade. If I don't mention Feldman then I'm not referring to Feldman. I have 98 composers' music from all eras on my computer at the moment if people must know. I just have a favorite composer who is objectively talented and creative, but that doesn't mean people should like him. I just like to talk about music that I like sometimes.


----------



## arpeggio

fluteman said:


> The 18th century British philosopher David Hume is a well-known author who addresses this topic in a number of essays, and in particular his essay Of the Standard of Taste deals with some of the issues I have been discussing, including the importance of judging the success of art by the impact it has on its audience.


I have always been partial to John Dewey's _Art As Experience_.


----------



## Strange Magic

Eusebius12 said:


> And I do the same. But I am conscious of the opinion of history and acknowledge its reality, and have been profoundly shaped by it in my taste in respect to all the arts.


I also am concious of the opinion of history (one of those phrases that is grand, and rolls off the tongue) and acknowledge its reality. But I have not been profoundly shaped by it in my taste in respect to all the arts. Instead, I follow my own daemon where it leads.


----------



## Strange Magic

Eusebius12 said:


> Why are the arts the only area where we cannot apply standards, supposedly? If a bridge fell over, would we say that was a well constructed bridge? Why must we be relativistic ad absurdum?


Certainly we each, individually, can apply whatever standards suit us in any and all of the arts. Actually, we all do so, all the time. Bridges and art: two different things entirely.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> Certainly we each, individually, can apply whatever standards suit us in any and all of the arts. Actually, we all do so, all the time. Bridges and art: two different things entirely.


Well, there's Frank Bridge...


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Well, there's Frank Bridge...


And Die Brücke


----------



## Enthusiast

Woodduck said:


> If I had meant to say that "'academics' provide the main content" in the field of music, that "we need more tonal turds," or that "what we need is universities with endowed chairs of sappy romantic composition," I would have said those things explicitly. What I personally think music "needs" is unimportant. I only wanted to counter your impression that academic biases didn't have a significant effect on the 20th-century music scene and on musicians who wanted to be a part of it.
> 
> It's pretty generally accepted that inhabitants of the prestigious musical academies in mid-20th century America turned out a ceaseless stream, not of _tonal,_ but of _atonal_ "turds that no one wants to hear," and that aspiring composers who resisted the program were considered amusing fossils or contemptible traitors and were likely to be passed over for grants, performance opportunities and university chairs. Accounts by musicians who experienced that environment are numerous. Anthony Tommasini writes for the N.Y. Times:
> 
> _..... (I have edited out eh long quote - post 508 for those who want to view it) ..._
> 
> ...I, like many critics and musicians, will never be argued out of my view that *the dogma of the 12-tone composers during those decades had an intimidating and, on balance, hurtful impact on American composers, *especially young ones. I was there during the battle, in the trenches, even if I was mostly just ducking for cover and waiting for the fighting to subside."[/I]
> 
> You can find many other such first-hand accounts of what it was like to be at Juilliard or Curtis during those years.


Decades ago I studied for a degree in scientific psychology. At the time many universities were teaching courses that were firmly based in Behaviourism - with its treatment of the mind as a black box (no point in trying to look inside) - and students were required to spend their 3-4 years becoming acquainted with (and able to replicate) a huge volume of experimentation in this field, much of it pointless and now forgotten. Anyone interested in what was happening inside the black box was referred to neurophysiology (as if you could track everything that goes on inside our heads meaningfully at that level) or accused of "witch-doctory".

Some of the graduates of that system went on to develop the newer school of cognitive psychology. They cut their teeth on one school and went on to contribute to the critique and replacement of that school. Of course, there were many others who had learned with the Behaviourists to laugh at attempts to look within the black box and went on believing that for pyschology to be scientific Behaviourism was the only route. Few of them will have spent a life working in psychology, not with that view intact.

These were just scientific psychologists. It is hard to imagine any worthwhile creative musicians - surely a more rebellious group? - being cowed by dogmatic or even bullying professors. Going beyond and against your professors - people who perhaps scared the daylights out of you a few years earlier - is a common rite of passage for those who go on to contribute meaningfully to their world.


----------



## Strange Magic

> Enthusiast: "It is hard to imagine any worthwhile creative musicians - surely a more rebellious group? - being cowed by dogmatic or even bullying professors. Going beyond and against your professors - people who perhaps scared the daylights out of you a few years earlier - is a common rite of passage for those who go on to contribute meaningfully to their world."


Maybe there was a drought of creative, rebellious musicians during that period. But as an alternative to being cowed or bullied by professors, there is the wholly understandable impulse to get on board the train and ride the Next Big Thing/Current Big Thing in music. That way your professors will love you and you'll love yourself for being so perceptive as to recognize both the wisdom and the utility of getting on board. Only later, decades later in the case of Milton Babbitt, will the fact that nobody comes to the concerts, even when free, begin to intrude unpleasantly upon one's conciousness.


----------



## Enthusiast

Strange Magic said:


> Maybe there was a drought of creative, rebellious musicians during that period. But as an alternative to being cowed or bullied by professors, there is the wholly understandable impulse to get on board the train and ride the Next Big Thing/Current Big Thing in music. That way your professors will love you and you'll love yourself for being so perceptive as to recognize both the wisdom and the utility of getting on board. Only later, decades later in the case of Milton Babbitt, will the fact that nobody comes to the concerts, even when free, begin to intrude unpleasantly upon one's conciousness.


I really don't think professors can dampen down an enthusiasm except by demonstrating in a way that convinces their students that what they are saying has truth and (more important, I think) potential for the future.


----------



## Tallisman

Whether there is a truth about aesthetics is a good question. What's certain is that you won't find it by running through syllogisms with your fellow man.


----------



## Guest

Tallisman said:


> Whether there is a truth about aesthetics is a good question. What's certain is that you won't find it by running through syllogisms with your fellow man.


Would you mind elaborating and exemplifying? Thanks.


----------



## fluteman

arpeggio said:


> I have always been partial to John Dewey's _Art As Experience_.


The trouble with Dewey is, 20th-century philosophers aren't as good as 18th- and 19th-century ones. By 1900, all the good theories of aesthetics had already been written. Philosophy was dumbed down in the 20th-century, and if you weren't a logical positivist, the universities tossed you out on your ear!

More seriously, what I like about Hume is, he understood that art needs to be evaluated by the critic as it was or would have been by the audience of its time and place, i.e., in its historical and cultural context. So, the question of what makes great art so great is inevitably in significant part an empirical one, not solely a logical one, and not solely one of personal preference, much as one is entitled to have that. Alas,Talk Classical, as seen from this thread, is a real hotbed of Cartesians and other anti-empiricists.


----------



## Strange Magic

Enthusiast said:


> I really don't think professors can dampen down an enthusiasm except by demonstrating in a way that convinces their students that what they are saying has truth and (more important, I think) potential for the future.


I believe we're saying the same thing. I think the total serialists, one by one, found they had gone down the path unaccompanied by a meaningful audience other than their peer group. Some retreated into their towers and blew trumpets of defiance. In Babbitt's case, his receiving his special Pulitzer in 1982 triggered an interview in a local weekly, The Princeton Packet as I recall. The interview was a sour outpouring of bitter (and weary) observation from B, complaining that nobody came to the concerts, even if free. Nobody anymore was willing to finance concerts of the music of his own or his peers, and that people just seemed to prefer his other, more accessable music, to his wondering chagrin. I wish I had kept both his interview and my Letter of Reply!


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> I believe we're saying the same thing. I think the total serialists, one by one, found they had gone down the path unaccompanied by a meaningful audience other than their peer group. Some retreated into their towers and blew trumpets of defiance. In Babbitt's case, his receiving his special Pulitzer in 1982 triggered an interview in a local weekly, The Princeton Packet as I recall. The interview was a sour outpouring of bitter (and weary) observation from B, complaining that nobody came to the concerts, even if free. Nobody anymore was willing to finance concerts of the music of his own or his peers, and that people just seemed to prefer his other, more accessable music, to his wondering chagrin. I wish I had kept both his interview and my Letter of Reply!


As an avowed empiricist, I suppose I can be expected to come to the defense of post-modernists whose art has enjoyed significant success outside the narrow confines of academia, such as Stockhausen, Cage, Steve Reich, Phillip Glass, Arvo Part and John Corigliano. That doesn't mean you can force me down the ladder and defend the likes of Milton Babbitt, whose music has had much less success outside of academia (I wouldn't say none at all) than those I just listed, and incidentally whose music is not a personal favorite of mine.

However, I will say that as narrow and limited an audience as academia is, it is a legitimate audience, and one that preserves the man's name and work for future generations. Whether Babbitt's day will come at some point long after we are all dead and gone, I will not speculate. The only other thing I will say on his behalf is, it's really too bad that he is saddled with the statement "I don't care if you listen" [edit: actually, "Who cares if you listen?" which sounds even more rude], which was a title added by and editor to an article he wrote without is knowledge or permission. That's showbiz, I guess.


----------



## Thomyum2

fluteman said:


> That doesn't mean you can force me down the ladder and defend the likes of Milton Babbitt, whose music has had much less success outside of academia (I wouldn't say none at all) than those I just listed, and incidentally whose music is not a personal favorite of mine.
> 
> However, I will say that as narrow and limited an audience as academia is, it is a legitimate audience, and one that preserves the man's name and work for future generations. Whether Babbitt's day will come at some point long after we are all dead and gone, I will not speculate. The only other thing I will say on his behalf is, it's really too bad that he is saddled with the statement "I don't care if you listen", which was a title added by and editor to an article he wrote without is knowledge or permission. That's showbiz, I guess.


Since we're on the topic I'll share an anecdote from my college days in the 80s - a new music ensemble came to our school one year and did a performance of a number of recently composed works, among which was a rather long and difficult piece by Babbitt. At the end of the performance, the student sitting next to me, who was a composition student with ambitions of success in Broadway musicals, turned to me and said 'I feel like I've just been assaulted'!


----------



## DavidA

Thomyum2 said:


> Since we're on the topic I'll share an anecdote from my college days in the 80s - a new music ensemble came to our school one year and did a performance of a number of recently composed works, among which was a rather long and difficult piece by Babbitt. At the end of the performance, the student sitting next to me, who was a composition student with ambitions of success in Broadway musicals, turned to me and said *'I feel like I've just been assaulted'*!


Like I remember helping put on 'Play' by Samuel Beckett. At the end a young girl said to her dad, "Daddy, I didn't understand it!" to which her dad replied, "Don't worry dear. No-one else did either!"


----------



## Strange Magic

> fluteman: "The only other thing I will say on his behalf is, it's really too bad that he is saddled with the statement "I don't care if you listen", which was a title added by and editor to an article he wrote without is knowledge or permission."


As I read Babbitt's essay, the "I don't care" title, though unacknowledged and without permission, does accurately summarize Babbitt's attitude. He had a point when he drew a parallel between ultraspecialist music and ultraspecialist mathematics (for example) both deserving support within academia, but made the larger point that his sort of music had evolved beyond most every other conceivable audience. His moaning over the title, though, was representative of his "It's not my fault!" reaction to why things turned out the way they did for total serialism.


----------



## fluteman

DavidA said:


> Like I remember helping put on 'Play' by Samuel Beckett. At the end a young girl said to her dad, "Daddy, I didn't understand it!" to which her dad replied, "Don't worry dear. No-one else did either!"


Waiting for Godot had a successful, though limited, run at the Roundabout Theater on Broadway not too many years ago, starring Nathan Lane, John Glover and John Goodman. Unfortunately, I missed that, but I did see the Roundabout's recent production of another Theater of the Absurd classic, Tom Stoppard's Travesties, starring the hilarious Tom Hollander. Theater of the Absurd is another of those mid-20th century, post-modern artistic phenomena, and Stoppard takes it quite far, moving into meta-Theater of the Absurd territory. Score another point for post-modernism, or maybe just half a point, as I think some members of audience staggered out of the theater after Travesties wondering what had just hit them.


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> As I read Babbitt's essay, the "I don't care" title, though unacknowledged and without permission, does accurately summarize Babbitt's attitude. He had a point when he drew a parallel between ultraspecialist music and ultraspecialist mathematics (for example) both deserving support within academia, but made the larger point that his sort of music had evolved beyond most every other conceivable audience. His moaning over the title, though, was representative of his "It's not my fault!" reaction to why things turned out the way they did for total serialism.


Hmm. Maybe, but if you're writing a piece of self-serving propaganda (which is a fair description of most essays on music written by most composers, especially when writing about their own music) you shouldn't be undercut by your own editor, however apt that undercutting may be.


----------



## DavidA

fluteman said:


> Waiting for Godot had a successful, though limited, run at the Roundabout Theater on Broadway not too many years ago, starring Nathan Lane, John Glover and John Goodman. Unfortunately, I missed that, but I did see the Roundabout's recent production of another Theater of the Absurd classic, Tom Stoppard's Travesties, starring the hilarious Tom Hollander. Theater of the Absurd is another of those mid-20th century, post-modern artistic phenomena, and Stoppard takes it quite far, moving into meta-Theater of the Absurd territory. Score another point for post-modernism, or maybe just half a point, as I *think some members of audience staggered out of the theater after Travesties wondering wh*at had just hit them.


Stoppard himself admitted that people who knew the actual historical facts that lay behind the play might well consider it a travesty.


----------



## Eusebius12

fluteman said:


> The trouble with Dewey is, 20th-century philosophers aren't as good as 18th- and 19th-century ones.


And composers!



> By 1900, all the good theories of aesthetics had already been written. Philosophy was dumbed down in the 20th-century, and if you weren't a logical positivist, the universities tossed you out on your ear!


...


----------



## Eusebius12

Strange Magic said:


> I believe we're saying the same thing. I think the total serialists, one by one, found they had gone down the path unaccompanied by a meaningful audience other than their peer group. Some retreated into their towers and blew trumpets of defiance. In Babbitt's case, his receiving his special Pulitzer in 1982 triggered an interview in a local weekly, The Princeton Packet as I recall. The interview was a sour outpouring of bitter (and weary) observation from B, complaining that nobody came to the concerts, even if free. Nobody anymore was willing to finance concerts of the music of his own or his peers, and that people just seemed to prefer his other, more accessable music, to his wondering chagrin. I wish I had kept both his interview and my Letter of Reply!


Weird, because you seem to be anti-modernist from a relativistic point of view. Whereas others are from an objectivist point of view!

Also, is this 'worse' than Stockhausen?






I don't see it. I note it has over 130,000 views. It has a certain lyricism. Everyone's 'bete-noire' is different, but modernist composers (some of whom I respect at least a little) will never be loved by me like the past greats, and will never occupy the same place in my (the?) Pantheon. I can admire Xenakis despite the thorny textures, because he has the courage of his convictions and his aural assault (at times), and there seems to be an underlying logic in some of his work. Ditto Boulez, whose textures seem related to music if it is not always easily perceived. I find Carter particularly heavy going. Cage doesn't interest me, he is too dilettantish.


----------



## Eusebius12

Strange Magic said:


> Certainly we each, individually, can apply whatever standards suit us in any and all of the arts. Actually, we all do so, all the time. Bridges and art: two different things entirely.


You don't think that architecture qualifies as Art?


----------



## Eusebius12

DavidA said:


> Stoppard himself admitted that people who knew the actual historical facts that lay behind the play might well consider it a travesty.


There is something about certain combinations of sounds at certain volumes that causes real physical pain. Does Stoppard ever stick pins into his audience? Speaking as someone who enjoys some occasional Xenakis..


----------



## Strange Magic

Eusebius12 said:


> You don't think that architecture qualifies as Art?


It certainly has a very large "art" component. My father was an AIA architect, and strove to make his structures as pleasing to both his own aesthetic and that of his paying client(s) as possible. The primary goal though, always, was to meet or exceed code in all respects and to have the structure completely fulfill its function as housing, public gathering place, etc. A balance, surely, but building codes, specifications, testing standards, etc. for bridges and buildings (see Ani DiFranco: _Buildings and Bridges_) are far more both collectively agreed to and imposed, and are the product of analyzing actual failure in situ, hence more objective/collective in every way. Different from "pure" art.


----------



## Eusebius12

Art can be 'practical' and 'occasional' as well though,...


----------



## Guest

Eusebius12 said:


> Also, is this 'worse' than Stockhausen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it. I note it has over 130,000 views. It has a certain lyricism.


What I find unfathomable is why anyone with any broad understanding of music would listen to this (or Stockhausen) and be disappointed (or even outraged) that it doesn't sound like, for example, a Schubert lieder. This music needs to be listened to with different expectations (or none).


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> What I find unfathomable is why anyone with any broad understanding of music would listen to this (or Stockhausen) and be disappointed (or even outraged) that it doesn't sound like, for example, a Schubert lieder. This music needs to be listened to with different expectations (or none).


I think zero expectations is appropriate here else you may be very well disappointed.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> I think zero expectations is appropriate here else you may be very well disappointed.


Yes, that's why I added (none) in brackets.


----------



## LezLee

This is the current top 20 from the UK Classic FM radio station:

This
Week	Last
Week	Title & Artist
1	2	ISLANDS - ESSENTIAL EINAUDI, LUDOVICO EINAUDI
2	3	INSPIRATION, SHEKU KANNEH-MASON
3	NEW	THE CLASSICS YOU KNOW, ROYAL PHILHARMONIC ORCHESTRA
4	NEW	ANGEL, ELAN CATRIN PARRY
5	6	THE LITTLE MERMAID - OST, ALAN MENKEN

6	5	THE 50 GREATEST PIECES OF CLASSICAL, LPO/PARRY
7	9	THE LORD OF THE RINGS - TRILOGY - OST, HOWARD SHORE
8	4	AMORE, ANDRE RIEU
9	8	DIVENIRE, LUDOVICO EINAUDI
10	17	ELEMENTS, LUDOVICO EINAUDI

11	21	VIVALDI X2 - DOUBLE CONCERTOS FOR OBOES, LA SERENISSIMA/ADRIAN CHANDLER
12	18	SCORE, 2CELLOS
13	7	GLADIATOR - OST, HANS ZIMMER & LISA GERRARD
14	11	SLEEP, MAX RICHTER
15	16	THE LORD OF THE RINGS - OST, HOWARD SHORE

16	13	THE BLUE NOTEBOOKS, MAX RICHTER
17	12	RACHMANINOV/ETUDES-TABLEAUX, STEVEN OSBOURNE
18	14	IN A TIME LAPSE, LUDOVICO EINAUDI
19	10	JOHN WILLIAMS - A LIFE IN MUSIC, LSO/GREENAWAY
20	27	AVENGERS - INFINITY WAR - OST, ALAN SILVESTRI

21	19	INCREDIBLES 2 - OST, MICHAEL GIACCHINO
22	1	LORD OF THE RINGS - THE TWO TOWERS - OST, HOWARD SHORE
23	20	CLASSICAL CHILLOUT, VARIOUS ARTISTS
24	15	POLDARK - OST, ANNE DUDLEY
25	22	I GIORNI, LUDOVICO EINAUDI

26	24	GAME OF THRONES - SEASON 6 - OST, RAMIN DJAWADI
27	23	UNA MATTINA, LUDOVICO EINAUDI
28	RE	PRIDE & PREJUDICE - OST, MARIANELLI/ECO/THIBAUDET
29	26	GAME OF THRONES - SEASON 7 - OST, RAMIN DJAWADI
30	RE	RECOMPOSED BY MAX RICHTER/VIVALDI - FOUR, HOPE/KONZERTHAUS CO/RIDDER

I’m quite happy to deride 90% of these. :devil:
-


----------



## millionrainbows

Music is a form of mathematics, according to the Greeks and their "quadrivium." This is the big paradigm shift that "regular" music lovers can't get past. It's what fuels Schoenberg, Stockhausen, Xenakis, etc.

Classical music/orchestras is just a 'museum' tradition that is kept alive by specialists for the 'museum' industry of CM. It survives by being in academic institutions which serve that aim. My experience is that these academic institutions are serving that aspect of classical music which is congruous with, and still in keeping with Church traditions. Church organists, choirs.

The notion of popularity and mass appeal has been used as an argument against the new paradigm of music. That appeal is from the old world, when orchestral music was the only game in town, and served as entertainment. That appeal represents the old paradigm of music as being tonal, and tonality being the "artistic/sensual ideology" which serves the Church, has always served the Church, and will continue to represent a simple sensual solution to music, which appeals to the basic sense of harmonic perception in a very simplistic way, like a dependable, ubiquitous stimulus which always works, whether in the service of techno/dance music, pop music, folk music, soundtracks to movie myths, and every expression which Humanity has devised to "hypnotize" and charm the populace.

Stockhausen and other such composers are largely frowned upon today in these institutions, because they represent a scientific, totally rational, individualistic, non-sensually based, secular orientation that is completely removed from Church tradition. In this sense, serialism is not an "ideology;" it is an "anti-ideology" which threatened to destroy the status quo of institutionalized tonality.

The idea that academic serialists were dominant might have been true at one time, but it is not true today. Things have settled back into a Church-oriented mode, and the "chickens have come home to roost" as we knew they always would, eventually.

Serialism was only a brief moment when composers "woke up" out of the pod, as in The Matrix.


----------



## Woodduck

Music is a form of mathematics, according to the Greeks and their "quadrivium." This is the big paradigm shift that "regular" music lovers can't get past. It's what fuels Schoenberg, Stockhausen, Xenakis, etc.

Forget the Greeks and their quadrivium. Music is not a form of mathematics. No such "paradigm shift" occurred. A few composers have behaved as pseudo-mathematicians, and consequently only a handful of people are interested in their music. But as one of them is said to have said, "Who cares...?"

Classical music/orchestras is just a 'museum' tradition that is kept alive by specialists for the 'museum' industry of CM. It survives by being in academic institutions which serve that aim. 

Classical music survives by being performed and listened to by people who love it. If that's a museum industry, three cheers for museums.

My experience is that these academic institutions are serving that aspect of classical music which is congruous with, and still in keeping with Church traditions. Church organists, choirs.

That's your experience? That's not my experience. Who else has had that experience, I wonder?

The notion of popularity and mass appeal has been used as an argument against the new paradigm of music. That appeal is from the old world, when orchestral music was the only game in town, and served as entertainment.

There's keyboard music, chamber music, choral music, opera music, song, and dance music too, and in the "old world" much of it could be enjoyed at home. That's a pretty multifaceted "game."

That appeal represents the old paradigm of music as being tonal, and tonality being the "artistic/sensual ideology" which serves the Church, has always served the Church,

What's this obsession with the Church? The fact that atonality isn't popular in church has implications deeper than religion. It isn't popular anywhere else either.

and will continue to represent a simple sensual solution to music, which appeals to the basic sense of harmonic perception in a very simplistic way, like a dependable, ubiquitous stimulus which always works, 

Tonality isn't "simplistic" (look it up), but it sure as hell does "work."

whether in the service of techno/dance music, pop music, folk music, soundtracks to movie myths, and every expression which Humanity has devised to "hypnotize" and charm the populace.

Ah yes: music, the opiate of the people. BTW, you left out "classical music," which I've always thought does more than hypnotize and charm me. But maybe that's all it does to you. Too bad.

Stockhausen and other such composers are largely frowned upon today in these institutions, because they represent a scientific, totally rational, individualistic, non-sensually based, secular orientation that is completely removed from Church tradition.

Um... I don't think that's the reason "such composers" haven't produced popular settings of the gloria, crucifixus, et resurrexit or agnus dei.

In this sense, serialism is not an "ideology;" it is an "anti-ideology" which threatened to destroy the status quo of institutionalized tonality.

Tonality, which is intuitive, is not rooted in ideology, while serialism, which is not intuitive, began in one man's ideology and became an ideological movement. Tonality never had to be "institutionalized," and serialism never threatened to destroy it. However, the ideological, institutional serialists gave that the old college try.

The idea that academic serialists were dominant might have been true at one time, but it is not true today. 

Thankfully.

Things have settled back into a Church-oriented mode, and the "chickens have come home to roost" as we knew they always would, eventually.

The only true thing here is that "we" - most of us - knew that serialism's claims to the future were fraudulent. Serialism happened, and now its just one more choice available to the makers of music. Or at least those so quasi-mathematically inclined.


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> The only true thing here is that "we" - most of us - knew that serialism's claims to the future were fraudulent. Serialism happened, and now its just one more choice available to the makers of music. Or at least those so quasi-mathematically inclined.


Is it your view that serialism is purely a mathematical exercise with little or no true human inspiration?


----------



## Woodduck

janxharris said:


> Is it your view that serialism is purely a mathematical exercise with little or no true human inspiration?


It can be that, depending on how thoroughly it governs a composers choices. Even Boulez admitted as much. It's a starting point for composition, and if a composer can be inspired while using it, more power to him.


----------



## Strange Magic

> millionrainbows: "Stockhausen and other such composers are largely frowned upon today in these institutions, because they represent a scientific, totally rational, individualistic, non-sensually based, secular orientation that is completely removed from Church tradition.


As Woodduck observes, "those composers" have not been churning out religious music for the church to accept or reject. No music for line dancing either. But I understand millionrainbow's reason for this part of his post: it's yet another opportunity for him to mightily smite, hip and thigh, Science, Rationalism, Individualism, and Secularism yet again--his eternal bugbears. It's like the scene in _The Omega Man_ where Anthony Zerbe accuses Charleton Heston of practicing electricity, chemistry, magnetism.....


----------



## eugeneonagain

Perhaps no more or less than, say, traditional counterpoint; which has strict rules, but produces great music depending upon who is writing it.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Music is a form of mathematics, according to the Greeks and their "quadrivium." This is the big paradigm shift that "regular" music lovers can't get past. It's what fuels Schoenberg, Stockhausen, Xenakis, etc.
> 
> Forget the Greeks and their quadrivium. Music is not a form of mathematics. No such "paradigm shift" occurred. A few composers have behaved as pseudo-mathematicians, and consequently only a handful of people are interested in their music. But as one of them is said to have said, "Who cares...?"


Yes, it is; a form of it. It is related to physics, because sound is a physical vibration. As soon as the tonal hierarchy, based on harmonics, was abandoned as a way of organizing music, then the shift became apparent: sounds were once again sounds, freed from the ideological hierarchy of Western tonality and the church, as well as the simplistic knee-jerk effect of harmonic sound on the ear. The brain could now be engaged; music was now conceptual again, like mathematics.



Woodduck said:


> Classical music/orchestras is just a 'museum' tradition that is kept alive by specialists for the 'museum' industry of CM. It survives by being in academic institutions which serve that aim.
> 
> Classical music survives by being performed and listened to by people who love it. If that's a museum industry, three cheers for museums.


The point being that "museums" (or perhaps "cathedrals") of classical music do not reflect the realities of the modern era. They celebrate a paradigm of the past.



Woodduck said:


> My experience is that these academic institutions are serving that aspect of classical music which is congruous with, and still in keeping with Church traditions. Church organists, choirs.
> 
> That's your experience? That's not my experience. Who else has had that experience, I wonder?


That's where you go to learn to play the organ, or sing in a choir. How are these things relevant to today's artist?



Woodduck said:


> The notion of popularity and mass appeal has been used as an argument against the new paradigm of music. That appeal is from the old world, when orchestral music was the only game in town, and served as entertainment.
> 
> There's keyboard music, chamber music, choral music, opera music, song, and dance music too, and in the "old world" much of it could be enjoyed at home. That's a pretty multifaceted "game."


Now there is recorded music and media, and new electric instruments, and new idioms of jazz, rock, and cinematic soundtracks. Classical forms of music you speak of no longer have an exclusive hold on the public's attention. In fact many new smaller niche areas are created, which makes the paradigm of Classical, which flourished because of its past dominance, less relevant as a measure of "what appeals to Joe Public."



Woodduck said:


> That appeal represents the old paradigm of music as being tonal, and tonality being the "artistic/sensual ideology" which serves the Church, has always served the Church,
> 
> What's this obsession with the Church? The fact that atonality isn't popular in church has implications deeper than religion. It isn't popular anywhere else either.


Not just atonality, but any form of music, such as electronic, will be rejected by the status quo. That status quo represents the norm, the essence of Western man, which is well-represented by his thinking, values, and religion, and manifest as his tonal language.



Woodduck said:


> and will continue to represent a simple sensual solution to music, which appeals to the basic sense of harmonic perception in a very simplistic way, like a dependable, ubiquitous stimulus which always works,
> 
> Tonality isn't "simplistic" (look it up), but it sure as hell does "work."


Yes, essentially it is a simple system, as all harmonic music is. It is more sensual than it is conceptual. It is based on hearing and its phenomena, like seeing color.



Woodduck said:


> whether in the service of techno/dance music, pop music, folk music, soundtracks to movie myths, and every expression which Humanity has devised to "hypnotize" and charm the populace.
> 
> Ah yes: music, the opiate of the people. BTW, you left out "classical music," which I've always thought does more than hypnotize and charm me. But maybe that's all it does to you. Too bad.


Classical music is not as powerful as a market force as popular musics are.



Woodduck said:


> Stockhausen and other such composers are largely frowned upon today in these institutions, because they represent a scientific, totally rational, individualistic, non-sensually based, secular orientation that is completely removed from Church tradition.
> 
> Um... I don't think that's the reason "such composers" haven't produced popular settings of the gloria, crucifixus, et resurrexit or agnus dei.


Those are trappings of art forms, religious rituals, etc; they are not qualities of the actual music I am speaking of, which was produced by more rational methods than traditional tonality.



Woodduck said:


> In this sense, serialism is not an "ideology;" it is an "anti-ideology" which threatened to destroy the status quo of institutionalized tonality.
> 
> Tonality, which is intuitive, is not rooted in ideology...


I think it is, in that it "represents" that ideology in its structure: every note in a scale refers to a keynote (I, or "God") and is an hierarchy which reflects this.



Woodduck said:


> ...while serialism, which is not intuitive, began in one man's ideology and became an ideological movement.


Serialism represents a non-hierarchical system in which all things are relative. This is much more like Einstein's thinking, which is scientific. I see The Enlightenment, rational thinking, and science as the new paradigms of our era, which replaced the old paradigm of religion. Yet, classical music still reflects the old paradigm.



Woodduck said:


> Tonality never had to be "institutionalized," and serialism never threatened to destroy it. However, the ideological, institutional serialists gave that the old college try.


Tonality is the ubiquitous manifestation of an ideology; it did not have to be created, only recognized.



Woodduck said:


> Things have settled back into a Church-oriented mode, and the "chickens have come home to roost" as we knew they always would, eventually.
> 
> The only true thing here is that "we" - most of us - knew that serialism's claims to the future were fraudulent. Serialism happened, and now its just one more choice available to the makers of music. Or at least those so quasi-mathematically inclined.


I'll accept that.


----------



## janxharris

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, it is; a form of it. It is related to physics, because sound is a physical vibration. As soon as the tonal hierarchy, based on harmonics, was abandoned as a way of organizing music, then the shift became apparent: sounds were once again sounds, freed from the ideological hierarchy of Western tonality and the church, as well as the simplistic knee-jerk effect of harmonic sound on the ear. The brain could now be engaged; music was now conceptual again, like mathematics.
> 
> The point being that "museums" (or perhaps "cathedrals") of classical music do not reflect the realities of the modern era. They celebrate a paradigm of the past.
> 
> That's where you go to learn to play the organ, or sing in a choir. How are these things relevant to today's artist?
> 
> Now there is recorded music and media, and new electric instruments, and new idioms of jazz, rock, and cinematic soundtracks. Classical forms of music you speak of no longer have an exclusive hold on the public's attention. In fact many new smaller niche areas are created, which makes the paradigm of Classical, which flourished because of its past dominance, less relevant as a measure of "what appeals to Joe Public."
> 
> Not just atonality, but any form of music, such as electronic, will be rejected by the status quo. That status quo represents the norm, the essence of Western man, which is well-represented by his thinking, values, and religion, and manifest as his tonal language.
> 
> Yes, essentially it is a simple system, as all harmonic music is. It is more sensual than it is conceptual. It is based on hearing and its phenomena, like seeing color.
> 
> Classical music is not as powerful as a market force as popular musics are.
> 
> Those are trappings of art forms, religious rituals, etc; they are not qualities of the actual music I am speaking of, which was produced by more rational methods than traditional tonality.
> 
> I think it is, in that it "represents" that ideology in its structure: every note in a scale refers to a keynote (I, or "God") and is an hierarchy which reflects this.
> 
> Serialism represents a non-hierarchical system in which all things are relative. This is much more like Einstein's thinking, which is scientific. I see The Enlightenment, rational thinking, and science as the new paradigms of our era, which replaced the old paradigm of religion. Yet, classical music still reflects the old paradigm.
> 
> Tonality is the ubiquitous manifestation of an ideology; it did not have to be created, only recognized.
> 
> I'll accept that.


The link you make between tonality and the church is tenuous. I am rather confused about what your actual point is MR.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> Music is a form of mathematics, according to the Greeks and their "quadrivium." This is the big paradigm shift that "regular" music lovers can't get past. It's what fuels Schoenberg, Stockhausen, Xenakis, etc.
> 
> Forget the Greeks and their quadrivium. Music is not a form of mathematics. No such "paradigm shift" occurred. A few composers have behaved as pseudo-mathematicians, and consequently only a handful of people are interested in their music. But as one of them is said to have said, "Who cares...?"
> 
> Classical music/orchestras is just a 'museum' tradition that is kept alive by specialists for the 'museum' industry of CM. It survives by being in academic institutions which serve that aim.
> 
> Classical music survives by being performed and listened to by people who love it. If that's a museum industry, three cheers for museums.
> 
> My experience is that these academic institutions are serving that aspect of classical music which is congruous with, and still in keeping with Church traditions. Church organists, choirs.
> 
> That's your experience? That's not my experience. Who else has had that experience, I wonder?
> 
> The notion of popularity and mass appeal has been used as an argument against the new paradigm of music. That appeal is from the old world, when orchestral music was the only game in town, and served as entertainment.
> 
> There's keyboard music, chamber music, choral music, opera music, song, and dance music too, and in the "old world" much of it could be enjoyed at home. That's a pretty multifaceted "game."
> 
> That appeal represents the old paradigm of music as being tonal, and tonality being the "artistic/sensual ideology" which serves the Church, has always served the Church,
> 
> What's this obsession with the Church? The fact that atonality isn't popular in church has implications deeper than religion. It isn't popular anywhere else either.
> 
> and will continue to represent a simple sensual solution to music, which appeals to the basic sense of harmonic perception in a very simplistic way, like a dependable, ubiquitous stimulus which always works,
> 
> Tonality isn't "simplistic" (look it up), but it sure as hell does "work."
> 
> whether in the service of techno/dance music, pop music, folk music, soundtracks to movie myths, and every expression which Humanity has devised to "hypnotize" and charm the populace.
> 
> Ah yes: music, the opiate of the people. BTW, you left out "classical music," which I've always thought does more than hypnotize and charm me. But maybe that's all it does to you. Too bad.
> 
> Stockhausen and other such composers are largely frowned upon today in these institutions, because they represent a scientific, totally rational, individualistic, non-sensually based, secular orientation that is completely removed from Church tradition.
> 
> Um... I don't think that's the reason "such composers" haven't produced popular settings of the gloria, crucifixus, et resurrexit or agnus dei.
> 
> In this sense, serialism is not an "ideology;" it is an "anti-ideology" which threatened to destroy the status quo of institutionalized tonality.
> 
> Tonality, which is intuitive, is not rooted in ideology, while serialism, which is not intuitive, began in one man's ideology and became an ideological movement. Tonality never had to be "institutionalized," and serialism never threatened to destroy it. However, the ideological, institutional serialists gave that the old college try.
> 
> The idea that academic serialists were dominant might have been true at one time, but it is not true today.
> 
> Thankfully.
> 
> Things have settled back into a Church-oriented mode, and the "chickens have come home to roost" as we knew they always would, eventually.
> 
> The only true thing here is that "we" - most of us - knew that serialism's claims to the future were fraudulent. Serialism happened, and now its just one more choice available to the makers of music. Or at least those so quasi-mathematically inclined.


Million Rainbows is a rationalist claiming that his opponents are theists. But theism is largely a straw man here, and he knows it. He is really trying to appeal to his fellow rationalists, who are numerous here, arguing that they should accept Schoenberg, Stockhausen and Xenakis because "music is mathematics." The problem with this argument is that, as you have noted, music is _not_ mathematics. As I mentioned earlier, David Hume cogently observed back in the 18th century, and many other writers on this subject have acknowledged since, the aesthetic question can never be reduced to a logical one. It is always ultimately an empirical one. That is why if I'm going to defend Schoenberg or Stockhausen, I'll always do so on empirical, not rational, grounds. Otherwise my argument fails before it begins.

Alas, many posters here reject empiricism, a disturbing trend I see these days in other areas of discourse as well. Instead, they seek comfort and validation by retreating to platitudes like the true but unhelpful "Nobody can tell me what to like", or by showering each other with polls, surveys and games that have no real empirical value. Others look to rationalism, and they are Million Rainbow's best targets. But they are also barking up the wrong tree.


----------



## eugeneonagain

'Rationalist' is not the word I would have used.


----------



## millionrainbows

janxharris said:


> The link you make between tonality and the church is tenuous. I am rather confused about what your actual point is MR.


The Enlightenment? This is the scientific age, and the Church has lost its former power.

The Church is an hierarchy; all things are related to "one" thing, which is God. In tonality, all notes of the scale are related to "one" keynote. In serialism, all notes are relative, and the hierarchy is gone.

I don't know of a simpler way to explain it. If you don't buy the analogy, don't buy it.


----------



## Strange Magic

janxharris said:


> The link you make between tonality and the church is tenuous. I am rather confused about what your actual point is MR.


You are not alone.


----------



## millionrainbows

fluteman said:


> ..."music is mathematics." The problem with this argument is that, as you have noted, music is _not_ mathematics.


I never said that music is _totally_ or _exclusively_ mathematical; only that music was included in the Greek quadrivium as a form of mathematics. The mathematical connection is there.

Music is of course an art form, ultimately. You are exaggerating my position for your argument's sake.



fluteman said:


> ...Others look to rationalism, and they are Million Rainbow's best targets. But they are also barking up the wrong tree.


No, I'm not claiming that my opponents are theists; only that they are acting unconsciously in favor of a worn-out paradigm. In opposing modsernism, they are rejecting scientific thought and rationalism.

I must admit that it is ironic that opponents of modern music, who otherwise claim to be rationalists, listen to and defend tonal music without realizing that it is the manifestation of non-rational religious thought. I guess they like the "fruits" of religion without having to go to the trouble of committing; they simply "oppose" modernism without knowing on what position they are basing their argument. Typical.


----------



## JAS

I will answer the OP more directly: What Music is okay to deride? Any of it, with no exceptions. (You might get a lot of disagreement and push-back, but that too is okay.)


----------



## millionrainbows

Originally Posted by *janxharris* 
_The link you make between tonality and the church is tenuous. I am rather confused about what your actual point is MR._



Strange Magic said:


> You are not alone.


Western music was created as a function of the Church, since Gregorian chant. The connection between Western music and the Church should be obvious in many ways.
...But since I'm talking about the _actual structure_ of the music, and not its stylistic trappings, then I have lost you. The way in which tonality is an hierarchical structure seems to have eluded you.


----------



## fluteman

eugeneonagain said:


> 'Rationalist' is not the word I would have used.


I meant, rationalist as opposed to empiricist, not that it is somehow rational to view music as mathematics.


----------



## KenOC

MR has the church's attitudes exactly backwards. In fact, starting early in the 20th century, the church was a powerful enemy of tonal music and heavily supported the serialists. Perhaps MR has forgotten the papal bull _De Musicis Rebus_, which urged direct action against tonal composers:

"Set their conservatories on fire, destroy their textbooks and scores, forbid them from teaching, seize their property and money, and smash up their homes, so that these envenomed worms will be forced into honest labor or expelled for all time."

(Actually that last is borrowed from another well-known religious leader…)


----------



## millionrainbows

fluteman said:


> I meant, rationalist as opposed to empiricist, not that it is somehow rational to view music as mathematics.


The Quadrivium; look it up in Wikepedia. Music is included as a form of mathematics, along with astronomy, arithmetic, and geometry.


----------



## millionrainbows

I (tonic): The Father, to which all things are related

The tritone: The Devil

Additionally, note that the concept of "zero" was forbidden by the church (WIK):

_"The ancient Greeks had no symbol for zero, and did not use a digit placeholder for it. They seemed unsure about the status of zero as a number. They asked themselves, "How can nothing be something?", leading to philosophical and, by the medieval period, religious arguments about the nature and existence of zero and the vacuum."

_The nature of this argument can be found manifest in the Church doctrine of "Privatio boni," or "privation of good," which stated that "If God created eveything, then the notion of "nothingness" is contrary to this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absence_of_good

In tonality, scale notes are numbered from 1; there is no zero. That is because in tonality pitches have "identity" which is equated with "being;" they have a unique position within each octave and are related to "1", the tonic.

In serialism, all pitches are relative, and have no "identity" except as in relation to other pitches. Therefore, intervals are seen as quantities only, independent of any relationship within an octave or key area.

Serialism, military time, and mathematics all use zero; calendars, years, days, and traditional clock-faces do not. This is a vestige of the past, when no zeros were used in measuring time, because time is equated with being-in-time, and our being was thought to be created by God.

Serialism proves itself to be more scientific than tonality in its use of zero and number lines.

Additionally, intervals in serialism are measured by quantity from zero. In tonality, intervals have a "directionality" that is absent in serial thought, because tonality is recursive, i.e. interval relationships repeat every octave, and are dependent on their position in the octave.


----------



## fluteman

millionrainbows said:


> I must admit that it is ironic that opponents of modern music, who otherwise claim to be rationalists, listen to and defend tonal music without realizing that it is the manifestation of non-rational religious thought. I guess they like the "fruits" of religion without having to go to the trouble of committing; they simply "oppose" modernism without knowing on what position they are basing their argument. Typical.


Even theists, conscious or not, are generally rationalists much like you, except rather than making your mistake of thinking that an aesthetic pursuit like music can be analyzed purely in terms of mathematics, they ascribe to God whatever cannot be logically deduced. But your main opponents here are pure rationalists just like you, except that while they believe that tonal music is the inevitable rational result of natural principles, mathematical or otherwise, atonal music violates those natural principles and is thus invalid. So you go on and on trying to demonstrate that atonal music is mathematically correct. But you will never succeed, since you reject empiricism and start down the wrong path.

Edit: David Hume, On the Standard of Taste. Much more recent than the Quadrivium. They don't call it The Age of Enlightenment for nothing. Look it up.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Only people trapped in a religious "paradigm" would make that preposterous argument. Music separated from the music used in the Church a very long time ago (and some music, tonal too, had nothing whatsoever to do with the church at all - folk music, dance music of the ordinary folk specifically).

The entire 'thesis' is a joke. It's the product of a religious mind.


----------



## millionrainbows

fluteman said:


> ... your main opponents here are pure rationalists just like you, except that while they believe that tonal music is the inevitable rational result of natural principles, mathematical or otherwise, atonal music violates those natural principles and is thus invalid. So you go on and on trying to demonstrate that atonal music is mathematically correct. But you will never succeed, since you reject empiricism and start down the wrong path.


If you say serial thought "violates natural principles," you do not realize the arbitrary nature of our 12-note octave.

Since serial music is pitched sound using a 12-note division of the octave, it is just as congruent as tonality with the way our Western octave is divided, which, by the way, is not natural.

_All pitched sound_ is natural, because all pitches are fundamentals with harmonics.


----------



## millionrainbows

fluteman said:


> ...But your main opponents here are pure rationalists just like you, except that while they believe that tonal music is the inevitable rational result of natural principles, mathematical or otherwise, atonal music violates those natural principles and is thus invalid.
> Edit: David Hume, On the Standard of Taste. Much more recent than the Quadrivium. They don't call it The Age of Enlightenment for nothing. Look it up.


WIK: "Hume also denied that humans have an actual conception of the self, positing that we experience only a bundle of sensations, and that the self is nothing more than this bundle of causally-connected perceptions."

This is more like serial thinking than tonality, since tonality depends on the unique "identity" of pitches within an octave-hierarchy, and serialism does not. Hume would have made an excellent serialist.


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> Music separated from the music used in the Church a very long time ago...


Yes, but the vestiges still remain. The structure of tonal music still reflects a religious hierarchy.



eugeneonagain said:


> ...and some music, tonal too, had nothing whatsoever to do with the church at all - folk music, dance music of the ordinary folk specifically.


True, tonality is ubiquitous. The Church did not "invent" tonality; it is simply the manifestation of that hierarchical relationship with Man and God, which must be contrasted with serial thought in order to fully make the distinction.

The argument could be made, as I have done elsewhere, that tonality in its most basic form, one note and its harmonics, constitute the "drone" from which Western chant emerged, as a natural expression of spirituality; thus, tonality truly is "God" or whatever you want to call it. 
Science is certainly not concerned with our "spirit," if there is one, so serial music also reflects this, in its aesthetic flavor of "impersonality" and objectivity; its seeming "disregard" of the listener as being entertained and coddled.


----------



## Strange Magic

> millionrainbows: "I must admit that it is ironic that opponents of modern music, who otherwise claim to be rationalists, listen to and defend tonal music without realizing that it is the manifestation of non-rational religious thought. I guess they like the "fruits" of religion without having to go to the trouble of committing; they simply "oppose" modernism without knowing on what position they are basing their argument. Typical."


With friends like millionrainbows, who needs enemies? Were "religion" embodied in a single form, like Liberty, She would be shrieking at being dragged into a contrived war between tonal and non-tonal music. The only connection between rationalism and love of this or that sort of music exists inside of a certain skull.....


