# "Today – is greatness in composition possible?"



## Forss (May 12, 2017)

This striking question is posed by Nietzsche in his book _Beyond Good and Evil_ and seeks, I think, to discuss the issue of the individual in the midst of society, i.e., in Nietzsche's terms, in the midst of "herd morality". There seems to be little (if no) room for the individual to realise himself as an _individual_ in today's world, in our ever-increasing "herd morality", with identity politics currently en vogue, and his idiosyncrasies are, if anything, but labelled as "mental illness", etc. The _great_ artist is always an individual _in spite of_ his time, his "age", and his creations are always the product of an outstanding Will, as strong, confident and "natural" as Nature herself. Is greatness possible today, if by _greatness_ we mean, in Nietzsche's words, "the higher man, the higher soul, the higher duty, the higher responsibility, the creative fullness of power and mastery... of being noble, of willing to be for oneself, of being able to be different, of standing alone, and of having to live by one's own initiative?"


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Forss said:


> This striking question is posed by Nietzsche in his book _Beyond Good and Evil_ and seeks, I think, to discuss the issue of the individual in the midst of society, i.e., in Nietzsche's terms, in the midst of "herd morality". There seems to be little (if no) room for the individual to realise himself as an _individual_ in today's world, in our ever-increasing "herd morality", with identity politics currently en vogue, and his idiosyncrasies are, if anything, but labelled as "mental illness", etc. The _great_ artist is always an individual _in spite of_ his time, his "age", and his creations are always the product of an outstanding Will, as strong, confident and "natural" as Nature herself. Is greatness possible today, if by _greatness_ we mean, in Nietzsche's words, "the higher man, the higher soul, the higher duty, the higher responsibility, the creative fullness of power and mastery... of being noble, of willing to be for oneself, of being able to be different, of standing alone, and of having to live by one's own initiative?"


Yes, it's possible - after all, there was - in my view - even more 'herd mentality' in the past. People have much more economic & societal freedom to be individuals today.

Whether it is desirable is something else. One person's 'higher soul' might be someone else's tyrant.

In musical terms - yes, I still believe that a composer might emerge whom posterity will consider a 'genius'.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

This was moved but I assumed it was about greatness in composition.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

janxharris said:


> This was moved but I assumed it was about greatness in composition.


The OP nowhere mentions music. Musical greatness, performance or composition, can, of course, be discussed.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

I guess one needs to be explicit.


----------



## Forss (May 12, 2017)

Taggart said:


> The OP nowhere mentions music. Musical greatness, performance or composition, can, of course, be discussed.


My intention was to discuss greatness in relation to composition, yes, but I suppose it is proper to have moved it to "Community Forum" as I failed to explicitly state this.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Forss said:


> My intention was to discuss greatness in relation to composition, yes, but I suppose it is proper to have moved it to "Community Forum" as I failed to explicitly state this.


Title altered to make OP's intention clear. Thread moved back.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Forss said:


> My intention was to discuss greatness in relation to composition, yes, but I suppose it is proper to have moved it to "Community Forum" as I failed to explicitly state this.


Ah - I wish I had concentrated on the musical aspects then.

I do still believe that it's possible to have a 'great' composer - paradoxically because it's even *more* possible to be an 'individual' today than ever before.

A composer of modern music would have to make his own path, not following recent trends too much, but not harking back to Bach or Beethoven et al either.

The difficulty lies in the fact that 'greatness' depends on being acclaimed as great, and that might be difficult with today's fragmented audience.

That's why I said the great composer possible today would need to be recognised by posterity - s/he might be ignored or derided by today's audience.


----------



## Potiphera (Mar 24, 2011)

Forss said:


> This striking question is posed by Nietzsche in his book _Beyond Good and Evil_ and seeks, I think, to discuss the issue of the individual in the midst of society, i.e., in Nietzsche's terms, in the midst of "herd morality". There seems to be little (if no) room for the individual to realise himself as an _individual_ in today's world, in our ever-increasing "herd morality", with identity politics currently en vogue, and his idiosyncrasies are, if anything, but labelled as "mental illness", etc. The _great_ artist is always an individual _in spite of_ his time, his "age", and his creations are always the product of an outstanding Will, as strong, confident and "natural" as Nature herself. Is greatness possible today, if by _greatness_ we mean, in Nietzsche's words, "the higher man, the higher soul, the higher duty, the higher responsibility, the creative fullness of power and mastery... of being noble, of willing to be for oneself, of being able to be different, of standing alone, and of having to live by one's own initiative?"


There is a lot here. 
The starting point, if we are looking a Nietzsche, is that for him the individual could only be exceptional, and that was what distinguished him from everyone else in society. More or less he saw these heroic and distinguished individuals as higher types of being, because they concern themselves with the greatest forms of art, learning and indeed the destiny of the entire world. 
For Nietzsche, ordinary people were simply not equipped with the higher faculties, so could not be re-born into the higher form of humanity. There is a vast amount to disagree with Nietzsche philosophy which borders on a form of theology indeed. But in defence of Nietzsche I would say that what is often overlooked with him is that he was probably the most distinguished scholar of ancient Greek west has produced in a thousand years. He had a sea-bed depth understanding of Plato in particular and like the Renaissance thinker Mirandola, he believed that Plato held the key to what might be called the theological ascent of supreme individuals into angelic forms. Sure, I think we would all agree there is not much angelic about modern society.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

_"Man is something that shall be overcome. Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman - a rope over an abyss. What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end."_

Friedrich Nietsche


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

It would be great if some of the members who *do* compose and who are members of this modern world gave us their views on the possibilities or difficulties of achieving 'greatness'.

According to this link, Nietzsche knew what musical composition was about. Ironically, though, not what 'greatness' in musical compostion was required. He's described as 'pretty decent'. 
https://www.classicfm.com/discover-music/friedrich-nietzsche-composer/

It sounds as if he just did 'same-old, same-old'...


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

If one looks at some modern composers - Tavener, Macmillan, Part - who are trying to be individuals what is interesting is that they all compose religious music.

That difference means that they are able to stand apart from the modern herd mentality and to their own self be true.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Forss said:


> This striking question is posed by Nietzsche in his book _Beyond Good and Evil_ and seeks, I think, to discuss the issue of the individual in the midst of society, i.e., in Nietzsche's terms, in the midst of "herd morality". There seems to be little (if no) room for the individual to realise himself as an _individual_ in today's world, in our ever-increasing "herd morality", with identity politics currently en vogue, and his idiosyncrasies are, if anything, but labelled as "mental illness", etc. The _great_ artist is always an individual _in spite of_ his time, his "age", and his creations are always the product of an outstanding Will, as strong, confident and "natural" as Nature herself. Is greatness possible today, if by _greatness_ we mean, in Nietzsche's words, "the higher man, the higher soul, the higher duty, the higher responsibility, the creative fullness of power and mastery... of being noble, of willing to be for oneself, of being able to be different, of standing alone, and of having to live by one's own initiative?"


I always thought that one of the things that started to happen in the 1960s and 1970s is that young people refused the values and ideals of their elders and embarked on a quest to find themselves and to explore beyond the boundaries imposed by the place they happened to be born in -- to live the life they want rather than the life their families wished to impose on them.

If that's right, then what Nietzsche said was at least not true for a few decades in the second half of the C20, and if your train of thinking is valid, it's in art from that period that the sort of qualities you're looking for should be found.

Today, the first quarter of the C 21, is, for me, too close to judge, I can't see the wood for the trees. But there is a sense of rebellion in the air I think, from Brexit to Gilets Jaunes to Trump to . . . So, putting aside political reservations, we just could be living in a time which is, artistically, exciting. I don't know.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> I always thought that one of the things that started to happen in the 1960s and 1970s is that young people refused the values and ideals of their elders and embarked on a quest to find themselves and to explore beyond the boundaries imposed by the place they happened to be born in -- to live the life they want rather than the life their families wished to impose on them.
> 
> If that's right, then what Nietzsche said was at least not true for a few decades in the second half of the C20, and if your train of thinking is valid, it's in art from that period that the sort of qualities you're looking for should be found.
> 
> Today, the first quarter of the C 21, is, for me, too close to judge, I can't see the wood for the trees. But there is a sense of rebellion in the air I think, from Brexit to Gilets Jaunes to Trump to . . . So, putting aside political reservations, we just could be living in a time which is, artistically, exciting. I don't know.


Interesting post - of course, 'rebellions' are sometimes against new orthodoxies and could be seen as returning to older ideas. In that case, I don't know if the art produced would be all that startling.

Does anyone here think that there's a great composer of music in the later half of the twentieth century - one that will stand the test of time?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Ingélou said:


> Interesting post - of course, 'rebellions' are sometimes against new orthodoxies and could be seen as returning to older ideas.


Two things make the post war period unique I think. One is access to university education for the working classes. The other is cheap international travel. Both these things expanded people's horizons wider than ever before, and helped them to see that their parents' way wasn't inevitable.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Even if a herd mentality dominates our world today (and was it ever any different?) that still doesn't mean that individuality is impossible. What the majority or the masses do and how they relate to our world might impinge on the more individually minded but it can't stop them from being who they are. The "outsider" might indeed be more prevalent today than ever. So why can't greatness be possible today? Indeed, I do believe that there are great people among us and have been throughout my 60+ years. They might not be so widely recognised these days. The Trump effect - whereby a lot of people voted for someone who clearly didn't behave like a president and certainly wasn't a great man - in music might be the mass selection of mass-produced pop? But plenty of people reject that, too. Greatness is by definition outside of the herd. If the herd recognises greatness then it follows it but, perhaps, the herd no longer recognises greatness?


