# New aesthetic, or why to trade in your piano



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

I could listen to Bach, Mozart, Schumann all day. The quality of their music outstrips any necessity for new or improved aesthetic. When I think of aesthetics that have really appealed to sitting down to, it's often the sense of variety to take me places, some simple things come to mind like the highly textural palette of Andean or epic atmospheres, like hauntingly subtle choral voices or percussion evoking escapism, followed by some triumphant thematic scene of maybe brass and portamento strings, and whatever else your quester's sword can draw up. The ultimate goal is variety, a concept that used to be home to this forum. I can't seem to fathom listening to the squeaking plucks of concerti or the watery piano and vocal clamor for the rest of my days, unless as I said, the compositional mastery outweighs the sufferable ear of anyone who had to endure such an oversaturated era. This goes for pop and rock music just as so, both offering repetitive fonts that should bring feelings of guilt for any sense of higher visionary concept. Late Romantic and Contemporary composers started getting around this barbaric pomp of standardism by creating 'imaginative' music, like Ravel's variation on the noir keys of a Russian, Rimsky's Theme on a Prince, Barber's Essays and later some of the most transcendental and legendary film music ever (halfway in.) *But I veer off topic*, as even then, there was this overreliance on this old lingering gimmick we forgot about: "drama," and it continued to sell the music to people who couldn't simply hear. The real subtlety and craft of music was missing still, as though the repeating pulse of the V7 cadence was the ultimate ends to music now, currently dead to me, or I suppose Wagner might've been okay with it as long as the loud, passionate wailings of voice or strings took control. But now I sit here still wondering about our community, if there's hope in some of you to open new doors to me the composers who not only mastered composition like the purist Bach, but who started to stay true again to "sound" and its variety, its _source_ of satisfaction, like his now-dated love of the Lautenwerck and unequal temperaments. For this thread, I'm inviting you to share all or any of your favorite examples of higher aesthetic visions or aesthetic variety different from the norm. Try to leave the redundant cheese and drama of chamber and symphony, impulsive lieder and V7 cadences for all the other threads!


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Hmmm.
Before I trade in my piano, I'd better read your post again.
Meanwhile, it certainly won't hurt to listen to some Bach, Mozart, and Schumann while I work on deciphering this "new aesthetic". "aesthetic visions or aesthetic variety" stuff you write about.
Whew!


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

...post deleted


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Would a mod move this to a better forum then? I don't want to sit around with the group that snarfs cheeseburgers all day and calls it advanced, when I don't want to talk about cheeseburgers. I do remember this stick hut used to have people and threads with more than one personality, did the admins forget to make forums for them? Should I go post in the deleted section, or await another McDonalds franchise automated response?


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Ethereality said:


> Would a mod move this to a better forum then? I don't want to sit around with the group that snarfs cheeseburgers all day and calls it advanced, when I don't want to talk about cheeseburgers. I do remember this stick hut used to have people and threads with more than one personality, did the admins forget to make forums for them? Should I go post in the deleted section, or await another McDonalds franchise automated response?


You better can contact theme via P.M. The names are under every section on the forum.


----------



## 1846 (Sep 1, 2021)

I'm sorry, I've read this over five times since I got up much earlier this morning and I don't quite get what you're after. Something about finding new music, maybe, written as well as Bach and Mozart wrote their own music in their own time. In any event, I'm not willing to trade off either of my pianos, and I'm not sure what my annual eating of a cheeseburger has to do with anything. I really wanted to understand.


----------



## pjang23 (Oct 8, 2009)

Poster looks down his nose on the forum and wants the forum to reassure him of his imagined superiority for considering Joe Hisaishi and Nobuo Uematsu more interesting than the entire repertoire of classical music (which somehow entirely lacks variety). Yawn.


----------



## 1846 (Sep 1, 2021)

Yeah, that's what I was assuming.


----------



## Livly_Station (Jan 8, 2014)

*SELLING MY PIANO*

Only in America -- the continent. Send me a message so we can agree to a price.

Greetings,
Livly


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Ethereality said:


> I could listen to Bach, Mozart, Schumann all day. The quality of their music outstrips any necessity for new or improved aesthetic. When I think of aesthetics that have really appealed to sitting down to, it's often the sense of variety to take me places, some simple things come to mind like the highly textural palette of Andean or epic atmospheres, like hauntingly subtle choral voices or percussion evoking escapism, followed by some triumphant thematic scene of maybe brass and portamento strings, and whatever else your quester's sword can draw up.


Something goes awry in this section. It seems that Bach, Schumann and Mozart, which the OP can listen to all day, offers an appealing aesthetic that you can "sit down to" (presumably to concentrate, rather than have it on in the background while you do the washing up?) - an aesthetic that can take you places...

...but the clips aren't Bach, Schumann or Mozart. 

Perhaps the OP might try again, to speak in a less convoluted and confusing manner?


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

How about a music without sound? 