----------



## millionrainbows

Strange Magic said:


> With friends like millionrainbows, who needs enemies? Were "religion" embodied in a single form, like Liberty, She would be shrieking at being dragged into a contrived war between tonal and non-tonal music. The only connection between rationalism and love of this or that sort of music exists inside of a certain skull.....


Then why do you listen to music? Does it make you feel good, like a human being? Sound is something that humans seek, just as they seek other things: for confirmation of something. What is that thing? It's not zero.


----------



## Strange Magic

millionrainbows said:


> Then why do you listen to music? Does it make you feel good, like a human being? Sound is something that humans seek, just as they seek other things: for confirmation of something. What is that thing? It's not zero.


As usual my friend, you have totally lost me....


----------



## fluteman

millionrainbows said:


> If you say serial thought "violates natural principles," you do not realize the arbitrary nature of our 12-note octave.
> 
> Since serial music is pitched sound using a 12-note division of the octave, it is just as congruent as tonality with the way our Western octave is divided, which, by the way, is not natural.
> 
> _All pitched sound_ is natural, because all pitches are fundamentals with harmonics.


No, I do not say serial thought violates natural principles. I might agree that all pitched sound is natural in some sense, but I wouldn't then conclude that any music that consists of pitched sounds is therefore somehow validated. That is a classic rationalist fallacy. Art succeeds if and only if, and only to the extent that, it reaches and moves its audience. Every serious thinker on this issue from Hume onwards acknowledges that, including John Dewey, cited above by arpeggio. And that is fundamentally an empirical issue. Your endless logical analyses will never get you there.


----------



## Woodduck

I never said that music is _totally_ or _exclusively_ mathematical; only that music was included in the Greek quadrivium as a form of mathematics. The mathematical connection is there. 

Everything in the physical universe has a "mathematical connection." This tells us nothing of interest.

You are exaggerating my position for your argument's sake.

People are just trying to determine what your position is.

I'm not claiming that my opponents are theists;

That's good, because most of the time you're ragging on atheists and touting "spirituality." Evidently "spirituality" is now to be identified with "rationalism"?

only that they are acting unconsciously in favor of a worn-out paradigm. In opposing modernism, they are rejecting scientific thought and rationalism.

Nonsense. "Modernism" was a broad movement with contrasting and even contradictory tendencies. Infatuation with science - or pseudo-science - was only one strain.

I must admit that it is ironic that opponents of modern music, who otherwise claim to be rationalists, listen to and defend tonal music without realizing that it is the manifestation of non-rational religious thought. 

It is no such thing. Your analogies between tonality and theism are merely analogies. Hierarchical structures are found throughout the observable universe; the very structure of thought - of reason, of RATIONALITY - is hierarchical, as I have explained in a number of posts here over the years in discussing the origins of tonality. Serialism (to name one Modernist musical invention) may indeed represent "rationalism," but that is not the same thing as rationality. Your "rationalism" is to reason as "scientism" is to science ("scientism" is the attempt to apply scientific principles, or lend scientific prestige, to areas of thought or activities where it is inappropriate or irrelevant.)

I guess they like the "fruits" of religion without having to go to the trouble of committing; they simply "oppose" modernism without knowing on what position they are basing their argument.

Typical. 

Pre-Modernist music (however defined) is not a "fruit of religion." Opposition to Modernism (however defined) is not an issue, since Modernism is now history. If people prefer music from the pre-Modernist era, nothing you've concocted here accounts for it.

Typical.


----------



## Janspe

fluteman said:


> NArt succeeds if and only if, and only to the extent that, it reaches and moves its audience. *Every serious thinker on this issue from Hume onwards acknowledges that* --


Could you elaborate on that a little? When was such a consensus reached? The last time I checked, the field of art philosophy was still undergoing heated discussions on the issue. I'm genuinely interested.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, but the vestiges still remain. The structure of tonal music still reflects a religious hierarchy.
> 
> True, tonality is ubiquitous. The Church did not "invent" tonality; it is simply the manifestation of that hierarchical relationship with Man and God, which must be contrasted with serial thought in order to fully make the distinction.
> 
> Science is certainly not concerned with our "spirit," if there is one, so serial music also reflects this, in its aesthetic flavor of "impersonality" and objectivity; its seeming "disregard" of the listener as being entertained and coddled.


Tonality is not a manifestation of the hierarchical relationship between man and God. The reverse is true: that relationship is but one manifestation of hierarchy, which appears throughout the universe in innumerable forms and is essential to both the physical functions of life and to the structure of perception and thought. Hierarchy doesn't symbolize religion, it precedes and transcends it. Tonality thus represents something far more fundamental than religion.

If what you mean by "science" takes no account of hierarchy as a principle in reality, it is an incomplete, feeble and fractured "science" which doesn't deserve the name. Why you should value music that supposedly embodies it, music that's "impersonal" and "disregards the listener" - and why you should deride music that embodies a basic structural principle in the universe and in our cognition of it as "coddling" and as "entertainment" - is baffling.


----------



## Sid James

LezLee said:


> This is the current top 20 from the UK Classic FM radio station:
> 
> This
> Week	Last
> Week	Title & Artist
> 1	2	ISLANDS - ESSENTIAL EINAUDI, LUDOVICO EINAUDI
> 2	3	INSPIRATION, SHEKU KANNEH-MASON
> 3	NEW	THE CLASSICS YOU KNOW, ROYAL PHILHARMONIC ORCHESTRA
> 4	NEW	ANGEL, ELAN CATRIN PARRY
> 5	6	THE LITTLE MERMAID - OST, ALAN MENKEN
> 
> 6	5	THE 50 GREATEST PIECES OF CLASSICAL, LPO/PARRY
> 7	9	THE LORD OF THE RINGS - TRILOGY - OST, HOWARD SHORE
> 8	4	AMORE, ANDRE RIEU
> 9	8	DIVENIRE, LUDOVICO EINAUDI
> 10	17	ELEMENTS, LUDOVICO EINAUDI
> 
> 11	21	VIVALDI X2 - DOUBLE CONCERTOS FOR OBOES, LA SERENISSIMA/ADRIAN CHANDLER
> 12	18	SCORE, 2CELLOS
> 13	7	GLADIATOR - OST, HANS ZIMMER & LISA GERRARD
> 14	11	SLEEP, MAX RICHTER
> 15	16	THE LORD OF THE RINGS - OST, HOWARD SHORE
> 
> 16	13	THE BLUE NOTEBOOKS, MAX RICHTER
> 17	12	RACHMANINOV/ETUDES-TABLEAUX, STEVEN OSBOURNE
> 18	14	IN A TIME LAPSE, LUDOVICO EINAUDI
> 19	10	JOHN WILLIAMS - A LIFE IN MUSIC, LSO/GREENAWAY
> 20	27	AVENGERS - INFINITY WAR - OST, ALAN SILVESTRI
> 
> 21	19	INCREDIBLES 2 - OST, MICHAEL GIACCHINO
> 22	1	LORD OF THE RINGS - THE TWO TOWERS - OST, HOWARD SHORE
> 23	20	CLASSICAL CHILLOUT, VARIOUS ARTISTS
> 24	15	POLDARK - OST, ANNE DUDLEY
> 25	22	I GIORNI, LUDOVICO EINAUDI
> 
> 26	24	GAME OF THRONES - SEASON 6 - OST, RAMIN DJAWADI
> 27	23	UNA MATTINA, LUDOVICO EINAUDI
> 28	RE	PRIDE & PREJUDICE - OST, MARIANELLI/ECO/THIBAUDET
> 29	26	GAME OF THRONES - SEASON 7 - OST, RAMIN DJAWADI
> 30	RE	RECOMPOSED BY MAX RICHTER/VIVALDI - FOUR, HOPE/KONZERTHAUS CO/RIDDER
> 
> I'm quite happy to deride 90% of these. :devil:
> -


You might deride them, but those are the exact types of recordings that bankroll highbrow classical, which on the whole is unviable and lucky to break even. In the short term, that is because in terms of sales classical is the opposite of pop. It sells steadily over a long period, rather than quickly over a short period.

I remember reading a book on the history of the Philadelphia Orchestra. You know, even in their halcyon days with Ormandy, their best selling record by far was with guest conductor Arthur Fiedler doing a disc of light classical 'lollipops' type music. I can't imagine the noblesse oblige type model changing much, the big sellers today like Einaudi, Shore, Rieu and so on putting far more money into the coffers of the big labels and some of that in turn going towards making less immediately bankable highbrow music.

Although I don't know Einaudi or Richter much, I actually like film music and also light music like Andre Rieu - and Mantovani of old days had a similar position to him, making the biggest record sales in orchestral music when stereo came in - but that's not the point. I think we look down on this type of music at our peril. We can theorise and philosophise forever but there has to be money in the first place to make music, particularly highbrow classical music.

Having been on numerous occasion looked down upon as a pleb on this forum, I happily join the great unwashed. Its a badge of honour of sorts, and whatever type of listener I am judged to be, the fact is that so-called pure highbrow classical would not exist without other genres, including the lowbrow stuff within its own genre.

This includes contemporary and avant-garde, Norman Lebrecht's coverage of how the the Grateful Dead rock group funded a series of discs by composers like Birtwistle, Ferneyhough and Carter has been widely known for decades. Whether classical listeners want to talk about these sorts of things is another matter. Its easier to avoid such discomfiting issues.

http://articles.latimes.com/1991-08-04/entertainment/ca-365_1_grateful-dead


----------



## fluteman

Janspe said:


> Could you elaborate on that a little? When was such a consensus reached? The last time I checked, the field of art philosophy was still undergoing heated discussions on the issue. I'm genuinely interested.


True, I'm accepting as a given that empiricism has won the day, and the thinkers I am citing, like Hume, are empiricists. But consider this: The ideas of Galileo and Isaac Newton ultimately triumphed over Church doctrine, not because they were logically or mathematically correct (it turns out they are roughly correct under typical conditions, but not exactly) but because they were borne out by empirical observation. The same is true of all scientific theory that plays so great a role in our lives today. Nobody would care about scientific and mathematical theories that say you can fly a jet to the Greek islands if empirical observation didn't confirm that is actually the case, and that you can watch a couple of movies and surf the 'net on the way there.

So you'll have to forgive me for insisting on an empirical approach. Of course, empiricism is an imperfect system, and human knowledge is always imperfect and finite. Perhaps that frustrates Million Rainbows, who can't logically prove atonal music is good, and others who can't prove it is bad. But that's show biz.


----------



## KenOC

Reading this thread makes me think of an old movie I saw once. The remnants of mankind are living among the ruins of our technological civilization, a world they no longer understand. But they have been taught that the shattered wonders about them were created with something called “science.” So the priests would read from the sacred texts: “Though most prokaryotes have both a cell membrane and a cell wall, there are exceptions such as Mycoplasma and Thermoplasma which only possess the cell membrane layer.” And the congregations, swaying in religious near-ecstasy, would chant the traditional response: “Very scientific! Very scientific!”


----------



## fluteman

KenOC said:


> Reading this thread makes me think of an old movie I saw once. The remnants of mankind are living among the ruins of our technological civilization, a world they no longer understand. But they have been taught that the shattered wonders about them were created with something called "science." So the priests would read from the sacred texts: "Though most prokaryotes have both a cell membrane and a cell wall, there are exceptions such as Mycoplasma and Thermoplasma which only possess the cell membrane layer." And the congregations, swaying in religious near-ecstasy, would chant the traditional response: "Very scientific! Very scientific!"


Exactly. You not only understand my point, you are able to tell a story that is both relevant and funny. You win the Funk & Wagnalls Complete Works of Milton Babbitt.


----------



## KenOC

fluteman said:


> You win the Funk & Wagnalls Complete Works of Milton Babbitt.


How did you know I've always dreamed of having one of those???


----------



## Strange Magic

KenOC said:


> Reading this thread makes me think of an old movie I saw once. The remnants of mankind are living among the ruins of our technological civilization, a world they no longer understand. But they have been taught that the shattered wonders about them were created with something called "science." So the priests would read from the sacred texts: "Though most prokaryotes have both a cell membrane and a cell wall, there are exceptions such as Mycoplasma and Thermoplasma which only possess the cell membrane layer." And the congregations, swaying in religious near-ecstasy, would chant the traditional response: "Very scientific! Very scientific!"


It's been a long time, but Walter Miller Jr.'s 1959 sci fi classic _A Canticle for Leibowitz_ also explores this same theme, as does part of Alfred Bester's _The Stars My Destination_, another sci fi gem.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Canticle_for_Leibowitz


----------



## KenOC

Strange Magic said:


> It's been a long time, but Walter Miller Jr.'s 1959 sci fi classic _A Canticle for Leibowitz_ also explores this same theme, as does part of Alfred Bester's _The Stars My Destination_, another sci fi gem.


Yes, I may have been thinking of either, or both. I should re-read Miller's work, since my memory doesn't have that savage sense of satire that Bester enjoyed. "I kill you filthy, Varga!" says the wealthy fop Geoffrey Fourmyle...if memory serves, which is a diminishing chance these days.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> Yes, I may have been thinking of either, or both. I should re-read Miller's work, since my memory doesn't have that savage sense of satire that Bester enjoyed. "I kill you filthy, Varga!" says the wealthy fop Geoffrey Fourmyle...if memory serves, which is a diminishing chance these days.


If your memory is going, it's fortunate that you have that large staff of researchers working for you.


----------



## janxharris

millionrainbows said:


> I never said that music is _totally_ or _exclusively_ mathematical; only that music was included in the Greek quadrivium as a form of mathematics. The mathematical connection is there.
> 
> Music is of course an art form, ultimately. You are exaggerating my position for your argument's sake.
> 
> No, I'm not claiming that my opponents are theists; only that they are acting unconsciously in favor of a worn-out paradigm. In opposing modsernism, they are rejecting scientific thought and rationalism.
> 
> I must admit that it is ironic that opponents of modern music, who otherwise claim to be rationalists, listen to and defend tonal music without realizing that it is the manifestation of non-rational religious thought. I guess they like the "fruits" of religion without having to go to the trouble of committing; they simply "oppose" modernism without knowing on what position they are basing their argument. Typical.


You haven't established that tonal music is the 'manifestation of non-rational religious thought', nor, necessarily, that religion is non rational.


----------



## janxharris

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, but the vestiges still remain. The structure of tonal music still reflects a religious hierarchy.
> 
> True, tonality is ubiquitous. The Church did not "invent" tonality; it is simply the manifestation of that hierarchical relationship with Man and God, which must be contrasted with serial thought in order to fully make the distinction.
> 
> The argument could be made, as I have done elsewhere, that tonality in its most basic form, one note and its harmonics, constitute the "drone" from which Western chant emerged, as a natural expression of spirituality; thus, tonality truly is "God" or whatever you want to call it.
> Science is certainly not concerned with our "spirit," if there is one, so serial music also reflects this, in its aesthetic flavor of "impersonality" and objectivity; its seeming "disregard" of the listener as being entertained and coddled.


Science remains vibrant and relevant.


----------



## fluteman

janxharris said:


> Science remains vibrant and relevant.


Music is not God. Music is not mathematics. Music is a form of human expression. There is little point in arguing with someone who won't accept that.


----------



## Luchesi

KenOC said:


> Reading this thread makes me think of an old movie I saw once. The remnants of mankind are living among the ruins of our technological civilization, a world they no longer understand. But they have been taught that the shattered wonders about them were created with something called "science." So the priests would read from the sacred texts: "Though most prokaryotes have both a cell membrane and a cell wall, there are exceptions such as Mycoplasma and Thermoplasma which only possess the cell membrane layer." And the congregations, swaying in religious near-ecstasy, would chant the traditional response: "Very scientific! Very scientific!"


The recurring setting of the recent movie with Tom Hanks and Halle Berry has that idea. Cloud Atlas Many of the characters play more than one role. It's quite a romp of a movie if you have the time, 171 minutes. But I had to watch it more than once.. because it's a challenge to understand all the 'preaching' it does.


----------



## eugeneonagain

KenOC said:


> says the wealthy fop Geoffrey Fourmyle..


Isn't he the pompous neighbour in the British 1970s sitcom _George & Mildred_?


----------



## millionrainbows

Originally Posted by *millionrainbows* 
_Then why do you listen to music? Does it make you feel good, like a human being? Sound is something that humans seek, just as they seek other things: for confirmation of something. What is that thing? It's not zero._



Strange Magic said:


> As usual my friend, you have totally lost me....


Sorry. I'll go into further detail about "identity" and music later. The short answer is: everybody listens to music for some kind of identity-confirmation or identity-stimulus. These may vary, but basically that's why.


----------



## millionrainbows

fluteman said:


> No, I do not say serial thought violates natural principles. I might agree that all pitched sound is natural in some sense, but I wouldn't then conclude that any music that consists of pitched sounds is therefore somehow validated. That is a classic rationalist fallacy.










Originally Posted by *fluteman* 
_... your main opponents here are pure rationalists just like you, except that while they believe that tonal music is the inevitable rational result of natural principles, mathematical or otherwise, atonal music violates those natural principles and is thus invalid. So you go on and on trying to demonstrate that atonal music is mathematically correct. But you will never succeed, since you reject empiricism and start down the wrong path.

_
Confusing, I must say. is this an answer which you do not subscribe to, but which is a description of a "rationalists" whom are posited by you as examples?...you've lost me as well.


----------



## Strange Magic

millionrainbows said:


> Originally Posted by *millionrainbows*
> _Then why do you listen to music? Does it make you feel good, like a human being? Sound is something that humans seek, just as they seek other things: for confirmation of something. What is that thing? It's not zero._


You misunderstand, I fear. When I say that you lost me, it is because I found your statement above a total non-sequitur. And now you promise an additional helping. But carry on; it will be interesting, I'm certain!


----------



## janxharris

Luchesi said:


> The recurring setting of the recent movie with Tom Hanks and Halle Berry has that idea. Cloud Atlas Many of the characters play more than one role. It's quite a romp of a movie if you have the time, 171 minutes. But I had to watch it more than once.. because it's a challenge to understand all the 'preaching' it does.


Haven't seen the film but David Mitchell's book was fantastic.


----------



## millionrainbows

janxharris said:


> The link you make between tonality and the church is tenuous. I am rather confused about what your actual point is MR.


It's not exclusively the Church which uses tonality; tonality is a basic form of music which can be found everywhere in many cultures and folk musics, pop music, etc. in its most basic form.

But, as such, In Western music, tonality is the musical language, starting with early chant, which has been the vehicle for its propagandistic power. _The dialectic here is with atonal and serial music and musical thought, which must be the comparison, if the Church=tonality argument is to be seen clearly._

Although early forms of Church chant are based on melodic elements, as harmony had not yet developed, it still has a strong "tone-centric" base, which puts it in congruence with other forms of "drone" music, which are "spiritual" or "being" or "identity-based" musics, used as tools by Man to "tune-in" to his own experience of "the sacred." The phenomenal sales of the "Chant" album proved this some years back.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chant_(Benedictine_Monks_of_Santo_Domingo_de_Silos_album)


----------



## millionrainbows

fluteman said:


> Music is not God. Music is not mathematics. Music is a form of human expression. There is little point in arguing with someone who won't accept that.


Just for the record, I never said that "music is God" unless that's taken way out of context. My contention is that tonal music, as opposed to serial thought and music, are two different paradigms, and tonality represents the way the Church thinks about things. Serialism does not; it's scientific and rational. I'll explain more on this later.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> I never said that music is _totally_ or _exclusively_ mathematical; only that music was included in the Greek quadrivium as a form of mathematics. The mathematical connection is there.
> 
> Everything in the physical universe has a "mathematical connection." This tells us nothing of interest.


Your argument strategy is to take my statements out of context. Rather than going through the drudgery of putting them back in context, I'll leave some of these replies unanswered. And although you've already "written me off," I'll use what's left as a platform to continue articulating my position.



Woodduck said:


> You are exaggerating my position for your argument's sake.
> 
> People are just trying to determine what your position is.


If you would participate in a sincere dialogue, that might clarify things.



Woodduck said:


> I'm not claiming that my opponents are theists;
> 
> That's good, because most of the time you're ragging on atheists and touting "spirituality." Evidently "spirituality" is now to be identified with "rationalism"?


Generalized invalidation; tells us nothing.




Woodduck said:


> ...only that they are acting unconsciously in favor of a worn-out paradigm. In opposing modernism, they are rejecting scientific thought and rationalism.
> 
> Nonsense. "Modernism" was a broad movement with contrasting and even contradictory tendencies. Infatuation with science - or pseudo-science - was only one strain.


There will always be exceptions. Still, this assertion is in keeping with my overall position: tonality and Church music represent an opposing way of thinking when compared to serial thought and modern musical thought in general (which is not based completely on tonal principles).



Woodduck said:


> I must admit that it is ironic that opponents of modern music, who otherwise claim to be rationalists, listen to and defend tonal music without realizing that it is the manifestation of non-rational religious thought.
> 
> It is no such thing. Your analogies between tonality and theism are merely analogies.


Of course this is an analogy. I can't prove it. This is art, not science. I'm comparing two contrasting thought-styles.



Woodduck said:


> Hierarchical structures are found throughout the observable universe; the very structure of thought - of reason, of RATIONALITY - is hierarchical, as I have explained in a number of posts here over the years in discussing the origins of tonality.


I have a sneaking suspicion that hierarchies are structures that Man observes and then copies. I doubt that the universe is really an hierarchy like you are implying. Man just sees the patterns in this way. It's probably just chaos; unless there is a "Man at the top" named...you-know who!



Woodduck said:


> Serialism (to name one Modernist musical invention) may indeed represent "rationalism," but that is not the same thing as rationality. Your "rationalism" is to reason as "scientism" is to science ("scientism" is the attempt to apply scientific principles, or lend scientific prestige, to areas of thought or activities where it is inappropriate or irrelevant.)


It is what it is, and Milton Babbitt wants it to remain that way even under inversion.



Woodduck said:


> I guess they like the "fruits" of religion without having to go to the trouble of committing; they simply "oppose" modernism without knowing on what position they are basing their argument. Typical.
> 
> Pre-Modernist music (however defined) is not a "fruit of religion." Opposition to Modernism (however defined) is not an issue, since Modernism is now history. If people prefer music from the pre-Modernist era, nothing you've concocted here accounts for it. Typical.


Pre-modernism is still "identity-based music" which, at its most pompous, very much involves Western Man's egotistical struggling to bolster his identity. At its best, it seeks to unite man with the sacred.


----------



## Luchesi

janxharris said:


> Haven't seen the film but David Mitchell's book was fantastic.


It was a very expensive production and it barely broke even at the box office. It's a visually impressive movie as you would expect with these big stars also including Susan Sarandon and Hugh Grant. The wiki article only gives a skeleton of the plot. It definitely makes you think.

There's also part of a plot with a composer trying to offer his Sextet. And that music is part of the score of course.


----------



## janxharris

millionrainbows said:


> There will always be exceptions. Still, this assertion is in keeping with my overall position: tonality and Church music represent an opposing way of thinking when compared to serial thought and modern musical thought in general (which is not based completely on tonal principles).


Messiaen was a devout Catholic but wrote in a modern atonal style - so I wonder, what do you make of such works as _Twenty contemplations on the infant Jesus_ and _Quartet for the End of Time_?


----------



## janxharris

millionrainbows said:


> Pre-modernism is still "identity-based music" which, at its most pompous, very much involves Western Man's egotistical struggling to bolster his identity. At its best, it seeks to unite man with the sacred.


Two mere assertions. You appear to be irritated that anyone could continue to enjoy tonal music. Is that so?


----------



## janxharris

I brought it up before millionrainbows - how could Strauss express Nietzsche's _Zarathustra_ with tonal music if you are right?


----------



## Luchesi

janxharris said:


> Two mere assertions. You appear to be irritated that anyone could continue to enjoy tonal music. Is that so?


poor Beethoven said;

Music is like a dream. One that I cannot hear.


----------



## millionrainbows

janxharris said:


> Messiaen was a devout Catholic but wrote in a modern atonal style - so I wonder, what do you make of such works as _Twenty contemplations on the infant Jesus_ and _Quartet for the End of Time_?


Let's be clear about this: Messiaen was a mystic Catholic, so he was into "revelations" and awareness of the divine, not just belief or faith.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mysticism

Perhaps this is why he chose the musical language he did; it certainly distinguishes itself from traditional Church music, to my ears.


----------



## Luchesi

I think Glenn Gould was sensible about Scriabin's mysticism;

"As host and featured performer, Gould outlines the music of the 20th century and relates it to the ideas and art of the period. In this part he performs and talks about the „Préludes in major", by Alexander Scriabin."

00:00 Introduction
00:17 Prélude in E major op. 33/1
02:09 Introduction by Glenn Gould
06:47 Prélude in C major op. 33/3
07:37 Prélude in E-flat major op. 45/3
08:59 Prélude in F major op. 49/2
10:13 Introduction by Glenn Gould
11:14 Désir op. 57/1
13:40 Caresse dansée op. 57/2
16:18 Introduction by Glenn Gould
18:37 Feuillet d'album op. 58


----------



## millionrainbows

Originally Posted by *millionrainbows* 
_Pre-modernism is still "identity-based music" which, at its most pompous, very much involves Western Man's egotistical struggling to bolster his identity. At its best, it seeks to unite man with the sacred._



janxharris said:


> Two mere assertions. You appear to be irritated that anyone could continue to enjoy tonal music. Is that so?


No, I'm not "siding" against tonality. I'm just examining its nature.

Tonality, and any harmonically-based music (that means 99% of all music created by Man), was created because Man has had a fascination with sound. The most basic music, even as simple as one sustained pitch played on a bamboo flute, was a way Man could focus-in on his inner world, by focussing on the sound. One note would work. It probably started as a way of focussing the mind, and getting rid of fear and distraction. It "felt good." It nurtured him, and his identity. He "identified" with the sound. The same is true today. I think this is why people listen to music; in some way it makes them feel good, and in doing so, "massages" his identity. It gives him meaning; it structures the passing of time, and makes the passage of time, and "being-in-time" more bearable and pleasurable.

I've already gone into detail about how Man's spiritual nature, his being, which is innate and existed before religion, was considered the realm of the Church, by appropriation; that's just the way it happens with religion. Things like "soul" and "being" are considered to be in the religious realm. I'm not saying this is right; philosophers can deal with this area as well. But metaphysical things like the nature of Man's being are in the metaphysical realm, not the scientific realm. If we can accept this general view as a "given", then we can continue.
If not, it's just an analogy.


----------



## fluteman

millionrainbows said:


> Originally Posted by *fluteman*
> _... your main opponents here are pure rationalists just like you, except that while they believe that tonal music is the inevitable rational result of natural principles, mathematical or otherwise, atonal music violates those natural principles and is thus invalid. So you go on and on trying to demonstrate that atonal music is mathematically correct. But you will never succeed, since you reject empiricism and start down the wrong path.
> 
> _
> Confusing, I must say. is this an answer which you do not subscribe to, but which is a description of a "rationalists" whom are posited by you as examples?...you've lost me as well.


As I've said, music (tonal or otherwise) is not God, and music (atonal or otherwise) is not mathematics, your statements to the contrary. Music is a form of human expression. It cannot be analyzed or explained solely in mathematical or logical terms, nor in religious terms, though both those types of analysis can be helpful to some extent. It must be viewed and evaluated empirically. Many of your opponents attempt to formulate a rationalist argument against atonal music. You respond with a rationalist argument in favor of atonal music. But all of you are off base, as purely rationalist arguments can never carry the day either way with aesthetic issues like this.

That's why you have Woodduck so mystified with your reference to the Quadrivium, a pre-Enlightenment rationalist curriculum from the middle ages that has its roots in Plato's Republic. Most post-Enlightenment folk take empiricism so much for granted that they would have no idea what you are talking about unless they are philosophy students. Even I was mystified by your posts for some time, but your mention of the Quadrivium and your comment that music is mathematics cleared things up for me. Sorry, I decline to go back to the middle ages and pretend the Earth does not orbit the Sun. These days most people acknowledge that art is an observable, empirical phenomenon.


----------



## eugeneonagain

You've not 'gone into detail', you've just stated the words 'being' and 'spiritual' and assumed them as shared, accepted definitions of some idea and then built a flimsy theory on top of it.

There's no discussion of how we might have developed tonal, harmonically-based music (to adopt your useless specification) in tandem with our sense of our human condition.

That business of the church is irrelevant. Music hasn't been the sole preserve of the church, not even music which has had social and psychological significance for individuals and communities.


----------



## Woodduck

Your argument strategy is to take my statements out of context. 

My "strategy" is to point out that you string words together in imprecise ways under the illusion that they are coherent and clear.

If you would participate in a sincere dialogue, that might clarify things.

I am deadly sincere. The job of clarification is yours. I'm sincerely challenging you to do it.

Generalized invalidation; tells us nothing.

My invalidations are quite specific.

There will always be exceptions. 

"Exceptions" have a way of invalidating fuzzy generalizations and woo woo.

Still, this assertion is in keeping with my overall position: tonality and Church music represent an opposing way of thinking when compared to serial thought and modern musical thought in general (which is not based completely on tonal principles).

They do indeed represent opposing ways of thinking. If that were the extent of your "overall position" no one would be arguing with you.

Of course this is an analogy. I can't prove it. This is art, not science. I'm comparing two contrasting thought-styles.

Unfortunately you're doing something more, and what you're doing is characterizing those "thought-styles" in inaccurate and outlandish terms which several people here, struggling to figure them out, are challenging. Analogies are limited in their applicability. You transgress those limits constantly and egregiously.

I have a sneaking suspicion that hierarchies are structures that Man observes and then copies. 

Of course. That's exactly what they are.

I doubt that the universe is really an hierarchy like you are implying. 

I didn't say that the universe is a hierarchy. I said that it's full of hierarchical relationships, that these are basic to both what we perceive and how we perceive it, and that tonality represents this.

It's probably just chaos; unless there is a "Man at the top" named...you-know who!

No one either perceives or can describe the universe as a whole. But that's irrelevant to art. Art is an image of perceived reality. We perceive structures within the universe, the structures are shot through with hierarchy, and we comprehend them through hierarchically structured concepts and symbols.

It is what it is, and Milton Babbitt wants it to remain that way even under inversion.

Who cares what Milton Babbitt wants?

Pre-modernism is still "identity-based music" which, at its most pompous, very much involves Western Man's egotistical struggling to bolster his identity. At its best, it seeks to unite man with the sacred.

Art, pre-modern and otherwise, is and always has been about man: about our "egos," about what we regard as "sacred," about concerns and conceptions and impressions and feelings and aspirations... This has not changed and will not change.

The problem here is your careless, dilettantish tossing about and mashing up of philosophical, theological, sociological and aesthetic concepts, leading to some absurd conclusions. Statements like the following will just not pass muster:

Music is a form of mathematics, according to the Greeks and their "quadrivium." This is the big paradigm shift that "regular" music lovers can't get past. It's what fuels Schoenberg, Stockhausen, Xenakis, etc.

Classical music/orchestras is just a 'museum' tradition that is kept alive by specialists for the 'museum' industry of CM. It survives by being in academic institutions which serve that aim. My experience is that these academic institutions are serving that aspect of classical music which is congruous with, and still in keeping with Church traditions.

That appeal represents the old paradigm of music as being tonal, and tonality being the "artistic/sensual ideology" which serves the Church, has always served the Church, and will continue to represent a simple sensual solution to music, which appeals to the basic sense of harmonic perception in a very simplistic way, like a dependable, ubiquitous stimulus which always works, whether in the service of techno/dance music, pop music, folk music, soundtracks to movie myths, and every expression which Humanity has devised to "hypnotize" and charm the populace.

Stockhausen and other such composers are largely frowned upon today in these institutions, because they represent a scientific, totally rational, individualistic, non-sensually based, secular orientation that is completely removed from Church tradition. In this sense, serialism is not an "ideology;" it is an "anti-ideology" which threatened to destroy the status quo of institutionalized tonality.

Things have settled back into a Church-oriented mode, and the "chickens have come home to roost" as we knew they always would, eventually.

Serialism was only a brief moment when composers "woke up" out of the pod, as in The Matrix.

Having already taken apart the foregoing, I needn't do so again. I'll only point out that nearly every statement in it is problematic.


----------



## Thomyum2

fluteman said:


> Music is not God. Music is not mathematics. Music is a form of human expression. There is little point in arguing with someone who won't accept that.


Actually I think that mathematics is also a form of human expression, albeit expressing something quite different. But I'd suggest that the two may be more akin than first meets the eye.


----------



## fluteman

Thomyum2 said:


> Actually I think that mathematics is also a form of human expression, albeit expressing something quite different. But I'd suggest that the two may be more akin than first meets the eye.


The two are related. But art can never be reduced entirely to abstract concepts or deduced logically. Mathematics can be, once certain assumptions are accepted. Woodduck said it well:

Art, pre-modern and otherwise, is and always has been about man: about our "egos," about what we regard as "sacred," about concerns and conceptions and impressions and feelings and aspirations... This has not changed and will not change.

And as eugeneonagain said, any attempt to do so is "pseudo-metaphysical twaddle."


----------



## Woodduck

Thomyum2 said:


> Actually I think that mathematics is also a form of human expression, albeit expressing something quite different. But I'd suggest that the two may be more akin than first meets the eye.


The mathematical aspects of music are really quite obvious. Music unfolds in time. Time can be measured in mathematical units. But music is not clockwork; even if its rhythms are regular, it's perceived in subjective, not objective, time. Music also consists of tones whose physical relationships can be expressed mathematically. But of what value is this knowledge to the composer or listener? It's understandable that the ancient Greeks were fascinated by the mathematical aspects of music, and that that fascination persisted into the Middle Ages, when triple rhythms could be thought to represent the Holy Trinity. None of this makes music akin to mathematics, any more than a recipe calling for 1 1/2 cups of flour, 1/2cup of sugar, 1 cup of milk and 2 eggs is akin to mathematics.


----------



## San Antone

_What music is it OK to deride?_ *None*


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> The mathematical aspects of music are really quite obvious. Music unfolds in time. Time can be measured in mathematical units. But music is not clockwork; even if its rhythms are regular, it's perceived in subjective, not objective, time. Music also consists of tones whose physical relationships can be expressed mathematically. But of what value is this knowledge to the composer or listener? It's understandable that the ancient Greeks were fascinated by the mathematical aspects of music, and that that fascination persisted into the Middle Ages, when triple rhythms could be thought to represent the Holy Trinity. None of this makes music akin to mathematics, any more than a recipe calling for 1 1/2 cups of flour, 1/2cup of sugar, 1 cup of milk and 2 eggs is akin to mathematics.


I'm sorry, Woodduck, but I'm afraid I may have to leave this sort of thing to you, Strange Magic, eugeneonagain, arpeggio and the handful of others who have usefully chimed in here. Maybe you are explaining the point I tried to make more clearly than I. Why do so many posters at TC so badly need to reduce music to a list of logically deducible rules? So they can "prove" music they don't like or understand is no good because it violates the "rules"? Good Lord! If you dislike (or like) something that much, just have the courage of your convictions, dislike (or like) it and move on, don't give me half-baked proofs in an attempt to validate your tastes. (Just to take your recipe analogy to even greater heights.)


----------



## Thomyum2

fluteman said:


> The two are related. But art can never be reduced entirely to abstract concepts or deduced logically. Mathematics can be, once certain assumptions are accepted. Woodduck said it well:
> 
> Art, pre-modern and otherwise, is and always has been about man: about our "egos," about what we regard as "sacred," about concerns and conceptions and impressions and feelings and aspirations... This has not changed and will not change.
> 
> And as eugeneonagain said, any attempt to do so is "pseudo-metaphysical twaddle."





Woodduck said:


> The mathematical aspects of music are really quite obvious. Music unfolds in time. Time can be measured in mathematical units. But music is not clockwork; even if its rhythms are regular, it's perceived in subjective, not objective, time. Music also consists of tones whose physical relationships can be expressed mathematically. But of what value is this knowledge to the composer or listener? It's understandable that the ancient Greeks were fascinated by the mathematical aspects of music, and that that fascination persisted into the Middle Ages, when triple rhythms could be thought to represent the Holy Trinity. None of this makes music akin to mathematics, any more than a recipe calling for 1 1/2 cups of flour, 1/2cup of sugar, 1 cup of milk and 2 eggs is akin to mathematics.


I thought (and hoped) my comment might provoke a couple of responses.  But seriously speaking, I do think there is a relationship, but not in the way you're speaking of. Music is how humans express the ideal of beauty that we find in sound. Mathematics is how we express the ideal of truth that we find in numbers. In both, we put those ideals into a form that we can communicate to each other. The two mirror each other in this sense, or are like two sides of the same coin, or parallel responses to two different experiences we have of our world.


----------



## Woodduck

Thomyum2 said:


> I thought (and hoped) my comment might provoke a couple of responses.  But seriously speaking, I do think there is a relationship, but not in the way you're speaking of. Music is how humans express the ideal of beauty that we find in sound. Mathematics is how we express the ideal of truth that we find in numbers. In both, we put those ideals into a form that we can communicate to each other. The two mirror each other in this sense, or are like two sides of the same coin.


That analogy has a very Medieval cast and might appeal to an Idealist philosopher or Platonist theologian. Were you by chance born around 1150?


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> I'm sorry, Woodduck, but I'm afraid I may have to leave this sort of thing to you, Strange Magic, eugeneonagain, arpeggio and the handful of others who have usefully chimed in here. Maybe you are explaining the point I tried to make more clearly than I. Why do so many posters at TC so badly need to reduce music to a list of logically deducible rules? So they can "prove" music they don't like or understand is no good because it violates the "rules"? Good Lord! If you dislike (or like) something that much, just have the courage of your convictions, dislike (or like) it and move on, don't give me half-baked proofs in an attempt to validate your tastes. (Just to take your recipe analogy to even greater heights.)


Half-baked? I'd say you're really cookin' !


----------



## Open Book

Any music is OK to criticize, but to deride music goes a step further, it implies ridicule.

I have little patience with people who carry on and deride a piece or composer in front of an audience to show how clever they can be. Even when they make good musical points, this is trolling.

I hate to hear great composers treated with disrespect. Another board I used to check in on now and then had a person who hated Dvorak and Chopin, composers I adore. Maybe I'm thin-skinned but this idiot's continuous gleeful trashing of these two composers ruined that board for me. There are composers I dislike but I would never show them disrespect or mock the tastes of people who enjoy them.

Most composers have a weakness or other that is well known. Chopin only wrote for the right hand (treble) it is often said, Schumann and Brahms were not the best orchestrators, but they all make up for it, they are great composers. Criticism is OK, derision is not welcome.


----------



## Luchesi

Open Book said:


> Any music is OK to criticize, but to deride music goes a step further, it implies ridicule.
> 
> I have little patience with people who carry on and deride a piece or composer in front of an audience to show how clever they can be. Even when they make good musical points, this is trolling.
> 
> I hate to hear great composers treated with disrespect. Another board I used to check in on now and then had a person who hated Dvorak and Chopin, composers I adore. Maybe I'm thin-skinned but this idiot's continuous gleeful trashing of these two composers ruined that board for me. There are composers I dislike but I would never show them disrespect or mock the tastes of people who enjoy them.
> 
> Most composers have a weakness or other that is well known. Chopin only wrote for the right hand (treble) it is often said, Schumann and Brahms were not the best orchestrators, but they all make up for it, they are great composers. Criticism is OK, derision is not welcome.


I think we learn from both criticism and derision. One is thinking and one is reacting. What we learn depends upon so many facets of the exchanges.

We should feel free to react and the reactions will be duly judged, no? What is ever gained from censorship in an anonymous forum? You just won't get any of those unhelpful or helpful posts. Can you know ahead of time what everyone will contribute?

The consensus in here seems to be to ignore music you don't like ...well the same thing can be said of the deriding posts. Because you never know what you're going to get. It's not like it's physically harmful..


----------



## Luchesi

I've read some outlandish posts about some of my favorite composers. It makes me think in a new way about them, at least momentarily. Has it changed my opinion of them, not so far, no. It's reinforced my long time opinions.

If someone would come up with a reply that really changed my thinking I would obviously welcome it. This is what maturing is all about. Or you can just ignore everything you don't want to hear I guess..


----------



## Thomyum2

Woodduck said:


> That analogy has a very Medieval cast and might appeal to an Idealist philosopher or Platonist theologian. Were you by chance born around 1150?


1150 !?!? Well some days it feels like it, but alas I haven't acquired the wisdom of that many years. But I have spent a fair amount of time in the company of Benedictines, so perhaps something has rubbed off on me!


----------



## Guest

San Antone said:


> _What music is it OK to deride?_ *None*


Well........deriding any kind of music is rather an extreme way of expressing dislike for something, right? Perhaps expressing an extreme dislike for something isn't courteous to do, but it isn't going to cause any harm to say what one thinks, right?


----------



## Guest

Luchesi said:


> I've read some outlandish posts about some of my favorite composers. It makes me think in a new way about them, at least momentarily. Has it changed my opinion of them, not so far, no. It's reinforced my long time opinions.
> 
> If someone would come up with a reply that really changed my thinking I would obviously welcome it. This is what maturing is all about. Or you can just ignore everything you don't want to hear I guess..


This is actually very cool to know. I haven't been following this thread closely so I don't know which composers they are, but I'm certainly curious to know which composers they are and what you think of them.


----------



## fluteman

Luchesi said:


> I think we learn from both criticism and derision. One is thinking and one is reacting. What we learn depends upon so many facets of the exchanges.
> 
> We should feel free to react and the reactions will be duly judged, no? What is ever gained from censorship in an anonymous forum? You just won't get any of those unhelpful or helpful posts. Can you know ahead of time what everyone will contribute?
> 
> The consensus in here seems to be to ignore music you don't like ...well the same thing can be said of the deriding posts. Because you never know what you're going to get. It's not like it's physically harmful..


In other words, you're deriding those who deride the deriders.


----------



## Luchesi

shirime said:


> This is actually very cool to know. I haven't been following this thread closely so I don't know which composers they are, but I'm certainly curious to know which composers they are and what you think of them.


Chopin, Schoenberg (beautiful mountain) and even Mozart


----------



## janxharris

millionrainbows said:


> Let's be clear about this: Messiaen was a mystic Catholic, so he was into "revelations" and awareness of the divine, not just belief or faith.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mysticism


I guess Saint John was too - what's your point?



> Perhaps this is why he chose the musical language he did; it certainly distinguishes itself from traditional Church music, to my ears.


Your argument has linked the Church with tonality separating it from rationality / serialism, but here we have a clear example of atonal music used as a vehicle for the expression of the Christian hereafter.

Ivan Hewett writing in The Telegraph.

Did you miss my post on Strauss?


----------



## Guest

Luchesi said:


> Chopin, Schoenberg (beautiful mountain) and even Mozart


I have so much love for all of them. <3


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> In other words, you're deriding those who deride the deriders.


Yes, if you call it deriding, but I don't deride the deriders. Posters should be passionate. Artistic expression is a passionate subject.

Everyone should appreciate what I appreciate and agree with me, of course. <grin> But in lieu of that I want to hear what they've experienced, and what derision they feel is warranted. Otherwise why enter an anonymous forum?


----------



## aleazk

Ultimately, mathematics is, in one of its aspects, just a systematization of rigorous logical thinking. Thus, you will find mathematics in pretty much anything that requires some logical process. This can go from the permutations of a 12-tone row, to financial speculation, to the conductual behaviour of groups of people or animals, to the propagation of epidemics, to computer programming, to physics, and even to philosophy. But all these are really applied mathematics. A hardcore pure mathematician would giggle a little if you try to impress him/her by saying that you do very interesting mathematics by applying elementary set theory to music, elementary ordinary differential equations to conductual behaviour, and even riemannian geometry to physics!

Mathematicians live in a world, in their minds, that the layman cannot even start to imagine. The things that interest them are not the use or application of permutations to a tone row (I don't think they would even call it 'true' mathematics because of its, to their view, utter triviality*). What interest them are exotic mathematical structures (which one defines by a list of axioms) from which they can prove interesting theorems that show unexpected connections to other parts of mathematics (they really, really love this). Another thing are new mathematical structures that prove to be the actual general case of a previously known structure but which nobody thought as just a particular example of the first one, which nobody even imagined it existed (for example, euclidean geometry being extended later to non-euclidean geometry, commutative geometry being later extended to non-commutative geometry, etc.) These exotic structures are really exotic and I cannot even imagine how to translate what they are to layman terms. For example, a friend of mine works on a topic called Hopf algebras which have lots of nice properties and potential for unexpected connections. In my side, which is mathematical physics rather than pure math, I have been studying extensions and replacements of standard set theory by the use of category theory and topos theory in particular (these things, for example, allow to have something similar to a set, but for which one only has as well defined subsets the regions and never the isolated points, which sounds absurd from the point of view of standard set theory where a set is just a collection of points and where you can always have one of these points if you want; nevertheless, these exotic mathematical structures allow a formulation of quantum physics that could allow a further extension of this physical theory to unknown mathematical, and physical, lands).

My point with all this was simply to explain what mathematics really is to mathematicians and to stop using the term in a careless way. What music and mathematics share is not the dry use of logic and permutations of finite sets, but the wild and creative imagination, from the part of musicians to produce new aesthetic universes and from mathematicians to produce new mathematical structures that prove to be fertile for the kind of connections they find relevant.

*In this particular application. The theory of permutation groups, etc., is quite intersting and much more vast than what this example uses of it (a more interesting application is in the theory of systems of many quantum particles, a friend of mine did his thesis on this, on the representation theory). The same can be said of ordered sets (the tone row is an ordered set).


----------



## Enthusiast

Music is not maths or literature or painting and it cannot be converted to any of them. Sometimes a comparison between music and one of them can be instructive (and sometimes obstructive) and sometimes they can be used to illuminate some aspect of what the music is doing.


