# What makes a “great” composer?



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Reading the thread about Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven made me think: Many people (I believe) hear ways of looking at life in their music that are very different from what we find in the music of more recent composers. And one reason, perhaps, for preferring their music is that we prefer their world-views, different from each other as they are, to those prevailing today.

I know I’m putting this clumsily and inexactly. But I believe that we often consider these three the “greatest” composers not just because of their talents and skills, but maybe even more because of their values and the messages they still bring to us today.

What do you think?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> But I believe that we often consider these three the "greatest" composers not just because of their talents and skills, but maybe even more because of their values and the messages they still bring to us today.


It's only their talents and skills that enable them to convey their values and messages. One of those messages is the transcendent value of beauty (all things in just relationship and proportion), and to elaborate a musical idea into a structure of great complexity and flawless proportion requires extraordinary talent and skill. Hence greatness.


----------



## Zingara62 (Apr 20, 2017)

I really love classical music, and I know people always consider Bach, Beethoven and Mozart the greatests. But I think it is because of people's preferences and because their music is largely more known. As example, in my preferences I can't rank Mozart as someone better than Scriabin even if it sounds wrong to most part of listeners, and the message in their music must be the same in quality and values,
maybe the listeners often listen too much the same things with too much different players? what do you think?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Very briefly, I think it mostly is because of the widespread appreciation of their music; it just really appeals to a vast audience more than that of their "peers", before, contemporary, after.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Strange Magic said:


> Very briefly, I think it mostly is because of the widespread appreciation of their music; it just really appeals to a vast audience more than that of their "peers", before, contemporary, after.


Yes indeed. But why is that so?


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Writing symphonies and being German gives +100 to Greatness, being pressured by Stalin to write Social Realist music gives +50 to Popularity, and being born before Vivaldi and after Mahler makes you an insignificant peasant. This is reliably verified data.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

KenOC said:


> Yes indeed. But why is that so?


Market... lack of curiosity... lack of research... lack of marketing... 
the great examples must be kept. Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, but they are not the only ones, and the music started long before them
they had their heroes which are now forgotten by the main public.
and by the way, their music often were not the most celebrated while they were living.

One must die before become considered someone with a message or values
this was the world at those times, this is the world now, and guess what...

Best
Artur


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Without going all cynical, I'd say that Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven all built their own sound worlds. Because of the prevailing philosophies and values in these worlds, they seem, to many, to be good places to spend a lot of time.

I also love the music of Bartok, Stravinsky, and Shostakovich; but I'm not sure I'd want to live there.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

The greatest composers simply move me more emotionally than the others I consider beneath them.

It must be a contagiously human reaction because I have plenty of company-hundreds of thousands, if not millions who are moved by the music of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Mahler and Shostakovich.


But what also makes these composers "great" for me, the way each of these composers had a unique, unmistakeable musical "signature"-play 5-8 notes of any obscure composition by any of the above, and I would immediately know who the composer was. It's uncanny; genius, if you will.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Without going all cynical, I'd say that Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven all built their own sound worlds. Because of the prevailing philosophies and values in these worlds, they seem, to many, to be good places to spend a lot of time.
> 
> I also love the music of Bartok, Stravinsky, and Shostakovich; but I'm not sure I'd want to live there.


The worlds of say, Messiaen and Reich seem pretty livable to me, on the other hand.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

hpowders said:


> The greatest composers simply move me more emotionally than the others I consider beneath them.
> 
> It must be a contagiously human reaction because I have plenty of company-hundreds of thousands, if not millions who are moved by the music of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Mahler and Shostakovich.
> 
> It's the human thing to do.


I just ask what would happen if you have never heard any Mozart and have heard only Eberl's music played by all the famous pianists and orchestras...
Unfortunately people are not too open-minded as they claim, it is easier to say the famous ones are "better" and the rest do not give you any special emotion... 
I'm not saying this is necessarily your case hpowders, but it is worth thinking about it for all music lovers...

best
Artur


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Some artists seem to have the ability to tap into human consciousness of beauty more than do others. Though there are many preferences and opinions concerning one piece of art compared to another, it does seem that certain works garner the greatest appeal. There's a lot of Baroque music; I tend to prefer Bach's, with an exception here and there. There's a lot of classical era music; I tend to prefer Mozart's, with an exception here and there. There's a lot of early romantic music; I tend to prefer Beethoven's, with few exceptions here and there. And, it seems, society over the years has made the same selection.

Why is that? That remains the question. But again, there seems to be certain standards of beauty on which we all (almost) can agree. It's built into our DNA. Like, we all appreciate the beauty of a young child's face. That's programmed into our DNA so that we will protect the lovely creature. So with art. Some of it appeals to our nature, for reasons we can't readily explain in a logical manner. It must be something in our DNA. And those artists who can tap into that have an advantage towards achieving greatness.

Of course, no artist is a natural without doing some work. And I suspect that many a potential great artist never achieved the heights for any number of reasons. Gray's famous "Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard" speaks to this issue: genius that never had a chance to be known. But to get back to the trio mentioned above: they all worked hard at their craft. That remains a requisite, as well as that "ability" to appeal to the inner most recesses of the human cells.

Greatness generally requires a long track record of quality work. Few of the masters we recognize today are called "great" for a single work. (Homer is exceptional, perhaps, but the Iliad and Odyssey are immense. Dante did more than his Comedy, but again the Comedy is huge. Shakespeare shows us a fine body of work. As do Michelangelo, DaVinci, and Cezanne. And Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven.)

So, inherent talents at their craft coupled with an ability to appeal joined to a work ethic and ultimate production of art leads to a path where greatness may lie. In other words, no artist can set out to be great. This isn't something that can be taught in upper level arts classes in graduate school. There is always an ineffable quality at work. But that quality, maybe more than any other, the quality of being able to appeal to the mass consciousness, is what will ultimately determine greatness.


----------



## Klassik (Mar 14, 2017)

KenOC said:


> Reading the thread about Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven made me think: Many people (I believe) hear ways of looking at life in their music that are very different from what we find in the music of more recent composers. And one reason, perhaps, for preferring their music is that we prefer their world-views, different from each other as they are, to those prevailing today.


As for the first point, perhaps. Baroque and early Classical era music has a certain sound to it that isn't heard too frequently in modern pop or classical music. I'm sure it's there if you want to find it, but it's not amongst the most popular stuff. It has a certain sound of class and dignity to it even though it's somewhat light and unemotional or of an even temperament. It's not overly emotional to the extremes. It's somewhere in the middle.

As for the latter point, I can't really say that my enjoyment of Baroque or Classical era composers is because of their world views. Much of their music was written for their patrons tastes and so maybe we should evaluate their tastes and temperaments if anything. I just want to enjoy the music though.

Some people might look down at these composers for writing music that reflects what other people wanted and not their own moods, but there's something to be said about writing music for other people's enjoyment as shallow as some people view that to be. It perhaps explains why their music (Bach and Mozart at least) has been popular hundreds of years after their deaths. It's not like the music is completely devoid of their owns emotions because it's surely in there, but it's not so obvious that you can't enjoy the music is you are in a different mood than what the composer was in when the music was written. I'm not sure if that makes any sense.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

cimirro said:


> I just ask what would happen if you have never heard any Mozart and have heard only Eberl's music played by all the famous pianists and orchestras...


Sorry, that dawg don't run. I have a pretty large collection of music by contemporaries of Mozart and Haydn, and it's quite clear that none of them come close in quality, force, invention, and originality. If I'd never heard Mozart, I'd easily put Haydn at the head of that class but certainly wouldn't think more highly of the others. The differences are so great that it almost makes me believe in "objectivity" in such things, though I refuse to do that!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

cimirro said:


> I just ask what would happen if you have never heard any Mozart and have heard only Eberl's music played by all the famous pianists and orchestras...
> Unfortunately people are not too open-minded as they claim, it is easier to say the famous ones are "better" and the rest do not give you any special emotion...
> I'm not saying this is necessarily your case hpowders, but it is worth thinking about it for all music lovers...
> 
> ...


I actually have an extensive musical listening history and trust me, the famous ones ARE better. THAT's why they are famous! 

As Ken puts it, "that dawg don't run." :lol:


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

The big 3 wrote music that is generally more accessible for listeners of all levels of experience. Tchaikovsky also appeals to many newer listeners, but his works generally don't have the level of formal perfection of the big 3, while Mahler like we have seen, appeals more to more experienced listeners. Everyone has their own criteria for greatness, and the big 3 happen to be the ones that fit more people's criteria than others.

I used to consider Mozart and Beethoven the greatest of all. I felt Bach was less flexible rhythmically, but his harmonies are great. But getting into atonal music more, I found my criteria has changed. It is more rhythm-heavy now, and focusses more on different timbres and combinations of sounds into rhythms, so the big 3 appear to me now as only a few of the many greats.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The trend toward individualism and self-expression in music, a trend which can be said to have begun with Beethoven but really picked up steam with Romanticism and accelerated into Modernism, meant that the sound and expressive content of a given composer's music would be more narrowly focused, more specific in its expressive intent, than the music of earlier periods typically was. It's often remarked that the music of Bach and Mozart conveys little notion of what they were like as persons (in fact this is the underlying idea of Shaffer's _Amadeus_), in contrast to, say, the music of Chopin, Tchaikovsky, or Schoenberg, which we may feel becomes more comprehensible to us when we know something about its composers. I think that this relative impersonality of the art of Baroque and Classical composers contributes to its ability to resist the tides of fashion and to speak to vast numbers of people across the centuries, while later composers, even the great ones whose music continues to be loved and played, tend to have narrower followings of people responsive to their music's more specific sounds and messages.


----------



## Klassik (Mar 14, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> I think that this relative impersonality of the art of Baroque and Classical composers contributes to its ability to resist the tides of fashion and to speak to vast numbers of people across the centuries, while later composers, even the great one whose music continues to be loved and played, tend to have narrower followings of people responsive to their music's more specific sounds and messages.


Yes, this pretty much sums up my view of things. There's such universality to Baroque and early Classical era music that I find so enjoyable. This isn't to say that I don't enjoy Romantic era music because I do, but there comes a certain point with certain composers where it's too personal. I say too personal, but you almost wonder if the emotions are falsely pushed to the extremes for musical effect. It feels like they are in a black and white world with emotions staying black and white or jumping in between with no stop in the middle. The earlier composers seemed to create music that stays in a realistic area in the vast grayscale in the middle that represents everyday life for almost everyone. I know the vast grayscale in the middle is boring to some, but it's what life really is for most.


----------



## Bruckner Anton (Mar 10, 2016)

Progressive (historical context), good compositional technique (professional), good taste (aesthetic beauty).


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Klassik said:


> Yes, this pretty much sums up my view of things. There's such universality to Baroque and early Classical era music that I find so enjoyable. This isn't to say that I don't enjoy Romantic era music because I do, but there comes a certain point with certain composers where it's too personal. I say too personal, but you almost wonder if the emotions are falsely pushed to the extremes for musical effect. It feels like they are in a black and white world with emotions staying black and white or jumping in between with no stop in the middle. The earlier composers seemed to create music that stays in a realistic area in the vast grayscale in the middle that represents everyday life for almost everyone. I know the vast grayscale in the middle is boring to some, but it's what life really is for most.


Well, Klassic, "grayscale" is a unique way of putting it, but I think we're noting the same phenomenon. I don't mind giving my younger self a little pat on the head and saying that I noticed this even as a teenager discovering classical music; I think my comment to a friend was that music seemed to concern itself with smaller and smaller matters as time went on. I suspect this was how Brahms felt too, and that bucking this trend of "personalization" was part of his motivation in trying to maintain Classical ideals. Wagner solved the problem differently, by creating vast dramatic canvases on which innumerable "smaller matters" could be gathered to complete each other and so create a world. Mahler tried to follow Wagner's lead of "universality through accumulation" in the symphony. Of course all three of these Romantics exhibit more "personality" than Bach or Mozart - especially Mahler, who ended producing works that virtually epitomize the Romantic's agonizing and self-contradictory attempt to grasp the universal through the personal.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Well, I'm not saying you (hpowders) or KenOC have not an extensive musical listening history, but I also have an extensive musical listening and also a *reading-score history*.
And you must remember you both (and me) are not the examples of the most part of the public in classical music. Most part stop in the main repertoire which are available in CDs of famous labels.



hpowders said:


> the famous ones ARE better. THAT's why they are famous!


Sometimes these sentences make me give up wasting time answering here, but, ok...
Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Liszt, Brahms, etc, all of them at some point (if you read their letters and books about their life) mentioned other composers which they considered genius in the same quality of the today "famous masters".
Bach didn't started the counterpoint, actually he was a conservative composer. He made a kind of "vademecum" based in all the techniques of other great genius who lived before him. 
His works are wonderful, of course, but there is no Bach without Poglietti, Buxtehude, Bruhns, and several others. and these are not minor composers, nor their works are minor works, anyway they are not famous TODAY, and they were famous between these genius people who studied their music and called them genius
The world today claims having no time to learning more about them, and that's all. I always call it laziness, it is easier to say Bach is the only one.
So there is no possible discussion if you keep the market in mind or if you choose to keep the discussion in the personal taste based in the repetition of listening the same and/or bad recordings.



KenOC said:


> Sorry, that dawg don't run. I have a pretty large collection of music by contemporaries of Mozart and Haydn, and it's quite clear that none of them come close in quality, force, invention, and originality.


So, I would recommend paying attention to the musical scores of Pollini, Eberl, Dussek, probably these recordings you find are not made of great interpretations, but I can tell you there is no difference if you hear them in very good interpretations or if you study the score.
Of course, not everything by them is miraculous, but not everything by the greatest are also miraculous...

Best
Artur Cimirro


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> Very briefly, I think it mostly is because of the widespread appreciation of their music; it just really appeals to a vast audience more than that of their "peers", before, contemporary, after.





KenOC said:


> Yes indeed. But why is that so?


Woodduck comes close, asymptotically, to answering this question, but there is an _ex post facto_ quality to "explanations" of why people prefer A to B in the arts. The preferences are easy enough to determine by polls, after all of the fighting is over about who is to be polled and how the questions have been framed--our colleague Nereffid knows all about that. But the part about why always comes after the who or the what. To be truly scientific and predictive, one should be able to draw up in advance the particulars that make a composer or work or body of works "popular" or "great" or whatever, and then have the answer pop up by itself. Every wine expert is unerringly correct except when the wines' identities and prices are very carefully concealed in taste tests. Then one gets far different results.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> Woodduck comes close, asymptotically


Hey! What'd you call me? You can't call me that! You take that back or I'll...


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

cimirro said:


> So, I would recommend paying attention to the musical scores of Pollini, Eberl, Dussek, probably these recordings you find are not made of great interpretations, but I can tell you there is no difference if you hear them in very good interpretations or if you study the score.


Not quite sure who your "Pollini" is (not the pianist I suppose), but as for the other two: Comparable to Mozart or Haydn? I'm sure they were fine folks, but that just ain't so!


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

cimirro said:


> Well, I'm not saying you (hpowders) or KenOC have not an extensive musical listening history, but I also have an extensive musical listening and also a *reading-score history*.
> And you must remember you both (and me) are not the examples of the most part of the public in classical music. Most part stop in the main repertoire which are available in CDs of famous labels.
> 
> Sometimes these sentences make me give up wasting time answering here, but, ok...
> ...


Good point. Beethoven thought Handel was the greatest. I personally think he paved the way to the Classical period, his works were sophisticated beyond his time. Then there is also Haydn. i still think his masses have never been surpassed.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

This is why I mention reading their letters, books about, etc
i mean Francesco Pollini (1762-1846) probaly the first to use a piano writing with 3 staffs
Mozart enjoyed him a lot.
I admit I never heard any impressive recording of his music, often played in old instruments.
but I have more than 30 scores by him - great variations, some impressive fantasy-style pieces. 
At the piano I prefer much more him than Haydn

All the best
Artur Cimirro


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

KenOC said:


> Not quite sure who your "Pollini" is (not the pianist I suppose), but as for the other two: Comparable to Mozart or Haydn? I'm sure they were fine folks, but that just ain't so!


Take these scores:
- Mozart - Sonata in c minor K457 (his best sonata)
- Eberl - Sonata Op.1
compare the scores and tell me if Eberl is "less"

and Dussek is not less too, he is one step more in the direction of the romanticism after Mozart and before the late Beethoven.
unfortunately he remains in the shadow of "moving the piano because of a beautiful face", anyway he was not only a beautiful face.

Best
Artur Cimirro


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

cimirro said:


> This is why I mention reading their letters, books about, etc
> i mean Francesco Pollini (1762-1846) probaly the first to use a piano writing with 3 staffs
> Mozart enjoyed him a lot.
> I admit I never heard any impressive recording of his music, often played in old instruments.
> ...


Thanks for the interesting information. I've never heard of him before - when you first mentioned Pollini, I thought that you were referring to the pianist! :lol:

You should host an unknown composer thread on Francesco Pollini...mmsbls is looking for people who are willing to continue the series, and he said it's OK to host twice. If you've recorded any of Pollini's music, you could include those links in your thread.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Greatness basically means the ability to communicate throughout time, beyond geography, beyond culture, beyond knowledge and experience. The inherent beauty speaks to listeners. Whether you are from Yukon, Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, York, or Yokohama, people find intrinsic beauty that speaks from the music. This is greatness. Fact.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Bettina said:


> Thanks for the interesting information. I've never heard of him before - when you first mentioned Pollini, I thought that you were referring to the pianist! :lol:


Bettina 
Yes, a good example of unknown composer 



Bettina said:


> You should host an unknown composer thread on Francesco Pollini...mmsbls is looking for people who are willing to continue the series, and he said it's OK to host twice. If you've recorded any of Pollini's music, you could include those links in your thread.


I didn't recorded his music yet, I have plans of doing this at some point
Hosting would be good, anyway I'm afraid posting the recordings I already heard will not make anyone interested
And there is a funny fact in examples like Tausig, once he was recorded with wrong notes and cuts by Ponti (the pianist) sometimes people think my recording is wrong :lol: 
That's life.
(Maybe I'll do Zichy, Michalowski or Szántó as a next unknown thread, why not?)

Best
Artur


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Bettina said:


> You should host an unknown composer thread on Francesco Pollini...mmsbls is looking for people who are willing to continue the series, and he said it's OK to host twice. If you've recorded any of Pollini's music, you could include those links in your thread.


He'd certainly qualify as "unknown." He has no Wiki page and I can locate only one recording on Amazon, with no reviews.

Added: No English Wiki page that is. Cimirro points to a German one!


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

ArtMusic said:


> Greatness basically means the ability to communicate throughout time, beyond geography, beyond culture, beyond knowledge and experience. The inherent beauty speaks to listeners. Whether you are from Yukon, Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, York, or Yokohama, people find intrinsic beauty that speaks from the music. This is greatness. Fact.


I'm skeptical about your claim that great music possesses universal appeal. Do you have any evidence for this? It seems to me that classical music is a Western - primarily European - tradition, and it might not necessarily resonate with people from different cultural backgrounds.

If an anthropologist visited a remote tribe in (for example) the Amazon jungle, and played a recording of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony (presumably on a battery-operated CD player), would the tribal people immediately fall in love with the music? Perhaps not. It might sound quite alien to them, just as their music might strike us (at least initially) as sounding incomprehensible and confusing. Of course, with repeated exposure, both cultures might learn to appreciate each others' music, but this wouldn't happen overnight.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

KenOC said:


> He'd certainly qualify as "unknown." He has no Wiki page and I can locate only one recording on Amazon, with no reviews.


https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_Pollini_(Komponist,_1762)


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Bettina said:


> If an anthropologist visited a remote tribe in (for example) the Amazon jungle, and played a recording of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony (presumably on a battery-operated CD player), would the tribal people immediately fall in love with the music?


No, they will sing the 9th :lol:
Bettina, you are completely right, and it is not necessary to go inside the julgle, just visit Brazil, 
any small city is ok for making this test.
there is no tradition in "brazilian musical education" nor "classical"
often it is called "old boring noise" by anyone here


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith (Mar 25, 2016)

They're German.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess (Aug 30, 2015)

KenOC said:


> He'd certainly qualify as "unknown." He has no Wiki page and I can locate only one recording on Amazon, with no reviews.


There an album of his music on spotify.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

SimonTemplar said:


> They're German.


Actually, Mozart was Austrian.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Bettina said:


> Actually, Mozart was Austrian.


Germans in disguise?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

A great composer or any great artist is anyone that creates something that anyone, even if only the artist, derives genuine appreciation of.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Captainnumber36 said:


> A great composer or any great artist is anyone that creates something that anyone, even if only the artist, derives genuine appreciation of.


That definition might include any number of talentless crackpots.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

KenOC said:


> That definition might include any number of talentless crackpots.


It's the one I believe in.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> A great composer or any great artist is anyone that creates something that anyone, even if only the artist, derives genuine appreciation of.


Sounds like a very naïve, bad oriented and dangerous sentence. Be careful Captain!
Who is not a great artist in a sentence like this where everything you need is claiming you appreciate your own creation?
thinking about it will not give you any pain... don't worry


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Captainnumber36 said:


> A great composer or any great artist is anyone that creates something that anyone, even if only the artist, derives genuine appreciation of.


I _knew_ my two year old grandson was a great artist. I _knew_ it! His fingerpainting is displayed prominently on my refrigerator door ... until the MOMA decides to hang it in a gallery.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> A great composer or any great artist is anyone that creates something that anyone, even if only the artist, derives genuine appreciation of.


Many thanks Capt'n. It is the greatest complement I have ever received from anyone.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

I may try to expand on this later, but my first impulse is to say that those three most fully embody the tradition of western humanism in music (Bach would be horrified to hear this, but I believe it is true of his music nonetheless).

This tradition is now in some ways discredited, but still holds enormous appeal - particularly, I suspect, to the self-selected classical music audience.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Really though, if the point of art is to touch the soul, than yes, your child's work is great. Art is subjective, 100%. But that doesn't mean we can't objectively discuss different merits of it, like attention to detail, craftsmanship to reach a greater understanding of it, or to support why we enjoy or dislike a particular work.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Really though, if the point of art is to touch the soul, than yes, your child's work is great.


Again a too naïve reply...
I don't think Boulez wanted to touch souls with his Sonata No.2 (just giving one single example of a huge number of examples), nor Bach made music with this intention... are they "less important" and "not so great" now?



Captainnumber36 said:


> Art is subjective, 100%.


I really can't see all these 100% subjectiveness in a piece of paper full of indications
Enjoy or not enjoy the art is subjective. The work of someone who makes the art is not 100% subjective. in the best option I would say it is 1/2
100% subjective is the pubic taste, not the art.



Captainnumber36 said:


> But that doesn't mean we can't objectively discuss different merits of it, like attention to detail, craftsmanship to reach a greater understanding of it, or to support why we enjoy or dislike a particular work.


[/QUOTE]
Exactly, but how can one discuss something objectively claiming it is subjective?
and by the way, being objectively in an art discussion, isn't it necessary studying the art before claiming who is the best?
I don't know you, but I have been studying art for a long time, and I really can't call someone "the greatest universal human of all the times" based in my feelings on listening recordings as some try to do with Bach Mozart and Beethoven. Of course, I love their works, but I have not stopped there!

All the best
Artur Cimirro


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Cimirro:

1. It doesn't have to be the intention of the artist to touch the soul, but I really think we are all looking for something to evoke us emotionally in some way whether it be to motivate us for exercise, a spiritual awakening, or help us through a depression we are experiencing among many other states of being.

2. I don't get your distinction between the art being 1/2 subjective while taste being 100% subjective. In my opinion, there is nothing in art but taste, it is not a competition after all, and like Gould, I don't believe in competing in musical competitions.

3. When we engage in objective discussion of art, there are certain objective facts about the art. In music, it is dynamics of a particular take, or HIP vs non-HIP, and so on. In paintings, there is use of color, subject matter, how the lines are drawn (perfect or imperfect). All of these objective elements of art can be discussed, but how they touch us, is subjective. 

No, I don't believe the point of having an intellectual conversation about art is to determine who is the best, it is to gain the perspective of another and match it against our own, to perhaps see the art in a different way than we did before.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Cimirro:
> 
> 1. It doesn't have to be the intention of the artist to touch the soul, but I really think we are all looking for something to evoke us emotionally in some way whether it be to motivate us for exercise, a spiritual awakening, or help us through a depression we are experiencing among many other states of being.
> 
> ...