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Forss said:


> This striking question is posed by Nietzsche in his book _Beyond Good and Evil_ and seeks, I think, to discuss the issue of the individual in the midst of society, i.e., in Nietzsche's terms, in the midst of "herd morality". There seems to be little (if no) room for the individual to realise himself as an _individual_ in today's world, in our ever-increasing "herd morality", with identity politics currently en vogue, and his idiosyncrasies are, if anything, but labelled as "mental illness", etc. The _great_ artist is always an individual _in spite of_ his time, his "age", and his creations are always the product of an outstanding Will, as strong, confident and "natural" as Nature herself. Is greatness possible today, if by _greatness_ we mean, in Nietzsche's words, "the higher man, the higher soul, the higher duty, the higher responsibility, the creative fullness of power and mastery... of being noble, of willing to be for oneself, of being able to be different, of standing alone, and of having to live by one's own initiative?"


Things don't change, if it was once possible to be a great composer then it will always be until our race dies. Willing to be for oneself, standing alone, is the defining characteristic of all higher quality--a society does not impact the higher mind.


----------



## Potiphera (Mar 24, 2011)

1996D said:


> Things don't change, if it was once possible to be a great composer then it will always be until our race dies. Willing to be for oneself, standing alone, is the defining characteristic of all higher quality--*a society does not impact the higher mind.*


Yes, I largely agree with that. 
I think we can be reasonably certain that great geniuses are not going to arise out of the social media.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

1996D said:


> Things don't change, if it was once possible to be a great composer then it will always be until our race dies. Willing to be for oneself, standing alone, is the defining characteristic of all higher quality--a society does not impact the higher mind.


I agree too - but it does seem as if some societies can produce clusters of great artists; many nations have a Golden Age when 'genius' (as generally understood) was more common.

Don't know if any nation in the world is currently having a Golden Age, though!


----------



## Thomyum2 (Apr 18, 2018)

Forss said:


> This striking question is posed by Nietzsche in his book _Beyond Good and Evil_ and seeks, I think, to discuss the issue of the individual in the midst of society, i.e., in Nietzsche's terms, in the midst of "herd morality". There seems to be little (if no) room for the individual to realise himself as an _individual_ in today's world, in our ever-increasing "herd morality", with identity politics currently en vogue, and his idiosyncrasies are, if anything, but labelled as "mental illness", etc. The _great_ artist is always an individual _in spite of_ his time, his "age", and his creations are always the product of an outstanding Will, as strong, confident and "natural" as Nature herself. Is greatness possible today, if by _greatness_ we mean, in Nietzsche's words, "the higher man, the higher soul, the higher duty, the higher responsibility, the creative fullness of power and mastery... of being noble, of willing to be for oneself, of being able to be different, of standing alone, and of having to live by one's own initiative?"


This is a rich idea for thought and discussion. I'm not an expert on Nietzsche's thought by any stretch of the imagination, but I do disagree with the premise here. I don't think that individual 'greatness' can be separated from the society from which it emerges. Taking Beethoven's music as an example, his compositions were built on the foundations of the work of Bach, Haydn, Mozart and the musical traditions of his day, which became the raw material to which he added his own inventions to create works that spoke back to that very same society which shared that tradition and understood what his music was doing - works that thereby resonated so strongly with his audiences and those that followed. Beethoven's greatness was very much due to the context in which he acted and created.

Speaking hypothetically, if Beethoven had been forcibly relocated to say, China, at age 21, would he his compositions have shaken the society there as they did in western Europe? I think probably not. Shakespeare's greatness sprung from his use of the English language, the language of the very 'herd' that he lived among. Li Bai is a great poet of the Chinese but most westerners don't even know the name. I don't think that the herd morality limits the 'room for the individual to realise himself as an individual' - rather I think the herd provides the fertile ground and background from which the individual can rise up and stand out - it is a dichotomy, and one cannot exist without the other. In a way, I see the trends of today as an opportunities for greatness, rather than limitations upon it.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I believe it depends on the aesthethics and style. Beethoven is considered great, because he obviously excelled in the common practice or Classical style, no matter how you feel about his music (whether or not it moves you), just by looking at the technical aspects. Even in modernism, you can say Bartok was great, because he excelled in the practice or style, again by looking at technical aspects, regardless if you don't like dissonant music. You can't go by popularity, because most listeners don't like dissonant music, even if it has more craft and design than something easier listening. 

But moving into postmodernism, the aesthetics are different, as in visual arts. Subjectivity is paramount. Scattered drops of paint (whether it is random or meticulously planned) is not considered inferior to a Monet pastiche. There are many alternate perspectives or interpretations possible, and you can't compare one perspective being superior to another. A composer like Elliott Carter or Ferneyhough, some say he is great and deserves to be heard more often, some say he's as great as his popularity suggests in getting performed, which isn't so much. They obviously have skill in composing, which is apparent for those familiar of their idioms, but beyond that there is too much subjectivity to the value of what they achieve, their goal may not even be apparent to the composers themselves, other than a certain sort of exploration or adventure. Greatness in this practice has lost its meaning, since everyone have their own concept of what makes it great. But that may be more rewarding for the composers themselves. They are all running their own separate race.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Thomyum2 said:


> This is a rich idea for thought and discussion. I'm not an expert on Nietzsche's thought by any stretch of the imagination, but I do disagree with the premise here. I don't think that individual 'greatness' can be separated from the society from which it emerges. Taking Beethoven's music as an example, his compositions were built on the foundations of the work of Bach, Haydn, Mozart and the musical traditions of his day, which became the raw material to which he added his own inventions to create works that spoke back to that very same society which shared that tradition and understood what his music was doing - works that thereby resonated so strongly with his audiences and those that followed. Beethoven's greatness was very much due to the context in which he acted and created.
> 
> Speaking hypothetically, if Beethoven had been forcibly relocated to say, China, at age 21, would he his compositions have shaken the society there as they did in western Europe? I think probably not. Shakespeare's greatness sprung from his use of the English language, the language of the very 'herd' that he lived among. Li Bai is a great poet of the Chinese but most westerners don't even know the name. I don't think that the herd morality limits the 'room for the individual to realise himself as an individual' - rather I think the herd provides the fertile ground and background from which the individual can rise up and stand out - it is a dichotomy, and one cannot exist without the other. In a way, I see the trends of today as an opportunities for greatness, rather than limitations upon it.


In contrast to Babbitt's:

_"And so, I dare suggest that the composer would do himself and his music an immediate and eventual service by total, resolute, and voluntary withdrawal from this public world to one of private performance and electronic media, with its very real possibility of complete elimination of the public and social aspects of musical composition."_


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> I believe it depends on the aesthethics and style. Beethoven is considered great, because he obviously excelled in the common practice or Classical style, no matter how you feel about his music (whether or not it moves you), just by looking at the technical aspects. Even in modernism, you can say Bartok was great, because he excelled in the practice or style, again by looking at technical aspects, regardless if you don't like dissonant music. You can't go by popularity, because most listeners don't like dissonant music, even if it has more craft and design than something easier listening.
> 
> But moving into postmodernism, the aesthetics are different, as in visual arts. Subjectivity is paramount. Scattered drops of paint (whether it is random or meticulously planned) is not considered inferior to a Monet pastiche. There are many alternate perspectives or interpretations possible, and you can't compare one perspective being superior to another. A composer like Elliott Carter or Ferneyhough, some say he is great and deserves to be heard more often, some say he's as great as his popularity suggests in getting performed, which isn't so much. They obviously have skill in composing, which is apparent for those familiar of their idioms, but beyond that there is too much subjectivity to the value of what they achieve, their goal may not even be apparent to the composers themselves, other than a certain sort of exploration or adventure. Greatness in this practice has lost its meaning, since everyone have their own concept of what makes it great. But that may be more rewarding for the composers themselves. They are all running their own separate race.


So much I disagree with (meaning I feel differently) here. I don't think any composer (or performer) can be considered great based only on their technical capability. They must produce work that seems almost miraculous in its capacity to move us.

I must confess that I groaned when I saw the word prostmodernism. As we saw in a recent thread, we all use the term to mean different things. You are fairly clear what the term means to you but I don't get how either Carter and Ferneyhough (two very different composers with some 50 years between them) can be considered as postmodern, except in that they both came later than the period we generally call modern. I agree that popularity is not a measure of merit in classical music but not that the popularity of classical music can be measured by performances in concert. The success of recordings - accessed in a variety of ways - might be a better measure. But why is there "too much subjectivity to value what they achieve"? What does this mean? And what are you suggesting when you say they do not know what they are doing? And how does any of that undermine their claim to greatness?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Today, greatness in composition is still possible, though far more difficult than in the past. First, just about every musical form, genre, technique has been exhaustively explored (though, as Prokofiev showed mathematically, the store of possible melodies is enormous). Second, the population of those seeking to compose is huge, so that the potential great composer of the great composition is but a tiny face in a huge crowd. Third, due to the New Stasis in the arts, partly itself a product of instantaneous and ubiquitous communication, it is extraordinarily difficult for a new trend or school to fully mature and evolve before being analyzed, critiqued, digested--and then replaced by the next Instant New Thing. Fourth, the New Stasis now is composed of an almost infinite number of parallel, competing trends and their audiences, all tending to subdivide and trivialize the efforts of any one school or movement, let alone a uniquely gifted member of that school or one working alone. Indeed, Roll Over, the New Beethoven! Who is going to recognize who you are?