----------



## aleazk

Enthusiast said:


> Music is not maths or literature or painting and it cannot be converted to any of them. Sometimes a comparison between music and one of them can be instructive (and sometimes obstructive) and sometimes they can be used to illuminate some aspect of what the music is doing.


I think the 'illuminate what the music is doing' too often understood as examining the mathematical rules followed during the process of composition and stuff like that has been over-emphasized and to negative effects on the public not familiar with the music.

I think much more interesting connections are made when artists and mathematicians qualitatively influence each other by being inspired by some idea or image from the other camp. For example, in the 80s a lot of results about the topology of knots and knot invariants were in vogue, and Ligeti saw that in a Scientific American magazine. He said those ideas stimulated his imagination for new forms of intricate polyphonic webs (of course, an indirect and qualitative influence, not that he was frantically calculating 'polyphonic knot invariants' or some nonsense like that), and the same with fractals. Or the often paradoxical temporal structure of some of Borges' short stories, inspired by the strange properties of infinities discovered by Cantor. On the other hand, mathematician R.Penrose was inspired by Escher to study the properties of non-periodic plane tilings, where he discovered a new and crazy type. In turn, this found applications in physics in the structure of some crystals. The circle closed when his tilings got back to art as are now being used as decoration in various public buildings.


----------



## Fredx2098

I feel like when someone claims that modern music is too mathematical, or whatever they may say comparing math and music in a negative way, it's just a cop-out way of saying it's complex and not always immediately understandable. When I think of music where I can _hear_ something noticeably mathematical, I think of more standard tonal music where the rhythmic count is emphasized and the notes are based on scale degrees. Those things stand out in the sound that's produced, and it's actually those mathematical things that make it easy to enjoy. In modern music, even though there may be a lot of complicated counting and mathematical ideas involved, I don't think I've ever actually heard something that sounds tangibly mathematical. In my perception, modern complexity actually makes any mathematics _less_ noticeable and the music more interesting and less predictable. Personally, I like to be surprised and confused by art rather than have it be predictable, reassuring, perhaps more immediately "logical" and "rational". Basically I think people have it backwards and that calling a piece of music "mathematical" or something is an ironic failed insult. Of course that doesn't mean they have to enjoy it or anything.


----------



## fliege

My experience has been the opposite, if anything. I often hear people sagely associating music to mathematics in an attempt to elevate it, perhaps to convey that music contains contains a deeper inviolate truth. I don't know why people do this but it has never made much sense to me. It seems to me that, at most, music can contain very complicated patterns that you could represent mathematically if you chose to do so. That doesn't seem like a particularly deep statement, however.


----------



## Luchesi

fliege said:


> My experience has been the opposite, if anything. I often hear people sagely associating music to mathematics in an attempt to elevate it, perhaps to convey that music contains contains a deeper inviolate truth. I don't know why people do this but it has never made much sense to me. It seems to me that, at most, music can contain very complicated patterns that you could represent mathematically if you chose to do so. That doesn't seem like a particularly deep statement, however.


The arithmetic in Western Music is endlessly interesting. You can look at it for years and always find some new relationships. "This is that." It's part of what composing is about, as we reduce the exploring down to arithmetical sequences. People can't escape it, especially musicians. Humans see and hear pleasing integer patterns. In the past it was an important area of survival awareness and perceptiveness. It's deep within us intermeshed with the alert emotions and vital outlooks.

When I can't sleep I have this quirky image in my mind of the circle of 5ths or 4ths associated next to each of the constellations of the ecliptic. 12 each. It's been a great help for falling off to sleep.


----------



## Luchesi

Fredx2098 said:


> I feel like when someone claims that modern music is too mathematical, or whatever they may say comparing math and music in a negative way, it's just a cop-out way of saying it's complex and not always immediately understandable. When I think of music where I can _hear_ something noticeably mathematical, I think of more standard tonal music where the rhythmic count is emphasized and the notes are based on scale degrees. Those things stand out in the sound that's produced, and it's actually those mathematical things that make it easy to enjoy. In modern music, even though there may be a lot of complicated counting and mathematical ideas involved, I don't think I've ever actually heard something that sounds tangibly mathematical. In my perception, modern complexity actually makes any mathematics _less_ noticeable and the music more interesting and less predictable. Personally, I like to be surprised and confused by art rather than have it be predictable, reassuring, perhaps more immediately "logical" and "rational". Basically I think people have it backwards and that calling a piece of music "mathematical" or something is an ironic failed insult. Of course that doesn't mean they have to enjoy it or anything.


If recordings are annoying, that might be the intention. The target audience wants the power of such sound. It's not a negative for them. It's a stockade? Imprisoning and protecting/fortifying and insulating them? I vaguely remember the young adult needs and wants. But everyone goes through it to some degree.


----------



## millionrainbows

fluteman said:


> As I've said, music (tonal or otherwise) is not God, and music (atonal or otherwise) is not mathematics, your statements to the contrary.


For the record, I never said that "music is God" or that modern/atonal music was totally "mathematical."



fluteman said:


> Music is a form of human expression. It cannot be analyzed or explained solely in mathematical or logical terms, nor in religious terms, though both those types of analysis can be helpful to some extent. It must be viewed and evaluated empirically.


I don't think music has to be viewed totally in terms of human expression.

I think you are off the mark with empiricism. What is empiricism used for? It is used in science, and in philosophy, and social sciences, but it is always used to "prove" some point or confirm observations, so that knowledge can be gained. Art is not about that. Empiricism is sensory experience, but it is sensory experience in the service of "proving" something, as part of the scientific method.

Also, I contend that not all music is based solely on empirical or sensual data, as in Milton Babbitt's music. He is interested in certain tone sets which remain the same under inversion, but these sorts of serial concepts are not always, if ever, audible; they simply produce audible results which might not be comprehensible. Still, it is art, it is music, even though it is not totally comprehensible in regard to the ideas which produced it.



fluteman said:


> Many of your opponents attempt to formulate a rationalist argument against atonal music. You respond with a rationalist argument in favor of atonal music. But all of you are off base, as purely rationalist arguments can never carry the day either way with aesthetic issues like this.


I haven't intended to make a rational argument. I've made a poetic metaphor; that tonal and atonal music represent two different world views. They are both art.


----------



## Bulldog

millionrainbows said:


> I don't think music has to be viewed totally in terms of human expression.


How else would you view it?


----------



## Jacck

Luchesi said:


> The arithmetic in Western Music is endlessly interesting. You can look at it for years and always find some new relationships. "This is that." It's part of what composing is about, as we reduce the exploring down to arithmetical sequences. People can't escape it, especially musicians. Humans see and hear pleasing integer patterns. In the past it was an important area of survival awareness and perceptiveness. It's deep within us intermeshed with the alert emotions and vital outlooks. When I can't sleep I have this quirky image in my mind of the circle of 5ths or 4ths associated next to each of the constellations of the ecliptic. 12 each. It's been a great help for falling off to sleep.


I doubt that the arithmetic in music is even fractionally that interesting as real mathematics. But I see where you are coming from. Already the Pythagoreans searched for mathematical meaning behind sound, hence the expression "music of the spheres"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musica_universalis


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> It is what it is, and Milton Babbitt wants it to remain that way even under inversion.
> 
> Who cares what Milton Babbitt wants?


I do, and I think he represents the ideal serial figure in this discussion.



Woodduck said:


> Pre-modernism is still "identity-based music" which, at its most pompous, very much involves Western Man's egotistical struggling to bolster his identity. At its best, it seeks to unite man with the sacred.
> 
> Art, pre-modern and otherwise, is and always has been about man: about our "egos," about what we regard as "sacred," about concerns and conceptions and impressions and feelings and aspirations... This has not changed and will not change.


I think that has changed. Boulez and Cage both wanted to create music with systems that are self-generating, Boulez with "Structures" and Cage with his music created by chance and that was indeterminate. Both wanted to "escape" from their own wills and egos, in different ways.


----------



## Jacck

aleazk said:


> Mathematicians live in a world, in their minds, that the layman cannot even start to imagine. The things that interest them are not the use or application of permutations to a tone row (I don't think they would even call it 'true' mathematics because of its, to their view, utter triviality*). What interest them are exotic mathematical structures (which one defines by a list of axioms) from which they can prove interesting theorems that show unexpected connections to other parts of mathematics (they really, really love this). Another thing are new mathematical structures that prove to be the actual general case of a previously known structure but which nobody thought as just a particular example of the first one, which nobody even imagined it existed (for example, euclidean geometry being extended later to non-euclidean geometry, commutative geometry being later extended to non-commutative geometry, etc.) These exotic structures are really exotic and I cannot even imagine how to translate what they are to layman terms. For example, a friend of mine works on a topic called Hopf algebras which have lots of nice properties and potential for unexpected connections. In my side, which is mathematical physics rather than pure math, I have been studying extensions and replacements of standard set theory by the use of category theory and topos theory in particular (these things, for example, allow to have something similar to a set, but for which one only has as well defined subsets the regions and never the isolated points, which sounds absurd from the point of view of standard set theory where a set is just a collection of points and where you can always have one of these points if you want; nevertheless, these exotic mathematical structures allow a formulation of quantum physics that could allow a further extension of this physical theory to unknown mathematical, and physical, lands).
> 
> My point with all this was simply to explain what mathematics really is to mathematicians and to stop using the term in a careless way. What music and mathematics share is not the dry use of logic and permutations of finite sets, but the wild and creative imagination, from the part of musicians to produce new aesthetic universes and from mathematicians to produce new mathematical structures that prove to be fertile for the kind of connections they find relevant.
> 
> *In this particular application. The theory of permutation groups, etc., is quite intersting and much more vast than what this example uses of it (a more interesting application is in the theory of systems of many quantum particles, a friend of mine did his thesis on this, on the representation theory). The same can be said of ordered sets (the tone row is an ordered set).


absolutely, but you can't explain any of this to someone without mathematical education. For example the stunningly beautiful connections between group theory and physics. I remember the joy that I felt when I could see the beautiful connection betweenthe Poincare group (group of isometries of the Minkowski spacetime) and special theory of relativity. Or all the mind-bending mysteries of the quantum world etc. What people usually consider mathematics are trivialities. They have no idea about real mathematics. Anyone who wants a taste what real mathematics looks like, look at the Basel Problem which stood unsolved for a couple of centuries until Euler solved it. And marvel at all the elegance, infinities and hidden connections. And if you cannot see them, you just cannot appreciate beauty
https://plus.maths.org/content/basel-problem


----------



## millionrainbows

Thomyum2 said:


> Actually I think that mathematics is also a form of human expression, albeit expressing something quite different. But I'd suggest that the two may be more akin than first meets the eye.


The error in fluteman's position is that art, and music, are ultimately not trying to "prove" or validate knowledge empirically. Some serial procedures may involve very rational and scientific thought, but in the end, they may produce results which are not comprehensible in those rational terms, but only perceived as musical sound.


----------



## millionrainbows

fluteman said:


> The two are related. But art can never be reduced entirely to abstract concepts or deduced logically. Mathematics can be, once certain assumptions are accepted. Woodduck said it well:
> 
> Art, pre-modern and otherwise, is and always has been about man: about our "egos," about what we regard as "sacred," about concerns and conceptions and impressions and feelings and aspirations... This has not changed and will not change.


I disagree, and the history of art backs me up. Surrealism was concerned with the unconscious, and of elements beyond conscious control, in order to produce an art which was not simply a product of the ego or of grandiose thinking. The abstract expressionists continued this quest.

from Wik, we see this about auto-destructive art: 
Auto-Destructive Art's purpose was to draw attention to the destruction of previous beliefs. By allowing stress and natural forces to create damage after an initial mark, the art is auto-created. This represents how man sparked and created destruction. The destruction also represents the chaos caused by the government. Politics was a major driving force of ADA artists. In interviews, Metzger expressed his dislike of politics and commercialism. Metzger believed the "aesthetic of revulsion" would add to the idea of the corrupt, capitalist system. By damaging the art itself, *Metzger is able to question the idea of what art is. He goes against the idea of egocentrism in the artistic world. Metzger believed that in order to bring light to the corruption in politics, he must remove himself and his work from the art.* He even states in his manifesto that "Auto-destructive art mirrors the compulsive perfectionism of arms manufacture - polishing to destruction point." This excerpt reflects the idea that many ADA artists shared. They wanted to withdraw from mass production, commercialism, and manufacturing.

The idea of "removing oneself" from the work of art is not new. Serialism is one embodiment of this, only it uses rational and mathematical methods to do this, since music, being inherently mathematical, lends itself to this treatment, as has been proven by IRCAM.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> The mathematical aspects of music are really quite obvious. Music unfolds in time. Time can be measured in mathematical units. But music is not clockwork; even if its rhythms are regular, it's perceived in subjective, not objective, time. Music also consists of tones whose physical relationships can be expressed mathematically. But of what value is this knowledge to the composer or listener?


Music is ultimately a subjective experience. The mathematics can be separate, and don't have to be manifest as comprehensible sensory confirmation of that; these two aspects can be totally separate, or one aspect can remain hidden.



Woodduck said:


> It's understandable that the ancient Greeks were fascinated by the mathematical aspects of music, and that that fascination persisted into the Middle Ages, when triple rhythms could be thought to represent the Holy Trinity. None of this makes music akin to mathematics, any more than a recipe calling for 1 1/2 cups of flour, 1/2cup of sugar, 1 cup of milk and 2 eggs is akin to mathematics.


The middle ages were full of such superstitions and fallacies. This is a shallow point.


----------



## millionrainbows

Thomyum2 said:


> ...Music is how humans express the ideal of beauty that we find in sound. Mathematics is how we express the ideal of truth that we find in numbers. In both, we put those ideals into a form that we can communicate to each other. The two mirror each other in this sense, or are like two sides of the same coin, or parallel responses to two different experiences we have of our world.


I can agree with this, although it is saturated with Romanticism. Art and music do not have to respond to human experience. Music can just "be" what it is.


----------



## millionrainbows

Originally Posted by *millionrainbows* 
_Let's be clear about this: Messiaen was a mystic Catholic, so he was into "revelations" and awareness of the divine, not just belief or faith._



janxharris said:


> I guess Saint John was too - what's your point?


That Messiaen is the exception, not the rule. His music does not use the traditional Western ideological language of tonality that the Church used. He was influenced by non-Western musics, and musical thinking that eventually became serial thought.



janxharris said:


> Your argument has linked the Church with tonality separating it from rationality / serialism, but here we have a clear example of atonal music used as a vehicle for the expression of the Christian hereafter.
> 
> Ivan Hewett writing in The Telegraph.
> 
> Did you miss my post on Strauss?


There are of course exceptions to the analogies I have made, but that does not "disprove" them.


----------



## janxharris

millionrainbows said:


> Originally Posted by *millionrainbows*
> _Let's be clear about this: Messiaen was a mystic Catholic, so he was into "revelations" and awareness of the divine, not just belief or faith._
> 
> That Messiaen is the exception, not the rule. His music does not use the traditional Western ideological language of tonality that the Church used. He was influenced by non-Western musics, and musical thinking that eventually became serial thought.
> 
> There are of course exceptions to the analogies I have made, but that does not "disprove" them.


Since you accept the exception then I can't see your assertion as tenable - Messiaen using the very language you say is delineated from the musical language of the Church.


----------



## millionrainbows

aleazk said:


> Ultimately, mathematics is, in one of its aspects, just a systematization of rigorous logical thinking. Thus, you will find mathematics in pretty much anything that requires some logical process. This can go from the permutations of a 12-tone row, to financial speculation, to the conductual behaviour of groups of people or animals, to the propagation of epidemics, to computer programming, to physics, and even to philosophy. But all these are really applied mathematics. A hardcore pure mathematician would giggle a little if you try to impress him/her by saying that you do very interesting mathematics by applying elementary set theory to music, elementary ordinary differential equations to conductual behaviour, and even riemannian geometry to physics!
> 
> Mathematicians live in a world, in their minds, that the layman cannot even start to imagine. The things that interest them are not the use or application of permutations to a tone row (I don't think they would even call it 'true' mathematics because of its, to their view, utter triviality*). What interest them are exotic mathematical structures (which one defines by a list of axioms) from which they can prove interesting theorems that show unexpected connections to other parts of mathematics (they really, really love this). Another thing are new mathematical structures that prove to be the actual general case of a previously known structure but which nobody thought as just a particular example of the first one, which nobody even imagined it existed (for example, euclidean geometry being extended later to non-euclidean geometry, commutative geometry being later extended to non-commutative geometry, etc.) These exotic structures are really exotic and I cannot even imagine how to translate what they are to layman terms. For example, a friend of mine works on a topic called Hopf algebras which have lots of nice properties and potential for unexpected connections. In my side, which is mathematical physics rather than pure math, I have been studying extensions and replacements of standard set theory by the use of category theory and topos theory in particular (these things, for example, allow to have something similar to a set, but for which one only has as well defined subsets the regions and never the isolated points, which sounds absurd from the point of view of standard set theory where a set is just a collection of points and where you can always have one of these points if you want; nevertheless, these exotic mathematical structures allow a formulation of quantum physics that could allow a further extension of this physical theory to unknown mathematical, and physical, lands).
> 
> My point with all this was simply to explain what mathematics really is to mathematicians and to stop using the term in a careless way. What music and mathematics share is not the dry use of logic and permutations of finite sets, but the wild and creative imagination, from the part of musicians to produce new aesthetic universes and from mathematicians to produce new mathematical structures that prove to be fertile for the kind of connections they find relevant.
> 
> *In this particular application. The theory of permutation groups, etc., is quite intersting and much more vast than what this example uses of it (a more interesting application is in the theory of systems of many quantum particles, a friend of mine did his thesis on this, on the representation theory). The same can be said of ordered sets (the tone row is an ordered set).


I've always said that all I have been doing is making a simple analogy, to differentiate serial thinking from tonal thinking. I never claimed it was advanced mathematics; only some basics, which I pointed out already: 
serialism's use of a number line, with zero; tonality's avoidance of zero, and using number as identity, not quantity; serialism's use of quantity, not identity, as applied to intervals and their inversion; serialism's avoidance of pitch names.


----------



## millionrainbows

janxharris said:


> Since you accept the exception then I can't see your assertion as tenable - Messiaen using the very language you say is delineated from the musical language of the Church.


No, I did not say that "Messiaen (used) the very language...delineated from the musical language of the Church." Quite the contrary. This is not a "black-and-white" logical exercise. It's a poetic probing.


----------



## janxharris

millionrainbows said:


> No, I did not say that "Messiaen (used) the very language...delineated from the musical language of the Church. Quite the contrary. This is not a "black-and-white" logical exercise. It's a poetic probing.


You cited tonality - the works I posted of Messiaen are not.


----------



## millionrainbows

janxharris said:


> You cited tonality - the works I posted of Messiaen are not.


Yes, I know that; but you are making an overly rigid interpretation of the analogy. There are exceptions to every assertion, if you look for them and hold on to them desperately.


----------



## Luchesi

millionrainbows said:


> I've always said that all I have been doing is making a simple analogy, to differentiate serial thinking from tonal thinking. I never claimed it was advanced mathematics; only some basics, which I pointed out already:
> serialism's use of a number line, with zero; tonality's avoidance of zero, and using number as identity, not quantity; serialism's use of quantity, not identity, as applied to intervals and their inversion; serialism's avoidance of pitch names.


Thanks I've never seen it put that way and written out like that before. It reminds me of how humans will describe something abstract and then it 'grows' into a 'truth' and a reality and a helpful word-picture.

I welcome any clue or trace of logic that helps me appreciate any art..

"Life is like playing a violin in public and learning the instrument as one goes on." Samuel Butler


----------



## fluteman

millionrainbows said:


> I disagree, and the history of art backs me up.
> 
> [....]
> 
> The idea of "removing oneself" from the work of art is not new. Serialism is one embodiment of this, only it uses rational and mathematical methods to do this, since music, being inherently mathematical, lends itself to this treatment, as has been proven by IRCAM.


No, because as Charles Wourinen said, and as John Dewey said, and as David Hume said, art requires the active participation of an audience. And the impact of art on an audience, and ultimately on a culture, cannot be fully explained through rational and mathematical methods, as the audience is human, and human perception and behavior cannot be fully explained through rational and mathematical methods. Posters here endlessly respond to you, "Don't tell me what to like, I don't like serial music and that's that." You (wrongly) respond that they need to become more knowledgeable listeners. Many of them in turn (wrongly) argue that if they can find enough people who agree with them, that somehow validates their opinion and proves serial music is bad.

And around you all go in circles, proving nothing.


----------



## aleazk

Jacck said:


> absolutely, but you can't explain any of this to someone without mathematical education. For example the stunningly beautiful connections between group theory and physics. I remember the joy that I felt when I could see the beautiful connection betweenthe Poincare group (group of isometries of the Minkowski spacetime) and special theory of relativity. Or all the mind-bending mysteries of the quantum world etc. What people usually consider mathematics are trivialities. They have no idea about real mathematics. Anyone who wants a taste what real mathematics looks like, look at the Basel Problem which stood unsolved for a couple of centuries until Euler solved it. And marvel at all the elegance, infinities and hidden connections. And if you cannot see them, you just cannot appreciate beauty
> https://plus.maths.org/content/basel-problem


Yep, the classification of elementary particles via irreducible representations of the Poincaré group is one of the high points of mathematical beauty in modern physics.


----------



## millionrainbows

fluteman said:


> No, because as Charles Wourinen said, and as John Dewey said, and as David Hume said, art requires the active participation of an audience. And the impact of art on an audience, and ultimately on a culture, cannot be fully explained through rational and mathematical methods, as the audience is human, and human perception and behavior cannot be fully explained through rational and mathematical methods.


No; art can exist without Man. Art is just a feeble attempt to depict what is "other" and which already exists outside our purview; it is Man's "heroic" attempt to see himself as "mattering" in an immense universe; the immense universe that we are now aware of with The Hubble telescope and other scientific glimpses into the void. 
Compared to Wagner, we know so much more keenly how insignificant we are as a species; and how the H-bomb demonstrated how stupidly destructive Man is. Why "celebrate" this with elaborate operas? Wagner was totally unaware.



fluteman said:


> Posters here endlessly respond to you, "Don't tell me what to like, I don't like serial music and that's that." You (wrongly) respond that they need to become more knowledgeable listeners. Many of them in turn (wrongly) argue that if they can find enough people who agree with them, that somehow validates their opinion and proves serial music is bad.
> 
> And around you all go in circles, proving nothing.


I'm not trying to prove anything; I'm just probing around for meaning. And it's that "human" element that says "Don't tell me what to like, I don't like serial music and that's that"....that I can do without, and it's really irrelevant.

Some listeners need to face the fact that a lot of this music was not made to entertain them. In fact, it was created to be what it is, without being a stylized connoisseur's language of communication with all sorts of agreements and traditions. Serial music adheres to its own logic.
Like when I listen to Elliott Carter, I know I'm not being "coddled." Music without tonality, that is chromatic, automatically avoids the pitfalls of the most basic form of tone-centricity, and the way this tone-centricity focusses in, and encourages us to focus in, on our own identity and comfortable sense of being. This is music of "otherness," of subjectivity robbed of all its habits, leaving us with the rock-hard face of reality in a harsh uncomprehending universe which is so immense and strange that it has no room for our precious "egos" and identities. 
Come on, be a real man and step up to the plate, and realize that you are basicallly nothing, in the larger scheme of things.


----------



## aleazk

millionrainbows said:


> I've always said that all I have been doing is making a simple analogy, to differentiate serial thinking from tonal thinking. I never claimed it was advanced mathematics; only some basics, which I pointed out already:
> serialism's use of a number line, with zero; tonality's avoidance of zero, and using number as identity, not quantity; serialism's use of quantity, not identity, as applied to intervals and their inversion; serialism's avoidance of pitch names.


I think you are right in pointing out that serialist composers were looking for a more objective, 'ego-less' style, since they said so explicitly in numerous interviews, articles etc. But I disagree about the mathematical manipulations of the tone row as being the key device they used to achieve this. This ego detachment thing was a conscious and deliberate aesthetic decision, and they used all the musical resourses they had at hand to try to achieve this. I think that the avoidance of melody and tonal harmony, usually seen as the archetypal means for self, 'ego'-expression in the romantic tradition, were the key ingredients. At the epoch of high modernism in the 50s, it was an absolute sin to have any trace of melody in your music. Thus, since people versed in the traditional repertoire consider melody and tonal harmony as key structural elements to have music that is intelligible to the listener, there you have the conclusion you wanted to establish. The specific serial procedure is something that comes, as a logical step, a posteriori to all this, and to have some new order and organization that could replace the one that has been discarded.


----------



## aleazk

fluteman said:


> No, because as Charles Wourinen said, and as John Dewey said, and as David Hume said, art requires the active participation of an audience. And the impact of art on an audience, and ultimately on a culture, cannot be fully explained through rational and mathematical methods, as the audience is human, and human perception and behavior cannot be fully explained through rational and mathematical methods. Posters here endlessly respond to you, "Don't tell me what to like, I don't like serial music and that's that." You (wrongly) respond that they need to become more knowledgeable listeners. Many of them in turn (wrongly) argue that if they can find enough people who agree with them, that somehow validates their opinion and proves serial music is bad.
> 
> And around you all go in circles, proving nothing.


I don't think it's a question of having to become more knowledgeable listeners in terms of the 'mathematical' screws and bolts of the style, but rather about widening the boundaries of what we are comfortable in admiting as 'valid' music. For some, something without a melody is not music, for example. I disagree with them, of course. But, ultimately, I think it depends on the kind of aesthetic experiences we are looking for. It is a bit curious, since different art in different styles can both be 'sublime', but the aesthetic experience they give is only particular to each style. What is it the thing that is being experienced in these different aesthetics that makes the difference and the sharp disagreements? Is just the mere technical enjoyment of how some aspects of music are manipulated in new interesting ways? Is the appereance of new types of devices to produce and manipulate sound? Is that each style is connected with the 'ethos' of its time, of new cosmovisions about reality itself, influenced by, e.g., new discoveries in science and philosophy? Maybe it's a bit of all that.


----------



## millionrainbows

aleazk said:


> I think you are right in pointing out that serialist composers were looking for a more objective, 'ego-less' style, since they said so explicitly in numerous interviews, articles etc. But I disagree about the mathematical manipulations of the tone row as being the key device they used to achieve this. This ego detachment thing was a conscious and deliberate aesthetic decision, and they used all the musical resourses they had at hand to try to achieve this. I think that the avoidance of melody and tonal harmony, usually seen as the archetypal means for self, 'ego'-expression in the romantic tradition, were the key ingredients. At the epoch of high modernism in the 50s, it was an absolute sin to have any trace of melody in your music.


I disagree; in Milton Babbitt's music, only certain types of tone rows are considered and sought after, and the composer's primary intention is to show the permutations of this row.

I also disagree with the notion that serial music is simply an "avoidance" of tonal procedures. This may have had some truth in the early days of Schoenberg, but not in full-fledged serial thinking. Serial thinking has actual substance; it is not simply a "denial" of tonality, as an atheist denies a deity.



aleazk said:


> Thus, since people versed in the traditional repertoire consider melody and tonal harmony as key structural elements to have music that is intelligible to the listener, there you have the conclusion you wanted to establish. The specific serial procedure is something that comes, as a logical step, a posteriori to all this, and to have some new order and organization that could replace the one that has been discarded.


The reason melody and harmony make music intelligible is because of tone centricity and the harmonic model. Those are _sensual_ elements, based on sound and harmonic models of sound.

Serial music is based on mathematical notions of symmetry, set theory, and _abstract concepts which are not primarily sensual;_ they are only applied to sensual elements in the pitch realm. They only become sensual when translated into sounds, and at that point there is not a simple corresponding connection to the sound as in tonality. The ideas themselves are hidden in the structure, and the way they are manifest as sound is not reflected on the surface of the music.

So, really, it's the opposite of what you said: the order and logic came first, and the sounds were merely a consequence of this.


----------



## millionrainbows

aleazk said:


> I don't think it's a question of having to become more knowledgeable listeners in terms of the 'mathematical' screws and bolts of the style, but rather about widening the boundaries of what we are comfortable in admiting as 'valid' music. For some, something without a melody is not music, for example. I disagree with them, of course. But, ultimately, I think it depends on the kind of aesthetic experiences we are looking for. It is a bit curious, since different art in different styles can both be 'sublime', but the aesthetic experience they give is only particular to each style. What is it the thing that is being experienced in these different aesthetics that makes the difference and the sharp disagreements? Is just the mere technical enjoyment of how some aspects of music are manipulated in new interesting ways? Is the appereance of new types of devices to produce and manipulate sound? Is that each style is connected with the 'ethos' of its time, of new cosmovisions about reality itself, influenced by, e.g., new discoveries in science and philosophy? Maybe it's a bit of all that.


Maybe it's just the fact that Man refuses to 'get over' himself. He thinks he is special, just like The Creator told him he was. Or just like he told himself, in lieu of a creator (The Wagner Syndrome).


----------



## aleazk

millionrainbows said:


> I disagree; in Milton Babbitt's music, only certain types of tone rows are considered and sought after, and the composer's primary intention is to show the permutations of this row.
> 
> I also disagree with the notion that serial music is simply an "avoidance" of tonal procedures. This may have had some truth in the early days of Schoenberg, but not in full-fledged serial thinking. Serial thinking has actual substance; it is not simply a "denial" of tonality, as an atheist denies a deity.


I don't think I implied what you say I said, since I specifically stated that serialism introduces a new order that replaces the old one, i.e., this new thing that is introduced has a weight by itself, or substance, as you say.



millionrainbows said:


> The reason melody and harmony make music intelligible is because of tone centricity and the harmonic model. Those are _sensual_ elements, based on sound and harmonic models of sound.
> 
> Serial music is based on mathematical notions of symmetry, set theory, and _abstract concepts which are not primarily sensual;_ they are only applied to sensual elements in the pitch realm. They only become sensual when translated into sounds, and at that point there is not a simple corresponding connection to the sound as in tonality. The ideas themselves are hidden in the structure, and the way they are manifest as sound is not reflected on the surface of the music.
> 
> So, really, it's the opposite of what you said: the order and logic came first, and the sounds were merely a consequence of this.


But, why on earth one would accept such a formalism with such aural consequences if one wasn't looking for such elimination of traditional sensuality in the first place? And the gradual development of serial music, starting from Schoenberg's early chromatic pieces, which wanted to avoid global tonal thinking, is on my side. You agreed yourself with this historical fact. Furthermore, the ego-less attitude was common to all modernist art from the period, that is, other arts that have nothing to do with the specifics of the serial procedures for the manipulation of the tone row, thus showing that it was a general aesthetic tendency in art as a whole. For example, on the 50s, when Boulez, Babbitt and friends were composing within this mindset, Mies van der Roe was building the Seagram building, which is considered the epitome of high modernist architecture. With its extreme austerity (akin to an ego-less ascetic person), and its author's lemma 'less is more', is a clear example of a general aesthetic thinking of which modernist music was just a particular example.


----------



## fluteman

millionrainbows said:


> No; art can exist without Man.


Really? In that case, your definition of art is fundamentally different from any that I have ever seen.

http://https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/art

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art

That art cannot exist without man is its most fundamental attribute, so you must be talking about something else entirely.


----------



## JAS

fluteman said:


> That art cannot exist without man is its most fundamental attribute, so you must be talking about something else entirely.


There are certainly very beautiful things that occur in nature, but perhaps that is stretching the idea of art too far. One does wonder, however, about the male Bowerbird, which as part of its attempt to attract a mate creates elaborate bowers (which do not actually seem to serve the purpose of a nest) and "decorate" it with various kinds of collections, which the female seems to consider in her decision. These collections sometimes seem to demonstrate idiosyncratic choices particular to a given male, which might at least hint at something approaching taste (in an aesthetic sense).


----------



## fluteman

JAS said:


> There are certainly very beautiful things that occur in nature, but perhaps that is stretching the idea of art too far. One does wonder, however, about the male Bowerbird, which as part of its attempt to attract a mate creates elaborate bowers (which do not actually seem to serve the purpose of a nest) and "decorate" it with various kinds of collections, which the female seems to consider in her decision. These collections sometimes seem to demonstrate idiosyncratic choices particular to a given male, which might at least hint at something approaching taste (in an aesthetic sense).


That was a perfectly intelligent and articulate comment, but if you want to apply the term "art" to what attracts a female bird to a male bird, you are certainly stretching the concept. If you are talking about the human observer having an aesthetic appreciation of birds, and finding them to be beautiful, I am with you entirely. But there again, the beauty of nature is not what we typically think of as art.


----------



## JAS

fluteman said:


> . . . if you want to apply the term "art" to what attracts a female bird to a male bird, you are certainly stretching the concept.


It is a little tricky because in this case it is not the physical attributes of the male bird that serve as the chief factor in attracting the attention of the female. Instead, the external factor of the collections of objects, and even how they are arranged, seems to be key. It can be asserted as an example of the male bird creating something (admittedly as an assembly of pre-existing things) for the expressed purpose of appealing to an audience (a female Bowerbird). Yes, I don't think it quite answers your query, but it is a fascinating thing. I highly recommend the documentary by David Attenborough. He also may be overstating his case a bit, but it really does challenge the idea of art being _entirely_ exclusive to man.


----------



## fluteman

JAS said:


> It is a little tricky because in this case it is not the physical attributes of the male bird that serve as the chief factor in attracting the attention of the female. Instead, the external factor of the collections of objects, and even how they are arranged, seems to be key. It can be asserted as an example of the male bird creating something (admittedly as an assembly of pre-existing things) for the expressed purpose of appealing to an audience (a female Bowerbird). Yes, I don't think it quite answers your query, but it is a fascinating thing. I highly recommend the documentary by David Attenborough. He also may be overstating his case a bit, but it really does challenge the idea of art being _entirely_ exclusive to man.


I'm a big David Attenborough fan, but I'll stick with the conventional definition of art. However sophisticated and complex the conduct of other members of the animal kingdom, I think it just gets too confusing to start applying human behavioral concepts to other organisms wholesale. I saw a documentary on Nature not long ago about a male fish that makes an amazingly elaborate and painstaking design in the sandy ocean floor to attract a mate. There seems to be some similarity to human social behavior with things like this, but exactly how close the analogy is, I don't know.


----------



## Eusebius12

JAS said:


> There are certainly very beautiful things that occur in nature, but perhaps that is stretching the idea of art too far. One does wonder, however, about the male Bowerbird, which as part of its attempt to attract a mate creates elaborate bowers (which do not actually seem to serve the purpose of a nest) and "decorate" it with various kinds of collections, which the female seems to consider in her decision. These collections sometimes seem to demonstrate idiosyncratic choices particular to a given male, which might at least hint at something approaching taste (in an aesthetic sense).


Also, what about birdsong?


----------



## JAS

Eusebius12 said:


> Also, what about birdsong?


Birdsong, I think, is inherently a very different matter. All birds of a given species tend to use the same song, or set of songs, with little or no variation or individualization. (Indeed, species can often be recognized just by their songs. Some birds mimic the songs of other birds, but it is still a matter of repetition, with no real element of creation. And while it sounds to us something like music, they are really just communicating a fixed set of sounds in the absence of speaking. Whalesong may be a different matter, and is interesting because there is a communal aspect and, I believe, a greater variety of variation.) While there appear to be preferences within the Bowerbird communities based on species, but perhaps somewhat more on what materials are available locally, there are sufficient differences to suggest individualization for the collections and their presentations. It is at least as much art as putting urinals on the exhibit wall of museum or vacuum cleaners in glass cases in the main hall. (That is a actually a bit of a complication for my offering of Bowerbird collections since I consider neither the urinals nor the vacuum cleaners to be art, particularly if the "artist" did not make them.)


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> Maybe it's just the fact that Man refuses to 'get over' himself. He thinks he is special, just like The Creator told him he was. Or just like he told himself, in lieu of a creator (The Wagner Syndrome).


Always assuming that 'Man' has some kind of collective consciousness - which is open to debate.

This particular 'Man' knows he is special in the sense that he is a single, individual human, with a consciousness and awareness distinct from those others he encounters, and a capacity to create, and to consume others imaginative output - including the idea that whatever any 'creator' might have intended, this man has the capacity to make both rational and irrational choices about music, including whether to deride it.


----------



## Enthusiast

All this talk of nature is merely talk of one of the many phenomena which have inspired artists to attempts at representation (of nature). We all know that artistic approaches to representing nature have varied in a many different ways - realistic, symbolic, abstract and so on - and that even the most realistic and literal representations are very different things to the actual natural phenomena. There is quite simply no way that art and nature can be confused or are in some way equivalent. This is not about elevating "man" - as the creator of art - to the level of a god or a process of selection. Art is art and some of it is glorious. It may be a product of gifted humans but it is not remotely similar to the miracle of life or our natural environment. The confusion arises because we (humans) can feel something similar when we (humans) see a particularly attractive natural phenomenon and a particularly attractive piece of art.

I suppose if you believe in God you might tend to see God as an artist (for our enjoyment?) but that seems to belittle His intent (whatever _that_ was). Art must in some way make use of the functions that we have evolved (in our brains) for different purposes but as art is a human product it is not difficult to imagine a human artist having an in-depth understanding of what makes us tick.


----------



## Eusebius12

JAS said:


> Birdsong, I think, is inherently a very different matter. All birds of a given species tend to use the same song, or set of songs, with little or no variation or individualization.


I understand that this is not strictly true. I think you are confusing bird calls with actual song. Perhaps you are Australian, because our birds are poor in actual _song_. Birds not only learn calls and 'motifs', but compose them. They also memorize songs of other birds, and develop a repertoire.

The rest of your post was interesting and entertaining and I don't disagree with its substance.


----------



## Eusebius12

MacLeod said:


> Always assuming that 'Man' has some kind of collective consciousness - which is open to debate.
> 
> This particular 'Man' knows he is special in the sense that he is a single, individual human, with a consciousness and awareness distinct from those others he encounters, and a capacity to create, and to consume others imaginative output - including the idea that whatever any 'creator' might have intended, this man has the capacity to make both rational and irrational choices about music, including whether to deride it.


No doubt birds, or even whales, operate at a somewhat lower level of consciousness, but exactly what that is is impossible to determine. It is difficult to get into the heads of our fellow 'men', let alone other species. I default to trying to accord other species the dignity of possessing at least to a significant degree of the joy of creating and being self aware to that extent.


----------



## Luchesi

JAS said:


> Birdsong, I think, is inherently a very different matter. All birds of a given species tend to use the same song, or set of songs, with little or no variation or individualization. (Indeed, species can often be recognized just by their songs. Some birds mimic the songs of other birds, but it is still a matter of repetition, with no real element of creation. And while it sounds to us something like music, they are really just communicating a fixed set of sounds in the absence of speaking. Whalesong may be a different matter, and is interesting because there is a communal aspect and, I believe, a greater variety of variation.) While there appear to be preferences within the Bowerbird communities based on species, but perhaps somewhat more on what materials are available locally, there are sufficient differences to suggest individualization for the collections and their presentations. It is at least as much art as putting urinals on the exhibit wall of museum or vacuum cleaners in glass cases in the main hall. (That is a actually a bit of a complication for my offering of Bowerbird collections since I consider neither the urinals nor the vacuum cleaners to be art, particularly if the "artist" did not make them.)


I agree with your post until;

"...since I consider neither the urinals nor the vacuum cleaners to be art, particularly if the "artist" did not make them."

As you know, the artist would say they're art if you remember them and get the message that everyday objects should be looked at and examined for artistic characteristics. It's the process and what's revealed (looking in a new way).

Passionate!

"The story is legend. Duchamp, wanting to submit an artwork to the "unjuried" Society of Independent Artists' salon in New York-which claimed that they would accept any work of art, so long as the artist paid the application fee-presented an upside-down urinal signed and dated with the appellation "R. Mutt, 1917," and titled Fountain. 
The Society's board, faced with what must have seemed like a practical joke from an anonymous artist, rejected Fountain on the grounds that it was not a true work of art. Duchamp, who was a member of that board himself, resigned in protest."


----------



## millionrainbows

aleazk said:


> ...But, why on earth one would accept such a formalism with such aural consequences if one wasn't looking for such elimination of traditional sensuality in the first place?


It does have a sensual dimension, but it is not based on sensual factors. The 'beauty' of it will depend on that, and how that is handled.



aleazk said:


> ...And the gradual development of serial music, starting from Schoenberg's early chromatic pieces, which wanted to avoid global tonal thinking, is on my side. You agreed yourself with this historical fact.


Yes, but Schoenberg started tonally, so he had to avoid old habits. There is nothing in the serial system itself which "avoids" beauty; it simply is not based on tonal factors.



aleazk said:


> Furthermore, the ego-less attitude was common to all modernist art from the period, that is, other arts that have nothing to do with the specifics of the serial procedures for the manipulation of the tone row, thus showing that it was a general aesthetic tendency in art as a whole. For example, on the 50s, when Boulez, Babbitt and friends were composing within this mindset, Mies van der Roe was building the Seagram building, which is considered the epitome of high modernist architecture. With its extreme austerity (akin to an ego-less ascetic person), and its author's lemma 'less is more', is a clear example of a general aesthetic thinking of which modernist music was just a particular example.


Yes, this was part of the modern aesthetic. I'm not sure what you're getting at, but I think you are disagreeing with something I said.


----------



## millionrainbows

fluteman said:


> Really? In that case, your definition of art is fundamentally different from any that I have ever seen.
> That art cannot exist without man is its most fundamental attribute, so you must be talking about something else entirely.


Out of context. Art can exist without Man putting his "identity" into it.


----------



## millionrainbows

JAS said:


> There are certainly very beautiful things that occur in nature, but perhaps that is stretching the idea of art too far. One does wonder, however, about the male Bowerbird, which as part of its attempt to attract a mate creates elaborate bowers (which do not actually seem to serve the purpose of a nest) and "decorate" it with various kinds of collections, which the female seems to consider in her decision. These collections sometimes seem to demonstrate idiosyncratic choices particular to a given male, which might at least hint at something approaching taste (in an aesthetic sense).


What I tried to convey was that art could exist as a thing unto itself, not unlike something which occurs in nature. Art which is beyond the contrivances of Man "trying" to assert himself into the work.

Usually, art is a communication between the artist and the viewer. The artist uses a language which will convey meaning because it can be universally understood; it has agreed-upon meanings, however unspecific or general. The artist is thus able to create an object which "maps" his experience on to the viewer's experience.

There can be an art which is not based on agreed-upon meanings, which is just as mysterious to the artist as it is to anyone. Thus, the art is not designed to communicate with or "coddle" the viewer in any way that the artist has devised.


----------



## millionrainbows

Eusebius12 said:


> Also, what about birdsong?


We immediately think of Messiaen and his Catalogue of Birds. Nature is definitely a part of art; art merely tries to imitate it.


----------



## millionrainbows

JAS said:


> ...It is at least as much art as putting urinals on the exhibit wall of museum or vacuum cleaners in glass cases in the main hall. (That is a actually a bit of a complication for my offering of Bowerbird collections since I consider neither the urinals nor the vacuum cleaners to be art, particularly if the "artist" did not make them.)


History has already accepted Marcel Duchamp's "Urinal" as art. It is conceptual art, because it brings into question the function of art, and what "is" art. Remember that Duchamp started as a painter right at the time the new technologies of photography, cinema, and mass communication were forcing painting to re-define itself.


----------



## fluteman

millionrainbows said:


> Out of context. Art can exist without Man putting his "identity" into it.


As art is a form of human expression, it cannot exist without man putting his identity into it.



millionrainbows said:


> History has already accepted Marcel Duchamp's "Urinal" as art. It is conceptual art, because it brings into question the function of art, and what "is" art. Remember that Duchamp started as a painter right at the time the new technologies of photography, cinema, and mass communication were forcing painting to re-define itself.


Duchamp's work very much has man's identity in it. Even John Cage's 4'33" has an element of man's identity in it -- the ability to consistently and precisely control duration. What in nature always lasts precisely 4'33"?


----------



## JAS

millionrainbows said:


> History has already accepted Marcel Duchamp's "Urinal" as art. It is conceptual art, because it brings into question the function of art, and what "is" art. Remember that Duchamp started as a painter right at the time the new technologies of photography, cinema, and mass communication were forcing painting to re-define itself.


Congratulations on your promotion to the Speaker for History.


----------



## JAS

fluteman said:


> As art is a form of human expression, it cannot exist without man putting his identity into it. Duchamp's work very much has man's identity in it. Even John Cage's 4'33" has an element of man's identity in it -- the ability to consistently and precisely control duration. What in nature always lasts precisely 4'33"?


I think you were doing quite well up until this post. I have no idea what "man putting his identity into it" as a qualification for art means. Since you apply it to the urinals and 4'33", I can only assume that it doesn't really mean anything.


----------



## millionrainbows

fluteman said:


> As art is a form of human expression, it cannot exist without man putting his identity into it.


There's that Romantic term again: expression. Music is full of Romantic baggage.



fluteman said:


> Duchamp's work very much has man's identity in it.


It's conceptual art. Serialism, or abstraction, is another matter. Why are we comparing this to art which is self-generating and has no hint of the artist's hand?



fluteman said:


> Even John Cage's 4'33" has an element of man's identity in it -- the ability to consistently and precisely control duration. What in nature always lasts precisely 4'33"?


The duration is merely the frame. The 'actual work' itself has no pre-determined content. It consists only of those _sounds_ which might occur as the piece is performed. Cage made sure that his intent would be removed from the sounds, and it always will be. What we might remember and associate with Cage is the fact that this was a conceptual piece, one of the first. But that's the extraneous baggage of history.


----------



## Guest

JAS said:


> I think you were doing quite well up until this post. I have no idea what "man putting his identity into it" as a qualification for art means. Since you apply it to the urinals and 4'33", I can only assume that it doesn't really mean anything.