I think I understand what your saying, Capt'n. In your last reply you are saying there is value in an artist touching a soul, whether or not it is a purpose of art, which Art (Arthur ) is saying it is not. Is art still art when there is no receiver or audience? It is not an easy question to answer. I say no. It is again about presentation and perspective. Without a perspective receiving, it becomes just a dead object. And the artist toiled the same way as any other occupation. You are more right than may appear Capt'n. Even if the artist is the only one who appreciates his/her work, it is not a lost cause. :tiphat:


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Cimirro:
> 1. It doesn't have to be the intention of the artist to touch the soul, but I really think we are all looking for something to evoke us emotionally in some way whether it be to motivate us for exercise, a spiritual awakening, or help us through a depression we are experiencing among many other states of being.


Art as a self-help book... some agree, some not... the art itself is not related with opinions on this
anyway, this kind of use of art will not rule what is art...



Captainnumber36 said:


> 2. I don't get your distinction between the art being 1/2 subjective while taste being 100% subjective. In my opinion, there is nothing in art but taste,


Theory, Counterpoint, Harmony, forms, orchestration... it is all about taste?
This is why I speak about studying before making discussions on quality in musical art. Do you think I'm speaking about my opinion?

Art is not this hideous thing a lot of pseudo-artists claim they do just because of their egocentric and megalomaniac brains with this lame excuse of using the art as a self-help tool for the selfishness of a public who never cared for what is art but they believe an urinal deserves U$ 3.000.000...



Captainnumber36 said:


> it is not a competition after all, and like Gould, I don't believe in competing in musical competitions.


I agree I see no competition at all, I see wrong sentences in the wrong places making influence on good people who enjoy music like you, otherwise I would keep silent and will never care about.



Captainnumber36 said:


> 3. When we engage in objective discussion of art, there are certain objective facts about the art. In music, it is dynamics of a particular take, or HIP vs non-HIP, and so on. In paintings, there is use of color, subject matter, how the lines are drawn (perfect or imperfect). All of these objective elements of art can be discussed, but how they touch us, is subjective.


So you are saying exactly what I said.
subjective is your taste, while the elements of art are not.



Captainnumber36 said:


> No, I don't believe the point of having an intellectual conversation about art is to determine who is the best, it is to gain the perspective of another and match it against our own, to perhaps see the art in a different way than we did before.


That sounds good... now tell me sincerely... (shhh, just between us here)... is this really happening around us or most part are in competition?
Ha!!!! :devil: (no, I'm not that bad...)

Best
Artur


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

"Theory, Counterpoint, Harmony, forms, orchestration... it is all about taste?
This is why I speak about studying before making discussions on quality in musical art. Do you think I'm speaking about my opinion?"

There is no objective good and bad art or what to claim as art or not other than it involves an artist creating an object. Art is all about opinion, and as your statement "do you think I'm speaking about my opinion?" implies, there is no objectivity in art other than understanding our subjective responses to it by surveying the objective qualities of it and how they subjectively impress upon us individually.

I do think many are competing when having a discussion, but the tone you use and the language you use can significantly impact the conversation and change it's tone dramatically; that's been my experience.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> There is no objective good and bad art or what to claim as art or not other than it involves an artist creating an object.


Then, just let me understand something about it. That means everyone who claim "I'm an artist" and take a photo of a dirty floor is really an artist because he "creates an object" and someone may discuss it?



Captainnumber36 said:


> Art is all about opinion,


I would agree if you say "a discussion about art is all about opinion"
Bach's "Kunst der Fugue" is not related to anyones opinion...



Captainnumber36 said:


> and as your statement "do you think I'm speaking about my opinion?" implies, there is no objectivity in art other than understanding our subjective responses to it by surveying the objective qualities of it and how they subjectively impress upon us individually.


You make a mixture here, your answers are not a piece of art, nor mine are. Artists make art. Public not.
So, any objective discussion about art must be made by someone who really study art, based in musical scores, theory, etc, etc, (recordings too), and not by someone who only "feels" the art. This is why I couldn't agree with your first sentence about what is a great artist.



Captainnumber36 said:


> I do think many are competing when having a discussion, but the tone you use and the language you use can significantly impact the conversation and change it's tone dramatically; that's been my experience.


Well, I understand it, and I'm sorry if my "tone" impact in any bad way for anyone here. But I always assume I'm not speaking with naïve children (and although I said your sentences sounded "naïve", I'm NOT saying you are a "naïve child", so please do not feel offended!), and I assume everyone here enjoy and have interest in classical music.
I'm always open-minded to change my opinions if someone gives me a logical sentence, and I do not expect a different approach in places like this. 
When I see something I know is wrong I try to make people "wake up", anyway this is not necessarely what the person wants... I must understand this 

best
Artur Cimirro


----------



## Zingara62 (Apr 20, 2017)

when English is not our first language (same with me) some words can give us a different interpretation.
I understand these posts more as a view of help from a composer-pianist as you are than a bad tone, specially since you work hard for promoting music of less known composers which often were so nice as the famous ones.
captainnumber36 will probably notice good tips in these comments if he reads it again with other eyes


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

cimirro said:


> I would agree if you say "a discussion about art is all about opinion"
> Bach's "Kunst der Fugue" is not related to anyones opinion...


That depends. If you lived in the 19th century you would likely have not even heard of the Art of Fugue. And if you heard it performed, it would be so far out of touch with the zeitgeist of the times that you would probably judge it dry, sterile, and uninteresting.

We hear music through the values of our time, and we assume that our perceptions are eternal and unchanging. They're not.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

KenOC said:


> That depends. If you lived in the 19th century you would likely have not even heard of the Art of Fugue. And if you heard it performed, it would be so far out of touch with the zeitgeist of the times that you would probably judge it dry, sterile, and uninteresting.
> 
> We hear music through the values of our time, and we assume that our perceptions are eternal and unchanging. They're not.


Well, in this case you are speaking about the person who "heard" - i agree with this
but I say the person who only "heard" is not able to "rule" the art nor to define what is great or not, since it is only based on "taste"



Zingara62 said:


> when English is not our first language (same with me) some words can give us a different interpretation.
> I understand these posts more as a view of help from a composer-pianist as you are than a bad tone


Thank you Zingara, that is the intention!


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

cimirro said:


> Then, just let me understand something about it. That means everyone who claim "I'm an artist" and take a photo of a dirty floor is really an artist because he "creates an object" and someone may discuss it?


Yes! We have seen this is the case in some contemporary art. It is a challenge to your perception of art. Art can be ironic, even self-contradictory, taken from different perspectives. The Captain has enlightened me to a great mystery today, and I'm grateful for it.

I also appreciate your efforts Art (may I call you that?), in trying to keep art from descending to a children's game, but believe your efforts will not be totally successful.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Yes! We have seen this is the case in some contemporary art. It is a challenge to your perception of art. Art can be ironic, even self-contradictory, taken from different perspectives. The Captain has enlightened me to a great mystery today, and I'm grateful for it.
> 
> I also appreciate your efforts Art (may I call you that?), in trying to keep art from descending to a children's game, but believe your efforts will not be totally successful.


I've spent a long time thinking about these questions and arriving at answers that I believe in. I'm glad I could have an impact on you!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

"Then, just let me understand something about it. That means everyone who claim "I'm an artist" and take a photo of a dirty floor is really an artist because he "creates an object" and someone may discuss it?"

Anyone can claim they are artist if they create something, that doesn't mean you have to like it or can't have critical thoughts about it. But the trick is, do not come off as high and mighty with your opinions, because your thoughts are just as valid as someone's whose genuine appreciation of an artists work is. 

And certainly there are people out there trying to manipulate people into thinking they are geniuses by acting eccentric (Lady Gaga). But they do hold the title artist as long a people genuinely enjoy their art.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Now, you can have competitions with art with a specific set of guidelines and criteria that must be met to award a winner. But, that criteria isn't _THE RIGHT_ criteria that measures and separates good art from bad art. It just means, the winner of the competition has achieved the criteria the best according to the judges.

If an artist genuinely values those criteria for which he beat out the rest with, he can take pride in it. I would recommend to keep a sense of humbleness by remembering it is only he who values that criteria (and perhaps others too) but maybe not all artists do. That is the trick to remaining humble.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

So in a sense, I suppose if I valued the criteria of a particular piano competition, I may perhaps compete.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

The real key word here is genuine, if someone really likes N'Sync because of their looks, or Brittaney Spears for the same reason, that isn't based on the art and isn't genuine. I don't really care about assessing everyone's connection to the music to see if an Artist can be called an artist, I mostly care about the thoughts of those I care about (family and friends) and mine of course, and what I genuinely love and appreciate. 

But truth be told, there are probably genuine listeners of everyone for whatever reason.

But even when dealing with people who aren't genuine, they will be more receptive to your taste if you deal with them in a respectful manner.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

You gotta symphathize with Artur, though. You spend your life building upon musical principles, etc., especially in his circumstances. And it can get torn down in a second. It's like building an exquisite chair, and someone cuts a hole in the middle of the seat and uses it for a toilet.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> You gotta symphathize with Artur, though. You spend your life building upon musical principles, etc., especially in his circumstances. And it can get torn down in a second. It's like building an exquisite chair, and someone cuts a hole in the middle of the seat and uses it for a toilet.


He should take pride in his extensive knowledge, but see it for what it is and utilize in ways that are mature and kind. That is, conduct competitions with values he believes are important in music, create art with the values he believe are important in art and so on, but stay humble by remembering he doesn't hold the answer to what is objectively good and bad in art, but he does hold his opinion on what is objectively good and bad, and that is to be cherished. Not many have dug deep enough to know what it is they value from art, it's a great accomplishment!


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> Yes! We have seen this is the case in some contemporary art. It is a challenge to your perception of art. Art can be ironic, even self-contradictory, taken from different perspectives.


I completely agree with you Phil, also with Captain, and also with any other who say that art can be ironic, self-contradictory, taken from different perspectives, etc, etc.
I'm just carefull, because there are too much people doing "nothing" and using these explanations to claim their "artistic talents". 
Long ago I received a "piano sonata" by someone who told me "I'm a composer", when I read the score there was no Sonata at all, only some notes that hardly could be more than a very bad improvisation of an untalented person.



Phil loves classical said:


> I also appreciate your efforts Art (may I call you that?),


shhhhh other art lovers will hate that! I'm not too ugly, but I'm not a piece of art... :lol:
(I'm joking, I don't care) 



Phil loves classical said:


> ...in trying to keep art from descending to a children's game, but believe your efforts will not be totally successful.


Not a problem at all. Art can be also made of children's game. 
(the problem is keeping art only in this game)



Captainnumber36 said:


> Anyone can claim they are artist if they create something,


Every person in the world goes to the toilet daily... how about if the claim "I just made a piece of art"?... that sounds ridiculous but I'm afraid this is the only way to explain what I mean... anyone can claim anything, that doesn't mean we are speaking of people who deserve attention or must be respected.
"create art" is not only "create something".



Captainnumber36 said:


> that doesn't mean you have to like it or can't have critical thoughts about it. But the trick is, do not come off as high and mighty with your opinions, because your thoughts are just as valid as someone's whose genuine appreciation of an artists work is.


Only in arts we listen this absurd thanks to Media.
A doctor's view is more valid to medicine than the pacient's one
An artist's view is more valid to art in the same way.
You used Gould views some posts ago, why don't you use your grandmother ones? (or any non musician as example will be ok too)
By the way, everyone is free to enjoy or not my opinions even if they are reflecting the daily work of an artist.



Captainnumber36 said:


> And certainly there are people out there trying to manipulate people into thinking they are geniuses by acting eccentric (Lady Gaga). But they do hold the title artist as long a people genuinely enjoy their art.


Well, there is no art in what she does... she is a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a sub-product or market. I never call these people artists. So I'll not waste time on this.
Remember we have the same kind of "eccentrics" in classical music market and often they are called genius...


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

To go back to a previous discussion, Phil, the reason I have written off most music other than classical is because I love the sophistication of the pieces I love, the sound of the instruments used in classical music, the attention to dynamic detail, and the perfectionist nature of performance in classical music. 

It's my favorite genre of music to explore for the above reasons. 

That being said, I love singer/songwriter/composer Rufus Wainwright. He is very sophisticated and has a lot of classical influence in his songwriting noted in the melodies he comes up with and use of rich harmonies. I love his orchestrations, and it's amazing how great he can sound solo, apart from those fantastic, classically influenced arrangements. 

No other songwriter has come close to achieving that level of classical influence in his music to me other than him. He is also a fantastic, perfectionistic performer, which highly appeals to me.

There are a few jazz albums I enjoy and love dearly, but I'm not very interested in digging through the various artists in this genre because it doesn't appeal to me as much, and I don't care for the spirit of jazz which is to lack structure a bit as much as the spirit of classical which is to have lots of structure. 

I feel confident in the selections of jazz music I have, but don't really care about giving attention to anything but Classical music and future works by Rufus Wainwright.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Cimirro:

Where we disagree is that you believe there is an objective discussion which can reveal what is good and bad art and I believe it's just one set of criteria you are utilizing to evaluate art, but is not the objective answer to what is good and bad. It is best, according to the judges, at meeting said criteria vs the others in question.

There can be value in such evaluations, but it's important to remember, it's not the objectively better art.


That is my argument.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> That depends. If you lived in the 19th century you would likely have not even heard of the Art of Fugue. And if you heard it performed, it would be so far out of touch with the zeitgeist of the times that you would probably judge it dry, sterile, and uninteresting.
> 
> We hear music through the values of our time, and we assume that our perceptions are eternal and unchanging. They're not.


Only partly true. _Art of Fugue_ has little to do with our zeitgeist either (whatever that is), but we - those of us who've learned how to listen, at any rate - seem pretty impressed with it.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> He should take pride in his extensive knowledge, but see it for what it is and utilize in ways that are mature and kind. That is, conduct competitions with values he believes are important in music,


I do it, check "Opus Dissonus Composition Competition" third edition this year



Captainnumber36 said:


> create art with the values he believe are important in art and so on,


I do it, check my website



Captainnumber36 said:


> but stay humble by remembering he doesn't hold the answer to what is objectively good and bad in art,


Well, I'm afraid it seems it is not possible, in your opinion, someone find a simple answer on something you believe must be different
so I'll be called "not humble" because i insist in my experience study and acknowledgement about it.
well, Lang Lang (and any other famous pianist) is not chating in forums and sharing any information... can you access them? who is the real "not humble"?



Captainnumber36 said:


> but he does hold his opinion on what is objectively good and bad, and that is to be cherished. Not many have dug deep enough to know what it is they value from art, it's a great accomplishment!


so, it is not bad think about what I said...


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I believe my thinking helps lead to innovation in art. If you hold on to strict criteria in your evaluations, you don't allow yourself to deviate from traditional thought to experiment with new ideas.

My thinking pattern can also lead to people attempting to manipulate others, and making disingenuous claims of art, but I would say they are artists if someone genuinely loves their work, even if they don't have a big palette of exposure.

But the key point is, we don't have to endorse or like or encourage what we don't believe in. 

But I think it's important to stay humble.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Cimirro:
> 
> Where we disagree is that you believe there is an objective discussion which can reveal what is good and bad art and I believe it's just one set of criteria you are utilizing to evaluate art, but is not the objective answer to what is good and bad. It is best, according to the judges, at meeting said criteria vs the others in question.
> 
> ...


Hey Capt'n. Artur is actually on YOUR side over mine regarding Classical vs. Non-classical. Your argument against most of Non-Classical wouldn't stand if it weren't for his arguments :lol:


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Hey Capt'n. Artur is actually on YOUR side over mine regarding Classical vs. Non-classical. Your argument against most of Non-Classical wouldn't stand if it weren't for his arguments :lol:




It's just my taste, and I'm articulating my thinking in coming to that conclusion.

It is not bad to listen to non-classical music, it just comes down to preference.


----------



## Lenny (Jul 19, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> It's only their talents and skills that enable them to convey their values and messages. One of those messages is the transcendent value of beauty (all things in just relationship and proportion), and to elaborate a musical idea into a structure of great complexity and flawless proportion requires extraordinary talent and skill. Hence greatness.


Exactly. Vision (insight, emotion) and ability (skills, intelligence, sense of tradition) must be in balance in order to achieve greatness.

I also tend to think the ultimate masters of the Art always build strongly on the tradition, because how else it is possible to build anything truly innovative? Greatest composers are those who continue from where others left, and are still able to bring up something fresh. In this regard Art has a sort of "scientific" approach. Just being weird or interesting doesn't qualify greatness. There are countless loonies in the woods who think they have seen the God or invented Theory of Everything, but that vision must be backed up by a firm sense of tradition and proven skills. Vision alone is nothing.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Lenny said:


> Just being weird or interesting doesn't qualify greatness. .


This made me think of Tom Waits...:lol:

I really dislike him, he is the epitome of what you just stated imo evaluation of his output.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil, I'm coming back around. It's good if you love it, but what I tend to love the most is found in classical music. I know I enjoy sophistication, and elaborate arrangements and melodies. That's what tends to grab my attention.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Cimirro:
> Where we disagree is that you believe there is an objective discussion which can reveal what is good and bad art and I believe it's just one set of criteria you are utilizing to evaluate art, but is not the objective answer to what is good and bad. It is best, according to the judges, at meeting said criteria vs the others in question.


No, where we disagree is I believe there are two discussions, and you act like there is only one.
FIRST - The objective discussion in art is:
"What makes a good fugue?"
"What is the limit between composition and interpretation?"
this is answered by professionals

SECOND - the subjective discussion is:
"Who is the greatest?"
"What do you prefer?"
It is just about someone's taste and can be answered by anyone in the world.



Captainnumber36 said:


> I believe my thinking helps lead to innovation in art. If you hold on to strict criteria in your evaluations, you don't allow yourself to deviate from traditional thought to experiment with new ideas.


I'm sorry, It is not "your thinking", this speech is older than anyone here in this forum, the problem is that you are still living in the past, believing there are "innovations in art" to be done.
Now there is no "innovations" anymore, we can only add "Piano and Helicopters" and "Tigers and Cellos" and "Concepts".
After the computer possibilities in electronic music nothing will be "new". the "avant garde" movement is dead. Some of the biggest revolutions of some contemporary composers today can be found in ars subtilior...
Sound and silence - music - no innovation possible now. You can make good works based in your experience, study, etc. No one will make anything amazing and revolutionare based in chords and scales anymore (except for market, of course), there are more than 1000 years of music using all these possibilities.

The worst part for art is "experiment with new ideas" when someone do not know the old ones...



Captainnumber36 said:


> I would say they are artists if someone genuinely loves their work,


... included in the basis of market speech...



Captainnumber36 said:


> But I think it's important to stay humble.


I agree, specially when we are not professionals dealing with professionals. Captain, I had my student days too, believe me, now, please you can listen your own sentence about humble if you speak aloud enough for yourself. I hope not wasting more time on this...

All the best
Artur Cimirro


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

"No, where we disagree is I believe there are two discussions, and you act like there is only one.
FIRST - The objective discussion in art is:
"What makes a good fugue?"
"What is the limit between composition and interpretation?"
this is answered by professionals"

You're so hung up on having definite answers to questions to measure art and give it a title of acceptable and unacceptable. When you go to answer the questions you posed here, "what makes a good fugue?" or "what is the limit between composition and interpretation?" you derive a set of criteria by which to evaluate. Just because you are a professional, doesn't make your opinion more worthy than an amateur that knows nothing in terms of assigning values of acceptable and unacceptable.

Where your knowledge and expertise come into play is offering your opinions and explaining your criteria by which you evaluate. You have a perspective and so does an amateur.

I agree with your notions on subjectivity, but don't agree that your expertise grants you the right to assert the value of acceptable fugue and unacceptable interpretation.

Your expertise only grants you the perspective formed with that knowledge.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> You're so hung up on having definite answers to questions to measure art and give it a title of acceptable and unacceptable. When you go to answer the questions you posed here, "what makes a good fugue?" or "what is the limit between composition and interpretation?" you derive a set of criteria by which to evaluate. Just because you are a professional, doesn't make your opinion more worthy than an amateur that knows nothing in terms of assigning values of acceptable and unacceptable.
> 
> Where your knowledge and expertise come into play is offering your opinions and explaining your criteria by which you evaluate. You have a perspective and so does an amateur.
> 
> ...


The "criteria" for answering these questions are results of more than 1000 years of musical "evolution" (even if "evolution" sounds like a dangerous word to some people).

A Doctor uses "criteria" to make his job.
A Musician uses "criteria" to make his job.
In both cases the "criteria" is not a result of their "tastes" nor the tastes of their patient/public, it is result of history, experiences, deep study on the theme, and not "their feelings" (which can be useful, but not necessarily will be good).

Of course, we live in a world where every one who plays 3 chords and 2 scales say "I'm a musician", and the Media helps it calling them professionals because they receive money for that. So it is easier to see people who believe "musicians", professional or not, are all the same thing. I just can't agree.

Concerning the "feelings"
the result of a good job can give you good feelings (no matter it made by a doctor or a musician), anyway this will not give you a valid perspective for the professional work itself.
Then, I'm sorry, the only valid perspective which will not be related to taste will come from a professional.
Of course, someone once wrote "no one dies because of a bad counterpoint", but, if I can be dramatic at all, these sentences together with the Media kill the true artists - and after 190 years people say "wow he was the greatest, a genius"... how many genius the world is killing right now because of this hypocrisy????

Artur Cimirro


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

cimirro said:


> The "criteria" for answering these questions are results of more than 1000 years of musical "evolution" (even if "evolution" sounds like a dangerous word to some people).
> 
> A Doctor uses "criteria" to make his job.
> A Musician uses "criteria" to make his job.
> ...


Art is not Science. You are relating an artistic musician to a scientific Dr. Science is based on facts, knowledge, and observation. Art is based on feelings. You can evaluate certain aspects of art, certainly, but there is not authoritative answer on good and bad in my opinion.

And with that, I think we can conclude we are not going to change each other's minds.

Perhaps this is a good place to end this, we are going back and forth at this point.


----------



## dzc4627 (Apr 23, 2015)

The evening has set. A muffled drum beat sounds in the distance. Intrigued, I walk through the jungle grass, with rapid pace, so that I can find the source of the sound. As I near, I see a grand ritual! Men and women, throwing fruits of Western culture into a large fire, known as "SUBJECTIVITY."

A man who dances a tribal dance throws a banana into the fire and chants "Art can't be measured!"

A woman joins in "That's subjective."

A child, "Just because you have years of knowledge, that doesn't mean your opinion is _better_ than a baby!"

The crowd, "NOTHING IS BETTER THAN ANYTHING! EVERYTHING IS UP TO A SELF INDULGENT SENSE OF EXPRESSION! JUST DO WHATEVER! STANDARDS ARE DISCRIMINATORY! TRUE ART IS RAW! EVERYTHING IS EQUAL IN VALUE! GREATNESS IS A LIEEEEEE"

The crowd fuels the fire to their dismay, and the fire named "SUBJECTIVITY" soon consumes the entire forest.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

dzc4627 said:


> The evening has set. A muffled drum beat sounds in the distance. Intrigued, I walk through the jungle grass, with rapid pace, so that I can find the source of the sound. As I near, I see a grand ritual! Men and women, throwing fruits of Western culture into a large fire, known as "SUBJECTIVITY."
> 
> A man who dances a tribal dance throws a banana into the fire and chants "Art can't be measured!"
> 
> ...


Then, the sun of objectivity shines down upon the now burned forest known as subjectivity. The sun, with it's heat, revives the forest growing each individual carefully.

A man says, Art can be measured, but no measurement is the authoritative answer on any given piece of Art.

A woman joins in, yes, and I can objectively arrive at what I love, and I don't have to love everything, but that does't make my opinion better or right for anyone but me.

A child, so we can have different perspectives on the same thing?

The crowd. WE CAN RESPECT EACH OTHER'S DIFFERENCES IN PREFERENCE AND LIVE IN HARMONY. FOR IF WE WERE ALL THE SAME, IT WOULD BE QUITE A BORING PLACE.

The sun completes reviving the forest, and respect for individual thoughts consumes the entire revived forest.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Art is not Science. You are relating an artistic musician to a scientific Dr. Science is based on facts, knowledge, and observation. Art is based on feelings. You can evaluate certain aspects of art, certainly, but there is not authoritative answer on good and bad in my opinion.
> 
> And with that, I think we can conclude we are not going to change each other's minds.
> 
> Perhaps this is a good place to end this, we are going back and forth at this point.


I didn't say Art is a Science, *anyway both students need to study before become artist or scientist.*

Anyway "making art" (the work of an artist - not of the public) is not being based on feelings nor is made by idiots who claims "I'm artist".
"I can play a minuet!" that is not making art.

An actor, in a funny play, needs making the public smile, even if himself is quite sad - this is part of the *technique of making his art*. He will not "feel" all the time the best things, because he is human. the same will happen in any art. Making art is not about feeling!