----------



## Thomyum2 (Apr 18, 2018)

janxharris said:


> In contrast to Babbitt's:
> 
> _"And so, I dare suggest that the composer would do himself and his music an immediate and eventual service by total, resolute, and voluntary withdrawal from this public world to one of private performance and electronic media, with its very real possibility of complete elimination of the public and social aspects of musical composition."_


If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Frankly I don't take too seriously what a man such as Nietzsche says but I do agree that it is probably more difficult today for composers to achieve true greatness as every type of composing style has been pretty thoroughly explored. Interesting that in the twentieth century composers trying to make a new and original style lost most of the audience. So yes, true and original greatness is now more difficult.


----------



## Thomyum2 (Apr 18, 2018)

Strange Magic said:


> Today, greatness in composition is still possible, though far more difficult than in the past. First, just about every musical form, genre, technique has been exhaustively explored (though, as Prokofiev showed mathematically, the store of possible melodies is enormous). Second, the population of those seeking to compose is huge, so that the potential great composer of the great composition is but a tiny face in a huge crowd. Third, due to the New Stasis in the arts, partly itself a product of instantaneous and ubiquitous communication, it is extraordinarily difficult for a new trend or school to fully mature and evolve before being analyzed, critiqued, digested--and then replaced by the next Instant New Thing. Fourth, the New Stasis now is composed of an almost infinite number of parallel, competing trends and their audiences, all tending to subdivide and trivialize the efforts of any one school or movement, let alone a uniquely gifted member of that school or one working alone. Indeed, Roll Over, the New Beethoven! Who is going to recognize who you are?


Yes, I think perhaps in the materialistic culture of today, we see greatness as a commodity, as something to be consumed. Instead of seeing greatness as a call, as something for each of us to strive for and live up to, we rather consume the greatness in the products of others, and then bemoan the dearth of it when we find that the well has run dry. We are searching for our new savior to bring us the next Beethoven 9th symphony, instead of dedicating ourselves to very craft that will make such a thing possible.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Thomyum2 said:


> If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?


Babbitt's isn't a view I subscribe to.

Regarding the tree - no sound is made - and I do believe that (eventual) public approval is important and critical for a composer to be considered great.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

janxharris said:


> In contrast to Babbitt's:
> 
> _"And so, I dare suggest that the composer would do himself and his music an immediate and eventual service by total, resolute, and voluntary withdrawal from this public world to one of private performance and electronic media, with its very real possibility of complete elimination of the public and social aspects of musical composition."_


I like that essay as a piece of writing, but I probably prefer the writings of Elliott Carter (also mentioned in this thread) for their more complex-sometimes self-contradictory, but genuinely thoughtful-analyses of the place and purpose of the modern composer. For instance:



> The kind of music I am talking about does not grow in a desert. It needs encouragement, and the right kind of encouragement. We composers think our desire to write durable music a far-sighted one, though to our performing and publishing friends it often seems very stubborn of us to take things so seriously, turning out sonatas and symphonies that have few chances of performances and fewer of sales. Some of us like to think, perhaps naively, that we could turn out the kind of work that would be immediately successful at once if we wanted to. But many of us feel that a little of this goes a long way. Sometimes what we think is our best work catches on with the public, to our own surprise and delight, though in a way this is disturbing too. We have all seen the public go wrong so often in matters of serious music. We think of all those great works, now a part of our repertory, that were complete failures when they were first played. That thought makes us suspicious, especially here in America, where practically none of our great writers and other creative artists were successful during their lifetimes. You can see what I mean when I say that everything is a problem to a composer.


_Elliott Carter: Collected Essays and Lectures, 1937-1995_ provides a sympathetic window into the mind of this broad-minded composer.

Incidentally, my favorite work by him, _Night Fantasies_ for solo piano, which was intended to represent the restless thought-patterns of someone alone in the dark, has always seemed universal in its evocation of solitariness. I enjoy listening to it right after Liszt's great sonata. Is _Night Fantasies_ great, or the work of a great composer? I dunno...I'm more confident, on the basis of obscure reasons, about contemporaries of his whose music I don't like as much!


----------



## Forss (May 12, 2017)

Thomyum2 said:


> If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?


_No_ (with a strong emphasis)! Representation is, as Schopenhauer showed, "the primary fact of consciousness, whose most essential and primary form is the subject/object dichotomy… 'No object without a subject' is the proposition that renders all materialism forever impossible. The sun and the planets without an eye to see them and without an understanding to cognise them - this can indeed be said with words; but for representation these words are wooden iron."


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> So much I disagree with (meaning I feel differently) here. I don't think any composer (or performer) can be considered great based only on their technical capability. They must produce work that seems almost miraculous in its capacity to move us.
> 
> I must confess that I groaned when I saw the word prostmodernism. As we saw in a recent thread, we all use the term to mean different things. You are fairly clear what the term means to you but I don't get how either Carter and Ferneyhough (two very different composers with some 50 years between them) can be considered as postmodern, except in that they both came later than the period we generally call modern. I agree that popularity is not a measure of merit in classical music but not that the popularity of classical music can be measured by performances in concert. The success of recordings - accessed in a variety of ways - might be a better measure. But why is there "too much subjectivity to value what they achieve"? What does this mean? And what are you suggesting when you say they do not know what they are doing? And how does any of that undermine their claim to greatness?


Most people of my relatives are moved to extremes by Lady Gaga, BTS, or Adele, but none of their music could be considered great technically. Some people say certain acclaimed works of Beethoven, or Beethoven in general, isn't so great, because it doesn't move them. I get filled with wonder by Bartok now, but previously to he was just dissonant mumbo jumbo, as it is to most people in my circle now. How would you reconcile all of that?

Carter and Ferneyhough are considered postmodern just look at Wikipedia under postmodern composers here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_music

There is no one postmodern style or technique in music, but there is for aesthetics and form, which is more fragmentary in expression. I'm familiar with both Carter and Bartok idioms, they have very different aesthetics. To hear Bartok in a "of the moment" sense without a clear context coming and going is missing out on what his music actually means. While Carter is more akin to Ferneyhough, regardless of time difference. They know what they are doing exactly, but what they actually achieve is more open to interpretation, even they know it themselves. This is based on what I've read from them and their positions in music, and their music reflects those views. Those who claim they are not great, are as right as those who claim they are. It is only their skill and technique which is for certain.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> Beethoven is considered great, because he obviously excelled in the common practice or Classical style.


Which one(s) of these do you mean?

1. Greatness in craft is a sufficient condition for greatness in art

2. Greatness in craft is a sufficient condition for being considered great in art

3. Obviously being great in craft is a sufficient condition for greatness in art

4. Obviously being great in craft is a sufficient condition for being considered great in art

5. Being obviously great in craft is a sufficient condition for greatness in art

6. Being obviously great in craft is a sufficient condition for being considered great in art


----------



## Forss (May 12, 2017)

Thomyum2 said:


> Yes, I think perhaps in the materialistic culture of today, we see greatness as a commodity, as something to be consumed. Instead of seeing greatness as a call, as something for each of us to strive for and live up to, we rather consume the greatness in the products of others, and then bemoan the dearth of it when we find that the well has run dry. We are searching for our new savior to bring us the next Beethoven 9th symphony, instead of dedicating ourselves to very craft that will make such a thing possible.


I very much agree with this view. Greatness is Kant's "ought" which resounds in our hearts and which is, consequently, a moral duty for everyone to strive for, and which must in principle _be possible_ for everyone to achieve.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> Which one(s) of these do you mean?
> 
> 1. Greatness in craft is a sufficient condition for greatness in art
> 
> ...


Both the first 2. They can be determined by analysis.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> Most people of my relatives are moved to extremes by Lady Gaga, BTS, or Adele, but none of their music could be considered great technically. Some people say certain acclaimed works of Beethoven, or Beethoven in general, isn't so great, because it doesn't move them. I get filled with wonder by Bartok now, but previously to he was just dissonant mumbo jumbo, as it is to most people in my circle now. How would you reconcile all of that?
> 
> Carter and Ferneyhough are considered postmodern just look at Wikipedia under postmodern composers here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_music
> 
> There is no one postmodern style or technique in music, but there is for aesthetics and form, which is more fragmentary in expression. I'm familiar with both Carter and Bartok idioms, they have very different aesthetics. To hear Bartok in a "of the moment" sense without a clear context coming and going is missing out on what his music actually means. While Carter is more akin to Ferneyhough, regardless of time difference. They know what they are doing exactly, but what they actually achieve is more open to interpretation, even they know it themselves. This is based on what I've read from them and their positions in music, and their music reflects those views. Those who claim they are not great, are as right as those who claim they are. It is only their skill and technique which is for certain.