"Art" is not merely the artefact, but (usually) the presentation of it too. Whilst no one thinks a urinal is ordinarily "art", Duchamp's presentation of it as "art" means he has put some of his identity into the whole transaction. The same applies to Cage's 4'33".


----------



## millionrainbows

JAS said:


> I think you were doing quite well up until this post. I have no idea what "man putting his identity into it" as a qualification for art means. Since you apply it to the urinals and 4'33", I can only assume that it doesn't really mean anything.


You had to be following the thread in order to get it. I suggest you go back and read posts 1-728.


----------



## Strange Magic

millionrainbows said:


> You had to be following the thread in order to get it. I suggest you go back and read posts 1-728.


Hint: following the thread is one thing. Following millionrainbows is quite another .


----------



## fluteman

JAS said:


> I think you were doing quite well up until this post. I have no idea what "man putting his identity into it" as a qualification for art means. Since you apply it to the urinals and 4'33", I can only assume that it doesn't really mean anything.


Ahhh, don't let provocateurs like Duchamp and Cage get you all in a tizzy. They are just messin' with ya, and that's also a routine part of human expression.


----------



## Strange Magic

> millionrainbows: "What I tried to convey was that art could exist as a thing unto itself, not unlike something which occurs in nature. Art which is beyond the contrivances of Man "trying" to assert himself into the work."


Please give two or three specific examples of these. I have difficulty dealing with concepts unless I have the reassuring presence of concrete [sic] examples.


----------



## JAS

fluteman said:


> Ahhh, don't let provocateurs like Duchamp and Cage get you all in a tizzy. They are just messin' with ya, and that's also a routine part of human expression.


I am not really in a tizzy. (Generally, nothing that happens at TC is worth more than a mighty yawn.) Yes, they are provocateurs, and not artists. What provocateurs create are generally stunts, and not art.


----------



## fluteman

JAS said:


> I am not really in a tizzy. (Generally, nothing that happens at TC is worth more than a mighty yawn.) Yes, they are provocateurs, and not artists. What provocateurs create are generally stunts, and not art.


You need to see Tom Stoppard's Travesties, in which James Joyce and Tristan Tzara (one of the founders of Dadaism) have a lengthy debate about this sort of thing. Eventually, Joyce has the rather deft last word, and so perhaps wins the debate in that sense, but the fact that the debate is needed supports the provocateur Tzara's point that he is a necessary gadfly in an art world that had become moribund.


----------



## millionrainbows

_millionrainbows: "What I tried to convey was that art could exist as a thing unto itself, not unlike something which occurs in nature. Art which is beyond the contrivances of Man "trying" to assert himself into the work."_



Strange Magic said:


> Please give two or three specific examples of these. I have difficulty dealing with concepts unless I have the reassuring presence of concrete [sic] examples.


Boulez' Structures, which he considered a failure; a lot of John Cage's work, Atlas Eclipticalis for example; Brian Eno, a pop musician, made music from self-generating systems, such as Music for Airports and Discreet music.

If you could read the liner notes of this album, it would be informative:


----------



## aleazk

millionrainbows said:


> I'm not sure what you're getting at, but I think you are disagreeing with something I said.


The discussion seemed to be about what comes first, the aesthetic ideals of a style or the actual technical means to achieve them during the creation of a piece of art? You seemed to argue for the second option, whilst I was arguing for the first one. Ultimately, I would concede that the methods themselves can partially re-shape the aesthetic ideals, since the creation process is never that clear cut and there's feedback (from the work of art, the methods, etc.) to the artist as things move.


----------



## Eusebius12

millionrainbows said:


> I (tonic): The Father, to which all things are related
> 
> Serialism proves itself to be more scientific than tonality in its use of zero and number lines.
> 
> Additionally, intervals in serialism are measured by quantity from zero. In tonality, intervals have a "directionality" that is absent in serial thought, because tonality is recursive, i.e. interval relationships repeat every octave, and are dependent on their position in the octave.


Intervals in a key or modal based composition have more of a basis in mathematics than do non-tonal intervals, generally speaking.


----------



## Eusebius12

fluteman said:


> Exactly. You not only understand my point, you are able to tell a story that is both relevant and funny. You win the Funk & Wagnalls Complete Works of Milton Babbitt.


Funk & Wagnalls, indeed


----------



## Eusebius12

Woodduck said:


> The mathematical aspects of music are really quite obvious. Music unfolds in time. Time can be measured in mathematical units. But music is not clockwork; even if its rhythms are regular, it's perceived in subjective, not objective, time. Music also consists of tones whose physical relationships can be expressed mathematically. But of what value is this knowledge to the composer or listener? It's understandable that the ancient Greeks were fascinated by the mathematical aspects of music, and that that fascination persisted into the Middle Ages, when triple rhythms could be thought to represent the Holy Trinity. None of this makes music akin to mathematics, any more than a recipe calling for 1 1/2 cups of flour, 1/2cup of sugar, 1 cup of milk and 2 eggs is akin to mathematics.


Every aspect of music can be expressed mathematically. Even more reductively than food. Although every spacetime event in the universe is an expression of mathematics at some level. Every spacetime event is subject to relativity, and E=mc2 specifically (therefore all matter is a product of energy, mathematically speaking, or vice versa). But I digress.


----------



## Eusebius12

fluteman said:


> In other words, you're deriding those who deride the deriders.


However I refuse to deride those who deride those who deride the deriders. However if it is 'wrong' to deride, then it must be wrong to deride the deriders. De Campdown riders sing dis song, Doo Dah, Doo Dah


----------



## Eusebius12

Jacck said:


> I doubt that the arithmetic in music is even fractionally that interesting as real mathematics. But I see where you are coming from. Already the Pythagoreans searched for mathematical meaning behind sound, hence the expression "music of the spheres"
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musica_universalis


Mathematical relationships in music are complex, especially in serialism. One might suggest that in some serialist works, or for example the works of Ferneyhough, the mathematical relationships are tenuous. Certainly not appreciated by the ear or by the eye, of composer or listener. But obviously a 5th is a clear mathematical relationship, as is a 3rd. The well tempered scale is divided equally in tones, whereas the original schema was based on perfect 5ths.


----------



## Eusebius12

millionrainbows said:


> Boulez' Structures, which he considered a failure; a lot of John Cage's work,




Which I consider a failure


----------



## techniquest

LezLee said:


> This is the current top 20 from the UK Classic FM radio station:
> 
> This
> Week	Last
> Week	Title & Artist
> 1	2	ISLANDS - ESSENTIAL EINAUDI, LUDOVICO EINAUDI
> 2	3	INSPIRATION, SHEKU KANNEH-MASON
> 3	NEW	THE CLASSICS YOU KNOW, ROYAL PHILHARMONIC ORCHESTRA
> 4	NEW	ANGEL, ELAN CATRIN PARRY
> 5	6	THE LITTLE MERMAID - OST, ALAN MENKEN
> 
> 6	5	THE 50 GREATEST PIECES OF CLASSICAL, LPO/PARRY
> 7	9	THE LORD OF THE RINGS - TRILOGY - OST, HOWARD SHORE
> 8	4	AMORE, ANDRE RIEU
> 9	8	DIVENIRE, LUDOVICO EINAUDI
> 10	17	ELEMENTS, LUDOVICO EINAUDI
> 
> 11	21	VIVALDI X2 - DOUBLE CONCERTOS FOR OBOES, LA SERENISSIMA/ADRIAN CHANDLER
> 12	18	SCORE, 2CELLOS
> 13	7	GLADIATOR - OST, HANS ZIMMER & LISA GERRARD
> 14	11	SLEEP, MAX RICHTER
> 15	16	THE LORD OF THE RINGS - OST, HOWARD SHORE
> 
> 16	13	THE BLUE NOTEBOOKS, MAX RICHTER
> 17	12	RACHMANINOV/ETUDES-TABLEAUX, STEVEN OSBOURNE
> 18	14	IN A TIME LAPSE, LUDOVICO EINAUDI
> 19	10	JOHN WILLIAMS - A LIFE IN MUSIC, LSO/GREENAWAY
> 20	27	AVENGERS - INFINITY WAR - OST, ALAN SILVESTRI
> 
> 21	19	INCREDIBLES 2 - OST, MICHAEL GIACCHINO
> 22	1	LORD OF THE RINGS - THE TWO TOWERS - OST, HOWARD SHORE
> 23	20	CLASSICAL CHILLOUT, VARIOUS ARTISTS
> 24	15	POLDARK - OST, ANNE DUDLEY
> 25	22	I GIORNI, LUDOVICO EINAUDI
> 
> 26	24	GAME OF THRONES - SEASON 6 - OST, RAMIN DJAWADI
> 27	23	UNA MATTINA, LUDOVICO EINAUDI
> 28	RE	PRIDE & PREJUDICE - OST, MARIANELLI/ECO/THIBAUDET
> 29	26	GAME OF THRONES - SEASON 7 - OST, RAMIN DJAWADI
> 30	RE	RECOMPOSED BY MAX RICHTER/VIVALDI - FOUR, HOPE/KONZERTHAUS CO/RIDDER
> 
> I'm quite happy to deride 90% of these. :devil:
> -


Yes, Classic FM should really be re-named 'Soundtrack FM' (with a few popular classics and songs thrown in here and there).
I turn away with a snort of derision...


----------



## Eusebius12

techniquest said:


> Yes, Classic FM should really be re-named 'Soundtrack FM' (with a few popular classics and songs thrown in here and there).
> I turn away with a snort of derision...


Much worse even that ABC Classic FM


----------



## millionrainbows

aleazk said:


> The discussion seemed to be about what comes first, the aesthetic ideals of a style or the actual technical means to achieve them during the creation of a piece of art? You seemed to argue for the second option, whilst I was arguing for the first one. Ultimately, I would concede that the methods themselves can partially re-shape the aesthetic ideals, since the creation process is never that clear cut and there's feedback (from the work of art, the methods, etc.) to the artist as things move.


"Beauty" is a much more nebulous subject than "actual technical means."

It depends on whether one considers "beauty" to be a primarily sensual experience, or a more Platonic , "ideal" concept. If the technical means used to create music result in what some perceive as beauty, then that is a good aestheic result; but, then again, what is beauty, and should beauty always be the goal of art or music? Some of the art produced in the War era was certainly not what one immediately thinks of when one considers "beauty."


----------



## millionrainbows

Eusebius12 said:


> Which I consider a failure


Actually, I do too. When I listen to it, it has a certain "static" quality, a sameness and lack of variety; it's as though entropy has entered the system. I have recordings of it, though, and am not ready to give them up.

Obviously, Boulez had some problems with the syntax that he later worked-out. It was brave of him to admit a failure, though, and for that, I respect him.


----------



## millionrainbows

Eusebius12 said:


> ...The well tempered scale is divided equally in tones, whereas the original schema was based on perfect 5ths.


Actually, the 12 notes of our Western octave (even before equal temperament) we arrived at by a Pythagoran-derived procedure of "stacking" or projecting fifths. After 12 cycles of fifths, the starting point almost coincided with the end point of 12; but not quite, and this is called "The Pythagoran comma."

Still, the net result was that the "circle" of the octave was closed, and the Western octave is still based on 12 notes arrived at by the 12-division of fifths. The modern tempered fifth is off by only 2 cents (a cent is 1/100th of a semitone), and this is negligible. Our Western system is still based on root movement by fifths. The fifth is the favored interval. By contrast, major thirds are sharp by a full 14 cents! That is very audible, but we seem to have gotten used to it. The fifth is the more important interval anyway, because it creates stability in triads.


----------



## Tallisman

MacLeod said:


> Would you mind elaborating and exemplifying? Thanks.


I mean to say it is not a matter of logic or formal methods of proof. It is expressed through vigour, passion, worldly erudition, eloquence etc


----------



## Guest

Tallisman said:


> I mean to say it is not a matter of logic or formal methods of proof. It is expressed through vigour, passion, worldly erudition, eloquence etc


No, I meant, can you give an example of where someone has been "running through syllogisms", please?


----------



## Star

techniquest said:


> Yes, Classic FM should really be re-named 'Soundtrack FM' (with a few popular classics and songs thrown in here and there).
> I turn away with a snort of derision...


People who snort with derision at Classic FM don't apoear to realise music is to be enjoyed. I know friends who would never normally listen to classical music but do like Classic FM. Besides the station does play some great music - actually had a Bach cello suite on there yesterday which I listened to in the car.


----------



## Enthusiast

Star said:


> People who snort with derision at Classic FM don't apoear to realise music is to be enjoyed. I know friends who would never normally listen to classical music but do like Classic FM. Besides the station does play some great music - actually had a Bach cello suite on there yesterday which I listened to in the car.


I think the distress caused among many of us by Classic FM is that they play far too much music that cannot be enjoyed by a classical music fan - and that it not classical music. They were always populist (is that what you meant by "to be enjoyed"?) but they now play a lot of classical music substitute - as if the real thing is too fattening or gives you life threatening conditions.


----------



## eljr

Enthusiast said:


> I think the distress caused among many of us by Classic FM is that they play far too much music that cannot be enjoyed by a classical music fan - and that it not classical music. .


or, maybe, some classical music fans are far to limiting on what they consider to be classical music?

When Mozart was at peak he was the Celine Dion of his time, a pop star. Why do so many now think being popular negates being classical?


----------



## eugeneonagain

eljr said:


> or, maybe, some classical music fans are far to limiting on what they consider to be classical music?
> 
> When Mozart was at peak he was the Celine Dion of his time, a pop star. Why do so many now think being popular negates being classical?


That's not quite right. It's called 'classic FM', not 'all music from Gregorian Chant up to Celine Dion FM'. I don't much mind film or TV music being on the schedule, providing it has some semblance to the music the station purports to represent.

It's not like they are scrambling to play anything modern or cutting-edge or even "modern" circa 1920, so within their remit they have a massive back catalogue of standard 'classical' music at their disposal; no need to engage in crossover programming. Anyone who doesn't much like classical music is going to be tuned to some other station anyway - as most are.


----------



## Eusebius12

eljr said:


> or, maybe, some classical music fans are far to limiting on what they consider to be classical music?
> 
> When Mozart was at peak he was the Celine Dion of his time, a pop star. Why do so many now think being popular negates being classical?


This is utterly absurd on so many levels.


----------



## KenOC

Eusebius12 said:


> This is utterly absurd on so many levels.


But not necessarily wrong!


----------



## eljr

Eusebius12 said:


> This is utterly absurd on so many levels.


LOL, why of course it is

because you say so...

I read the same nonsense on other boards in reference to rock music. Only the old stuff is good. New stuff sucks.

It's simple a perspective, a perspective born of arrogance.

All music is good, IMHO.


----------



## eugeneonagain

_All music _is not in the remit of a station whose aim is broadcasting popular 'classical' music.


----------



## Enthusiast

eljr said:


> or, maybe, some classical music fans are far to limiting on what they consider to be classical music?
> 
> When Mozart was at peak he was the Celine Dion of his time, a pop star. Why do so many now think being popular negates being classical?


I don't agree at all that Celine Dion is Mozart reincarnated. And not just because I dislike her music. It is an extraordinary claim! No, Classic FM made a lot of soft classical music popular. It wasn't "my" station but they did a good job. Then they started to realise that by calling almost anything classical they could expand their audience. But they have deserted their mission.


----------



## Enthusiast

eljr said:


> LOL, why of course it is
> 
> because you say so...
> 
> I read the same nonsense on other boards in reference to rock music. Only the old stuff is good. New stuff sucks.
> 
> It's simple a perspective, a perspective born of arrogance.
> 
> All music is good, IMHO.


Discriminating between good and bad music within a genre is an inevitable feature of listening to the music. I think this goes beyond personal preference for people who have listened to a lot of music.

Discriminating between good and bad genres is more difficult as they probably serve very different purposes but we all have preferences. I'm not sure I believe that you don't! You're winding us up, no?


----------



## JAS

Enthusiast said:


> I don't agree at all that Celine Dion is Mozart reincarnated. And not just because I dislike her music. It is an extraordinary claim! No, Classic FM made a lot of soft classical music popular. It wasn't "my" station but they did a good job. Then they started to realise that by calling almost anything classical they could expand their audience. But they have deserted their mission.


I am not really familiar with Classic FM (although I gather it is a BBC radio station ostensibly specializing in classical music). At one time, we had two classical radio stations here, but right after a fund-raiser, one changed suddenly to a talk format. The other, fortunately, continues to exist, and perhaps I should be more consciously appreciative of it. (I do send them money every year.)

The idea that Celine Dion is some kind of modern Mozart is akin to Michael Jackson's claim that he was like Beethoven --- and both are absurd and self-serving.


----------



## Guest

JAS said:


> I am not really familiar with Classic FM (although I gather it is a BBC radio station ostensibly specializing in classical music). At one time, we had two classical radio stations here, but right after a fund-raiser, one changed suddenly to a talk format. The other, fortunately, continues to exist, and perhaps I should be more consciously appreciative of it. (I do send them money every year.)
> 
> The idea that Celine Dion is some kind of modern Mozart is akin to Michael Jackson's claim that he was like Beethoven --- and both are absurd and self-serving.


It's not a BBC station. And I don't think Celine Dion is making any such claim (so it can hardly be self-serving).

Classic FM plays a range of popular orchestral, film, some choral/opera music. It doesn't play anything like the full range of standard repertoire, never mind what might, for convenience be termed "modern" or "avant-garde".

But so what? It doesn't claim to play the full repertoire, or the narrow or niche...but the popular. And it enjoys success because of it.

No reason to deride.


----------



## JAS

It can still be self-serving to anyone making the claim. (It does not have to be Celine Dion herself.) I am not deriding Classic FM as I have already stated that I am not really familiar with it. I think a great deal of orchestral film music fits quite easily into the realm of classical music.


----------



## eljr

JAS said:


> I am not really familiar with Classic FM (although I gather it is a BBC radio station ostensibly specializing in classical music). At one time, we had two classical radio stations here, but right after a fund-raiser, one changed suddenly to a talk format. The other, fortunately, continues to exist, and perhaps I should be more consciously appreciative of it. (I do send them money every year.)
> 
> The idea that Celine Dion is some kind of modern Mozart is akin to Michael Jackson's claim that he was like Beethoven --- and both are absurd and self-serving.


No one claimed any such thing. They simply claimed that Moazart was POPULAR music of his time as is Celine today.

Only the quality of popularity was compared. Heck, they do not even look alike. 

Mozart was accepted by the masses for his entertaining, fulfilling music. So too Beethoven and the late Mr. Jackson.

Does someone here feel the masses were more educated or music savvy back than than today?

I would think they had far less to choose from and were less educated. Just time and place.

I have found that want of justification of one's preferences always negates truth.

Just sayin.


----------



## Guest

JAS said:


> It can still be self-serving to anyone making the claim. (It does not have to be Celine Dion herself.)


I don't see how - who is the 'self' that is served if not Celine? eljr?



JAS said:


> I am not deriding Classic FM


My point was directed at those who are.


----------



## eljr

Enthusiast said:


> Discriminating between good and bad music within a genre is an inevitable feature of listening to the music. I think this goes beyond personal preference for people who have listened to a lot of music.
> 
> Discriminating between good and bad genres is more difficult as they probably serve very different purposes but we all have preferences. I'm not sure I believe that you don't! You're winding us up, no?


Good post. I agree this is true of most fair and balanced folks.

Personally I believe that there is good music and there is great music, there is no bad music.

When I read of a personas preference being championed as superior coupled with understanding human psychology as I do, I know in fact an error is likely being made.


----------



## eljr

MacLeod said:


> I don't see how - who is the 'self' that is served if not Celine? eljr?
> 
> .


ELJR does not even listen to Celine. He simply came across a pic of her yesterday while searching music for purchase and so used the name. It could have been anyone of a hundred folks. Maybe he should have compared Mozarts popularity to Led Zeppelin.


----------



## fluteman

Eusebius12 said:


> However I refuse to deride those who deride those who deride the deriders. However if it is 'wrong' to deride, then it must be wrong to deride the deriders. De Campdown riders sing dis song, Doo Dah, Doo Dah


Ordinarily I'm not enthusiastic about being one-upped, but that was just too good. Chapeau.


----------



## JAS

eljr said:


> Does someone here feel the masses were more educated or music savvy back than than today?


Possibly, but if so it was only because they had little choice in the matter.


----------



## Luchesi

eljr "Does someone here feel the masses were more educated or music savvy back than than today?"


Yes, didn't most kids learn music with almost as much 'motivation' as they were learning 3Rs? 

Today it's become fun time and more of a charade for most kids. They need to get a marketable skill! so that they can make money -- and then what?? (..play video games for their self-actualization)


----------



## JAS

MacLeod said:


> I don't see how - who is the 'self' that is served if not Celine? eljr?


It is a little complicated because the actual context of the original statement was that Mozart was being compared to Celine Dion, and not Celine Dion to Mozart. I suppose that is still a bit flattering to Celine Dion, but since she didn't say it and it wasn't being said to elevate her position in the world of music, the point is moot.


----------



## Guest

Luchesi said:


> Yes, didn't most kids learn music with almost as much 'motivation' as they were learning 3Rs?


I don't know...did they? I enjoyed learning the three Rs (in the 60s) - I don't remember much about "learning music"



JAS said:


> It is a little complicated because the actual context of the original statement was that Mozart was being compared to Celine Dion, and not Celine Dion to Mozart.


It's not complicated really. The comparison was not directly between Mozart and Dion, but between their respective levels of popularity.


----------



## Luchesi

Celine Dion net worth of $800 million

poor Mozart


----------



## JAS

Luchesi said:


> Celine Dion net worth of $800 million
> 
> poor Mozart


He probably still would have spent it all anyway.


----------



## eljr

Luchesi said:


> eljr "Does someone here feel the masses were more educated or music savvy back than than today?"
> 
> Yes, didn't most kids learn music with almost as much 'motivation' as they were learning 3Rs?
> 
> Today it's become fun time and more of a charade for most kids. They need to get a marketable skill! so that they can make money -- and then what?? (..play video games for their self-actualization)


I don't know anything about the history of education but I suspect that the average person would fair much better on standardized tests today. Women did not even attend schools in teh 18th century yet I have never read that they did not rally to popular music of the day.


----------



## eljr

MacLeod said:


> I don't know...did they? I enjoyed learning the three Rs (in the 60s) - I don't remember much about "learning music"


Same. Plus, I never had an interest in learning music and yet, since I was born, I have had a passion for the appreciation of music.



MacLeod said:


> It's not complicated really. The comparison was not directly between Mozart and Dion, but between their respective levels of popularity.


Exactly.


----------



## Eusebius12

JAS said:


> I am not really familiar with Classic FM (although I gather it is a BBC radio station ostensibly specializing in classical music). At one time, we had two classical radio stations here, but right after a fund-raiser, one changed suddenly to a talk format. The other, fortunately, continues to exist, and perhaps I should be more consciously appreciative of it. (I do send them money every year.)
> 
> The idea that Celine Dion is some kind of modern Mozart is akin to Michael Jackson's claim that he was like Beethoven --- and both are absurd and self-serving.


At least Michael Jackson _wrote_ music, he was an artist of repute and achievement. An all rounder, no doubt. No way to compare the two (Beethoven and MJ) though. We wouldn't compare a merely vocal performer of classical music, such as Aloysia Lange (or even Mozart's wife and Aloysia's sister Constanze) on the level of a patrician all round genius like Wolfgang Amadeus; in any case does anyone even listen to Celine Dion anymore? The pop world is so ephemeral and lacking in genuine artistic merit that it is asinine to compare them. On the other hand as I said, Michael Jackson had achieved more than most pop performers.


----------



## Eusebius12

eljr said:


> No one claimed any such thing. They simply claimed that Moazart was POPULAR music of his time as is Celine today.
> 
> Only the quality of popularity was compared. Heck, they do not even look alike.
> 
> Mozart was accepted by the masses for his entertaining, fulfilling music. So too Beethoven and the late Mr. Jackson.
> 
> Does someone here feel the masses were more educated or music savvy back than than today?
> 
> I would think they had far less to choose from and were less educated. Just time and place.
> 
> I have found that want of justification of one's preferences always negates truth.
> 
> Just sayin.


There was ephemera produced in Mozart's day as well. Mozart's music aspires to something greater than that. Do we assume that Mozart's music was performed in taverns or beer gardens? Possibly one or two things, generally operatic 'hits' like La ci darem la mano or Vedrai, carino. these were performed in various guises apparently, and wind arrangements of his music seem to have had a lot of currency. 
But every era has had its share of second rate ephemeral trash


----------



## Eusebius12

eljr said:


> I don't know anything about the history of education but I suspect that the average person would fair much better on standardized tests today. Women did not even attend schools in teh 18th century yet I have never read that they did not rally to popular music of the day.


No doubt this is reflected in continually rising IQ scores. However we can see today that the young are adept at pushing buttons, whilst perhaps being not so adept at independent thinking, practical application of logic, or taste. These may be relevant to the development of art and popular choices.


----------



## Eusebius12

JAS said:


> He probably still would have spent it all anyway.


Didn't she end up at the bottom of the Atlantic or something?


----------



## Luchesi

Eusebius12 said:


> At least Michael Jackson _wrote_ music, he was an artist of repute and achievement. An all rounder, no doubt. No way to compare the two. We wouldn't compare a merely vocal performer of classical music, such as Aloysia Lange (or even Mozart's wife and Aloysia's sister Constanze) on the level of a patrician all round genius like Wolfgang Amadeus; in any case does anyone even listen to Celine Dion anymore? The pop world is so ephemeral and lacking in genuine artistic merit that it is asinine to compare them. On the other hand as I said, Michael Jackson had achieved more than most pop performers.


Hi Eusebius, force yourself to watch this three times over three days and tell me what you think of it.


----------



## JAS

Eusebius12 said:


> Didn't she end up at the bottom of the Atlantic or something?


This reminds me of an old joke. What do you call three lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? (Answer: a good start)


----------



## Eusebius12

Luchesi said:


> Hi Eusebius, force yourself to watch this three times over three days and tell me what you think of it.


I tried to make myself but I couldn't, that sort of musical waterboarding is cruel (far worse than Steve Reich or Carter-isn't this against the Geneva Conventions in some way). Were there any ritual sacrifices or gratuitous displays of nudity


----------



## eljr

Eusebius12 said:


> There was ephemera produced in Mozart's day as well. Mozart's music aspires to something greater than that.


BS



Eusebius12 said:


> Do we assume that Mozart's music was performed in taverns or beer gardens?


LOL, you are a "pisser" :lol:



Eusebius12 said:


> second rate ephemeral trash


Sometimes what one reads here is indeed "second rate ephemeral trash."

Dude, kill the arrogance and smile!

have a good day brother... you made me laugh


----------



## eljr

Eusebius12 said:


> I tried to make myself but I couldn't, that sort of musical waterboarding is cruel


lol, you are consistant

I suppose that has redemptive value, to some, somewhere



Eusebius12 said:


> (far worse than Steve Reich or Carter-isn't this against the Geneva Conventions in some way). Were there any ritual sacrifices or gratuitous displays of nudity


You do entertain, I guess this makes you, POPULAR too. LOL, oh, the irony.

Two things to ponder:

1. "There is good music and there is great music, there is no bad music." 
this is a quote from yours truly 

2. 'Years ago my mother used to say to me, she'd say, "In this world, Elwood, you must be" - she always called me Elwood - "In this world, Elwood, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant." Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. You may quote me.'
Elwood P. Dowd


----------



## Luchesi

eljr said:


> lol, you are consistant
> 
> I suppose that has redemptive value, to some, somewhere
> 
> You do entertain, I guess this makes you, POPULAR too. LOL, oh, the irony.
> 
> Two things to ponder:
> 
> 1. "There is good music and there is great music, there is no bad music."
> this is a quote from yours truly
> 
> 2. 'Years ago my mother used to say to me, she'd say, "In this world, Elwood, you must be" - she always called me Elwood - "In this world, Elwood, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant." Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. You may quote me.'
> Elwood P. Dowd


"Elwood P. Dowd"

Wow, do you know what the species of Dowd is in Star Trek? (it might be spelled Douwd, I've seen it spelled both ways)﻿


----------



## JAS

I am pretty sure that a reference to the Jimmy Stewart movie of Harvey was intended (or the play). That I knew off the top of my head, but I will have to look up the Stat Trek reference.

Edit: Hmmmmm. TNG, and they sound too much like the Q, which I never liked (especially as expanded by Voyager.)


----------



## Eusebius12

eljr said:


> Two things to ponder:
> 
> 1. "There is good music and there is great music, there is no bad music."
> this is a quote from yours truly


Well thanks for your views. I can add them to my collection of other useless things.



> 2. 'Years ago my mother used to say to me, she'd say, "In this world, Elwood, you must be" - she always called me Elwood - "In this world, Elwood, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant." Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. You may quote me.'
> Elwood P. Dowd


Well, she mustn't have been all that concerned about your welfare or have had much regard for you generally, naming you Elwood. I would advise not taking her ravings all that seriously. In any case, I fail to see what in your posts is either smart or pleasant. Smartass, maybe.


----------



## eljr

Eusebius12 said:


> I fail to see what in your posts is either smart or pleasant. Smartass, maybe.


I post as a mirror into one's soul.

Trust me, my post was pleasant. :angel:



Eusebius12 said:


> Well thanks for your views. I can add them to my collection of other useless things.


Those of us who truly appreciate music understand and respect my self penned quote.

Don't take my posts wrongs, I appreciate your salty, opinionated, linguistically impressive diatribes.

May I elicit and opinion from you about Rock music? I wonder how you perceive a band like Nirvana.


----------



## Luchesi

eljr said:


> I post as a mirror into one's soul.
> 
> Trust me, my post was pleasant. :angel:
> 
> Those of us who truly appreciate music understand and respect my self penned quote.
> 
> Don't take my posts wrongs, I appreciate your salty, opinionated, linguistically impressive diatribes.
> 
> May I elicit and opinion from you about Rock music? I wonder how you perceive a band like Nirvana.


20th Century music finally arrived at minimalism due to the increasing ambiguity -- and not so surprisingly the same thing happened in entertainment music with Grunge and Nirvana. It's what humans do, right?


----------



## Guest

Luchesi said:


> 20th Century music finally arrived at minimalism due to the increasing ambiguity -- and not so surprisingly the same thing happened in entertainment music with Grunge and Nirvana. It's what humans do, right?


I don't think minimalism and grunge are the current "last stops" in their respective genres, though doubtless perspectives may differ depending on your standpoint (as in whether you're looking at things from the US, UK, Europe, elsewhere...)


----------



## eljr

MacLeod said:


> I don't think minimalism and grunge are the current "last stops" in their respective genres, though doubtless perspectives may differ depending on your standpoint (as in whether you're looking at things from the US, UK, Europe, elsewhere...)


there is never a "last stop" however, I felt, he point was fair


----------



## Luchesi

MacLeod said:


> I don't think minimalism and grunge are the current "last stops" in their respective genres, though doubtless perspectives may differ depending on your standpoint (as in whether you're looking at things from the US, UK, Europe, elsewhere...)


Nu-metal was a reaction to the artistic 'seriousness' of Grunge. It was simple enough and silly enough with its clothes and its attitudes (voices). I might say it was like JC Bach reacting to his father.


----------



## EdwardBast

Luchesi said:


> Nu-metal was a reaction to the artistic 'seriousness' of Grunge. It was simple enough and silly enough with its clothes and its attitudes (voices). I might say it was like JC Bach reacting to his father.


Wait, wait; Still digesting: "The artistic seriousness of grunge." Hmmm … Guess I'm going to have to consult my younger acquaintances on this one.


----------



## KenOC

Grunge was very serious business indeed.


----------



## Eusebius12

eljr said:


> I post as a mirror into one's soul.
> 
> Trust me, my post was pleasant. :angel:
> 
> Those of us who truly appreciate music understand and respect my self penned quote.
> 
> Don't take my posts wrongs, I appreciate your salty, opinionated, linguistically impressive diatribes.
> 
> May I elicit and opinion from you about Rock music? I wonder how you perceive a band like Nirvana.


No worries, no offense intended 
I enjoy the cut and thrust of mass debate. I should clarify, just because it would be cruel to expect you to wade through all the posts in this thread, if you haven't already done so. There is good pop and bad pop. I'm not snobbish in regards to all pop, not at all. Nirvana can easily make an impact (although not generally classified as pop, I guess this music is considered metal, or really grunge, a specific subset of metal). I don't find them uplifting, but this music has a certain power. There is some sort of affinity between the works of say Mahler and heavy metal music, even if one is more complex than the other. Not that Nirvana would be considered heavy metal. 
Take Heart Shaped Box, not a complex tune but something that can gnaw away at you for a bit. Disregard the film clip with its grand guignol theatrics.

I used to be quite a fan of the New Zealand group, Split Enz:





Some of their stuff has artistic value imo. Not Mozart, but still worth listening to.






They wrote quite a lot of decent pop, with some level of sophistication (above the lowest common denominator, for sure). I could quote a lot of examples. Another purely pop song from New Zealand that I quite like is this:






I try to avoid glancing into my soul, it is usually fairly uncomfortable.


----------



## Eusebius12

What about this:





Is this Bach or blasphemy?






I happen to think this is a good song:


----------



## Luchesi

One of 5 pop records inspired by JsB

https://www.wqxr.org/story/top-five-bach-inspired-pop-hits/

1. Procol Harum: 'A Whiter Shade of Pale'

The unexpected 1967 hit "A Whiter Shade of Pale" by progressive U.K. rock band Procol Harum, shows definite marks of Bach's influence. Lead singer Gary Brooker, who wrote the song, admitted to using a few unmistakable bars from Bach's "Air on a G String" at its opening. Other music writers point to additional similarities between Bach works and the single, for example the cantata Sleepers, Awake! The lyrics, which describe a drunken tryst, have fewer parallels in Bach's work. The song hit number one in Britain and made it to number five on the U.S. charts.


----------



## Luchesi

KenOC said:


> Grunge was very serious business indeed.


Play a Grunge or Heavy Metal hit on a piano.


----------



## Art Rock

Luchesi said:


> Play a Grunge or Heavy Metal hit on a piano.


Here you go, with voice thrown in for free:


----------



## Jacck

here is a better version....


----------



## Eusebius12

Art Rock said:


> Here you go, with voice thrown in for free:


You mean, I was supposed to pay for it? Seems like a bum deal. At least it didn't make my ears bleed like the one posted by Jacck . At least I had a little chuckle at that one. Actually I take that back. It was freaking hilarious.


----------



## science

Jacck said:


> here is a better version....


Hard to have that much fun legally.


----------



## Luchesi

Art Rock said:


> Here you go, with voice thrown in for free:


Thanks. Very 'uninteresting' music. I found the song sheet.
1990s began the next wave of what I call annoyance music (or just annoying music). Especially annoying to parents. Gimmicky sounds for a feeling of empowerment to and for teenagers and some young adults. Raucous music to get raucous girls.

Before the 90s there was 50s rockabilly and 60s novelty songs (I remember my parents saying, "How can you listen to that stuff (Dave Clark 5) over and over?) and then Punk Rock and all its offshoots, then Metal and Rap.

In the song by Nirvana (and most of the songs looking for that angst sound) they omit the third. And it's all SO repetitive! ....It's recorded!! - why does it have to be so repetitive? No new ideas forthcoming? When I was young the Beatles were less repetitive than others (at least in their lyrics) and that's what we liked about them in my circle.

That simple song form needed to be discarded --- but I assume it never will be..

gimmick
1920s (originally US): of unknown origin but possibly an approximate anagram of magic, the original sense being 'a piece of magicians' apparatus.'


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Art Rock said:


> Here you go, with voice thrown in for free:


She did an even more striking piano/voice cover of Slayer's thrash metal classic Raining Blood:





Here's the original for comparison:





EDIT: I might add this song takes on an extra dark dimension when one knows about Tori's experience with rape, which she's written starkly about elsewhere. I can't help but think that's what she had in mind covering this song.


----------



## arpeggio

Wow. I have been away on vacation for ten days and this thread has generated pages of posts. 

99% I have no idea what is being said. Two I think I understood.

it just appears to me, based on the few posts that I think I understood, that this is the same old atonal/tonal debate with each side trying to come up with objective rhetoric to support the music they like and invalidate the music they dislike.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Luchesi said:


> 1990s began the next wave of what I call annoyance music (or just annoying music). Especially annoying to parents. Gimmicky sounds for a feeling of empowerment to and for teenagers and some young adults. Raucous music to get raucous girls.


You just described the entire history of rock music and much of the the first several decades of jazz (from the perspective of most every older adult alive when those genres and each new sub-genre started).



Luchesi said:


> In the song by Nirvana (and most of the songs looking for that angst sound) they omit the third. And it's all SO repetitive! ....It's recorded!! - why does it have to be so repetitive? No new ideas forthcoming?


Nirvana was heavily influenced by Pixies, who were heavily influenced by 70s/80s punk and 50s/60s pop. Punk was all about returning to the simplicity of early rock: a few chords, short songs, simple structures, lots of raw attitude. Both were a backlash against how virtuosic, bombastic and complex rock had become in the 70s and 80s. Personally, I think Pixies were much better than Nirvana (catchier, quirkier, funner, funnier, even darker in their own weird way), and I also prefer all the other major grunge bands who weren't as simplistic. You also have bands like Dream Theater, King's X, Tool, and even King Crimson who incorporated some of grunge's angst into prog (very non-repetitive!).


----------



## Pat Fairlea

arpeggio said:


> Wow. I have been away on vacation for ten days and this thread has generated pages of posts.
> 
> 99% I have no idea what is being said. Two I think I understood.
> 
> it just appears to me, based on the few posts that I think I understood, that this is the same old atonal/tonal debate with each side trying to come up with objective rhetoric to support the music they like and invalidate the music they dislike.


I'm with you. Been on vacation 3 weeks, started picking up some threads hoping for enlightenment, flicked through this one wondering what fresh hell had broken out in my absence.


----------



## eljr

Luchesi said:


> 1990s began the next wave of what I call annoyance music'




Figures.

Rock had died in the late 70's and the early 90's brought us a similar trove of treasures in Alternative. 
At least that was my impression.


----------



## eljr

arpeggio said:


> Wow. I have been away on vacation for ten days and *this threa*d has generated pages of posts.
> 
> *99% I have no idea what is being said.* .


Yes, I have enjoyed it too!


----------



## Eusebius12

Nirvana takes a certain mindset. A primitive one perhaps. I find them much more interesting though than their imitators and successors. The drivel that generally takes the name of 'rap' I frankly can't stand. Maybe one or two things are passable (from my listening) but it is mostly looking for zirconia in a mountainful of turds


----------



## Jacck

Eusebius12 said:


> Nirvana takes a certain mindset. A primitive one perhaps. I find them much more interesting though than their imitators and successors. The drivel that generally takes the name of 'rap' I frankly can't stand. Maybe one or two things are passable (from my listening) but it is mostly looking for zirconia in a mountainful of turds


I listened to Nirvana when I was 15 and Kurt Cobain was still alive. Nowadays I view it as uninteresting pop rock - same as Green Day, The Offspring etc. There are more interesting bands in the same vein (industrial rock/metal, grunge) such as Tool, Godflesh etc


----------



## eljr

Jacck said:


> I listened to Nirvana when I was 15 and Kurt Cobain was still alive. Nowadays I view it as uninteresting pop rock - same as Green Day, The Offspring etc. There are more interesting bands in the same vein (industrial rock/metal, grunge) such as Tool, Godflesh etc


how is Tool more interesting than Nirvana?

I personally enjoyed both but thought the raw emotion of the genius lyrics and personal emotional delivery by Cobain stood out. Rarefied territory to say the least. The top shelf of Pop/Rock/Alternative.

I'd include Bob Dylan and Eminem in his triad of excellence. No others.


----------



## eljr

Eusebius12 said:


> The drivel that generally takes the name of 'rap' I frankly can't stand.


I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that this statement is birthed by vast cultural differences that make it near impossible for you and many to enjoy RAP.

I can find no sociocultural identification with RAP either but I would never consider it drivel.

In fact I have superficially explored RAP for the educational dialogue it provides me.


----------



## Jacck

eljr said:


> how is Tool more interesting than Nirvana?
> I personally enjoyed both but thought the raw emotion of the genius lyrics and personal emotional delivery by Cobain stood out. Rarefied territory to say the least. The top shelf of Pop/Rock/Alternative.
> I'd include Bob Dylan and Eminem in his triad of excellence. No others.


it is probably overexposure or the fact that Nirvana became pop over the years. I am one of those listeners who burns out pretty fast on every music and when I hear it sufficient amount of times, I can't listen to it anymore. That has been the case with Nirvana for a long time now.



eljr said:


> I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that this statement is birthed by vast cultural differences that make it near impossible for you and many to enjoy RAP..


there is good rap and there is bad rap, as in every single genre. I remember having enjoyed the Cypress Hill at college or a Czech rap band called Chaozz (they had both great music and texts). There is one genre of music I can't stand. It is brass band music enjoyd by the older generation here in Czech Republic, it is called dechovka. It is torture


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

eljr said:


> how is Tool more interesting than Nirvana?


Musically. Even lyrically I'd give the edge to Tool for exploring a greater variety of subjects in more ways than just "raw/personal emotion" (though they did that too). Can't imagine Cobain conceiving of a song like Lateralus, with its music based on the Fibonacci Sequence and lyrics about lateral vs linear thinking. But Tool could be as personal and emotional as Cobain, as in Wings for Marie (or Judith from Maynard's side-project A Perfect Circle).


----------



## eljr

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Musically. Even lyrically I'd give the edge to Tool for exploring a greater variety of subjects in more ways than just "raw/personal emotion" (though they did that too). Can't imagine Cobain conceiving of a song like Lateralus, with its music based on the Fibonacci Sequence and lyrics about lateral vs linear thinking. But Tool could be as personal and emotional as Cobain, as in Wings for Marie (or Judith from Maynard's side-project A Perfect Circle).


Thanks, I understand your perspective.

For me, as art is indeed both universal and personal, raw personal emotion coupled with music as a delivery vehicle is the zenith of accomplishment.


----------



## eljr

Jacck said:


> there is good rap and there is great rap, as in every single genre.


Fixed it for you...:devil:


----------



## Luchesi

eljr said:


> Fixed it for you...:devil:


Isn't rap just rapping away in sing-songy voices trying to rhyme as much as possible -- full of vulgarities and stupid sex talk? You find something uplifting in it? Doesn't it devalue the 'actors' and the culture to be so crass and crude?

rap failed Black America? From Morton to Coltrane the musical culture was sophisticated and always ahead of the throw-away White offerings.

Stanley Crouch, a jazz critic for the Village Voice. 'way back in 92;

http://articles.latimes.com/1992-07-19/entertainment/ca-4407_1_rap-music


----------



## eljr

Luchesi said:


> Isn't rap just rapping away in sing-songy voices trying to rhyme as much as possible -- full of vulgarities and stupid sex talk?


Take away the judgement and you are not far off.



> You find something uplifting in it?


I don't, I do not know if other do, I wonder why you think this a prerequisite.



> Doesn't it devalue the 'actors' and the culture to be so crass and crude?


From outside the tribe it can seem as such. From within', I have found, it serves as a vehicle for expression.



> rap failed Black America?


With all respect, this is ridiculous.



> From Morton to Coltrane the musical culture was sophisticated and always ahead of the throw-away White offerings.


You speak as if your opinion if fact.



> Stanley Crouch, a jazz critic for the Village Voice. 'way back in 92;
> 
> http://articles.latimes.com/1992-07-19/entertainment/ca-4407_1_rap-music


Seems he is as close minded as you.


----------



## Luchesi

You didn't seriously reply to any of the points I've read from these various critics. You just called me names. Very childish in a discussion thread.


----------



## eljr

Luchesi said:


> You didn't seriously reply to any of the points I've read from these various critics. You just called me names. Very childish in a discussion thread.


Are you speaking to me?

If so, what on earth are you talking about?


----------



## Eusebius12

eljr said:


> I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that this statement is birthed by vast cultural differences that make it near impossible for you and many to enjoy RAP.
> 
> I can find no sociocultural identification with RAP either but I would never consider it drivel.
> 
> In fact I have superficially explored RAP for the educational dialogue it provides me.


I was referring specifically (at least in my own mind) to current rap, which is the dominant form. You mention Eminem. His work has a certain power. The older rap, unsurprisingly, was better. I find Eminem though to be an unpleasant experience- his stuff is pretty unrelentingly angry and ugly in a lot of its content (I have heard that some of his later stuff, influenced by his family, is less bleak). I can't really productively engage with it all that much. Yeah the sociocultural identification is minimal. One 'artist' that I thought was interesting was a dude called Lecrae, there was a nice synthesis between melody and lyrics (sort of rnb hip hop hybrid). Most of the stuff currently released under the hip hop rubric today I confidently pronounce drivel. The most popular artist is someone called 'Drake'- I hate that garbage, the lyrics are asinine, the beats uninteresting, no tunes worth the name. I believe even aficionados of the form agree. Here is an excerpt from on of his latest 'hits':

She asked me if I love her
I tell her only partly
I only love my bed and my momma, I'm sorry

There's a lot of bad things, bad things
that they wishin', they wishin', they wishin', they wishin', they wishin' on me

That comes after his earlier classic, 'Work' (work work work work work work work work)

That this kind of stuff should be popular and lucrative shows that taste has more or less hit rock bottom


----------



## Eusebius12

Jacck said:


> it is probably overexposure or the fact that Nirvana became pop over the years. I am one of those listeners who burns out pretty fast on every music and when I hear it sufficient amount of times, I can't listen to it anymore. That has been the case with Nirvana for a long time now.
> 
> there is good rap and there is bad rap, as in every single genre. I remember having enjoyed the Cypress Hill at college or a Czech rap band called Chaozz (they had both great music and texts). There is one genre of music I can't stand. It is brass band music enjoyd by the older generation here in Czech Republic, it is called dechovka. It is torture


It is extremely cheesy, I know this type of E European music, some of it is cool, some of it is painfully embarassing, but I could listen to this (on my own  )

Do you have your favourite fujara album? I know this is from a (slightly) different country:


----------



## Eusebius12

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Musically. Even lyrically I'd give the edge to Tool for exploring a greater variety of subjects in more ways than just "raw/personal emotion" (though they did that too). Can't imagine Cobain conceiving of a song like Lateralus, with its music based on the Fibonacci Sequence and lyrics about lateral vs linear thinking. But Tool could be as personal and emotional as Cobain, as in Wings for Marie (or Judith from Maynard's side-project A Perfect Circle).


