# To the Avant Garde and Back



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

Like many here, I grew up listening to both Rock and Classical.
Soon I want to hear the most "far out" music I could, and sought
out both progressive rock type artists, German synthesists, and
avant garde Western music. I'm sure many my age have gone
down this path. But, I am one who has grown tired of the pretensions
of the so-called avant garde, and I don't even believe philosophically
the term has any meaning. I believe music is always progressing,
but where it is progressing is the issue, and what is "music" is also an
interesting side topic. 

I'm curious about your journey like this, especially those who have who
have travelled the avant-garde and now see more "traditional musical"
innovation to be the true courageous path. (I know that's an oxymoron
but it's an easy way to say what I mean).


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

The courageous path in music is to do what one believes in, whether that be composing diatonic ditties or rubbing blocks of cheese on a microphone. Every possibility is open to the composer, what they pursue is entirely up to them.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I think saying that there is a "true path" for music to take is more pretentious sounding than any avant-garde music I've ever heard.


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

RE: Crudblud's post:

Sure, but this is getting into semantics. I would rather attempt to look at what
is truly avant garde today, if you want to do that. I deeply believe in the value
of what you are saying, however.


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

*Another Slant*

Here is another slant on the topic, one in which composers before the 20th Century 
would say was obvious.

If you look at what music does to people, or what it is good for, or bad for, there
is another way to look at what the avant garde is or isn't. Or, is of greater value
for more people.

All value is of course subjective to an individual, but if we can say that there is
more crime among people who listen to death metal than classical before 1900,
then maybe what creates higher value in the avant garde can be arrived at.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

regenmusic said:


> All value is of course subjective to an individual, but if we can say that there is
> more crime among people who listen to death metal than classical before 1900,
> then maybe what creates higher value in the avant garde can be arrived at.


Ah, but does listening to Stockhausen cause one to be a criminal, or does being a criminal cause one to listen to Stockhausen?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

regenmusic said:


> Here is another slant on the topic, one in which composers before the 20th Century
> would say was obvious.
> 
> If you look at what music does to people, or what it is good for, or bad for, there
> ...


Uuh, can we say that? I mean, what we call "classical music" today was pretty much all people listened to back then (besides folk music, of course). But today, death metal listeners make up only a small fraction of total music listeners in the world. So I would think statistically that assumption would be false.

But that aside, I honestly don't know what you are on about...


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

violadude said:


> Uuh, can we say that? I mean, what we call "classical music" today was pretty much all people listened to back then (besides folk music, of course). But today, death metal listeners make up only a small fraction of total music listeners in the world. So I would think statistically that assumption would be false.


I don't understand why you are bringing this up in reference to my posts.
You might try buying some books before 1900 and look at the general mindset of
people when it came to the high opinion they had about the spiritual nature
of the arts.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

regenmusic said:


> I don't understand why you are bringing this up in reference to my posts.
> You might try buying some books before 1900 and look at the general mindset of
> people when it came to the high opinion they had about the spiritual nature
> of the arts.


What does that have to do with the amount of crime committed by such people?

I think you are making a false correlation between "spiritual opinion about art" and sainthood.


----------



## Guest (Jan 2, 2015)

I would like to request a one-sentence summary of what this thread is supposed to be, so I know what I should be responding to.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

arcaneholocaust said:


> I would like to request a one-sentence summary of what this thread is supposed to be, so I know what I should be responding to.


From what I've gathered (and granted, I'm not entirely sure): Modern values with regards to Avant-Garde music is making people worse human beings in general.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

violadude said:


> I think saying that there is a "true path" for music to take is more pretentious sounding than any avant-garde music I've ever heard.


Well, you nailed that in one, Violadude


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

As a listener, it doesn't matter to me whether a piece of music is modern or traditional sounding. I can't really pinpoint why certain pieces are to my liking, I just know I like them. And I have been going back and forth listening to old and newer music. And as crudblud stated, the true path is being true to oneself.


----------



## Guest (Jan 2, 2015)

Time for specifics, idn't it?

regenmusic hasn't mentioned one single person, yet, nor has s/he said what s/he means when s/he says "avant garde."