Just because Beethoven leaves some listeners cold doesn't mean his claim to greatness is merely technical. Why should it? And, anyway, most experienced listeners to classical music who have a taste for the Classical and the Romantic recognise his greatness in his capacity to provide an amazing experience that is somehow more rewarding than any other composer of his time. As for the difficulty in assigning greatness to Carter and Ferneyhough (do you really hear them as similar?), I think that is more down to their relative newness, hence your finding that what they are doing is "more open to interpretation". We find their music difficult. It is only after repeated listening that we can hear which notes are decoration and which are central ideas. But going further with this line is difficult. Can we really say what any music "means"?


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Sure, why not? The problem is: will there be people to listen and recognize it? Art music is no longer held in esteem. Newspapers have mostly abandoned music review. Music schools are succumbing to popular culture. Look back 100 years and newspapers had front-page stories about classical concerts, musicians, opera etc. You should find a copy of Musical America from the 1950s - it's astonishing - a real, huge, magnificent monthly. Now, no one cares. What chance does a composer have? 

And maybe not. Austrian/English musicologist Hans Keller said that the world today is too noisy to make great composers. The inner ear needs quiet to develop and with the constant assault on our hearing with every noise imaginable, that quietness that existed most everywhere up until about 100 years ago must have been wonderful.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> Both the first 2. They can be determined by analysis.


This is a naturalistic view, and leads to a sort of transhumanism, I suppose that if you're right, the greatest composer would be a machine who would just execute the principles of the craft impeccably and with superhuman skill.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> Both the first 2. They can be determined by analysis.


Do you also hold to any or these?

7. Greatness in craft is a necessary condition for greatness in art

8. Greatness in craft is a necessary condition for being considered great in art

9. Greatness in craft is good evidence for greatness in art

10. Greatness in craft is a good evidence that someone will be considered great in art


----------



## Forss (May 12, 2017)

mbhaub said:


> Austrian/English musicologist Hans Keller said that the world today is too noisy to make great composers. The inner ear needs to quiet todevelop and with the constant assault on our hearing with every noise imaginable, that quietness that existed most everywhere up until about 100 years ago must have been wonderful.


Very interesting, indeed.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

OP. Depends on who you ask. The majority of people in the world say: yes, regardless of if they're well-educated on the past.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> Just because Beethoven leaves some listeners cold doesn't mean his claim to greatness is merely technical. Why should it? And, anyway, most experienced listeners to classical music who have a taste for the Classical and the Romantic recognise his greatness in his capacity to provide an amazing experience that is somehow more rewarding than any other composer of his time. As for the difficulty in assigning greatness to Carter and Ferneyhough (do you really hear them as similar?), I think that is more down to their *relative newness*, hence your finding that what they are doing is "more open to interpretation". We find their music difficult. It is only after repeated listening that we can hear which notes are decoration and which are central ideas. But going further with this line is difficult. Can we really say what any music "means"?


No, Carter and Ferneyhough are different since they use different techniques, but they are similar in the fragmentary nature, which links them to the same era. It's the intentional fragmentary nature that makes their music impossible to pin down one exact meaning, since there is little or no overall context. Just as in language, say postmodern poetry. There is often an absence of punctuation and/or grammar, where there are multiple meanings are possible. The idea behind, as I hear some explain, is that these things exist out of context, while we create context through subjective experience. That is why they call it postmodern deconstruction. There is really no meaning to get, like the Hitchcock Macguffin. It's the purely sensory elements of the technique.



Mandryka said:


> Do you also hold to either or these?
> 
> 7. Greatness in craft is a necessary condition for greatness in art
> 
> ...


I'll cut to the chase. I consider great craft or design is a necessary ingredient for great art. Is 4'33" great music? I say no, because there is no craft, it is purely conceptual. It could be great perceptive Art, though, just as much as a "useless" idea to some. But great craft or design alone like an IC chip is not art. There has to be a concept implied or expressed beyond the nuts and bolts to the receiver as well.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

The greatest music reflects the enduring and still-admired values of its age. That makes things a trifle difficult for composers today.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

KenOC said:


> The greatest music reflects the enduring and still-admired values of its age. That makes things a trifle difficult for composers today.


I take your point but surely there are enduring values still - like compassion and the wish for freedom?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> I'll cut to the chase. I consider great craft or design is a necessary ingredient for great art. Is 4'33" great music? I say no, because there is no craft, it is purely conceptual. It could be great perceptive Art, though, just as much as a "useless" idea to some. But great craft or design alone like an IC chip is not art. There has to be a concept implied or expressed beyond the nuts and bolts to the receiver as well.


The problem is, of course, that what you think is increasingly making your use of the concept different from the one in current use. I think it would be a slightly quirky thing to do to deny the greatness of Yves Kleine's IKB 79, given the way it has been received.









There's a great thing that the American philosopher Willard Quine said, something like it's the scientist's job to do the business and the philosopher's job to keep the books. Well similarly here, the institutions - curators etc -- apply the concept _greatness _to all sorts of things which aren't particularly craft-worthy, now it's our job to make sense of that. Your view may have been acceptable 100 years ago, but now the concept has evolved.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Ingélou said:


> I take your point but surely there are enduring values still - like compassion and the wish for freedom?


I think he means aesthetic values, otherwise I can't make sense of it at all, though he can flesh it out for himself.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

I would've gone with an ever-so-lighter shade of blue, but absolutely beautiful art nonetheless.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

---------------------------------------------


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

----------------------------------------------------------


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Ingélou said:


> I take your point but surely there are enduring values still - like compassion and the wish for freedom?


In the culture of my country, selfishness outweighs compassion. And "freedom" is simply personal license; otherwise, security is more valued.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

"Greatness" is determined by how well-connected the artist is with his "essential being," that conduit within oneself that is connected with "the sacred." This can happen at any time, in any era. It will manifest in whatever form is available, even the internet.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KenOC said:


> In the culture of my country, selfishness outweighs compassion. And "freedom" is simply personal license; otherwise, security is more valued.


Values in the real sense are not "out there," they are manifestations of being.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

> Elliott Carter: "We have all seen the public go wrong so often in matters of serious music."


The above quote is such wonderful nonsense that it must be preserved! :lol:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> The above quote is such wonderful nonsense that it must be preserved! :lol:


It could be from a phone chat with Babbitt, or a lunch with Boulez.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> The above quote is such wonderful nonsense that it must be preserved! :lol:


Which of these things do you think is nonsense?

1. The public can go wrong in matters of serious music
2. The public can go wrong often in matters of serious music


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Mandryka said:


> The problem is, of course, that what you think is increasingly making your use of the concept different from the one in current use. I think it would be a slightly quirky thing to do to deny the greatness of Yves Kleine's IKB 79, given the way it has been received.
> 
> View attachment 118184
> 
> ...


Was the art work the white space beside the bluish square?


----------



## Forss (May 12, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> "Greatness" is determined by how well-connected the artist is with his "essential being," that conduit within oneself that is connected with "the sacred." This can happen at any time, in any era. It will manifest in whatever form is available, even the internet.


This is also my view. Perhaps Nietzsche's misgivings were in what way, to what extent, the individual had - as a result of "herd morality" - fallen away from God, from (awareness of) his "essential being", and thus from being able to achieve Greatness.


----------



## Agamemnon (May 1, 2017)

Ingélou said:


> Yes, it's possible - after all, there was - in my view - even more 'herd mentality' in the past. People have much more economic & societal freedom to be individuals today.


I don't think Nietzsche would agree. Nietzsche was surely not a individualist in a liberal sense (he was not a liberal at all). Nietzsche scorns liberal 'freedom' as merely role play. The paradox here is that liberalism liberates - one can do whatever one wishes - because all people are considered equal (so you can be whatever you want to be) but because liberalism makes all people equal it elimates the true individual.

Actually, Nietzsche's (political) thoughts were deeply informed by his view on art. A great man in politics or philosophy is really simply a great artist for Nietzsche: it is somebody who forces his will upon the world and creates the truth like a painter who sorts all elements and puts them in place. I think Nietzsche's special importance to music (Nietzsche composed music himself and said 'A life without music would be a mistake') is informed by Schopenhauer: music is the Dionysian power which is the manifestation of the Will which disrupts every order or story. Nietzsche especially loved Bizet's Carmen (which cheery tunes he contrasted with Wagner's pessimistic 'christian' music who he had revered as a god before). Carmen represents the free (wo)man: that strong, passionate individal who makes his will into his law and disregards the law of the herd or society.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Agamemnon said:


> I don't think Nietzsche would agree....


That's okay. I don't need Nietzsche to agree with me. I'm an individual.

Human beings have a lot of potential, and every generation that passes, new possibilities arise. Personally, I think that the human brain is growing to meet the challenges, and the human heart and spirit are still thriving, subject to the usual limitations. So greatness in all the arts is still possible - in my opinion.