Yes but Nirvana had a more genuine, if you like 'masculine' primitivism which touched the listener more easily. Nirvana was already possibly the most popular band of its generation. Tool never had the same impact for me. Not that I'd spend more than a few minutes listening to them now. But even as I just did, Nirvana stands out far more in raw impact. Tool is the whiny emo kid who probably cuts himself, whereas Nirvana was probably the kid who burnt down the school for fun.


----------



## Eusebius12

Luchesi said:


> Isn't rap just rapping away in sing-songy voices trying to rhyme as much as possible -- full of vulgarities and stupid sex talk? You find something uplifting in it? Doesn't it devalue the 'actors' and the culture to be so crass and crude?
> 
> rap failed Black America?
> http://articles.latimes.com/1992-07-19/entertainment/ca-4407_1_rap-music


Rap did fail black America, by filling their heads with self pity and hatred for the system without (on the whole. I know there are exceptions) pointing out any solutions. A lot of it is crude beyond imagination, not suitable for anybody, let alone children. Now it is so impossibly commercialized so that whatever artistic merit some rappers may have had is lost in the noise of absolutely lowest common denominator stuff, pure sewage. So it seems to me. I wonder when one will use serialism


----------



## hpowders

For the great majority of US "music lovers", it seems perfectly fine to deride classical music and its listeners.

The tragedy is those mal-informed folks have no idea of the many glories they are missing. A real shame.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

I have no problem deriving this 




... and a slew of similar show pieces void of anything resembling an interesting musical idea.


----------



## KenOC

Eusebius12 said:


> Rap … absolutely lowest common denominator stuff, pure sewage.


These rapper folks, some of them anyway, seem to be making scads of money from their sewage. My own, certified fresh and organic, is a hard sell. I mean, you can get it on ebay, like peanut butter with a choice of smooth or chunky. But I can hardly move it at all.

What am I doing wrong? I want that Malibu mansion!


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese




----------



## Eusebius12

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I have no problem deriving this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... and a slew of similar show pieces void of anything resembling an interesting musical idea.


That was pretty bad, but this is far worse. Utter dreck:


----------



## Eusebius12

KenOC said:


> These rapper folks, some of them anyway, seem to be making scads of money from their sewage. My own, certified fresh and organic, is a hard sell. I mean, you can get it on ebay, like peanut butter with a choice of smooth or chunky. But I can hardly move it at all.
> 
> What am I doing wrong? I want that Malibu mansion!


You need to sell your soul first

Also, if you can't 'move' it, they recommend dietary fibre, I believe.


----------



## Eusebius12

This is pretty bad


----------



## Eusebius12

This is pure evil. Musical child abuse. These purveyors of puerile putrefaction should be prosecuted:






And surely 'music' like this should be derided:


----------



## eljr

Eusebius12 said:


> That was pretty bad, but this is far worse. Utter dreck:IMHO


i fixed it for you!:tiphat:


----------



## eljr

Eusebius12 said:


> That this kind of stuff should be popular and lucrative shows that taste has more or less hit rock bottom


My only grievance in your opinion is that you can't judge an others preferences.

Well, you do and quite artfully, but I mean you have no more rightness no matter how schooled you may be.

Another self penned quote of mine, "opinion is valid in the absence of fact not in conflict with it."

There is no universally established criteria for what makes music good or great or unpleasant. If their were, then and only then could one quantify and qualify to come with an answer.


----------



## eljr

Eusebius12 said:


> Yes but Nirvana had a more genuine, if you like 'masculine' primitivism which touched the listener more easily. Nirvana was already possibly the most popular band of its generation. Tool never had the same impact for me. Not that I'd spend more than a few minutes listening to them now. But even as I just did, Nirvana stands out far more in raw impact. Tool is the whiny emo kid who probably cuts himself, whereas Nirvana was probably the kid who burnt down the school for fun.


great post, i knew you had it in you!

lol


----------



## eljr

Eusebius12 said:


> Rap did fail black America, by filling their heads with self pity and hatred for the system without (on the whole. I know there are exceptions) pointing out any solutions. A lot of it is crude beyond imagination, not suitable for anybody, let alone children. Now it is so impossibly commercialized so that whatever artistic merit some rappers may have had is lost in the noise of absolutely lowest common denominator stuff, pure sewage. So it seems to me. I wonder when one will use serialism


From your perspective this is accurate. 
From another perspective it could be seen as a way to express the frustrations already felt. Even a healthy outlet for those frustrations. 
Or, possible a cry to arms like music of the 60's was to protest.

just sayin'.

Each of us has our own reality which gives us a unique perspective.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Eusebius12 said:


> Yes but Nirvana had a more genuine, if you like 'masculine' primitivism which touched the listener more easily. Nirvana was already possibly the most popular band of its generation. Tool never had the same impact for me. Not that I'd spend more than a few minutes listening to them now. But even as I just did, Nirvana stands out far more in raw impact. Tool is the whiny emo kid who probably cuts himself, whereas Nirvana was probably the kid who burnt down the school for fun.


That "more genuine, if you like 'masculine' primitivism which touched the listener more easily" was the entire appeal of punk going back as far as The Stooges in the late 60s. Nirvana were hardly unique in that, and their popularity owes as much to them having the production and promotional power of a major label backing them, otherwise they aren't much different than Pixies, whose influence arguably exceeds Nirvana's despite not having 1/10 of the popularity.

Tool is not emo... at all. They're even far less angsty than Nirvana, so I have no idea where you got that idea from. IME, Tool tends to appeal to same kind of budding intellectuals that the 70s prog bands did; the kids interested in science, art, philosophy, etc., but who also happened to be outsiders, maybe even geeks/nerds. They're also appealing to musicians given the instrumental/compositional proficiency, which explains their influence on King Crimson (ironically a band they were highly influenced by).


----------



## eljr

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Tool tends to appeal to same kind of budding intellectuals that the 70s prog bands did; the kids interested in science, art, philosophy, etc., but who also happened to be outsiders, maybe even geeks/nerds. They're also appealing to musicians given the instrumental/compositional proficiency, which explains their influence on King Crimson (ironically a band they were highly influenced by).


WOW!

Don't get me wrong, I respect your opinion but honest, WTF? (lol)

I am bewildered as to how you perceive Tool.


----------



## Thomyum2

eljr said:


> My only grievance in your opinion is that you can't judge an others preferences.
> 
> Well, you do and quite artfully, but I mean you have no more rightness no matter how schooled you may be.
> 
> Another self penned quote of mine, "opinion is valid in the absence of fact not in conflict with it."
> 
> There is no universally established criteria for what makes music good or great or unpleasant. If their were, then and only then could one quantify and qualify to come with an answer.


I'm not sure what you're getting at here - your statements are somewhat tautological. Doesn't having an opinion about art by definition always involve judging another's preference, and is not your 'grievance' such a judgment also?

The quote is interesting, but it is circular and has inherent contradictions - since facts have to be established by consensus and none have been introduced, then nothing has been said about the validity of the opinion. Unless you claim to use the assertion that 'there is no universally established criteria..' as fact, but this is not actually not a fact, but rather the absence of one.

A very thought-provoking post - something of a Wittgensteinian language puzzle maybe? This will likely tangle up my brain for some time to come.


----------



## eljr

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Lateralus, with its music based on the Fibonacci Sequence .


pseudo intellectual gimmickry?

just saying, things can be seen from many different perspectives


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

eljr said:


> WOW!
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I respect your opinion but honest, WTF? (lol)
> 
> I am bewildered as to how you perceive Tool.


Rather difficult to respond to this considering you make no actual argument. Other than my opinionated preference for Tool over Nirvana, nothing I'm saying about them should be controversial to anyone familiar with their music, fanbase, and influences.



eljr said:


> pseudo intellectual gimmickry?
> 
> just saying, things can be seen from many different perspectives


Sure, one could call any artistic conception "pseudo intellectual gimmickry;" what does that show other than the the bias of the claimant? How about this: it's also one of the most complex, intricate drum parts ever recorded, as is several other songs from the same album.


----------



## aleazk

eljr said:


> pseudo intellectual gimmickry?
> 
> just saying, things can be seen from many different perspectives


There's a lot of art whose proportions are based on the Fibonacci Sequence, either consciously or unconsciously so. From ancient greek temples, to renaissance art, to modern art. Nothing to be scandalized of, it's simply that works based on those proportions seem particularly harmonious, who knows why (probably some tricky evolutionary thing going on there, I don't know).


----------



## philoctetes

I never listened to either Tool or Nirvana, but wasn't it the Nirvana guy who went even further than cutting himself? 

High-minded preachy lyrics rarely work for me anymore, though they had appeal in my youth, and the same sometimes applies to artists who convolve science, mysticism, and philosophy too deliberately or insistently. I don't listen to music to be lectured to or influenced, I have books for that. 

There is a lot of music based on mathematical sequences. The chromatic scale is a sequence. The Fibonacci is old hat by now isn't it?


----------



## jdec

EdwardBast said:


> Has any JSB or LVB fan compiled and published a list of every encomium uttered by a famous person about their hero?


I have tried a long time ago, but the lists were much shorter in comparison to Mozart's. Try it and you'll see.


----------



## jdec

stomanek said:


> *Or maybe they just couldnt find a list of quotes comparable with the Mozart lists.*
> 
> It's not just fanatics on here that have been vocal about Mozart.


Precisely.
............


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

philoctetes said:


> I never listened to either Tool or Nirvana, but wasn't it the Nirvana guy who went even further than cutting himself?


Indeed.



philoctetes said:


> High-minded preachy lyrics rarely work for me anymore, though they had appeal in my youth, and the same sometimes applies to artists who convolve science, mysticism, and philosophy too deliberately or insistently. I don't listen to music to be lectured to or influenced, I have books for that.


Take out the "preachy" part and I must admit those are precisely the type of lyrics that appeal to me. Even in poetry my tastes run towards the visionaries who "convolve science, mysticism, and philosophy... deliberately or insistently" (Blake, Milton, Yeats, Stevens, Merrill, Hill, etc.). That said, I don't place a premium on lyrics to begin with; even very bad/bland lyrics can have an impact with great music while the reverse is almost never true. I only mentioned them because eljr did (post #814).



philoctetes said:


> There is a lot of music based on mathematical sequences.


Yes, though probably not many in pop/rock, which makes the Tool song rarer than, say, a classical work based on mathematical sequences.

Funnily enough, I was curious enough to type "songs based on mathematical sequences" into Google. The song in question is the first to come up and does so 3 times on the first page. Everything else seems to be songs about math, not based on mathematical ideas.


----------



## EdwardBast

eljr said:


> pseudo intellectual gimmickry?
> 
> just saying, things can be seen from many different perspectives


Not a big fan of Nirvana or Tool, but at their best Tool was capable of great intensity, precision and direct expression. Listen to this one, especially the last two minutes:


----------



## hpowders

It’s okay to deride Wellington’s Victory. Beethoven surely knew it was way beneath him, composed just to make a few bucks.


----------



## KenOC

Beethoven was, in fact, inordinately fond of Wellington's Victory. Gottfried Weber criticized it in 1825. Beethoven's scrawled response, which I won't translate here (but Google does fine):

"O du elender Schuft! Was ich scheisse, ist besser als du je gedacht!"

I never did get the T-shirt.


----------



## hpowders

Like I wrote B-4, Beethoven knew Wellington's Victory was a pot-boiler and I'm sure he would not object if you got right up into his face and passionately yelled this point of view directly at him with a look of extreme disappointment on your face.
Probably wouldn't happen anyway.


----------



## Eusebius12

eljr said:


> My only grievance in your opinion is that you can't judge an others preferences.
> 
> Well, you do and quite artfully, but I mean you have no more rightness no matter how schooled you may be.
> 
> Another self penned quote of mine, "opinion is valid in the absence of fact not in conflict with it."
> 
> There is no universally established criteria for what makes music good or great or unpleasant. If their were, then and only then could one quantify and qualify to come with an answer.


It isn't primarily that its unpleasant (an hour of George Crumb would be more 'unpleasant' for me) but that its poorly conceived and realized. I don't want to waste a lot of time on analyzing what I believe to be crap, but just listen to it honestly. The lyrics (most of which are the words, 'they wishin') are juvenile in the extreme. The tune is mostly a pattern of 3 notes in a downward scale repeated. This is definitely Emperor's New Clothes stuff. If any musical criticism I've ever learned was valid, this is musical diarrhea.


----------



## Eusebius12

eljr said:


> From your perspective this is accurate.
> From another perspective it could be seen as a way to express the frustrations already felt. Even a healthy outlet for those frustrations.
> Or, possible a cry to arms like music of the 60's was to protest.
> 
> just sayin'.
> 
> Each of us has our own reality which gives us a unique perspective.


Yes I don't dispute that possibility, but yet 'by their fruits shall ye know them'. What are the fruits of this kind of stuff? Disaffected youth, not just ghetto blacks, but generations of urban kids who think that the system is against them. Yes they are probably right, but then the attitudes that I perceive (and this is not empirical, but I see it in reality. Generational attitudes have changed and not for the better) are not healthy for them or society. F the system they say, without improving that system one whit, they become a bigger problem than the system.


----------



## Eusebius12

Eva Yojimbo said:


> That "more genuine, if you like 'masculine' primitivism which touched the listener more easily" was the entire appeal of punk going back as far as The Stooges in the late 60s. Nirvana were hardly unique in that, and their popularity owes as much to them having the production and promotional power of a major label backing them, otherwise they aren't much different than Pixies, whose influence arguably exceeds Nirvana's despite not having 1/10 of the popularity.
> 
> Tool is not emo... at all. They're even far less angsty than Nirvana, so I have no idea where you got that idea from. IME, Tool tends to appeal to same kind of budding intellectuals that the 70s prog bands did; the kids interested in science, art, philosophy, etc., but who also happened to be outsiders, maybe even geeks/nerds. They're also appealing to musicians given the instrumental/compositional proficiency, which explains their influence on King Crimson (ironically a band they were highly influenced by).


I find Nirvana more interesting musically than much of punk. Perhaps I am not terribly familiar with the genre (almost certain). Not that Nirvana were 'that' interesting musically. But I found bands like the Sex Pistols totally uninteresting. A social experiment, perhaps. Tool gave me the impression of being lowgrade on the emo scale, a bit angsty and 'dark' without really having the explosive power of some metal.


----------



## Eusebius12

eljr said:


> WOW!
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I respect your opinion but honest, WTF? (lol)
> 
> I am bewildered as to how you perceive Tool.


You're beginning to understand how I feel


----------



## Eusebius12

EdwardBast said:


> Not a big fan of Nirvana or Tool, but at their best Tool was capable of great intensity, precision and direct expression. Listen to this one, especially the last two minutes:


Angsty, (in a possibly cringeworthy way), but the lyrics are quite imaginative as with quite a few of their songs. I would happily give them superiority over bands like Nirvana, lyrically speaking, by quite a large margin. The music is sort of though a grungy gebrauchsmusik- sort of knocked together without much inspiration or aural interest. Just a spontaneous reflection. Perhaps over more exposure I'd modify.


----------



## Eusebius12

KenOC said:


> Beethoven was, in fact, inordinately fond of Wellington's Victory. Gottfried Weber criticized it in 1825. Beethoven's scrawled response, which I won't translate here (but Google does fine):
> 
> "O du elender Schuft! Was ich scheisse, ist besser als du je gedacht!"
> 
> I never did get the T-shirt.


Almost like he accepted that it was 'scheisse'


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Eusebius12 said:


> I find Nirvana more interesting musically than much of punk. Perhaps I am not terribly familiar with the genre (almost certain). Not that Nirvana were 'that' interesting musically. But I found bands like the Sex Pistols totally uninteresting. A social experiment, perhaps. Tool gave me the impression of being lowgrade on the emo scale, a bit angsty and 'dark' without really having the explosive power of some metal.


I'm not a big fan of punk myself despite being quite familiar with the genre. If it's Nirvana's primitive power you like, you might try the first three Stooges albums--they're as raw as it gets. If its their pop sensibilities then Pixies are a must-hear: Doolittle is generally considered their best. I'm more a fan of the artier, more adventurous punk bands: The Clash (London Calling), Husker Du (Zen Arcade), Joy Division (Closer), Television (Marquee Moon), Talking Heads (Remain in Light), and The Cure (Pornography).

Tool is dark, yes, but I'd say generally more meditative than angsty, though it depends on the song. Their first album is generally the darkest, angstiest they made; those after are much more varied. They even have some pretty uplifting, inspiring stuff, or euphoric and tender stuff. E.G.:





One key to appreciating Tool is always paying attention to the drums. Danny Carey is my favorite rock drummer by a good distance; creativity and technique at their highest level. I dare say it's drummers like him I miss most when I'm on extended classical binges (and I say that as a guitarist myself).


----------



## KenOC

I have a soft spot for the Seattle grunge bands. I had the opportunity, under less-than-happy circumstances, to share a fancy catered dinner with Soundgarden shortly after they'd hit it big. Artis the Spoonman was there too. Suddenly these young men were rich beyond what they ever could have imagined. They were friendly and articulate but, perhaps, a bit mystified about what was happening to them.

They had an opportunity, then, to do the right thing. And they did it. I will always remember them fondly.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Eusebius12 said:


> Angsty, (in a possibly cringeworthy way), but the lyrics are quite imaginative as with quite a few of their songs. I would happily give them superiority over bands like Nirvana, lyrically speaking, by quite a large margin. T*he music is sort of though a grungy gebrauchsmusik- sort of knocked together without much inspiration or aural interest. Just a spontaneous reflection. Perhaps over more exposure I'd modify.*


That's from their first album, the only one they made that was completely inline with the alt-rock zeitgeist. It's good for what it is, but barely hints at where they were going. It is to their next three albums what Please Please Me is to Revolver and those that followed.


----------



## Jacck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I'm not a big fan of punk myself despite being quite familiar with the genre. If it's Nirvana's primitive power you like, you might try the first three Stooges albums--they're as raw as it gets. If its their pop sensibilities then Pixies are a must-hear: Doolittle is generally considered their best. I'm more a fan of the artier, more adventurous punk bands: The Clash (London Calling), Husker Du (Zen Arcade), Joy Division (Closer), Television (Marquee Moon), Talking Heads (Remain in Light), and The Cure (Pornography).


Nirvana is not really punk. It is pop-punk at best. The same goes for The Cure (although I enjoyed their music in the past). Real punk is The Exploited, Sex Pistols, The Clash, Ramones, Dead Kennedys, Bad Religion, Misfits etc. The music is primitive (contains only 3 chords), but has this raw power + sometimes funny lyrics. Tool is not punk, it is industrial or something like that.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Jacck said:


> Nirvana is not really punk. It is pop-punk at best. The same goes for The Cure (although I enjoyed their music in the past). Real punk is The Exploited, Sex Pistols, The Clash, Ramones, Dead Kennedys, Bad Religion, Misfits etc. The music is primitive (contains only 3 chords), but has this raw power + sometimes funny lyrics. Tool is not punk, it is industrial or something like that.


There's a tendency to refer to most anything after the 70s as "post-punk," because the 80s bands influenced by 70s punk split off into a lot of different directions including new-wave (Talking Heads), Hardcore (Black Flag, Husker Du), goth (The Cure), metal (Motorhead, Venom), and, yes, pop (The Smiths, XTC, among others). As I mentioned earlier, Nirvana's main influence, Pixies, were equally influenced by 70s/80s punk and 50s/60s pop; so, yes, Nirvana themselves were a kind-of pop-punk fusion, but they were generally heavier, more metallic, more angry/angsty than Pixies, though nowhere near as raw as the hardcore bands that were perhaps the purest successors of the 80s punk legacy. Still, I tend to refer to all the bands that came from that lineage as being punk, just as I refer to most all bands that came from the Zeppelin/Sabbath/Purple/Priest/Maiden lineage as metal, no matter how many other genres they incorporated into the sound. Like, I have no problem calling 80s pop-metal "metal" even though it often rankles many metalheads that insist, not unlike punkers, that "pop" and "metal" are antonyms. To me, it's all about what tradition the music is drawing from.

It's also worth nothing that Cobain himself said when he wrote Smells Like Teen Spirit he was trying to write a Pixies song, so I'm not overstating the influence. Those interested can compare for themselves: 





For one where you can really hear the 50s/60s pop influence: 





Tool is not industrial at all. Industrial rock music is generally very hard/heavy/noisy electronic-driven music: Ministry, Nine Inch Nails, etc. Tool were originally alternative rock, which is a pretty big catch-all umbrella term (not unlike "post-punk") for the 80s/90s bands that started mixing hard rock/metal with a variety of other genres. One could classify a lot of disparate bands under that label: Tool, Faith No More, Primus, Rage Against the Machine, even the industrial bands like Nine Inch Nails. Basically anyone associated with Lollapalooza got the tag. However, by their second album Tool's progressive influence came out strongly and I think most now consider them closest to a kind of progressive/art rock/metal band, kind of a Pink Floyd meets King Crimson meets alternative rock.


----------



## JAS

punk, post-punk, rap, Nirvana, Tool, metal . . . . are we in the classical music discussion area? (Okay, the thread title is pretty broad, but I was just finding the last page or so of posts somewhat unusual in terms of content.)


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

JAS said:


> punk, post-punk, rap, Nirvana, Tool, metal . . . . are we in the classical music discussion area? (Okay, the thread title is pretty broad, but I was just finding the last page or so of posts somewhat unusual in terms of content.)


Well, you must admit that if there's any genre that many classical fans feel it's OK to deride it's pop/rock and all its variants.


----------



## JAS

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Well, you must admit that if there's any genre that many classical fans feel it's OK to deride it's pop/rock and all its variants.


I certainly do, although mostly it is just something that I have learned to ignore as being of no real interest to me.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

JAS said:


> I certainly do, although mostly it is just something that I have learned to ignore as being of no real interest to me.


I like the "ignoring" approach, which I find much better than the "derision" approach (ignoring is the approach I take to, say, rap and country music, which I have no interest in). Thing is, it irks me when when fans of one type of music I love deride--often out of sheer ignorance--other types of music I love, so I try to spread my knowledge of (and passion for) such music wherever I can. Not to say I make a lot of converts, but you never know what effect exposure to new information and experiences can have for people.


----------



## Strange Magic

> Eva Yojimbo: "... just as I refer to most all bands that came from the Zeppelin/Sabbath/Purple/Priest/Maiden lineage as metal, no matter how many other genres they incorporated into the sound."


Strictly speaking, there is no lineage leading from Led Zeppelin to anything/anyone else. Their music is truly _sui generis_, never replicated. Zeppelin absorbed previous lineages--Blues, English "folkie", old-fashioned Rock 'n' Roll--transmuted them, then radiated them outward like the jets streaming from the poles of a rotating pulsar. But they were more like a black hole in that there was no legitimate lineage leading away from Led Zeppelin to some successor group. They were here; then they were gone.


----------



## Eusebius12

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I'm not a big fan of punk myself despite being quite familiar with the genre. If it's Nirvana's primitive power you like, you might try the first three Stooges albums--they're as raw as it gets. If its their pop sensibilities then Pixies are a must-hear: Doolittle is generally considered their best. I'm more a fan of the artier, more adventurous punk bands: The Clash (London Calling), Husker Du (Zen Arcade), Joy Division (Closer), Television (Marquee Moon), Talking Heads (Remain in Light), and The Cure (Pornography).
> 
> Tool is dark, yes, but I'd say generally more meditative than angsty, though it depends on the song. Their first album is generally the darkest, angstiest they made; those after are much more varied. They even have some pretty uplifting, inspiring stuff, or euphoric and tender stuff. E.G.:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One key to appreciating Tool is always paying attention to the drums. Danny Carey is my favorite rock drummer by a good distance; creativity and technique at their highest level. I dare say it's drummers like him I miss most when I'm on extended classical binges (and I say that as a guitarist myself).


Its interesting enough without really grabbing me at all. I suppose you have to live with it for it to grow on you. Still it is rather yang to Nirvana's yin. But I love Chopin who is generally more yang than yin (ditto Mozart, Schubert etc.).


----------



## Eusebius12

Eva Yojimbo said:


> That's from their first album, the only one they made that was completely inline with the alt-rock zeitgeist. It's good for what it is, but barely hints at where they were going. It is to their next three albums what Please Please Me is to Revolver and those that followed.


For what it's worth, Smashing Pumpkins and Placebo made a bit of an impact. I could hear _something_ in System of A Down, but I was more repulsed than attracted to it. These guys were obviously affected, and the music was deeply sinister. Things like Slipknot and other death metal had no impact on me at all, just screaming sans musique. The Pixies and Sex Pistols I could never really take seriously for whatever reason.


----------



## Eusebius12

Strange Magic said:


> Strictly speaking, there is no lineage leading from Led Zeppelin to anything/anyone else. Their music is truly _sui generis_, never replicated. Zeppelin absorbed previous lineages--Blues, English "folkie", old-fashioned Rock 'n' Roll--transmuted them, then radiated them outward like the jets streaming from the poles of a rotating pulsar. But they were more like a black hole in that there was no legitimate lineage leading away from Led Zeppelin to some successor group. They were here; then they were gone.


I sort of spiritually associate them with Pink Floyd for some reason. And Deep Purple. On one hand and then on the other.


----------



## JAS

Eusebius12 said:


> For what it's worth, Smashing Pumpkins and Placebo made a bit of an impact. I could hear _something_ in System of A Down, but I was more repulsed than attracted to it. These guys were obviously affected, and the music was deeply sinister. Things like Slipknot and other death metal had no impact on me at all, just screaming sans musique. The Pixies and Sex Pistols I could never really take seriously for whatever reason.


(Congratulations on what I suspect must be the first mention of Smashing Pumpkins in the classical discussion threads outside of an off-beat activity for the Fall, or something one member would like to do to another member in a particularly heated moment of disagreement.)


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Strange Magic said:


> Strictly speaking, there is no lineage leading from Led Zeppelin to anything/anyone else. Their music is truly _sui generis_, never replicated. Zeppelin absorbed previous lineages--Blues, English "folkie", old-fashioned Rock 'n' Roll--transmuted them, then radiated them outward like the jets streaming from the poles of a rotating pulsar. But they were more like a black hole in that there was no legitimate lineage leading away from Led Zeppelin to some successor group. They were here; then they were gone.


Zeppelin are a top 5 band for me, so don't think I disagree with any of the positive qualities you eloquently attributed to them, but I have to strongly disagree with the notion of them not having a lineage. They were arguably the most influential bands of the 70s, and a good chunk of 70s classic rock, prog, and eventually metal were influenced by them. Not to mention they practically invented the AOR format. Another top 5 band of mine, Iron Maiden, could almost be said to have based their entire output on Zeppelin's Achilles Last Stand, with its galloping rhythms, abrupt time changes, melodic lead playing, and energetic drum fills. Hell, there are still bands almost outright copying the Zeppelin sound: 





What I will say, though, is that Zeppelin is one of those bands like The Beatles that, as you say, absorbed a lot of diverse lineages and transmuted them in such a way that their followers tended to just take bits and pieces rather than trying to replicate the breadth of their output. EG, one could make the case that Communications Breakdown is really the first punk song, but it's really the only song Zeppelin has that sounds like that.

Were it not for the doom/stoner rock/metal movement of the 80s/90s I'd be more tempted to say that Black Sabbath were the band with no real lineage. Funny thing about them is that their impact on metal is singular in its magnitude; nearly every major metal band cites them as a key influence. But almost none of the bands they influenced sounded much like them. By the time Judas Priest came along with their fast, intricate, twin guitar attack, tighter rhythm section, and proggier song structures every later metal band took THAT as their template (some adding punk's speed/aggression). Then a whole new generation of bands came along in the late 80s/90s that decided Sabbath had it right all along and started copying their sound. It's a pretty unusual history!


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Eusebius12 said:


> For what it's worth, Smashing Pumpkins and Placebo made a bit of an impact. I could hear _something_ in System of A Down, but I was more repulsed than attracted to it. These guys were obviously affected, and the music was deeply sinister. Things like Slipknot and other death metal had no impact on me at all, just screaming sans musique. The Pixies and Sex Pistols I could never really take seriously for whatever reason.


Never actually heard Placebo, but Smashing Pumpkins were a good band, though I thought a bit overrated outside of Mellon Collie. I liked their attempt at resurrecting 70s rock, though. I appreciate SOAD's off-the-wall creativity but I share your distaste for them. Slipknot are NOT death metal! Any death metal fan would flay you for suggesting such a thing! While many people can never get past the screamed/growled vocals I've always thought death metal was one of rock's most interesting sub-genres in how it went from so primal to rather sophisticated within a few short years. The evolution from, say, Possessed Seven Churches ('85), to Death's Human ('91), to Opeth's Orchid ('95) is quite remarkable; those harsh vocals being about the only thing all three have in common. Even if you hate the vocals, I've found most can at least appreciate the craft behind stuff like this:


----------



## Fredx2098

I'd like to say that not all rap is the same bland and formulaic junk. The "bad" stuff is under the umbrella of commercial pop (obviously that's the most well known so it's what comes to mind when a "layman" thinks of rap). There is "real" rap that has creative beats, interesting lyrics, and talented rapping.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Eusebius12 said:


> Its interesting enough without really grabbing me at all. I suppose you have to live with it for it to grow on you. Still it is rather yang to Nirvana's yin. But I love Chopin who is generally more yang than yin (ditto Mozart, Schubert etc.).


All I could suggest would be to really sit down with Tool's Lateralus album, preferably in a dark room with headphones so as to maximize the intimacy and concentration, and then just experience it. They're about as close as I've seen a metal-ish band come to replicating the kind of effect that Pink Floyd had on so many in the 70s.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Fredx2098 said:


> I'd like to say that not all rap is the same bland and formulaic junk. The "bad" stuff is under the umbrella of commercial pop (obviously that's the most well known so it's what comes to mind when a "layman" thinks of rap). There is "real" rap that has creative beats, interesting lyrics, and talented rapping.


Rap is one of those genres where I can appreciate the skill involved in terms of the writing and actual rapping (I'd be mortified if I ever had to get up and try to rap in front of people, even if I had ample time to practice!), but it just doesn't appeal to me much. Most rap I've heard tends to simplify the musical backing so as to highlight the rapping component, which makes perfect since given that the vocal rhythm/lyrics are usually the main focus, but it doesn't appeal to me much. Though I did hear one rap song in passing recently with an interesting jazz backing; I think it was by Common if I heard the name right.

I also think you're too hard on commercial pop. Behind the glitzy performers tend to be a handful of genuinely talented songwriters with gifts for melody, hooks, and arrangements. Really, the contemporary separation of singers and songwriters is almost a throwback to what pop music was like before the 60s, where so many started insisting on singer/songwriters where performers did more original material and less covers. I actually like the separate approach since there's no logic in thinking the talent for songwriting and performing are the same or would be equally distributed among the same people. Plus, there is some contemporary pop music that IS written by the performers, and much more where the performers collaborate with the songwriters (and/or producers) to greater or lesser degrees. I even went to see a Paramore concert this summer. It's not deep music by any means, but it's hook-filled and fun:


----------



## Fredx2098

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Rap is one of those genres where I can appreciate the skill involved in terms of the writing and actual rapping (I'd be mortified if I ever had to get up and try to rap in front of people, even if I had ample time to practice!), but it just doesn't appeal to me much. Most rap I've heard tends to simplify the musical backing so as to highlight the rapping component, which makes perfect since given that the vocal rhythm/lyrics are usually the main focus, but it doesn't appeal to me much. Though I did hear one rap song in passing recently with an interesting jazz backing; I think it was by Common if I heard the name right.


My favorite rap artist/group is Gang Starr. It's just two people, a rapper and a DJ, with equal focus on each person. The beats are skilled, jazzy, catchy (made with turntables like a "real" DJ), and the rapping and lyrics are amazing. Here are some of my favorite tracks:
















Here's a track that was a collaboration with Herbie Hancock himself: 




They're from the distant past (the '90s), but I also enjoy some modern (actually popular) artists like Odd Future (with Tyler the Creator and Earl Sweatshirt who are pretty famous):






And even Kendrick Lamar who is mega famous:






Not all rap is centered on the rapper and their braggadocio, but a lot of it is.



> I also think you're too hard on commercial pop. Behind the glitzy performers tend to be a handful of genuinely talented songwriters with gifts for melody, hooks, and arrangements. Really, the contemporary separation of singers and songwriters is almost a throwback to what pop music was like before the 60s, where so many started insisting on singer/songwriters where performers did more original material and less covers. I actually like the separate approach since there's no logic in thinking the talent for songwriting and performing are the same or would be equally distributed among the same people. Plus, there is some contemporary pop music that IS written by the performers, and much more where the performers collaborate with the songwriters (and/or producers) to greater or lesser degrees. I even went to see a Paramore concert this summer. It's not deep music by any means, but it's hook-filled and fun


I don't have a problem with people enjoying commercial pop. My problem with it is that the performers get all the credit while, like you said, the people with creative talent are in the background. I have more respect for people who actually make their own music (those people aren't who I'm referring to when I say "commercial pop"), but when someone is just a mascot singing through autotune and raking in cash, I don't respect that as much. I understand the appeal of pre-'60s and post-'90s pop (none of that appeals to me though), but I think it can be said that it takes less talent and creativity from all involved, because it's all about writing based on formulas that sell records and tickets.


----------



## Strange Magic

> Eva Yojimbo: "Zeppelin are a top 5 band for me, so don't think I disagree with any of the positive qualities you eloquently attributed to them, but I have to strongly disagree with the notion of them not having a lineage. They were arguably the most influential bands of the 70s, and a good chunk of 70s classic rock, prog, and eventually metal were influenced by them. Not to mention they practically invented the AOR format. Another top 5 band of mine, Iron Maiden, could almost be said to have based their entire output on Zeppelin's Achilles Last Stand, with its galloping rhythms, abrupt time changes, melodic lead playing, and energetic drum fills. Hell, there are still bands almost outright copying the Zeppelin sound":


I will grant all you say above, and surely there are legions of bands who claim Zep as an influence, and work up their own attempts at the sound of a powerful Zeppelin floating high overhead, perhaps sensed as an ominous presence above the clouds . Heart's _Mistral Wind_ was such, and not bad at all. Yet nobody replicated the real Zeppelin richness, texture, musical novelty of something going on constantly in the background, often never to be repeated. But I'm happy we share our enthusiasm for a very singular band.


----------



## philoctetes

Strange Magic said:


> I will grant all you say above, and surely there are legions of bands who claim Zep as an influence, and work up their own attempts at the sound of a powerful Zeppelin floating high overhead, perhaps sensed as an ominous presence above the clouds . Heart's _Mistral Wind_ was such, and not bad at all. Yet nobody replicated the real Zeppelin richness, texture, musical novelty of something going on constantly in the background, often never to be repeated. But I'm happy we share our enthusiasm for a very singular band.


The first band that comes to mind is Heart. They cloned Zeppelin many times, and quite successfully too.

I don't follow many newer bands but I would say that Queens of the Stone Age are on the Zepp family tree, although I hear a closer kinship to King Crimson. The Queens are probably my favorite active rock band, along with Morrissey, which only indicates how old I am.


----------



## Luchesi

Eva Yojimbo said:


> What I will say, though, is that Zeppelin is one of those bands like The Beatles that, as you say, absorbed a lot of diverse lineages and transmuted them in such a way that their followers tended to just take bits and pieces rather than trying to replicate the breadth of their output. EG, one could make the case that Communications Breakdown is really the first punk song, but it's really the only song Zeppelin has that sounds like that.
> 
> Were it not for the doom/stoner rock/metal movement of the 80s/90s I'd be more tempted to say that Black Sabbath were the band with no real lineage. Funny thing about them is that their impact on metal is singular in its magnitude; nearly every major metal band cites them as a key influence. But almost none of the bands they influenced sounded much like them. By the time Judas Priest came along with their fast, intricate, twin guitar attack, tighter rhythm section, and proggier song structures every later metal band took THAT as their template (some adding punk's speed/aggression). Then a whole new generation of bands came along in the late 80s/90s that decided Sabbath had it right all along and started copying their sound. It's a pretty unusual history!


Thanks Eva, you've obviously spent a lot of time with the albums of these groups.

I got interested in music very young because my young neighbor was taking piano lessons and I was fascinated by what he could do. He would buy each new Beatles album as it came out and then figure out most of the songs very quickly on his piano. I thought how did he do that? He tried to explain chord progressions to me and that therefore it wasn't that he just had a good ear. That did it. I was hooked on music. Because it could be reduced to its elements and then put back together again for us to express ourselves personally. As I look back now I appreciate all my hobbies of interest with that same approach.

Then bands like Zep came along. At that time I was already studying music theory in classical music (while I played keyboards in a rock band). So my friends would say "listen to this, what positive things can you say about it?". I remember specifically a close friend saying "listen to ELO - it's classical music!". So I knew back then that they just didn't get it. I remained polite about it and only if I was pressed I would honestly talk a little bit about the shallowness of it. Take away the gimmicky guitars and drums and the so-called singing and what have you got? If you look at the song sheet and it doesn't impress you then you have to be very interested in the guitars etc. and the singing 'style'. If you look at the Beatles' song sheets, they can be explored by jazz improvisers. Why is that? It's a fascinating subject about the Beatles' use of modes and artistically breaking the rules..


----------



## Strange Magic

philoctetes said:


> The first band that comes to mind is Heart. They cloned Zeppelin many times, and quite successfully too.


I am a big fan of Heart and rejoiced when the R&R Hall of Fame finally succumbed to enormous pressure and simple decency/necessity and inducted them. But they never cloned Zeppelin. They sang Zeppelin songs, often very well indeed--I've posted that the sisters' Lovemongers version of _The Battle of Evermore_ is IMO better than the original, due to the keening perfection of the sisters' harmony singing. But--and this is unnecessarily harsh--Heart is to Led Zeppelin as the lightning bug is to lightning (paraphrasing/quoting Mark Twain).


----------



## Eusebius12

Eva Yojimbo said:


> All I could suggest would be to really sit down with Tool's Lateralus album, preferably in a dark room with headphones so as to maximize the intimacy and concentration, and then just experience it. They're about as close as I've seen a metal-ish band come to replicating the kind of effect that Pink Floyd had on so many in the 70s.


Interesting. I will try to do this at some point.


----------



## Eusebius12

Luchesi said:


> If you look at the song sheet and it doesn't impress you then you have to be very interested in the guitars etc. and the singing 'style'. If you look at the Beatles' song sheets, they can be explored by jazz improvisers. Why is that? It's a fascinating subject about the Beatles' use of modes and artistically breaking the rules..


The Beatles somehow, despite their inherent limitations, generally wrote music that was at least a grade above mere ephemera. Some of their work could be classified at some level as 'art song'.


----------



## Eusebius12

Fredx2098 said:


> Not all rap is centered on the rapper and their braggadocio, but a lot of it is.
> 
> I don't have a problem with people enjoying commercial pop. My problem with it is that the performers get all the credit while, like you said, the people with creative talent are in the background. I have more respect for people who actually make their own music (those people aren't who I'm referring to when I say "commercial pop"), but when someone is just a mascot singing through autotune and raking in cash, I don't respect that as much. I understand the appeal of pre-'60s and post-'90s pop (none of that appeals to me though), but I think it can be said that it takes less talent and creativity from all involved, because it's all about writing based on formulas that sell records and tickets.


I agree with this almost 100%, and the rap examples you reference (the ones I sampled) are better than heavily commercialized rap. There are probably soundlouds out there full of stuff which makes Drake look like the overpaid complete hack that he is.


----------



## Luchesi

Eusebius12 said:


> The Beatles somehow, despite their inherent limitations, generally wrote music that was at least a grade above mere ephemera. Some of their work could be classified at some level as 'art song'.


I guess a jazz pianist could improvise on a Zeppelin song (other than Stairway) or a Rap song. What do you think? I've never seen it.

from wiki

"...the band were forced to change their name after Dreja issued a cease and desist letter, stating that Page was allowed to use the New Yardbirds moniker for the Scandinavian dates only.[15] One account of how the new band's name was chosen held that Moon and Entwistle had suggested that a supergroup with Page and Beck would go down like a "lead balloon", an idiom for disastrous results.[16] The group dropped the 'a' in lead at the suggestion of their manager, Peter Grant, so that those unfamiliar with the term would not pronounce it "leed"."


----------



## eljr

Eusebius12 said:


> I agree with this almost 100%, and the rap examples you reference (the ones I sampled) are better than heavily commercialized rap. There are probably soundlouds out there full of stuff which makes Drake look like the overpaid complete hack that he is.


Drake is a well respected artist who is paid in accordance with his success.

This is pretty black and white stuff. :lol:


----------



## eljr

Eusebius12 said:


> The Beatles somehow, despite their inherent limitations, generally wrote music that was at least a grade above mere ephemera. Some of their work could be classified at some level as 'art song'.


You mean like Yellow Submarine? :devil:


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Fredx2098 said:


> My favorite rap artist/group is Gang Starr. It's just two people, a rapper and a DJ, with equal focus on each person. The beats are skilled, jazzy, catchy (made with turntables like a "real" DJ), and the rapping and lyrics are amazing. Here are some of my favorite tracks:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a track that was a collaboration with Herbie Hancock himself:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're from the distant past (the '90s), but I also enjoy some modern (actually popular) artists like Odd Future (with Tyler the Creator and Earl Sweatshirt who are pretty famous):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And even Kendrick Lamar who is mega famous:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all rap is centered on the rapper and their braggadocio, but a lot of it is.


Of these, the only ones that kinda grabbed me were the Hancock one and the Kendrick Lamar one, precisely because they have a bit more going on musically underneath the rapping. If you take the other tracks, listen by completely ignoring the rapping, just listen to the beats; notice how simple and repetitive they are? That's what bothers me about most rap. Even commercial pop in its simplicity will generally have some musical changes and not just keep the exact same beat/backing going the entire way through, not to mention genres like metal and prog where it's common to have dozens of changes in a song.

This is the rap song I referenced earlier: 




Even though the music here is slightly repetitive too I find it more interesting because of the syncopation, the fact that the drum beats and bass lines are both at odd places in the meter and not completely in-synch with the organ. Hell, it's nice just to hear real instruments in a rap song regardless of the actual musical content! It reminds me of a much simpler, smoother, jazzy version of a band like Meshuggah that's really experimental/complex when it comes to rhythm:







Fredx2098 said:


> I don't have a problem with people enjoying commercial pop. My problem with it is that the performers get all the credit while, like you said, the people with creative talent are in the background. I have more respect for people who actually make their own music (those people aren't who I'm referring to when I say "commercial pop"), but when someone is just a mascot singing through autotune and raking in cash, I don't respect that as much. I understand the appeal of pre-'60s and post-'90s pop (none of that appeals to me though), but I think it can be said that it takes less talent and creativity from all involved, because it's all about writing based on formulas that sell records and tickets.


The performers have ALWAYS gotten the credit no matter what medium or who was behind the scenes. Look at film: the vast majority of people celebrate and talk about actors while writers, directors, and producers are almost completely ignored, even though they're the primary creative forces behind films. So I don't think this is a unique problem in commercial pop. To me, I just rate performers and songwriters on different levels, and there are plenty of people who perform their own music who are pretty dull/lousy performers even though their music is often really good. I have no problem with the idea that in commercial pop the purpose of performers is to put on a show and inject an amount of personality into the songs; the fact is some are better at doing that than others. What Michael Jackson did took as much skill as what any songwriter does. I'd much rather have a talented performer collaborate with talented songwriter than a talented songwriter trying to perform their own work and being bad at it, or a talented performer trying to write their own stuff and being bad at it.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

philoctetes said:


> The first band that comes to mind is Heart. They cloned Zeppelin many times, and quite successfully too.
> 
> I don't follow many newer bands but I would say that Queens of the Stone Age are on the Zepp family tree, although I hear a closer kinship to King Crimson. The Queens are probably my favorite active rock band, along with Morrissey, which only indicates how old I am.


I don't know if I'd say "cloned," but there's a huge influence there for sure, and I always thought Barracuda was kind of a rewrite of Immigrant Song.

QOTSA are a fun band. Slightly overrated to me, but I did love ...Like Clockwork. If you like them, have you heard Kyuss? That was singer/songwriter Josh Homme's prior band, and I actually prefer their heavier sound. This is one of the heaviest, grooviest songs ever written: 



 Fun as hell to play in a band, too.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Luchesi said:


> Thanks Eva, you've obviously spent a lot of time with the albums of these groups.
> 
> I got interested in music very young because my young neighbor was taking piano lessons and I was fascinated by what he could do. He would buy each new Beatles album as it came out and then figure out most of the songs very quickly on his piano. I thought how did he do that? He tried to explain chord progressions to me and that therefore it wasn't that he just had a good ear. That did it. I was hooked on music. Because it could be reduced to its elements and then put back together again for us to express ourselves personally. As I look back now I appreciate all my hobbies of interest with that same approach.
> 
> Then bands like Zep came along. At that time I was already studying music theory in classical music (while I played keyboards in a rock band). So my friends would say "listen to this, what positive things can you say about it?". I remember specifically a close friend saying "listen to ELO - it's classical music!". So I knew back then that they just didn't get it. I remained polite about it and only if I was pressed I would honestly talk a little bit about the shallowness of it. Take away the gimmicky guitars and drums and the so-called singing and what have you got? If you look at the song sheet and it doesn't impress you then you have to be very interested in the guitars etc. and the singing 'style'. If you look at the Beatles' song sheets, they can be explored by jazz improvisers. Why is that? It's a fascinating subject about the Beatles' use of modes and artistically breaking the rules..