Okay, that was kind of snarky, but it seems to me that composers have been experimenting with new aesthetics for over a century -- twelve note, serial, musique concrete, aleatory, micro-tonal, electronic, minimalist, neoclassic, neoromantic . . . with no end in sight. Like they say about New England weather, just wait a minute and something new will turn up. Not sure exactly what you're getting at, but no end of choices.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

pjang23 said:


> Poster looks down his nose on the forum and wants the forum to reassure him of his imagined superiority for considering Joe Hisaishi and Nobuo Uematsu more interesting than the entire repertoire of classical music (which somehow entirely lacks variety). Yawn.


This is probably the wackiest most insane comment I've ever heard on this forum, and has complete opposite to do with this thread. Yet I know you are pretending you didn't read it just to spite me and topics like this. The topic was crystal clear and you know it. When I opened up this topic to be as broad as it can possible be and you're _still_ trying to shut it down and not respond to it, it just goes to show with all your supporters there, how very LITTLE this forum cares about diverse content and exploring new things. You probably don't know any good music of new aesthetics, why don't you go back to talking about the piano in all your favorite Chopin threads and stop bothering others?


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

MarkW said:


> How about a music without sound?
> 
> Okay, that was kind of snarky, but it seems to me that composers have been experimenting with new aesthetics for over a century -- twelve note, serial, musique concrete, aleatory, micro-tonal, electronic, minimalist, neoclassic, neoromantic . . . with no end in sight. Like they say about New England weather, just wait a minute and something new will turn up. Not sure exactly what you're getting at, but no end of choices.


Why might you say we should mention compositional technique, when the topic is clearly about aesthetics and instrumentation, with all the old retired examples I gave (like string chamber music and symphony), and new examples of some I enjoy? Why not post different examples of your favorites to share around and explain them better? Repeating gimmicks like the pulsating of V7 cadence will be one aesthetic concern of a type, because it's at the very forefront of what he hear in much Classical. It's not a compositional theory, but an explicit example.

I never assumed some of my own favorite aesthetics I gave are superior, I just gave new examples to show. I don't understand what is going on in this place. I clearly said by the end they were compositionally limited. People are trying to derail this topic and change it again back to Bach and Mozart because they have nothing better to do than sell more of the cheeseburgers, when there's plenty of other food. But I thank you for being the first to contribute _something_, though I have no reference to what it is.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

pjang23 said:


> Poster looks down his nose on the forum and wants the forum to reassure him of his imagined superiority for considering Joe Hisaishi and Nobuo Uematsu more interesting than the entire repertoire of classical music (which somehow entirely lacks variety). Yawn.





Ethereality said:


> This is probably the wackiest most insane comment I've ever heard on this forum, and has complete opposite to do with this thread. Yet I know you are pretending you didn't read it just to spite me and topics like this. The topic was crystal clear and you know it. When I opened up this topic to be as broad as it can possible be and you're _still_ trying to shut it down and not respond to it, it just goes to show with all your supporters there, how very LITTLE this forum cares about diverse content and exploring new things. You probably don't know any good music of new aesthetics, why don't you go back to talking about the piano in all your favorite Chopin threads and stop bothering others?


*May I remind the posters of the Talk Classical guidelines:*



> Be polite to your fellow members. If you disagree with them, please state your opinion in a »civil« and respectful manner.


That said,



Ethereality said:


> The topic was crystal clear and you know it.


I beg to differ. I did not understand your post either, and obviously from the responses, the same holds for others. I suggest you sit back and try to rephrase your post in a way that we can understand it.


----------



## mossyembankment (Jul 28, 2020)

Ethereality said:


> This is probably the wackiest most insane comment I've ever heard on this forum, and has complete opposite to do with this thread. Yet I know you are pretending you didn't read it just to spite me and topics like this. The topic was crystal clear and you know it. When I opened up this topic to be as broad as it can possible be and you're _still_ trying to shut it down and not respond to it, it just goes to show with all your supporters there, how very LITTLE this forum cares about diverse content and exploring new things. You probably don't know any good music of new aesthetics, why don't you go back to talking about the piano in all your favorite Chopin threads and stop bothering others?


Respectfully - there's only one wacky post in this thread, and it's the first one. It's not crystal clear, as almost every reply has been saying. Nobody is trying to shut you down, it's just that nobody can tell what you're trying to say.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

To Whom It May Concern: Don't trade in your piano, get it tuned and play it.


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

SanAntone said:


> To Whom It May Concern: Don't trade in your piano, get it tuned and play it.


Or don't get it tuned and who knows a new aesthetic may be born - and I'm not trying to be sarcastic.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

SanAntone said:


> To Whom It May Concern: Don't trade in your piano, get it tuned and play it.


Inb4 someone was to continue to derail, I was actually about to respond to the poster you stole this comment from.  Trade your piano in and get a more _on-topic_ composers' tool! A diverse orchestral and ethnic synthesizer: 



. In the years to come, with people creating brand new categories of real-sounding instruments in the lab, you can explore all the diverse textures and aesthetics this topic is clearly about.



Malx said:


> Or don't get it tuned and who knows a new aesthetic may be born - and I'm not trying to be sarcastic.


Yes, we had a more specific thread a few years ago that died about the piano being used in unusual ways. Would be great if people were interested in all the possibilities in sound orchestration and new textures, but I'm still waiting skeptically.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Ethereality said:


> Inb4 someone was to continue to derail, I was actually about to respond to the poster you stole this comment from.