That's a word that has been variously used over the years, starting with its being a moving target but then morphing into identifying a particular style (or group of styles), so that one can say now that "the avant-garde" is old-fashioned. So if you're gonna use a word like that, ya gotta do some defining for the laying out of your own purposes.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

regenmusic said:


> I would rather attempt to look at what
> is truly avant garde today, if you want to do that.


OK, give us some examples of current composers who are doing unorthodox, innovative stuff. Because that's the definition of avant garde.


----------



## differencetone (Dec 13, 2014)

I just discovered the avant-garde and I love it. Of course I had heard of it before but I never knew the composers. Thanks to Q2 Music, YouTube and Wikipedia for a vast education in music appreciation. When music is really tonal, it gets very boring for me but that is my perspective.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

regenmusic said:


> RE: Crudblud's post:
> 
> Sure, but this is getting into semantics. I would rather attempt to look at what
> is truly avant garde today, if you want to do that. I deeply believe in the value
> of what you are saying, however.


Semantics (the study of meaning) is important, after all, if I (and apparently everyone else here except you) have no idea what you're talking about, what basis for discussion can there be?

N.B.: Quite a few people around here, and it has to be said they are usually OPs looking to discredit something, seem to hate defining their terms and explaining what they mean, and I don't understand why.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

regenmusic said:


> I'm curious about your journey like this, especially those who have who
> have travelled the avant-garde and now see more "traditional musical"
> innovation to be the true courageous path. (I know that's an oxymoron
> but it's an easy way to say what I mean).


regenmusic, I seem to have a similar problem to some others here that I'm not really sure exactly what you wish discussed. You mentioned non-classical music, but are you interested in classical music journeys? Also you seem to value progress (or change in music), but are you saying that you feel avant-garde music goes too far?

My sense is that your journey included exploring the most "extreme" music you could find, but now you are more comfortable with music that ventures away from the past but perhaps takes smaller steps. Is that correct? If so, could you give a couple of examples of "far out" music that you no longer appreciate and examples of new music you are more comfortable with now?


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

mmsbls said:


> regenmusic, I seem to have a similar problem to some others here that I'm not really sure exactly what you wish discussed. You mentioned non-classical music, but are you interested in classical music journeys? Also you seem to value progress (or change in music), but are you saying that you feel avant-garde music goes too far?
> 
> My sense is that your journey included exploring the most "extreme" music you could find, but now you are more comfortable with music that ventures away from the past but perhaps takes smaller steps. Is that correct? If so, could you give a couple of examples of "far out" music that you no longer appreciate and examples of new music you are more comfortable with now?


Sure. The "far out" music would be things like early Industrial music, lowercase sound (in that I can find it
interesting technically but never come back to a piece because I don't find it "edifying" -- it seems to do nothing
for my spirit), the more hard and abrasive modern classical (and even though I love much of his work, Schnittke can
fall into this range on ocassion). Free jazz doesn't do much for me either. Just a few examples of new music that I enjoy today would be John Cage's hpschd, much of Milhaud (he's pretty old, I know), Nyman's Harpsichord Concerto (only piece
of his I like but haven't heard much else), Christian Vander's work (mostly known as Magma), and Nigel Ayers more pleasant work (known as Nocturnal Emissions main composer). I tend to like leaders and not followers. That is, if something was stumbled upon conceptually twenty years before a popularizer of the avant garde concept, I tend to get bored with the popularization extremely fast.

I'm a composer and spend much of my time on my work, and the masters before 1950, so that's one reason why
I haven't found a ton of new people I like to put here.

About the thread topic, what does it mean, I like the idea of the semantic defintion of what is the avant garde as far
as how it's weeded out over time. Also, did anyone here follow a similar path as I? (which should be clear by now
what path that was, but sorry if my aesthetic is still undefinable. I like to call it exotic and scientific, while still caressing
the listener).


