# Classical/Non-Classical Divisions...



## Zofia (Jan 24, 2019)

*Classical/Non-Classical Divisions & the Effect of the Internet on Musical Evolution*









*The above text is from Wikipedia not perfect personally I'd change one or two things but hope this is a good widely agreeable base.*

Hallo All,

I have avoided posting the not fun kind of topic for fear of not being able to keep up with you intellectually. Despite my English trouble I will give it a try please forgive I have spent much time on this to gpget the English good enough.

As you can see from the picture above throughout the ages we move from one genre or style of classical to another. This can been seen also in the mainstream music; from Bebop, Big Band, Rock n Roll to Glam, Disco and Grunge.

We have seem to lost the cyclical nature of music. I think this is due to the internet as you can find the niche for you and stick to it. I would not wish to go back to the old ways but I find the lack of "group momentum" among composers now worrying.

Not so long ago Holy minimalism for example if one composer became popular then the others in that style could use this momentum to push their work into the sunlight. Now I struggle to describe what the music of my life time is about when asked to describe the modern music for school.

Is it only me or is there a lack of direction in music today? I do not see music evolving and even though I like some modern classical the stuff I dislike I can appreciate. I feel modern music is very colour by number book style. As the fear of not making back cost of investment in a composer or artist is so high and the facf we have what we want on demand...

As a composer myself is this good or bad and what can we so if anything to improve.


----------



## Zofia (Jan 24, 2019)

Off the topic but in full disclosure I have a album recorded of piano works. My Mother had it in my contract it not be released until I am legally adult and finished schooling. I am not sure I can talk much about it but two of my own original work made the “bonus tracks”. I think I can justify myself as a composer because of it and not be arrogant.

Things might change still one year I think before it will publish.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

I was just recently thinking the same, particularly after seeing lists like the one you posted where it lists every movement by its era, but when it gets to the end, it just vaguely says "contemporary" as if there is no unifying themes or movements (which there aren't). I am too much of a newcomer to classical music to predict where it's going, but I hope to see some kind of revival in the idea of a movement in music (ie. going into the 19th century we had the birth of romanticism, going into the 20th we had impressionism, etc.; going into the 21st there is nothing really to speak of as far as I know). I hope that this doesn't mean a decline in the overall tradition of classical music but it's hard to see it as anything else. I think we need a handful of truly genius composers in a unique style to blow up and kind of put the 21st century on the map. Who knows though.

I'd love to hear your album when it comes out! Keep us posted. It seems you are somewhat sworn to secrecy, but who are some of your influences as a composer if you don't mind my asking?


----------



## Zofia (Jan 24, 2019)

flamencosketches said:


> I was just recently thinking the same, particularly after seeing lists like the one you posted where it lists every movement by its era, but when it gets to the end, it just vaguely says "contemporary" as if there is no unifying themes or movements (which there aren't). I am too much of a newcomer to classical music to predict where it's going, but I hope to see some kind of revival in the idea of a movement in music (ie. going into the 19th century we had the birth of romanticism, going into the 20th we had impressionism, etc.; going into the 21st there is nothing really to speak of as far as I know). I hope that this doesn't mean a decline in the overall tradition of classical music but it's hard to see it as anything else. I think we need a handful of truly genius composers in a unique style to blow up and kind of put the 21st century on the map. Who knows though.
> 
> I'd love to hear your album when it comes out! Keep us posted. It seems you are somewhat sworn to secrecy, but who are some of your influences as a composer if you don't mind my asking?


Well I play Bach/Beethiven/Pärt on the Disc or at least in my memory this is what they are using afaik. They said they would use two of my own pieces for the bonus tracks dont know if they will hold their word.