I didn't know it had been said before, I had not read previous posts. In any event, I have nothing more to say.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

If by "new aesthetic" you mean new sounds I have enjoyed the more outre Varese works, music for prepared piano, and some works involving electronic tape. The theremin and ondes martenot are too swoopy for my taste.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Ethereality said:


> Trade your piano in and get a more _on-topic_ composers' tool! A diverse orchestral and ethnic synthesizer:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That link is not a stellar example of programming in LogicPro and does nothing to sell the idea of DAW creativity. There is no doubt that samples are creeping closer to reality but they are a long way off yet. I've personally never seen the point in using orchestral samples in unpractical ways, not related to realism as it just sounds wrong to my ears, but there's no denying that some composers do use them in such a manner and its often the untrained composer who does so. Not that music can't be made in such a way I suppose, I'm just old skool.
MarkW said it above, there has been plenty of electronic exploration and new aesthetics arising from synth manipulation and it is still ongoing.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

I enjoy the coda to the last movement of Beethoven's E-flat quartet, Op. 127, because it gives the effect of oozing into the tonic key for the cadence. It would be fun to hear how one of those swoopy electronic instruments would sound doing it. -)


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

MarkW said:


> If by "new aesthetic" you mean new sounds I have enjoyed the more outre Varese works, music for prepared piano, and some works involving electronic tape. The theremin and ondes martenot are too swoopy for my taste.





MarkW said:


> I enjoy the coda to the last movement of Beethoven's E-flat quartet, Op. 127, because it gives the effect of oozing into the tonic key for the cadence. It would be fun to hear how one of those swoopy electronic instruments would sound doing it. -)


That's really interesting. I never got into what people call the electronic sound, even an orchestral and ethnic synthesizer poses as a standin concept for actual recordings of some of the best accoustics like many of the links in my OP, but I haven't had any problems engineering my temps to sound fully realistic. It's just another skill. What Ive gotten from Beethoven is a primarily textural philosophy people gravitate towards whether its close and personal ensembles, or orchestrations, but the limitations of such arrangements and instruments get extremely old for me. I'll have to render that Beethoven work electronically and send you a preview. Textures and dynamics are his domain but that's why I gravitate towards Bach, Mozart, Schumann--their music to me holds up incredibly better for extra-aesthetic reworkings, I've often incorporated their influences into my "symphonies" or what I'd call Subtile Legenden, for their vast and diverse narratives and their perspectives on many shades of characterizations and archetypes. I posted this thread hoping people would use it for actual sound exploration, and I'm going to be listening to more Varese today. Thanks for your input this far!


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Ethereality said:


> ............... but I haven't had any problems engineering my temps to sound fully realistic. It's just another skill...........


Can you link some of these mock-ups for us?...I'm always curious to hear how others achieve realism with VSL and the like.


----------



## Symphonic (Apr 27, 2015)

Paragraphs would be favourable in accompanying your points.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

I want to apologize to everyone for misunderstanding. I thought it was understood a fresh and welcome perspective was presented and just inquired on your own favorite aesthetics different from the main reportoire. For example, Romantic era music and later symphonic and traditional music I don't consider anything 'new' to be too defensive about, when it's a fresh new topic. If we had a different forum of people interested in new music and instrumentation, like I thought we already had, judging by a poll that says 'contemporary is the forum's favorite period' even if the Big 3 are the favorite composers, yet I saw new threads about Beethoven and Bach going viral again, and no one caring to contribute any of their contemporary visions here.



mikeh375 said:


> Can you link some of these mock-ups for us?...I'm always curious to hear how others achieve realism with VSL and the like.


I once uploaded a video explaining how I achieve this. It went through a quick example of a simultaneous composition idea and editing together, the technique of other words, 'composing by sound and gut.' The question is, is it any different from the past composers writing for their choice of instruments what sounds best? I'll have to get around to uploading some of my older weaker works. The techniques I apply revolve around high awareness of sound:

Separate voice trackings that each have their own adjusted EQs, effects, intonations and detunings to bring out a natural texture
Hearing what sounds the best and combining soundfonts into one voice to create richer and more 'live' sections
Applying highly experimental and instinctual results to voicings categorized into 'sections.' These sections are philosophical in their dichotomization, meaning I want certain rhythmic groups that may seem arbitrary to some, to express one side of a spectrum in qualities and timbres, and others to express others
Additionally composing works utilizing accoustic wave structures, ie. composing all the "hidden, faint notes" you hear in recordings
Really without overworking this hobby too much, but certainly bringing enough creativity and variation. Much of it I don't consider a realism craft, but rather an aptitude for composition and mixing


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Well, this music isn't exactly new. It's a trio for flute, cello and piano that I've heard performed several times, including by my teacher in Carnegie Recital Hall in New York back when I was a HS student. But it qualifies as reflecting a new aesthetic as compared with Bach, Beethoven and Schumann, though it draws on older ones, as all art does. It's 50 years old this year.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

fluteman said:


> Well, this music isn't exactly new. It's a trio for flute, cello and piano that I've heard performed several times, including by my teacher in Carnegie Recital Hall in New York back when I was a HS student. But it qualifies as reflecting a new aesthetic as compared with Bach, Beethoven and Schumann, though it draws on older ones, as all art does. It's 50 years old this year.