----------



## aajj (Dec 28, 2014)

Whenever i come across a phrase as irrelevant as "avant garde" i remind myself that, in their day, many works of the standard repertoire could have been called "avant garde" if the expression existed. Mozart's Jupiter symphony. Beethoven's Eroica symphony. Schubert's A Minor sonata, D784.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

regenmusic said:


> Like many here, I grew up listening to both Rock and Classical.
> Soon I want to hear the most "far out" music I could, and sought
> out both progressive rock type artists, German synthesists, and
> avant garde Western music. I'm sure many my age have gone
> ...


Thank you for your post. I understand what you mean. Avoiding getting into a semantics debate, which often distracts the the thread, I would say composers today who write music in the traditional path would have far more chance of succeeding as artist and for contemporary composed music to have wider outreach. Composers like Alma Deutscher (a young prodigy) is doing just that. The is no development point for writing contemporary music that have very limited appeal if music is to truely develop into something that broader audiences and resources are going to support.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

regenmusic said:


> RE: Crudblud's post:
> 
> Sure, but this is getting into semantics. I would rather attempt to look at what
> is truly avant garde today, if you want to do that. I deeply believe in the value
> of what you are saying, however.


I've completely retracted what I had first written here, having missed your post where you did name the more contemporary goings on in music you do like.

From that, you have a marked preference for the softer and 'less confrontational' sort of music, you like some newer 'sound art' pieces, and things I think that are more oriented toward inducing calm, meditative or trance states.

I wonder if you have listened to some works of Morton Feldman, like _Piano and string quartet,_ or _For Philip Guston,_ for example?

I would only hotly contend that your personal preferences excluding the more aggressively confrontational, your preferences for music which adheres more to the older notions of common practice harmony vs. later developments (or what is now referred to as the 'new tonality' -- atonal as a term now pretty much moot and therefore dumped) are but personal preferences, and not 'proof' that what you prefer is in any way 'better' or more righteous music than a lot of the music you do not care for.

Overall, I would say, from the examples of music you cited, that you are more in like / love with the more alternative pop / ambient genre than with the more contemporary practices presently going on in contemporary classical. (That said, in any 'now,' those defined genres not only overlap, they are indeed hotly argued about and contended; they will not ultimately be defined or settled upon in their own time, but later when there is a body of rep to look over through a sharper and more detached retrospective lens.)

While there is absolutely nothing wrong with having a personally defined aesthetic and preference (there is a helluva lot right about that, actually, as a guide to your discernment as listener or creator), there is kinda everything wrong about thinking to announce it / pronounce that music which fits your aesthetic criteria is in some way superior to all the other modern and contemporary music which does not.

Your list included some composers certainly classical, but one Michael Nyman piece (to me the man's music is an anathema of coy, superficial, pseudo intellectual boring) and the long-deceased Milhaud (I'm quite the fan of a number of his works) do not make one really 'modern' at all.

If you are alive and making music now, you're "a contemporary composer." As long as you are not writing in a retro style which is so directly like older rep it might be mistaken for it, other than that, follow your own path and interests (after all, those are what have you in a place with the optimum chance of writing something good.) What genre, pop or non-pop is maybe far less important than making works of an integrity within your own spectrum of aesthetic ideals.

While busy with that, (... as background: I also trained in theory and comp, and I have made a few pieces, or as Chopin said of his work, "My little scribblings") I wouldn't for a moment ponder upon who the audience is, or "what bin or genre / category it belongs in." When first sitting down to make a piece, in the middle of developing it, all the way through until you can call it done, the only thing to think about is how to make it work as best you can 

As to your somewhat artistic-political plank of 'back from the avant garde' because the more conservative is better, or the 'truer' music, etc. Well, that is for you and from you. You'll likely find enough who agree with you as find at least as many who vehemently do not agree with you (I'm one of them, LOL), but yet again, I can not imagine being preoccupied or busy with that _unless you severely doubt the path you are on and are more actually seeking affirmation._ Stick with your personal beliefs re: music, make your pieces as integral as you can, and then leave it to the Gods, the public, fate, etc. to sort the rest out.

