# Has music's progress been "held back" at any point in history?



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Has it? Consider when the church and aristocrats were charge of the vast majority of published music and what makes Gesualdo uniquely innovative. Also consider the most "agreed upon" trends in music composition over the years and the fact that _restrictions_ can also make a composer use their brain more and become more creative with what they can do.

There's your prompt, essay due Friday so I can mark responses on the weekend.


----------



## Ludric (Oct 29, 2014)

Well, musical composition was certainly restricted in Soviet Russia during the reign of Stalin. However, this did produce a lot of music that was uniquely "Russian " sounding.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

The only progress I know of in music is technological - the invention of new instruments, of new tools like recording or amplification, of new techniques of performance or composition, and so on, all of which may or may not be used - and perhaps economic, as capitalism makes increasingly more money available for more expensive projects (larger orchestras and so on). Everything else is just a series of trends. There is progress in music only as there is in fashion: some new materials, new techniques, more of all of it, but aesthetically spandex biker shorts aren't inherently superior to silk tights, nor Penderecki to Praetorius. 

This progress has been held back all the time, of course, by poverty, by counterproductive institutions, by explicit conservatism such as Ludric mentioned in the USSR which has occurred most of the time in history, and perhaps occasionally by conservative patrons as well.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Never! Even in the Nazi concentration camps, really fine classical music was being composed under the worst of conditions.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

Ugly music don't make much money, otherwise Mozart would have certainly done more tritone twelve-tone stuff.


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Ugly music don't make much money, otherwise Mozart would have certainly done more tritone twelve-tone stuff.


ugly music is an oxymoron


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Has music's progress been "held back" at any point in history?Has it? Consider when the church and aristocrats were charge of the vast majority of published music and what makes Gesualdo uniquely innovative. Also consider the most "agreed upon" trends in music composition over the years and the fact that _restrictions_ can also make a composer use their brain more and become more creative with what they can do.
> 
> There's your prompt, essay due Friday so I can mark responses on the weekend.


Yes, the fact that Gesualdo was highly chromatic is certainly a sign of things to come. Chromaticism, and the division of the octave into 12 parts, is the basis of all musical concepts to come, an inevitability which was always inherently opposed to tonality's triadic and harmonic model, which was an approximation from the start.

Whether or not this inevitable progression was "held back" at any point in history is hard to pin down, as it indicates a "holding pattern" or passive reluctance to move forward, usually not manifest as a "movement" or artistic trend or school (except maybe *Brahms'* opposition to the Wagnerian camp). This is not as important as the instances in which music's progress has been _advanced _at various points in history.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I'm amazed at what the Leonin and Perotin group were able to come up with considering the strict rules the church imposed regarding rhythm and what intervals could harmonize under what notes.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Manxfeeder said:


> I'm amazed at what the Leonin and Perotin group were able to come up with considering the strict rules the church imposed regarding rhythm and what intervals could harmonize under what notes.


Like Gesualdo, they were "getting away with murder."


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Never! Even in the Nazi concentration camps, really fine classical music was being composed under the worst of conditions.


Yes, especially music composed _in_ a concentration camp!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

SeptimalTritone said:


> Yes, especially music composed _in_ a concentration camp!


Yes. Can you imagine with all the abuses; the starvation and torture, people were writing sophisticated music in secrecy.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

SeptimalTritone said:


> Yes, especially music composed _in_ a concentration camp!


For the sake of accuracy, that piece was written in a POW camp, not a concentration camp.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Manxfeeder said:


> I'm amazed at what the Leonin and Perotin group were able to come up with considering the strict rules the church imposed regarding rhythm and what intervals could harmonize under what notes.


Back than many people didn't care what intervals were used, so long as it fitted to a mode and started and ended on the same note of which the mode is based.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Has music's progress been "held back" at any point in history?


yes it has, since the moment it became part of mass culture, somewhere circa the 1960s and up till now.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

Ludric said:


> Well, musical composition was certainly restricted in Soviet Russia during the reign of Stalin.


it wasn't... on the contrary, arts and, among them music were highly promoted in the USSR, for best results than anywhere in the world, as practice shows it.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

^^^ so the message from Moscow is clear - for good music, bring back a repressive regime and crack a few skulls - that's the way forward, Comrades!

Count me out!