Edit: This thread has a lot of potential too - some stimulating posts.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Agamemnon said:


> A great man in politics or philosophy is really simply a great artist for Nietzsche: it is *somebody who forces his will upon the world and creates the truth like a painter who sorts all elements and puts them in place.* I think Nietzsche's special importance to music (Nietzsche composed music himself and said 'A life without music would be a mistake') is informed by Schopenhauer: *music is the Dionysian power which is the manifestation of the Will which disrupts every order or story. *Nietzsche especially loved Bizet's Carmen (which cheery tunes he contrasted with Wagner's pessimistic 'christian' music who he had revered as a god before). Carmen represents the free (wo)man: that strong, passionate individal who makes his will into his law and disregards the law of the herd or society.


Nietzsche's interest in _Carmen_ was mainly his desire to have a stick to beat big bad papa Wagner with when Nietzsche was trying to get out from under Wagner's personal and philosophical spell. He wrote ecstatically about the "Mediterranean health" in Bizet's dancing rhythms as compared to Wagner's dark, sensual passions, which he had previously celebrated in "The Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music." But the truth is that he never managed to break the spell: his objections to Wagner's "Christianity" concerned the libretto of _Parsifal,_ as he (poorly) understood it, while its music so overwhelmed him that he wrote that alongside its magic other music seemed like a "mistake." He also told someone (in a letter, I believe), that they mustn't take his praise of _Carmen_ too seriously. _"Somebody who forces his will upon the world and creates the truth like a painter who sorts all elements and puts them in place"_ and music as _"Dionysian power which is the manifestation of the Will which disrupts every order or story"_ certainly do not describe either Bizet or his cheerful faux-gypsy entertainment, but they describe Wagner and his work to a tee.

Look to Nietzsche for flashes of insight and brilliant turns of phrase, not for consistency - especially not about Wagner, who overshadowed Nietzsche's life to its unhappy end.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

I don't think Nietzsche "poorly" understood anything. As a philosopher he leaves Wagner in the dust; as an artist he's fickle.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

eugeneonagain said:


> I don't think Nietzsche "poorly" understood anything. As a philosopher he leaves Wagner in the dust; as an artist he's fickle.


Nietzsche on Wagner was both insightful and biased, both in his worshipful devotion and in his vehement rebellion. In lambasting the apparent Christianity of _Parsifal,_ he failed to see beneath the surface religiosity of the work and to recognize in its symbolism a development and a continuation, not a rejection, of Wagner's previous works. In Nietzsche's defense, no one could claim to understand Wagner with any thoroughness at that time. People are still busy with that project, but "understanding Wagner" doesn't mean taking him seriously as a philosopher, regardless of how he was viewed by certain devotees at the time. His syncretic and evolving philosophical views were critical to his personal development but needn't detain us now unless we're making a study of him, so comparing his stature as a philosopher with Nietzsche's is about as useful as talking about Nietzsche's rank as a composer.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

The Tate gallery has Yves Klein's IKB 79 listed as a work of art. Isn't this an indictment of modernity?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

janxharris said:


> Isn't this an indictment of modernity?


That would be a bit like King Canute. What's happening is that the idea of a work of art has changed.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Mandryka said:


> That would be a bit like King Canute. What's happening is that the idea of a work of art has changed.


It's a square of International Klein Blue.

I've nothing against change.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

janxharris said:


> It's a square of International Klein Blue.


Yes (well, rectangular more or less I think)

What's your point? I can't tell whether it's an interesting point if you don't spell it out.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Mandryka said:


> Yes (well, rectangular more or less I think)
> 
> What's your point? I can't tell whether it's an interesting point if you don't spell it out.


That your assertion that a square / rectangle of International Klein Blue is great art - is a stretch. A novelty perhaps, but surely nothing more.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

janxharris said:


> That your assertion that a square / rectangle of International Klein Blue is great art - is a stretch. A novelty perhaps, but surely nothing more.


All I was saying is that important institutions exhibit it as an important work.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Mandryka said:


> All I was saying is that important institutions exhibit it as an important work.


Isn't there a difference between great and merely novel? Nobody is going to achieve the likes of Mozart's 40th symphony or Sibelius's 5th symphony without an incredible degree of craftsmanship and inspiration.


----------



## Guest (May 13, 2019)

Forget about Nietsche, who seems to be an irrelevance to me, the OP doesn't make clear why he thinks that circumstances today are any worse than they were in the past for achieving "greatness in composition". Has the "herd mentality" become worse? If so, where's the evidence?

Assuming that high quality in classical music can be recognised and widely agreed upon, it's arguable that it should be just as possible today to achieve greatness as it has been over the past 800-900 years. 

If anything, it could be argued that opportunities today should be better, as a result of vastly better communications, education, leisure time, technology to listen to new music, general affluence etc.

On the other hand, there has already been an enormously wide variety of classical forms that have been tried in the past, with varying degrees of success. This might deter some otherwise potentially highly capable composers from bothering to try, if they thought that there would be little or no market for their "masterpiece(s)".

I'm not sure where the balance lies between these opposing considerations, but would guess that there are many "great" works still to come.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

janxharris said:


> Isn't there a difference between great and merely novel?


We're trying to get clear on what this difference consists in

One thing I believe, though I may be wrong, is that people who think that the concept is meaningful don't think that "X is great" because you or I say it is, any more than "x is against the law" or "x is gold" are true because you or I say they are. In both cases there are experts in applying the concept.

Relatedly someone just wrote this



Partita said:


> Assuming that high quality in classical music can be recognised and widely agreed upon,


But the same types of problems remain unaddressed. Widely agreed on by whom? Recognised by whom?

Applying concepts in hard cases may need a good deal of expertise, acuity, discernment.



janxharris said:


> INobody is going to achieve the likes of Mozart's 40th symphony or Sibelius's 5th symphony without an incredible degree of craftsmanship and inspiration.


Superficially this looks true but when you look closely at it there's a trap in the words



janxharris said:


> the likes of


You can imagine a chain of resemblances from Mozart 40 through to La Mer through to Luc Ferrari's Petite symphonie through to Kortapunkt through to Merzbow's Pulse Demon. The adjacent elements resemble each other. Are they all related by " . . . is the likes of . . . "? Is ". . . is the likes of . . . " transitive?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Today, the assertion by someone--anyone--that something is art is sufficient for it to be art. Sort of a Berkeleyan Idealism at work.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Several posts here suggest that the options for today's composers are fewer because it has all been done by now. But I suppose it might always have seemed like that. I assume a young budding composer knows the canon quite well but do they really sit and try to work out "what next"? It may be a romantic idea of mine but it seems to me that the composers who will matter have a vision and a voice that guide them in their writing. Influence from the past might often be more unconscious - they are, after all, living in their time - than a body of work to reject in their "search for something new to say". I wonder if it really is more difficult for a young composer today than it was for, say, Beethoven.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I agree with Woodduck in post #59. Nietzsche is often contradictory, and makes many off-the-wall statements. I wouldn't rely on him for any consistency.
Mandryka in post #70 seems to be on the same track as I am...the concept of "greatness" is totally a subjective call, which is in reality a 'resonance' with the work, not a permanent quality or even historical quality of it. This resonance can be different depending on context, time, era, and cultural conditions, and depending on who is engaging with it, because it is a phenomena of experience itself: being.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Strange Magic said:


> Today, the assertion by someone--anyone--that something is art is sufficient for it to be art. Sort of a Berkeleyan Idealism at work.





janxharris said:


> That your assertion that a square / rectangle of International Klein Blue is great art - is a stretch. A novelty perhaps, but surely nothing more.


Both of these positions are subjective, and confuse the interactive experience of art in trying to "objectify" it. There is no permanent "quality" to art, even a solid marble carving by Michelangelo.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> Both of these positions are subjective, and confuse the interactive experience of art in trying to "objectify" it. There is no permanent "quality" to art, even a solid marble carving by Michelangelo.


I think I agree with you, but, to be honest, your robust use of commas in your expositions on matters of art, religion, philosophy often overtaxes my weak brain and I am left wondering whether I understand you. The fault is surely mine.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> Today, the assertion by . . . anyone that something is art is sufficient for it to be art.


Why do you say that?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Mandryka in post #70 seems to be on the same track as I am...the concept of "greatness" is totally a subjective call, .


"Subjective" is a complex concept. For example, my sensation of green when I look at grass is subjective in a way, but it remains true, a fact about the world, that grass is green.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> "Subjective" isn't a complex concept. For example, my sensation of green when I look at grass is subjective in a way, but it remains true, a fact about the world, that grass is green.


Electromagnetic radiation in the wavelength range of 490-570 nanometers is perceived by the human brain as "green". Grass absorbs most of the other wavelengths and reflects mostly the radiation wavelengths between 490 and 570 nanometers. Other animal brains may perceive this as a color different from our perception.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

I've just been reading some correspondence between Claude Levy-Strauss and Andre Breton, and a brief passage cropped up which is kind of like this discussion. The thing they're discussing is quality in art, Levy Strauss has said in a previous letter that he thinks it's true that Dali is a great painter but a poor writer (in the context of arguing for a hierarchy of artistic value), and Breton replies as follows (my very rough and quick translation)



> I don't hold with the idea that Dali is a great painter for the excellent reason that his technique is clearly regressive. In his work, it's the man who interests me, and his poetic interpretation of the world.