A new aesthetic? And how does it draw on older ones as all art does? I see this as some sort of performance art more than anything else given the masks and the behavior of the artists as if something very profound is occurring. The last few minutes develop into something like a trio, but even that consists of the repetition of notes played with great seriousness by the pianist. Fwiw, I find the messing with strings in a grand piano as an affectation when there are perfectly good harps available...


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

DaveM said:


> A new aesthetic? And how does it draw on older ones as all art does? I see this as some sort of performance art more than anything else given the masks and the behavior of the artists as if something very profound is occurring. The last few minutes develop into something like a trio, but even that consists of the repetition of notes played with great seriousness by the pianist. Fwiw, I find the messing with strings in a grand piano as an affectation when there are perfectly good harps available...


What did your post contribute to this discussion? Why not learn more about this music, if you're interested, or if not, move on to another thread?

If you're asking your questions sincerely (which I doubt), I'd respond that in addition to evoking whale songs and other sounds of nature, this piece makes use of a number of non-standard western musical effects, such as the ancient Aeolian harp 'wind chime' effect, not to mention the humorous quote of the famous beginning of Also Sprach Zarathustra. There is also a program here, beginning with the Vocalise for the beginning of time, and moving on to the Archeizoic, Mesozoic (with dinosaurs) and Cenozoic eras. Hidden in the background are the sonorities of a very traditional western chamber music trio, hence the masks, in my opinion.

Crumb's ability to evoke such themes as the beginning of time and the earliest days of life on the planet Earth using the instruments of Haydn or Boccherini isn't just a parlor card trick, it's an invitation to open one's ears to a wider possibility of sound. Whale songs, not heard until modern technology could detect them, are a creative choice of source material. The sounds of nature, such as bird calls, have always been a source for music, why not make use of our expanding soundscape? Perhaps Debussy's La Mer would be very different had today's technology been available to him, never mind Respighi's The Birds.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

fluteman said:


> ...using the instruments of Haydn or Boccherini isn't just a parlor card trick, it's an invitation to open one's ears to a wider possibility of sound...
> 
> Perhaps Debussy's La Mer would be very different had today's technology been available to him, never mind Respighi's The Birds.


My bet is that both of the above would be poorer. A weakness in *some* modern music (in my opinion) is the emphasis on sound for its own sake. Yeah, it's cool (for a minute or two) to strum on piano strings or put paper or something on top of them and hear the difference in sound. The notes being played at times seem of secondary importance. That would not lie on the Bach-Mozart-Beethoven continuum, as we're told it does.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

fluteman said:


> What did your post contribute to this discussion? Why not learn more about this music, if you're interested, or if not, move on to another thread?
> 
> If you're asking your questions sincerely (which I doubt), I'd respond that in addition to evoking whale songs and other sounds of nature, this piece makes use of a number of non-standard western musical effects, such as the ancient Aeolian harp 'wind chime' effect, not to mention the humorous quote of the famous beginning of Also Sprach Zarathustra. There is also a program here, beginning with the Vocalise for the beginning of time, and moving on to the Archeizoic, Mesozoic (with dinosaurs) and Cenozoic eras. Hidden in the background are the sonorities of a very traditional western chamber music trio, hence the masks, in my opinion.
> 
> Crumb's ability to evoke such themes as the beginning of time and the earliest days of life on the planet Earth using the instruments of Haydn or Boccherini isn't just a parlor card trick, it's an invitation to open one's ears to a wider possibility of sound. Whale songs, not heard until modern technology could detect them, are a creative choice of source material. The sounds of nature, such as bird calls, have always been a source for music, why not make use of our expanding soundscape? Perhaps Debussy's La Mer would be very different had today's technology been available to him, never mind Respighi's The Birds.


You apparently are hearing things that I don't. Fine. I appreciate the description you gave, although the video still comes across to me as performance art. And by the way, this is a forum; I have a right to give an opinion without being personally attacked.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

I think that idea implies Beethoven was in the wrong for designing symphonies with many instrument parts, or Dvorak or Mahler. Orchestration is a useless concept now, so no wonder people have a hard time simply extending and appreciating this concept even further. In fact I'm sure there's great music like this, people are either not wanting to share, or have never listened to before.

I guess this thread is being closed. It's unfortunate that egos got the best of people here, though I'm sorry others couldn't just hear my and other perspectives clearly.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Ethereality said:


> ...
> I guess this thread is being closed. It's unfortunate that egos got the best of people here, though I'm sorry others couldn't just hear my and other perspectives clearly.


Well "ego" would be "higher aesthetic visions" which may or may not be "higher"...just "different". Also the cheeseburger thing. The problem is that the premise of the thread isn't very clear.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Ethereality said:


> I think that idea implies Beethoven was in the wrong for designing symphonies with many instrument parts, or Dvorak or Mahler. Orchestration is a useless concept now, so no wonder people have a hard time simply extending and appreciating this concept even further. In fact I'm sure there's great music like this, people are either not wanting to share, or have never listened to before...