The array of members here ranges from the neophyte who is just getting in to classical music to the very erudite and experienced amateur listener, to full-out pros, some who are amateur (to date) composers with a fair to good deal of craft, their music of some real interest, others fully pro, composing now, getting commissions, their work performed. That is still a very 'selected' audience for your music should you opt to post any of it in _Today's Composers._ I think many here would be at least a little interested to hear what you've made, and happy to give you their honest reaction, and there will likely be some canny constructive criticism as well.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

By *avant-garde,* are we talking about Ars Nova? Gesualdo's harmonies? Monteverdi's new string techniques? Early opera? The Mannheim School Symphonists? Early Romanticism of Weber and Berlioz? Wagner's Tristan Chord? Debussy dropping tonal functions? The 2nd Viennese School? Italian Futurist music? 1950s Darmstadt? The New York School? What?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Crudblud said:


> Semantics (the study of meaning) is important, after all, if I (and apparently everyone else here except you) have no idea what you're talking about, what basis for discussion can there be?
> 
> N.B.: Quite a few people around here, and it has to be said they are usually OPs looking to discredit something, seem to hate defining their terms and explaining what they mean, and I don't understand why.


That trend you named above is very much from a generation who seem to be more than a little afraid to commit to a definition of just about anything, maybe from a fear it will be contested, or that they are 'wrong,' as if it is one of those newer sort of tests which measure 'if you got the lesson.' Thing is, without being willing to say something more concrete, it not only leaves nothing clear enough to discuss -- more horribly, it means that within that mode of thinking the chances of clarifying one's own thoughts, or work, for that matter, become next to nil.

Adrift, lost at sea and without even one paddle in the water, is more like it. (It gets to a point where it is a bit surprising those in that context are even willing to make even one mark on paper, so to speak.)


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

ArtMusic said:


> Thank you for your post. I understand what you mean. Avoiding getting into a semantics debate, which often distracts the the thread, I would say composers today who write music in the traditional path would have far more chance of succeeding as artist and for contemporary composed music to have wider outreach. Composers like Alma Deutscher (a young prodigy) is doing just that. The is no development point for writing contemporary music that have very limited appeal if music is to truely develop into something that broader audiences and resources are going to support.


Somehow, I don't think the OP is as keen as you seem to be in going so far retro as to compose new pieces which could be mistaken for pieces written by Hummel, or Beethoven, or Brahms. I also have a hunch the OP is not much keen on writing, say, in the vein of the more popular kind of film scores ala _Star Wars_ and such.

Once again, I think you are in near complete and perfect isolation as to the aesthetic / style you so often advocate. I also wonder, since you are I believe, a music student, if you so truly and painfully feel that gap, then you should go about making your life mission theory and comp, and produce works which meet that set of criteria. If all you say about the going back to the old ways is true, well, then, somebody has got to do it. In a way, you've made yourself the poster boy of this sort of advocacy, so who better than you to start that ball / trend rolling?

P.s. I can send you some pencils and manuscript paper if you can not find a supplier.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

violadude said:


> Uuh, can we say that? I mean, what we call "classical music" today was pretty much all people listened to back then (besides folk music, of course). But today, death metal listeners make up only a small fraction of total music listeners in the world. So I would think statistically that assumption would be false.
> 
> But that aside, I honestly don't know what you are on about...


I think it would depend on the kind of crime too. If you're most worried about someone taking your wallet, maybe you don't have to worry about classical music fans. But if you're worried about the board members of a company you've invested in defrauding the investors, destroying your retirement plans....

Honestly, I think I'd rather be mugged a dozen times than have been a major investor in Enron, so....


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Late Comer*

I know I have mentioned this before.

My journey is a little different. When I was younger my tastes were more conservative. Most avant-garde music is still a foreign language to me. The avant-garde I do now enjoy I did not get until I was in my fifties. Who knows. Someday Stockhausen may make sense to me.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Like so many classical music fans of my generation (we didn't grow up contrasting the "jungle rhythms" of rock to the elegant sophistication of "classical" classical music) the first classical music that I was really attracted to was fairly avant-garde, particularly Crumb's _Black Angels_. Even now I get the most pleasure from music that is "odd" somehow. I enjoy hearing weird sounds, or being surprised by the way a piece is put together.