My influence I am not willing to hild my name up with anyone elses I think it is much disrespectful to people whom I admire.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Fair enough. I was just curious. Maybe your selections of repertoire give me some clues too :lol:


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Zofia said:


> *Classical/Non-Classical Divisions & the Effect of the Internet on Musical Evolution*
> 
> Is it only me or is there a lack of direction in music today? I do not see music evolving and even though I like some modern classical the stuff I dislike I can appreciate. I feel modern music is very colour by number book style. As the fear of not making back cost of investment in a composer or artist is so high and the facf we have what we want on demand...
> 
> As a composer myself is this good or bad and what can we so if anything to improve.


I'm not sure directionless is a good description. There is a just such a large variety, which I think is a good thing!

You may find the following video interesting:


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^^^ That timeline is good, I think. What a shame the video didn't somehow manage to focus in and out of the music of the different named composers. It would have been quite a cacophony!

The list in the OP is also good, I think, especially as there are links to each of the named genres. The trouble is that we just won't use the terminology in the same ways. If we could all agree to use the same terminology for describing the different genres and schools then that could help make our discussions about music post-1900 much more meaningful. 

The other thing, I think, is that time matters. There have been linear strands of genre/school but I think also that the musics of various strands from a given short period - say 1920-1935 - all have something in common as well as the differences that come from following slightly different theories. 

And then I think the period covered has seen an increasing diversification - rather like the "tree of life" itself - and I am not sure the list of the timeline reflect that. I think we need more branches and more interweaving if we are to capture what has really been happening.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Zofia said:


> We have seem to lost the cyclical nature of music. I think this is due to the internet as you can find the niche for you and stick to it. I would not wish to go back to the old ways but I find the lack of "group momentum" among composers now worrying.
> 
> Not so long ago Holy minimalism for example if one composer became popular then the others in that style could use this momentum to push their work into the sunlight. Now *I struggle to describe what the music of my life time is about when asked to describe the modern music for school.*
> 
> ...


I believe your perception is fundamentally correct. I say "fundamentally" because music will always "evolve," i.e., develop and change. But - please indulge a metaphor - the central stream in the development of Western music in the tradition we call "classical" has been losing its containing banks for roughly the last hundred years and is now broken into numerous shallow rivulets spread thinly over a landscape characterized by busy eclecticism, constant experimentation, and a great deal of recycling of old merchandise sold in new wrappers. There is no longer a coherent classical musical culture capable of evolving. This merely reflects the loss of unity and definition, the globalization and fragmentation, of the culture as a whole.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

The "timeline" is simply a historical narrative, for those who still believe in "history." It's basically a museum of old music, made by dead people. This historical way of looking at music seems to be the only way most people are able to "look" at music, and to contain it, define it, identify it, classify it, and ultimately "ossify" it. This is the historical world of musical personalities, creations, and situations which no longer exist. There are specialists who re-animate this music, and attempt to give it the gift of "being," but this process is always at a remove, a proxy, is always to a degree indirect, and is not as real as music created and made by living beings.

The "real" world of music is simply written-off as "contemporary," and is the present situation which often defies categorization, or is deemed "unworthy" of inclusion into the "book of life", and therefore escapes the rigid understanding of present-day historians who are compelled to compare, label, and "contain" music within the "box" of their paradigm, which ultimately has nothing to do with music in any real way. "Classical" music is a fantasy, and invention of such minds.

"The real" contemporary music consists of people who use it and listen to it; and the uses and purposes for it are as varied as people are. 
Perhaps those composers who create music with an awareness of this body of historical music might have an edge in the larger scheme of things, but they are looking at the body as an artifact, a fossil, to be used in some real, meaningful way, not as a classification or a "book of life" in the significance of music. 
In this sense, "classical" music is no more than a collection of artifacts with no greater significance than any other music, in any other category, from any other time period.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Cohesion, as it applies to society and culture, has been unwaveringly disintegrating since the enlightenment. Morality is the source of culture and culture unquestionably influences behaviour. So, what logical deduction could one make upon observing modern society, morality, and behaviour? Modern society no longer adheres to any moral precepts; its impetus is composed of two things: profit and the pursuit of selfish pleasure.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Red Terror said:


> Cohesion, as it applies to society and culture, has been unwaveringly disintegrating since the enlightenment. Morality is the source of culture and culture unquestionably influences behaviour. So, what logical deduction could one make upon observing modern society, morality, and behaviour? Modern society no longer adheres to any moral precepts; its impetus is composed of two things: profit and the pursuit of selfish pleasure.