I got interested in music very young because of my parents: dad played drums, mom played keyboards. I grew up on classic rock, started playing guitar when I was 14. Classical was just another part of my musical discovery/journey when I became pretty insatiable about exploring new musical territories.

I can understand why people who know music theory might find most pop music boring; most of it's not really appealing if you're listening with your eyes (ie, just looking at the sheet music). However, I don't like that way of approaching music, in general. There is a challenge in taking a minimal amount of chords and instruments, distilling music down to just a few basic elements, and making music that's able to resonate with people despite its simplicity and often familiarity. It does take talent to write hooks--whether they be guitar riffs, vocal melodies, bass lines, drum beats, etc.--even if it's not the kind of talent that can be analyzed and parse by describing it theoretically.

That said, I won't deny that much of the appeal of rock music is the sound itself. If music is organized sound, then it's sensible that some sounds (regardless of organization) will appeal to us more than others. Growing up with a drummer I have that kind of percussion in my blood and bones, and I miss it whenever I'm away from it for too long. It's similar with guitar; to me, there's nothing quite like standing next to a cranked guitar amp/speaker and just playing a few pentatonic power chords. It's a very primal thing, that kind of sound and power. Of course, classical and jazz has its own appealing sounds I also like, but in a completely different way. To me, each genre just does completely different things and appeals to completely different aspects of my tastes.

I'll also say, though, that there is pop music out there with more musically interesting substance than others. You mention The Beatles and how jazz improvisers can work with their stuff; I had a jazz drummer as a friend of mind who got obsessed with a metal band called Meshuggah because he was fascinated by their complex rhythmic syncopations. It's not really music to improvise over, but it's music full of unique approaches to rhythm. And if you're looking for bands with some "eye" appeal, I'm sure there are prog and fusion artists that you'd find appealing. Something like Dream Theater's Dance of Eternity has over 100 time signature changes in about 6 minutes: 



 I've also heard (I can't confirm) that Alan Holdsworth was quite original in his harmonic language: 



 (all I know is that I revere him as a guitar god; his loss was terribly sad, especially considering the amount of un-recorded music he supposed had left... same with Shawn Lane: 



). I mean, I guess you can say the last two are more jazz fusion than rock, but there's no denying that there's a rock component to both as well; hell, Holdsworth was a huge influence on Eddie Van Halen and a singular influence on Meshuggah's Frederik Thordendal.


----------



## Luchesi

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I got interested in music very young because of my parents: dad played drums, mom played keyboards. I grew up on classic rock, started playing guitar when I was 14. Classical was just another part of my musical discovery/journey when I became pretty insatiable about exploring new musical territories.
> 
> I can understand why people who know music theory might find most pop music boring; most of it's not really appealing if you're listening with your eyes (ie, just looking at the sheet music). However, I don't like that way of approaching music, in general. There is a challenge in taking a minimal amount of chords and instruments, distilling music down to just a few basic elements, and making music that's able to resonate with people despite its simplicity and often familiarity. It does take talent to write hooks--whether they be guitar riffs, vocal melodies, bass lines, drum beats, etc.--even if it's not the kind of talent that can be analyzed and parse by describing it theoretically.
> 
> That said, I won't deny that much of the appeal of rock music is the sound itself. If music is organized sound, then it's sensible that some sounds (regardless of organization) will appeal to us more than others. Growing up with a drummer I have that kind of percussion in my blood and bones, and I miss it whenever I'm away from it for too long. It's similar with guitar; to me, there's nothing quite like standing next to a cranked guitar amp/speaker and just playing a few pentatonic power chords. It's a very primal thing, that kind of sound and power. Of course, classical and jazz has its own appealing sounds I also like, but in a completely different way. To me, each genre just does completely different things and appeals to completely different aspects of my tastes.
> 
> I'll also say, though, that there is pop music out there with more musically interesting substance than others. You mention The Beatles and how jazz improvisers can work with their stuff; I had a jazz drummer as a friend of mind who got obsessed with a metal band called Meshuggah because he was fascinated by their complex rhythmic syncopations. It's not really music to improvise over, but it's music full of unique approaches to rhythm. And if you're looking for bands with some "eye" appeal, I'm sure there are prog and fusion artists that you'd find appealing. Something like Dream Theater's Dance of Eternity has over 100 time signature changes in about 6 minutes:
> 
> 
> 
> I've also heard (I can't confirm) that Alan Holdsworth was quite original in his harmonic language:
> 
> 
> 
> (all I know is that I revere him as a guitar god; his loss was terribly sad, especially considering the amount of un-recorded music he supposed had left... same with Shawn Lane:
> 
> 
> 
> ). I mean, I guess you can say the last two are more jazz fusion than rock, but there's no denying that there's a rock component to both as well; hell, Holdsworth was a huge influence on Eddie Van Halen and a singular influence on Meshuggah's Frederik Thordendal.


I guess I just don't like the sound of loud guitars in a band doing vocals. I've had my fill of silly guitarists when I was in a few rock bands. They'd say, "listen to this!" and it's some simple nothing musically. I guess I've heard it all in their attempts to accompany singers - for one lifetime.

When guitars play against eachother, now that's interesting. That way they feel constrained to do something with a structure.


----------



## Enthusiast

It is "funny" what has happened to this thread. It was started to explore why some music gets some people worked up in derision while other music may not please everyone but those who are not pleased by it tend to find it easy to move on without attacking it too strongly. And I guess the thread did that - it is all down to that music (the music that attracts derision) being hated by people who have a need to control the tastes of others* - but it has now moved on to a long discussion of music that is normally discussed in a different section of the forum. The grounds for this is thin: that classical music fans are most likely to deride pop/rock/jazz. It is interesting, then, that no derision has followed this turn. We have merely had pages and pages of very polite discussion of the merits of this or that. There have been one or two polite questions about whether this is the right place to discuss this music. But no derision. Derision, it seems, is reserved on this forum for Mozart and a fairly broad swathe of music that is less than 100 years old. 





* Sorry. That is written as a gratuitous wind up for people who hate Mozart and contemporary/atonal/experimental music. I couldn't resist.


----------



## Strange Magic

^^^^I think an explanation lies in the fact that this remains a mostly CM forum, and that mostly CM listeners believe that there is something inherently ennobling within the music and composers they prefer, and loathesome in those they dislike. People who have broad and deep interests in musics other than or in addition to CM are more tolerant of, or at least have more fun with, disagreeing in a friendlier way with their "opponents". It's the same motivation/psychology that legitimizes tolerance in other areas of life.


----------



## Enthusiast

^^^ No doubt you are right there. But why is it so much more extreme with Mozart and atonal music than with Beethoven and Brahms - both of whom have their detractors but these detractors tend to be less driven in their disdain?


----------



## JAS

Or it may just be that this thread quickly exhausted the original idea, and wandered off into more distant realms, which is what happens to most threads that stay active for more than a few pages. In this case, that wandering went off in the direction of what might be considered more popular forms of music (and that quickly winnowed the field of participants). 

But the specific question at hand now is why the camps of Mozart and Atonal Music are more hostile than those of Beethoven and Brahms. The reason, I think, is that Beethoven and Brahms are widely accepted as expressions of similar ideas, with similarities that overwhelm the differences. Atonal Music has come along and embraced the opposite, with similarities that are dwarfed by the differences, and it exists as it exists precisely because it demands its space in those differences. And unlike popular music, which are niche markets in a very large field, all of the music that is pushed under the umbrella of classical music (with a small c) is competing for a much smaller set of resources. 

There is also the issue of the idea that because what might be called the post-traditional camp sees itself as the inheritor of the mantle once owned by the traditional camp, even while insisting that the boundaries and guidelines of traditional forms was too limiting and has exhausted itself and a host of phrases along those lines, it is inherently a kind of attack on the traditional forms in a way the none of the sub-parts of those traditional forms were on each other.

Some may agree with this suggestion, and others may disagree (shocking to think), but that is my take on it, and it is worth everything you paid to read it.


----------



## Luchesi

JAS said:


> Or it may just be that this thread quickly exhausted the original idea, and wandered off into more distant realms, which is what happens to most threads that stay active for more than a few pages. In this case, that wandering went off in the direction of what might be considered more popular forms of music (and that quickly winnowed the field of participants).
> 
> But the specific question at hand now is why the camps of Mozart and Atonal Music are more hostile than those of Beethoven and Brahms. The reason, I think, is that Beethoven and Brahms are widely accepted as expressions of similar ideas, with similarities that overwhelm the differences. Atonal Music has come along and embraced the opposite, with similarities that are dwarfed by the differences, and it exists as it exists precisely because it demands its space in those differences. And unlike popular music, which are niche markets in a very large field, all of the music that is pushed under the umbrella of classical music (with a small c) are competing for a much smaller set of resources.
> 
> There is also the issue of the idea that because what might be called the post-traditional camp sees itself as the inheritor of the mantle once owned by the traditional camp, even while insisting that the boundaries and guidelines of traditional forms was too limiting and has exhausted itself and a host of phrases along those lines, it is inherently a kind of attack on the traditional forms in a way the none of the sub-parts of those traditional forms were on each other.
> 
> Some may agree with this suggestion, and others may disagree (shocking to think), but that is my take on it, and it is worth everything you paid to read it.


Could it be so simple that some commercial music for the masses has been annoying to a lot of people (starting way back with ragtime)? And most atonal music (new explorations for the aficionados) has been annoying to a lot of people?

Many people like to discuss and complain about the assorted annoyances in life everyone is familiar with and everyone has an opinion about. What are discussion threads for? Agreeing?

People will complain when they expect that other people understand what they're complaining about. Otherwise they probably won't bother.


----------



## JAS

Luchesi said:


> Could it be so simple that some commercial music for the masses has been annoying to a lot of people (starting way back with ragtime)? And most atonal music (new explorations for the aficionados) has been annoying to a lot of people?
> 
> Many people like to discuss and complain about the assorted annoyances in life everyone is familiar with and everyone has an opinion about. What are discussion threads for? Agreeing?
> 
> People will complain when they expect that other people understand what they're complaining about. Otherwise they probably won't bother.


I don't think what I have described is particularly complicated. I happen to like ragtime, and some folk music, but neither are classical music, nor generally do they pretend to be. (Scott Joplin wrote an ragtime opera, so that is a bit of an anomaly, and Gershwin blurred the boundaries a bit too with Porgy and Bess, although it is more of a serious operetta than an opera, except that it is not light in subject matter.) I have no interest at all in any of the more pop forms, particularly those currently in circulation, although I am constantly assaulted by them as they appeal to a much larger audience than poor little ole me and the pushers of selling things will usually pursue the largest audience with the most aggressive tactics. None of that music is or has ever really been a part of my world or my life, and I can more or less ignore it as a whole by just raising my shields and avoiding it as much as possible.

I do think that discussion threads are, substantially, for disagreeing, but disagreeing in a way that is not disagreeable. It turns out that such a parsing of ideas is not easily achieved or sustained, and it relies on too many people behaving in a way that seems contrary to common human behavior. (There are also the rules of the forum to be considered, which seem to put their thumb on the scales in favor of a particular kind of discussion that does not readily allow disagreement, which can too easily be seen as being negative. The moderators have often been lenient in imposing these rules, but that can be elusive and sporadic and the sense that one is approaching a vaguely enforced boundary can adversely influence the discussion.)


----------



## arpeggio

This thread has been going on for a while and since I ain't too bright it took we awhile to think of a response.

Does a person have the right to dislike whatever? Of course they do.

Do they have a right to deride? No.


----------



## Art Rock

arpeggio said:


> This thread has been going on for a while and since I ain't too bright it took we awhile to think of a response.
> 
> Does a person have the right to dislike whatever? Of course they do.
> 
> Do they have a right to deride? No.


Looks a lot like post #2.


----------



## Woodduck

Enthusiast said:


> Derision, it seems, is reserved on this forum for Mozart and a fairly broad swathe of music that is less than 100 years old.


Whatever our own tastes and opinions, if we have much understanding of music and are honest we can hardly claim to be mystified by the hostility provoked by atonal music or "experimental" stuff that many people don't consider music at all. The case of Mozart is more difficult to explain on musical grounds, but musical grounds may not be the sole consideration.

I can't waste my time "deriding" any music that I don't find either completely idiotic or that isn't being forced on me in restaurants, supermarkets, phone calls, et al, but I can understand the temptation to deliver at least a good tweaking to what appears to be mindless hyping, no matter how worthy the object of adulation. Beethoven comes in for his share of debunking by ignoramuses who think most of his music consists of sforzandos. Bach is slammed less, with most detractors merely finding him tedious. Mozart has mythical status based partly on his having been a prodigy and partly on the fictional misrepresentation of him as God incarnated in a pink-periwigged Tom Hulse. But Mozart's reputation for sublime perfection clashes rather disconcertingly with audible reality in the perceptions of many who can't get into an 18th-century aesthetic, and can't listen _through_ it, as it were, to find the genius within.

Even I feel like taking a pin to the balloon when someone offers as "evidence" of something a whole forum page filled with compliments famous musicians have paid to Wolfie, or pops gratuitously into a thread on _Tristan und Isolde_ to inform the waiting world that "Mozart, of course, was the greatest of all opera composers."


----------



## Strange Magic

^^^^My calm, measured response is "Sez Youse!"....,


----------



## philoctetes

Woodduck said:


> Even I feel like taking a pin to the balloon when someone offers as "evidence" of something a whole forum page filled with compliments famous musicians have paid to Wolfie, or pops gratuitously into a thread on _Tristan und Isolde_ to inform the waiting world that "Mozart, of course, was the greatest of all opera composers."


Richard Strauss being out of the running and all... what they really mean is something like "wow, did you know Mozart's operas are as good as his symphonies and concertos?"

"They" being nobody specifically, or else I wouldn't say that (disclaimer #1)... perhaps they is myself... recalling that I once held that view for a very short time, after seeing an amazing performance of Le Nozze...


----------



## philoctetes

No composer is perfect if one can find something specifically to criticize, and I'm not sure any composer passes that test. In many cases it is up to the performer to make us forget about the annoying habits or flaws in their music. 

It's a tough choice between Wolfie's lightness over Ludwig's power, and I'm glad Schubert is there to encompass both. And Wolfe's music, as fine as it is, seems more limited in style and voice, from piece to piece, than later composers would attempt. Cadenzas ending in those long trills are my pet peeve with his concerto, but I'm sure they created excitement back in the day.

All this is hindsight, after all, just to say I know that. I think it's dangerous to elevate any artist to a pedestal above others, whether it's Mozart or Cage, though it's even more tempting with literature I think...


----------



## Luchesi

JAS said:


> I don't think what I have described is particularly complicated. I happen to like ragtime, and some folk music, but neither are classical music, nor generally do they pretend to be. (Scott Joplin wrote an ragtime opera, so that is a bit of an anomaly, and Gershwin blurred the boundaries a bit too with Porgy and Bess, although it is more of a serious operetta than an opera, except that it is not light in subject matter.) I have no interest at all in any of the more pop forms, particularly those currently in circulation, although I am constantly assaulted by them as they appeal to a much larger audience than poor little ole me and the pushers of selling things will usually pursue the largest audience with the most aggressive tactics. None of that music is or has ever really been a part of my world or my life, and I can more or less ignore it as a whole by just raising my shields and avoiding it as much as possible.
> 
> I do think that discussion threads are, substantially, for disagreeing, but disagreeing in a way that is not disagreeable. It turns out that such a parsing of ideas is not easily achieved or sustained, and it relies on too many people behaving in a way that seems contrary to common human behavior. (There are also the rules of the forum to be considered, which seem to put their thumb on the scales in favor of a particular kind of discussion that does not readily allow disagreement, which can too easily be seen as being negative. The moderators have often been lenient in imposing these rules, but that can be elusive and sporadic and the sense that one is approaching a vaguely enforced boundary can adversely influence the discussion.)


"..it relies on too many people behaving in a way that seems contrary to common human behavior."

Instead of people - don't you mean men? When women discuss something they reinforce and encourage each other. We don't see a lot of that in here.


----------



## Eusebius12

Luchesi said:


> I guess a jazz pianist could improvise on a Zeppelin song (other than Stairway) or a Rap song. What do you think? I've never seen it.


I have no idea. I wonder whether such a thing would be worthwhile.


----------



## Eusebius12

eljr said:


> Drake is a well respected artist who is paid in accordance with his success.
> 
> This is pretty black and white stuff. :lol:


Yeah, respected by fools 
He produces mounds of turds, this is also black and white...anyone who thinks that 'work work work work work work work' is a 'song lyric' needs their head read. That no taste fools purchase this dreck I am never surprised. A fool is always quickly parted from his money.


----------



## Eusebius12

eljr said:


> You mean like Yellow Submarine? :devil:


Umm not really  Or ob la di for that matter


----------



## Eusebius12

Eva Yojimbo said:


> If you take the other tracks, listen by completely ignoring the rapping, just listen to the beats; notice how simple and repetitive they are? That's what bothers me about most rap. Even commercial pop in its simplicity will generally have some musical changes and not just keep the exact same beat/backing going the entire way through, not to mention genres like metal and prog where it's common to have dozens of changes in a song.


This mind bending repetitiveness is de rigueur in rap. I think you are looking at the wrong form if you want something without it. Same with techno and house and trance and all 'synth' music (and minimalist composers quite often, as inherent to the genre). I can live with that, but when they add stupid lyrics and have no tunes worthy of the name, it makes me somewhat apoplectic.



> The performers have ALWAYS gotten the credit no matter what medium or who was behind the scenes. Look at film: the vast majority of people celebrate and talk about actors while writers, directors, and producers are almost completely ignored, even though they're the primary creative forces behind films. So I don't think this is a unique problem in commercial pop.


True, but we classical 'aficionados' at least tell ourselves that the composer is more important. For the most part, in my case I think that holds true. It is also true that in more popular art forms the least talented, empty vessels are praised far beyond their abilities. I hate to drag the name Justin Bieber into this, but it fits so I will.


----------



## Eusebius12

Enthusiast said:


> There have been one or two polite questions about whether this is the right place to discuss this music. But no derision. Derision, it seems, is reserved on this forum for Mozart and a fairly broad swathe of music that is less than 100 years old.


Perhaps you don't read any of my posts. But derision obviously should be an extreme reaction, not the first thing that comes to the unthinking, unreflective mind (even if that is what is the general case)


----------



## Eusebius12

Enthusiast said:


> ^^^ No doubt you are right there. But why is it so much more extreme with Mozart and atonal music than with Beethoven and Brahms - both of whom have their detractors but these detractors tend to be less driven in their disdain?


No, ugly music will always elicit strong reactions, as will any composer who is held up as sans peur et sans reproche. Brahms was bete noire in some circles in the late 19th century, Mozart's detractors are a fairly new phenomenon, perhaps due to the slight overexposure he receives at present (relatively speaking within a CM context).


----------



## Eusebius12

arpeggio said:


> This thread has been going on for a while and since I ain't too bright it took we awhile to think of a response.
> 
> Does a person have the right to dislike whatever? Of course they do.
> 
> Do they have a right to deride? No.


So who determines that no one has a right to deride?


----------



## Eusebius12

Art Rock said:


> Looks a lot like post #2.


And the circle is complete. This thread is a microcosm of the hamster wheel of life.


----------



## Eusebius12

Woodduck said:


> Even I feel like taking a pin to the balloon when someone offers as "evidence" of something a whole forum page filled with compliments famous musicians have paid to Wolfie, or pops gratuitously into a thread on _Tristan und Isolde_ to inform the waiting world that "Mozart, of course, was the greatest of all opera composers."


"Mozart, of course, was the greatest of all opera composers."


----------



## Larkenfield

Apparently, no one notices that those who strongly like Mozart like a hell of a lot of other composers as well, and say so. Who listens to one composer exclusively, no matter how great?... What's also noticeable is that some who apparently like him damn him with faint praise. If it's not wholehearted praise with regard to at least one work, then I'm reluctant to believe them, because it sounds false & insincere... In the meantime, Wolfgang is entitled to his defenders because of his great and lasting contributions to music... over 600 works, thank you very much, that most performers are grateful for. It wasn't just talent with him; he worked like a demon to develop himself starting from a very early age with technical guidance from his very demanding father. That's why he could write a symphony at the age of nine that was not only inspired but technically assured... and I don't mean as juvenalia... I mean as one of the finest composers already in Europe. The problem is that his music can be so intense and emphatic that it's hard to absorb, and then he's derided as writing clichés over and over again as if everything he wrote was the same.






But he wasn't the only great composer of consummate genius on earth. There was...


----------



## Woodduck

Duplicate post.


----------



## Woodduck

Eusebius12 said:


> "Mozart, of course, was the greatest of all opera composers."


Ha ha ha.

"So and so is the greatest" and "of course" are both invitations to derision. Used in a single sentence they're irresistible.

You may be right, although no one is actually qualified to say so even if the notion is meaningful. Less questionable, though, is the claim that Wagner is the greatest composer of _Musikdrama_ and _Buhnenweihfestspiele_.  But I would never be so tasteless as to plunk down that statement in a discussion of _La Clemenza di Tito._ Actually I would never go near a discussion of _La Clemenza di Tito._ I mean, what's in it that's worth discussing?


----------



## arpeggio

Eusebius12 said:


> So who determines that no one has a right to deride?


Art Rock and I feel the same way.

This is our opinion.

Mine comes again from my experience as a performer.

The following is one of the worst pieces of junk I have ever had to play in my life (I am not in this performance. I was in the US Army). This particular arrangement is full of one musical cliché after another. In parts it sounds like a bad circus march. (This is actually a good performance):






I was actually at a performance once where we got a standing ovation after performing this cr*p. Now if you want to go into that audience and call all of those people morons, go ahead. Common courtesy would prevent me from doing it.

Beyond the above I have nothing to say.


----------



## Woodduck

arpeggio said:


> Art Rock and I feel the same way.
> 
> This is our opinion.
> 
> Mine comes again from my experience as a performer.
> 
> The following is one of the worst pieces of junk I have ever had to play in my life (I am not in this performance. I was in the US Army). This particular arrangement is full of one musical cliché after another. In parts it sounds like a bad circus march. (This is actually a good performance):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was actually at a performance once where we got a standing ovation after performing this cr*p. Now if you want to go into that audience and call all of those people morons, go ahead. Common courtesy would prevent me from doing it.


Good Lord! It sounds like something written for a 1930s cartoon called "Mickey Mouse Joins the Navy." It's terrible or wonderful: terrible if the composer thought it was wonderful, wonderful if he knew it was terrible and wrote the best terrible thing he could. At the very least you had to clap for the euphonium (if that's what it was).


----------



## Captainnumber36

I hate to admit it, but I do think Classical is the best.


----------



## Eusebius12

Woodduck said:


> Ha ha ha.
> 
> "So and so is the greatest" and "of course" are both invitations to derision. Used in a single sentence they're irresistible.
> 
> You may be right, although no one is actually qualified to say so even if the notion is meaningful. Less questionable, though, is the claim that Wagner is the greatest composer of _Musikdrama_ and _Buhnenweihfestspiele_.  But I would never be so tasteless as to plunk down that statement in a discussion of _La Clemenza di Tito._ Actually I would never go near a discussion of _La Clemenza di Tito._ I mean, what's in it that's worth discussing?


I'll go out on a limb here, and say Wagner's operas were the greatest of all those specifically composed for Bayreuth. As far as Clemenza di Tito is concerned, before watching it I had the same opinion, but really it isn't bad at all. If you can enjoy Handel's operas, then you can see that Clemenza is not an unworthy specimen of the idiom (although far from Mozart's best opera or indeed Handel's for that matter)


----------



## Eusebius12

arpeggio said:


> Art Rock and I feel the same way.
> 
> This is our opinion.
> 
> Mine comes again from my experience as a performer.
> 
> The following is one of the worst pieces of junk I have ever had to play in my life (I am not in this performance. I was in the US Army). This particular arrangement is full of one musical cliché after another. In parts it sounds like a bad circus march. (This is actually a good performance):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was actually at a performance once where we got a standing ovation after performing this cr*p. Now if you want to go into that audience and call all of those people morons, go ahead. Common courtesy would prevent me from doing it.
> 
> Beyond the above I have nothing to say.


I have heard much worse, yes the music isn't great but it seems fairly typical of the wind band genre, as I look back through youtube it may have had origins in big band music. Yes it is extremely conventional. But you do realize that you are deriding it. Just to be clear.


----------



## Eusebius12

Luchesi said:


> "..it relies on too many people behaving in a way that seems contrary to common human behavior."
> 
> Instead of people - don't you mean men? When women discuss something they reinforce and encourage each other. We don't see a lot of that in here.


They reinforce and encourage each other. To their faces


----------



## Woodduck

Eusebius12 said:


> I'll go out on a limb here, and say Wagner's operas were the greatest of all those specifically composed for Bayreuth.


Well, that's right generous of you.  And I'll go out on a different limb and concede that Mozart's were the greatest of all those composed to libretti by Da Ponte and Schikaneder.


----------



## Enthusiast

Eusebius12 said:


> No, ugly music will always elicit strong reactions, as will any composer who is held up as sans peur et sans reproche. Brahms was bete noire in some circles in the late 19th century, Mozart's detractors are a fairly new phenomenon, perhaps due to the slight overexposure he receives at present (relatively speaking within a CM context).


The problem is that, like beauty, ugliness is in the eye of the beholder. The music I find truly ugly is schmaltzy music but I just avoid it. I don't think it is worth getting upset about just so long as it doesn't invade my world too much. I don't mind too much if other people like it but maybe mystified if I know that much of their taste coincides with mine. Many people think it self-evident that this or that contemporary music is ugly and that anyone who claims not to find it so must be a poseur. They cannot seem to understand that some people genuinely do not find the ugliness that they find. I don't mind so much - although obviously having ones motives misunderstood and misrepresented, and not being believed, can be very frustrating - but I do find it a mystery why they _need _(that is how it seems) to do that.


----------



## Enthusiast

Eusebius12 said:


> So who determines that no one has a right to deride?


I guess derision of something we hate is fair enough. But when it becomes obsessive and repetitive it is hard not to think that a course of psychotherapy is called for!


----------



## arpeggio

Eusebius12 said:


> I have heard much worse, yes the music isn't great but it seems fairly typical of the wind band genre, as I look back through youtube it may have had origins in big band music. Yes it is extremely conventional. But you do realize that you are deriding it. Just to be clear.


No I am not and you know it. I am sick of members constantly trying to accuse me of something I am not simply because my experiences do not go along with theirs. I have learned over the years to respect other peoples tastes even when they clash with my own. If I really had the derisive attitude that you are trying to prove I have I would have been kicked out of all the groups that I play with years ago. I have been trained to perform and respect all of the music that has been put in front of me, even the above. Most musicians are.

We have a bassoon player with our orchestra who was constantly deriding music he disliked. He just wanted to play real music, whatever that means. The director and I pulled him aside and told him we performed all sorts of music. If he could not deal with that he could leave. He immediately changed his attitude.

If members want to deride all of the music they consider inferior what can I say? Even as an amateur I do not have that luxury. I am obligated to do my best no matter what is put on the music stand. If I want to play I can not afford to be derisive.

I do not know what else I can say.


----------



## Eusebius12

Woodduck said:


> Well, that's right generous of you.  And I'll go out on a different limb and concede that Mozart's were the greatest of all those composed to libretti by Da Ponte and Schikaneder.


Yes that's the spirit! So obviously you have no time for Salieri.....


----------



## Eusebius12

arpeggio said:


> No I am not and you know it. I am sick of members constantly trying to accuse me of something I am not simply because my experiences do not go along with theirs. I have learned over the years to respect other peoples tastes even when they clash with my own. If I really had the derisive attitude that you are trying to prove I have I would have been kicked out of all the groups that I play with years ago. I have been trained to perform and respect all of the music that has been put in front of me, even the above. Most musicians are.
> 
> We have a bassoon player with our orchestra who was constantly deriding music he disliked. He just wanted to play real music, whatever that means. The director and I pulled him aside and told him we performed all sorts of music. If he could not deal with that he could leave. He immediately changed his attitude.
> 
> If members want to deride all of the music they consider inferior what can I say? Even as an amateur I do not have that luxury. I am obligated to do my best no matter what is put on the music stand. If I want to play I can not afford to be derisive.
> 
> I do not know what else I can say.


You say:

"one of the worst pieces of junk I have ever had to play in my life"
"This particular arrangement is full of one musical cliché after another. In parts it sounds like a bad circus march"
"we got a standing ovation after performing this cr*p"

And you are seemingly offended that I call this derision? Boy, don't hold back. I'd like to hear how you describe music you _actually_ feel derisive towards.

Sometimes my most pointed invective is towards highly respected pieces by highly respected composers, which flop or which don't succeed as well as I expect. A case in point: the Brahms violin concerto. Well constructed, with some good ideas, but it doesn't take me anywhere. As Tchaikovsky said, all pedestal and no statue.


----------



## Luchesi

Eusebius12 said:


> They reinforce and encourage each other. To their faces


Well, I'd like to know what posters really think of each other in here. I guess we'll never know..

We could take a poll to choose who is the best poster.

Who offers the posts which more people want to read?

Who enters posts which avoid the same-old same-old we've heard time and time again?

Original material? Helpful points and recommendations?


----------



## Eusebius12

Luchesi said:


> Well, I'd like to know what posters really think of each other in here. I guess we'll never know..
> 
> We could take a poll to choose who is the best poster.
> 
> Who offers the posts which more people want to read?
> 
> Who enters posts which avoid the same-old same-old we've heard time and time again?
> 
> Original material? Helpful points and recommendations?


And the winner is: (drum roll)

YOU! Or should I say, du

Du meine seele, du mein herz, du meine wonn, O du mein schmerz


----------



## Luchesi

Eusebius12 said:


> And the winner is: (drum roll)
> 
> YOU! Or should I say, du
> 
> Du meine seele, du mein herz, du meine wonn, O du mein schmerz


Ok, I feel better now.

Everyone might say they're the best. Otherwise why would they post?

As Hepburn would say, "Thank you my dear, Robert."

here's a Schumann movie I haven't seen. 104 minutes


----------



## Woodduck

Eusebius12 said:


> And the winner is: (drum roll)
> 
> YOU! Or should I say, du
> 
> Du meine seele, du mein herz, du meine wonn, O du mein schmerz


Or, on a more gemutlich note, Duidu, Duidu, la la la la la la.


----------



## Eusebius12

Luchesi said:


> Ok, I feel better now.
> 
> Everyone might say they're the best. Otherwise why would they post?
> 
> As Hepburn would say, "Thank you my dear, Robert."
> 
> here's a Schumann movie I haven't seen. 104 minutes


I'm assuming you've seen this one:




(as well as the Katherine Hepburn one, which wasn't THAT bad really)


----------



## Eusebius12

Woodduck said:


> Or, on a more gemutlich note, Duidu, Duidu, la la la la la la.


----------



## Larkenfield

To really loathe and deride something, one usually has to have some investment of time to build up an intensely negative reaction. And yet it usually takes only a brief moment of exposure to know whether something was meant for a person or not and to move on to something else.


----------



## Luchesi

Eusebius12 said:


> I'm assuming you've seen this one:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (as well as the Katherine Hepburn one, which wasn't THAT bad really)


Yes, the material from the Schumann/Clara/Brahms/Wieck/Liszt/Chopin lives is irresistible for the movies. It has a stern father, passion, self-inflicted injury, many children, misunderstood struggling genius, ideal wife, fidelity/infidelity, suicide attempt, a tragic end - then an uplifting legacy. So much material!


----------



## Luchesi

Larkenfield said:


> To really loathe and deride something, one usually has to have some investment of time to build up an intensely negative reaction. And yet it usually takes only a brief moment of exposure to know whether something was meant for a person or not and to move on to something else.


Do you know anyone like that off line?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Eusebius12 said:


> This mind bending repetitiveness is de rigueur in rap. I think you are looking at the wrong form if you want something without it. Same with techno and house and trance and all 'synth' music (and minimalist composers quite often, as inherent to the genre). I can live with that, but when they add stupid lyrics and have no tunes worthy of the name, it makes me somewhat apoplectic.


Since I'm sure I've heard a tiny portion of all the rap (and techno, house, trance, synth, etc.) music out there, I try to avoid making any sweeping generalizations; all I can do is limit it to what little I've heard, knowing full well there are likely examples that counter my complaints. Still, even in the "repetitive" types I'm sure it's meant to put the focus on the actual rapping that many find appealing.



Eusebius12 said:


> True, but we classical 'aficionados' at least tell ourselves that the composer is more important. For the most part, in my case I think that holds true. It is also true that in more popular art forms the least talented, empty vessels are praised far beyond their abilities. I hate to drag the name Justin Bieber into this, but it fits so I will.


I'd say it's the same with 'aficionados' of film and even pop music that they pay more attention to the creators rather than performers; it's just that the vast majority of film/music fans aren't aficionados so the performers get all the mainstream praise and attention. Still, I can appreciate talented performers, and some--even if they never write a lick of their own music--are hugely talented. Bieber maybe not so much, but Bruno Mars? Yeah.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Larkenfield said:


> To really loathe and deride something, one usually has to have some investment of time to build up an intensely negative reaction. And yet it usually takes only a brief moment of exposure to know whether something was meant for a person or not and to move on to something else.


I've generally found the reverse to be true: that those who are most derisive of something are those with the LEAST experience with or time invested in that something.


----------



## JAS

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I've generally found the reverse to be true: that those who are most derisive of something are those with the LEAST experience with or time invested in that something.


There may be something of a self-fulfilling prophecy in this observation. Those who most appreciate something are inherently likely to spend the most time and experience investing in that something. Why would or should someone who has a strong negative reaction to something willingly spend a great deal more time and effort getting more of the same? It would be a mistake to presume a cause and effect as your post suggests.


----------



## arpeggio

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I've generally found the reverse to be true: that those who are most derisive of something are those with the LEAST experience with or time invested in that something.


This is an observations many of us have been making for years.

Although I think I know where Larkenfield is coming from. I have run into people like he is describing on some of the orchestra boards I have worked with.


----------



## Larkenfield

arpeggio said:


> This is an observation many of us have been making for years.
> 
> Although I think I know where Larkenfield is coming from. I have run into people like he is describing on some of the orchestra boards I have worked with.


Thank you. Those who deride hip-hop, for example, aren't likely to deride it less through more exposure, though I personally think there's more to the music than meets the eye if one is interested in having a better understanding of black culture. But I can understand Eva's point of view. Perhaps it's closer to the truth to say that people are going to deride something if they have an instinctively powerful and instantaneous reaction against it whether it's from long or short term exposure - it doesn't matter the length of time, and maybe that's the danger of it for things that really matter, or one is constantly in an intensely negative reaction to just about everything... It eats up time that could be spent elsewhere on something more agreeable and joyful.


----------



## Strange Magic

> Larkenfield: "it eats up time that could be spent elsewhere on something more constructive and joyful."


Excellent, accurate, wise observation! :tiphat:


----------



## Luchesi

Larkenfield: "it eats up time that could be spent elsewhere on something more constructive and joyful."

Excellent, accurate, wise observation! 

---------------

There's so much good music out there. How many lifetimes are needed? We need an approach that saves time and is not haphazard and indirect, IMO.

I say 'we', but I really mean I need it. 

I've met music lovers who don't need a consistent approach. They're very happy I must say, at least from what I can see, and during the short time I've been around them. Is it a reliable sample? You'll probably say yes (or you'll say you only speak for yourself).


----------



## Luchesi

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Since I'm sure I've heard a tiny portion of all the rap (and techno, house, trance, synth, etc.) music out there, I try to avoid making any sweeping generalizations; all I can do is limit it to what little I've heard, knowing full well there are likely examples that counter my complaints. Still, even in the "repetitive" types I'm sure it's meant to put the focus on the actual rapping that many find appealing.
> 
> I'd say it's the same with 'aficionados' of film and even pop music that they pay more attention to the creators rather than performers; it's just that the vast majority of film/music fans aren't aficionados so the performers get all the mainstream praise and attention. Still, I can appreciate talented performers, and some--even if they never write a lick of their own music--are hugely talented. Bieber maybe not so much, but Bruno Mars? Yeah.


What is so lacking in Bieber's performances and recordings? I hear this all the time. Among others, is he obviously clumsy, amateurish and ineffectual as a pop star and I can't see it?


----------



## eljr

It is my observation that the bottom line is that we have a couple posters here who love to deride music...


----------



## arpeggio

Some of us feel there is a difference between disliking something and deriding it. I failed miserably when I tried to explain it.


----------



## Eusebius12

Larkenfield said:


> To really loathe and deride something, one usually has to have some investment of time to build up an intensely negative reaction. And yet it usually takes only a brief moment of exposure to know whether something was meant for a person or not and to move on to something else.


Probably. The old 'Eine Kleine-4 Season effect'. Or perhaps one has an immediately visceral reaction to something. But as I always say (well, not _always_), one cannot no what is good until one knows how to identify what is bad.


----------



## Eusebius12

Luchesi said:


> What is so lacking in Bieber's performances and recordings? I hear this all the time. Among others, is he obviously clumsy, amateurish and ineffectual as a pop star and I can't see it?


His voice lacks timbre, he has remained like a 16 year old girl his whole career.
The songs chosen for him and that he has written, purportedly (although this is questioned) as so drippy, so vapid, it almost makes me feel ill. Drippy uber conventional lyrics/sounds ugly dance moves + being wildly overrated by the brainless and monied invokes derision.


----------



## Eusebius12

arpeggio said:


> Some of us feel there is a difference between disliking something and deriding it. I failed miserably when I tried to explain it.


Is there something in my posts in your view that goes beyond merely disliking some things and morphs into actively deriding things?


----------



## Guest

Whether there is music to deride is one thing. Isn't it more a question of whether it is OK to deride? Rap seems to some to be fair game, but I fail to see how it is OK to deride it. Dislike it, criticise it...but to ridicule seems...hurtful.


----------



## Woodduck

The simple solution to any problems raised by this thread is: tact.


----------



## arpeggio

MacLeod said:


> Whether there is music to deride is one thing. Isn't it more a question of whether it is OK to deride? Rap seems to some to be fair game, but I fail to see how it is OK to deride it. Dislike it, criticise it...but to ridicule seems...hurtful.


This is the point I was trying to make earlier (I have been trying to make for years). I provided an example of what many would consider a bad arrangement earlier in this thread. In spite of its flaws, when I performed it, there were members of the audience who liked it. In this forum deriding is standard operating procedure. But as a musician, amateur or professional, one has to be really careful of deriding or being too critical. Sometimes a musician has to keep his opinions to himself. I was just trying to describe a situation where deriding music may be a bad idea.


----------



## Strange Magic

Deriding certain music is uninteresting and wearisome. It's akin to a child having a tantrum. With a certain sense of detachment, I used to feel I was throwing a tantrum myself back in the day. I save my tantrums for politics.


----------



## Luchesi

Eusebius12 said:


> His voice lacks timbre, he has remained like a 16 year old girl his whole career.
> The songs chosen for him and that he has written, purportedly (although this is questioned) as so drippy, so vapid, it almost makes me feel ill. Drippy uber conventional lyrics/sounds ugly dance moves + being wildly overrated by the brainless and monied invokes derision.


Compared to others? I don't know. I don't pay that much attention, but it seems to be "a distinction without a difference". That was my initial point, but I can readily see how annoying he is to other than his target audience, and all the money he makes from his zaniness.

They all have to be annoying to be 'cool'. Look at KISS. Gene Simmons net worth 300 million

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/...rock-roll-tongues-75937/debbie-harry-2-38135/


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> Deriding certain music is uninteresting and wearisome. It's akin to a child having a tantrum. With a certain sense of detachment, I used to feel I was throwing a tantrum myself back in the day. I save my tantrums for politics.


I'm afraid to have political tantrums these days. I fear a total loss of control, a massive stroke, and, worst of all, an inability to post on TC more than five times a day.


----------



## Eusebius12

Woodduck said:


> I'm afraid to have political tantrums these days. I fear a total loss of control, a massive stroke, and, worst of all, an inability to post on TC more than five times a day.


A lot of political posturing is pretty empty, much better speculating on the dead Mozart's compositional abilities


----------



## eljr

Eusebius12 said:


> Is there something in my posts in your view that goes beyond merely disliking some things and morphs into actively deriding things?


LOL, yeah, the words you use!


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

JAS said:


> There may be something of a self-fulfilling prophecy in this observation. Those who most appreciate something are inherently likely to spend the most time and experience investing in that something. Why would or should someone who has a strong negative reaction to something willingly spend a great deal more time and effort getting more of the same? It would be a mistake to presume a cause and effect as your post suggests.


I wasn't presuming cause and effect at all. In fact, I was presuming exactly what you say here: that those who appreciate something will usually spend more time with it, and those who dislike something will usually attempt to avoid it.

One of the problems I see with derision based on such limited experience is that people have a tendency to make hasty generalizations, to think that entire genres--which are often quite varied and diverse--are like the few samples they've heard. This is why I don't like derision as a policy in general, because it begins with the (often false) assumption that one can accurately generalize from their limited experience.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Luchesi said:


> What is so lacking in Bieber's performances and recordings? I hear this all the time. Among others, is he obviously clumsy, amateurish and ineffectual as a pop star and I can't see it?


Other than his looks, I don't see anything that makes Bieber stand out from an average kid that might do some amateur talent nights at local clubs (which makes sense given he started out on YouTube). His voice is extremely limited, with a weak tone and no power. His dancing is rather clumsy and clearly looks like someone who just rehearsed some simple choreography until he could get it down "good enough." I mentioned Bruno Mars as an alternative earlier, so just compare this: 





With this (Starts at 0:50): 





I can't imagine Bieber ever pulling off anything close to the latter.


----------



## JAS

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I wasn't presuming cause and effect at all. In fact, I was presuming exactly what you say here: that those who appreciate something will usually spend more time with it, and those who dislike something will usually attempt to avoid it.


Your statement can be read with both meanings. Please read mine, then, as clarification rather than disagreement.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

JAS said:


> Your statement can be read with both meanings. Please read mine, then, as clarification rather than disagreement.


Duly noted. 

(and here's some filler words)


----------



## Luchesi

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Other than his looks, I don't see anything that makes Bieber stand out from an average kid that might do some amateur talent nights at local clubs (which makes sense given he started out on YouTube). His voice is extremely limited, with a weak tone and no power. His dancing is rather clumsy and clearly looks like someone who just rehearsed some simple choreography until he could get it down "good enough." I mentioned Bruno Mars as an alternative earlier, so just compare this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With this (Starts at 0:50):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't imagine Bieber ever pulling off anything close to the latter.


That's a good point as far as it goes. I don't want to insult anyone's taste here or step on anyone's toes, but when I look at the new crops of pop performers I can't help but see them as a pale combination and routine ol' amalgam of past great performers who have either gotten too old or have died. Elvis, Jackie Wilson, James Brown, Michael Jackson (others I'm forgetting) they all did at least one or two things so well and so attractively that they were just amazing! Their singing or dancing or their attitude/style and/or the material they chose. Performers today want to use all those, but nowhere near as captivatingly.

It might just be there's nothing new to be done (without going beyond the ridiculous?).

Obviously I'm not their target audience, but to be honest I can't help but share that today the dancing is boring, the music is boring, the fashions are boring, the huge productions are boring. Sex is ever interesting and sex sells.

Where is the artistic sincerity? It doesn't seem to be communicated anymore. This last decade reminds me of what Donny Osmond and the Osmonds tried to do (they made money but they were extremely forgettable);


----------



## Larkenfield

Bieber is the kid-next-door who made it big, became famous through the Internet, and is fiercely independent, which many of his fans admire. I do not hear a terrible voice, or a weak, high or poor one. It’s a pop one. He can sing, IMO, and one can hear the inflections in his voice, and his choice of lyrics about everyday life have meaning to his followers. But how many in the older generation can understand the ones in the younger? I think people forget that they were young once and not necessarily interested in high art at the beginning. Since becoming famous, Bieber has had all kinds of turbulence in his life, run-ins with the law, fights, the Selena Gomez break-up, and other disasters. And the really interesting thing to me is, is that he has forgiving fans who want him to be happy like they want themselves to be happy. So they identify with him... I can’t believe I’m writing on Justin Bieber, but I’m enjoying it though he is not on my listening list. I think it’s possible to get older in life and the vibrant freedom of spirit can shrink and diminish with too much judgment, derision, and criticism of life if it isn’t cared for. It’s only the body that ages, not the spirit, at least potentially, and the young will have their day like we did.


----------



## eugeneonagain

I know who he is, but I've still never heard anything from Justin Bieber. Are his string quartets any good?


----------



## jdec

eugeneonagain said:


> I know who he is, but I've still never heard anything from Justin Bieber. Are his string quartets any good?


Don't know, but his Rosary Sonatas are quite good.


----------



## eugeneonagain

I expect Valentina Lisitsa to upload them to youtube any day now.