On reflection, I think I have an idea what you were getting at in the OP and the idea has potential interest. But if the aim is a new aesthetic, wouldn't it be better to envision it with new sources of sound (eg. new instruments, electronics etc.) rather than using present instruments of the orchestra in a way they were never intended. Holding a flute to the lips and vocalizing, sliding a finger up and down the A-string of a cello and plucking the strings of a grand piano just doesn't seem to me as an example of the beginning of a useful new aesthetic.

Fwiw, IMO, Beethoven designed symphonies using instruments the way they were intended and I haven't seen any sign that orchestration is a useless concept.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

dissident said:


> Well "ego" would be "higher aesthetic visions" which may or may not be "higher"...just "different". Also the cheeseburger thing. The problem is that the premise of the thread isn't very clear.


This is not true. The point of the thread was to share on a perspective, it doesn't even have to be personal. It's when people take it personally by bringing the same food they always do into discussion again, and responding negatively to the actual topic, like many on the first page contributed to. Like I said I can enjoy cheeseburgers, but I also want to talk about other food. Anyone can have higher aesthetic visions. If the thread is not clear by now, then like Art Rock told me, close it. It's likely not for this forum.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Ethereality said:


> Orchestration is a useless concept now


Says who? And if it's just you saying it, why...what's your evidence?



Ethereality said:


> I guess this thread is being closed


Have you asked for it to be closed?



Ethereality said:


> It's unfortunate that egos got the best of people here, though I'm sorry others couldn't just hear my and other perspectives clearly.


It's unfortunate that despite several people reporting their difficulty in understanding what you were saying, you insist that we're the ones at fault.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Forster said:


> It's unfortunate that despite several people reporting their difficulty in understanding what you were saying, you insist that we're the ones at fault.


Simply untrue. I gave a perspective and asked for others. There's nothing more I can do to clarify it, it sounds crystal clear to me. I'm not insisting on anything.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Ethereality said:


> If the thread is not clear by now, then like Art Rock told me, close it.


Please do not put words in my mouth.

What I said was: "I still think your first post is unclear, and I would think it might be better to start a new thread clearly explaining what you would like to see discussed - we can close this one then."


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Ethereality said:


> .......................
> 
> I once uploaded a video explaining how I achieve this. It went through a quick example of a simultaneous composition idea and editing together, the technique of other words, 'composing by sound and gut.' The question is, is it any different from the past composers writing for their choice of instruments what sounds best? *I'll have to get around to uploading some of my older weaker works*. The techniques I apply revolve around high awareness of sound:
> 
> ...


Don't upload your weaker works, let's hear your best works.....btw Orchestration is not a useless concept, it's still a vital component of composition even for those composers who use extended techniques.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Ethereality said:


> Simply untrue. I gave a perspective and asked for others. There's nothing more I can do to clarify it, it sounds crystal clear to me. I'm not insisting on anything.


Simply true. For example, here's what 5 different posters said:



> Not sure exactly what you're getting at





> I'm sorry, I've read this over five times since I got up much earlier this morning and I don't quite get what you're after.





> Something goes awry in this section





> I did not understand your post either, and obviously from the responses, the same holds for others.





> It's not crystal clear, as almost every reply has been saying. Nobody is trying to shut you down, it's just that nobody can tell what you're trying to say.


To which you said:



> The topic was crystal clear and you know it.





> People are trying to derail this topic and change it again


To be fair, you did apologise and try to refine your topic, but you're still objecting to getting "cheeseburgers" in response and complaining that it's posters egos that are preventing your topic getting discussed properly.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

I'm talking about the 5+ other contributors including yourself who preferred to post and like derailing off-topic content. I just said I did everything I could possibly do to clarify. You're still wanting to derail people actually responding to the subject, which shows I was correct. Pleaer move yourself out of this thread.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Ethereality said:


> I'm talking about the 5+ other contributors including yourself who preferred to post and like derailing off-topic content. I just said I did everything I could possibly do to clarify. You're still wanting to derail people actually responding to the subject, which shows I was correct. Pleaer move yourself out of this thread.


It's not off-topic to ask for clarification, which is what my first post requested. Perhaps I could have phrased my request less...forcefully. I'm sorry. I've since posted only in response to your posts, including querying your point about orchestration being "a useless concept". You could get us both back on track by explaining why you think this.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

mikeh375 said:


> Don't upload your weaker works, let's hear your best works.....btw Orchestration is not a useless concept, it's still a vital component of composition even for those composers who use extended techniques.


Very true, but I'm not sure if this is mainly a composition forum judging by some of the inverse trends from its reality. What do you think? However rereading what I wrote contextually and anologically: "if this thread's ideas were showing to be dead, why not orchestration?" They follow along the same lines. Orchestration is primarily about the appreciation and mastery of _aesthetic_ counterpoint and composition. And here we're talking about _new_ or uncommon aesthetics, so I wouldn't want to defer to classic orchestration, but to talk about new aesthetics. But that's just me. I'd also like to hear more of peoples thoughts who might possibly enjoy this subject.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I thought I'd mention *Morton Subotnick*, in light of the general topic of this thread.

He was one of the pioneers of synthesizers in the 1950's. Here, he discusses how the Buchla synthesizer opened up new paths for musicians - basically in explorations of pure sound.