Listen to music is not making art. Playing at home for your enjoyment when you are feeling well, makes you an art lover, an amateur, nothing more. That is good, but it is not making art. You can use art for your pleasure, for your taste, for your feelings, but enjoying art is not making art.

*By the way, No Bach's work was made based on "feelings", no matter what do you feel about it.*

You don't need to change your mind, I'll not try to help with this, 
but I'll not stop to post this kind of answer while someone is posting this kind of absurd in which every charlatan is called "artist" and a huge number of real artists (living or not) are not even remembered by the ones who says "I love classical music".
I'll never keep silent about this, no matter if you or the Pope tells me to do so. 
Art needs more respect!

To me, we finished our talk 

Artur Cimirro


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Depends on my mood. Usually it's my opinion that makes a composer great. Sometimes I may take note of other opinions, especially those that seem very persistent through time.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Then, the sun of objectivity shines down upon the now burned forest known as subjectivity. The sun, with it's heat, revives the forest growing each individual carefully.
> 
> A man says, Art can be measured, but no measurement is the authoritative answer on any given piece of Art.
> 
> ...


is this about feeling?
no, you read, learn the aesthetic and repeat... and it is naïve, sorry


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

cimirro said:


> I didn't say Art is a Science, *anyway both students need to study before become artist or scientist.*
> 
> Anyway "making art" (the work of an artist - not of the public) is not being based on feelings nor is made by idiots who claims "I'm artist".
> "I can play a minuet!" that is not making art.
> ...


Art is about feeling. Artists are inevitably going to convey moods and feelings with their music, whether that is the inspiration for the composition or not.

An actor has to channel his emotion to act. Acting is not being genuine to your own emotional state, it is creating a character to portray. It is still about feeling.

I like my way of thinking because it is proud, humble, and doesn't serve the ego. It is proud in that I can evaluate art and say why I love it or don't and I have my own judgment. It is humble in that it allows and respects other opinions that differ from my own. It doesn't serve the ego, because I'm not claiming an authoritative standpoint, like you are.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

DeepR said:


> Depends on my mood. Usually it's my opinion that makes a composer great. Sometimes I may take note of other opinions, especially those that seem very persistent through time.


Well said! :tiphat:


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Art is about feeling. Artists are inevitably going to convey moods and feelings with their music, whether that is the inspiration for the composition or not.
> 
> An actor has to channel his emotion to act. Acting is not being genuine to your own emotional state, it is creating a character to portray. It is still about feeling.
> 
> I like my way of thinking because it is proud, humble, and doesn't serve the ego. It is proud in that I can evaluate art and say why I love it or don't and I have my own judgment. It is humble in that it allows and respects other opinions that differ from my own. It doesn't serve the ego, because I'm not claiming an authoritative standpoint, like you are.


I don't like when people use too much the word "humble" because often they "USE" it waiting the other people to make him/her bigger than what he/she really is. Soooo humble... what a nice person... give power to them... and you will see how nice they are :devil:

And yes, I'm from an authoritative standpoint... because I can :lol: 
I'm not saying I'm a better person than anyone, that doesn't mean I do not have more information that a lot of people nor must I be ashamed of speak about the importance of studying art. Clearly you don't know when and where to use the words "humble" or "ego".

I'm sorry, I did not study deeply everyday about arts to be "forced" in any kind of society to agree that the lack of study has the same value of the study.
You are not forced to study (even if you use "proud" and "humble" so close), that doesn't mean I must respect wrong sentences based in personal taste and few (if any) study.

go ahead, keep the good work!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

cimirro said:


> I don't like when people use too much the word "humble" because often they "USE" it waiting the other people to make him/her bigger than what he/she really is. Soooo humble... what a nice person... give power to them... and you will see how nice they are :devil:
> 
> And yes, I'm from an authoritative standpoint... because I can :lol:
> I'm not saying I'm a better person than anyone, that doesn't mean I do not have more information that a lot of people nor must I be ashamed of speak about the importance of studying art. Clearly you don't know when and where to use the words "humble" or "ego".
> ...


Now I feel we have concluded. I stand strong with my stances, and you yours, but in the end, your opinion is not worth more than anyone else's just because you studied art.


----------



## topo morto (Apr 9, 2017)

cimirro said:


> The "criteria" for answering these questions are results of more than 1000 years of musical "evolution" (even if "evolution" sounds like a dangerous word to some people).


You could use that analogy, but even then, evolution (in biology) doesn't make things "better" - it's simply a process that increases the chance of survival across a set of environments that can change over time. The same mutation that would help a species in one place would hinder it in another.

Dinosaurs are dead - but they are pretty great! what could be 'better' than a dinosaur?



cimirro said:


> A Doctor uses "criteria" to make his job.
> A Musician uses "criteria" to make his job.
> In both cases the "criteria" is not a result of their "tastes" nor the tastes of their patient/public, it is result of history, experiences, deep study on the theme, and not "their feelings" (which can be useful, but not necessarily will be good).


A doctor and a musician will both make both subjective and objective judgements. The subjective ones will be based on taste.


----------



## Lenny (Jul 19, 2016)

topo morto said:


> You could use that analogy, but even then, evolution (in biology) doesn't make things "better" - it's simply a process that increases the chance of survival across a set of environments that can change over time. The same mutation that would help a species in one place would hinder it in another.
> 
> Dinosaurs are dead - but they are pretty great! what could be 'better' than a dinosaur?


Yes! Bach is dead and now we have gangsta rap?


----------



## topo morto (Apr 9, 2017)

Lenny said:


> Yes! Bach is dead and now we have gangsta rap?


Bach is dead, and so are a lot of Gangsta rappers. (It kind of goes with the 'Gangsta' thing.)

Their music is far from dead though, so we now have Bach _and _Gangsta rap. I personally wouldn't wish to be deprived of either.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> "No, where we disagree is I believe there are two discussions, and you act like there is only one.
> FIRST - The objective discussion in art is:
> "What makes a good fugue?"
> "What is the limit between composition and interpretation?"
> ...


This is exactly where Artur's knowledge comes into play, in defining a fugue, and what is a good fugue. This is also related to that Bach Minuet as we discussed before. A Fugue has boundaries in what can be defined as such. A person with no knowledge can listen to Right Said Fred's I'm So Sexy, and say that is a fugue. A professional can define more accurately what how Bach's music is to sound, if it is to remain Bach. Yes, an artist can reimagine Bach's works, but they cease to be the original. Take that further and you can say Classical Music has boundaries as well. A person can't call something Classical rather than Pop or something else except those who are experts in those fields.

You are correct in that not even a pro can define what is good art vs. Bad though. It is not a matter of skill, and not even a matter of taste. It is anyone with a certain perspective. I'll take the liberty to refine what Artur is saying to mean a Classical Music professional can define what is good Classical from bad.

You two were arguing 2 different things :lol:


----------



## topo morto (Apr 9, 2017)

cimirro said:


> I'm sorry, I did not study deeply everyday about arts to be "forced" in any kind of society to agree that the lack of study has the same value of the study.


The value of any study to you may be _genuine _- you learn how to do things you want to do - but still _personal _- those things might be of interest to some people, but not others.

All the religions of the world, for example, have people who spend lifetimes learning about the finer points of doctrine of that particular religion. But ultimately those learnings will contradict each other on some points; Not all of the learnings, however hard the process of study has been, will have objective value.



cimirro said:


> I'll not stop to post this kind of answer while someone is posting this kind of absurd in which every charlatan is called "artist" and a huge number of real artists (living or not) are not even remembered by the ones who says "I love classical music".


I don't know about Portuguese, but certainly in English, not all words are well-defined. 'Art' and 'artist' are ill-defined words in English. That's not really absurd, so much as just being the nature of natural language. If someone calls someone an 'artist' and you don't agree, they're just using a different definition of 'artist'. No problem there.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Art is about feeling. Artists are inevitably going to convey moods and feelings with their music, whether that is the inspiration for the composition or not.
> 
> An actor has to channel his emotion to act. Acting is not being genuine to your own emotional state, it is creating a character to portray. It is still about feeling.
> 
> I like my way of thinking because it is proud, humble, and doesn't serve the ego. It is proud in that I can evaluate art and say why I love it or don't and I have my own judgment. It is humble in that it allows and respects other opinions that differ from my own. It doesn't serve the ego, because I'm not claiming an authoritative standpoint, like you are.


A non-authoritarian cannot say Art is about feeling


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

My one-word answer to "what makes a great composer?" is: popularity.

The extended version is something like: a great composer is one who for some _unknown_ reason is relatively successful at causing certain _unfathomable_ neurochemical changes in the brains of a relatively large number of people.

Anything else is, as Strange Magic said, _ex post facto_ explanations.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

Nereffid said:


> My one-word answer to "what makes a great composer?" is: popularity.
> 
> The extended version is something like: a great composer is one who for some _unknown_ reason is relatively successful at causing certain _unfathomable_ *neurochemical changes in the brains of a relatively large number of people*.
> 
> Anything else is, as Strange Magic said, _ex post facto_ explanations.


That's an interesting point about the patterns of brain activation. I wonder if greatness could be scientifically measured using functional MRI scans. Perhaps more (or different) regions of the brain light up in response to great music. That would be a fascinating experiment: the subjects could listen to a symphony by Beethoven, followed by a not-so-great work (a symphony by Dittersdorf might do the trick). The brain waves could be measured and compared for the two musical experiences. Now all we need to do is to get a grant to fund this experiment! :lol:


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Bettina said:


> That's an interesting point about the patterns of brain activation. I wonder if greatness could be scientifically measured using functional MRI scans. Perhaps more (or different) regions of the brain light up in response to great music. That would be a fascinating experiment: the subjects could listen to a symphony by Beethoven, followed by a not-so-great work (a symphony by Dittersdorf might do the trick). The brain waves could be measured and compared for the two musical experiences. Now all we need to do is to get a grant to fund this experiment! :lol:


You may also get a lot of brain activity when certain fans here Bieber, NKOTB, et al during their popular years.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Bettina said:


> That's an interesting point about the patterns of brain activation. I wonder if greatness could be scientifically measured using functional MRI scans. Perhaps more (or different) regions of the brain light up in response to great music. That would be a fascinating experiment: the subjects could listen to a symphony by Beethoven, followed by a not-so-great work (a symphony by Dittersdorf might do the trick). The brain waves could be measured and compared for the two musical experiences. Now all we need to do is to get a grant to fund this experiment! :lol:


Ah, but you missed my "some unknown reason" bit - that may have little or nothing to do with the music itself!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Nereffid said:


> My one-word answer to "what makes a great composer?" is: popularity.
> 
> The extended version is something like: a great composer is one who for some _unknown_ reason is relatively successful at causing certain _unfathomable_ neurochemical changes in the brains of a relatively large number of people.
> 
> Anything else is, as Strange Magic said, _ex post facto_ explanations.


If it's all unknown and unfathomable, it would seem that any attempt to discuss greatness is useless. Perhaps that's what you're actually contending?

Humans have always insisted on calling some artistic achievements "great," "beautiful," "profound," and so forth, with an assumption that the perception of these qualities does not arise at the voting booth. The ability of an artist to know when he's "got it right," and the ability of a connoisseur of art to perceive that rightness, have nothing to do with popularity. Have you ever created a work of art, struggled with an aesthetic problem, or searched for a way to communicate something through forms, colors, or tones? I have done all of the above, and I can tell you that the difference between excellence and crap is neither unknown nor unfathomable, regardless of the "popularity" of the product. But then, anyone with an IQ greater than his dog's need only turn on the TV to get confirmation of that.

Unquestionably, the experience of qualities that lead to an assessment of greatness is neurochemical, like any other experience in consciousness, but the chemical changes involved are, at least in theory, no more inaccessible to study than those involved in any other mental experience. It's at least unscientific to declare them particularly unfathomable.

(BTW, "ex post facto" means "having retroactive force," not "after the fact." _All_ explanations are after the fact; otherwise there would be nothing to explain.)


----------



## topo morto (Apr 9, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> Humans have always insisted on calling some artistic achievements "great," "beautiful," "profound," and so forth, with an assumption that the perception of these qualities does not arise at the voting booth.


Perhaps that's one of those assumptions that's understandable, but ultimately gets found to be unjustifiable - like the world being flat, or the earth being the centre of the universe.

As I've said in another thread, in a culture that's somewhat homogeneous, it's understandable that some works become somewhat commonly understood to have certain associations, and it is assumed that this is due to some intrinsic quality of the work. But when assumptions on which qualities are intrinsic are challenged, either by deviants within the culture or because of exposure to a new culture, which of them are found to have objective basis?



Woodduck said:


> Unquestionably, the experience of qualities that lead to an assessment of greatness is neurochemical, like any other experience in consciousness, but the chemical changes involved are, at least in theory, no more inaccessible to study than those involved in any other mental experience. It's at least unscientific to declare them particularly unfathomable.


They're not particularly unfathomable compared to other mental processes, but mental processes are (in general) still pretty unfathomed as things go. I do think it would be really interesting to be able to look under the hood and see why some different people are receptive to different things, but I don't see how we'd make the leap from that to being able to make a valid judgement on what the 'right' emotional response to a piece of music is.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

topo morto said:


> You could use that analogy, but even then, evolution (in biology) doesn't make things "better"


Yes, but things are more complex now than in the times of the first living organisms. And only understanding the past we can understand the present.



topo morto said:


> Dinosaurs are dead - but they are pretty great! what could be 'better' than a dinosaur?


I'm not a conservative as it seems. I love any kind of comtemporary art, I run a competition where there are no "compositional rules" for the composers who wants to submit a work.

What I hate is the charlatanism - people who have no idea what is art but they call a "bad taken photo of a dirty floor out of focus" a great art masterpiece, specially when all the production of this pseudo-artist is the same quality level all the time.
That doesn't mean an artist can't do a "bad taken photo of a dirty floor out of focus", it can be a piece of art, no problems, but if you only do "bad taken photo of a dirty floor out of focus"... I'm sorry, then that is about a lack of capacity to make art.

So yes, dinosaurs are dead, and "monochromatic artists" (like the above mentioned or the pop ones) too - anyone who keeps doing the same thing all the time is incomplete now (even the "classical ones" who still try to follow a "tendency school".

Of course, I must remember you, market is another world, I'm not speaking these people are dead for the market, they are dead for the art.



topo morto said:


> The value of any study to you may be _genuine _- you learn how to do things you want to do - but still _personal _- those things might be of interest to some people, but not others.


Yes, if you want to study art to become an artist, then it is genuine to you.
The ones who do not wish to study art will not become artists (often, someone who can do "one thing", like a trained monkey, is called artist by Media, anyway that means nothing to art.)
Same will happen with any kind of professional (doctor, philosopher, poet, etc)



topo morto said:


> All the religions of the world, for example, have people who spend lifetimes learning about the finer points of doctrine of that particular religion. But ultimately those learnings will contradict each other on some points; Not all of the learnings, however hard the process of study has been, will have objective value.


You are right, anyway religion is based in tales of the past and beliefs, art is not based in this. (and I really hope no one will waste time here explaining their beliefs in religion since this is not related to the topic of the discussion nor it is an attack to religion)



topo morto said:


> I don't know about Portuguese, but certainly in English, not all words are well-defined. 'Art' and 'artist' are ill-defined words in English. That's not really absurd, so much as just being the nature of natural language. If someone calls someone an 'artist' and you don't agree, they're just using a different definition of 'artist'. No problem there.


Even if you use no language, Art is not that difficult to understand "what is"
The problem is when the definition is not made by people who know it, but it is made by the market or by "wanna-be artists" or "pseudo-critics", etc.
Of course, people can use the words they want, and I can call them "idiots" without any problem.
"Cratylus" by Plato is recommended in this case, as the first book for studying such question, later there are several ones to add, but one must not try to make definitions before such study or will be acting like an "idiot" - that is the point.



Phil loves classical said:


> This is exactly where Artur's knowledge comes into play, in defining a fugue, and what is a good fugue. This is also related to that Bach Minuet as we discussed before. A Fugue has boundaries in what can be defined as such. A person with no knowledge can listen to Right Said Fred's I'm So Sexy, and say that is a fugue. A professional can define more accurately what how Bach's music is to sound, if it is to remain Bach. Yes, an artist can reimagine Bach's works, but they cease to be the original. Take that further and you can say Classical Music has boundaries as well. A person can't call something Classical rather than Pop or something else except those who are experts in those fields.
> 
> You are correct in that not even a pro can define what is good art vs. Bad though. It is not a matter of skill, and not even a matter of taste. It is anyone with a certain perspective. I'll take the liberty to refine what Artur is saying to mean a Classical Music professional can define what is good Classical from bad.
> 
> You two were arguing 2 different things :lol:


Exactly! 
(This is why I mentioned there was 2 different discussions)

All the best
Artur Cimirro


----------



## Jacob Brooks (Feb 21, 2017)

dzc4627 said:


> The evening has set. A muffled drum beat sounds in the distance. Intrigued, I walk through the jungle grass, with rapid pace, so that I can find the source of the sound. As I near, I see a grand ritual! Men and women, throwing fruits of Western culture into a large fire, known as "SUBJECTIVITY."
> 
> A man who dances a tribal dance throws a banana into the fire and chants "Art can't be measured!"
> 
> ...


As somebody who, of course, agrees with you, I tried my hand at a completion.

The forest lay burnt and charred, and the blinding light of OBJECTIVITY shines down on all the people. Although each person views it from a different perspective, they recognize that it exists. It must exist, because otherwise where does that radiant light come from?

The people, in the light of the Objective, create telescopes to look into the light. The realize that it is very complicated and there is a lot of disagreement as to its source and composition. Some who are bewildered by this complexity and frustrated with the constant disagreements decide instead to go back into the forest, which has grown back by now, and begin the ritual to SUBJECTIVITY again. Most in the forest do not leave, and no longer attempt to let their skin soak in the sun's light. They wonder why they are so sad. But man! The ritual is just so fun! Ha-ha! Let's let loose my licentious libertines! Bada bing bada boom. Ad repeato.


----------



## topo morto (Apr 9, 2017)

cimirro said:


> Even if you use no language, Art is not that difficult to understand "what is"


I have my ideas... I can see even that they might coincide with yours in some ways. Whether they're right, I really don't know. I'm disappointed to see that http://www.talkclassical.com/712-what-art-your-personal.html didn't get very far!



cimirro said:


> "Cratylus" by Plato is recommended in this case, as the first book for studying such question, later there are several ones to add, but one must not try to make definitions before such study or will be acting like an "idiot" - that is the point.


I'm currently trying to learn Chinese characters - _Cratylus _looks like it might be an interesting counterpoint!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

topo morto said:


> *Perhaps that's one of those assumptions that's understandable, but ultimately gets found to be unjustifiable - like the world being flat*, or the earth being the centre of the universe.
> 
> As I've said in another thread, in a culture that's somewhat homogeneous, it's understandable that some works become somewhat commonly understood to have certain associations, and it is assumed that this is due to some intrinsic quality of the work. But *when assumptions on which qualities are intrinsic are challenged, either by deviants within the culture or because of exposure to a new culture, which of them are found to have objective basis?*
> 
> They're not particularly unfathomable compared to other mental processes, but mental processes are (in general) still pretty unfathomed as things go. I do think it would be really interesting to be able to look under the hood and see why some different people are receptive to different things, but *I don't see how we'd make the leap from that to being able to make a valid judgement on what the 'right' emotional response to a piece of music is.*


You're equating aesthetic perception with conceptual knowledge. The perception that a work of art is beautiful is not equivalent to the conception that the earth is flat. I'm always amazed that people can't make this distinction.

The real existence of aesthetic excellence doesn't imply that there is a right way to react emotionally to art. Aesthetic perception is not, basically, an emotional response anyway, even though emotional responses may influence it and arise from it, as they do with any other mental activity. It's possible and commonplace to recognize artistic quality without having any emotional engagement at all. Its also commonplace to recognize it across cultures, although this may require some exposure and experience with the new and unfamiliar. Again, there's nothing odd or remarkable about that.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

topo morto said:


> I have my ideas... I can see even that they might coincide with yours in some ways. Whether they're right, I really don't know. I'm disappointed to see that http://www.talkclassical.com/712-what-art-your-personal.html didn't get very far!


Don't be disappointed, making or enjoying art is better than making personal concepts of it.
All we need (most important) is to "turn off the media button", and then enjoy the world's different kinds of arts from old popular to classical to contemporary.



topo morto said:


> I'm currently trying to learn Chinese characters - _Cratylus _looks like it might be an interesting counterpoint!


Yes, why not, please do.
Also let me know if your learn enough Chinese characters, I will need your help at some point 

Best
Artur


----------



## topo morto (Apr 9, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> You're equating aesthetic perception with conceptual knowledge. The perception that a work of art is beautiful is not equivalent to the conception that the earth is flat. I'm always amazed that people can't make this distinction.


"The perception that a work of art is beautiful is not equivalent to the conception that the earth is flat" - of course. One's a personal value judgement on a subjective matter, the other is (at least in terms of conventional geometry) an incorrect assessment of an objective matter. Nothing to be misunderstood there, surely..?



Woodduck said:


> The real existence of aesthetic excellence doesn't imply that there is a right way to react emotionally to art. Aesthetic perception is not, basically, an emotional response anyway, even though emotional responses may influence it and arise from it, as they do with any other mental activity. It's possible and commonplace to recognize artistic quality without having any emotional engagement at all. Its also commonplace to recognize it across cultures, although this may require some exposure and experience with the new and unfamiliar. Again, there's nothing odd or remarkable about that.


It's certainly possible to come to recognise what tends to be popular and what a group of other people like when you are exposed to it frequently.

As to what the cross-culturally ratified markers of objective aesthetic excellence are, though... what kind of thing did you have in mind?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> This is exactly where Artur's knowledge comes into play, in defining a fugue, and what is a good fugue. This is also related to that Bach Minuet as we discussed before. A Fugue has boundaries in what can be defined as such. A person with no knowledge can listen to Right Said Fred's I'm So Sexy, and say that is a fugue. A professional can define more accurately what how Bach's music is to sound, if it is to remain Bach. Yes, an artist can reimagine Bach's works, but they cease to be the original. Take that further and you can say Classical Music has boundaries as well. A person can't call something Classical rather than Pop or something else except those who are experts in those fields.
> 
> You are correct in that not even a pro can define what is good art vs. Bad though. It is not a matter of skill, and not even a matter of taste. It is anyone with a certain perspective. I'll take the liberty to refine what Artur is saying to mean a Classical Music professional can define what is good Classical from bad.
> 
> You two were arguing 2 different things :lol:


A professional has the knowledge and expertise to compare authenticity but not declare good or bad. Only very authentic, or not so authentic and everything else in between.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I think Cimirro and I may actually be in agreement!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> A non-authoritarian cannot say Art is about feeling


To deny that art impacts our feelings and emotions is silly. An artist dosen't have to have the intention of impacting our feelings, but it inevitably will. It is undeniable that art is about feelings.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> If it's all unknown and unfathomable, it would seem that any attempt to discuss greatness is useless. Perhaps that's what you're actually contending?


Discussion isn't useless. Confident assertions that one possesses the truth of the matter might not be especially useful though.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think Cimirro and I may actually be in agreement!


well, it depends

I will agree if you say a professional can't declare good or bad for someone's taste.
That is completely OK.

I will not say "Bach is good" and "Schumann is bad" (only examples, of course) and then people must hear only Bach, NO.

But I really can say "this is a song with a simple melody and basic harmony, and it is necessary much more than this in order to someone be called great, since anyone with few or no study at all can compose a so-called 'beautiful' song"

and if I can say this. I can say also:

Bach, Beethoven and Mozart are not the only great ones, because there are people before and after them who also made works in the same level of "technical-professional work" (and with the same possibility of enjoyment for any kind of taste, no matter if mine or yours) but they had not the same lucky of being on marketing, or in the right moment in the right place with the right people.

So, I agree you can call your favorite composers/pieces "great", that doesn't mean they are "great" on a technical-professional point of view.

I mean, you may enjoy "Twist and Shout" and call it great. Anyway, the composition process for such piece is almost nothing and any child can do it after learning 3 or 4 chords in any instrument and a single scale.
So, the quality in terms of technical-professional view will not be related to how many enjoy or not (because it is not related to taste, but quality of work in art)



Captainnumber36 said:


> To deny that art impacts our feelings and emotions is silly. An artist dosen't have to have the intention of impacting our feelings, but it inevitably will. It is undeniable that art is about feelings.


I don't think I'm silly because really feel nothing with Boulez Sonata No.2, it is not a work to impact in any kind of feelings.
Anyway it is art, and I understand what Boulez made there, I have no feelings about it...