----------



## Luchesi

Larkenfield said:


> Bieber is the kid next-door who made it big, became famous, through the Internet and is fiercely independent, which many of his fans admire. I do not hear a terrible voice at all, or a weak, high or poor one. It's a pop one. He can sing, IMO, and one can hear the inflections in his voice, and his choice of lyrics about every day life have meaning to his followers. But how many in the older generation can understand the ones in the younger? I think people forget that they were young once and not necessarily interested in high art at the beginning. Since becoming famous, Bieber has had all kinds of turbulence in his life, run-ins with the law, fights, the Selena Gomez break-up and other disasters. And the really interesting thing to me is, is that he has forgiving fans who want him to be happy like they want themselves to be happy. So they identify with him... I can't believe I'm writing on Justin Bieber, but I'm enjoying it though he is not on my listening list. I think it's possible to get older in life and the vibrant freedom of spirit can shrink and diminish with too much judgment, derision, and criticism of life if it isn't cared for. It's only the body that ages, not the spirit, at least potentially, and the young will have their day like we did.


Thanks Lark. I was thinking exactly THAT when I was writing my post. I think everybody remembers being young and wanting the entertainment and the excitement -- not being ready for high art, as you put it. Or at least compartmentalizing our listening in those years, quite comfortably, and quite strictly, between the serious and the less than serious.

That was in the back of my mind when I was writing, but then, in HERE we care about the future of the classical, and the fullness of life that can be so easily missed because of a few detours or missteps or bad luck, or just plain no exposure, no opportunity. This to me is a much more important issue than whether or not we can clearly remember what it was like to be young and watching the frivolousness (as we look back now).

If someone older had told me - you must stop with this light stuff and become more serious for your middle-age and your golden years - I wouldn't have listened. So what does it really matter what we say? …because Life is something that must be experienced. I consider myself very lucky to have quite accidentally to have a life in music -- but I'm probably very unlucky in ways that I don't know about, for example in following spectator sports, or most of what's on TV or hot cars racing around a track..

That ending clip in one of the episodes of the StarGate series;

The Nox have extended lifespans, one of them is 800 years old. The Colonel says,"The very young do not always do as they're told.", ..it's a little something the Nox told me one time..


----------



## Eusebius12

Larkenfield said:


> ... I can't believe I'm writing on Justin Bieber,


Yes, I am amazed that you are writing an encomium, or at least an apologia, for Bieber, I respect your eclecticism whilst encouraging you, when properly prepared, to subject yourself to Bieber's 'Baby'...what an excrescence that is


----------



## Eusebius12

eugeneonagain said:


> I expect Valentina Lisitsa to upload them to youtube any day now.


She learning the violin? And scordatura as well? I knew she was good..


----------



## KenOC

I'm sure Mr. Bieber can withstand our derision quite nicely. If he's upset, he can go home and have a drink. In fact, here's his home. One of them, anyway.


----------



## Eusebius12

KenOC said:


> I'm sure Mr. Bieber can withstand our derision quite nicely. If he's upset, he can go home and have a drink. In fact, here's his home. One of them, anyway.


Is he crying all the way to the bank?


----------



## Strange Magic

The time and effort and thought that people on TC spend on Justin Bieberr: quite remarkable, really.. If there were no Justin Bieber, he would have been invented...... That time better spent discussing 4:33.


----------



## Fredx2098

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Since I'm sure I've heard a tiny portion of all the rap (and techno, house, trance, synth, etc.) music out there, I try to avoid making any sweeping generalizations; all I can do is limit it to what little I've heard, knowing full well there are likely examples that counter my complaints. Still, even in the "repetitive" types I'm sure it's meant to put the focus on the actual rapping that many find appealing.


I don't think that a repetitive beat is meant to shift focus to the rapping. It provides counterpoint to the rapping which emphasizes the rhythms of both the rap and the beat, and if you don't like the sound of rapping then you're not going to like either part. Ignoring the rap and judging the beat alone is ridiculous because the rap is part of the music, not just someone talking over music. Similarly with house, techno, etc., the repetitive beat is counterpoint to the melodies and basslines. Maybe I'll give some house, techno, and trance examples:

Techno:

My favorite group, Basic Channel, the "old masters" of "minimal dub techno", here's my favorite track (favorite techno track of all time), a long one that requires a subwoofer or headphones: 




Here's another one by them, shorter and easier to take in: 




House:

Basic Channel made some house tracks under a different name, here's a classic: 




Classic house track: 




I'm confused what genre this is, but I usually see it labeled as house, but this is an old mega classic: 




Trance:

Another crazy classic: 




I'm a big fan of minimalism and repetition. It doesn't show a lack of talent or creativity.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Bieber's house looks like a weather station. I was going to complain that with all that glass the neighbours would see in, but of course he probably doesn't have any neighbours.


----------



## DeepR

For some reason, the word "deride" wasn't part of my English vocabulary, please don't deride me for it.
Anyway, I learned something from this thread, thanks! :tiphat:


----------



## Eusebius12

eugeneonagain said:


> Bieber's house looks like a weather station. I was going to complain that with all that glass the neighbours would see in, but of course he probably doesn't have any neighbours.


I was thinking it looked like a reservoir or a water tower.


----------



## Eusebius12

What, 6 posts in a thread that almost (to paraphrase Mahler) must encompass the world?


----------



## Luchesi

Eusebius12 said:


> Is he crying all the way to the bank?


Now he has to remain relevant and popular until he's 50, just to pay the bills and the security people.

I'm not bitter! lol

Read what happened to Robin Williams


----------



## JAS

Luchesi said:


> Read what happened to Robin Williams


In Robin Williams' case, he also began to show signs of an untreatable disability (particularly tragic for a comedian so dependent on physicality and quick wits). The results would have been even more devastating than Beethoven losing his hearing (for which he somehow managed to keep going).

I often hear about the complaints of being rich. I would like to prove that having lots of money would not ruin me, but so far no one has been willing to fund the project. (Fame, on the other hand, I really do not think I would want at all.)


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Luchesi said:


> That's a good point as far as it goes. I don't want to insult anyone's taste here or step on anyone's toes, but when I look at the new crops of pop performers I can't help but see them as a pale combination and routine ol' amalgam of past great performers who have either gotten too old or have died. Elvis, Jackie Wilson, James Brown, Michael Jackson (others I'm forgetting) they all did at least one or two things so well and so attractively that they were just amazing! Their singing or dancing or their attitude/style and/or the material they chose. Performers today want to use all those, but nowhere near as captivatingly.
> 
> It might just be there's nothing new to be done (without going beyond the ridiculous?).
> 
> Obviously I'm not their target audience, but to be honest I can't help but share that today the dancing is boring, the music is boring, the fashions are boring, the huge productions are boring. Sex is ever interesting and sex sells.
> 
> Where is the artistic sincerity? It doesn't seem to be communicated anymore. This last decade reminds me of what Donny Osmond and the Osmonds tried to do (they made money but they were extremely forgettable);


When you're talking about James Brown and Michael Jackson you're talking about the two greatest performances of the last half-century, and in Brown one of its key musical innovators; it would be like comparing all composers to Mozart and Beethoven and finding them lacking. It's an impossible standard for most to reach. Of course, Jackson worshiped at the altar of James Brown, and Mars has clearly studied both of the masters; so, yes, he's an amalgam of their talents, but he is certainly not embarrassed by being mentioned in their company. A "pale" amalgamation? I don't see that. I grew up on Brown, Jackson, Wilson, et al. and I don't find Mars a "pale" amalgam at all, and neither did my mother who's far more set in her musical ways than I am and a real devotee of Jackson and the old Motown masters. If you find that performance boring and not captivating, then I can't imagine you finding much anything in modern pop music appealing.

If we're talking about artistic sincerity then I think we're talking about a different thing than mainstream pop music performers, though there may be some examples if you look slightly left-of-field of the mainstream (Radiohead and Bjork spring to mind). Pop music has always been about entertainment, and rarely "artistic sincerity" might sneak in, but it's the exception rather than the rule. I don't think the aforementioned Brown and Jackson are any different in this respect, though Brown gets credit for innovating funk and soul, but he was an entertainer first and foremost.


----------



## Haydn70

Discussing/comparing the merits and weaknesses of creators and performers of popular/commercial music...like discussing/comparing the merits and weaknesses of Burger King vs. Wendy's vs. McDonald's vs. Carl's Jr, etc....too funny.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Fredx2098 said:


> I don't think that a repetitive beat is meant to shift focus to the rapping. It provides counterpoint to the rapping which emphasizes the rhythms of both the rap and the beat, and if you don't like the sound of rapping then you're not going to like either part. Ignoring the rap and judging the beat alone is ridiculous because the rap is part of the music, not just someone talking over music. Similarly with house, techno, etc., the repetitive beat is counterpoint to the melodies and basslines. Maybe I'll give some house, techno, and trance examples:
> 
> ...
> 
> I'm a big fan of minimalism and repetition. It doesn't show a lack of talent or creativity.


I don't think "counterpoint" is the word to use because it's not melodic, it's rhythmic. It's entire purpose is to provide a rhythmic ground upon which the equally rhythmic rapping works, but the focus is still clearly meant to be on the rapping since nobody would listen to the beat alone.

It's not that I dislike the sound of rapping, it's that I don't like it well enough to listen to a piece when that's really the prime (or only) source of interest. I think it's ridiculous to state that you can't judge the beat alone; we judge the individual "parts" in music all the time, even when they're all meant to work together. I never said the rap wasn't part of the music, I said that the beat is usually boring and repetitive (to me) and I don't like rapping well enough for it to make up for it.

I never said minimalism and repetition showed a lack of talent or creativity, merely that it (at least in these contexts) doesn't appeal to me. I even gave an example of a rap song that did have more interesting music behind the rapping, so I'm sure there's more out there like that. I'll try to give those electronic pieces a listen when I have more time.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

ArsMusica said:


> Discussing/comparing the merits and weaknesses of creators and performers of popular/commercial music...like discussing/comparing the merits and weaknesses of Burger King vs. Wendy's vs. McDonald's vs. Carl's Jr, etc....too funny.


Better take care that your nose doesn't get clipped by any low-flying birds.


----------



## Fredx2098

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I don't think "counterpoint" is the word to use because it's not melodic, it's rhythmic. It's entire purpose is to provide a rhythmic ground upon which the equally rhythmic rapping works, but the focus is still clearly meant to be on the rapping since nobody would listen to the beat alone.
> 
> It's not that I dislike the sound of rapping, it's that I don't like it well enough to listen to a piece when that's really the prime (or only) source of interest. I think it's ridiculous to state that you can't judge the beat alone; we judge the individual "parts" in music all the time, even when they're all meant to work together. I never said the rap wasn't part of the music, I said that the beat is usually boring and repetitive (to me) and I don't like rapping well enough for it to make up for it.
> 
> I never said minimalism and repetition showed a lack of talent or creativity, merely that it (at least in these contexts) doesn't appeal to me. I even gave an example of a rap song that did have more interesting music behind the rapping, so I'm sure there's more out there like that. I'll try to give those electronic pieces a listen when I have more time.


Syncopation then? I really don't think the rapping is the prime source of interest in the tracks I sent. I've mentioned elsewhere on the forum, I don't put a lot of weight on the lyrics of any kind of music to decide if I like it. With rap, I enjoy the beat and the rhythm of the rapping. I appreciate lyrics when they use complicated words to rhyme and make cool rhythms, but the content of the words is secondary. It is possible to judge the beat alone, but that's not a proper judgment of the whole musical idea. When I like a rap song, I like the beat itself as well as the whole product, even if it's repetitive.


----------



## Luchesi

Eva Yojimbo said:


> When you're talking about James Brown and Michael Jackson you're talking about the two greatest performances of the last half-century, and in Brown one of its key musical innovators; it would be like comparing all composers to Mozart and Beethoven and finding them lacking. It's an impossible standard for most to reach. Of course, Jackson worshiped at the altar of James Brown, and Mars has clearly studied both of the masters; so, yes, he's an amalgam of their talents, but he is certainly not embarrassed by being mentioned in their company. A "pale" amalgamation? I don't see that. I grew up on Brown, Jackson, Wilson, et al. and I don't find Mars a "pale" amalgam at all, and neither did my mother who's far more set in her musical ways than I am and a real devotee of Jackson and the old Motown masters. If you find that performance boring and not captivating, then I can't imagine you finding much anything in modern pop music appealing.
> 
> If we're talking about artistic sincerity then I think we're talking about a different thing than mainstream pop music performers, though there may be some examples if you look slightly left-of-field of the mainstream (Radiohead and Bjork spring to mind). Pop music has always been about entertainment, and rarely "artistic sincerity" might sneak in, but it's the exception rather than the rule. I don't think the aforementioned Brown and Jackson are any different in this respect, though Brown gets credit for innovating funk and soul, but he was an entertainer first and foremost.


Okay I'll have to give Bruno Mars another listen. And I have a confession to make. I intentionally didn't follow his career because I was afraid I might like his act. He was so young it was intriguing. I was afraid I would be spending a lot of time - like what happened with me and the Celine Dion duets.. Very weird, I know this sounds weird.

I'm quite selfish with my time. I have to practice a lot and then there's all the other different demands in my science career so when a new act comes onto the horizon and everybody raves about it (ELO, Ronstadt, Eagles, Aerosmith, Nirvana) I'm very cautious with my time.


----------



## Luchesi

Poor Robin had to make a lot of movies and continue with standup because he had so many bills to pay. And then he learned about his illness, it became a race against time. 

The alimony to his wives was very high because he was such a nice guy (full of guilty feelings) in the proceedings from what I've read.. Of course we can never know the whole story.


----------



## Strange Magic

Luchesi said:


> I'm quite selfish with my time. I have to practice a lot and then there's all the other different demands in my science career so when a new act comes onto the horizon and everybody raves about it (ELO, Ronstadt, Eagles, Aerosmith, Nirvana) I'm very cautious with my time.


Let it be noted that I have made no remark regarding this quote.


----------



## Luchesi

Fredx2098 said:


> Syncopation then? I really don't think the rapping is the prime source of interest in the tracks I sent. I've mentioned elsewhere on the forum, I don't put a lot of weight on the lyrics of any kind of music to decide if I like it. With rap, I enjoy the beat and the rhythm of the rapping. I appreciate lyrics when they use complicated words to rhyme and make cool rhythms, but the content of the words is secondary. It is possible to judge the beat alone, but that's not a proper judgment of the whole musical idea. When I like a rap song, I like the beat itself as well as the whole product, even if it's repetitive.


I'm curious to ask you if you think Rap will have a longer lifespan than all the other recent subcategories, Disco, Punk, Glam, Grunge, precisely because it isn't just music?


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> Let it be noted that I have made no remark regarding this quote.


you too, huh?

Oh, you're just being selfish.. har


----------



## eugeneonagain

Luchesi said:


> I'm curious to ask you if you think Rap will have a longer lifespan than all the other recent subcategories, Disco, Punk, Glam, Grunge, precisely because it isn't just music?


You know I'm going to have to say yes. It has a history, a cultural history attached to it. It has big names and classic work. So maybe not longer, but just as long. It's certainly more ingrained in culture than 'grunge' which is more a subculture than rap/hip-hop.

I don't much like the modern strains of rap/hip-hop, but from its inception in the late '70s to the early '90s it was good.


----------



## Luchesi

eugeneonagain said:


> You know I'm going to have to say yes. It has a history, a cultural history attached to it. It has big names and classic work. So maybe not longer, but just as long. It's certainly more ingrained in culture than 'grunge' which is more a subculture than rap/hip-hop.
> 
> I don't much like the modern strains of rap/hip-hop, but from its inception in the late '70s to the early '90s it was good.


Imagine being a Black parent or grandparent raised on 40s and 50s and 60s jazz.


----------



## Haydn70

And to respond to the thread topic: yes, it is more than OK to deride certain types of music...such as rap, which just one of many genres worth derision.


----------



## philoctetes

How do we measure the lifespan of a genre? 

I would agree that rap has been around for almost a century or more... "the pump don't work cause the vandals took the handle" was rap. Early 20th century opera had a lot speech-singing.. Leadbelly could rap. We could include recitatives etc from operas, religious works, monastic chant...

Before music, there was rap...


----------



## eugeneonagain

Luchesi said:


> Imagine being a Black parent or grandparent raised on 40s and 50s and 60s jazz.


I don't see how that is relevant. All parents are suspicious of the younger-generation's musical tastes. In fact though the openness to hip-hop among the older generation of African-Americans is notable. Quincy Jones, no jazz slouch himself, took it up.


----------



## Fredx2098

Luchesi said:


> I'm curious to ask you if you think Rap will have a longer lifespan than all the other recent subcategories, Disco, Punk, Glam, Grunge, precisely because it isn't just music?


What do you mean "it isn't just music"? I do think it's "just music".

Hip hop has been around almost 40 years. There are many styles that continue to evolve. The vapid pop rap is just one style.

Disco evolved into techno and house, so in a way it is still around.

Punk has been strong since the beginning, and it only keeps getting better in my opinion. It has evolved into actually aggressive forms of music that are flourishing in the "underground" and are not accessible to a wide audience. Post-hardcore is my favorite kind of rock music and one of my favorite types of music overall.

"Glam" seems more like a fad in the first place. Same with grunge, but that lives on in noise rock and alt rock.

The problem with "popular" music (this time I am referring to all non-classical music) now is that the most popular and universally known acts are the worst, because they intentionally try to appeal to as wide an audience as possible, making a bland generic product, but if someone has an interest in finding good music, it is out there. Genres are getting more and more refined and there are more and more bands to choose from, so the good acts who aren't advertised and commercialized will never be universally known.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Fredx2098 said:


> What do you mean "it isn't just music"? I do think it's "just music".
> Disco evolved into techno and house, so in a way it is still around.


This is not quite right. Chicago house, arguably the kernel of house music, was a reaction to disco and deliberately pared everything down. It's like a sort of minimalist reaction to the lush romanticism disco became.


----------



## Fredx2098

eugeneonagain said:


> This is not quite right. Chicago house, arguably the kernel of house music, was a reaction to disco and deliberately pared everything down. It's like a sort of minimalist reaction to the lush romanticism disco became.


It took ideas from disco and was inspired by it. I didn't mean that it's a subgenre.

One thing I find funny is that people nowadays make fun of disco relentlessly, then turn around and listen to the latest pop. I definitely prefer disco over modern pop.


----------



## Eusebius12

Luchesi said:


> I'm curious to ask you if you think Rap will have a longer lifespan than all the other recent subcategories, Disco, Punk, Glam, Grunge, precisely because it isn't just music?


Rap has been around for a long time and doesn't look like going away anytime soon, and won't disappear until there is no more market for it. The mindset that is receptive to the basest kinds of rap seems if anything to be more entrenched. But like Facebook, no cultural castle is impregnable. What might replace it as the 'big thing' is anyone's guess.


----------



## Eusebius12

Luchesi said:


> Imagine being a Black parent or grandparent raised on 40s and 50s and 60s jazz.


And jazz as an art form is if not dead needing a certain amount of artistic CPR. The patient probably has tubes sticking out of him as well.


----------



## Luchesi

eugeneonagain said:


> I don't see how that is relevant. All parents are suspicious of the younger-generation's musical tastes. In fact though the openness to hip-hop among the older generation of African-Americans is notable. Quincy Jones, no jazz slouch himself, took it up.


The harmony of jazz developed up through the decades and it can be studied today. It's very interesting to study.

The harmony of rock/pop songs developed up through the decades and it can be studied too. Rockabilly and the Beatles to all the sounds of recent decades.

The enthusiasts of those decades, the parents and grandparents, couldn't help but to be educated in terms of harmony by what they were listening to as it grew.

I'm talking about the music and not the verbal messages if there were any.

What can we say about Rap? Development of harmony? Other logical developments? I don't know.


----------



## Fredx2098

At its core, hip hop is about rhythm, poetry, and syncopation. The popular forms of all music are always dumbed down. To understand the different forms of music you need to be immersed in the style, like classical music. Hearing pop rap and saying all rap is bad is like someone seeing an opera and saying all classical music is bad.

Perhaps a better analogy is listening to a symphonic superhero movie soundtrack and saying all classical music is bad.


----------



## Luchesi

Fredx2098 said:


> At its core, hip hop is about rhythm, poetry, and syncopation. The popular forms of all music are always dumbed down. To understand the different forms of music you need to be immersed in the style, like classical music. Hearing pop rap and saying all rap is bad is like someone seeing an opera and saying all classical music is bad.
> 
> Perhaps a better analogy is listening to a symphonic superhero movie soundtrack and saying all classical music is bad.


The development of any element of art in Rap? Be specific if you want to support its worth. I don't know what the experienced fans find in it, that's why I'm asking. It's also ok to conclude for yourself that there doesn't need to be development and progress over the decades like in the other arts. That would be interesting.


----------



## Fredx2098

Luchesi said:


> The development of any element of art in Rap? Be specific if you want to support its worth. I don't know what the experienced fans find in it, that's why I'm asking. It's also ok to conclude for yourself that there doesn't need to be development and progress over the decades like in the other arts. That would be interesting.


I'm not sure what you want to know. Not all art has to be revolutionary. Rap, as well as electronic dance music, is just about making cool pleasant sounds. The styles of genres evolve within themselves, but they don't necessarily expand the grand tradition of art. I thought most people want a limited definition of art where only masterpieces of the past are considered art. I like for there to be more styles of art constantly evolving.


----------



## Luchesi

Fredx2098 said:


> I'm not sure what you want to know. Not all art has to be revolutionary. Rap, as well as electronic dance music, is just about making cool pleasant sounds. The styles of genres evolve within themselves, but they don't necessarily expand the grand tradition of art. I thought most people want a limited definition of art where only masterpieces of the past are considered art. I like for there to be more styles of art constantly evolving.


We can reduce and analyze and define the sources and the changing history of any offering or accomplishment. Not everyone likes to. That's evident.

Rap can be somewhat unique like Call and Response. More of a social expression.


----------



## Fredx2098

Luchesi said:


> We can reduce and analyze and define the sources and the changing history of any offering or accomplishment. Not everyone likes to. That's evident.
> 
> Rap can be somewhat unique like Call and Response. More of a social expression.


I suppose there are many ways people can listen to any kind of music. A lot of people think of classical music as background noise. I enjoy rap as music and that's all. It has interesting social commentary that is separate from my enjoyment of the sound art.


----------



## Luchesi

Fredx2098 said:


> I suppose there are many ways people can listen to any kind of music. A lot of people think of classical music as background noise. I enjoy rap as music and that's all. It has interesting social commentary that is separate from my enjoyment of the sound art.


That doesn't explain anything about it to anyone else. Excitement can't be explained. It's a very human condition and perhaps Rap gets to the center of it. It's a genre that won't have to develop artistically, because it's so vitally elemental.


----------



## Fredx2098

Luchesi said:


> That doesn't explain anything about it to anyone else. Excitement can't be explained. It's a very human condition and perhaps Rap gets to the center of it. It's a genre that won't have to develop artistically, because it's so vitally elemental.


I still don't know what you're getting at. Rap is very diverse. It has many different styles and continues to develop. If you don't like it, that's fine, but it doesn't seem like you or the other dissenters who just say "rap isn't music" know enough about it to pass judgement or critique the entire broad genre.


----------



## Guest

Luchesi said:


> The development of any element of art in Rap? Be specific if you want to support its worth. I don't know what the experienced fans find in it, that's why I'm asking. It's also ok to conclude for yourself that there doesn't need to be development and progress over the decades like in the other arts. That would be interesting.


That's ok. You don't have to know what others find in it, any more than I have to know why others make such a fuss about CM composers I don't "get" (take Tchaikovsky...please!)

Oh, and what do you mean by ""art _in _Rap"? Rap _is _art (in the same way that CM _is _art). You might not like it. You might decide that it's not what you would call good art. It might evolve into something else, or disappear in a few years, and it might have earned itself a place in music history as insignificant as Vorticism or as important as Surrealism.


----------



## Eusebius12

MacLeod said:


> That's ok. You don't have to know what others find in it, any more than I have to know why others make such a fuss about CM composers I don't "get" (take Tchaikovsky...please!)
> 
> Oh, and what do you mean by ""art _in _Rap"? Rap _is _art (in the same way that CM _is _art). You might not like it. You might decide that it's not what you would call good art. It might evolve into something else, or disappear in a few years, and it might have earned itself a place in music history as insignificant as Vorticism or as important as Surrealism.


I always enjoy a bit of condescension in the evening.


----------



## Guest

Fredx2098 said:


> The problem with "popular" music (this time I am referring to all non-classical music) now is that the most popular and universally known acts are the worst, because they intentionally try to appeal to as wide an audience as possible


This idea that the intent of pop acts can be known for sure is regularly made here, but since the only evidence offered for this is simply that since their product is popular, the artist must have set out to be popular (and, by implication had no _worthy _intent), is totally insufficient and quite absurd.

I don't think either LvB or WAM set out to make music that would keep them in obscurity. They wanted to make money and wanted it to be popularwith the audience they were appealing to.

And I think The Beatles are still amongst the "universally known" pop acts and could hardly be described as "the worst".


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> This idea that the intent of pop acts can be known for sure is regularly made here, but since the only evidence offered for this is simply that since their product is popular, the artist must have set out to be popular (and, by implication had no _worthy _intent), is totally insufficient and quite absurd.
> 
> I don't think either LvB or WAM set out to make music that would keep them in obscurity. They wanted to make money and wanted it to be popularwith the audience they were appealing to.
> 
> *And I think The Beatles are still amongst the "universally known" pop acts and could hardly be described as "the worst"*.


I think you have missed the word 'now' in Fred's post. The Beatles were current when I was a teenager - half a century ago! :lol:


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> I think you have missed the word 'now' in Fred's post. The Beatles were current when I was a teenager - half a century ago! :lol:


You're right. I did.

But I don't believe that makes a difference. Had I referred to Taylor Swift or Beyonce or Lady Gaga the same applies: the fact that they are popular does not mean that to be popular was their _sole _intent.

Of course, there is music that has been "manufactured" to the extent that talent managers and producers scour the country to find someone who has some scrap of appeal from which they can make their money. But that still doesn't mean that the product has no merit.

[add]"The Beatles were current when I was a teenager - half a century ago!"

See here, where in vinyl, they were still in the top ten in 2017

https://www.forbes.com/sites/hughmc...e-bestselling-vinyl-albums-list/#7b20cdb933a6


----------



## Fredx2098

MacLeod said:


> Of course, there is music that has been "manufactured" to the extent that talent managers and producers scour the country to find someone who has some scrap of appeal from which they can make their money. But that still doesn't mean that the product has no merit.


I keep reiterating that there's nothing wrong with the product or enjoying the product. The problem is with the manufacturing process. It's not a personally creative one. It's "What music is the most popular and makes the most money? Let's do the same thing but maybe change the samples or synth sounds and change the lyrics slightly." Not everyone does that, but the most famous "artists" do, or rather their teams of people who actually "write" and "compose" (big stretches of these words) the music. Those "artists" can't even truly be called artists because they haven't created anything, the same way a recording session drummer is not the artist behind the music, but still those "artists" get the credit and devalue the meaning of talent in the popular opinion.

I personally hate the products of commercial pop music from a purely musical perspective, but it's fine if others enjoy it. My issue (and derision) is about what goes on behind the scenes. I do wish that people would not listen to the music and "feed the machine", but I'm not going around trying to tell people what they should and shouldn't listen to.


----------



## Strange Magic

Fredx2098 said:


> I personally hate the products of commercial pop music from a purely musical perspective, but it's fine if others enjoy it. My issue (and derision) is about what goes on behind the scenes. I do wish that people would not listen to the music and "feed the machine", but I'm not going around trying to tell people what they should and shouldn't listen to.


Several things can be true simultaneously, as can several attitudes be held simultaneously. For one thing, the demand for pop music of the sort mentioned above is now seemingly easily met by the production process decried above--the result is an enormous unending stream of musical product unique to our time, and an integral element of the New Stasis that I reference now and again. We can wring our hands over the shallowness of the music and the shallowness of its audience, and thus both bolster our personal sense of the exquisiteness of our taste and of the inferiority of the taste of others--a win-win scenario, to be sure. I myself listen currently to perhaps 0.1% of today's output of industry pop, but sometimes a song will come to the surface that captures well an aspect of our time and culture that cannot be ignored (by me anyway). So I think our time is best spent in listening to and boosting the music we prefer, while ignoring the rest yet keeping an ear cocked for the occasional diamond amid the gravel. This song by Lady Gaga I find to be a powerful expression of the pain that has long been felt by many yet only now is being legitimatized by the #MeToo movement and similar movements exposing abuses in the Church and other institutions. I myself have no tale to tell yet am easily moved by the power of Lady Gaga's "popular" expression here.


----------



## Luchesi

MacLeod said:


> That's ok. You don't have to know what others find in it, any more than I have to know why others make such a fuss about CM composers I don't "get" (take Tchaikovsky...please!)
> 
> Oh, and what do you mean by ""art _in _Rap"? Rap _is _art (in the same way that CM _is _art). You might not like it. You might decide that it's not what you would call good art. It might evolve into something else, or disappear in a few years, and it might have earned itself a place in music history as insignificant as Vorticism or as important as Surrealism.


Can you talk about the development of any element of art in Rap?


----------



## Fredx2098

Strange Magic said:


> We can wring our hands over the shallowness of the music and the shallowness of its audience, and thus both bolster our personal sense of the exquisiteness of our taste and of the inferiority of the taste of others--a win-win scenario, to be sure.


I don't feel superior to people who enjoy pop music. I don't have "better" taste, just different. Part of me wants to enjoy it, because I like to enjoy as many kinds of music as possible, but I just don't. I do feel superior to pop stars though, because I make my own music for my own reasons that don't include hoping for superstardom or getting rich. (If you were interested, that Lady Gaga song really hurt my ears, but I won't get in the way of anyone else enjoying it.)


----------



## Fredx2098

Luchesi said:


> Can you talk about the development of any element of art in Rap?


You just repeated yourself. Rap *is* the development. It is a style of music/art that was created and has impacted the world, has diverse styles, and continues to evolve. How are the "elements of art" developed by the genre of Classical era piano sonatas? The answer would be the same as the answer to your question. My answer is that it's a silly question.


----------



## Strange Magic

Fredx2098 said:


> (If you were interested, that Lady Gaga song really hurt my ears, but I won't get in the way of anyone else enjoying it.)


I'm glad you "got" the song (didn't you?): it was indeed Lady Gaga's intention to somewhat hurt your ears; she did not intend for the song to be enjoyed in the usual sense, but she surely intended it to be impactful.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> Several things can be true simultaneously, as can several attitudes be held simultaneously. For one thing, the demand for pop music of the sort mentioned above is now seemingly easily met by the production process decried above--the result is an enormous unending stream of musical product unique to our time, and an integral element of the New Stasis that I reference now and again. We can wring our hands over the shallowness of the music and the shallowness of its audience, and thus both bolster our personal sense of the exquisiteness of our taste and of the inferiority of the taste of others--a win-win scenario, to be sure. I myself listen currently to perhaps 0.1% of today's output of industry pop, but sometimes a song will come to the surface that captures well an aspect of our time and culture that cannot be ignored (by me anyway). So I think our time is best spent in listening to and boosting the music we prefer, while ignoring the rest yet keeping an ear cocked for the occasional diamond amid the gravel. This song by Lady Gaga I find to be a powerful expression of the pain that has long been felt by many yet only now is being legitimatized by the #MeToo movement and similar movements exposing abuses in the Church and other institutions. I myself have no tale to tell yet am easily moved by the power of Lady Gaga's "popular" expression here.


"We can wring our hands over the shallowness of the music and the shallowness of its audience, and thus both bolster our personal sense of the exquisiteness of our taste and of the inferiority of the taste of others--a win-win scenario, to be sure."

People say that about some of the sciences.


----------



## Luchesi

Fredx2098 said:


> You just repeated yourself. Rap *is* the development. It is a style of music/art that was created and has impacted the world, has diverse styles, and continues to evolve. How are the "elements of art" developed by the genre of Classical era piano sonatas? The answer would be the same as the answer to your question. My answer is that it's a silly question.


Rap developed from what again? It's style alright. And that's what people want.

"How are the "elements of art" developed by the genre of Classical era piano sonatas?"

It's an interesting study. If it's silly to you you've read the silly books about the rise of dissonance and the arcane books about aesthetics.


----------



## DaveM

Fredx2098 said:


> I keep reiterating that there's nothing wrong with the product or enjoying the product. The problem is with the manufacturing process. It's not a personally creative one. It's "What music is the most popular and makes the most money? Let's do the same thing but maybe change the samples or synth sounds and change the lyrics slightly." Not everyone does that, but the most famous "artists" do, or rather their teams of people who actually "write" and "compose" (big stretches of these words) the music. Those "artists" can't even truly be called artists because they haven't created anything, the same way a recording session drummer is not the artist behind the music, but still those "artists" get the credit and devalue the meaning of talent in the popular opinion.
> 
> I personally hate the products of commercial pop music from a purely musical perspective, but it's fine if others enjoy it. My issue (and derision) is about what goes on behind the scenes. I do wish that people would not listen to the music and "feed the machine", but I'm not going around trying to tell people what they should and shouldn't listen to.


You're repeating the same rant you did some time ago and it's just as much a misrepresentation now as it was then. Inferring that that 'the most famous artists' are not personally creative is a cheap shot. The comment that the product is about 'What music is the most popular' is rather funny given where the term 'pop' came from.

Besides, when it comes to creating a product that will be popular and make money and perhaps is somewhat formulaic, well, that could be directed just as much, perhaps even more so, at present day rap music.


----------



## Fredx2098

Strange Magic said:


> I'm glad you "got" the song (didn't you?): it was indeed Lady Gaga's intention to somewhat hurt your ears; she did not intend for the song to be enjoyed in the usual sense, but she surely intended it to be impactful.


I did "get" the point of the song, but I didn't find it impactful. It sounded just like any other pop ballad, even worse in my opinion with those extremely repetitive lyrics, and personally I can't stand her voice, though at least she can sing a solid note without autotune. You might like the song because of the context, but personally I think it's offensive to try to capitalize on tragedies like that. I don't judge music on the lyrics or meaning though.


----------



## Fredx2098

Luchesi said:


> Rap developed from what again?


Jazz, funk, poetry, and many other genres and art forms. The wikipedia page on hip hop is absolutely massive. How about you explain how rap is not a development of art?



DaveM said:


> Besides, when it comes to creating a product that will be popular and make money and perhaps is somewhat formulaic, well, that could be directed just as much, perhaps even more so, at present day rap music.


When I talk about commercial pop music, I am absolutely referring to pop rap music as well. Mainstream commercial pop rap is not the only kind of rap. I gave examples earlier in the thread. When all you've heard is the most popular current rap, you don't know enough to criticize the entire genre.


----------



## Strange Magic

Fredx2098 said:


> I did "get" the point of the song, but I didn't find it impactful. It sounded just like any other pop ballad, even worse in my opinion with those extremely repetitive lyrics, and personally I can't stand her voice, though at least she can sing a solid note without autotune. You might like the song because of the context, but personally I think it's offensive to try to capitalize on tragedies like that. I don't judge music on the lyrics or meaning though.


I believe that while your capacity for self-revelation is well and repeatedly demonstrated, your gift for empathy may be somewhat stunted. I find it curious that you suggest Lady Gaga composed and performs this song "to capitalize on tragedies", but people post the strangest things......


----------



## DaveM

Fredx2098 said:


> Jazz, funk, poetry, and many other genres and art forms. The wikipedia page on hip hop is absolutely massive. How about you explain how rap is not a development of art?
> 
> When I talk about commercial pop music, I am absolutely referring to pop rap music as well. Mainstream commercial pop rap is not the only kind of rap. I gave examples earlier in the thread. When all you've heard is the most popular current rap, you don't know enough to criticize the entire genre.


You said the same thing a few posts ago. You don't know enough about what others' experience is to suggest that others don't know as much as you do.


----------



## Fredx2098

Strange Magic said:


> I believe that while your capacity for self-revelation is well and repeatedly demonstrated, your gift for empathy may be somewhat stunted.


I don't lack empathy, it's just that a sad theme/meaning/lyrics doesn't make me like a piece of music. Music and lyrics are completely separate to me. My favorite rock genre is emo, short for "emotional", and it's full of sad songs but they also do justice to the emotions expressed.


----------



## Fredx2098

DaveM said:


> You said the same thing a few posts ago. You don't know enough about what others' experience is to suggest that others don't know as much as you do.


Then I'm not sure what your point is. Others repeat themselves so I must repeat myself as well. If someone says that rap is not artistic, not music, etc., then I'm sure that they don't know enough about it. I don't care if someone likes it or doesn't like it, but saying that it isn't music/art is either ignorance or a vicious insulting exaggeration. Commercial pop music is surely art as well, but I just have objective problems with it.


----------



## Luchesi

Fredx2098 - "Jazz, funk, poetry, and many other genres and art forms. The wikipedia page on hip hop is absolutely massive. How about you explain how rap is not a development of art?"

You think Rap developed from jazz. OK


----------



## Fredx2098

Luchesi said:


> You think Rap developed from jazz. OK


It doesn't get much closer than sampling and remixing jazz records to make a beat to rap over, without actually being a subgenre of jazz.


----------



## Strange Magic

Fredx2098 said:


> I don't lack empathy, it's just that a sad theme/meaning/lyrics doesn't make me like a piece of music. Music and lyrics are completely separate to me. My favorite rock genre is emo, short for "emotional", and it's full of sad songs but they also do justice to the emotions expressed.


Are you sticking with your implied thesis that Gaga composed and performs the song to capitalize on tragedy?


----------



## Fredx2098

Strange Magic said:


> Are you sticking with your implied thesis that Gaga composed and performs the song to capitalize on tragedy?


Well I don't know for sure, but that's how it appears to me. It's just speculation. It doesn't seem like much effort was put into the song. At the very least it seems like she was making an appeal to emotion with a low effort song.


----------



## Luchesi

Fredx2098 said:


> It doesn't get much closer than sampling and remixing jazz records to make a beat to rap over, without actually being a subgenre of jazz.


Ok, I can see how you look at it. I'll keep that opinion in mind when I discuss this offline. I'm just asking questions. I'm not defensive about CM, but I do get defensive about the worth of atonal music.


----------



## Fredx2098

Luchesi said:


> Ok, I can see how you look at it. I'll keep that opinion in mind when I discuss this offline. I'm just asking questions. I'm not defensive about CM, but I do get defensive about the worth of atonal music.


The lack of worth of atonal music? I enjoy atonal music because I like the sound of a piece of music not being in a key and not having a root note.


----------



## Luchesi

Fredx2098 said:


> The lack of worth of atonal music? I enjoy atonal music because I like the sound of a piece of music not being in a key and not having a root note.


Offline I get defensive about the worth of atonal music, because there are far fewer people offline than in here who understand the history that led to atonalism and the worth of the accomplishments with that concept by the greatest composers of the 20th Century, Arnie and Igor. Stravinsky was more polytonal as a solution.


----------



## Strange Magic

Fredx2098 said:


> Well I don't know for sure, but that's how it appears to me. It's just speculation. It doesn't seem like much effort was put into the song. At the very least it seems like she was making an appeal to emotion with a low effort song.


Perhaps an oratorio or opera would have been the more effective vehicle--an appeal to the emotions, but with the time and resources to fully express in detail the abuses only hinted at in the song in question.

[Edit] Here's the Wikipedia entry on the song. A lot of verbiage to describe a low effort song, it would seem.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Til_It_Happens_to_You


----------



## millionrainbows

Fredx2098 said:


> The lack of worth of atonal music? I enjoy atonal music because I like the sound of a piece of music not being in a key and not having a root note.


Lately, I'm beginning to think that as long as it's not diatonic, then I'll probably enjoy it as not being in a key; but it could have a root. It's probably more chromatic. This could include al kinds of music, Debussy, Stravinsky, jazz, all sorts.


----------



## Luchesi

duplicate post problem


----------



## endelbendel

Mozart is overused for wallpaper.


----------



## KenOC

Mozart makes great wallpaper, with all those little overdressed people bowing and curtsying. In fact, Mozart predated Colin Kaepernick by over two centuries in taking a knee.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> Mozart makes great wallpaper, with all those little overdressed people bowing and curtsying. In fact, Mozart predated Colin Kaepernick by over two centuries in taking a knee.


I believe the first knee he took was the empress Maria Theresa's. She apparently did not say "Get this sonofab**** off my lap!"


----------



## Eusebius12

KenOC said:


> Mozart makes great wallpaper, with all those little overdressed people bowing and curtsying. In fact, Mozart predated Colin Kaepernick by over two centuries in taking a knee.


Colin Mozart's rat catching skills required a lot of wallpapering over, hence his trade and his father's dovetailed perfectly


----------



## Eusebius12

millionrainbows said:


> Lately, I'm beginning to think that as long as it's not diatonic, then I'll probably enjoy it as not being in a key; but it could have a root. It's probably more chromatic. This could include al kinds of music, Debussy, Stravinsky, jazz, all sorts.


That's just out and out diatonicism.


----------



## Eusebius12

Eusebius12 said:


> Colin Mozart's rat catching skills required a lot of wallpapering over, hence his trade and his father's dovetailed perfectly


This really cannot be reposted often enough:


----------



## Luchesi

Eusebius12 said:


> This really cannot be reposted often enough:


I remember trying to find those notes on the piano when I was young. The notes go down and yet the underlying chords go up. And of course the diminished sounding chord doesn't help your ear much..


----------



## Haydn70

Fredx2098 said:


> I wish that people would say "I hate [composer]," but they don't, they say "[composer] is bad and talentless." There's a big difference.


Well, bad and talentless composers do exist.


----------



## Haydn70

Eusebius12 said:


> So let me get this straight. I'm not really allowed to dislike certain types of music and express that verbally(and with relish), but the content of my posts and the _words_ I use are subject to your value judgements and censoriousness? How interesting.


A superb response, Eusebius! Bravo!


----------



## Haydn70

Quote Originally Posted by Strange Magic:


> A most excellent distillation of the argument that there is something intrinsic--inherent--within the art object that makes it bad/good/inferior/superior. Using this inherent something, we can then look at Davids by Donatello, Bernini, Michelangelo, and tell which are the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. No, it doesn't work. I know that we want there to be "objective" reasons to support the aesthetic choices we make, but, upon closer examination, we find a defense, a demonstration of such reasons and standards to be anchored on a bed of assertions plucked out of thin air. The heart of the above arguments rest upon "passage of time", "widely perceived" (by some defined group of perceivers), and variations on "widely agreed".
> 
> I sense the yearning for transcendence, for art to be somehow bigger than all this nasty, dull, brutish world below, and the art/music I love does lift me up and away. But it's all in the unique relationship between my busy brain and the essentially mute, forceless art materials before me, neither good nor bad unless I make them so. Art just is.


Woodduck's response:


Woodduck said:


> You're applying the wrong criteria to art. Not everything which can be known can be proved. Logical propositions can be proved, but statements which are reports of perception cannot. Artistic judgments are not anchored on "assertions," but on perceptions. They are therefore unprovable, but may nonetheless be true.
> 
> The fact that Brahms's mastery of musical form can't be proved doesn't make it unreal. A great deal that's meaningful can be said about a work of music, but it will only be meaningful to one capable of hearing it. Being able to hear it, I can say with certainty that a quintet by Brahms is superb, while a similar work of, say, Goldmark is merely very good, and a similar work by Reger is fascinating but diffuse and confused. I may be able to say these things even if, today, I find Goldmark or Reger more congenial than Brahms. And I'm not less confident in saying them merely because many other people can't hear what I hear. Those people are free to ignore me and listen to whatever they want in blissful ignorance. But they can't tell me that I don't understand the excellence that Brahms has achieved, or that there's no such thing as excellence. I do understand it, and understanding it is a pleasure. Maybe, if they keep listening, they'll come to understand it too.


Yet another superb post, Woodduck...thanks once again!


----------



## Strange Magic

The "perceptions" that Woodduck discusses are, as he says, both unprovable and true. And I agree completely. They are also unique to each individual, as are all aesthetic judgements. Any attempt to make such perceptions "objective" or to somehow validate them by finding others who agree with us and share our enthusiasms or loathings is to fall into error, the error of confusing a vote, a popularity contest, with some qualities inherent in the artwork itself. What aesthetics boils down to is, if I like it, it's good; if not, then not--it's strictly personal and unique to each individual. One of those truths that so many people of "taste" find so difficult to acknowledge.


----------



## Botschaft

Strange Magic said:


> The "perceptions" that Woodduck discusses are, as he says, both unprovable and true. And I agree completely. They are also unique to each individual, as are all aesthetic judgements. Any attempt to make such perceptions "objective" or to somehow validate them by finding others who agree with us and share our enthusiasms or loathings is to fall into error, the error of confusing a vote, a popularity contest, with some qualities inherent in the artwork itself. What aesthetics boils down to is, if I like it, it's good; if not, then not--it's strictly personal and unique to each individual. One of those truths that so many people of "taste" find so difficult to acknowledge.


While perceptions are by their very nature subjective, what causes them is neither subjective, random nor entirely personal (due to our common humanity). Some things naturally speak to this common humanity with more potency because of their intrinsic qualities, making them in a certain way better.


----------



## Woodduck

Improbus said:


> While perceptions are by their very nature subjective, what causes them is neither subjective, random nor entirely personal (due to our common humanity). Some things naturally speak to this common humanity with more potency because of their intrinsic qualities, making them in a certain way better.


And that "certain way" is the fulcrum of this debate. Aesthetic values are real and significant, but not meant to invalidate or cancel individual valuation. If someone thinks "Jingle Bells" is "the most beautiful song ever written," I wouldn't dream of lecturing him about Schubert, though I might give him a CD to listen to.


----------



## Haydn70

ArsMusica said:


> Discussing/comparing the merits and weaknesses of creators and performers of popular/commercial music...like discussing/comparing the merits and weaknesses of Burger King vs. Wendy's vs. McDonald's vs. Carl's Jr, etc....too funny.


Too funny indeed, Ars...very well put!