You talk as if there were some period in the past where this "perfect moral man" existed. The "Enlightenment" was good insofar as it was reasonable, and recognized the value of the individual, but it was a fabrication of mind. It seems that the more "civilization" develops, the more it reveals itself to be traveling away from the individual, into a larger collective mentality, which is depersonalized, mechanical, and much like a virus..."Life-like" but not living. Man's essential being seems to be the "host" it feeds on. A Golem.


----------



## Zofia (Jan 24, 2019)

Red Terror said:


> Cohesion, as it applies to society and culture, has been unwaveringly disintegrating since the enlightenment. Morality is the source of culture and culture unquestionably influences behaviour. So, what logical deduction could one make upon observing modern society, morality, and behaviour? Modern society no longer adheres to any moral precepts; its impetus is composed of two things: profit and the pursuit of selfish pleasure.


Thank you so very much! I to speak of this in another thread but I fail due to laziness with English I think. I was not trying to push my view on anyone else but I brought up Christianity and people would not get passed their prejudice against it. Even if you do not believe until very recently the west is some flavour of Christianity. This along with Enlightenment and Greco-Roman culture made our part of the word what it is. for Christian, Jew, Hindu or non-believers all influenced.

I disagree with the view of history though you saw it even in music of 90s 80s 70s people rise and fall out of fashion. I think this was the same in past with Classical I do not think it was just retrospective catagory making.

I feel there is much stagnation in music today in both classical and pop musics. Yes it is nice to have choice but 99% of the choice is bad or mediocre at best. If I could change the title of the thread I would change to:

*What Happened to the Zeitgeist?*


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

millionrainbows said:


> You talk as if there were some period in the past where this "perfect moral man" existed. The "Enlightenment" was good insofar as it was reasonable, and recognized the value of the individual, but it was a fabrication of mind. It seems that the more "civilization" develops, the more it reveals itself to be traveling away from the individual, into a larger collective mentality, which is depersonalized, mechanical, and much like a virus..."Life-like" but not living. Man's essential being seems to be the "host" it feeds on. A Golem.


I can see it from your perspective but I certainly did not mean that man was ever perfect-far from it! I believe that man is totally depraved, though not as depraved as he could possibly be. What I meant to say was simply this: before the enlightenment, western man, at the very least, had some of the fear of God in him-that was a good thing. However, as he grew more prosperous (in the West) and educated, he foolishly came to believe that he no longer needed God, and thus was free to live as he pleased and forge his own destinity. What do we have today? Look around. The liberal majority purports to champion the "every man and woman has his / her own truth" rhetoric, and yet the religious liberty of Christians continues to be infringed upon due to the liberal majority's increasingly millitant pursuit of its objectives to cleanse the world of "religion" and force their agenda down the throats of those who dare to think otherwise. The state of Virginia is currently seeking to make the case for third-trimester abortions-a murderous proposition that amounts to infanticide. And make no mistake about it, this bill will eventually pass.

What to make of a culture that endorses such things? These developments make our concerns for classical music seem ridiculous, and they are indeed. But to go back to the pertinent issue-we can safely conclude that the increasing degeneracy of society and culture is the sole cause of much of the worthlessness of new music. After all, can such people produce anything of worth?