Even before I'd heard Crumb or learned to enjoy classical music, I was determined to learn to appreciate historical music - which might have been avant-garde-ish in its time but has become for us part of a traditional canon rather than anything surprising. I wanted to be able to participate intelligently in conversations about culture and history, not only about music but about literature, painting, architecture, whatever.

So for a long time I listened to music by composers like Beethoven and Mozart without having much appreciation for most of it. At that time I could appreciate someone like Crumb or even Debussy for various reasons, but until I got better at hearing the structures or patterns (development, counterpoint, etc.) and experienced in person the power and beauty of the orchestra (having grown up without the opportunity to actually attend live concerts handicapped me severely for a long time), the older tradition generally (with exceptions like Mozart's Requiem) didn't do much for me. Eventually, though, I did learn to appreciate those things.

At this point in my "journey," I guess I'm most interested in:

a) Getting to know Renaissance music much better, hearing works I haven't heard before and also getting more familiar with the works I've heard. This is probably my highest priority, not only because I enjoy it so much (only postmodern music pleases me more) but especially because I feel I've neglected this era of music (compared to how well I know about others).

b) Getting to know classic "pop" and jazz better. There's still a fair bit of really famous jazz and lots of really famous pop (including rock, blues, country, all that stuff that used to be released on vinyl) music that I haven't heard at all, and I don't know lots of the stuff I have heard well enough. I'm including everything famous here, from the Rolling Stones to Lou Reed to Pharaoh Sanders to Willie Nelson to John Coltrane to Clifton Chenier to Bix Beiderbecke to Anibal Trollo to Umm Kulthum.

c) Exploring traditional music from around the world. I've just barely started to do this. I've heard a lot of music from the Muslim world and a bit of this and that from other places, but I intend to start doing the Nonesuch Explorer / Naxos World (and so on) thing pretty soon. After some of that, I want to get really into Indian classical music.

d) Exploring "insufficiently innovative" (or whatever is the approved diction, if any is, since this is basically something we're not supposed to talk about) contemporary music, such as Higdon, Rorem, or Whitacre, even though I haven't usually enjoyed it very much. I am driven to do so because I long to defy the people who scorn people who enjoy that music. Whenever I listen to it, even without enjoying it, I feel the deep satisfaction of shouting violent obscenities at people who scorn me. This would be a very low priority for me if not for that. An even lower priority for me but along the same lines, I eventually intend to learn more about musical theater, the more artsy styles of "electronica" or "techno" or whatever and some of the most famous "new age" music (I don't have enough respect for the categories to try to use them precisely), stuff like "noise rock." To some degree this merges with my interest in classic pop. I do hope to learn more about the history of recording technology so that I can better appreciate the intellectual aspect of some of this music.

e) Not necessarily hearing a lot more music of the CPP (that too, a little, of course, but I've already heard almost all of the famous stuff and a lot of the less famous stuff; I hope that I've heard all the really famous stuff but it's hard to find out what it is so I can't be sure) but getting more familiar with the works I've already heard, especially learning more about the structures and techniques used in that music. This is as much for business as for pleasure; it is something I think I ought to do even if I didn't enjoy it so much.

f) Continuing to dabble in relatively contemporary ("postmodern" - for me this means post-1968 or so) music. Here I mean not stuff like Rutter but stuff like Nono, Wuorinen, Rihm, Xenakis, Henze, and so on. I don't aspire to be anything like comprehensively knowledgeable about every composer that anyone has heard of. This is usually more for pleasure than business: since most of this music isn't very famous I don't feel any obligation to know about it, but simply because this is the music I enjoy exploring the most.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

science said:


> d) Exploring "insufficiently innovative" (or whatever is the approved diction, if any is, since this is basically something we're not supposed to talk about) contemporary music, such as Higdon, Rorem, or Whitacre, even though I haven't usually enjoyed it very much. I am driven to do so because I long to defy the people who scorn people who enjoy that music.


Something about cutting off one's nose to spite one's face?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

ahammel said:


> Something about cutting off one's nose to spite one's face?