I like the idea of regressive technique, and that such a backward looking approach to technique is a sign of not being a great artist. It would be the start of an explanation of why Klein is a great artist, especially when the blue canvas I pasted is seen in the context of an exploration, an exploration which includes paintings like these





















The curators are of course aware of this development and this recognition enables them to see the value in the blue rectangle, something which is harder for the general public. That's why they wouldn't put a blue rectangle by me or you in their collections.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> Electromagnetic radiation in the wavelength range of 490-570 nanometers is perceived by the human brain as "green". Grass absorbs most of the other wavelengths and reflects mostly the radiation wavelengths between 490 and 570 nanometers. Other animal brains may perceive this as a color different from our perception.


I'm sorry, I somehow typed _isn't _when I meant to type _is_!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mandryka said:


> ...I like the idea of regressive technique, and that such a backward looking approach to technique is a sign of not being a great artist.


Such a pity. Bach's _Musical Offering_ and _Art of Fugue_, being "backward looking," remove him from consideration as a great artist. That surprises me but, given the state of things now, probably shouldn't.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Such a pity. Bach's _Musical Offering_ and _Art of Fugue_, being "backward looking," remove him from considereation as a great artist. That surprises me but, given the state of things now, probably shouldn't.


You didn't realize that an artist who makes use of techniques employed by his predecessors can't be considered great? That's why there's almost no great music in history. Some anonymous genius came up with the idea of polyphony, another decided that a scale would have a tonic, and music was doomed to regressiveness until Schoenberg got rid of the tonic, which is why he is almost the only great composer in history - almost, because he just couldn't bring himself to dump polyphony too. What a lost opportunity for greatness!

Is greatness possible now? Ha. there's so much technique already in existence that all we can do is regress. But we're postmodern now, so its all good.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Ha.


Oh deary me.



KenOC said:


> Such a pity. Bach's _Musical Offering_ and _Art of Fugue_, being "backward looking," remove him from consideration as a great artist. That surprises me but, given the state of things now, probably shouldn't.


But there's an enormous galant trio sonata sitting in the middle of Opfer. Ken, how could you have missed it? Are you deaf?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Didn’t realise I was stepping in **** again. Stupid mistake


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Forss said:


> This striking question is posed by Nietzsche in his book _Beyond Good and Evil_ and seeks, I think, to discuss the issue of the individual in the midst of society, i.e., in Nietzsche's terms, in the midst of "herd morality". There seems to be little (if no) room for the individual to realise himself as an _individual_ in today's world, in our ever-increasing "herd morality", with identity politics currently en vogue, and his idiosyncrasies are, if anything, but labelled as "mental illness", etc. The _great_ artist is always an individual _in spite of_ his time, his "age", and his creations are always the product of an outstanding Will, as strong, confident and "natural" as Nature herself. Is greatness possible today, if by _greatness_ we mean, in Nietzsche's words, "the higher man, the higher soul, the higher duty, the higher responsibility, the creative fullness of power and mastery... of being noble, of willing to be for oneself, of being able to be different, of standing alone, and of having to live by one's own initiative?"


I've been hinting,,,,1st let me say, you have a great understanding of Nietzsche. Nietzsche was the only philosopher I recognized since Plato. I do not see any new Nietzsche's come along since he has passed away. Have you? How about in psychology , since Jung? No, none there either...now how about in politics ,,,who really cares,,,oh wait, we have Trump, the King of buffoonery. 
Lets move to music. Bach/Vivaldi/Mozart, nothing too novel, just great musical formations. 
Now lets move to post Nietzschean era.

Ravel, gorgeous , but definitely not modern. I'd say Prokofiev in his 2nd sym, breaks open new ground, along with his great 2nd VC, Szymanowski has individuality. 
Bartok as well offers new ground in music.

Shostakovich, a new modern master.

Got ahead of the time period, Schoenberg, Berg, Webern,,,then Karl hartmann, , Varses a huge influence on Elliott Carter. 
New ground in genius,,,who am I missing here?

Back to the OP's Q. 
No it is not possible. All things must pass so wrote George Harrison.

There are 3 or 4, maybe 5 composers which are the coda to this long 400 yr old great musical epoch, which is loosely, very broadly titled *the classical music tradition*.

Since the passing of these 3-6 coda composers, I've not seen anything faintly reminiscent of the greatness which is offered in their works. 
Others will chime in and claim some post ultra mods as part of this TRADITION, I just don't hear it.

Its all a matter of personal opinions , of course. Since I have no musical training, my opinions , least of all, count.

Not to say my beliefs should dampen any composers from working in modern music. By all means artists should express their creativity. 
Yet I am not sure I want to include many new works within the classical tradition. just can't. 
Not even a sub-genre.
I see it as separate.

Which irks me when I see post mod composers mentioned in classical forums.

The Byrds uses a line from Solomon, To everything, there is a season. Winter is over, with no spring.

I am completely satisfied what has been written, why be greedy here?
We all have our plates full, Besides with the extreme pressures of mod life, who has time to fully explore all our favorite/new composers masterpieces?

Last few months have made some major new discoveries, and so not really interest in making any new ones.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Subject?
Oh yes, well of course, I hold a subject opinion that Mozart's music is truly , uniquely great.
And the few dissenters can just go to,,,hel,,,to a corner and cry that the majority also hold this very same belief past 300 years. and will continue for another 300 yrs, The anomalists, the rare few who disdain Mozart will just have to get over the fcat that Mozart is not going away anytime soon.
Subjectivity? 
I mean I guess , but considering Mozart's genius has been accepted by the 99%, its really a objective belief and the 1% are a odd, even weird minority which holds to stubborn personal *subject* beliefs.


----------



## Flutter (Mar 26, 2019)

Forss said:


> This striking question is posed by Nietzsche in his book _Beyond Good and Evil_ and seeks, I think, to discuss the issue of the individual in the midst of society, i.e., in Nietzsche's terms, in the midst of "herd morality". There seems to be little (if no) room for the individual to realise himself as an _individual_ in today's world, in our ever-increasing "herd morality", with identity politics currently en vogue, and his idiosyncrasies are, if anything, but labelled as "mental illness", etc. The _great_ artist is always an individual _in spite of_ his time, his "age", and his creations are always the product of an outstanding Will, as strong, confident and "natural" as Nature herself. Is greatness possible today, if by _greatness_ we mean, in Nietzsche's words, "the higher man, the higher soul, the higher duty, the higher responsibility, the creative fullness of power and mastery... of being noble, of willing to be for oneself, of being able to be different, of standing alone, and of having to live by one's own initiative?"


Of course it is.


----------



## Forss (May 12, 2017)

paulbest said:


> No it is not possible. All things must pass so wrote George Harrison... I am completely satisfied what has been written, why be greedy here?


There is this lovely story of Mahler recounted in Bruno Walter's biography of him, which tells of a stroll between Mahler and a musician along the banks of a mountain stream. The musician starts to lament over the fact that the possibilities of music seems to be exhausted, and that nothing of value can ever be written again, whereby Mahler responds: "Why, look there my friend!" (pointing to the stream) - "What is it?" the musician asks in surprise. "The last wave!" ...

Nature is eternally new, eternally changing, etc., and the stream (i.e. human creativity) will never cease to flow.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

How many Plato/s come along? 
Jung, Nietzsche, Mozart, Van Gogh? 

Genius may come, then again may not. I am on the may not at the moment, Unless you can name me one great composer born post 1940?
If you look at list of classical composers born after 1940, there are perhaps 100K. 
You have a abundant list source. Give me one.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> Oh deary me.
> 
> But there's an enormous galant trio sonata sitting in the middle of Opfer. Ken, how could you have missed it? Are you deaf?


Someone seems a bit humor-challenged.

But then, posting Yves Kleine's painted blue rectangle with the statement, "I think it would be a slightly quirky thing to do to deny the greatness of Yves Kleine's IKB 79, given the way it has been received," does show a sense of humor.


----------



## Thomyum2 (Apr 18, 2018)

paulbest said:


> How many Plato/s come along?
> Jung, Nietzsche, Mozart, Van Gogh?
> 
> Genius may come, then again may not. I am on the may not at the moment, Unless you can name me one great composer born post 1940?
> ...


It's a little early to be trying to know which composers of this period will have made contributions that really endure. But I will go out on a limb and say that I think at some point in the future John Adams will be considered a great composer.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Thomyum2 said:


> It's a little early to be trying to know which composers of this period will have made contributions that really endure. But I will go out on a limb and say that I think at some point in the future John Adams will be considered a great composer.


 His harmonium is a interesting work. btw Gardner is a fine committed conductor,,,so can you help me translate this
*If any deciphers best, 
what we know 
not
ourselves can know*

I think I know what he is saying. 
I think this is like Lao Tzu and Socrates. 
Both say the same lines.

at 9:06


----------



## Gallus (Feb 8, 2018)

Strange Magic said:


> The above quote is such wonderful nonsense that it must be preserved! :lol:


Meh. Beethoven would have agreed with him.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Gallus said:


> Meh. Beethoven would have agreed with him.


Correct, this was my thought entirely.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Gallus said:


> Meh. Beethoven would have agreed with him.


Who knows more about what music the public should like--Babbitt, Boulez, Beethoven--or the public?


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

If you look at certain time frames in the evolution of music there are periods of relative stasis, there are also periods of time that are rather chaotic not yet revealing a real clear path forward, the latter was true in the mid 18th century between the Baroque and the proper Classical period. By contrast if we look at the Renaissance era we have a long stretch where music did not change dramatically over a long period of time. 