He dismisses even the early electronic compositions of Stockhausen as still being old music, because serialism grew out of and was therefore restricted to the diatonic scale. In this regard, he says the Buchla was unique because it didn't have a keyboard, those synthesizers (like the Moog) came later. So from the start, there was potential for electronic music to create a new aesthetic, new ways of composing, listening, distribution, the lot.

He talks about why he made the choice, as a young musician, to ditch making "old new music" and fully devote himself to the uncharted territory offered by the development of this new instrument:

_"I could continue writing music, I could play the clarinet. There's no way I could offer to the world anything like what Beethoven did. There's nothing wrong with not doing that, but if I truly have the ability to be at this moment and to be part of whatever its going to be, and even the tiniest impact on it, well how could I give that up?"_






Here, he demonstrates the instrument, which he calls a _sound easel_:






*Suzanne Ciani,* one of Subotnick's colleagues, talks about how the full potential of music for synthesizers hasn't been realised. Later versions like Moog and the synclavier (adapted by many musicians in the popular realm) only opened up one of several paths for synthesizer music.

_"What happened was to market the instrument...a keyboard was put on it, and so everybody said, 'Ah, its a musical instrument [because] it has a keyboard.' The whole thing was hijacked ... the potential of electronic music didn't get realised. It went down a left turn, and its just coming back now.

That's why this period is so exciting right now because we're getting another chance with a more educated audience. When I played for an audience in the past, I didn't have that listening to play into. Now I play and the kids know what's going on and that's so refreshing, amazing, revolutionary. This is a very exciting time, right now, to be playing live."_


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Just to hijack the thread (such as it is) for a minute, we seem to be forgetting that between 95% and 99% of all art is dreck -- including whatever pieces are written in response to Ethereality's call for a new aesthetic. But we need the 99% to get the one that's worth experiencing. Sometimes the wait can be frustrating.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

MarkW said:


> Just to hijack the thread (such as it is) for a minute, we seem to be forgetting that between 95% and 99% of all art is dreck -- including whatever pieces are written in response to Ethereality's call for a new aesthetic. But we need the 99% to get the one that's worth experiencing. Sometimes the wait can be frustrating.


I think there's a lot of truth in that. The percentage of music -- or composers for that matter -- from whatever genre that has/have real staying power is probably teeny-tiny. But then again we never know whether what we overlook or dismiss today might be thought of as a masterpiece just a few decades from now.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Thanks Sid - I watched the first two vids and was struck by the idea of a musical instrument that didn't have a keyboard (theremin anyone?) and how the use of the x/y interface has been absorbed into popular music via, for example, the Kaoss pad

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2011/mar/09/whats-that-sound-kaoss-pad

So, is Morton Subotnick's work within a new aesthetic?


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Sid James said:


> I thought I'd mention *Morton Subotnick*, in light of the general topic of this thread.
> 
> He was one of the pioneers of synthesizers in the 1950's. Here, he discusses how the Buchla synthesizer opened up new paths for musicians - basically in explorations of pure sound.
> 
> ...


Thanks from me too Sid.
I totally got Ciani's regrets about keyboards being tacked onto synth modules as being similar to what is sometimes referred to as the tyranny of the keyboard when composing orchestral music. Physical limitations such as those presented by hands are obviously not apparent in the audio spectrum and it is best explored as a smooth continuum imv. An orchestral composer is better served with the manuscript as the only physical limitation (yet representing total acoustic and timbral space). Ciani, rightly imv, realised that playing the electronics themselves and exploiting at source and in the moment, voltage, is the purest and most effective way to exploit the medium. Keeping free of the 'tyranny' of the black and white (tempered!) keyboard will also avoid the creative psychological effect that can unduly influence composing and improvising.

Another thought also came to mind re the tolerance of dissonance and athematicism. The electronic overtones can be individually micro-managed to such a degree that the harmonic possibilities are truly infinite and one wonders if a fan of this music might at one point find their way to avant-garde acoustic music and not find its improvisatory, stream of consciousness syntax such a shock. I remember when samples first hit the market, how suddenly parallelism became a thing in popular music thanks to (ironically in this case) the keyboard layout and its transposing of a sampled chord across all twelve notes.

It's so cool to see Subotnik staying on top of the technology. He uses Ableton I see. I use LogicProX which also comes stacked with synths and tone generators etc. I also use a controller that manipulates the parameters of sound which is fully customisable and includes functions like x/y axis manipulations and faders on my iPad (touchOSC..https://hexler.net/touchosc). Mine is used to manipulate orchestral samples as that's my thing, but I could easily use it on synths if I wanted to. Ciani also mentions acoustics and this aspect can now be fully automated and one can warp space as much as the moment demands, opening up another vast soundworld ripe for exploitation. The kids today have access to these resources and are expressing themselves in their bedrooms. As Ciani says, for that genre and thanks to the DAW, it is an exciting time. Oh yeah, then there is IRCAM who are also releasing software ripe for manipulation..https://www.flux.audio/project/spat-revolution/..and...https://www.ircamlab.com/

edit...I think Sid you've put this thread on track. However there is no 'new' aesthetic' as it's been with us for decades, what do you think OP?