----------



## Room2201974

Ah......my informed opinion is better than your (obvious) uninformed opinion. My informed opinion says Opus 1001 by composer X is a great work of art. I inherited that opinion in a vacuum that has no associations with any previously held opinions or teachings by others. Therefore, since my aesthetic judgement is pure....my opinions must be correct. Opus 1001 IS a great work of art and if you cannot see this you obviously do not grok music or art.


----------



## Becca

Room2201974 said:


> ...if you cannot see this you obviously do not *grok* music or art.


You are showing your age therefore your opinion is inherently invalid.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> The "perceptions" that Woodduck discusses are, as he says, both unprovable and true. And I agree completely. They are also unique to each individual, as are all aesthetic judgements. Any attempt to make such perceptions "objective" or to somehow validate them by finding others who agree with us and share our enthusiasms or loathings is to fall into error, the error of confusing a vote, a popularity contest, with some qualities inherent in the artwork itself. What aesthetics boils down to is, if I like it, it's good; if not, then not--it's strictly personal and unique to each individual. One of those truths that so many people of "taste" find so difficult to acknowledge.


What if you don't like some music but you know it's good?


----------



## Room2201974

Becca said:


> You are showing your age therefore your opinion is inherently invalid.


You are ab so lute ly correct *Becca*. My opinion as expressed above IS invalid. But I'm afraid you are mistaken if my age is a factor. Try as hard as I could, I have not been able to convince the powers that be in these internet forums that the sarcasm emojis is sadly missing from my range of options.

I submit to the forum the following (but sadly, some won't grok it):


----------



## Luchesi

Room2201974 said:


> You are ab so lute ly correct *Becca*. My opinion as expressed above IS invalid. But I'm afraid you are mistaken if my age is a factor. Try as hard as I could, I have not been able to convince the powers that be in these internet forums that the sarcasm emojis is sadly missing from my range of options.
> 
> I submit to the forum the following (but sadly, some won't grok it):


I had a glass of wine and I haven't asked this of someone in a long time.

Are you from Mars?


----------



## Strange Magic

Luchesi said:


> What if you don't like some music but you know it's good?


By my definition, if I like it, it is good.:tiphat:


----------



## hammeredklavier

I've seen lots of people acting like 'sentimentalism candy' is the best thing there is in classical music. You know what I'm talking about. It happens a lot with people who fantasize about this era called Ro.. cough cough.. (it's not Rococo) so frantically they believe everything is so advanced and superior in that era and feel themselves dire need to deride other masters who aren't part of it.


----------



## Red Terror

Luchesi said:


> I had a glass of wine and I haven't asked this of someone in a long time.
> 
> Are you from Mars?


Uranus, I'd say.


----------



## Strange Magic

Improbus said:


> While perceptions are by their very nature subjective, what causes them is neither subjective, random nor entirely personal (due to our common humanity). Some things naturally speak to this common humanity with more potency because of their intrinsic qualities, making them in a certain way better.


Some of this is true, except for the "[not] entirely personal" part: studies in neurophysiology, brain chemistry, etc. show how stimuli evoke responses. But take a Beethoven piano sonata to the !Kung people of the Kalahari, or to T'ang China and see to what degree its intrinsic qualities speak to the locals, "making it in a certain way better". Our common humanity makes us receptive to art _sensu lato_ but not necessarily to your art (or mine).


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> By my definition, if I like it, it is good.:tiphat:


So, ok, what do you tell other people? It's bad because you don't like it?


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> I've seen lots of people acting like 'sentimentalism candy' is the best thing there is in classical music. You know what I'm talking about. It happens a lot with people who fantasize about this era called Ro.. cough cough.. (it's not Rococo) so frantically they believe everything is so advanced and superior in that era and feel themselves dire need to deride other masters who aren't part of it.


As this post is not a response to anything anyone on this thread is saying, and since I find you inserting the same anti-Romantic biases and cliches - illustrated with clips of Mozart - into discussion after discussion, I can only conclude that it's the product of an unhealthy obsession with an imagined enemy.

This is very sad, Mr. hammeredklavier. I hope you find a cure. Soon.


----------



## Woodduck

Luchesi said:


> So, ok, what do you tell other people? It's bad because you don't like it?


Sometimes someone asks the perfect question. :tiphat:


----------



## Luchesi

Red Terror said:


> Uranus, I'd say.


Grok is originally from a Mars novel.


----------



## Luchesi

Woodduck said:


> As this post is not a response to anything anyone on this thread is saying, and since I find you inserting the same anti-Romantic biases and cliches - illustrated with clips of Mozart - into discussion after discussion, I can only conclude that it's the product of an unhealthy obsession with an imagined enemy.
> 
> This is very sad, Mr. hammeredklavier. I hope you find a cure. Soon.


Oh, I was just going to say that he's partly right with his opinion..

People in Mozart's time felt that they were right..


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> As this post is not a response to anything anyone on this thread is saying, and since I find you inserting the same anti-Romantic biases and cliches - illustrated with clips of Mozart - into discussion after discussion, I can only conclude that it's the product of an unhealthy obsession with an imagined enemy.
> 
> This is very sad, Mr. hammeredklavier. I hope you find a cure. Soon.


I'm judging from my personal experience discussing ideas with people both offline and online. Again, I'm sorry to say these things, but I've seen too many cases that confirm this conjecture of mine. I'm not accusing you. You're not one of them.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> I'm judging from my personal experience discussing ideas with people both offline and online. Again, I'm sorry to say these things, but I've seen too many cases that confirm this conjecture of mine. I'm not accusing you. You're not one of them.


I know you're not accusing me. But your constant accusations of those "others" are utterly baffling to me, especially when it seems to come, as here, out of nowhere.

WHY???


----------



## Strange Magic

Luchesi said:


> So, ok, what do you tell other people? It's bad because you don't like it?


So as not to hurt other's feelings, I tell people that I am not the audience for whom that particular piece or genre or whatever was intended. If you go back over my posts, you will find a vanishingly small number of instances where I knock somebody else's art or music. I cannot myself think of an example at this moment.


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> I'm judging from my personal experience discussing ideas with people both offline and online. Again, I'm sorry to say these things, but I've seen too many cases that confirm this conjecture of mine. I'm not accusing you. You're not one of them.


With every subsequent generation there's a perceived degradation of ideals. It's natural. And often it's enlightening.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> So as not to hurt other's feelings, I tell people that I am not the audience for whom that particular piece or genre or whatever was intended. If you go back over my posts, you will find a vanishingly small number of instances where I knock somebody else's art or music. I cannot myself think of an example at this moment.


I know, Strange. I would attack you more vehemently if I didn't know you better. You can't blame me for trying to widen your opinions(?).

Where do your opinions come from? Have you read volumes and volumes about the science of aesthetics? They're available to you..


----------



## Strange Magic

Luchesi said:


> I know, Strange. I would attack you more vehemently if I didn't know you better. You can't blame me for trying to widen your opinions(?).
> 
> Where do your opinions come from? Have you read volumes and volumes about the science of aesthetics? They're available to you..


My opinions come from voices I hear inside my head. But there are papers I've read on our reactions to music and art, and I have actually thought about it for a bit.

I did think of an expressed dislike of mine that I've aired once or twice before: I find I am not properly equipped to appreciate portentous, gaseous, interminable symphonies by late 19th or early 20th century composers. As I indicated before, I name no names but merely ask that one think of a specimen portentous, gaseous, interminable symphony that one dislikes, and my position will become clear. (I love Brahms!)


----------



## KenOC

Luchesi said:


> Grok is originally from a Mars novel.


Well, not a Burroughs Mars novel. "Grok" is from Heinlein's 1961 novel "Stranger in a Strange Land."


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> My opinions come from voices I hear inside my head. But there are papers I've read on our reactions to music and art, and I have actually thought about it for a bit.
> 
> I did think of an expressed dislike of mine that I've aired once or twice before: I find I am not properly equipped to appreciate portentous, gaseous, interminable symphonies by late 19th or early 20th century composers. As I indicated before, I name no names but merely ask that one think of a specimen portentous, gaseous, interminable symphony that one dislikes, and my position will become clear.


I intellectually sympathize with your naturalistic point of view, but we must remember that human aesthetics are not purely natural. They are somewhat artificial because of practical demands and requirements. There are long essays about this too..


----------



## Room2201974

Luchesi said:


> I had a glass of wine and I haven't asked this of someone in a long time.
> 
> Are you from Mars?


Yes, you are correct. I am from Mars, PA, population 1,699. Let me introduce myself, my name is Jubal Harshaw, author of that best selling tome, _The Historical And Culturally Egocentric Eardrum_, 538 pp, 2014, Robert MacNamarra Press, New York, New York. That of course was my second book. My first book, _You Can't Be Neutral On A Moving Train Running Through The Théâtre des Champs-Élysées, May 29, 1913_. Lately I've been working on a musical comedy for Broadway that I'm calling, _If You Don't Understand My Color and Talea, I'm Taking My Dits And Going Home._

And of course, all Jubal Harshaw fans will remember that famous quote that seems so appropriate to this thread...the one about belly laughs.:lol:


----------



## Luchesi

Room2201974 said:


> Yes, you are correct. I am from Mars, PA, population 1,699. Let me introduce myself, my name is Jubal Harshaw, author of that best selling tome, _The Historical And Culturally Egocentric Eardrum_, 538 pp, 2014, Robert MacNamarra Press, New York, New York. That of course was my second book. My first book, _You Can't Be Neutral On A Moving Train Running Through The Théâtre des Champs-Élysées, May 29, 1913_. Lately I've been working on a musical comedy for Broadway that I'm calling, _If You Don't Understand My Color and Talea, I'm Taking My Dits And Going Home._
> 
> And of course, all Jubal Harshaw fans will remember that famous quote that seems so appropriate to this thread...the one about belly laughs.:lol:


He was always choosing names like that. Playing little games with himself. Jubal is a professional clown. Whatever that is..


----------



## Becca

Room2201974 said:


> Yes, you are correct. I am from Mars, PA, population 1,699. Let me introduce myself, my name is Jubal Harshaw, author of that best selling tome, _The Historical And Culturally Egocentric Eardrum_, 538 pp, 2014, Robert MacNamarra Press, New York, New York. That of course was my second book. My first book, _You Can't Be Neutral On A Moving Train Running Through The Théâtre des Champs-Élysées, May 29, 1913_. Lately I've been working on a musical comedy for Broadway that I'm calling, _If You Don't Understand My Color and Talea, I'm Taking My Dits And Going Home._
> 
> And of course, all Jubal Harshaw fans will remember that famous quote that seems so appropriate to this thread...the one about belly laughs.:lol:


Pleased to meet you ... my na‎me is Lapis Lazuli and I am not from Mars.


----------



## Luchesi

Becca said:


> Pleased to meet you ... my na‎me is Lapis Lazuli and I am not from Mars.


Yeats can be read as beautiful (in his fatalism). That's the way I read him.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

This thread is still going? Nice to know a guy can go away, come back, and find that some things remain the same. So, to springboard off this post:



Improbus said:


> While perceptions are by their very nature subjective, what causes them is neither subjective, random nor entirely personal (due to our common humanity). Some things naturally speak to this common humanity with more potency because of their intrinsic qualities, making them in a certain way better.


If you get shot it's entirely reasonable to say that the bullet causes the pain. What makes no sense is to say that the bullet/gun is painful. You cannot project the subjective sensation/evaluation of pain onto the object that causes it.

When it comes to art the issue isn't even that simple. With a gunshot, everyone with a working nervous system--which is 99.999%+ people on the planet--will have a similar sensation, and almost everyone of them will perceive it to be a negative one. There is nothing approaching this kind of universal sensation or judgment when it comes to art, which should tell us that individual and cultural differences make up as much of a causal factor in the sensations we feel and judgments we reach as anything in the art itself.

I do not think that this invalidates the idea that, yes, there is some "common humanity" that we all have, and that some art does seem better at speaking to it than others. However, I don't think that argument makes the point you (and others on the "objective" side) want it to. It implies a kind of popularism that, if you accepted it, would seem to have a hard time excluding, say, the biggest names in pop music that currently reach a massive, global audience the likes of which classical does not do. If we're going to talk about "speaking to a common humanity," surely the music that most people like would seem to be the music that best does that. To me, it seems that most classical fans who want to deride pop music do not typically appeal to the music "speaking to common humanity," but to a minority elitism: that they have better, more refined tastes, more knowledge, more intelligence, or whatever the case may be. This is not common humanity, it's _un_common humanity.


----------



## Enthusiast

Eva Yojimbo said:


> This thread is still going? Nice to know a guy can go away, come back, and find that some things remain the same. So, to springboard off this post:
> 
> If you get shot it's entirely reasonable to say that the bullet causes the pain. What makes no sense is to say that the bullet/gun is painful. You cannot project the subjective sensation/evaluation of pain onto the object that causes it.
> 
> When it comes to art the issue isn't even that simple. With a gunshot, everyone with a working nervous system--which is 99.999%+ people on the planet--will have a similar sensation, and almost everyone of them will perceive it to be a negative one. There is nothing approaching this kind of universal sensation or judgment when it comes to art, which should tell us that individual and cultural differences make up as much of a causal factor in the sensations we feel and judgments we reach as anything in the art itself.
> 
> I do not think that this invalidates the idea that, yes, there is some "common humanity" that we all have, and that some art does seem better at speaking to it than others. However, I don't think that argument makes the point you (and others on the "objective" side) want it to. It implies a kind of popularism that, if you accepted it, would seem to have a hard time excluding, say, the biggest names in pop music that currently reach a massive, global audience the likes of which classical does not do. If we're going to talk about "speaking to a common humanity," surely the music that most people like would seem to be the music that best does that. To me, it seems that most classical fans who want to deride pop music do not typically appeal to the music "speaking to common humanity," but to a minority elitism: that they have better, more refined tastes, more knowledge, more intelligence, or whatever the case may be. This is not common humanity, it's _un_common humanity.


I must be in the mood. Interesting post. I have some questions:

What if we say the pain is caused by the wound? You can surely say a wound is painful. Is a wound an object that that causes pain or is it something other than an object?

It is a silly point but I think a lot of people sustaining a gunshot wound while they are in the "ecstasy of conflict" may not initially find the experience negative. In fact, our immediate responses to being wounded varies widely and depends on how we respond to shock - we may cry or we may laugh. This point may show that your argument concerning how we experience art can be made even more strongly?

The interesting thing for me is why great numbers of people respond in the same way to a work of art. If its a pop song the numbers can be really huge. If it is a great classic, the numbers over time may have been quite substantial. So the question is what do people who respond in the same way to a given piece have in common and how do they differ from people who respond differently? Can we not, then, begin to talk about probabilities in relation to particular groups of people? We might be able to say "there is a 79% chance that people who enjoy rap music will greatly enjoy music" or "there is a 62% chance that people who know a lot of classical music will value music Y highly"?

Why do we need to go into suspicions of elitism? Our group might be somewhat elite - like "expert classical music critics" - but the rest of us can decide what that means to us. Personally, if I know that 70% of classical music critics consider Beethoven's late quartets to be among the pinnacle of human achievement that will be enough for me to listen carefully to the music in the belief that perceiving it properly will involve loving it! The subjective is removed.


----------



## Strange Magic

Bell curves and where one fits under which curve. This is objective in the sense that an election/voting is objective. We have threads going on the ineffable, synonymously the inexplicable; the transcendental. Emerson would be pleased. There will always be a residuum of the ineffable, but progress is being made in our understanding, and so the inexplicable will become more explicable. 

Then there is woo-woo, and the woo-woo factor in the discussion of aesthetics. The fainting couch stands ready.


----------



## Byron

Strange Magic said:


> So as not to hurt other's feelings, I tell people that I am not the audience for whom that particular piece or genre or whatever was intended. If you go back over my posts, you will find a vanishingly small number of instances where I knock somebody else's art or music. I cannot myself think of an example at this moment.


Of course that is simply an evasion of the question. If all music you like is good, then it follows that all music you don't like is bad. You may be tactful and sensitive towards others and not be so blunt as to say "that work you enjoy is a bad work of art", but it doesn't change the fact that you've already made that value judgement.


----------



## Strange Magic

Byron said:


> Of course that is simply an evasion of the question. If all music you like is good, then it follows that all music you don't like is bad. You may be tactful and sensitive towards others and not be so blunt as to say "that work you enjoy is a bad work of art", but it doesn't change the fact that you've already made that value judgement.


You are of course correct: music/art I don't like is bad.

But we recall that "good" and "bad" in art is actually not inherent in the art object, but resides in our opinion of it, which is unique, individual, personal.


----------



## Byron

I'm pretty sure that even when I was 14 years old with no taste for classical, listening to and enjoying "Barbie Girl" by Aqua in all its superficiality (and enjoying it in a very ironic and superficial way) I wouldn't have been so deluded to believe that Aqua was good art and Mozart was bad art.


----------



## LezLee

Strange Magic said:


> You are of course correct: music/art I don't like is bad.
> 
> But we recall that "good" and "bad" in art is actually not inherent in the art object, but resides in our opinion of it, which is unique, individual, personal.


I thoroughly dislike The Rite of Spring, Messiah, Für Elise, Vocalise... but never in a million years would I say they were bad! Who decides these things? What does it matter? 
Oh, and what the hell is 'woo-woo?


----------



## Strange Magic

Byron said:


> I'm pretty sure that even when I was 14 years old with no taste for classical, listening to and enjoying "Barbie Girl" by Aqua in all its superficiality (and enjoying it in a very ironic and superficial way) I wouldn't have been so deluded to believe that Aqua was good art and Mozart was bad art.


When I was 14, I was listening to Prokofiev and to Tony Allen and the Champs. I wasn't obsessed then with what was good or bad art or music, and am not now. Others, though, it seems, are haunted by such concerns, afraid they'll fall into Error.


----------



## Enthusiast

^^^ But it can be useful to know where you can point your ears most rewardingly!


----------



## Strange Magic

LezLee said:


> I thoroughly dislike The Rite of Spring, Messiah, Für Elise, Vocalise... but never in a million years would I say they were bad! Who decides these things? What does it matter?
> Oh, and what the hell is 'woo-woo?


https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/woo_woo


----------



## Strange Magic

Enthusiast said:


> ^^^ But it can be useful to know where you can point your ears most rewardingly!


"Know Thyself" comes in handy here: listen to a lot of different musics, and see also on which bell curve one falls, and where under the curve you are.


----------



## hammeredklavier

EdwardBast said:


> It might tell us that JSB and LVB fans on TC are less fanatical about their fandom or, at least, less demonstratively fanatical about it.





EdwardBast said:


> Or perhaps the JSB and LVB people are sure of their musical judgment and it wouldn't occur to them to look for second hand support.





EdwardBast said:


> Probably because he is the number one focus of abject, quasi-religious worship among his enthusiasts. Blow up a really big balloon and a certain segment of humanity will inevitably be looking for a pin.


The kind of myth-making (or should I just say extreme fanboying) I often see around Beethoven is something like "Beethoven's 32 Piano Sonatas are New Testament of Music, whereas Bach's WTC are Old Testament of Music." https://www.classical915.org/post/exploring-music-april-2018 which often makes me cringe a little, but I guess it's better not to hurt his enthusiasts feelings by saying things like "So you're saying all of them are 'exceptional' like how WTC is?" Keep quiet about it if you have nothing good to say.

Hammerklavier Sonata for example. as a keyboard piece to be fair, I often think it gets a bit too much attention compared to Mozart's stuff like K394, K396, K399, K401, K475, K511, K594, K608 for example, probably due to the popularity of piano that came with its development in the beginning of the 19th century, and the organization of Beethoven sonatas as a complete set. (and I know, because 'he' wrote it). I'm not saying it's bad. But when one artist takes all the glory and credit, it obscures people's judgment about other artists. - And what's even worse, his extreme enthusiasts go around saying things like "there is other obscure music today that needs more love and attention" in expense of Mozart.






Another thing is the choral movement of Beethoven 9th, for example. It's even registered in UNESCO heritage or something like that. - So it's supposed to be the greatest piece of music ever written. But at the same time I think was good of our old Giuseppe Verdi to have said 'some things' about it. Another thing about Beethoven is the 'boogie-woogie' of Op.111 piano sonata. Just because 'he' wrote it, we all have to pretend it is expression of depth of emotion far surpassing his predecessors. Again, none of these pieces are bad, but some of the things said about him regarding his work sometimes leave me baffled.
It should be obvious lots of people who are angry about Mozart most of the time are Beethoven enthusiasts- it's not like I dislike Beethoven. But I know it's all because when Beethoven is supposed to be considered absolute #1 of all time (like how he is, on TC polls), Mozart often 'gets in the way'..Just saying.

_"He overcame his deafness!"

"He was first to breathe emotion into music!"

"His music is the true epitome of human suffering and mortal struggle!"_


----------



## Larkenfield

“But when one artist takes all the glory and credit, it obscures people's judgment about other artists.”

This statement is false. It’s not true by any stretch of the imagination. I suggest you look into how many threads exist where Mozart is overwhelmingly mentioned favorably. Despite his few obsessive critics, he does not lack for praise or admirers, and his place in history has already been secured. The trick is to not make enemies by being so fixated on him that little or no insight is shown for others and one appears to be a one-trick pony: Mozart only, first, last, and always. There will always be naysayers who fall short of recognizing genius, no matter who the composer.


----------



## Bwv 1080

We all know that atonal music is representative of the moral decay of modern civilization and only exists because the music schools are controlled by an evil cabal of serialists who mercilessly supress anyone who dares to stand up and claim the emperor has no clothes. People who claim they like this stuff either are suckers for intellectual pretension or aesthetically impaired in some way


----------



## Room2201974

"Music that is born complex is not inherently better or worse than music that is born simple." Aaron Copeland.

Our first example is a simple melody from the 14th century that was number one with a bullet on the Burgundy Charts. The second from the same songwriter is a much more complex tune and didn't even crack the charts - go figure.

Each is equal. Each can be transcendent.











Any music can be sacred in the hands of a communicator whether it be Opus 131 or _King of the Delta Blues Singers, Vol 1_. But any standard of greatness based as it must be on subjective influences of culture, history, or society, is inevitably doomed to failure. Or, spend a few weeks at any internet guitar forum as I have and sit back and watch people argue tone without realizing that the bell curve also applies to the bone structure of our anvil, hammer and stirrups.


----------



## millionrainbows

Eva Yojimbo said:


> This thread is still going? Nice to know a guy can go away, come back, and find that some things remain the same. So, to springboard off this post:
> 
> If you get shot it's entirely reasonable to say that the bullet causes the pain. What makes no sense is to say that the bullet/gun is painful. You cannot project the subjective sensation/evaluation of pain onto the object that causes it.
> 
> When it comes to art the issue isn't even that simple. With a gunshot, everyone with a working nervous system--which is 99.999%+ people on the planet--will have a similar sensation, and almost everyone of them will perceive it to be a negative one. There is nothing approaching this kind of universal sensation or judgment when it comes to art, which should tell us that individual and cultural differences make up as much of a causal factor in the sensations we feel and judgments we reach as anything in the art itself.
> 
> I do not think that this invalidates the idea that, yes, there is some "common humanity" that we all have, and that some art does seem better at speaking to it than others. However, I don't think that argument makes the point you (and others on the "objective" side) want it to. It implies a kind of popularism that, if you accepted it, would seem to have a hard time excluding, say, the biggest names in pop music that currently reach a massive, global audience the likes of which classical does not do. If we're going to talk about "speaking to a common humanity," surely the music that most people like would seem to be the music that best does that. To me, it seems that most classical fans who want to deride pop music do not typically appeal to the music "speaking to common humanity," but to a minority elitism: that they have better, more refined tastes, more knowledge, more intelligence, or whatever the case may be. This is not common humanity, it's _un_common humanity.


I think that attraction to music is empathy. Sometimes this empathy is calculated to be more shallow, as in the case of Britney Spears (I always use her because she's so cute) and her targeted appeal to the 15-year old girl demographic.

Sometimes, it is deeper; some young 15-year old genius will hear Bach, and be forever changed.


----------



## DaveM

millionrainbows said:


> I think that attraction to music is empathy. Sometimes this empathy is calculated to be more shallow, as in the case of Britney Spears (I always use her because she's so cute) and her targeted appeal to the 15-year old girl demographic.


Hey MR, as the appointed spokesman for 15 year olds, Britney Spears, at 37 years of age, is so yesterday. Today it's all about Ariana Grande and Cardi B!


----------



## millionrainbows

DaveM said:


> Hey MR, as the appointed spokesman for 15 year olds, *Britney Spears, at 37 years of age,* is so yesterday. Today it's all about Ariana Grande and Cardi B!


Well, at least now I won't be arrested! What should I listen to, R. Kelley? :lol:


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Enthusiast said:


> I must be in the mood. Interesting post. I have some questions:
> 
> What if we say the pain is caused by the wound? You can surely say a wound is painful. Is a wound an object that that causes pain or is it something other than an object?
> 
> It is a silly point but I think a lot of people sustaining a gunshot wound while they are in the "ecstasy of conflict" may not initially find the experience negative. In fact, our immediate responses to being wounded varies widely and depends on how we respond to shock - we may cry or we may laugh. This point may show that your argument concerning how we experience art can be made even more strongly?


Saying a wound is painful would be coherent, but it would be more accurate to say still that the wound is causing the pain. The actual sensation you feel is caused by the nerves near the wound sending signals to your brain. If you eliminated the pain-sensing areas of your brain, the wound wouldn't "be painful" at all. The wound would be objective, though, yes.

I could ammend my original point to "anyone that survives a gunshot wound long enough for the adrenaline/shock to wear off would feel pain." I was mostly just trying to point out that, even when we have a case where an object seems to cause some reaction/evaluation in us nearly all the time, it doesn't make sense to transfer that reaction onto the object itself.



Enthusiast said:


> The interesting thing for me is why great numbers of people respond in the same way to a work of art. If its a pop song the numbers can be really huge. If it is a great classic, the numbers over time may have been quite substantial. So the question is what do people who respond in the same way to a given piece have in common and how do they differ from people who respond differently? Can we not, then, begin to talk about probabilities in relation to particular groups of people? We might be able to say "there is a 79% chance that people who enjoy rap music will greatly enjoy music" or "there is a 62% chance that people who know a lot of classical music will value music Y highly"?


Yes, I agree that this is the interesting question, and I think the field of neuroaesthetics is making some strides in this department, basically studying the ways in which people's brains react to music and other arts. But any answer will absolutely require knowing a lot about both the subject (the individual, their mind, culture, etc.) and object (the art itself). I just get a bit antsy when people start wanting to ignore the former and think that we can get to some transcendental values or means by which to evaluate art that doesn't take into consideration the (ultimately) subjective standards we create-and "we" can be individuals or entire cultures-that allow such evaluations to begin with. To go back to our first example, it would be like trying to understand why a gunshot causes pain without understanding the human nervous system.



Enthusiast said:


> Why do we need to go into suspicions of elitism? Our group might be somewhat elite - like "expert classical music critics" - but the rest of us can decide what that means to us. Personally, if I know that 70% of classical music critics consider Beethoven's late quartets to be among the pinnacle of human achievement that will be enough for me to listen carefully to the music in the belief that perceiving it properly will involve loving it! The subjective is removed.


It's not "suspicion," I've seen it first hand, and I dare say we all have. But, to be fair, I see it among "connoisseurs" of all musical genres and, in fact, all artistic fields, so it's not unique to classical-though perhaps it's more prevalent there.

If I know 70% of cinephiles love a movie, or rock fans love an album, or bibliophiles love a novel, or, yes, classical fans love any work, I'm inclined to experience myself. Of course, if I manage to see and appreciate what those 70% see and appreciate then I'll love it as well, but this hasn't removed the subjective! It still requires that I, the subject, see and appreciate what they do. I may not see it, or may see it and not appreciate it. And there's no issue of right or wrong here. Appreciation is saying nothing more than "X had Y effect on me and I like Y." If you don't like Y, you are not obligated to.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

millionrainbows said:


> I think that attraction to music is empathy. Sometimes this empathy is calculated to be more shallow, as in the case of Britney Spears (I always use her because she's so cute) and her targeted appeal to the 15-year old girl demographic.
> 
> Sometimes, it is deeper; some young 15-year old genius will hear Bach, and be forever changed.


I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "the attraction to music is empathy." Perhaps you mean that a lot of music is more about the lifestyle or image being depicted/sold than the music? So Britney Spears dresses up like a teenage girl (or did when she began) in order to appeal to teenage girls? If so, yes, I would not deny that there's much of that in pop music. For many-perhaps the majority-pop is more about lifestyle or image identification/formation than the actual music; but that doesn't mean it all is or has to be.

Britney Spears, afterall, didn't write her own music. Much of it was written by Max Martin, the guy that has the third most #1 hits of all time behind only Lennon and McCartney. He used La Folia-something that countless composers have used-in Britney's Oops I Did it Again. The guy is no dummy when it comes to crafting memorable music with catchy hooks and distinctive arrangements. If it was easy, then everyone in the business would have his level of success, but they do not (not even close). So it's possible to appreciate his songwriting and not really care much for Britney (or any of the performers he's worked with). Let's also not forget the distinct squeals of that same demographic were the first we heard cheering on The Beatles, so sometimes legions of 15 year old girls know first what the rest of us only figure out later.

There's every bit as much of an art to writing good, simple songs as there is to writing profound symphonic works. They may not provoke or evoke the same kinds of reactions in you-nor should they-and you're perfectly free to prefer one or the other. Personally, I see no reasons to limit my choices at the smorgasbord that is music. Different meals for different tastes for different moods.


----------



## Luchesi

Eva Yojimbo said:


> This thread is still going? Nice to know a guy can go away, come back, and find that some things remain the same. So, to springboard off this post:
> 
> If you get shot it's entirely reasonable to say that the bullet causes the pain. What makes no sense is to say that the bullet/gun is painful. You cannot project the subjective sensation/evaluation of pain onto the object that causes it.
> 
> When it comes to art the issue isn't even that simple. With a gunshot, everyone with a working nervous system--which is 99.999%+ people on the planet--will have a similar sensation, and almost everyone of them will perceive it to be a negative one. There is nothing approaching this kind of universal sensation or judgment when it comes to art, which should tell us that individual and cultural differences make up as much of a causal factor in the sensations we feel and judgments we reach as anything in the art itself.
> 
> I do not think that this invalidates the idea that, yes, there is some "common humanity" that we all have, and that some art does seem better at speaking to it than others. However, I don't think that argument makes the point you (and others on the "objective" side) want it to. It implies a kind of popularism that, if you accepted it, would seem to have a hard time excluding, say, the biggest names in pop music that currently reach a massive, global audience the likes of which classical does not do. If we're going to talk about "speaking to a common humanity," surely the music that most people like would seem to be the music that best does that. To me, it seems that most classical fans who want to deride pop music do not typically appeal to the music "speaking to common humanity," but to a minority elitism: that they have better, more refined tastes, more knowledge, more intelligence, or whatever the case may be. This is not common humanity, it's _un_common humanity.


"There is nothing approaching this kind of universal sensation or judgment when it comes to art,.."

Really? Have you studied art or music?


----------



## Strange Magic

Luchesi said:


> "There is nothing approaching this kind of universal sensation or judgment when it comes to art,.."
> 
> Really? Have you studied art or music?


Are you saying that there is a universal reaction to art or music? That indeed would be newsworthy. I refer again to the !Kung of the Kalahari and perhaps an aesthete of the T'ang dynasty.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> Are you saying that there is a universal reaction to art or music? That indeed would be newsworthy. I refer again to the !Kung of the Kalahari and perhaps an aesthete of the T'ang dynasty.


There's a whole field of aesthetics for information about how to judge art, and from evolutionary psychology, why some art is more important and influential to the human animal. How and why the elements of successful art have their allure due to natural selection.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Larkenfield said:


> Despite his few obsessive critics, he does not lack for praise or admirers, and his place in history has already been secured. The trick is to not make enemies by being so fixated on him that little or no insight is shown for others and one appears to be a one-trick pony: Mozart only, first, last, and always. There will always be naysayers who fall short of recognizing genius, no matter who the composer.


No, Mr. Larkenfield, you've misunderstood me yet again. What disturbs me is not the number of people praising WAM, (which you find equally plentiful in other masters) but the number of people being bitter and angry about the praise, (which you don't find often in the case of other masters) and I'm convinced there is probably some kind of agreement or agenda by certain groups to brand WAM as nothing but a master of elevator music in attempts to glorify LVB, for example, out of proportion - maybe because without such propaganda, convincing everyone of LVB's 'alleged' absolute superiority (in expressing human struggle and suffering, all the bull they go on about all the time) over all others is not possible. 
Me? Fixated on something? You're the one to talk..  https://www.talkclassical.com/59923-composers-whose-music-most-2.html#post1590644 // https://www.talkclassical.com/59624-love-music-radical-eclecticism-8.html#post1585135
So I've made enemies (wow I feel so threatened now), I'm curious what they are going to do about it?
Tell you now, the biggest hypocrite (don't worry, you're not one of them  ) in my book is someone who listens to this section in LVB C major Razumovsky quartet 



 calling it 'music full of human struggle, suffering, and anguish' while calling this section in WAM C major Linz symphony 



 merely 'background music.' They always like to talk about the 'general style', but I'm curious if they really know it.

Op.10 No.1: 



K457: 




Op.111: 



K546: 



Op.111: 



K426: 



K546: 




Op.57: 



K475: 



Op.57: 



K475: 




Op.13: 



K457: 




Op.37: 



K491: 



Op.37: 



K388: 




Op.18 No.5: 



K464: 




Op.59 No.3: 



K465: 



Op.59 No.3: 



K465: 




Op.59 No.2: 



K465: 




K477: 




How many enthusiasts of WAM out there call GF Handel full of chocolate boxes, background music. This is the weird thing about 'some' extreme LVB enthusiasts, they think it's perfectly appropriate to call his 13.5-year senior predecessor stuff like 'background music', 'elevator music', 'notes spinning', 'music that has nothing to say', 'silly, emotionless crap', 'music for aristocrats' - distorting the truths about what musical background and ideology LVB really stood for. I'm curious as to what is their real motive. Not liking something is one thing. Having disrespect is another matter. Seriously, look how many threads there have been on this matter in the past few months.

Mozart Really is the King of Composers
Why does music get so angsty and dark with/after Beethoven?
The most advanced work you can truly get and enjoy
Classical Music Isn't Hard To Get


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Luchesi said:


> There's a whole field of aesthetics for information about how to judge art, and from evolutionary psychology, why some art is more important and influential to the human animal. How and why the elements of successful art have their allure due to natural selection.


Everything you mention here is interesting and worthy of discussion in itself (I've alluded to some of it myself above); but where in any of this did you mention an example of any work of art to which there was a universal reaction and judgment? Because, as Strange Magic suggested, that would be most newsworthy.


----------



## Luchesi

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Everything you mention here is interesting and worthy of discussion in itself (I've alluded to some of it myself above); but where in any of this did you mention an example of any work of art to which there was a universal reaction and judgment? Because, as Strange Magic suggested, that would be most newsworthy.


It's a good question about people from other cultures or people with little experience for appreciating difficult music from any culture. I assume that their judgements would be similar to serious CM fans about CM as soon as they had the exposure and experience. This is the foundation of the science of aesthetics. The elements of art and their interrelationships evoke a universal concurrence and agreement among all humans, because we have the same origins. This is a big subject. Some scholars point to the pattern searching and the integer recognition activity we do subconsciously.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Luchesi said:


> It's a good question about people from other cultures or people with little experience for appreciating difficult music from any culture. I assume that their judgements would be similar to serious CM fans about CM as soon as they had the exposure and experience. This is the foundation of the science of aesthetics. The elements of art and their interrelationships evoke a universal concurrence and agreement among all humans, because we have the same origins. This is a big subject. Some scholars point to the pattern searching and the integer recognition activity we do subconsciously.


I wouldn't be quick to that assumption! But it's a bit strange you say "exposure and experience." It's basically suggesting that if people were like classical music fans they'd be... classical music fans! That seems almost redundant, but then could be said for any people about any genre. You say "the elements of art and their interrelationships evoke a universal concurrence and agreement among all humans," but you've yet to offer an example of such a "universal concurrence and agreement among all humans," you've just suggested that there might be such a thing if other people "had the exposure and experience" of classical music fans. That's kind of the point though: they don't! So subjective differences shape how we react to music (and other art), and there is no universal concurrence and agreement. Even among classical music fans there is not universal concurrence and agreement; there is no composer or work that everybody loves.

The two fundamental elements at work in all subjective apprehension of art is pattern and surprise. These two qualities are present in all art to varying degrees, and while our evolutionary biology helps with basic pattern finding, culture also acclimates us to certain patterns as well. Further, people vary greatly in their tolerance of and appreciation for both pattern and surprise. For some, show them familiar patterns and they'll never grow tired of them, while others grow bored quickly; similarly, some seek out constant surprise while others can't stand it. This is also at work in the liberal/conservative mind-set (not just in political terms, either). We also differ on what KINDS of patterns and surprise we enjoy. Again, all of this mediated by subjectivity, not universally applicable principles, except on the most basic/abstract level as to make any specific discussion (eg, as it pertains to classical or pop music) nearly impossible.


----------



## Larkenfield

Quote Originally Posted by Eva Yojimbo
“The two fundamental elements at work in all subjective apprehension of art is pattern and surprise. These two qualities are present in all art to varying degrees”

Oh yes, definitely. If the pattern is too familiar there can indeed be boredom... If there’s too much surprise there can be too much uncertainty. The need for pattern and surprise can vary because those words are conditioned by activities that might initially not have anything to do with art because of the person’s life experiences. But the needs for both seems to be universal within the context of the culture the person is living in. For me, Mozart has represented the perfect balance of both qualities: the perfect combination of pattern and surprise.


----------



## Luchesi

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I wouldn't be quick to that assumption! But it's a bit strange you say "exposure and experience." It's basically suggesting that if people were like classical music fans they'd be... classical music fans! That seems almost redundant, but then could be said for any people about any genre. You say "the elements of art and their interrelationships evoke a universal concurrence and agreement among all humans," but you've yet to offer an example of such a "universal concurrence and agreement among all humans," you've just suggested that there might be such a thing if other people "had the exposure and experience" of classical music fans. That's kind of the point though: they don't! So subjective differences shape how we react to music (and other art), and there is no universal concurrence and agreement. Even among classical music fans there is not universal concurrence and agreement; there is no composer or work that everybody loves.
> 
> The two fundamental elements at work in all subjective apprehension of art is pattern and surprise. These two qualities are present in all art to varying degrees, and while our evolutionary biology helps with basic pattern finding, culture also acclimates us to certain patterns as well. Further, people vary greatly in their tolerance of and appreciation for both pattern and surprise. For some, show them familiar patterns and they'll never grow tired of them, while others grow bored quickly; similarly, some seek out constant surprise while others can't stand it. This is also at work in the liberal/conservative mind-set (not just in political terms, either). We also differ on what KINDS of patterns and surprise we enjoy. Again, all of this mediated by subjectivity, not universally applicable principles, except on the most basic/abstract level as to make any specific discussion (eg, as it pertains to classical or pop music) nearly impossible.


Thanks for the reply. 
You believe those points and assertions. Perhaps it's because I've been a musician a long time that I prefer not to believe them. It comes across as funereal. The semantics and syntax of music seem to me to be universal, because it's all based on simple logic, our linguistic brains and our survival outlooks. Artistically constrained ambiguity is what intrigues us. The ambiguity of it all, as in a game if it's tastefully splashed here and there.

These ideas surely aren't original with me. I'm only remembering what I've studied.

Exposure and experience. A poor analogy would be, taking a child from any culture and teaching them the history and the great games of chess. They will eventually appreciate the game of chess. They might not like it, it's not about liking. They might not want to invest the effort in learning more about the strategies or watch the games. They might come back to it later in life.


----------



## Guest

Eva Yojimbo said:


> The two fundamental elements at work in all subjective apprehension of art is pattern and surprise.


Or the familiar and the unfamiliar? Or expectation confirmed and expectation denied?

I don't disagree that pattern and surprise can be important - pattern in particular - but I'm not so sure that surprise is as fundamental to _*all *_subjective etc...


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Luchesi said:


> Thanks for the reply.
> You believe those points and assertions. Perhaps it's because I've been a musician a long time that I prefer not to believe them. It comes across as funereal. The semantics and syntax of music seem to me to be universal, because it's all based on simple logic, our linguistic brains and our survival outlooks. Artistically constrained ambiguity is what intrigues us. The ambiguity of it all, as in a game if it's tastefully splashed here and there.
> 
> These ideas surely aren't original with me. I'm only remembering what I've studied.
> 
> Exposure and experience. A poor analogy would be, taking a child from any culture and teaching them the history and the great games of chess. They will eventually appreciate the game of chess. They might not like it, it's not about liking. They might not want to invest the effort in learning more about the strategies or watch the games. They might come back to it later in life.


Wishful thinking doesn't help us discern the truth though, and I see nothing "funereal" about the truth. I do believe there is a quasi logic behind the semantics and syntax of music, and it's that quasi logic that appeals to us, but, again, I think this is different than saying we can get to some there is some universal reaction/judgment. These are two separate-if-related issues.

I get what you're saying RE chess, but, again, that kind of cultural learning seems rather detached from the argument of common humanity, innate logic, biological programming, etc. that innately attracts us to music. Wouldn't the most universal music NOT require any learning or social/cultural conditioning? This is why I say that, if there's any music that's truly universal, it would probably be pop, which requires little-to-no education for people to like and is globally successful.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

MacLeod said:


> Or the familiar and the unfamiliar? Or expectation confirmed and expectation denied?
> 
> I don't disagree that pattern and surprise can be important - pattern in particular - but I'm not so sure that surprise is as fundamental to _*all *_subjective etc...


Yes, familiar/unfamiliar or expectation confirmed/denied works too.

Surprise is important because that's generally how/why art changes. The greatest artists/works tend to be those who did something different so as to provoke future artists to explore the new paths they carved out. I think most of our favorite artists tend to be those who introduced us to something new we'd never encountered before. Newness/Surprise is the excitement of encountering the unknown in all its potential, wonder, and even scariness. In a film like 2001: A Space Odyssey that theme is embedded into every aspect of the film, including the music. There's a big difference between the genteel familiarity of Strauss's Blue Danube as we dance through space VS Ligeti's Lux Aeterna when we encounter the monolith.


----------



## Larkenfield

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Yes, familiar/unfamiliar or expectation confirmed/denied works too.
> 
> Surprise is important because that's generally how/why art changes. The greatest artists/works tend to be those who did something different so as to provoke future artists to explore the new paths they carved out. I think most of our favorite artists tend to be those who introduced us to something new we'd never encountered before. Newness/Surprise is the excitement of encountering the unknown in all its potential, wonder, and even scariness. In a film like 2001: A Space Odyssey that theme is embedded into every aspect of the film, including the music. There's a big difference between the genteel familiarity of Strauss's Blue Danube as we dance through space VS Ligeti's Lux Aeterna when we encounter the monolith.


Beautifully said! Wow.


----------



## Larkenfield

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Yes, familiar/unfamiliar or expectation confirmed/denied works too.
> 
> Surprise is important because that's generally how/why art changes. The greatest artists/works tend to be those who did something different so as to provoke future artists to explore the new paths they carved out. I think most of our favorite artists tend to be those who introduced us to something new we'd never encountered before. Newness/Surprise is the excitement of encountering the unknown in all its potential, wonder, and even scariness. In a film like 2001: A Space Odyssey that theme is embedded into every aspect of the film, including the music. There's a big difference between the genteel familiarity of Strauss's Blue Danube as we dance through space VS Ligeti's Lux Aeterna when we encounter the monolith.


Beautifully expressed!


----------



## DaveM

Speaking of the monolith:


----------



## Luchesi

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Wishful thinking doesn't help us discern the truth though, and I see nothing "funereal" about the truth. I do believe there is a quasi logic behind the semantics and syntax of music, and it's that quasi logic that appeals to us, but, again, I think this is different than saying we can get to some there is some universal reaction/judgment. These are two separate-if-related issues.
> 
> I get what you're saying RE chess, but, again, that kind of cultural learning seems rather detached from the argument of common humanity, innate logic, biological programming, etc. that innately attracts us to music. Wouldn't the most universal music NOT require any learning or social/cultural conditioning? This is why I say that, if there's any music that's truly universal, it would probably be pop, which requires little-to-no education for people to like and is globally successful.


CM is founded on and in the same interval fascinations as pop music. But we know what the added value is with CM.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Luchesi said:


> CM is founded on and in the same interval fascinations as pop music. But we know what the added value is with CM.


Yes, the tonal foundations are the same, but the use they're put to is quite different. The use makes pop music much more accessible to the "common humanity" that is most everyone uneducated in music. I would not deny that there is added value in what CM does (which isn't to say I think it's actually more valuable than pop music), but this added value is subjective and requires a certain amount of openness to enjoy and education to appreciate. So, once again, we're not appealing to common humanity but to something much rarer.


----------



## Luchesi

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Yes, the tonal foundations are the same, but the use they're put to is quite different. The use makes pop music much more accessible to the "common humanity" that is most everyone uneducated in music. I would not deny that there is added value in what CM does (which isn't to say I think it's actually more valuable than pop music), but this added value is subjective and requires a certain amount of openness to enjoy and education to appreciate. So, once again, we're not appealing to common humanity but to something much rarer.


I know a scientist who works for Boeing. I've known him a long time and he says he's tone deaf. He says he can barely tell one song from another except for some conspicuous sounds by instruments or if he catches the lyrics. He's always thinking, but he's never really cared about music around him. If he wasn't so polite to me as a musician he would say that he's not missing much..

I've often thought about him as a striking example of the opposite of a person with superb relative pitch, how does somebody go through a modern life and avoid even a low level of musical IQ?


----------