I don't mind getting hurt in a fight, as long as someone else gets hurt worse.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

science said:


> I don't mind getting hurt in a fight, as long as someone else gets hurt worse.


Uhbuwha? Who do you imagine you're hurting?


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

science said:


> d) Exploring "insufficiently innovative" (or whatever is the approved diction, if any is, since this is basically something we're not supposed to talk about) contemporary music, such as Higdon, Rorem, or Whitacre, even though I haven't usually enjoyed it very much. I am driven to do so because I long to defy the people who scorn people who enjoy that music. Whenever I listen to it, even without enjoying it, I feel the deep satisfaction of shouting violent obscenities at people who scorn me. This would be a very low priority for me if not for that.


Sorry, science, but I don't understand this at all. You're forcing yourself to sit through this stuff even knowing you don't like it, just so that people who also don't like it will realize...what?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

ahammel said:


> Uhbuwha? Who do you imagine you're hurting?





SimonNZ said:


> Sorry, science, but I don't understand this at all. You're forcing yourself to sit through this stuff even knowing you don't like it, just so that people who also don't like it will realize...what?


Nothing. I just want to legitimize their scorn. I cherish their scorn, it is food for my sweet rage.

Anyway, friends, don't worry about it too much. Maybe I will even be able to enjoy myself after all, and my victory will be complete.

It is telling that I listed six listening projects in that post, but it is only this one that receives comment. I might've found the most powerful taboo here, and I intend to violate it, unrepentant thought-criminal as I am.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

science said:


> Nothing. I just want to legitimize their scorn. I cherish their scorn, it is food for my sweet rage.
> 
> Anyway, friends, don't worry about it too much. Maybe I will even be able to enjoy myself after all, and my victory will be complete.
> 
> It is telling that I listed six listening projects in that post, but it is only this one that receives comment. I might've found the most powerful taboo here, and I intend to violate it, unrepentant thought-criminal as I am.


Oh, science, you're far too kind to enjoy the bluntness of scorn and rage. It may give a bit of an adrenaline kick, but the hangover isn't worth it.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

science said:


> It is telling that I listed six listening projects in that post, but it is only this one that receives comment. I might've found the most powerful taboo here, and I intend to violate it, unrepentant thought-criminal as I am.


The other ones all sounded like they were going to give you pleasure - they didn't require comment.

I just hope option d proves more than an exercise in anger and frustration. But far be it for me etc.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

science said:


> It is telling that I listed six listening projects in that post, but it is only this one that receives comment.


That's because it's the only one that's deeply weird. But best of luck, I guess.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

ahammel said:


> Something about cutting off one's nose to spite one's face?


Messianic complex?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Messianic complex?


Why the question mark?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

ahammel said:


> That's because it's the only one that's deeply weird. But best of luck, I guess.


I would be interested to know what is "deeply weird" about it.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Blake said:


> Oh, science, you're far too kind to enjoy the bluntness of scorn and rage. It may give a bit of an adrenaline kick, but the hangover isn't worth it.


I'm sure I'm much less kind than you believe!

I wonder whether there is anyone who drinks not for the drunk but for the hangover?


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

This thread makes no sense. It's so avant garde! I love it. It just needs a helicoptor and a bucket of soapy frogs and it will be perfect.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

science said:


> I would be interested to know what is "deeply weird" about it.


I can't imagine myself listening to music I don't like solely to annoy other people who don't like it, even if I thought it would work, which I don't. If nothing else I'm sure I would get bored after a week and go do something else.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

science said:


> Why the question mark?


LOL. Are you Skriabin reincarnate?

Happy new year, man!


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Science,

I know exactly where you are coming from.

I have learned a long time ago that just because I dislike something does it mean that it is bad.

Even though I do not get Verdi and Xenakis, I still enjoy reading about them, and respect them and their fans.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

ahammel said:


> I can't imagine myself listening to music I don't like solely to annoy other people who don't like it, even if I thought it would work, which I don't. If nothing else I'm sure I would get bored after a week and go do something else.


The point is not to annoy anyone, but to do what I'm not supposed to do. I've been doing that off and on my whole life, and often enough it works out very well. As soon as the "moral" imperative is made clear, the rage is made necessary.