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

The keyboard, standardized as it is, allows me to reproduce something that Bach or Beethoven composed centuries ago. While this "new aesthetic" may be interesting, it doesn't seem reproducible for a wide spectrum of players. Rather it seems to exist only as an individual momentary thing to be recorded and saved. I don't know what the staying power of such music could be. It seems more about technique and technology than music.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Ethereality said:


> I want to apologize to everyone for misunderstanding. I thought it was understood a fresh and welcome perspective was presented and just inquired on your own favorite aesthetics different from the main reportoire. For example, Romantic era music and later symphonic and traditional music I don't consider anything 'new' to be too defensive about, when it's a fresh new topic. If we had a different forum of people interested in new music and instrumentation, like I thought we already had, judging by a poll that says 'contemporary is the forum's favorite period' even if the Big 3 are the favorite composers, yet I saw new threads about Beethoven and Bach going viral again, and no one caring to contribute any of their contemporary visions here. ...


My best understanding of what you are looking for is contemporary music that sounds significantly different from CPT era music. Perhaps you are asking for something more specific, but I'm not sure.

I often wish to hear new music that is different. Luckily this forum has many threads that give list such music. A few examples are:

A Contemporary Music Repertoire (a work in progress) which discussed a list of contemporary works. There are a lot of works there so you might focus on those with 3 stars.

21st Century Chamber Music

Late 20th Century Music: works written between 1975-1999

There's a lot to sample in those threads.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

dissident said:


> The keyboard, standardized as it is, allows me to reproduce something that Bach or Beethoven composed centuries ago. While this "new aesthetic" may be interesting, it doesn't seem reproducible for a wide spectrum of players. Rather it seems to exist only as an individual momentary thing to be recorded and saved. I don't know what the staying power of such music could be. It seems more about technique and technology than music.


on the contrary, electronic composition is probably the most accessible form of composition that there has been- it allows full "bedroom music" where questions of finding qualified musicians to record compositions isn't even a concern anymore. as far as the staying power of electronic music, it's been repeatedly declared a fad since the 1970s. now, rock is moribund as an artistic medium, and electronic is still plugging along.

as far as technology goes- that's kind of the whole point- that technology determines composition, hence the "tyranny of the keyboard" (i think Berlioz, who didn't play the piano, expressed similar sentiments). in any case, even the evolution of the keyboard instrument itself had significant impacts on composition.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

fbjim said:


> on the contrary, electronic composition is probably the most accessible form of composition that there has been- it allows full "bedroom music" where questions of finding qualified musicians to record compositions isn't even a concern anymore. as far as the staying power of electronic music, it's been repeatedly declared a fad since the 1970s. now, rock is moribund as an artistic medium, and electronic is still plugging along.


It's accessible for the ones making it up at the moment. Reproducing the Subotnik things above would be a little more complicated than sitting at a piano.



> as far as technology goes- that's kind of the whole point- that technology determines composition, hence the "tyranny of the keyboard" (i think Berlioz, who didn't play the piano, expressed similar sentiments). in any case, even the evolution of the keyboard instrument itself had significant impacts on composition.


And I think that musically speaking that's putting the cart before the horse. The keyboard is a "tyrant" because it's accessible and harmonically rich.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Sid James said:


> I thought I'd mention *Morton Subotnick*, in light of the general topic of this thread.
> 
> He was one of the pioneers of synthesizers in the 1950's. Here, he discusses how the Buchla synthesizer opened up new paths for musicians - basically in explorations of pure sound.


Ah yes, Subotnik. As a teen my friends and I really enjoyed some of his "Nonesuch binary" works like _The Wild Bull_ and _Silver Apples of the Moon_, so-called because they appeared as vinyl recordings on the Nonesuch label, the binary structure necessitated by having to flip the disc. What a strange era for popular music!


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

dissident said:


> It's accessible for the ones making it up at the moment. Reproducing the Subotnik things above would be a little more complicated than sitting at a piano.


Being reproducible in the parlour on anything other than the original medium is not a requirement for electronic music's validation. Likewise, there is no requirement for any electronic work to be easily reproduced electronically, although professionals and technically well-versed composers might manage a close-ish audio rendering depending on the track, but there isn't much call or point in doing so other than perhaps for didactic purposes. Fans can access recordings which incidentally, are easy to make in a DAW and subsequently publish online by practitioners.



dissident said:


> And I think that musically speaking that's putting the cart before the horse. The keyboard is a "tyrant" because it's accessible and harmonically rich.


The tyranny of the keyboard means something else altogether in the context I used it in post 48, which is more the accepted meaning of the expression. Besides, If we are into comparing harmonic richness then electronic accessibility to and manipulation of, higher frequencies, wins hands down.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

mikeh375 said:


> Likewise, there is no requirement for any electronic work to be easily reproduced electronically,


There's no *requirement* that it be anything. But one of the many reasons that the works of Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin et al are still with us is that it *is* readily reproduced according to skill level on a keyboard.


> The tyranny of the keyboard means something else altogether in the context I used it in post 48, which is more the accepted meaning of the expression. Besides, If we are into comparing harmonic richness then electronic accessibility to and manipulation of, higher frequencies, wins hands down.