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Zofia said:


> Thank you so very much! I to speak of this in another thread but I fail due to laziness with English I think. I was not trying to push my view on anyone else but I brought up Christianity and people would not get passed their prejudice against it. Even if you do not believe until very recently the west is some flavour of Christianity. This along with Enlightenment and Greco-Roman culture made our part of the word what it is. for Christian, Jew, Hindu or non-believers all influenced.
> 
> I disagree with the view of history though you saw it even in music of 90s 80s 70s people rise and fall out of fashion. I think this was the same in past with Classical I do not think it was just retrospective catagory making.
> 
> ...


I am quite lazy also. I don't have much time to write as I'd like due to other concerns-primarily job related.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Red Terror said:


> I can see it from your perspective but I certainly did not mean that man was ever perfect-far from it! I believe that man is totally depraved, though not as depraved as he could possibly be. What I meant to say was simply this: before the enlightenment, western man, at the very least, had some of the fear of God in him-that was a good thing. However, as he grew more prosperous (in the West) and educated, he foolishly came to believe that he no longer needed God, and thus was free to live as he pleased and forge his own destinity. What do we have today? Look around. The liberal majority purports to champion the "every man and woman has his / her own truth" rhetoric, and yet the religious liberty of Christians continues to be infringed upon due to the liberal majority's increasingly millitant pursuit of its objectives to cleanse the world of "religion" and force their agenda down the throats of those who dare to think otherwise. The state of Virginia is currently seeking to make the case for third-trimester abortions-a murderous proposition that amounts to infanticide. And make no mistake about it, this bill will eventually pass.
> 
> What to make of a culture that endorses such things? These developments make our concerns for classical music seem ridiculous, and they are indeed. But to go back to the pertinent issue-we can safely conclude that the increasing degeneracy of society and culture is the sole cause of much of the worthlessness of new music. *After all, can such people produce anything of worth?*


Goddess save us from more lectures on the degeneracy of non-Christians and secular society! May she save us too from the kind of "cohesion" that humans suffered under prior to the Enlightenment you deplore (the Enlightenment which gave you the free society whose benefits you enjoy). Let me assure you that people who are not Christians do in fact produce "things of worth," and have done so at least since the cave paintings of Lascaux.

Please observe the basic rules of the forum - and polite public discourse - and take politics and religion to the subforum designated for them.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> Goddess save us from more lectures on the degeneracy of non-Christians and secular society! May she save us too from the kind of "cohesion" that humans suffered under prior to the Enlightenment you deplore (the Enlightenment which gave you the free society whose benefits you enjoy). Let me assure you that people who are not Christians do in fact produce "things of worth," and have done so at least since the cave paintings of Lascaux.
> 
> Please observe the basic rules of the forum - and polite public discourse - and take politics and religion to the subforum designated for them.


I am sorry, Woodduck-I had forgotten you were allergic. I am sure the moderators will do their job if I have transgressed the rules.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Red Terror said:


> I am sorry, Woodduck-I had forgotten you were allergic. I am sure the moderators will do their job if I have transgressed the rules.


They may if I report you. But I'll be a good Christian and spare you this time.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> They may if I report you. But I'll be a good Christian and spare you this time.


The tyrant has a heart.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Zofia said:


> Thank you so very much! I to speak of this in another thread but I fail due to laziness with English I think. I was not trying to push my view on anyone else but I brought up Christianity and people would not get passed their prejudice against it. Even if you do not believe until very recently the west is some flavour of Christianity. This along with Enlightenment and Greco-Roman culture made our part of the word what it is. for Christian, Jew, Hindu or non-believers all influenced.
> 
> I disagree with the view of history though you saw it even in music of 90s 80s 70s people rise and fall out of fashion. I think this was the same in past with Classical I do not think it was just retrospective catagory making.
> 
> ...


I did wonder on reading your OP how you would categorise your own music on your list (and if possible on Simon Moon's timeline)?