I think we are in essentially a combination of those two states at the moment. We have a kind of stasis in the sense that some composers are staying more or less traditional and not radically changing the old methods, we also have simultaneously a chaotic period of experimentation where composers are trying to find viable paths forward and are experimenting in multiple directions at once. I think some good music has come out of the chaos but there still hasn't been that ground breaking discovery, or composer that has shown a very fertile and promising path forward that becomes the dominant trend. But yes, I think greatness is possible today. Greatness doesn't occur in isolation though it is connected to the work of others that came before it, and even to progress in other areas of society.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Mike Oldfield's Incantations (1978) with it's nod to minimalism:


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

tdc said:


> there still hasn't been that ground breaking discovery, .


What would be the sign that the discovery is ground breaking? To be specific, why aren't (eg) Luc Ferrari's experiments ground breaking, or Lachenmann's?



tdc said:


> or composer that has shown a . . path . . that becomes the dominant trend..


Maybe that's your answer to the question above. If so the model of _dominant trend_ may be invalid these days. But that's not a problem, on the contrary.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> Who knows more about what music the public should like--Babbitt, Boulez, Beethoven--or the public?


Babbitt, Boulez and Beethoven, because they were experts who had cultivated their discernment and acuity.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Mandryka said:


> Maybe that's your answer to the question above. If so the model of _dominant trend_ may be invalid these days. But that's not a problem, on the contrary.


Yes, that is my answer to the question above. I find a fair amount of interesting things going on, stuff that is intriguing, and stuff that can provoke certain visceral responses, I find a lack of things that really move me. Things that have some heart. As far as I can tell our tastes in contemporary music are so far removed I don't think there is any point in discussing it much. This perhaps is one problem of the fracturing of music into so many different styles. It can leave those listening to current trends rather isolated in pockets or little music listening ghettos.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ Or, indeed, people who restrict their listening to any (or only a few) styles. But the key there is the restriction - if you love (and are moved by) some contemporary music that will place you in a smaller group but it doesn't bar you from membership of the groups who love the music of other ages.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> Babbitt, Boulez and Beethoven, because they were experts who had cultivated their discernment and acuity.


Sorry, but it just does not follow: a classic _non-sequitur_.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

No, I don't think so. In order to be able to appreciate something, you have to be able to perceive it. And you have to be _au fait _with the relevant evaluative concepts. Otherwise you're not appreciating it, you're just reacting in an animal way.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

tdc said:


> Yes, that is my answer to the question above. I find a fair amount of interesting things going on, stuff that is intriguing, and stuff that can provoke certain visceral responses, I find a lack of things that really move me. Things that have some heart.


What I want to say, I'm not sure how relevant it is to the discussion, is that there's head and there's heart. When I listen to music it feels like I'm engaging both. Maybe first you have to develop the intellectual side of appreciation and the emotional side may, or may not, follow. It really doesn't matter.

Sometimes I feel as though people engage with music like they might engage with pornography, or with a recreational drug -- hence concepts like visceral get used. People listen to music expecting to be "turned on" like they'd be turned on by a joint.

But there are more balanced ways of engaging with a high art form like classical music.


----------



## Thomyum2 (Apr 18, 2018)

Mandryka said:


> No, I don't think so. In order to be able to appreciate something, you have to be able to perceive it. And you have to be _au fait _with the relevant evaluative concepts. Otherwise you're not appreciating it, you're just reacting in an animal way.





Mandryka said:


> What I want to say, I'm not sure how relevant it is to the discussion, is that there's head and there's heart. When I listen to music it feels like I'm engaging both. Maybe first you have to develop the intellectual side of appreciation and the emotional side may, or may not, follow. It really doesn't matter.
> 
> Sometimes I feel as though people engage with music like they might engage with pornography, or with a recreational drug -- hence concepts like visceral get used. People listen to music expecting to be "turned on" like they'd be turned on by a joint.
> 
> But there are more balanced ways of engaging with a high art form like classical music.


I agree, I think it's possible to listen to music purely for enjoyment, and it's something we all do, but to appreciate is to listen also in order to know and understand. I've always seen these as two separate faculties, although they can and do complement each other and work together. One can say that a piece of music is 'great' because it is enjoyable, but a measure of greatness is also that the piece has quality and craftsmanship, that it is a creative work that contributes to the broader conversation and the development of the art form over time - a greatness in the 'idea' beyond just the capacity to elicit a sentiment. To perceive those kinds of qualities, I think one has to listen for things in the music other than just whether or not one enjoys or reacts positively to the sounds. The truly great works are those that can speak to both heart and mind.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Thomyum2 said:


> I agree, I think it's possible to listen to music purely for enjoyment, and it's something we all do, but to appreciate is to listen also in order to know and understand. I've always seen these as two separate faculties, although they can and do complement each other and work together. One can say that a piece of music is 'great' because it is enjoyable, but a measure of greatness is also that the piece has quality and craftsmanship, that it is a creative work that contributes to the broader conversation and the development of the art form over time - a greatness in the 'idea' beyond just the capacity to elicit a sentiment. To perceive those kinds of qualities, I think one has to listen for things in the music other than just whether or not one enjoys or reacts positively to the sounds. The truly great works are those that can speak to both heart and mind.


I am having difficulty with this "dualism". I can follow the idea that there is an intellectual side to appreciating music and an emotional one. But can they be separated like this? Can you have one without the other? Emotions are thoughts (albeit with a strong physical/bodily component and an apparent absence of analysis) but in appreciating art they are reached through analysis and discrimination. Although I can imagine (and have probably experienced) intellectual appreciation without emotional enjoyment, I am having difficulty thinking of an example where the emotional response is positive in the absence of intellectual appreciation. It seems to me that intellectual negation will not be accompanied by enjoyment. On the contrary, it leads to discomfort. I don't know how you arrive at deep emotional enjoyment without hearing, and having an understanding (which may be wrong!) of, what has gone into it. And I can't imagine experiencing music automatically and just by listening "mindlessly" (like consuming a drug or, perhaps, porn). Is that really a possibility? Wouldn't the enjoyment that resulted from listening to a cheap and mass-produced pop song be a much easier route to such gratification?

It is true that as a child I listened to music without so much understanding of what it was and yet still enjoyed a lot of it greatly. But even then there was an intellectual side to my listening. It just wasn't very informed. As my taste developed it informed my emotional response but, as I don't think I have dropped any works I loved then (once my taste and knowledge had grown more sophisticated), it seems to me that even if the intellectual comes first in the act of listening it is actually informed by the emotional. Over time you learn what makes art enjoyable.

There are many who know a lot more about music (or some music) than I do. Is their intellectual appreciation greater than mine or just different? Am I to think they get more _out of _the music than I do? As far as I can tell this is not the case.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> It is true that as a child I listened to music without so much understanding of what it was and yet still enjoyed a lot of it greatly. But even then there was an intellectual side to my listening.


Can you spell out this intellectual side a bit? Imagine a child who hasn't yet got the concepts of high and low pitch, fast or slow pulse, a child who just feels the urge to move with the music.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Can a dog appreciate music?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ The earliest piece of music I can remember - I must have been 3 years old - was of Wanda Landowska playing Bach. I didn't know who she was or who Bach was but I clearly recognised that the sound was a little out of the ordinary because when I wanted to hear it I would ask for the "ting tong music". When I actually started to listen to music on my own - there was often music going on in our house but I remember that as background sounds mostly - I must have been about 8 or so. My "first pieces" were two Mozart symphonies (35 and 40 - conducted by Bruno Walter) and I certainly recognised that there was movements that were at different speeds (and different in other ways, too) and I can remember being tempted to skip the slow movements (but resisting for some reason). My dad was a Beecham fan so I was also able to (and did) compare the Walter with Beecham's recordings of the same works. Next up was Beethoven (the 4th and 5th, I think, from Toscanini) and I certainly recognised that it was different. I think I knew that Beethoven came after Mozart. I can also still remember the distinctive sounds of the recordings and knowing that that was not part of the music (except it was for me at the time). It is hard for me to separate this thinking and knowledge from the emotional experience of listening.


----------



## Thomyum2 (Apr 18, 2018)

Enthusiast said:


> I am having difficulty with this "dualism". I can follow the idea that there is an intellectual side to appreciating music and an emotional one. But can they be separated like this? Can you have one without the other? Emotions are thoughts (albeit with a strong physical/bodily component and an apparent absence of analysis) but in appreciating art they are reached through analysis and discrimination. Although I can imagine (and have probably experienced) intellectual appreciation without emotional enjoyment, I am having difficulty thinking of an example where the emotional response is positive in the absence of intellectual appreciation. It seems to me that intellectual negation will not be accompanied by enjoyment. On the contrary, it leads to discomfort. I don't know how you arrive at deep emotional enjoyment without hearing, and having an understanding (which may be wrong!) of, what has gone into it. And I can't imagine experiencing music automatically and just by listening "mindlessly" (like consuming a drug or, perhaps, porn). Is that really a possibility? Wouldn't the enjoyment that resulted from listening to a cheap and mass-produced pop song be a much easier route to such gratification?
> 
> It is true that as a child I listened to music without so much understanding of what it was and yet still enjoyed a lot of it greatly. But even then there was an intellectual side to my listening. It just wasn't very informed. As my taste developed it informed my emotional response but, as I don't think I have dropped any works I loved then (once my taste and knowledge had grown more sophisticated), it seems to me that even if the intellectual comes first in the act of listening it is actually informed by the emotional. Over time you learn what makes art enjoyable.
> 
> There are many who know a lot more about music (or some music) than I do. Is their intellectual appreciation greater than mine or just different? Am I to think they get more _out of _the music than I do? As far as I can tell this is not the case.