Right, but I don't have to have anything like an electronic engineer's lab to do so on my keyboard, comparatively limited though it may be.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

The works of Bach/Beethoven/etc are with us today because they were recorded, via sheet music. Because recording sheet music is labor intensive and requires specific skills, this is something which was limited to "important" music until other forms of recording music became feasible, as they are now. As far as reproducing music goes, it seems much easier to round up something which can play recorded music than it is an orchestral ensemble or a skilled soloist.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

fbjim said:


> The works of Bach/Beethoven/etc are with us today because they were recorded, via sheet music. Because recording sheet music is labor intensive and requires specific skills, this is something which was limited to "important" music until other forms of recording music became feasible, as they are now.


Right...they were recorded via sheet music and then a schmuck like me could get enough skills to play some of it on a keyboard...with which I didn't have to do anything but buy it and maintain it to a degree. And thousands of others did the same. The argument is about accessibility, not the quality of the music.


> As far as reproducing music goes, it seems much easier to round up something which can play recorded music than it is an orchestral ensemble or a skilled soloist.


There's also something a lot colder about it. Just my opinion.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

dissident said:


> There's no *requirement* that it be anything. But one of the many reasons that the works of Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin et al are still with us is that it *is* readily reproduced according to skill level on a keyboard.


Fine, you can't buy the sheet music to play, not even a fakers melody and chord chart to busk along with, so what? The music under discussion is not classical nor really mainstream. If you are suggesting that music endures in part because of its accessibility and reproducibility then that is patently obvious. However I myself wouldn't underestimate the ability of a of a recording to endure too, especially in the digital age.



dissident said:


> Right, but I don't have to have anything like an electronic engineer's lab to do so on my keyboard, comparatively limited though it may be.


Again, I ask so what? Neither do the majority of fans I should imagine. This music is for listeners to enjoy, not go out and gig with or play for auntie after dinner.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

mikeh375 said:


> Fine, you can't buy the sheet music to play, not even a fakers melody and chord chart to busk along with, so what? The music under discussion is not classical...


So why discuss it on a classical music forum?


> Again, I ask so what? Neither do the majority of fans I should imagine. This music is for listeners to enjoy, not go out and gig with or play for auntie after dinner.


Why minimize someone's personal.enjoyment of playing -- or trying to play -- great music at home as just "playing for auntie after dinner"...just to build up this type of music you're advocating?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Forster said:


> Thanks Sid - I watched the first two vids and was struck by the idea of a musical instrument that didn't have a keyboard (theremin anyone?) and how the use of the x/y interface has been absorbed into popular music via, for example, the Kaoss pad
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/music/2011/mar/09/whats-that-sound-kaoss-pad
> 
> So, is Morton Subotnick's work within a new aesthetic?





mikeh375 said:


> edit...I think Sid you've put this thread on track. However there is no 'new' aesthetic' as it's been with us for decades, what do you think OP?


No worries. I'm not highly knowledgeable about this area but I read about Subotnick a while ago and this thread topic triggered my memory.

Since this type of music has been with us for around one hundred years, I think it has developed its own set of aesthetics. Needless to say, it has its own methods of notation. Rapid changes in technology necessitate constant change in these areas.

I compare these electronic musicians to organists, in terms of the ability of an instrument played by one person to produce so many sounds and to fill a vast space.

I don't think that the choice of these musicians to avoid the keyboard invalidates musicians who use it. They started as classical musicians. Just as with acoustic music, its obvious that there will be different approaches taken by those who use synthesizers.

In the video, Ciani talks about her choice to go back to analogue, and even about debating issues with Subotnick. In this online interview, she comes across has having an approach to her music which is just as human as any other musician, talking about the tactile qualities of the instrument, and how the ocean has inspired her:

_"...my music has always been about the ocean, the waves. My first self-produced Buchla album was called "Seven Waves." The wave was a compositional form for me, a symbol of a new kind of rhythm that's slow, very sensual, very feminine.

...My go-to sound is the ocean. Because I live on it, I can tune into it. Sometimes I'll ask Alexa to play Handel's "Messiah," I don't know why. My go-to pieces are kind of baroque really."_

https://www.thecaret.co/interviews/suzanne-ciani-musician

These musicians do bring together art and science more closely - or perhaps, more obviously - than others. I just wrote a post where I reflected on how the two are not mutually exclusive:

https://www.talkclassical.com/72569-sacred-geometry-composition.html#post2141745

Earlier in her career, Ciani worked doing sounds for commercials. She invented a few of the sounds that we now take for granted. Here is what she calls her fifteen minutes of fame on the David Letterman show:


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

mikeh375 said:


> The tyranny of the keyboard


^something Berlioz would have said


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

dissident said:


> So why discuss it on a classical music forum?
> 
> Why minimize someone's personal.enjoyment of playing -- or trying to play -- great music at home as just "playing for auntie after dinner"...just to build up this type of music you're advocating?


Never mind, you've missed the point and the bickering's just not worth responding to.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> ^something Berlioz would have said


Yes I believe he did. fbjim mentioned it earlier.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

For me, it's interesting to think about how males and females react differently to a thread like this. Men are so competitive. It never lets up. I tell myself that I'm just trying to help others.. ha ha.. but I/we suspect it's basically an excrescence of male ego.

It's neither good nor bad. It's just our nature.


----------