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

Headphone Hermit said:


> ^^^ so the message from Moscow is clear - for good music, bring back a repressive regime


'regime'?.. nah, a support and protection, that's what in fact it was.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

every society needs support and protection for its values, arts included; saboteurs and subverters may suffer, yes, but its their problem - should not have tried to deprave and corrupt anyone there.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

"Support" and "protection"? Shostakovich should have been grateful.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

sharik said:


> every society needs support and protection for its values, arts included; *saboteurs and subverters may suffer*, yes, but its their problem - should not have tried to deprave and corrupt anyone there.


Who do you mean by saboteurs and subverters?


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

sharik said:


> it wasn't... on the contrary, arts and, among them music were highly promoted in the USSR, for best results than anywhere in the world, as practice shows it.


Tell that to these people

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge#Intelligentsia


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

Der Leiermann said:


> "Support" and "protection"? Shostakovich should have been grateful.


yes of course he should, because where else in the world he would have had a better opportunites than he had with the Soviets; and not only him, there was a plenty of other brilliant composers, like Khatchaturan and Sviridov, not to mention Prokofiev, who profited from the State's support and protection.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

Piwikiwi said:


> Tell that to these people
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge#Intelligentsia


let's not shed crocodile tears about those who were with the Bolsheviks and part to the Revolution; they only reaped what they sew.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Pleasr tell me about the terrible crimes of those people that made them deserving of being tortured, imprisoned and killed.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

sharik said:


> let's not shed crocodile tears about those who were with the Bolsheviks and part to the Revolution; they only reaped what they sew.


I must be misunderstanding you because it seems that you're praising the system that was put in place by the revolution, while simultaneously you're criticising the revolution.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

Der Leiermann said:


> Pleasr tell me about the terrible crimes of those people that made them deserving of being tortured, imprisoned and killed.


it wasn't a matter of crime; the USSR was an emerging state, a *new model state*, in all areas of human activity; besides, it emerged from chaos of the Civil War, so this just could not go without collateral victims.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

Nereffid said:


> I must be misunderstanding you because it seems that you're praising the system that was put in place by the revolution, while simultaneously you're criticising the revolution.


spot on. Stalin's view of what his State should be has nothing to do with idea of the Revolution; in fact he curbed its spreading worldwide... there's the USSR and the USSR, both have nothing to do with each other.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

sharik said:


> spot on. Stalin's view of what his State should be has nothing to do with idea of the Revolution; in fact he curbed its spreading worldwide... there's the USSR and the USSR, both have nothing to do with each other.


And the George Orwell said "doublethink" and the concept changed the world forever.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> And the George Orwell said "doublethink" and the concept changed the world forever.


even more so, i'd say triplethink was practiced back then.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

that is, destruction and creation and preservation - all three at the same time.


----------



## Animato (Dec 5, 2013)

The thirty-years-war in the 17th century. It wasn't really a good time to create new musical styles. There is Heinrich Schütz, who endured this horrible period of history and who wrote extraordinary oevers. But I think, that's it. Orlando di Lasso and Gesualdo lived just before that time, if I am not mistaken - and Monteverdi came thereafter.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

From what I know and understand, yes the USSR put a lot of effort into sustaining the arts, however the bias and musical taste of those in charge were undoubtedly restrictive. Composers who wished to pursue in the avant-garde field that was becoming prominent especially in Germany couldn't really do so. I wouldn't argue strongly that there was "protection," but certainly support, preservation and encouragement was evident, despite the avant-garde effectively being forced away.

I suppose this may also partly prove Sharik's point:



sharik said:


> that is, destruction and creation and preservation - all three at the same time.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> From what I know and understand, yes the USSR put a lot of effort into sustaining the arts, however the bias and musical taste of those in charge were undoubtedly restrictive. Composers who wished to pursue in the avant-garde field that was becoming prominent especially in Germany couldn't really do so.


i think that has to do with avantgarde falling out of fashion, by the 1930s people were already fed up with it, and avantgarde began to seem trite and commonplace because there had been overproduction of that stuff during post-Revolution period when avantgarde was the officially approved form of art.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

...to such an extent that a return to the norm (i.e. good ol' classical art) would be seen as a step forward


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Let's keep this thread focused on music. Some posts were deleted because they contained no content related to music.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Not really "held back" as such but I would say maybe closer to recent decades, it has been more about change as the masses have gone for other types of music, which is popular music generally speaking. It's now quite a musical event compared with maybe just fifty years ago to attend a concert hall for a new piano concerto, or a new symphony or new opera. Chamber music I think does better, it seems to me more new chamber pieces today are being written than large scale pieces and performed by professional musicians in a concert hall.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

There have been restrictions on music for centuries. Music is a very powerful force, and those at the top of the food chain try to control music distribution to stay on top.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Before this thread is closed down I would like to make a totally pointless statement.

