# Good Question



## linz (Oct 5, 2006)

Music, as everyone can agree, is the only art form which, by very nature is abstact. Therefore why does everyone have to put some impression, poetism, or syrupiness into it? Mahler symphonies would have been just as effective without him having to be such a discriptive narrater as to symbols and other bravura. These titles to symphonic poems and the creations of all the "isms" of the twentieth century have lead do de-evolution of form. There is no such thing as order anymore and it becomes increasingly difficult to categorize anything what-so-ever. I suppose its the ultimate 'Frued-ego' that led to all this filth after Wagner, everyone had to do the next 'dogma', be the next 'big-thing'! Samuel Beckett said it best, "Try again, Fail again, Fail better." or was it Puck in 'A Midsummer Night's Dream', "What fools these mortals be!"


----------



## Oneiros (Aug 28, 2006)

I'm not sure why people do it, but I'm not too fond of it either. But wasn't this a big debate during the late 19th Century - Programme & Descriptive music vs. Absolute music.

I think that the purely musical idea/feeling is infinitely more important than what it could possibly represent or refer to in the real world, otherwise one might as well choose a different art form, which is better at depicting or referring to reality, i.e. poetry, painting, etc.


----------



## Topaz (Oct 25, 2006)

Linz

If I have understood your point, I don't agree with you that all these 20th C "isms" are just mere names. They do indicate a different style of music. Impressionism for example is unmistakably different from Romantic. Even among those "isms" where the differences are not that great, what's the problem with re-labelling something provided it is different? It doesn't bother me in the slightest what they call it. I don't like most of it anyway. Let them call it what like.

Topaz


----------



## Topaz (Oct 25, 2006)

Linz

If I have understood your point, I don't agree with you that all these 20th C "isms" are just mere names. They do indicate a different style of music. Impressionism for example is unmistakably different from Romantic. Even among those "isms" where the differences are not that great, what's the problem with re-labelling something provided it is different? It doesn't bother me in the slightest what they call it. I don't like most of it anyway. Let them call it what they like.

Topaz


----------