I think you're right, it's hard to separate these out. I've come to believe that the 'intellectual' side of music can even be subconscious - what we are sometimes calling a 'visceral' reaction could actually be a subconscious reaction to a consciously and intentionally created idea in the music. Consider that we can listen to a very complex piece a few times and can fairly quickly learn to sign or hum the music - this is a very complex process yet we can do it almost without any conscious thought, similar to how we learn a language - some of the very things that make music enjoyable are the same things that make it interesting when approached from a more detached perspective. So just as we can study language to become better aware of its grammar and meaning and use, so can we also become more conscious of music's underlying forms.

I think that different people approach and think about music in different ways, just as yours and mine differ. For me, I think mine is in the way a mirror image of yours, as my early years of listening to classical music were purely 'emotional', so to speak - I listened for the passion, the energy, the excitement. Today I continue to listen to some of those same pieces, but I hear them in a new way and recognize that the composers have done such interesting and creative things with the forms and harmonies, that they have not just written music to be enjoyed but also essentially contributed to a conversation with the greater tradition in which they were working, and that adds a whole new dimension to the experience. True, it's hard to completely untangle these two threads of the experience, but that's all I mean when I distinguish 'appreciation' from 'enjoyment'.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Mandryka said:


> What I want to say, I'm not sure how relevant it is to the discussion, is that there's head and there's heart. When I listen to music it feels like I'm engaging both. Maybe first you have to develop the intellectual side of appreciation and the emotional side may, or may not, follow. It really doesn't matter.
> 
> Sometimes I feel as though people engage with music like they might engage with pornography, or with a recreational drug -- hence concepts like visceral get used. People listen to music expecting to be "turned on" like they'd be turned on by a joint.
> 
> But there are more balanced ways of engaging with a high art form like classical music.


There is some truth to what you are saying here, but I don't think it is quite so simple. Nor do I agree that the emotional side does not matter. I think there are dimensions to music beyond the emotional or the intellectual. For example if my visceral response to certain styles of music is consistently a feeling of being repulsed or disgusted I have come to place value on that "gut" instinct. In the same way sometimes I may occasionally meet a person who is friendly, cultured and intellectual, yet I get an uneasy feeling from them as if something is not quite right. I think those instincts have value. If they are consistent I think they are telling us something important. Call this a spiritual dimension of you want, some may consider it not that and simply instinctual. Some may equate the instinctual with lower desires or porn, and indeed sometimes it is easy to confuse our lower desires with a true "gut" instinct. We have all probably experienced this at one time or another in matters of love.

The fact is some things in life will make us feel disgusted and physically ill for a good reason - they are toxic. If I consume something poisonous the body will generally react with a feeling of disgust and repulsion. On the other hand it is possible to become accustomed to the poisons, and to begin to even crave them and to desire the effect they have on us. This is what drug addiction is all about. It is not always so easy to use discernment.

So I see your point, but I approach music in a wholistic way, but I also think its important not to try too hard. I don't think that the intellect is the highest aspect of music, or of life. This is why the greatest musicians when they improvise they claim they are at a level beyond thinking. I think thinking about music too much can lessen its impact. As you say it is a balance.

Your post suggests some may not use their head enough when listening to music and expect instant gratification, that is true. On the other hand I think it is possible to use the head too much and ignore other senses. Maybe some have become turned on by the ugly and nihilistic aspects of sound, they get stimulated by those aspects on a visceral level and confuse that with high art. There is also the feeling of elitism they may experience, maybe they make themselves feel intellectually superior, for appreciating something others do not. We could trade these indirect vague insults all day, but it is probably counterproductive.

The fact is this music you like is controversial, a lot of educated people dislike it, are they not educated enough? I think describing what you think are the music's qualities and how you experience it would probably be a more effective approach in winning people over than to simply suggest "You don't like the music I like, then you are not using your brain".


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Mandryka said:


> Can you spell out this intellectual side a bit? Imagine a child who hasn't yet got the concepts of high and low pitch, fast or slow pulse, a child who just feels the urge to move with the music.


Was there a reason you asked?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Yes. The problem was to identify whether it was possible to appreciate music affectively, with very attenuated cognitive processing. A young child, or indeed an animal, doesn't have the conceptual apparatus to listen in any way _but_ affectively. And babies, maybe even pre-natal babies, do seem to enjoy music.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> What I want to say, I'm not sure how relevant it is to the discussion, is that there's head and there's heart. When I listen to music it feels like I'm engaging both. Maybe first you have to develop the intellectual side of appreciation and the emotional side may, or may not, follow. It really doesn't matter.
> 
> Sometimes I feel as though people engage with music like they might engage with pornography, or with a recreational drug -- hence concepts like visceral get used. People listen to music expecting to be "turned on" like they'd be turned on by a joint.
> 
> But there are more balanced ways of engaging with a high art form like classical music.


Well, I was with you until the pornography and drug part. Of all the things to invoke that are completely unrelated to being turned on to the enjoyment of great music when music itself can be a drug and a natural high. But the head and the heart part was good even without having to smoke a joint.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Is greatness in composition possible today? Of course, it is… and there are composers working on it right now who are willing to make the sacrifice to study and learn and nurture their talent - that is, if they have any. They’re probably not on the Internet a lot and they have dedication, inspiration and focus because it’s the most important thing in their lives, and they are not going to be denied. Then it’s up to the listeners and posterity to decide what will survive... Not everybody exists in the presumptuous Friedrich Nietzsche ‘herd morality’, though it could be argued that it does exist, but his philosophy and observations didn’t exactly work out for him, did it? and was sometimes distorted or misinterpreted. There are always people who are willing to step out of the herd because they question things and that’s part of their creative awakening into the vast unknown. They have different values rather than just accepting whatever is convenient in the unconsciousness of society. They’re mavericks in search of the innovative and the unusual. They ultimately find and express their own genius by being willing to stand on their own creativity and their willingness to be alone with themselves. They endure a certain amount of isolation because they feel the rewards are worth it, and the creative act itself can be blissful and ecstatic.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Mandryka said:


> Yes. The problem was to identify whether it was possible to appreciate music affectively, with very attenuated cognitive processing. A young child, or indeed an animal, doesn't have the conceptual apparatus to listen in any way _but_ affectively. And babies, maybe even pre-natal babies, do seem to enjoy music.


It depends on how young. To the extent that you can separate affect from intellect meaningfully and practically (and can exclude affect from cognitive processing) it seems to me that both are operating in children as young as, say, four years old if not earlier. But, yes, enjoyment of sounds can happen in babies and animals and probably involves very little intellect. But I don't think that is music. Perhaps they can also recognise tunes? I'm not sure that I have seen that demonstrated. And, anyway, even the enjoyment of some sounds - and presumably the aversion to other sounds - must involve some reason, probably instinctual.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> But I don't think that is music.


Ah well, that's made the whole thing much more difficult. I vaguely remember in Cambridge philosophy they used to talk about "doing a conventionalist sulk" - where you'd so embellish a postulate with exceptions that it becomes unverifiable,.

Fairies dance in the kitchen at night.
Well I'll come down to see them
Don't be silly, as soon as they hear you they'll disappear
I'll tiptoe then
They have great hearing
Well, in that case I'll hide a camera.
They're no fools, they'll see the camera and hide from it.

And so on.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ Not at all. If babies are responding to music emotionally and without intellect then they will not be experiencing the development or the tune. All that is left is the sound. If they can and do respond to the tune - including being able to distinguish it from other tunes - then some intellectual activity must have gone on. As I have said, I don't think we can distinguish easily between the roles of our emotions and our intellect in appreciating music. At the very least they influence each other complexly. But, I wonder, are emotional and intellectual processes so distinct? And how would we know if they were? The separation seems to me to probably be a feature of our conscious experience - it _seems _that they are distinct - rather than of two separate processes. And the matter is further complicated by the story of what happens to our experience with a piece of music over time, as we get to know it.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Why shouldn’t they be experiencing the development of the tune without subsuming it under concepts? I can experience the taste of a cake without having any idea about how it’s made.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ I think you have changed the argument there. Or maybe I just misunderstood your argument earlier. If it is about understanding how the music (or cake) is made then I think you are getting into arguing that the musically educated get more out of music than those who are merely experienced listeners. And, given your earlier assertion, perhaps you are saying that the merely experienced listeners experience music in the same way as a drug user experiences drugs. 

But I don't think that is where you were going, is it? So it seems to me that a baby learning to recognise and enjoy a tune ("Twinkle Twinkle Little Star" or whatever) must be processing the sounds conceptually to arrive at their discrimination of the tune, including recognising that it is different from other tunes?


----------