Dumb music makes more money than good music: "Yummy, Yummy, Yummy I've Got Love in My Tummy" or "I've got Tears in My Ears From Lyin' On My Back in My Bed While I Cry Over You" or Billy Bob's Banjo Band's rendition of "She'll be Coming Around the Mountain.

Many of us have tried to make this point in many posts. Really? This is a classical music thread. Do we really want to draw a correlation between sales and the quality of music?

I recently read an article about the early history of recordings. Even with Edison's Company classical music only made up about 7% of the sales. It appears nothing has changed.

It appears to me that in every era there will always be those who push the envelope. Sometime the music is good. There will always be those composers who are more concerned about making a buck. Sometimes there music is good too.

Note: Do not ask what good music is because I do not know.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Music has always been held back. It's the friction that makes the noise.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

arpeggio said:


> Dumb music makes more money than good music


not anymore, these days neither of music styles make money.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

arpeggio said:


> Dumb music makes more money than good music: "Yummy, Yummy, Yummy I've Got Love in My Tummy"...


A fine song, one that opened new avenues in popular music of the time! Of course it's not a patch on "My Sharona". But then, what is?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> Let's keep this thread focused on music. Some posts were deleted because they contained no content related to music.


I just hope you're there the next time they try to derail a thread of mine by chatting benignly about irrelevancies.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

sharik said:


> not anymore, these days neither of music styles make money.


Tell that to Jay-Z.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

violadude said:


> Tell that to Jay-Z.


Jay-Z made a bit of money with his music made some smart choices in investing that money.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Hey! "My Sharona" and Jay-Z are *almost* not music! You're treading on shaky ground!


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

violadude said:


> Tell that to Jay-Z.


tell that to his expenses on advertising; financially he is a flop like all those in the mass media.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

sharik said:


> tell that to his expenses on advertising; financially he is a flop like all those in the mass media.


"Jay-Z net worth: Jay-Z is an American rapper, songwriter and business man. who has a net worth of $560 million."

I wouldn't call that a financial flop


----------



## Guest (Nov 20, 2014)

sharik said:


> tell that to his expenses on advertising; financially he is a flop like all those in the mass media.


'All those' in the mass media?



> According to _Forbes' 2013 list of richest Americans, Murdoch is the 33rd richest person in the US and the 91st richest person in the world, with a net worth of US$13.4 billion. In 2014, Forbes ranked "Rupert Murdoch & Family" as the 33rd most-powerful person in the world._


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch#Influence.2C_wealth_and_reputation


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

Piwikiwi said:


> Jay-Z is an American rapper, songwriter and business man. who has a net worth of $560 million." I wouldn't call that a financial flop


i meant in terms of music moneyback; here's where he is flop; but of course being a successful businessman made him able to afford that.



MacLeod said:


> 'All those' in the mass media? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch#Influence.2C_wealth_and_reputation


he was rich from the very start; all the rest is politics; him being a media magnate has more to do with acquiring fo spheres of influence than money as such.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Richard Murdoch is why capitalism is so insidious.


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

sharik said:


> every society needs support and protection for its values, arts included; saboteurs and subverters may suffer, yes, but its their problem - should not have tried to deprave and corrupt anyone there.


In the case of more evolved societies, where freedom (artistic freedom included) is a core value, the society can protect that value by making sure art is produced while not interfering with the content of the art.

In the case of corrupt, totalitarian countries, the society and its values have been replaced by a regime with only one value: staying in power. The only artistic protection provided by such a regime is of the kind "If you write music that we like, we can protect you from us..."


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Composers have composed; painters have painted; writers have written under the worst of circumstances and regimes.
The concentration camps teemed with artistic creativity. Same under Soviet Communism.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

TresPicos said:


> In the case of more evolved societies


and how many masterpieces these 'evoled societies' have produced?



TresPicos said:


> freedom (artistic freedom included) is a core value


no such thing ever existed; art has always been made to someone's order.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Not always. Sometimes folks simply have the urge to express themselves without commission. Look at Van Gogh. He never sold a painting during his lifetime.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

hpowders said:


> Look at Van Gogh. He never sold a painting during his lifetime.


well, he is a one off; but we can't go by impressionists or pre-Raphaelites, because not many artists can afford being obscure.


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

hpowders said:


> Not always. Sometimes folks simply have the urge to express themselves without commission. Look at Van Gogh. He never sold a painting during his lifetime.


This is now known to be false, as Van Gogh sold multiple pieces, and submitted others for potential sales. Unless of course you're suggesting he sold no paintings by choice?