You are probably not as anti-authoritarian as I am, and you might even identify with the authorities I am defying, but I don't see anything deeply weird about it. The whole world is full of rebellion; often enough that's a good thing because obedience is often surrender to and acquiescence in oppression.

Fight the power, buddy. Don't listen to what you're supposed to listen to, or enjoy what you're supposed to enjoy, or not enjoy what you're not supposed to enjoy. If you don't fight consciously, you'll subconsciously surrender.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

PetrB said:


> LOL. Are you Skriabin reincarnate?
> 
> Happy new year, man!


It's ok. Your intention was precisely as apparent as you intended it to be.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

quack said:


> This thread makes no sense. It's so avant garde! I love it. It just needs a helicoptor and a bucket of soapy frogs and it will be perfect.


Don't forget the graphic non-traditional non-pitch specific score, nor to load it up with long verbal conceptual directives


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

I think the spirit of avant garde is in experiment and being open to possibilities. So, any rigid definition of the avant garde would be against its spirit. Anything which is new and shocking and yet valuable is avant garde.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

science said:


> I'm sure I'm much less kind than you believe!
> 
> I wonder whether there is anyone who drinks not for the drunk but for the hangover?


Hoho, you caught my faux pas. You know what I meant ~ The rush isn't worth the hangover. Kindness gives a much more potent rush... and there are no hangovers! Wee Woo.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

science said:


> The point is not to annoy anyone, but to do what I'm not supposed to do. I've been doing that off and on my whole life, and often enough it works out very well. As soon as the "moral" imperative is made clear, the rage is made necessary.
> 
> You are probably not as anti-authoritarian as I am, and you might even identify with the authorities I am defying, but I don't see anything deeply weird about it. The whole world is full of rebellion; often enough that's a good thing because obedience is often surrender to and acquiescence in oppression.
> 
> Fight the power, buddy. Don't listen to what you're supposed to listen to, or enjoy what you're supposed to enjoy, or not enjoy what you're not supposed to enjoy. If you don't fight consciously, you'll subconsciously surrender.


I had written out my disagreements, but in all honesty I don't see this diversion going anywhere much. So I'll just than you for the explanation of your views/condescending lecture and be in my way :tiphat:


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

ahammel said:


> I had written out my disagreements, but in all honesty I don't see this diversion going anywhere much. So I'll just than you for the explanation of your views/condescending lecture and be in my way :tiphat:


I'm sorry that it came off as condescending. But the good news is, you too can now rebel - against me!


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

shangoyal said:


> I think the spirit of avant garde is in experiment and being open to possibilities. So, any rigid definition of the avant garde would be against its spirit. Anything which is new and shocking and yet valuable is avant garde.


Yes, but the same crowd that listens to American Idol is not worth shocking. They were the
same types 150 years ago that were shocked by Chopin. I think my point is that that music
is stronger than conceptual theory, there is something in exotic music that can be avant garde and
more shocking than noise, or a mix of wind/frogs/birds, and so on.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

science said:


> I'm sorry that it came off as condescending. But the good news is, you too can now rebel - against me!


But... it was / is condescending, dontcha know?

The obverse of the coin is still the same coinage, and I think that is something those who go hammer and tongs at the sort of confrontational rebellion you mention as being your particular sort of fun and with which you like to busy yourself either forget, or just have not yet consciously realized.

I.e. you're still busy with something -- it would seem to me -- that you would not want to fuel with any more energy if you really wanted what you so much object to to die. Instead, that is being very busy indeed with supplying that which you disapprove of so heatedly with that much more energy to burn bright.

The dynamic is like those who write essays and analyses of works they consider mediocre or not worthwhile in order to 'prove' them not worthwhile -- the recognition only further legitimizes the mediocre


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

regenmusic said:


> Yes, but the same crowd that listens to American Idol is not worth shocking. They were the
> same types 150 years ago that were shocked by Chopin. I think my point is that that music
> is stronger than conceptual theory, there is something in exotic music that can be avant garde and
> more shocking than noise, or a mix of wind/frogs/birds, and so on.