But it is sad that you are not inspired by the music being written today. I guess that puts you in agreement with 80% or more of this forum's members but there are also quite a number of us who have found a lot of music to love in the music of the last 30 years. For some of us that is our main musical interest but there are others who came to the contemporary via "the tradition". I think most of us feel that we are in something of a golden age. Of course, that doesn't mean you should agree or share in this enthusiasm ... but it does exist.


----------



## Spirit Ditch (Feb 4, 2019)

Zofia said:


> Thank you so very much! I to speak of this in another thread but I fail due to laziness with English I think. I was not trying to push my view on anyone else but I brought up Christianity and people would not get passed their prejudice against it. Even if you do not believe until very recently the west is some flavour of Christianity. This along with Enlightenment and Greco-Roman culture made our part of the word what it is. for Christian, Jew, Hindu or non-believers all influenced.
> 
> I disagree with the view of history though you saw it even in music of 90s 80s 70s people rise and fall out of fashion. I think this was the same in past with Classical I do not think it was just retrospective catagory making.
> 
> ...


It's a really interesting post, Zofia, especially coming from someone at your age given you mentioned you are not an adult yet. 
I am a musician, although an alternative rock musician, who was a teenager around 'grunge'. In terms of movements, they almost always seem to be pretty loose and defined from the outside rather than within. I guess it would need to be a specific movement with a manifesto or set of aesthetics to be a bona fide movement, unless we take people who are very closely connected in influence, like say Schubert's piano sonatas after hearing Beethoven. But things are much more diverse and dispersed now. Take 'grunge', for instance: it was a way for the music industry to sell records and papers to sell print, but most of the bands included would have baulked at that term. Nirvana were more punk in lyrical content and musical approach than something like Pearl Jam which was pretty sanitised rock.

Music was altogether more tribal in the past- I couldn't admit to liking electronic music,even if I secretly did , as these were people who would beat me up for having long hair and ripped jeans. That was a shame, as it precluded a lot of music. The flip side seemed to be that people cared more about music and cherished it, owned it, before it was freely accessible on the web. Now music is instantaneous and disposable, and people flit more between genres as you mentioned.

In terms of classical music, the very name suggests an adherence to a canonical and former time. It's interesting to think what could be done that hasn't been done before that would require the formation of a new movement. I'm very interested in what it must be like to start working as a composer now and what would inform you. When I write music , as I am a poet, the words often form the direction and as language is ever-evolving, and this helps. I think there will be always niche movements of similar artists, but you're right in defining a retrospective culture right now.

I'm also an academic, and I like Mark Fisher's work on 'retromania' in which he looks at political reasons for why music stopped producing new things around 2003, and the electronic musician Burial as an example of that. There is an interview with him here-

https://crackmagazine.net/article/long-reads/mark-fisher-interviewed/


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Red Terror said:


> I can see it from your perspective but I certainly did not mean that man was ever perfect-far from it! I believe that man is totally depraved, though not as depraved as he could possibly be. What I meant to say was simply this: before the enlightenment, western man, at the very least, had some of the fear of God in him-that was a good thing. However, as he grew more prosperous (in the West) and educated, he foolishly came to believe that he no longer needed God, and thus was free to live as he pleased and forge his own destinity. What do we have today? Look around. The liberal majority purports to champion the "every man and woman has his / her own truth" rhetoric, and yet the religious liberty of Christians continues to be infringed upon due to the liberal majority's increasingly millitant pursuit of its objectives to cleanse the world of "religion" and force their agenda down the throats of those who dare to think otherwise. The state of Virginia is currently seeking to make the case for third-trimester abortions-a murderous proposition that amounts to infanticide. And make no mistake about it, this bill will eventually pass.
> 
> What to make of a culture that endorses such things? These developments make our concerns for classical music seem ridiculous, and they are indeed. But to go back to the pertinent issue-we can safely conclude that the increasing degeneracy of society and culture is the sole cause of much of the worthlessness of new music. After all, can such people produce anything of worth?