All the best
Artur
P.S. I will NOT restart the discussion...


----------



## dzc4627 (Apr 23, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Then, the sun of objectivity shines down upon the now burned forest known as subjectivity. The sun, with it's heat, revives the forest growing each individual carefully.
> 
> A man says, Art can be measured, but no measurement is the authoritative answer on any given piece of Art.
> 
> ...


If you think valuing objective standards and traditions is boring, you have no place on a classical music forum.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

dzc4627 said:


> If you think valuing objective standards and traditions is boring, you have no place on a classical music forum.


You are so very rude. But, I value objective standards and traditions, but don't hold them higher than deviating from those as well. I like the more authentic take of Mozart's sonatas by Lilly Kruass, but also the versions by Gould that completely re-imagine the sonatas and are not authentic.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

cimirro said:


> well, it depends
> 
> I will agree if you say a professional can't declare good or bad for someone's taste.
> That is completely OK.
> ...


I think we are in agreement. You can asses interpretations and authenticity on a professional level, but that has nothing to do with qualifying good or bad in terms of taste, only good and bad, great and not great, based on the professional criteria.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

And perhaps the Boulez doesn't have an impression on you, and that comes in with taste and what moves us, but it could have an impact on someone else's soul.

It's haunting, very much like Shoneberg.


----------



## mant (Apr 25, 2017)

Hi all, I'm new here, this discussion was a great Reading!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

mant said:


> Hi all, I'm new here, this discussion was a great Reading!!!!!!!!!


Welcome! Glad you are enjoying it! It's great when we can have mature discussions that reach conclusions.


----------



## Zingara62 (Apr 20, 2017)

welcome Mant, this is really a great place


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

mant said:


> Hi all, I'm new here, this discussion was a great Reading!!!!!!!!!


Welcome to the forum mant!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Cimirro:

I value your perspective and think it is valuable. Someone who has dedicated time and energy to principles and traditions offers a unique perspective on what is an authentic take vs not. 

I just don't think it's definitive in anyway, but in saying that, I don't mean to devalue its importance.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Welcome! Glad you are enjoying it! It's great when we can have mature discussions that reach conclusions.


Conclusions? Sometimes it's just The Last Word.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I felt conclusive about it. I debated my conclusions against someone, and felt reinforced in my stances. I actually believe Cimirro and I are in agreement at this point.


----------



## topo morto (Apr 9, 2017)

cimirro said:


> But I really can say "this is a song with a simple melody and basic harmony, and it is necessary much more than this in order to someone be called great, since anyone with few or no study at all can compose a so-called 'beautiful' song"


It's extremely common in many cultures, though, for simplicity in art to be valued highly; to be able to 'say' or 'do' a lot with a minimal number of perfectly executed strokes / motion / parts / whatever.

(Of course intricacy can be valued too!)



cimirro said:


> I mean, you may enjoy "Twist and Shout" and call it great. Anyway, the composition process for such piece is almost nothing and any child can do it after learning 3 or 4 chords in any instrument and a single scale.


The original composer of the song (Bert Berns) _agreed_ with you that there's nothing special in the _chord progression and the melody_ - he was so disappointed in he original recording he arranged for it to be re-recorded by another group with the particular delivery and rhythmic feel he had envisaged. It's arguably that performance and arrangement that put the song on the road to 'greatness'.

If there _were_ any objective measure of the greatness of a work, it wouldn't be sufficient to consider some aspects of a work and ignore others. When it comes to pop music, every aspect of timbre, rhythm, melodic inflection, vocal pronunciation can make or break a song just as much as (if not more than) the basic harmony and melody.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

But Cimirro can evaluate it on the criteria he values and determine if it is good or bad, great or not great, based upon that professional criteria.

That isn't a definitive evaluation, but certainly one taking note of.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

This thread is making me consider going back to school for music education and become a piano teacher as well as keep my job as a therapist!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The great composers are so far ahead of the rest of us they are out of sight. Just take a minor composer like Bernstein or Previn. What incredible musicians. But then where does that leave Mozart, Bach, Beethoven et al?


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

topo morto said:


> It's extremely common in many cultures, though, for simplicity in art to be valued highly; to be able to 'say' or 'do' a lot with a minimal number of perfectly executed strokes / motion / parts / whatever.
> 
> (Of course intricacy can be valued too!)


I agree, and in these cultures they are not discussing the classical music 
For a complex thing we discuss values of complexity.



topo morto said:


> The original composer of the song (Bert Berns) _agreed_ with you that there's nothing special in the _chord progression and the melody_ - he was so disappointed in he original recording he arranged for it to be re-recorded by another group with the particular delivery and rhythmic feel he had envisaged. It's arguably that performance and arrangement that put the song on the road to 'greatness'.


Anyway, the "greatness" of such work is only valid in the "market world" which is not part of my study or interest.
In classical music the same is not happening, we do not play Beethoven in rhythm of salsa to make him more enjoyable. 
But I understand your point.



topo morto said:


> If there _were_ any objective measure of the greatness of a work, it wouldn't be sufficient to consider some aspects of a work and ignore others. When it comes to pop music, every aspect of timbre, rhythm, melodic inflection, vocal pronunciation can make or break a song just as much as (if not more than) the basic harmony and melody.


Actually this is why I prefer to use the word "technical" 
these elements you mention - timbre, rhythm, melodic inflection - all of them are available in classical music long before media culture.
So, of course, they are part of the criteria.
A bad orchestration can make terrible things...



Captainnumber36 said:


> But Cimirro can evaluate it on the criteria he values and determine if it is good or bad, great or not great, based upon that professional criteria.


not only "Cimirro"... there are several professionals around the world 

Best
Artur


----------



## topo morto (Apr 9, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> But Cimirro can evaluate it on the criteria he values and determine if it is good or bad, great or not great, based upon that professional criteria.
> 
> That isn't a definitive evaluation, but certainly one taking note of.


Anyone can evaluate anything based on anything they like... but I wouldn't _personally _value an analysis of _Twist and Shout_ that gave a lot of weight to its chord progression. To me it's a bit like listening to a Requiem and saying 'well, the lyrics are a bit unoriginal'... it kind of misses the point a bit!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

topo morto said:


> Anyone can evaluate anything based on anything they like...


Definitely, but I'm attempting to display the importance of the professional opinion to show I respect it. It can provide and lead to hearing more authentic takes which I highly value.

But like I keep saying, it's not definitive, just as there is not definitive cycle of any symphonies or sonatas etc. But we can describe criteria we are looking for in a cycle, and professionals like Cimirro can help guide us and shower us with knowledge at the same time.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> A professional has the knowledge and expertise to compare authenticity but not declare good or bad. Only very authentic, or not so authentic and everything else in between.


A person with less knowledge can come up with his/her own reasonable conclusions which seem to work out, but that doesn't make him/her right, and that person wouldn't know any better. A person with higher knowledge is in a better position to make conclusions, no?

There is definitely some objectivity involved, and only those who know better would acknowledge. Those that say everything is subjective, without trying to find out more, have already doomed themselves in finding any truth or objectivity, and will likely feel satisfied in their own sense of fullness. Hence the saying: ignorance is bliss.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

topo morto said:


> Anyone can evaluate anything personally based on anything they like... but I wouldn't _personally _value an analysis of _Twist and Shout_'s that gave a lot of weight to its chord progression. To me it's a bit like listening to a Requiem and saying 'well, the lyrics are a bit unoriginal'... it kind of misses the point a bit!


I understand.
But we have 3 different worlds to manage
Classical Music
Popular Music Cultures
Media Culture
You can not use "Media" or "Popular" references to evaluate the "Classical". None of these two Media/Popular) are made related to study and knowledge evolution (which is not a problem at all)
And since the classical is the only "analytical" of these 3, classical can (and very often do) find good things in these other 2 worlds and can explain why it is easy to discard a lot of these works (specially from Media, of course)


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

A person with higher knowledge is in a better position to make conclusions said:


> About authenticity, definitely.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

cimirro said:


> And since the classical is the only "analytical" of these 3, classical can (and very often do) find good things in these other 2 worlds and can explain why it is easy to discard a lot of these works (specially from Media, of course)


Based upon your professional opinion and standards, at least.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Based upon your professional opinion and standards, at least.


did any "ancient culture" not related to Europe made an analysis of a Symphony or any other "classical work"?
or, does any media-culture-product-artist made a valuable analysis of the structure of the Art of Fugue (as an example)?
If both answers are "no", then I can't see why it is "based only in my professional opinion"... seems a fact... no?
(classical as the only analytical world)


----------



## topo morto (Apr 9, 2017)

cimirro said:


> I understand.
> But we have 3 different worlds to manage
> Classical Music
> Popular Music Cultures
> ...


I can see that pop music isn't so intertwined with the arena of _formal _education, but I can't really see that it's not made with reference to knowledge evolution. In its lifetime pop music has evolved enormously and rapidly, with an incredibly rich dialogue going on between its many strands.

I am interested in what you mean by the 'media' world, and how it differs from the 'pop' world?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

cimirro said:


> did any "ancient culture" not related to Europe made an analysis of a Symphony or any other "classical work"?
> or, does any media-culture-product-artist made a valuable analysis of the structure of the Art of Fugue (as an example)?
> If both answers are "no", then I can't see why it is "based only in my professional opinion"... seems a fact... no?
> (classical as the only analytical world)


Could you agree Classical is the only music you want to analyze? It arguably provides the most to analyze, but that doesn't mean there isn't discussion/analysis that can be had on popular music.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> A person with higher knowledge is in a better position to make conclusions said:
> 
> 
> > About authenticity, definitely.
> ...


----------



## topo morto (Apr 9, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> No, more than that, what is good or bad as well, at the very least they are in a better position to judge. Art is not all as subjective as some people make it out to be in terms of quality. In reality, there is a lot we can know, but we do have limits. The ignorant try to lower those limits to just what they don't know. :lol: so they don't need to look further, because according to them it is impossible.


Knowledge isn't one-dimensional though; there are many areas of knowledge about music, and if you take two music aficionados with different tastes, it's very likely that they have different knowledge, rather than one having measurably more.

If you know the difference between the sound of an upper and lower mordent, and I know the difference between the sound of a 2- and a 4- pole filter - which snippet of knowledge is worth more?


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

topo morto said:


> I can see that pop music isn't so intertwined with the arena of _formal _education, but I can't really see that it's not made with reference to knowledge evolution. In its lifetime pop music has evolved enormously and rapidly, with an incredibly rich dialogue going on between its many strands.
> 
> I am interested in what you mean by the 'media' world, and how it differs from the 'pop' world?


"Pop world" is inside "Media world". Media world is related to the Market all over the world.

Actually the most part of "evolution" of media culture is related to what is "fashion".
When the "rock'n'roll" started, it was called a "new music"
actually Buxtehude made better "rock'n'roll" - there was no new music on it
with rock'n'roll you had electric guitars, electric bass, drums... "electric" changed timbre a little bit
but if you use the notes of Buxtehude BuxWV.143 in a guitar/bass and add drums, what is the difference of Buxtehude Prelude and the "new" rock'n'roll... so what is new about it in the music?
Elvis dancing? Beatles and their hairs and clothes? pretty faces? lyrics?
This is an evolution of a knowledge without history basis.

In musical sense, probably around 90% of what is composed all over the world is tonal and use simple chords and scales. (i'm not againts the use of such techniques)
Anyway, next year, or next month, someone will claim "I made a new rhythm influenced by blablabla"
well, I'm sorry, I see all these rhythms studying music since "ars nova"... so...?

The sociological phenomena of media culture is a possible theme for study - not my kind of interest anyway
the Media art itself brings nothing new, it is always copy of a copy of a copy...


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Could you agree Classical is the only music you want to analyze? It arguably provides the most to analyze, but that doesn't mean there isn't discussion/analysis that can be had on popular music.


I will agree if you show me the requested examples (or very similar) I asked.


----------



## dzc4627 (Apr 23, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> You are so very rude. But, I value objective standards and traditions, but don't hold them higher than deviating from those as well. I like the more authentic take of Mozart's sonatas by Lilly Kruass, but also the versions by Gould that completely re-imagine the sonatas and are not authentic.


You are so very foolish. To say that you value something and then say in the same sentence that you don't value them more than that something's exact opposite, is foolish. Art's meaning comes from the rules, the structure, the limitations! Without the limitations, we have no art, we have indulgent self expression.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

"To say that you value something and then say in the same sentence that you don't value them more than that something's exact opposite, is foolish."

I 100% disagree with this statement.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

cimirro said:


> I will agree if you show me the requested examples (or very similar) I asked.


I'm not sure what examples you are looking for exactly. But surely popular music is analyzed for impact on culture, use of melody, use of rhythm, length of song (does it go on too long or too short?), etc.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

dzc4627 said:


> You are so very foolish. To say that you value something and then say in the same sentence that you don't value them more than that something's exact opposite, is foolish. Art's meaning comes from the rules, the structure, the limitations! Without the limitations, we have no art, we have indulgent self expression.


Limitations? bah! There is only critical analysis of the public, professional, and personal.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Paying too much attention to rules can be great or hindering. It can lead to very authentic, historically informed pieces, or hinder devotion to create a new idea.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm not sure what examples you are looking for exactly. But surely popular music is analyzed for impact on culture, use of melody, use of rhythm, length of song (does it go on too long or too short?), etc.


an aesthetically written analyses of qualities of sound, form, etc etc ON classical music made by someone who have NOT studied classical music and owns only a background in popular ancient cultures or media culture.
If you can't find it, my sentence was not opinion, it was a fact. 
(this post)


> did any "ancient culture" not related to Europe made an analysis of a Symphony or any other "classical work"?
> or, does any media-culture-product-artist made a valuable analysis of the structure of the Art of Fugue (as an example)?
> If both answers are "no", then I can't see why it is "based only in my professional opinion"... seems a fact... no?
> (classical as the only analytical world)


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

cimirro said:


> an aesthetically written analyses of qualities of sound, form, etc etc ON classical music made by someone who have NOT studied classical music and owns only a background in popular ancient cultures or media culture.
> If you can't find it, my sentence was not opinion, it was a fact.
> (this post)


Why would the analysis have to be on classical music to show that they are capable of analyzing music? Why can't they be respected for analysis of music they love and enjoy?


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Paying too much attention to rules can be great or hindering. It can lead to very authentic, historically informed pieces, or hinder devotion to create a new idea.


remember you can not call "new idea" something just because you are not aware of what was made before
something new must be new


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

cimirro said:


> remember you can not call "new idea" something just because you are not aware of what was made before
> something new must be new


Definitely. And that is where your knowledge plays a good part in assessing the newness of a composer!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Captainnumber36 said:
> 
> 
> > No, more than that, what is good or bad as well.
> ...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

topo morto said:


> "The perception that a work of art is beautiful is not equivalent to the conception that the earth is flat" - of course. One's a personal value judgement on a subjective matter, the other is (at least in terms of conventional geometry) an incorrect assessment of an objective matter.
> 
> It's certainly possible to come to recognise what tends to be popular and what a group of other people like when you are exposed to it frequently.
> 
> As to what the cross-culturally ratified markers of objective aesthetic excellence are, though... what kind of thing did you have in mind?


"Subjective" and "objective" are very slippery terms with more than one meaning. A preference for vanilla over chocolate is a "personal value judgment on a subjective matter." A judgment that a Mozart opera is a greater work of art than a Salieri opera is a judgment of objectively existing qualities, which one can learn to appreciate whether one prefers Mozart or not (and in consequence, people being humans and not orcs or tardigrades, most people do prefer Mozart).

When I say "It's possible and commonplace to recognize artistic quality...across cultures, although this may require some exposure and experience with the new and unfamiliar" - I don't mean that it's possible to learn to conform to the tastes of another culture. I mean that it's possible to come to perceive qualities of excellence in another culture's art which unfamiliarity initially made one unable to see. This is not a form of indoctrination or habituation, but a growth in awareness. The popular name for it is art (or music) appreciation. At a higher level, it's called connoisseurship. Connoisseurs haven't spent a lifetime studying art in order to argue over vanilla and chocolate.

As for aesthetic qualities being "cross-culturally ratified," I would say simply that humans over time and in diverse places, from the caves at Lascaux to the Ming dynasty to the contemporary world, have recognized similar values - values such as order, precision, clarity, purposefulness, coherence, congruence, variety within unity, balance, harmony, grace, strength, vitality, fluency, skillfulness, etc. - as life-affirming, as excellences, as virtues, as qualities desirable in objects of manufacture and contemplation, and as defining qualities of art deserving of the terms "beautiful" and "great." These qualities don't preclude vast differences in style or in taste, but they transcend style and taste, and they can be recognized.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Why would the analysis have to be on classical music to show that they are capable of analyzing music? Why can't they be respected for analysis of music they love and enjoy?


captain you are making a mess.
I'm not speaking they can't enjoy, love, etc etc
the European culture developed the sense of the word we call "analysis"
so if you want to make an "analysis" you must do it as it is expected to do.
Ancient cultures like the indigenous who lived in Brazil before 1500, never made "analysis" of art.
Media-culture-people have no idea of what have been created before 50 years ago.
So what i'm saying is: Only classical music background can give you the necessary tools to analyse the technical composition of a piece of music no matter where it comes from.
If you still do not understand it, I recommend you take a rest and try reading this again later and think about it.

All the best
Artur


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Woodcock:

Opera has certain qualities, structures, and elements about it (that I'm admittedly not fully aware of) that can be assessed on a scholarly level, such as Cimirro would do, to identify it's quality based upon that criteria.

I simply state this is not definitive, for there are other criteria people can use to assess it's quality that aren't at the professional level which I feel are equally as valid and important as the professional assessment. Both reveal different things!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

"So what i'm saying is: Only classical music background can give you the necessary tools to analyse the technical composition of a piece of music no matter where it comes from."


I'll just say I disagree with this. You can learn about theory and history of music in any genre you are pursuing and analyze it from that level.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'll just say I disagree with this. You can learn about theory and history of music in any genre you are pursuing and analyze it from that level.


So, you can learn the structure of a fugue using only a study on indigenous music culture from 1500 in Brazil?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

cimirro said:


> So, you can learn the structure of a fugue using only a study on indigenous music culture from 1500 in Brazil?


No, but that's irrelevant! What are we arguing here?

I'm promoting the notion that you can analyze any genre you care about and love and are interested in and be respected for that. Just because you don't want to learn the structure of a fugue, or can't discuss it, doesn't eliminate your ability to analyze the structure of popular music.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

The following quote is from a youtube comment on Rondo Alla Turka:

* The statement appears to be coming from a person that is more familiar with pop music and is making a comment on classical terminology *

"no you're just **** pointing out a "correct" term doesn't have anything to do with grammer. plus Nothing is wrong with calling it a song because that's what it is. A song. I'm also 90% sure that they weren't implying that this was the best "piece" ever anyway becuase the word song is more broad it allows people to compare it to any other song maybe even a pop song but if they were to say "piece" people would only compare it to other "pieces" of music. and I'm pretty sure their intention wasn't the latter so stop being ****.﻿"


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> No, but that's irrelevant! What are we arguing here?
> 
> I'm promoting the notion that you can analyze any genre you care about and love and are interested in and be respected for that. Just because you don't want to learn the structure of a fugue, or can't discuss it, doesn't eliminate your ability to analyze the structure of popular music.


"ANALYSE MUSIC" this is what we are arguing here
but it seems you want to change all the sense of the words to fit in your opinion.

"Analyze music" is not "hey buddy what do you think about this song?"
everyone can speak about "what they think about something" even if they don't know what it is.

But it is not making a "musical analysis", so NO, there is no ability of "analyze the structure" if you don't know what is "analyze" nor "structure"
that is all...


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

But you don't have to study classical to learn about the same professional criteria you utilize in your assessments.

That is all.

While I value the "hey buddy" assessments and see them as musical analysis, I understand you value the professional standard criteria and terminology in your assessments.

That is fine.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> The following quote is from a youtube comment on Rondo Alla Turka:
> 
> * The statement appears to be coming from a person that is more familiar with pop music and is making a comment on classical terminology *
> 
> "no you're just **** pointing out a "correct" term doesn't have anything to do with grammer. plus Nothing is wrong with calling it a song because that's what it is. A song. I'm also 90% sure that they weren't implying that this was the best "piece" ever anyway becuase the word song is more broad it allows people to compare it to any other song maybe even a pop song but if they were to say "piece" people would only compare it to other "pieces" of music. and I'm pretty sure their intention wasn't the latter so stop being ****.﻿"


Problem in english language maybe? one means "song" as a compositional form/style available in classical music (Lied/Chanson)
the other have no idea what is "Lied/Chanson" and use the term "song" for a "Rondo"
On an ignorant point-of-view calling "song" a Rondo is ok... that is not an example to follow
in a classical music forum I must believe people prefer to read and know things than keep ignorant because of laziness


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

cimirro said:


> Problem in english language maybe? one means "song" as a compositional form/style available in classical music (Lied/Chanson)
> the other have no idea what is "Lied/Chanson" and use the term "song" for a "Rondo"
> On an ignorant point-of-view calling "song" a Rondo is ok... that is not an example to follow
> in a classical music forum I must believe people prefer to read and know things than keep ignorant because of laziness


I agree, but she is debating on Classical and seems to be into pop. I thought that was what you were looking for.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> But you don't have to study classical to learn about the same professional criteria you utilize in your assessments.
> 
> That is all.
> 
> ...


still, you analyse only if you know what analyse is...


----------



## topo morto (Apr 9, 2017)

cimirro said:


> the Media art itself brings nothing new, it is always copy of a copy of a copy...


Of course it's possible to point out precursors to almost anything in music. Because genres and artists influence each other, and artists even sometimes come up with similar combinations by chance, there's very rarely anything that seems completely new, unless you're a very casual observer. But it's the same for all areas - pop, classical, or pansori.

Nevertheless, by making repeated small increments, and the _occasional _genuine break from the norm, we come to genuinely new musical combinations over time.

Rock and roll initially had very few elements in it that were new; at best it was a new _combination _of sounds.

Big jumps in music are often technology-driven, and although electric guitars didn't initially make a huge difference, they did once distortion was discovered; That slowly, as people explored it, opened up a new world of timbres - which have been explored by the pop world much more than classical, I think. It's the same with synthesizers and newer computer music techniques - I believe there have been many more notable works in the pop sphere that make use of them.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

cimirro said:


> still, you analyse only if you know what analyse is...


I go with the dictionary definition:

"discover or reveal (something) through detailed examination".

Perhaps there is an academic method of analysis that you are noting on, but that doesn't require learning about classical music to absorb into one's assessments.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I agree, but she is debating on Classical and seems to be into pop. I thought that was what you were looking for.


No, i'm looking for someone who get sufficient knowledge to discuss about classical music understanding how it is made based in a background on media culture or ancient culture.
But guess what, you will not find it, because it is not possible to do so.
and this proves that an analyse can be made from a classical point-of-view on ancient culture and media culture
but the inverse is impossible.
i'm repeating the same, please kindly read my answers based in your other replies...


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I go with the dictionary definition:
> 
> "discover or reveal (something) through detailed examination".
> 
> Perhaps there is an academic method of analysis that you are noting on, but that doesn't require learning about classical music to absorb into one's assessments.


gosh,
I'm saying it is necessary classical music background to analyse classical music. What is difficult to understand here???
enjoy or not enjoy is not analyse


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

In my experience, deep analysis of great art is often interesting, but rarely as satisfying as merely experiencing it.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

cimirro said:


> No, i'm looking for someone who get sufficient knowledge to discuss about classical music understanding how it is made based in a background on media culture or ancient culture.
> But guess what, you will not find it, because it is not possible to do so.
> and this proves that an analyse can be made from a classical point-of-view on ancient culture and media culture
> but the inverse is impossible.
> i'm repeating the same, please kindly read my answers based in your other replies...


Am I understanding you correctly?

You are asserting that I will not find someone who is primarily based on media culture to analyze Classical music but that one who can analyze classical music can assess media/pop culture music?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Again, I think there may be a simple misunderstanding here. By using classical to analyse popular music, Artur is not necessarily meaning analyzing pop from Classical music constructs. The theory behind Classical music applies to all forms of music (we're talking Western music here). So a Classical music person generally knows more about Rock than a Rock person knows about Classical. This is clearly obvious since the fundamentals behind Rock music is so much more narrower.