In the current climate, to be heartily cynical, I would think that any artwork, from the most cutting edge adventurous to the most quietly reserved conservative, would shock if instead of being intended to shock, the creator had so well gone about their business with the highest degree of right choices and personal integrity (not thinking at all about any potential audience) that they ended up with a "startlingly good" piece of music, period.


----------



## Guest (Jan 3, 2015)

The perception that composers set out to shock is just that, a perception. It's mostly all my grandmother's eye, even though one can easily find this or that person talking about how shocking they were or tried to be.

Mostly, I think, that is after the fact, though. A sort of giving up: people are going to be shocked no matter what I do. OK. I set out to shock you, then. Probably that's just a lie, a throw one's hands in the air are you effing kidding me not that canard again lie.

That some listeners are genuinely shocked by some things is indisputable. Attributing that feeling of being shocked to the express motivation of the composer or composers is most definitely disputable, and probably should be disputed, again and again, until that idea crawls back into the hole from whence it emerged.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

some guy said:


> The perception that composers set out to shock is just that, a perception. It's mostly all my grandmother's eye, even though one can easily find this or that person talking about how shocking they were or tried to be.
> 
> Mostly, I think, that is after the fact, though. A sort of giving up: people are going to be shocked no matter what I do. OK. I set out to shock you, then. Probably that's just a lie, a throw one's hands in the air are you effing kidding me not that canard again lie.
> 
> That some listeners are genuinely shocked by some things is indisputable. Attributing that feeling of being shocked to the express motivation of the composer or composers is most definitely disputable, and probably should be disputed, again and again, until that idea crawls back into the hole from whence it emerged.


_*Harumph! Gasp! "Well, I never!"*_
-----------------------------------------*"Well, now you have."*


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

some guy said:


> The perception that composers set out to shock is just that, a perception. It's mostly all my grandmother's eye, even though one can easily find this or that person talking about how shocking they were or tried to be.


yes, because all composers have the same head. You don't like generalizations about their music but hey, they all think the same way. There's a whole world of artists out there even very famous like Koons or Damien Hirst but not even a single composer in the world who likes to make music just to shock.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Generalizing in any way is a sure sign of misapprehension. Of course some composers want to shock... of course some don't. Of course almond joys have nuts... of course mounds don't.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Blake said:


> Generalizing in any way is a sure sign of misapprehension.


Uhh...

.................


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

ahammel said:


> Uhh...
> 
> .................


It's an inevitable paradox.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Blake said:


> It's an inevitable paradox.


Uhh ...


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

aleazk said:


> Uhh ...


It's a finite infinitude.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Blake said:


> It's an inevitable paradox.


No, it's just false. It would be nearly impossible to communicate without making generalizations.

But sure, the generalization in question is probably too broad. We might be able to tell whether or not the composers we're talking about were in the business of writing music for the shock value if somebody would please, for the love of Stockhausen, tell us which composers we're talking about.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

regenmusic said:


> ...I like to call it exotic and scientific, while still caressing the listener...


What ?


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

ahammel said:


> No, it's just false. It would be nearly impossible to communicate without making generalizations.
> 
> But sure, the generalization in question is probably too broad. We might be able to tell whether or not the composers we're talking about were in the business of writing music for the shock value if somebody would please, for the love of Stockhausen, tell us which composers we're talking about.


Nearly impossible isn't impossible. For instance, Beethoven surely wanted to shock with some of his pieces... but he didn't always want to shock. You see how useless these generalizations are?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

PetrB said:


> But... it was / is condescending, dontcha know?
> 
> The obverse of the coin is still the same coinage, and I think that is something those who go hammer and tongs at the sort of confrontational rebellion you mention as being your particular sort of fun and with which you like to busy yourself either forget, or just have not yet consciously realized.
> 
> ...


No, I don't know any of that. My tone wasn't condescending. Nothing I wrote was a joke at the expense of people who feel differently than I do.



PetrB said:


> _*Harumph! Gasp! "Well, I never!"*_
> -----------------------------------------*"Well, now you have."*


----------