OK, so I just spent quite a while writing a response to this load of rubbish, but decided against posting it.

This is the wrong forum for this type of post, or my reply.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Simon Moon said:


> OK, so I just spent quite a while writing a response to this load of rubbish, but decided against posting it.
> 
> This is the wrong forum for this type of post, or my reply.


Oh, come on, Simon! We'd like to see the cookie-cutter liberal response! BTW, are you a religious man?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> Oh, come on, Simon! We'd like to see the cookie-cutter liberal response! BTW, are you a religious man?


To repeat the obvious to a repeating and willful offender: This is the wrong forum for this type of post. Take it to Groups!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Oh, come on, Simon! We'd like to see the cookie-cutter liberal response! BTW, are you a religious man?


An insult, an impertinence, and a stereotype all in one post. You've surpassed even you.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Red Terror said:


> I can see it from your perspective but I certainly did not mean that man was ever perfect-far from it! I believe that man is totally depraved, though not as depraved as he could possibly be. What I meant to say was simply this: before the enlightenment, western man, at the very least, had some of the fear of God in him-that was a good thing. However, as he grew more prosperous (in the West) and educated, he foolishly came to believe that he no longer needed God, and thus was free to live as he pleased and forge his own destinity. What do we have today? Look around. The liberal majority purports to champion the "every man and woman has his / her own truth" rhetoric, and yet the religious liberty of Christians continues to be infringed upon due to the liberal majority's increasingly millitant pursuit of its objectives to cleanse the world of "religion" and force their agenda down the throats of those who dare to think otherwise. The state of Virginia is currently seeking to make the case for third-trimester abortions-a murderous proposition that amounts to infanticide. And make no mistake about it, this bill will eventually pass.
> 
> What to make of a culture that endorses such things? These developments make our concerns for classical music seem ridiculous, and they are indeed. But to go back to the pertinent issue-we can safely conclude that the increasing degeneracy of society and culture is the sole cause of much of the worthlessness of new music. After all, can such people produce anything of worth?


To distill any possible essence of truth out of what you've said here, I must make the observation that the net result is that we agree on this: "Man" is better off when he is humbled, is willing to submit to something "outside" his identity, or what his mind has fabricated as his "identity." At least, in pre-Enlightenment, he had the concept of God, although this was used and distorted by power; and in the Enlightenment, he was able to look past this into the view of reason.
But none of this is any good; Man must transcend the very idea of Man, and jettison the bombast, and totally submit to the fact of "being." All the rest is a bad dream.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Strange Magic said:


> To repeat the obvious to a repeating and willful offender: This is the wrong forum for this type of post. Take it to Groups!


Woodduck made a reference to religion in post #17. Go harrass him.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> Oh, come on, Simon! We'd like to see the cookie-cutter liberal response! BTW, are you a religious man?


Million, I don't know if you're being serious or sarcastic, but if any statements are cookie-cutter predictable, it's Red Terror's self righteous moralizing about the golden past gone wrong.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> An insult, an impertinence, and a stereotype all in one post. You've surpassed even you.


You mocked Christians in your post #17. This is so typical of you; draw the attention to another person, to deflect blame from yourself!

As far as I'm concerned, you are all on the wrong track. Shut this thread down, now!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

starthrower said:


> Million, I don't know if you're being serious or sarcastic, but if any statements are cookie-cutter predictable, it's Red Terror's self righteous moralizing about the golden past gone wrong.


Yes, he's cookie-cutter as well. So what are you saying, that the "liberal" stance is true, and can't be stereotyped? That's presumptuous! The whole thing is cookie-cutter. Everybody here sounds like a puppet to some "idea" of who they think they are, and others are. It has nothing to do with reality, but who wants the truth?


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I don't get into this whole liberal v conservative controversy. What does this political punditry have to do with musical evolution and development? Red Terror likes "progressive rock". How come this isn't viewed as a corruption of the purity of classical tradition inflicted on society by morally bankrupt liberals? Is it because he's only 39 and that music is 50 years old?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Woodduck made a reference to religion in post #17. Go harrass him.