----------



## topo morto (Apr 9, 2017)

cimirro said:


> gosh,
> I'm saying it is necessary classical music background to analyse classical music. What is difficult to understand here???
> enjoy or not enjoy is not analyse


Earlier on you were talking about

'classical as the only analytical world',

and

'classical is the only "analytical" of these 3, classical can (and very often do) find good things in these other 2 worlds and can explain why it is easy to discard a lot of these works' -

I too thought that you were saying that it was possible to analyse anything from a classical point of view, but not to analyse other things from a classical point of view.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

topo morto said:


> Of course it's possible to point out precursors to almost anything in music. Because genres and artists influence each other, and artists even sometimes come up with similar combinations by chance, there's very rarely anything that seems completely new, unless you're a very casual observer. But it's the same for all areas - pop, classical, or pansori.
> 
> Nevertheless, by making repeated small increments, and the _occasional _genuine break from the norm, we come to genuinely new musical combinations over time.
> 
> ...


"Sythesizers" and the concept of such instrument were first object of work of several "classical" composers long before any pop artist
and yes, the pop music presents several "timbres" which are not often presented in classical music.
that doesn't mean these timbres are good nor that the music is in evolution. they just try different sounds... and today we see clearly the fashion around the sound of the moment in Media culture.



topo morto said:


> Nevertheless, by making repeated small increments, and the _occasional _genuine break from the norm, we come to genuinely new musical combinations over time.


what kind of new musical combinations you mean?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Again, I think there may be a simple misunderstanding here. By using classical to analyse popular music, Artur is not necessarily meaning analyzing pop from Classical music constructs. The theory behind Classical music applies to all forms of music (we're talking Western music here). So a Classical music person generally knows more about Rock than a Rock person knows about Classical. This is clearly obvious since the fundamentals behind Rock music is so much more narrower.


I think it's debatable that a Classical person will know more about rock than a rocker will know about classical based upon the theory learned.

All genres have certain elements to them that are unique, Jazz theory is different than classical theory and classical theory is different from rock theory, but they all share the same basics such as rhythm, chords, notes, sheet music notation, etc.

I think Artur is overestimating the abilities of a classical upbringing as a musician.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

JAS said:


> In my experience, deep analysis of great art is often interesting, but rarely as satisfying as merely experiencing it.


Agree



Captainnumber36 said:


> Am I understanding you correctly?
> 
> You are asserting that I will not find someone who is primarily based on media culture to analyze Classical music but that one who can analyze classical music can assess media/pop culture music?


No "assess", but the one who can analyse classical music is able to understand the formulae of the "media culture art" and that is why most part of the "media culture art" is not so impressive you have aknowledgement

And that is not related to taste,
so everyone can enjoy or not any kind of art



Phil loves classical said:


> Again, I think there may be a simple misunderstanding here. By using classical to analyse popular music, Artur is not necessarily meaning analyzing pop from Classical music constructs. The theory behind Classical music applies to all forms of music (we're talking Western music here). So a Classical music person generally knows more about Rock than a Rock person knows about Classical. This is clearly obvious since the fundamentals behind Rock music is so much more narrower.


and when you analyse rock from a classical point of view you say "ahh ok, a simple song" and if you analyse Julio Iglesias you say "ahh ok another simple song"...



topo morto said:


> Earlier on you were talking about
> 'classical as the only analytical world',
> 
> and
> ...


Yes, my last asnwer can't be removed from the context of Captain's answer or it will become a mess.

classical background - you understand classical
classical background - you can understand media
classical background - you can understand ancient culture
ancient culture background - you understand your ancient culture (and eventually may respect some cultures)
media background - you undersstand fashion and will respect only this.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think it's debatable that a Classical person will know more about rock than a rocker will know about classical based upon the theory learned.
> 
> All genres have certain elements to them that are unique, Jazz theory is different than classical theory and classical theory is different from rock theory, but they all share the same basics such as rhythm, chords, notes, sheet music notation, etc.
> 
> I think Artur is overestimating the abilities of a classical upbringing as a musician.


Where the Jazz theory is different????????? they are using notes (and rules) from other universe????


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think it's debatable that a Classical person will know more about rock than a rocker will know about classical based upon the theory learned.
> 
> All genres have certain elements to them that are unique, Jazz theory is different than classical theory and classical theory is different from rock theory, but they all share the same basics such as rhythm, chords, notes, sheet music notation, etc.
> 
> I think Artur is overestimating the abilities of a classical upbringing as a musician.


Classical music tested all the borders of musical theory as we know it. Popular music only concentrates on a minuscule small part of musical theory. Yes there certain things emphasized in other genres, but fundamentally are nothing new. People sing a certain style differently in other genres, but is the theory behind the notes actually different?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> All genres have certain elements to them that are unique, Jazz theory is different than classical theory and classical theory is different from rock theory, but they all share the same basics such as rhythm, chords, notes, sheet music notation, etc.


I've not heard of rock theory. What's involved?


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

I would understand if someone claims the old chinese music has a different approach.
anyway we are able to study it
but there is no "Jazz rule" impossible to use in classical music, nor they made something impossible to find in classical music examples.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Bulldog said:


> I've not heard of rock theory. What's involved?


must be a conspiracy theory...??


----------



## topo morto (Apr 9, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> A judgment that a Mozart opera is a greater work of art than a Salieri opera is a judgment of objectively existing qualities


The qualities may be objective; the criteria by which they are judged greater, subjective, unless you mean something measurable like 'louder', or 'longer'.



Woodduck said:


> When I say "It's possible and commonplace to recognize artistic quality...across cultures, although this may require some exposure and experience with the new and unfamiliar" - I don't mean that it's possible to learn to conform to the tastes of another culture. I mean that it's possible to come to perceive qualities of excellence in another culture's art which unfamiliarity initially made one unable to see. This is not a form of indoctrination or habituation, but a growth in awareness.
> The popular name for it is art (or music) appreciation.


Sure... in itself, that wouldn't point one to any objective measures of excellence or greatness, but it could if we could find any that are truly cross-cultural...



Woodduck said:


> As for aesthetic qualities being "cross-culturally ratified," I would say simply that humans over time and in diverse places, from the caves at Lascaux to the Ming dynasty to the contemporary world, have recognized similar values - values such as order, precision, clarity, purposefulness, coherence, congruence, variety within unity, balance, harmony, grace, strength, vitality, fluency, skillfulness, etc. - as life-affirming, as excellences, as virtues, as qualities desirable in objects of manufacture and contemplation, and as defining qualities of art deserving of the terms "beautiful" and "great." These qualities don't preclude vast differences in style or in taste, but they transcend style and taste, and they can be recognized.


Interesting list. (Some of them I did have in mind before I asked!). A lot of them are, I agree, common characteristics of objects for contemplation! Whether they take us quite far enough to be markers of excellence, I'm not sure. Partly because a lot of 'great' works consiciously see how far they can stray from those principles (I'd hate to mark Shostakovitch lower than Taylor Swift because he didn't display as much 'harmony' or 'clarity'), and partly because the more genuinely common those characteristics are, the less likely we are to be able to use them as differentiators (Tallis vs Pärt- who has better 'variety within unity'? I can't see them releasing the Top Trumps any time soon...)


----------



## topo morto (Apr 9, 2017)

cimirro said:


> "Sythesizers" and the concept of such instrument were first object of work of several "classical" composers long before any pop artist


Definitely true - many of the 'early gurus' were more from the classical / academic perspective. Still, my perception is that it's the pop world that picked up the ball and ran with it from (say) the 1960s onwards.



cimirro said:


> and yes, the pop music presents several "timbres" which are not often presented in classical music.
> that doesn't mean these timbres are good nor that the music is in evolution. they just try different sounds... and today we see clearly the fashion around the sound of the moment in Media culture.


I'm not saying it is necessarily 'good'! But we were talking about 'what's new' .. .

In fact, over the last 20 years or so I don't see much new anywhere. A few new combinations, a few refinements... but nothing that has made me feel like an angry old man shouting "that's not music!". All very familiar.



cimirro said:


> what kind of new musical combinations you mean?


There's a lot of pop music released between, say, 1955 and 1995, that sounds very different to anything commonly heard, say, 15 years before it. I'm saying that 'newness' takes some time, in any genre - it rarely happens in one quick flash.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

cimirro said:


> I would understand if someone claims the old chinese music has a different approach.
> anyway we are able to study it
> but there is no "Jazz rule" impossible to use in classical music, nor they made something impossible to find in classical music examples.


I'm a fan of Classical Chinese music. They just have 5 notes in the scale, which are the same as the black keys on the piano, but shifted in pitch. Pretty much just another mode in Western music


----------



## Jacob Brooks (Feb 21, 2017)

How much one enjoys the limitations in some domain of art (any domain: classical period, baroque, all classical music, metal, doom metal, etc) is subjective, you can tell because the value of art in different domains is not dependent on the domain, but the individual merits of the piece.

The skill with which a composer creates meaning within their chosen domain (may be something that could be listed, or they may be in a domain of their own) is objective. You can tell because there is a conceivable (for ex.) classical period style composer that is totally bland, while Haydn is extraordinarily creative within (mostly) that paradigm.

The only piece of information that complicates this picture is that not all domains are equal in the quality of the limitations. By this I mean that some are too narrow and some too wide for meaningful exploration. Doom metal is an example of a domain that doesn't have much room to be explored. I enjoy one doom metal album and feel no need to listen to any more.

Some evidence for valuation within a domain being objective is that when you listened to jazz for the first time you couldn't tell if it was good or bad jazz, since you didn't understand how exactly the work was communicating with the limitations.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

topo morto said:


> Definitely true - many of the 'early gurus' were more from the classical / academic perspective. Still, my perception is that it's the pop world that picked up the ball and ran with it from (say) the 1960s onwards.
> 
> I'm not saying it is necessarily 'good'! But we were talking about 'what's new' .. .
> 
> ...


Topo, the difference between 50's, 60's music and 80's music, fundamentally, is just the focus on different chord progressions. Also a different chord progression for a ballad from an upbeat rocker. It is all derived from folk and blues, as in another thread. country, pop, R&B. Early Led Zeppelin is basically an amplified Robert Johnson. Of course the singing and playing style changed, but not the fundamentals.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Jacob Brooks said:


> How much one enjoys the limitations in some domain of art (any domain: classical period, baroque, all classical music, metal, doom metal, etc) is subjective, you can tell because the value of art in different domains is not dependent on the domain, but the individual merits of the piece.
> 
> The skill with which a composer creates meaning within their chosen domain (may be something that could be listed, or they may be in a domain of their own) is objective. You can tell because their is a conceivable (for ex.,) classical period style composer that is totally bland, while Haydn is extraordinarily creative within (mostly) that paradigm.
> 
> ...


Good point. It is more with the familiarity of the style, but once you're familiar you can judge the good from bad within that style.


----------



## topo morto (Apr 9, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Classical music tested all the borders of musical theory as we know it.


Yes, but not on its own. It has been joined on the journey by... all the other genres, some of which have done a much more thorough job of testing some of those borders.



Phil loves classical said:


> Popular music only concentrates on a minuscule small part of musical theory.


Depends what you mean by 'music theory'. If you mean what's commonly taught in an introductory music theory course, then that's true, but arguably only because those courses tend to limit themselves to classical and don't stray into the other areas that are explored more by other genres.



Phil loves classical said:


> Yes there certain things emphasized in other genres, but fundamentally are nothing new. People sing a certain style differently in other genres, but is the theory behind the notes actually different?


Probably not... it's mostly an exploration of the 12-TET space that builds on (and yes, sometimes simplifies) what went before. That doesn't mean that there's not a lot to explore there. One place it goes outside this is the blues scale - and the idea that notes can have a range of pitch, not a pitch - and the way this is married with major, minor, and modal scales. There's also an expansion of the art of the chord progression - you find lots of examples of (IMO) really nice cyclic progressions that strike a nice balance between functional harmony and using chords as 'colours', and managing to avoid being entirely diatonic while also not resorting to full-on modulations for variety.

But again, if you just focus on 'the notes', you're ignoring the places where pop really has covered a lot of new ground, in exploring timbre and rhythm - areas that introductory music theory courses don't seem to cover so well.



Phil loves classical said:


> Topo, the difference between 50's, 60's music and 80's music, fundamentally, is just the focus on different chord progressions.


And instrumentation. And singing styles. And lyrical subject matter. And rhythmic styles. Quite a few things...



Phil loves classical said:


> Also a different chord progression for a ballad from an upbeat rocker. It is all derived from folk and blues, as in another thread. country, pop, R&B. Early Led Zeppelin is basically an amplified Robert Johnson. Of course the singing and playing style changed, but not the fundamentals.


Yes, a lot of it is derived from folk and blues - in fact, the fairly direct combination of those is something I find very compelling - your Simon and Garfunkels, and even your Bert Jansches, for example.

But as I've said a couple of times, just because progress is almost always incremental doesn't mean it's not happening. And I keep hearing people saying that pop music is 'nothing new' as if progress isn't just as incremental in the classical world.

All artists are standing on the shoulders of giants.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Good point. It is more with the familiarity of the style, but once you're familiar you can judge the good from bad within that style.


From listening experiece, you actually for a basis of knowledge in some of the fundamentals (music theory: yuck), but only form partial bits of the whole. You are starting from the leaves and getting to the branches. But the only way to really get music is to study it from he roots through the trunk. Artur's complaint is some only know a few leaves or small branch, and think they are already an artist. And the media and consuming public go nuts over them.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

What makes a great composer? 

Good ears, practice, imagination and hard work.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

topo morto said:


> But again, if you just focus on 'the notes', you're ignoring the places where pop really has covered a lot of new ground, in exploring timbre and rhythm - areas that introductory music theory courses don't seem to cover so well.


Yeah, I was ignoring that for the time being on purpose in just talking about theory and fundamentals. In fact that is probably the largest factor on while good pop music is not irrelevant.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

topo morto said:


> The qualities may be objective; the criteria by which they are judged greater, subjective, unless you mean something measurable like 'louder', or 'longer'...
> 
> A lot of them [qualities such as order, precision, clarity, purposefulness, coherence, congruence, variety within unity, balance, harmony, grace, strength, vitality, fluency, skillfulness] are, I agree, common characteristics of objects for contemplation! Whether they take us quite far enough to be markers of excellence, I'm not sure. Partly because a lot of 'great' works consciously see how far they can stray from those principles (I'd hate to mark Shostakovitch lower than Taylor Swift because he didn't display as much 'harmony' or 'clarity'), and partly because the more genuinely common those characteristics are, the less likely we are to be able to use them as differentiators (Tallis vs Pärt- who has better 'variety within unity'? I can't see them releasing the Top Trumps any time soon...)


Your idea of objectivity appears to be narrower than mine. It seems to be confined to the physically measurable (e.g., "louder" or "longer"). We don't have quantitative measuring sticks for aesthetic qualities, or for certain other abstractions such as moral qualities ("goodness" or "justice"). That doesn't mean they don't exist "objectively" - i.e., in reality, regardless of any individual's ability to perceive them and regardless of our personal judgments about their relative prominence or value in a given instance. But why should this matter? Precise quantification of beauty or greatness isn't needed for the recognition of it, and we don't need to give precise "marks" in order to make meaningful statements about the art of Shostakovich or Taylor Swift, should the occasion to do so arise. Qualities of excellence may exist in infinite combinations and proportions, and different works of art may share many or few such qualities, as seen in the extreme diversity of artistic styles and personal and cultural preferences.

Of course artistic appreciation isn't purely a matter of perceiving aesthetic qualities, and our ability to perceive and appreciate these qualities in a given piece of music can be affected enormously by what we feel to be its expressive content, by how we feel about what the piece seems to be saying to us. That fact presents us with a challenge: an essential part of art appreciation is learning to separate judgment from taste. You may love Tchaikovsky, I may loathe him, but we can both appreciate his strengths and weaknesses as a composer. I consider Mahler a great composer - not because lots of people say he is but because he sounds like one - yet I don't like much of his work.

The variability of taste and perceptiveness needn't cast doubt upon the reality of artistic excellence, and the answer to "What makes a great composer?" is not - _pace_ Nereffid! - popularity. Popularity is obviously no guide to greatness, but greatness does almost invariably lead to popularity, given a fighting chance.


----------



## topo morto (Apr 9, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Yeah, I was ignoring that for the time being on purpose in just talking about theory and fundamentals. In fact that is probably the largest factor on while good pop music is not irrelevant.


Sure- but if you define "the fundamentals" as being (say) harmony and melody within the diatonic - chromatic continuum, you're picking the area of music where yes, western art and religious music covers most of the ground.

But if you wanted to see complex rhythm and polyrhythm as being a fundamental of music, then you might find that some places in Africa got their first. You can find other scales that other cultures (Indian, Javanese, Arabic...) have explored a lot more. If you want to look at artists who have looked to get away from music as being made up of 'notes' and experiment with microsound, and aperiodic sound structures - that's happened in a somewhat detatched 'computer music' culture that's rather apart from the classical world. And when it comes to playing with timbre while focusing on harmony within the diatonic - chromatic continuum, that's where pop and rock have made much faster, bigger strides than classical as far as I can see.


----------



## topo morto (Apr 9, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> Your idea of objectivity appears to be narrower than mine. It seems to be confined to the physically measurable (e.g., "louder" or "longer"). We don't have quantitative measuring sticks for aesthetic qualities, or for certain other abstractions such as moral qualities ("goodness" or "justice"). That doesn't mean they don't exist "objectively" - i.e., in reality, regardless of any individual's ability to perceive them and regardless of our personal judgments about their relative prominence or value in a given instance.


...but indeed I wouldn't see that justice or goodness are fundamentally objective. I think they are things that members of a society have come to agreement on, over time, and often with a lot of agonizing and difficult decisions - at best, people may then objectively state what it is that they have agreed on. In my own society, we seem to be in an age of increasing disagreement about such things.



Woodduck said:


> But why should this matter? Precise quantification of beauty or greatness isn't needed for the recognition of it, and we don't need to give precise "marks" in order to make meaningful statements about the art of Shostakovich or Taylor Swift, should the occasion to do so arise. Qualities of excellence may exist in infinite combinations and proportions, and different works of art may share many or few such qualities, as seen in the extreme diversity of artistic styles and personal and cultural preferences.


I don't really think it does matter... I've found it curious to find this corner of the internet where some (quite pleasant, interesting) people seem to think it does. Just interesting to compare my thoughts with theirs and see if something can be learned, one way or both... or if we find we agree after all.



Woodduck said:


> Of course artistic appreciation isn't purely a matter of perceiving aesthetic qualities, and our ability to perceive and appreciate these qualities in a given piece of music can be affected enormously by what we feel to be its expressive content, by how we feel about what the piece seems to be saying to us. That fact presents us with a challenge: an essential part of art appreciation is learning to separate judgment from taste. You may love Tchaikovsky, I may loathe him, but we can both appreciate his strengths and weaknesses as a composer. I consider Mahler a great composer - not because lots of people say he is but because he sounds like one - yet I don't like much of his work.


I've always been more 'enjoyment-driven' - if I enjoy something, I'll register its qualities as good, and the reverse if I don't. So my map of what's good is a kind of time-averaged version of the map of what I like. I don't recognize the concept of objective greatness or excellence, so I don't need to worry about reconciling what I like with what others do, or what's seen as great by society at large. (Of course my actual perceptions of music are likely affected somewhat by others opinions, as well as what breakfast cereal I had, what mood I'm in, and the rest of it... but that's not to worry about either!)


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

topo morto said:


> I've always been more 'enjoyment-driven' - if I enjoy something, I'll register its qualities as good, and the reverse if I don't. So my map of what's good is a kind of time-averaged version of the map of what I like. I don't recognize the concept of objective greatness or excellence, so I don't need to worry about reconciling what I like with what others do, or what's seen as great by society at large.


We should all, in the end, be "enjoyment-driven." But as for me, I have no choice about recognizing (and enjoying thinking about) the concept of excellence in art, having been a practicing artist, both creative and performing, in painting, music, and writing, for most of my life. To put it succinctly, I have to _know_ when the thing I've labored over is good and when it should go into the recycling bin! That certainly doesn't mean that I need to "worry about reconciling what I like with what others do, or what's seen as great by society at large." In fact it means just the opposite: if I "worry" only about doing my job well, I will, with a little luck, awaken the sense of beauty in others, regardless of their state of mind when they walk into the gallery or begin listening to the music or reading the essay. It's generally been the case that the responses I've received have confirmed my own convictions about my level of success, but they aren't the measure or proof of a work's success.

It's fascinating, and eye-opening, to listen to the original versions of some famous works of music and to compare them with the usually more familiar revised versions. We can do this with Bruckner symphonies, with Sibelius's 5th symphony, with Wagner's Tannhauser, with Verdi's Macbeth, with Brahms's Op. 8 Piano Trio, and with Mendelssohn's 4th symphony, among other works. The changes made can be striking, and show composers at work, striving to draw out the implications of their own ideas, guided by those principles of aesthetic excellence that need to be operative in order that a fit and durable work be produced. Sometimes the revisions are unsuccessful; Mendelssohn's second thoughts about his already masterful "Italian" Symphony remain unheard for good reason (John Eliot Gardner recorded both versions on a CD). The Brahms trio is perhaps the most fascinating example, not least because it's the only unrevised version of a major Brahms composition that escaped the fireplace. Arriving at the concise and completely convincing final version required a lot of surgery and the discarding of a lot of material, some of which is interesting in its own right (making this version worth hearing) but isn't always well integrated with the principal material and might better have been saved for another work. It's a wonderful demonstration of the kind of artistic intelligence that makes a composer "great."


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I kind of feel all that took a big part in conversing in this thread have all come to our own understandings of what it means to be a great composer. We have debated our ideas and become more convicted in our own thoughts and have adjusted them accordingly based on sound arguments from others!

Good discussion that may not be over yet!


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I kind of feel all that took a big part in conversing in this thread have all come to our own understandings of what it means to be a great composer. We have debated our ideas and become more convicted in our own thoughts and have adjusted them accordingly based on sound arguments from others!
> 
> Good discussion that may not be over yet!


No, not till you submit to the proper authoritative position


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> ...It's fascinating, and eye-opening, to listen to the original versions of some famous works of music and to compare them with the usually more familiar revised versions. We can do this with Bruckner symphonies, with Sibelius's 5th symphony, with Wagner's Tannhauser, with Verdi's Macbeth, with Brahms's Op. 8 Piano Trio, and with Mendelssohn's 4th symphony, among other works. The changes made can be striking, and show composers at work, striving to draw out the implications of their own ideas, guided by those principles of aesthetic excellence that need to be operative in order that a fit and durable work be produced. Sometimes the revisions are unsuccessful; Mendelssohn's second thoughts about his already masterful "Italian" Symphony remain unheard for good reason (John Eliot Gardner recorded both versions on a CD). The Brahms trio is perhaps the most fascinating example, not least because it's the only unrevised version of a major Brahms composition that escaped the fireplace. Arriving at the concise and completely convincing final version required a lot of surgery and the discarding of a lot of material, some of which is interesting in its own right (making this version worth hearing) but isn't always well integrated with the principal material and might better have been saved for another work. It's a wonderful demonstration of the kind of artistic intelligence that makes a composer "great."...


Good point about the insights into greatness that can be provided by studying the revision process. Along similar lines, I've learned a lot about Beethoven's conception of greatness by examining his sketchbooks. He often drafted multiple versions of a melody/motive, writing "meilleur" - French for "better" - next to the ones that he preferred. (I'm not sure why he used French instead of German for this.) I find it fascinating to see which versions he deemed "meilleur" and to think about the possible reasons for his choices. Here's a tiny example of this, on page 102 of this book:
https://books.google.com/books?id=s...onepage&q=beethoven meilleur adelaide&f=false


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

EdwardBast said:


> What makes a great composer?
> 
> Good ears, practice, imagination and hard work.


And talent if I may be so bold.


----------



## topo morto (Apr 9, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> We should all, in the end, be "enjoyment-driven." But as for me, I have no choice about recognizing (and enjoying thinking about) the concept of excellence in art, having been a practicing artist, both creative and performing, in painting, music, and writing, for most of my life. To put it succinctly, I have to _know_ when the thing I've labored over is good and when it should go into the recycling bin! That certainly doesn't mean that I need to "worry about reconciling what I like with what others do, or what's seen as great by society at large." In fact it means just the opposite: if I "worry" only about doing my job well, I will, with a little luck, awaken the sense of beauty in others, regardless of their state of mind when they walk into the gallery or begin listening to the music or reading the essay. It's generally been the case that the responses I've received have confirmed my own convictions about my level of success, but they aren't the measure or proof of a work's success.


I can see that as a creative who is actually trying to make something new, you have to take stronger positions on such things; A pure aesthetic relativist wouldn't necessarily 'know' which way to go, which choice to take!


----------



## topo morto (Apr 9, 2017)

cimirro said:


> classical background - you understand classical
> classical background - you can understand media
> classical background - you can understand ancient culture
> ancient culture background - you understand your ancient culture (and eventually may respect some cultures)
> media background - you undersstand fashion and will respect only this.