----------



## Guest (Nov 20, 2014)

There's a difference between making art to order, and making art for sale. Let's not let single examples obscure the whole range of artist/consumer relations.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> There's a difference between making art to order, and making art for sale.


but art is the least likely product to sell well.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Has it? Consider when the church and aristocrats were charge of the vast majority of published music and what makes Gesualdo uniquely innovative. Also consider the most "agreed upon" trends in music composition over the years and the fact that _restrictions_ can also make a composer use their brain more and become more creative with what they can do.
> 
> There's your prompt, essay due Friday so I can mark responses on the weekend.


I think it varies by genre. Church music maybe, but not other genres like opera. Opera was always a fashionable taste thing to some extent - latest big singers, political intrigue etc. etc. Mozart put on his Figaro, but Beethoven put his Fidelio, two very contrasting operas, Figaro progressive but an earlier piece.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Richard Murdoch is why capitalism is so insidious.


Rupert, my mistake. But who cares, never thought much of him anyway


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

sharik said:


> but art is the least likely product to sell well.


Interesting that the music industry remains such big business, don't you think?


----------



## Guest (Nov 21, 2014)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Rupert, my mistake. But who cares, never thought much of him anyway


Perhaps you were thinking of Richard Branson, who also made money in the media industry?


----------



## Guest (Nov 21, 2014)

sharik said:


> but art is the least likely product to sell well.


So? Your point was that 'all art is made to [someone's] order'. I disagree. The county I live in is full of people who just like to create. They like to sell too, but that's not the prime motive.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Interesting that the music industry remains such big business, don't you think?


i don't think so, because 'music industry' as a term sounds like oxymoron; the mass media does attempt to justify the existance of mass culture as being 'profitable' and corroborate this by footages of The Rolling Stones packing stadiums; but what was kept quiet about is how much had been spend on advertising and what the cost of advertising and product placement outlets as from perspective of necessity to support these for a long term on daily basis: TV, radio, newspapers, etc.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> The county I live in is full of people who just like to create. They like to sell too


they do like to sell what they create, but they either live off the rent or have day jobs.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

sharik said:


> i don't think so, because 'music industry' as a term sounds like oxymoron; the mass media does attempt to justify the existance of mass culture as being 'profitable' and corroborate this by footages of The Rolling Stones packing stadiums; but what was kept quiet about is how much had been spend on advertising and what the cost of advertising and product placement outlets as from perspective of necessity to support these for a long term on daily basis: TV, radio, newspapers, etc.


It really looks like you don't know about capitalism. If the advertising costs more than the revenues, the product will stop being made. These music companies exist to create profits; even if they have other goals as well. Should they fail to make profits consistently, investors will take their capital out, and the companies will stop existing.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

science said:


> It really looks like you don't know about capitalism


it isn't a matter of capitalism or any other -ism since long ago already; it is the matter of how The Power Elites rule a country.



science said:


> These music companies exist to create profits; even if they have other goals as well.


nope, the main goal of their existence is to create and hold a sphere of influence.



science said:


> Should they fail to make profits consistently, investors will take their capital out, and the companies will stop existing.


it concerns only those innumerous companies that were playing fair and without politics or policies involved, and thus not subsidised by a Ruling Elite or a lobby, and that aren't around anymore.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

I propose moving this into the "politics and religion" subforum.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I propose moving this into the "politics and religion" subforum.


but i'm banned from there.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

sharik said:


> but i'm banned from there.


Oh sorry to hear, please ignore my last comments then, mods, unless somehow the thread gets too out of hand (which it certainly isn't at the moment)


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

sharik said:


> nope, the main goal of their existence is to create and hold a sphere of influence.


I'm happy to consider this idea, but I need evidence. Can you show me some?


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

science said:


> I'm happy to consider this idea, but I need evidence. Can you show me some?


but how could i, since the above mentioned principles are never declared by those companies?


----------



## Guest (Nov 21, 2014)

sharik said:


> they do like to sell what they create, but they either live off the rent or have day jobs.


So? What has that to do with your assertion that art is only made to order?


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> So? What has that to do with your assertion that art is only made to order?


if you want to be a well known artist, you should make to order, otherwise you stay obscure.


----------



## Guest (Nov 21, 2014)

sharik said:


> if you want to be a well known artist, you should make to order, otherwise you stay obscure.


I'll just repeat your post that started this shifting exchange and leave it at that.



> art has always been made to someone's order


http://www.talkclassical.com/34988-has-musics-progress-been-post760276.html#post760276


----------