This assessment doesn't ring true for me at all.

I agree that a comprehensive classical background covers most of the aspects of tonality in rock and pop. Where I can't see that it has you covered are in aspects such as the art of the creating a repeating groove with the right feel (though I don't think there's all that much to learn there, and it can be attacked as a practical exercise) and the whole world of studio sound manipulation (where there's a mountain of stuff to learn).

I also wonder if the way you use the 'media' label suggests that you're unaware of a broad swathe of experimental music whose production would fall under the rock/pop way of working, but is less prominent in the media than classical music is.



cimirro said:


> No "assess", but the one who can analyse classical music is able to understand the formulae of the "media culture art" and that is why most part of the "media culture art" is not so impressive you have aknowledgement
> 
> and when you analyse rock from a classical point of view you say "ahh ok, a simple song" and if you analyse Julio Iglesias you say "ahh ok another simple song"...


You can say anything when you analyse, but the proof of the pudding is - can you _synthesize_? Can you take what you understood to be the structure of the music, and replicate something similar - and even more importantly, take the traditions of a form and move them forward a little, to create the 'something new' we all seem to crave?

FWIW, I would bet that most classical musicians would do an excellent job of writing a Julio Iglesias song without a lot of extra training - His music is generally (to my mind) using fairly unsubtle rhythms, and seems to be fairly traditionally arranged in terms of instrumentation. Where I'd think they _might _need to learn something new might be if they wanted to sound like Bretschneider+Steinbrüchel, or Fatboy Slim, or Dizzee Rascal, or Paul Schütze (though on second thoughts, he's almost modern classical!), or Nirvana, or Steely Dan, or Calvin Harris (some of whom are unashamedly 'media' - others, less so).


----------



## Jacob Brooks (Feb 21, 2017)

Very few people have really discussed KenOC's idea on what makes a great composer, which I thought interesting and quite accurate in a way people don't often tend to notice.

I have observed that the most loved composers are ones who demonstrate a lot of creativity but at the same time have a consistent language of composition of their own. Think about the greatest composers, especially these early ones who KenOC has focused on, and they have these not-quite-motifs that occur across almost all of their music that gives it a unifying element. That combined with their overwhelming symmetry makes the idea of these great composers' music as an "ideal world" makes total sense.

Along these lines, I recommend people listen to Jordan Peterson talk on youtube about the meaning of music. He says he realized it while listening to Mozart's Jupiter, that music is the representation, both abstract and embedded in our emotions, of a life that is well-balanced and ordered, in which all of the major components (which are very different) are satisfied and contribute harmoniously to a greater whole. I believe composers that do this the best tend be granted these privileged positions as among the "greats."


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Jacob Brooks said:


> Very few people have really discussed KenOC's idea on what makes a great composer, which I thought interesting and quite accurate in a way people don't often tend to notice.
> 
> I have observed that the most loved composers are ones who demonstrate a lot of creativity but at the same time have a consistent language of composition of their own. Think about the greatest composers, especially these early ones who KenOC has focused on, and they have these not-quite-motifs that occur across almost all of their music that gives it a unifying element. That combined with their overwhelming symmetry makes the idea of these great composers' music as an "ideal world" makes total sense.
> 
> Along these lines, I recommend people listen to Jordan Peterson talk on youtube about the meaning of music. He says he realized it while listening to Mozart's Jupiter, that music is the representation, both abstract and embedded in our emotions, of a life that is well-balanced and ordered, in which all of the major components (which are very different) are satisfied and contribute harmoniously to a greater whole. I believe composers that do this the best tend be granted these privileged positions as among the "greats."


Personally, I've started to feel there may be too much interest in deriving systems of measurement and criteria for greatness, that there is a lot of greatness equal to the best thar gets overlooked, just because it doesn't meet the narrow criteria. My whole perception has changed with more contemporary views, and I sincerely hear a lot of "minor" composers and feel their best work is as meaningful and impactful as Mozart's Jupiter. If we look for impact over perfection (many things are perfect which are not works of art, like a mathematical equation), a whole new world of great works opens up. Perfection is secondary to impact as in Beethoven, and many works of art achieves the same level of impact (at least from what I've found) by opening ourselves up and our criteria.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

topo morto said:


> I can see that as a creative who is actually trying to make something new, you have to take stronger positions on such things; A pure aesthetic relativist wouldn't necessarily 'know' which way to go, which choice to take!


No artist is an aesthetic relativist. A real artist is his own most severe critic, and criticism requires standards. Non-artists don't need to concern themselves with any of this - they need only enjoy art, and their tastes are the only authority they need - but it might be of interest to them to know that the artist's world is not an anarchic recess from life but one of the most disciplined and exacting parts of it. Composers, more than anyone, understand why great composers are few, and how slim are their chances of making the cut.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Phil loves classical said:


> Personally, I've started to feel there may be too much interest in deriving systems of measurement and criteria for greatness, that there is a lot of greatness equal to the best thar gets overlooked, just because it doesn't meet the narrow criteria. My whole perception has changed with more contemporary views, and I sincerely hear a lot of "minor" composers and feel their best work is as meaningful and impactful as Mozart's Jupiter. *If we look for impact over perfection (many things are perfect which are not works of art, like a mathematical equation), a whole new world of great works opens up.* *Perfection is secondary to impact as in Beethoven, and many works of art achieves the same level of impact (at least from what I've found) by opening ourselves up and our criteria.*


You can have a lot of impact on someone by beating him with a shovel.

The question is: what gives a work of art impact? A horror movie in which a rapist visibly dismembers his victims would have plenty of "impact," but would it therefore be a good film? On the other hand, if such a horrific spectacle would be seen as "good" by some sick person watching it, the aesthetic relativist would have to consider it good - and if enough people were sick enough to find it enjoyable, our relativist might even call it's creator a "great" filmmaker!

That's not a joke. We've seen similar things happen.

I know you aren't thinking of such extreme examples, and you make a valid point when you say that "perfection" isn't the only criterion of excellence in art. After all, art isn't just an abstract formal exercise; it's _about_ something - and that goes for music too, even though music's "subject matter" isn't a representation of physical reality. A work's impact comes from both elements - its form and its subject or content - and from the way the artist expresses one in terms of the other. You mention Beethoven, and I would argue that it's precisely Beethoven's command of structure - his ability to generate musical material and discipline it into forms at once surprising and seemingly inevitable - that's primarily responsible for the impact of his work. The famous opening of the Fifth Symphony is an impactful idea, but its impact would be quickly vitiated if Beethoven didn't proceed to build with it a structure of perfect terseness and relentless tension, with not a note wasted. Leonard Bernstein gave a fascinating lecture in which he tried incorporating into that movement some of the sketches that Beethoven rejected, comparing the effect of them with the effect of his final choices. It's a marvelous demonstration of the power, the impact, of form in music.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

topo morto said:


> This assessment doesn't ring true for me at all.
> 
> I agree that a comprehensive classical background covers most of the aspects of tonality in rock and pop. Where I can't see that it has you covered are in aspects such as the art of the creating a repeating groove with the right feel (though I don't think there's all that much to learn there, and it can be attacked as a practical exercise) and the whole world of studio sound manipulation (where there's a mountain of stuff to learn).


"groove with the right feel" is a "fallacious creation of media"
Bach Prelude Bwv.999 is a sequence of a "grooved where you need to play with the right feel" because it is not a computer-like piece where you must to play the notes in the right tempo and in the right expression and nothing more can be done - NO.
You must remember we have a "different approach" which, in my opinion. is wrong in the classical academic system.
We have the composer who only composes, and the interpreter who only interpret - both to me are incomplete musicians.
Yes, normally the "only-interpreters" can't understand how to play a blues with the right "swing" - but this is because of his personal lack of study and not because the theory can't give advice on this.
But we must remember, if you give a musical score to Neson Freire (only interpreter) asking him to play and shows him how to play the writing rhythm using a recording or your own playing, I doubt he will not copy your "swing" perfectly

"Studio manipulation" is used by composers (of any kind) much more than by any players. Actually the pop groups who use "Studio manipulations" often have a "recording" which is used in live concerts.



topo morto said:


> I also wonder if the way you use the 'media' label suggests that you're unaware of a broad swathe of experimental music whose production would fall under the rock/pop way of working, but is less prominent in the media than classical music is.


I know there are the "experimental rock/pop/etc" anyway, again their contributions are new only to the "media culture".
No matter if they say "I'm inspired in Boulez/Stockhausen" or "I'm inspired in African rhythms"



topo morto said:


> You can say anything when you analyse, but the proof of the pudding is - can you _synthesize_? Can you take what you understood to be the structure of the music, and replicate something similar - and even more importantly, take the traditions of a form and move them forward a little, to create the 'something new' we all seem to crave?


A composer who studied can.
a famous Chopin interpreter who only made this all his life no.

Still in time to remember, I think this system of "composer is only composer" and "Interpreter is only interpreter" is completely wrong in my opinion - since both are incomplete artists.



topo morto said:


> FWIW, I would bet that most classical musicians would do an excellent job of writing a Julio Iglesias song without a lot of extra training - His music is generally (to my mind) using fairly unsubtle rhythms, and seems to be fairly traditionally arranged in terms of instrumentation. Where I'd think they _might _need to learn something new might be if they wanted to sound like Bretschneider+Steinbrüchel, or Fatboy Slim, or Dizzee Rascal, or Paul Schütze (though on second thoughts, he's almost modern classical!), or Nirvana, or Steely Dan, or Calvin Harris (some of whom are unashamedly 'media' - others, less so).


again, remember what I just said "classical musicians" often are "composer" or "interpreter".
A real professional composer can do anything without any connection with media culture. All the possibilities are shown in theory.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> I'm a fan of Classical Chinese music. They just have 5 notes in the scale, which are the same as the black keys on the piano, but shifted in pitch. Pretty much just another mode in Western music


Traditional Chinese Music and the "12 lũ" are not so obvious to understand like the piano black keys.
anyway, yes, there are several examples of such approach you mentioned.

The same happens often with japanese music. I have been playing and recording Yasuhiro Takenaka's "Glimpses of unfamiliar Japan", the first piece (they are two - "Sakura-Fubuki" meaning "A flurry of falling cherry blossoms"and "Samurai-Damashii" meaning "The Samurai Spirit") is build with this idea as a starting point.

Best
Artur


----------



## topo morto (Apr 9, 2017)

cimirro said:


> "groove with the right feel" is a "fallacious creation of media" Bach Prelude Bwv.999 is a sequence of a "grooved where you need to play with the right feel" because it is not a computer-like piece where you must to play the notes in the right tempo and in the right expression and nothing more can be done - NO.


Sorry - could you explain what exactly you think is 'fallacious'? And what degrees of freedom you are saying are not available in 'computer-like' music? (actually there is one restriction that does exist in pop-type dance music, in that you are usually expected to keep the bar lengths constant - '1' needs to fall where expected).
I agree that Bwv.999 does seem to have some 'groove-like' aspects, yes.



cimirro said:


> You must remember we have a "different approach" which, in my opinion. is wrong in the classical academic system.
> We have the composer who only composes, and the interpreter who only interpret - both to me are incomplete musicians.
> Yes, normally the "only-interpreters" can't understand how to play a blues with the right "swing" - but this is because of his personal lack of study and not because the theory can't give advice on this.


I agree that an 'ideal' theory should encompass every aspect of music. Whether theory as found and taught in the real world always does that may be a different matter.



cimirro said:


> I know there are the "experimental rock/pop/etc" anyway, again their contributions are new only to the "media culture".


This seems a bold, and rather odd, statement. There are any number of pop / rock works that, _prima facie_, have little or nothing from the classical world, or for that matter the folk or blues world, that could substitute for them.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

topo morto said:


> Sorry - could you explain what exactly you think is 'fallacious'?


Things like, "classical pianist can't play samba" "classical pianist can't play jazz" are fallacious creations of media too
and even the sentence "groove with the right feel" means nothing.
what is a "groove"? do anyone really think there is no examples of "grooves" in classical music. 
So the word "groove" means nothing new to be studyied from media culture once Bach made "grooves".



topo morto said:


> And what degrees of freedom you are saying are not available in 'computer-like' music?


sorry, I really need explain it better. I mean the sense of perfection a computer tool can give you in metric. 
And playing music, using "rubato", using "crescendo", "decrescendo", "ritardando", "ritenuto", "accelerando", changing "tempo" give you all the tools you need to play anything you want from Perotin to Finnissy, so blues, jazz, or anything you want is easily possible.



topo morto said:


> I agree that an 'ideal' theory should encompass every aspect of music. Whether theory as found and taught in the real world always does that may be a different matter.


Yes, and you must remember having a degree in a school means only "you have a degree", that doesn't mean you are a great musician. I have heard bad musicians full of academic titles. I'm not discussing the academic study. I'm discussing the study itself. The study of music is personal, you can use any teacher you want (or not, sometimes) but the result depends of your interest and study.



topo morto said:


> This seems a bold, and rather odd, statement. There are any number of pop / rock works that, _prima facie_, have little or nothing from the classical world, or for that matter the folk or blues world, that could substitute for them.


Actually I have never found ANY pop/rock/etc work which do not use something which can be found in classical music.
I'm not saying B.B.King decided "well, now I'm going to use this 3 chords used by Sweelinck". But their final results, the pop/rock/etc,etc/ music, is the same chord progressions you can find several times in classical music, the melodies are the same "building sequence" you find in melodies from classical music (often not so well finished in op cases) the same rhythms, etc etc etc.
So unless you show me something completely different, I will say, all the media culture product is a copy (no matter if the "composer" know or not") of something which was already made in classical music long before.
Timbre is different... but... what is its importance in compositional matters?

All the best
Artur


----------



## topo morto (Apr 9, 2017)

cimirro said:


> Actually I have never found ANY pop/rock/etc work which do not use something which can be found in classical music.
> I'm not saying B.B.King decided "well, now I'm going to use this 3 chords used by Sweelinck". But their final results, the pop/rock/etc,etc/ music, is the same chord progressions you can find several times in classical music, the melodies are the same "building sequence" you find in melodies from classical music (often not so well finished in op cases) the same rhythms, etc etc etc.


Yes, it's true that almost all individual works in pop - _or any genre_ - consist of elements that are largely anticipated by other works in the same - or other - genres.

But slowly - incrementally - change happens, over time. Which is why, though what you say above is true, it's still also true that there are pop works that are not similar to previous classical works.



cimirro said:


> and even the sentence "groove with the right feel" means nothing.
> what is a "groove"? do anyone really think there is no examples of "grooves" in classical music.
> So the word "groove" means nothing new to be studyied from media culture once Bach made "grooves".


Of course there are 'grooves' in classical. But, many would say, not ones that are as refined or effective at creating the same sense of sustained, hypnotic excitement that you'd find in modern pop-dance genres. So again, there's been incremental, but sustained progress. (In fact, if if I want to find groove outside pop, I'd look at folk. The Hurdy-Gurdy is where it's at for groove!)



cimirro said:


> Timbre is different... but... what is its importance in compositional matters?


Absolutely as primary as any other element... IMO! (Unless you roll it together with, say, harmony, which would be fair enough).


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

cimirro said:


> Actually I have never found ANY pop/rock/etc work which do not use something which can be found in classical music.
> I'm not saying B.B.King decided "well, now I'm going to use this 3 chords used by Sweelinck". But their final results, the pop/rock/etc,etc/ music, is the same chord progressions you can find several times in classical music, the melodies are the same "building sequence" you find in melodies from classical music (often not so well finished in op cases) the same rhythms, etc etc etc.
> So unless you show me something completely different, I will say, all the media culture product is a copy (no matter if the "composer" know or not") of something which was already made in classical music long before.
> Timbre is different... but... what is its importance in compositional matters?
> ...


That is a bold statement, a bit of a stab in the dark, I think. I'll turn the burden of proof back to you Artur , in finding the chord progressions in this song ever being used in Classical.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> That is a bold statement, a bit of a stab in the dark, I think. I'll turn the burden of proof back to you Artur , in finding the chord progressions in this song ever being used in Classical.


link is not working, is there other link?


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

topo morto said:


> it's still also true that there are pop works that are not similar to previous classical works.


I would like to hear some, can you give examples?



topo morto said:


> Of course there are 'grooves' in classical. But, many would say, not ones that are as refined or effective at creating the same sense of sustained, hypnotic excitement that you'd find in modern pop-dance genres.


hypnotic excitement? Rite of spring? Vivalid's winter? Wagner Walküre overture? Schubert Erlkönig?...


----------



## topo morto (Apr 9, 2017)

cimirro said:


> I would like to hear some, can you give examples?


Let's start with just a couple, to check we're on the same logical page. (You'll know both of these!)

one with distortion:





one with groove:





Both very simple tracks in many ways. But can we find any classical pieces similar to those? With a sensible definition of similar - let's say you're doing a radio show and you lost one of those records, and you want to find something that does the same job.



cimirro said:


> hypnotic excitement? Rite of spring? Vivalid's winter? Wagner Walküre overture? Schubert Erlkönig?...


Actually, three of those sprang to mind when I was sanity checking my own statement! But yes - i think pop/rock has an abundance of 'grooves' that have qualities those don't - and a couple of those are pretty close to the pinnacle of classical 'groove'. (As a child, I did 'pump up the volume' of _Rite _ before I did it with _Pump up the volume_!)


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

topo morto said:


> Let's start with just a couple, to check we're on the same logical page. (You'll know both of these!)
> 
> one with distortion:
> 
> ...


My first listening for "Pump up the volume", I have never heard it (and hope not waste time with this again, sorry), I notice it uses only repetitions of small elements and 2 different "rhythmic sections" with small alterations here and there, from time to time. In Portuguese I would call it "uncreativeness"...
Some "copy & paste" effects, and too much empty musical space, which does not means exactly rests. Something badly done. A waste of time, a waste of electric energy to make/record/listen such thing. Anyway, there is public for everything...

Carmina Burana do the same, and it is better composed in all the possible senses. You have several repetitions and "copy & paste" effects. Rite of Spring is far much more creative in changing rhythms in "copy & paste style" than this, just check the "sacrifice", the last scene.

Of course, in a radio show where you are supposed to listen to "Smells like teen spirit" of this "Pump up the volume", you will not use Carmina Burana (even if a lot of people will enjoy the "Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi" easily if played alone) nor Stravinsky. Radio is basically used for Media Culture (even the Classical music radios are related to a "Classical Media" where not necessarily the best is shown as we know... but that is another discussions)

And concerning "smells like teen spirit", yes I know it,
so, what made this music special or "different" in your view?
4 basic chords repeating all the time in form of chord and/or the tonic of these chords in ostinato bass, there are 2 different melodic moments and a "transition" between them where you repeat 3 melodic notes sounding like someone almost sleeping (hello hello hello, etc)
So, what is so "different" about this?
4 chords repeating? Well, it is a bad and uncreative "chaconna" in 2 sections. No special rhythm, no revolutionary melody.
And if you want repetition changing textures (like "guitar with distortion" and later "without the guitar") you still can try "Uf dem anger" from Carmina Burana - and if you listen this loud, you can be in the same "hypnotic excitement" and there is something more - the piano (i mean the expression) part will give you a nice surprise before returning to the "wild beat"...

poor Beethoven's 5th Symphony... :lol:

All the best
Artur Cimirro


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> That is a bold statement, a bit of a stab in the dark, I think. I'll turn the burden of proof back to you Artur , in finding the chord progressions in this song ever being used in Classical.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

And of course this one. One of the most complex pieces of music ever composed.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Phil loves classical said:


> And of course this one. One of the most complex pieces of music ever composed.


 I hear this as busy, but not especially complex. What does "complex" mean to you?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> I hear this as busy, but not especially complex. What does "complex" mean to you?


It has a lot of changes in time signatures, and deceptive rhythms in melodies started started mid-measure and carried across changing time signatures, different variations in harmony again over changing time.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Let's start with Thelonious Monk - Brilliant Corners
One musical idea, octaved melody, and modulations of this idea using what Bach, in a funny day, would call "per diminuitionen mit varianten" (but actually it is just a little bit faster with small changes)
The piece is basically build on chords with 7th, which can be found before Bach... 
the metric is 4/4



Phil loves classical said:


> It has a lot of changes in time signatures,


the metric is 4/4, and it is not necessary to change the time signature at any place, you just need "marcatos" here and there.



Phil loves classical said:


> and deceptive rhythms in melodies started started mid-measure and carried across changing time signatures,


this is the improvsation section, no time signatures really "changes", the drums is used to give an impression of "doppio movimento" in one of these "changings", but you always can follow the same beat (this can changes in the drum solo, which is too boring to me to take note about) and even a piece where you can't follow a beat is not revolutionary at all if composed after 1800's.



Phil loves classical said:


> different variations in harmony again over changing time.


always in chords with 7ths, and some quick chromatism at some point...

Now this "love" "andmoreagain", is new to me,
what is complex in these simple chords?

F with 7th major is a mystery?

B with 2nd?

we have chords like: 
D, Am, Em, C, G, D
D, G, C, B, Am, C, Em and
E Am F7maj F#7...
What is strange in this harmony?

I don't believe you want me to start to list pieces where you can find harmonic chords of 3 and 4 sounds...
No book of harmony from romantic period would call "complex" any of these examples, I'm sorry.

By the way, Radziwill's Faust is far more complex in rhythm than any of these examples... 
Liszt's orchestral music is my recommendation for better harmonies...


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

cimirro said:


> Let's start with Thelonious Monk - Brilliant Corners
> One musical idea, octaved melody, and modulations of this idea using what Bach, in a funny day, would call "per diminuitionen mit varianten" (but actually it is just a little bit faster with small changes)
> The piece is basically build on chords with 7th, which can be found before Bach...
> the metric is 4/4
> ...


On the Monk, it is the placement of the marcatos and within the triplets that make it challenging and unconventional, the start stops. You can't find those rhythmic acccidentals anywhere in Classical, it is what makes it Jazz. Yes you can take examples from here and there.

On the Love, you can find those chord progressions in Classical? That was the point. Not the complexity of chords. Much of it is in the melody that deviates from the tonic centre, no?


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

I think if you look at the fact that there are and have been hundreds of millions of educated people, and millions of music majors through time (figuratively thinking), there are up to a hundred truly great composers out there. One thing that makes them great is to have the actual ability to create an interesting longer work, like a symphony or opera. Most average music teachers or college music teachers can barely pull that off, or have the vision to do it. And then the ones that are the greatest continue to be known century after century. With others, I'm hoping the next few centuries forgets a lot of ones from the last 100 years.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

regenmusic said:


> I think if you look at the fact that there are and have been hundreds of millions of educated people, and millions of music majors through time (figuratively thinking), there are up to a hundred truly great composers out there. One thing that makes them great is to have the actual ability to create an interesting longer work, like a symphony or opera. Most average music teachers or college music teachers can barely pull that off, or have the vision to do it. And then the ones that are the greatest continue to be known century after century. With others, I'm hoping the next few centuries forgets a lot of ones from the last 100 years.


Agree except with the last sentence


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> On the Monk, it is the placement of the marcatos and within the triplets that make it challenging and unconventional, the start stops. You can't find those rhythmic acccidentals anywhere in Classical, it is what makes it Jazz. Yes you can take examples from here and there.


I'm sorry, you CAN find these "unconventional" rhythms. The New German School is full of this. Liszt, Wagner, Tausig, Cornelius, Bendel, etc
try Liszt's Symphonic Poems and Symphonies for a start.
Of course, keeping the same rhythms in a drums all the time, no, because it is lack of creativity for a composer



Phil loves classical said:


> On the Love, you can find those chord progressions in Classical? That was the point. Not the complexity of chords. Much of it is in the melody that deviates from the tonic centre, no?


Well, have you ever heard music from early 1500's to 1600???? 
This seems to be the problem... but if you check more of this repertoire this will not be a problem anymore...

There is no complexity at all in the Jazz you mentioned. Personally when I was trying to find "difficult music" for my own study on piano "mechanics technique" (including complex rhythms) I was listening a lot of Jazz from 50's to 80's and I really was not impressed in any sense, because I had already found much more complex music in the classical "not so known" repertoire.
All the best
Artur


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

cimirro said:


> I'm sorry, you CAN find these "unconventional" rhythms. The New German School is full of this. Liszt, Wagner, Tausig, Cornelius, Bendel, etc
> try Liszt's Symphonic Poems and Symphonies for a start.
> Of course, keeping the same rhythms in a drums all the time, no, because it is lack of creativity for a composer
> 
> ...


Interesting, because I find rhythms in Liszt, Wagner et al more conventional. Also have been listened to quite a bit of Renaissance music, and those chord progressions in Love don't sound familiar at all. Anyway, thanks for letting me pick your brain.

Btw, if you mean solo piano, yeah, there isn't too much complexity in Jazz.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> Interesting, because I find rhythms in Liszt, Wagner et al more conventional.


Have you ever read a Wagner or Liszt full score?
If you mean rhythms as "accompaniment background" as in Jazz drums, then you are right.
But if you are speaking about "rhythms" as the possible divisions of duration of notes, then there are several examples i'm pretty sure you can't sight read using the old "pa-pa-pa-pa"... the Mephistopheles fughetta from Liszt's Faust is hellish to play correctly and very complex. In harmonic terms Liszt's Sonata in b minor is far more complex than "modulations of 7th chords". 
Liszt created a new writing system for specific different kinds of rubatos (see "Lyon").
His orchestral music presents terrible rhythms, between instruments and also solo sometimes.
poly-rhythm is very present also, but since often it is played fast a lot of people even can't notice clearly



Phil loves classical said:


> Also have been listened to quite a bit of Renaissance music, and those chord progressions in Love don't sound familiar at all.


"Fitzwilliam virginal book" presents all these harmonies, maybe not necessary in this order. But the composers listed there used a lot these kind of harmonies.
Also Lassus, Gabrieli, Byrd, Padovano, Diruta, Cima, Fatorini, Willaert, Palestrina and even Haendel, Scarlatti and Bach used these sequences in some pieces.
Of course, I hope you are not trying to find one single voice against chords exactly in this sequence. That piece would be considered a bad composition in those times. But the harmonies are there. 
Simple chords are easy to find, several Bach preludes, and even the inventions are made in very simple harmony standards.



Phil loves classical said:


> Btw, if you mean solo piano, yeah, there isn't too much complexity in Jazz.


No I was trying to find complex rhythms in famous jazz albums because I'm a transcriber and I was planing to use something which I would find eventually for my own technique (but it didn't happen), 
In Jazz I found syncopation, suspension, tuplets, some changing tempo and some changing metrics
anyway these things are basics in theory and can be found in classical repertoire.
This was my disappointment with "Jazz propaganda" - difficult only to someone who don't know what was made before

All the best
Artur Cimirro


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

cimirro said:


> Have you ever read a Wagner or Liszt full score?
> If you mean rhythms as "accompaniment background" as in Jazz drums, then you are right.
> But if you are speaking about "rhythms" as the possible divisions of duration of notes, then there are several examples i'm pretty sure you can't sight read using the old "pa-pa-pa-pa"... the Mephistopheles fughetta from Liszt's Faust is hellish to play correctly and very complex. In harmonic terms Liszt's Sonata in b minor is far more complex than "modulations of 7th chords".
> Liszt created a new writing system for specific different kinds of rubatos (see "Lyon").
> ...


You'll find the more complex compositions of jazz in free/avant-garde jazz.

For instance: 




Or, for a larger, fuller "more orchestral" sound with several asynchronous instruments, simultaneously: 




Or: 




And some examples for Rock: 




Rock:


----------



## topo morto (Apr 9, 2017)

cimirro said:


> My first listening for "Pump up the volume", I have never heard it (and hope not waste time with this again, sorry), I notice it uses only repetitions of small elements and 2 different "rhythmic sections" with small alterations here and there, from time to time. In Portuguese I would call it "uncreativeness"...
> Some "copy & paste" effects, and too much empty musical space, which does not means exactly rests. Something badly done. A waste of time, a waste of electric energy to make/record/listen such thing. Anyway, there is public for everything...
> 
> Carmina Burana do the same, and it is better composed in all the possible senses. You have several repetitions and "copy & paste" effects. Rite of Spring is far much more creative in changing rhythms in "copy & paste style" than this, just check the "sacrifice", the last scene.
> ...


Thanks for listening to the songs, painful as though it may be!

You've made a number of points there that I'm happy to respond to, but first, let's go back to what we were talking about.

You were, if I understood correctly, saying that
- recent music culture divides essentially into 'classical' and 'media'
- 'media' culture has created nothing new.

I was saying that if this is true, we shouldn't be able to find any songs in the pop world that don't sound like previous works from the 'classical' world.

You've pointed out some similarities between _Pump up the volume_ and Carmina Burana - If you mean _O Fortuna_, then yes, it's a great and groovy work, but it doesn't _sound like_ _Pump up the volume_ - for one, the feel is driven by (higher) pitched instruments rather than percussion and bassline. It's also a different time signature, and the overall rhythmic feel doesn't have the strong syncopation that characterizes _Pump up the volume_. "Rite" again, is great but different.

For _Smells like teen Spirit_, you've suggested _Uf dem Anger_, which indeed does experiment with loud and quiet textures (and a greater number than _Smells like teen Spirit_). What it doesn't do is highlight the difference between the same harmony part played clean, and through distortion - in fact it doesn't really use distortion at all, apart from the natural nonlinearities in the acoustic instruments.

So, even for these two very simple pop songs, I don't believe we've yet found classical anticipants. (Though your suggestions were good - thanks for taking the time to think of them).

As far as I can see, we can
- Keep looking
OR
- Hypothesize that these two pop songs are outliers, and ask me to come up with some other examples
OR
- accept that there must be some other 'world' apart from classical that pop gets its inspiration from
OR
- accept that pop music does, in fact, come up with new-sounding works.(This conclusion would not force us to conclude that the pop _artists _themselves are great, or that the works have _value_, or that the fundamental _elements _from which they are made are new - those are different discussions.)


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

AfterHours said:


> You'll find the more complex compositions of jazz in free/avant-garde jazz.


Yes, I agree, the problem is that before my first contact with avant-garde jazz I was studying full scores by Varese, piano works by Stockhausen, Boulez, Heiss, Messiaen, Antheil, and Finnissy (just to mention some of them).

So, I say thanks for the time you take posting the videos, but this is far from something impressive to me.
The first example, just to use an example I already know, is about repetition of patterns in speed which the musicians will never do a second time in the same way. So a lot of it sounds like a child having fun, the compositional work does not present any special "work" to take note, 
there are clusters, intervals of 2nds and chords above chords without any selection just based in their "improvisations" which depends of the capacity of their hands previous study only, and basically they have the "defects of jazz addiction" which will not make you able to do a lot of things because you go directly to the same formulaes your hands "already know".
I can "improvise" on some small themes like them for more than 2 hours adding the same effects they use without any special study on their works.
they are expanding the little knowledge necessary for a jazz player, that's all.

When I speak about complexity I work to play tuplets rhythms of 9/8/7 together more than "only once per accident" and do each note clearly even if it is played too fast, together with the evolution of the possibilities of piano technique - a life long study. Jazz is out.

Thanks anyway
All the best
Artur Cimirro


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

topo morto said:


> Thanks for listening to the songs, painful as though it may be!
> 
> You've made a number of points there that I'm happy to respond to, but first, let's go back to what we were talking about.
> 
> ...


I understand your point,
I must say Media Culture created something "new", 
an unqualified, incompetent without any knowledge can be called "artist"
with this point of view, yes, they create new music.
the fact that their music reflects "mistakes", "bad use" or "total ignorance of possibilities" of the art of the sound will not make they have less public since the greatest part of public also have no study on music nor understand a piece of music different from Media Culture one.
If I consider this "work" - so, yes, they made something new. "New music"

But If I use the history and the evolution of the art of sound. No, there is nothing new, since they are doing something even someone with a sick brain can do. A distortion is just a distortion, a "groove" is just a small "cell", there is nothing special in the art of composition now just because you use a new instrument, timbre or machine to modify the sound.

And there is not only Media and Classical cultures
We have also the popular culture, which unfortunately, is an old one only.
because any "new one" is related to Media now.


----------



## Guest (Apr 27, 2017)

If I were at a disco, I'm sure I'd rather strut my stuff to Pump Up The Volume than Carmina Burana . Why waste column inches trying to compare the incomparable?

(I think I've come over all hpowders!)


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

MacLeod said:


> If I were at a disco, I'm sure I'd rather strut my stuff to Pump Up The Volume than Carmina Burana . Why waste column inches trying to compare the incomparable?


The idea is not to compare. 
I was just explaining there is no innovation on compositional methods with origins in Media Culture.
timbre or distortions or new instruments are not a compositional method.
and repetitions are not new tools

All the best
Artur


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

cimirro said:


> Yes, I agree, the problem is that before my first contact with avant-garde jazz I was studying full scores by Varese, piano works by Stockhausen, Boulez, Heiss, Messiaen, Antheil, and Finnissy (just to mention some of them).
> 
> So, I say thanks for the time you take posting the videos, but this is far from something impressive to me.
> The first example, just to use an example I already know, is about repetition of patterns in speed which the musicians will never do a second time in the same way. So a lot of it sounds like a child having fun, the compositional work does not present any special "work" to take note,
> ...


No, that is incorrect. I suggest that you listen to them a bit more extensively instead of superficially passing them off. None of those works are happening by accident, and they absolutely can be reproduced by those artists.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

cimirro said:


> I understand your point,
> I must say Media Culture created something "new",
> an unqualified, incompetent without any knowledge can be called "artist"
> with this point of view, yes, they create new music.
> ...


This is an interesting point of view. I actually do agree with you that, by and large, "media cultured" music is awful.

Forgive me for not being a part of any of the conversation leading up to this point. But how did we (or did we?) get to the point where technique, or the tempo thereof, was all that mattered in composing music? Sound and the difference between instruments, and so forth, is massively important in music. A groove is not just a small cell. Modifying the sound of instruments can completely change a composition to an entirely different type of music, and an entirely different emotional/conceptual sensation. A distortion is not just a distortion. My Bloody Valentine's Loveless is an entirely different sound world and musical experience than Jimi Hendrix's, even at his most explosive and psychedelic.


----------



## Daniel Atkinson (Dec 31, 2016)

cimirro said:


> But If I use the history and the evolution of the art of sound. No, there is nothing new, since they are doing something even someone with a sick brain can do. A distortion is just a distortion, a "groove" is just a small "cell", there is nothing special in the art of composition now just because you use a new instrument, timbre or machine to modify the sound.


You mustn't like any music with the kind of parameters you restrict on all music, you may as well take this conversation all the way back to the birth of music and show how no music is innovative and no music is even slightly interesting to listen to or study

Daniel


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

cimirro said:


> Have you ever read a Wagner or Liszt full score?
> If you mean rhythms as "accompaniment background" as in Jazz drums, then you are right.
> But if you are speaking about "rhythms" as the possible divisions of duration of notes, then there are several examples i'm pretty sure you can't sight read using the old "pa-pa-pa-pa"... the Mephistopheles fughetta from Liszt's Faust is hellish to play correctly and very complex. In harmonic terms Liszt's Sonata in b minor is far more complex than "modulations of 7th chords".
> Liszt created a new writing system for specific different kinds of rubatos (see "Lyon").
> ...


When you talk about harmony and rhythms taken to the highest chords of modulation and time signatures and interplay, then I agree there has nothing done more complex than in Classical music. I thought you actually know certain pieces of music with the chord progressions in the Love piece, but agree there is nothing unique in its fundamentals, which we've shifted away from . In term s of complexity with the Monk, yes, abstractly and in theory there is a lot more complex. Playing it is a different matter when basing on conventions we are used to. Good discussion.

Btw in free jazz, I heard some mistakes in Ornette Coleman's Free Jazz CD, so those mistakes (if you can call them such) do make the piece more unique and complex


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Daniel Atkinson said:


> You mustn't like any music with the kind of parameters you restrict on all music, you may as well take this conversation all the way back to the birth of music and show how no music is innovative and no music is even slightly interesting to listen to or study
> 
> Daniel


I completely agree. What is interesting to a listener can very complex, which may be where most of the complexity lies  and you can't reduce a piece of music to just harmonic chords and time signatures, because complexity in theory is relative. As I mentioned in another thread, a completely random piece of music, or what we hear every day life, is the most complex, and we cease to be human when we can reduce them into 101st chords and continuously changing time signatures of 99/98 101/102 time. 

I short, just enjoy the music :tiphat: you hear


----------



## Daniel Atkinson (Dec 31, 2016)

To the OP, a "great composer" is a social construct reliant soley upon popularity


----------



## Lenny (Jul 19, 2016)

Daniel Atkinson said:


> To the OP, a "great composer" is a social construct reliant soley upon popularity


Popularity must be based on something, let's call it objective greatness


----------



## Robert Gamble (Dec 18, 2016)

A great composer is a composer who writes great music. Duh.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I have arrived at a new rational theory of consensus perceived greatness in music. We have to define our criteria of quality first. If you take Bach, Mozart and Beethoven as great composers, we note they all have intricacy in their works. We humans find beauty in intricacy, as in a cut diamond. Intricacy is not the same as complexity. As stated before, complexity is relative. Randomness is infinite complexity, as we know in math, and in it is no beauty (except to contemporary artists). Therefore complexity cannot be a measure of quality.

As an example, take Mozart's variations on Twinkle Twinkle. What is it without the intricate variations? Even though it may not be great itself, this piece leads us to something that can be further built upon. Intricacy can also be suggested through the simple. We all admire Beethoven's late works. Only by being familiar with intricacy of his middle period works do the late works have the meaning that they do to us, because our minds imagine or complete those higher intricacies of harmony in our minds based on what he already presented before. In other words we hear more than what is actually presented.

How are the imagined completed harmonies suggested or implied in Beethoven's late works? By certain emphasis. Notice the deliberate pacing. Just like some people suggest you to read between the lines by emphasis on certain words. This only works by assuming previous experience.

Improper emphasis is also what makes a work poor in quality. We return to Bieber. What makes Bieber's work and most other top 40 pop hits bad or annoying? The emphasis on the simple, or more accurately, mundane. They emphasize it to make the "song" catchy. More sophisticated minds like probably most of us Classical fans will react negatively to this kind of improper emphasis. 

In conclusion what our evolved minds find is great (at least by consensus) is the beauty in intricacy. We don't appreciate intricacy itself though without some kind of reference, which is set by a work's structure. A good structure needs to be stable and is related to proportions. Intricacy within a well-proportioned structure is what we (or most of us) find great. Notice these elements of intricacy and structure are objective qualities, the subjective part is, like Artur says, in the taste of the listener. You can admire a toothbrush better than the Golden Gate Bridge because you can clean your teeth with it.

P.s. You may ask how is beautiful considered great? People find certain things beautiful and love that certain beauty, and what they love inevitably becomes what is great to them. By the way, this essay does not determine or define what is actually great objectively (doesn't exist), but based on observations made on human consensus on explaining why the composers Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven have been generally considered great (are you sick of that word yet?)


----------



## Judith (Nov 11, 2015)

One who composes from the heart, not for egotistic reasons!!


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

AfterHours said:


> No, that is incorrect. I suggest that you listen to them a bit more extensively instead of superficially passing them off. None of those works are happening by accident, and they absolutely can be reproduced by those artists.


There is a video of them playing this album completely different, even the "repetitions" changed.



AfterHours said:


> This is an interesting point of view. I actually do agree with you that, by and large, "media cultured" music is awful.
> 
> Forgive me for not being a part of any of the conversation leading up to this point.


It is not a problem at all, but you will be confused with my answers if you do not read what I wrote before, I'm not speaking from a personal listener point of view.



AfterHours said:


> But how did we (or did we?) get to the point where technique, or the tempo thereof, was all that mattered in composing music? Sound and the difference between instruments, and so forth, is massively important in music. A groove is not just a small cell. Modifying the sound of instruments can completely change a composition to an entirely different type of music,


In this case, and this must be the third time I'm explaining this already, in a professional point of view (as a professional composer/pianist I'm)
a sonata form, a fugue, rondo, Scherzo, Nocturne, A.B.A etc etc these are the tools to define musical form, and none are related to the "type" of the music, no matter the instrument.

On a Media Culture point of view (which i have no interest at all nor I'm discussing about it) yes, the timbre, the clothes, the way you move and what you say, is what matter to explain your "music".



AfterHours said:


> and an entirely different emotional/conceptual sensation. A distortion is not just a distortion. My Bloody Valentine's Loveless is an entirely different sound world and musical experience than Jimi Hendrix's, even at his most explosive and psychedelic.


Again, this is your view as listener, and it is ok.
On a tcehnical point of view of the art of composition that makes no difference at all.



Daniel Atkinson said:


> You mustn't like any music with the kind of parameters you restrict on all music, you may as well take this conversation all the way back to the birth of music and show how no music is innovative and no music is even slightly interesting to listen to or study
> 
> Daniel


I like free music as we can enjoy now. No matter if you use jazz rhythms, or complete clusters, or any old classical style, but the quality of this music is related to the work of the composer. Someone who only makes one thing all the time do not impress me after the first piece this is the case of these avant-garde jazz for example, but since you ask, this is my taste.



Phil loves classical said:


> Btw in free jazz, I heard some mistakes in Ornette Coleman's Free Jazz CD, so those mistakes (if you can call them such) do make the piece more unique and complex


again it is opinion on personal taste, it is ok.
On a technical compositional approach these mistakes means nothing unique or complex.



Phil loves classical said:


> I completely agree. What is interesting to a listener can very complex, which may be where most of the complexity lies


I already wrote about the differences of being a listener and a composer
a listener does not rules what is "great art", they choose what they like (based on their taste) and that is all.
Complexity for a listener is related to his experience, and not with study on music.
A composer can say what compositional process is involved or not.
the so called "free jazz" and the "avant-garde jazz", no matter how much we enjoy it or not, doesn't require any "special" technical compositional skill.

I hope anyone who wants to reply my posts in this thread read what I wrote since the beginning of the discussion, otherwise next time I'll write only "Post No.X" :lol:



Phil loves classical said:


> I short, just enjoy the music :tiphat: you hear


Someone aready posted this sentence and I mentioned I agree


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> I have arrived at a new rational theory of greatness in music. We have to define our criteria of quality first. If you take Bach, Mozart and Beethoven as great composers, we note they all have intricacy in their works. We humans find beauty in intricacy, as in a cut diamond. Intricacy is not the same as complexity. As stated before, complexity is relative. Randomness is infinite complexity, as we know in math, and in it is no beauty (except to contemporary artists). Therefore complexity cannot be a measure of quality.


It cannot _just_ or even _primarily_ be a matter of intricacy. I saw the guitar piece posted as an example of "New Complexity" in another thread, and I could never consider that great, or even acceptable. With that caveat, intricacy (not merely complexity) is a possible factor.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

JAS said:


> It cannot _just_ or even _primarily_ be a matter of intricacy. I saw the guitar piece posted as an example of "New Complexity" in another thread, and I could never consider that great, or even acceptable. With that caveat, intricacy (not merely complexity) is possible a factor.


Yes, but as in my essay, that guitar piece had no structure, so the intricacy is meaningless. I was using very general terms, which is the only way to discussion a very general topic, or else we'll be going into specific details and lose the big picture.


----------



## Guest (Apr 27, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> But how did we (or did we?) get to the point where technique, or the tempo thereof, was all that mattered in composing music?


Or how is 'complexity' or 'intricacy' regarded as the most important criteria?' Cimirro may not have liked my claim that he was 'comparing' but 'great' music is music that suits the purpose, the context, the audience - it's not just about an analysis of the structure of the piece out of context.



Lenny said:


> Popularity must be based on something, let's call it objective greatness


Let's call it...popularity...for that is what popularity is based on.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

MacLeod said:


> Cimirro may not have liked my claim that he was 'comparing' but 'great' music is music that suits the purpose, the context, the audience - it's not just about an analysis of the structure of the piece out of context.


No, I'm not here to dislike your claim or not, that is not the point.
I just mean "great" on a "personal taste" is not MY discussion here.
Anyone is able to call anything "great" - but it is just an opinion, it means nothings more than this, and it is ok

On the other hand, ANOTHER DIFFERENT DISCUSSION, about what is "great" in the art of musical composition.
this discussion must be made by people who study this art, and it is not related to "taste" like in the first case. That's all.
And the results of such "second and different discussion" is useful to the study of this art, 
while the personal opinions will not change anything nor will affect in any sense the work of art of anyone related with art as a "maker" (composer/interpreter)
That is all.

I entered this discussion because people was speaking about Bach Mozart and Beethoven as greatests, and this is just opinion. People often call them genius (and they are) but people hardly know why or really have a glimpse of what their genial work is all about. 
Again, everyone is able to enjoy or not and call it great or not.
I just do not expect people to call Beethoven a genius and Reicha just "nice" in a classical music oriented forum, 
My mistake probably is to expect these comments would be made based in study, when in reality it is going to reflect only personal tastes, and I'm not here to change anyone's taste.

Anyway if we use the "context" and "audience" in the world now, (which is the speech of the market) no classical music is "great". No matter how many can enter in a forum and say "I listen to classical music" the Media Culture is 99% bigger in number of audience and its products are the expected in the actual context.
So... in real world if you use market rules, classical music is nothing - if you use classical rules, market is only market. If you try to use a new rule for both becoming called "great" you have no idea of what you are doing - so it is just an opinion.

No problems from my part at all.
All the best
Artur Cimirro


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> Or how is 'complexity' or 'intricacy' regarded as the most important criteria?' Cimirro may not have liked my claim that he was 'comparing' but 'great' music is music that suits the purpose, the context, the audience - it's not just about an analysis of the structure of the piece out of context.
> 
> Let's call it...popularity...for that is what popularity is based on.


Like i said there is no objective great, no matter how nice the criteria sounds. You have objective complex and intricate which consensus has viewed as great, but it ain't necessarily so. Art is an illusion.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Ok, let's get back to reality... back to the OP...

There are very fundamental, objective truths in music (or even art) and the evaluation thereof.

*1. All music is, to greater or lesser degree, a creative act.*

*2. All music is, to greater or lesser degree, an expression of emotion(s) and/or concept(s) from the artist.*

These are the common denominators of _all_ music.

The greatest composers are those who are the most creative in expressing emotions and/or concepts in the most significant/impactful way. Interpretation of significance/impact is, of course, subjective, but also has a strong correlation to the composer's ability to economize his efforts in these common denominators and a deep conviction and understanding of how to produce such effects both creatively and not so obscured that they are lost in interpretation.

The assimilation and qualitative perception of such also tends to vary (even greatly) with knowledge and experience.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> Yes, but as in my essay, that guitar piece had no structure, so the intricacy is meaningless. I was using very general terms, which is the only way to discussion a very general topic, or else we'll be going into specific details and lose the big picture.


I presume that it did have _some_ kind of structure, just not one that was readily perceptible to a listener, or at least not to a typical listener. (_I_ certainly did not sense any kind of form or establishing and building on discernible patterns.)


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

AfterHours said:


> 1. All music is, to greater or lesser degree, a creative act.


Yes, and that doesn't mean any "creative act" means "music", even if you use sounds.



AfterHours said:


> 2. All music is, to greater or lesser degree, an expression of emotion(s) and/or concept(s) from the artist.


Yes, "from the artist" so, ruled by them - not "from the public", so, not ruled by them. That is all.

Everything you said is right


----------



## topo morto (Apr 9, 2017)

cimirro said:


> I understand your point,
> I must say Media Culture created something "new",
> an unqualified, incompetent without any knowledge can be called "artist"
> with this point of view, yes, they create new music.
> ...





cimirro said:


> But If I use the history and the evolution of the art of sound. No, there is nothing new, since they are doing something even someone with a sick brain can do.


I think you're being a bit inconsistent - You speak ill of people who you suppose have a lack of knowledge... and yet you're quite happy to say, for example, that timbre goes together with clothes when it comes to importance in music (!), and that 'distortion is just distortion'. Those assessments may indeed be consistent with the way _you _ hear and think about music, but if they're meant as generally-applicable statements about music, perhaps they indicate some of the same lack of knowledge that you are criticizing.

But then, maybe that could be something that helps makes a great composer : the ability to not get distracted by 'everything', but focus on creating the most exquisite solutions to a smaller range of problems.

It could, in fact, mean that your view that pop musicians are ignorant, and my view that they have made some progress, are entirely compatible - perhaps their ignorance is what has allowed them to - however moronically and clumsily - keep stumbling forward until they've ended up somewhere new?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Reading the thread about Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven made me think: Many people (I believe) hear ways of looking at life in their music that are very different from what we find in the music of more recent composers. And one reason, perhaps, for preferring their music is that we prefer their world-views, different from each other as they are, to those prevailing today.
> 
> I know I'm putting this clumsily and inexactly. But I believe that we often consider these three the "greatest" composers not just because of their talents and skills, but maybe even more because of their values and the messages they still bring to us today.
> 
> What do you think?


I do not concur. The "greatness" has accrued through "freezing time" at these various moments of time (the Baroque, Classical, etc.) and the "greatness" has accrued through time, history, and repetition. Yes, there is inherent greatness in these works, but they are equally products of being in the right time in the evolutionary history of music, and of our older paradigm of looking at art. This "great" music also occurred before the advent of recording, which added to its value then, as now. Music was much rarer back before recording; it had to be played from scores. Scoring and writing music, before recording was possible, also added to its "scriptural" value as sacred document, just as religion has its holy writings. This great music is "the Gospel" that was handed down to the modern era.

Our paradigm for this idea of musical "greatness" is conditioned by many things, and must be "believed in" like a religion. "Masterpieces" thrive in this paradigm. In this paradigm, life was purer and simpler, and things were not all mixed-up and relative and post-modern. Everybody could agree, this was greatness, like Elvis was true last thing everybody agreed on, before they shot down President Kennedy like a dog in Dallas, and those "damn Beatles" stepped in, turning our kids on to dope, LSD, and Eastern religion. Personally, I'm glad they shot John Lennon.


----------



## Lenny (Jul 19, 2016)

millionrainbows said:


> I do not concur. The "greatness" has accrued through "freezing time" at these various moments of time (the Baroque, Classical, etc.) and the "greatness" has accrued through time, history, and repetition. Yes, there is inherent greatness in these works, but they are equally products of being in the right time in the evolutionary history of music, and of our older paradigm of looking at art. This "great" music also occurred before the advent of recording, which added to its value then, as now. Music was much rarer back before recording; it had to be played from scores. Scoring and writing music, before recording was possible, also added to its "scriptural" value as sacred document, just as religion has its holy writings. This great music is "the Gospel" that was handed down to the modern era.
> 
> Our paradigm for this idea of musical "greatness" is conditioned by many things, and must be "believed in" like a religion. "Masterpieces" thrive in this paradigm. In this paradigm, life was purer and simpler, and things were not all mixed-up and relative and post-modern. Everybody could agree, this was greatness, like Elvis was true last thing everybody agreed on, before they shot down President Kennedy like a dog in Dallas, and those "damn Beatles" stepped in, turning our kids on to dope, LSD, and Eastern religion. Personally, I'm glad they shot John Lennon.


Yes I think "believing in music" has a lot to do with this, but do you think that's all there is?

Somehow I sense we just dance around the real question: can music be objectively something?


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

topo morto said:


> You speak ill of people who you suppose have a lack of knowledge...


Yes, I do. everyone who claims something wrong can do it by lack of knowledge or by stupidness if preferring to keep the lack of knowledge.
It seems Media Culture always keep the lack of knowledge as a merit...



topo morto said:


> and yet you're quite happy to say, for example, that timbre goes together with clothes when it comes to importance in music (!), and that 'distortion is just distortion'.


First of all, "distortions" (there are a huge numbers of them) are effects that give us a timbre.
Timbre is selected by taste and/or possibility of execution.
for example: transcriptions and arrangements.
There is no rule for this and nothing special to study around it.

On the other hand, if you want to work with some instruments you need study their possibilities, range, where the sound changes, how, etc.
The simple selection of timbre is nothing special in the compositional process.



topo morto said:


> Those may indeed be true the way you hear and think about music, but if they're meant as factual statements about music in general, perhaps they indicate some of the same lack of knowledge as that which you are criticizing.


I understand what you mean, anyway I can't see why I need Media Culture to select timbres. Even Beethoven never using a synthesizer, one can do this research in minutes, without wasting time hearing several bad pop albums which are full or compositional problems before selecting what timbre to use.



topo morto said:


> But then, maybe that could be something that helps makes a great composer : the ability to not get distracted by 'everything', but focus on creating the most exquisite solutions to a smaller range of problems.


I don't understand what are these "smaller range of problems"
A composer must use all the possible tools for his art.
I just do not understand why a composer (not the public) must waste time with media culture products and claim they have any value just because of sociological concepts of equality...



topo morto said:


> It could, in fact, mean that your view that pop musicians are ignorant, and my view that they have made some progress, are entirely compatible - perhaps their ignorance is what has allowed them to - however moronically and clumsily - keep stumbling forward until they've ended up somewhere new?


Well, as I already told, all my speech does not mean I'm a better human than anyone. Anyway, yes, I understand your view, that does not mean I need to care or waste my time with media rubbish and their progress.

Best
Artur


----------



## topo morto (Apr 9, 2017)

cimirro said:


> Yes, I do. everyone who claims something wrong can do it by lack of knowledge or by stupidness if preferring to keep the lack of knowledge.
> It seems Media Culture always keep the lack of knowledge as a merit...


I do recognize what you mean by seeing lack of knowledge as a merit, but some of it is an act - a bit like the school friend who claimed not to study for his maths test, but then gets 96%...

There is a culture in pop of keeping the hard work of composition, playing technique, and so on hidden, so that the act appears effortless (and yes, so that the focus can be on pretty faces, costumes, and dirty videos!). But within the circles of musicians, they discuss technique and develop ideas enthusiastically. There are also plenty of classically-trained musicians working within the pop world - it's not as if that knowledge base is completely absent.



cimirro said:


> First of all, "distortions" (there are a huge numbers of them) are effects that give us a timbre.
> Timbre is selected by taste and/or possibility of execution.
> for example: transcriptions and arrangements.
> There is no rule for this and nothing special to study around it.


It sounds like you are saying there is a fundamental difference between something for which there is a rule, and something that is selected by taste - but I don't think that is the case.

There are rules of nature (related to physics and psychoacoustics) that will inform us why something sounds the way it does, (e.g. why something sounds louder, or more dissonant, or more mellow).

There are other, often genre-specific, rules in music that are a codified expression of taste. (e.g. whether a certain dissonance is 'allowed').

Both types of rule may be found in all aspects of music.



cimirro said:


> On the other hand, if you want to work with some instruments you need study their possibilities, range, where the sound changes, how, etc.
> The simple selection of timbre is nothing special in the compositional process.


Your first statement is correct, and is a rebuttal of your second! As you say, if you are interested in working with timbre, you don't simply 'select' it any more than a Romantic era composer 'simply selects' a melody - and this is true whether you are composing with acoustic instruments, manufactured electronic instruments, or writing your own mathematical algorithms for sound manipulation.

Also, if you are interested in harmony, you need to understand how different timbres will affect the perception of harmony. It's only possible to have approximate ideas about harmony until you know what sound each note represents (if you are composing using the concept of notes, of course).

Timbre takes a lifetime to learn - both the physical / psychoacoustic aspects, and those that are a question of taste.



cimirro said:


> I understand what you mean, anyway I can't see why I need Media Culture to select timbres. Even Beethoven never using a synthesizer, one can do this research in minutes, without wasting time hearing several bad pop albums which are full or compositional problems before selecting what timbre to use.


As I've said before I don't really recognize the division between 'media' and 'classical' that you see - If I understand what you mean by 'media', I don't think the media/non media boundary follows a 'pop/classical' boundary.

I would agree that you don't need to look in any particular genre or cultural area for inspiration, as every idea has anticipants in many other places. However, as we've said before, an idea can be built on over time, and a logical reason why you might want to look in pop would be if there was a greater depth of experimentation there in a certain aspect of music than there was in other genres. You've already boarded up that channel of possibility by saying that all novelty in pop comes from mistakes and ignorance; I think that's intellectually disingenuous, but I imagine you're fairly firm in your opinion.



cimirro said:


> A composer must use all the possible tools for his art.


I'm sure most feel they do, but of course _most _ composers (not all, by any means) limit the scope of their art, which then limits the range of tools they need to master.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

millionrainbows said:


> Our paradigm for this idea of musical "greatness" is conditioned by many things, and must be "believed in" like a religion. "Masterpieces" thrive in this paradigm. In this paradigm, life was purer and simpler, and things were not all mixed-up and relative and post-modern. Everybody could agree, this was greatness, like Elvis was true last thing everybody agreed on, before they shot down President Kennedy like a dog in Dallas, and those "damn Beatles" stepped in, turning our kids on to dope, LSD, and Eastern religion. Personally, I'm glad they shot John Lennon.


You're refuting your own position here. The significant point about the Elvis consensus is that it didn't last: he's a cartoon character now, and the Beatles are the rock musicians that everybody agrees on. That may not last either (or maybe it will), but the Beethoven consensus has already lasted for 200 years.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

topo morto said:


> I do recognize what you mean by seeing lack of knowledge as a merit, but some of it is an act - a bit like the school friend who claimed not to study for his maths test, but then gets 96%...
> 
> There is a culture in pop of keeping the hard work of composition, playing technique, and so on hidden, so that the act appears effortless (and yes, so that the focus can be on pretty faces, costumes, and dirty videos!). But within the circles of musicians, they discuss technique and develop ideas enthusiastically.


I'm happy for them. Anyway, the results are far from being objects of my interest.



topo morto said:


> There are also plenty of classically-trained musicians working within the pop world - it's not as if that knowledge base is completely absent.


Again, "classical-trained" in most part of these cases are people with degrees from universities or conservatoires.
that doesn't mean something special - the personal study is the most interesting thing. If they do not show this in their results - there is nothing I can do about it. I know Market often "swallow" people... and?...



topo morto said:


> It sounds like you are saying there is a fundamental difference between something for which there is a rule, and something that is selected by taste - but I don't think that is the case.


No matter your taste, you can not make a glissando in a trombone during 2 octaves without changing positions. And it hardly will sound as you may imagine. There is a rule around the way to make it playable. Limits of instrument.



topo morto said:


> There are rules of nature (related to physics and psychoacoustics) that will inform us why something sounds the way it does, (e.g. why something sounds louder, or more dissonant, or more mellow).


Yes, some instruments do things others don't. Some sounds are quite different. I studied acoustics.
anyway, these explanations doesn't change the compositional process



topo morto said:


> There are other, often genre-specific, rules in music that are a codified expression of taste. (e.g. whether a certain dissonance is 'allowed').


"genre-specific" from Media are not related to the musical writing. 90% are only "songs" with different pseudo-labels.



topo morto said:


> Your first statement is correct, and is a rebuttal of your second! As you say, if you are interested in working with timbre, you don't simply 'select' it any more than a Romantic era composer 'simply selects' a melody - and this is true whether you are composing with acoustic instruments, manufactured electronic instruments, or writing your own mathematical algorithms for sound manipulation.


"Romantic era composer 'simply selects' a melody"
that is quite funny. And where the melody came from?
Timbre came from instruments which will sound C with its timbre if you play C with that timbre.
You just select the timbre.



topo morto said:


> Also, if you are interested in harmony, you need to understand how different timbres will affect the perception of harmony. It's only possible to have approximate ideas about harmony until you know what sound each note represents (if you are composing using the concept of notes, of course).


Thanks for the tip. Anyway, if your are interested in ear training, you will notice NO "C major" chord in fundamental position will sound different because of the timbre.



topo morto said:


> Timbre takes a lifetime to learn - both the physical / psychoacoustic aspects, and those that are a question of taste.


Maybe for a pop musician this is true. 
I know what happens in the sound physic and I understand how to use it. So, after my experience, it is just a matter of what I want to choose.



topo morto said:


> As I've said before I don't really recognize the division between 'media' and 'classical' that you see - If I understand what you mean by 'media', I don't think the media/non media boundary follows a 'pop/classical' boundary.


I agree. several so called "classical players" are media products.
the big difference is not "pop/classical". It is "without art work/with art work"



topo morto said:


> However, as we've said before, an idea can be built on over time, and a logical reason why you might want to look in pop would be if there was a greater depth of experimentation there in a certain aspect of music than there was in other genres.


One day someone understand the possibility of a wheel - after this more and more things were done based on experimentation.
That is good.
Media culture are understanding the possibility of a wheel in the last 50 years? good for them. anyway, I'll not waste my time with prehistoric minds now. The ones who are not prehistoric can study based in the old experiments and make new ones if necessary. Repeating exactly the same experiments because now you have electricity and a new timbre is a waste of time if it takes longer than few minutes - unless for a prehistoric mind, of course.



topo morto said:


> You've already boarded up that channel of possibility by saying that all novelty in pop comes from mistakes and ignorance; I think that's intellectually disingenuous, but I imagine you're fairly firm in your opinion.


No. Necessarily the novelty in media culture comes from a less ignorant person, but it is still a prehistoric mind if it keeps the same for too long.



topo morto said:


> I'm sure most feel they do, but of course _most _ composers (not all, by any means) limit the scope of their art, which then limits the range of tools they need to master.


Yes. I see this happening all the time in every kind of art.
I'm totally against limiting the range of tools (composer or interpreter).
I can compose for an orchestra, or for 2 guitars one bass and drums.
The problems is that the guitar/bass/drum players often will say my music is not their style or "too difficult".
So I need to work with musicians who are not prehistoric like this. 
And even the classical orchestras are a great fiasco in this sense.
Check out how many of them make calls for new repertoire where one of the most important rules are "a work playable in 4 rehearsals"
They are prehistoric like media culture too.
I like people who cares for study and knowledge. The rest (if was born in good conditions of course) is rest.

All the best
Artur Cimirro


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Lenny said:


> Yes I think "believing in music" has a lot to do with this, but do you think that's all there is?
> 
> Somehow I sense we just dance around the real question: can music be objectively something?


We're really talking about _people's ideas about what music is,_ not music itself. This is what John Cage was trying to dismantle, and get us to simply listen.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Magnum Miserium said:


> You're refuting your own position here. The significant point about the Elvis consensus is that it didn't last: he's a cartoon character now, and the Beatles are the rock musicians that everybody agrees on. That may not last either (or maybe it will), but the Beethoven consensus has already lasted for 200 years.


I think you're wrong, and are not considering all the factors that play into this.

Elvis and The Beatles are just two more examples of how the "wheel of history" just keeps on rolling and assimilating, turning things into "History" and "greatness."

Yes, Beethoven's paradigm has lasted longer, but it's much older than Elvis. Besides that, popular recorded music is a relatively new phenomenon. In this sense, Beethoven and Elvis are like two different parallel streams. Each one has its own criteria for "greatness."


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

millionrainbows said:


> I think you're wrong, and are not considering all the factors that play into this.
> 
> Elvis and The Beatles are just two more examples of how the "wheel of history" just keeps on rolling and assimilating, turning things into "History" and "greatness."


No they aren't. The Beatles may or may not be something that history decides is great. Elvis now looks like something people used to think was great that history decided is a curiosity.



millionrainbows said:


> Yes, Beethoven's paradigm has lasted longer, but it's much older than Elvis.


So's Rossini, who in the meantime has been demoted from tragedian to farceur. And Cherubini and Hummel, who in the meantime have been demoted from major composers to footnotes.



millionrainbows said:


> Besides that, popular recorded music is a relatively new phenomenon.


Making audio recordings is a craft.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Did Elvis compose anything?


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

JAS said:


> Did Elvis compose anything?


Basically, no https://www.google.com/search?q=elvis+wrote


----------



## topo morto (Apr 9, 2017)

cimirro said:


> No matter your taste, you can not make a glissando in a trombone during 2 octaves without changing positions. And it hardly will sound as you may imagine. There is a rule around the way to make it playable. Limits of instrument.


Aha, so by 'rules' you were referring to practical limitations - I think I see what you mean. Of course just as glissandi can be subject to practical limitations depending on how you are producing them, distortion can too - I've seen people create a lot of smoke by getting over-enthusiastic with their amps.



cimirro said:


> "Romantic era composer 'simply selects' a melody"
> that is quite funny. And where the melody came from?
> Timbre came from instruments which will sound C with its timbre if you play C with that timbre.
> You just select the timbre.


The sentence:

_"if you are interested in working with timbre, you don't simply 'select' it any more than a Romantic era composer 'simply selects' a melody" _

means I do *not *think that a Romantic era composer 'simply selects' a melody - and that, similarly, the use of timbre in composition does *not *have to be a 'selection'. If you so wish, you can hand craft your timbre - whether that's by use of new technology, working with new acoustic instruments, or just being creative with playing techniques.

With technology, you can zoom in on a couple of seconds of sound and compose its elements just as one would compose a piece lasting minutes.



cimirro said:


> Thanks for the tip. Anyway, if your are interested in ear training, you will notice NO "C major" chord in fundamental position will sound different because of the timbre.


The sentence

_"no "C major" chord in fundamental position will sound different because of the timbre"_

makes no sense, because a difference in timbre is, by definition, a difference in the quality of sound.

It's true that within certain limits, a C Major chord will be recognisable as a C major chord - is that what you mean? If so, there's still no reason for that to imply any limits on compositional process, because a listener's experience of harmony is not limited to identifying chords.



cimirro said:


> One day someone understand the possibility of a wheel - after this more and more things were done based on experimentation.
> That is good.


Agreed - we have all sorts of inventions that we wouldn't have had if we hadn't kept building on the idea of a wheel. This is why there's no sense in criticizing a work or area of work for re-using old ideas; new ideas usually do build upon the old ones.



cimirro said:


> Yes. I see this happening all the time in every kind of art.
> I'm totally against limiting the range of tools (composer or interpreter).
> I can compose for an orchestra, or for 2 guitars one bass and drums.
> The problems is that the guitar/bass/drum players often will say my music is not their style or "too difficult".
> ...


All power to anyone trying to push the boundaries!
Of course all areas of music have had composers who have got around the limitations of performers by choosing to use machines instead... but then, there's an increasing feeling we shouldn't be encouraging the robots to take over...


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

topo morto said:


> Aha, so by 'rules' you were referring to practical limitations - I think I see what you mean. Of course just as glissandi can be subject to practical limitations depending on how you are producing them, distortion can too - I've seen people create a lot of smoke by getting over-enthusiastic with their amps.


I already explained, this is not about only "practical limits" I will not explain it again, I'm sorry. I'm not here to give composition classes by internet.
You will try to make comparison all the time because you are speaking about things you like.
Anyway, an idiot with amps is just an idiot with amps.
You can stay where you are, no problems, I'm not trying to teach you. But maybe you should try to study composition even if at some point you claim you have no talent at all, otherwise I'll stay all the eternity here answering against Media Culture fallacious theories around art and music.



topo morto said:


> The sentence:
> 
> _"if you are interested in working with timbre, you don't simply 'select' it any more than a Romantic era composer 'simply selects' a melody" _
> 
> ...


I'm happy you do not think someone "select a melody".
Still, it seems you do not read what I wrote.
YES, you can "hand craft your timbre - whether that's by use of new technology, working with new acoustic instruments, or just being creative with playing techniques."
AND this work on timbre FOR A COMPOSER takes seconds when you have knowledge. That is all.



topo morto said:


> The sentence
> 
> _"no "C major" chord in fundamental position will sound different because of the timbre"_
> 
> ...


LISTENER LISTENER LISTENER LISTENER LISTENER LISTENER LISTENER LISTENER
COMPOSER COMPOSER COMPOSER COMPOSER COMPOSER COMPOSER COMPOSER COMPOSER 
Have you noticed there are two different words?
I DO NOT SPEAK ABOUT LISTENER.

I SPEAK ABOUT COMPOSER AND COMPOSITIONAL PROCESS:
"no "C major" chord in fundamental position will sound different because of the timbre"
NO MATTER WHAT A LISTENER THINK ABOUT IT.

A COMPOSITIONAL PROCESS CAN BE ARRANGED AND/OR TRANSCRIBED FOR ANY AND ALL KIND OF INSTRUMENTS. SO TIMBRE IS A PERSONAL SELECTION.



topo morto said:


> Agreed - we have all sorts of inventions that we wouldn't have had if we hadn't kept building on the idea of a wheel. This is why there's no sense in criticizing a work or area of work for re-using old ideas; new ideas usually do build upon the old ones.


WHO IS CRITICIZING A WORK OR AREA OF WORK FOR RE-USING OLD IDEAS????
I criticize the ones who claims "Novelty" when they are doing bad use of old information they never researched about... this is what happens in Media Culture. "New" and "Evolution" without any knowledge basis on the art of music. (and remember some classical players/composers are included in Media Culture too)



topo morto said:


> All power to anyone trying to push the boundaries!
> Of course all areas of music have had composers who have got around the limitations of performers by choosing to use machines instead... but then, there's an increasing feeling we shouldn't be encouraging the robots to take over...


and we shouldn't be encouraging the laziness too.

All the best
Artur Cimirro


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

This was definitely an interesting thread. I agree with Cimirro that all boundaries in musical composition have been pushed in Classical music. But I also identify first-hand with Topo. The sounds and timbres in music is still being explored today, even on the very narrow range of actual musical fundamentals. One thing that wasn't mentioned yet is the concept of the *social conscious* in popular music. There was no precedent in Classical music, which dealt with music on more abstract and philosophical terms, eg. fate, etc. This makes popular music difficult to critique as good or bad, when not basing on the theoretical elements themselves such as harmony and rhythm. I've heard rock critics go off into wild tangents of how this work explores certain aspects in society. Look at Bob Dylan, how musically satisfying is his music on actual compositional skill, not very. But he is considered one of the greats in popular music, above more musically sophisticated music based on his comments on society, ie. rich, poor, borgeouis, war, Christianity, etc. The focus of popular music is no longer on pure musical theory. You can take it or leave it, with regards to its place in the Musical "Evolution".


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> This was definitely an interesting thread. I agree with Cimirro that all boundaries in musical composition have been pushed in Classical music. But I also identify first-hand with Topo. The sounds and timbres in music is still being explored today, even on the very narrow range of actual musical fundamentals. One thing that wasn't mentioned yet is the concept of the *social conscious* in popular music. There was no precedent in Classical music, which dealt with music on more abstract and philosophical terms, eg. fate, etc. This makes popular music difficult to critique as good or bad, when not basing on the theoretical elements themselves such as harmony and rhythm. I've heard rock critics go off into wild tangents of how this work explores certain aspects in society. Look at Bob Dylan, how musically satisfying is his music on actual compositional skill, not very. But he is considered one of the greats in popular music, above more musically sophisticated music based on his comments on society, ie. rich, poor, borgeouis, war, Christianity, etc. The focus of popular music is no longer on pure musical theory. You can take it or leave it, with regards to its place in the Musical "Evolution".


With Bob Dylan you are discussin qualities of his lyrics. That is not my discussion nor this is the "music process"
"Social Conscious" is not related to the art of music and its making process.
A sociological speech about media culture (as I said before in my posts) is valid, of course, but this is not related to the work itself of an artist. It is related to the taste of a society or a group of people.
So, you can speak about it as much as you want, just do not try to use my speech together, since I'm not dealing with any sociological speech.



Phil loves classical said:


> There was no precedent in Classical music, which dealt with music on more abstract and philosophical terms, eg. fate, etc.


This is absolutely wrong
Music is an abstract art a priori. Anyway I assume you do not know Scriabin, Obukhov, Ornstein, Antheil, Berg, and several others for a more abstract and more philosophical approach. Am I right?
By the way, If you want people criticizing society in music, just to give you one single example among several ones, why not pay attention to Mozart's Don Giovanni text (Specially Leporello, Masetto and Zerlina are there with such idea) So again, nothing new in Bob Dylan.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

cimirro said:


> With Bob Dylan you are discussin qualities of his lyrics. That is not my discussion nor this is the "music process"
> "Social Conscious" is not related to the art of music and its making process.
> A sociological speech about media culture (as I said before in my posts) is valid, of course, but this is not related to the work itself of an artist. It is related to the taste of a society or a group of people.
> So, you can speak about it as much as you want, just do not try to use my speech together, since I'm not dealing with any sociological speech.
> ...


This is where it gets complicated, the social conscious and lyrics have become lumped in with the music itself as a single work of art. It has become part of the art of music. You read my post wrong, I was saying Classical Music did deal with music in more abstract and philosophic terms, more than popular music, which assumes only a narrow philosophical view of music. CM does have some social/political references (how could I forget Shostakovich's 5th Symphony?) but it hasn't really been the criteria or big factor in CM, while in popular music it has taken a MUCH larger role.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> This is where it gets complicated, the social conscious and lyrics have become lumped in with the music itself as a single work of art. It has become part of the art of musiic. You read my post wrong, I was saying Classical Music did deal with art in more abstract and philosophic terms, more than popular music, which assumes only a narrow philosophical view. CM does have some social/political references (how could I forget Shostakovich's 5th Symphony?) but it hasn't really been the criteria or big factor in CM, while in popular music is has taken a MUCH larger role.


I'm really sorry for my bad reading at your post - So I agree.

Anyway I must add: 
"the social conscious and lyrics have become lumped in with the music itself as a single work of art." - This sentence is right for media culture. And it is based in the lack of knowledge of the differences and history of these arts involved and also in the lack of knowledge of the history of the song as one of the oldest combinations of arts available in human history.
This is the point.

All the best
Artur Cimirro


----------