My reference was a satire on Red Terror's religious lecture. Yours was an invitation to further religious discussion. Context, context.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> My reference was a satire on Red Terror's religious lecture. Yours was an invitation to further religious discussion. Context, context.


Exactly! And of course Million already knew this.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> My reference was a satire on Red Terror's religious lecture. Yours was an invitation to further religious discussion. Context, context.


millionrainbows knows exactly what he is doing.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, he's cookie-cutter as well. So what are you saying, that the "liberal" stance is true, and can't be stereotyped? That's presumptuous! The whole thing is cookie-cutter. Everybody here sounds like a puppet to some "idea" of who they think they are, and others are. It has nothing to do with reality, but *who wants the truth?*


Oh, give us the truth, quick! We're all perishing from too much pre-20th century music all filled with bombast, ego, conquering, posturing, domination, control, and self-destruction! https://www.talkclassical.com/59624-love-music-radical-eclecticism-5.html#post1583501


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Oh, give us the truth, quick! We're all perishing from too much pre-20th century music all filled with bombast, ego, conquering, posturing, domination, control, and self-destruction! https://www.talkclassical.com/59624-love-music-radical-eclecticism-5.html#post1583501


That's a presumptuous assumption of what I'm saying. I can't give you the truth. You have to find it for yourself. Understand this, quick! 
You hold Man in a very high position, don't you? You actually believe all that. You must have a very high opinion of yourself as well!
Respond to this! Quick! And give me plenty of bombast, ego, conquering, posturing, domination, control, and self-destruction!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

starthrower said:


> Exactly! And of course Million already knew this.


I can't believe you're actually defending Woodduck, starthrower. There must be something else bothering you.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> I can't believe you're actually defending Woodduck, starthrower. There must be something else bothering you.


million, I love your avatar!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Strange Magic said:


> millionrainbows knows exactly what he is doing.


I think you're correct, Strange. It's fun watching them try to point out the 'obvious,' though. 'Professor Woodduck' can never be wrong! He was part of the 'Great Migration West', to go live in PC land, where everybody respects everybody, even if they believe in God. His mother brings him pies and does his laundry.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> I think you're correct, Strange. It's fun watching them try to point out the 'obvious,' though. 'Professor Woodduck' can never be wrong! He was part of the 'Great Migration West', to go live in PC land, where everybody respects everybody, even if they believe in God. His mother brings him pies and does his laundry.


Again, Google translate fails!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> My reference was a satire on Red Terror's religious lecture. Yours was an invitation to further religious discussion. Context, context.


Well, since you're going to put your post into the context that best suits your purposes, then I'll do the same!




> Oh, come on, Simon! We'd like to see the cookie-cutter liberal response! BTW, are you a religious man?


"Liberals" are just as ridiculous as "free thinkers" like yourself. And that "BTW" was a rhetorical question, evoking the suspicion that Simon is _not really _critical of Simon's simplistic religious response, but that he is opposed to all such references, because he is such a "free thinker Enlightenment man" and a big fan of Madalyn Murray O'Hair. He is flaunting his belief-system just as openly as Simon, and it's just as simplistic and meaningless.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Strange Magic said:


> million, I love your avatar!


Thanks, Strange. You are so smart, you must have gone to Harvard!


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> Thanks, Strange. You are so smart, you must have gone to Harvard!


One needn't have gone to Harvard to see that you are on a tear today! But I still like your avatar.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> I can't believe you're actually defending Woodduck, starthrower. There must be something else bothering you.


On the contrary I find this discussion quite entertaining, as fruitless as it is.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Simon Moon said:


> OK, so I just spent quite a while writing a response to this load of rubbish, but decided against posting it.
> 
> This is the wrong forum for this type of post, or my reply.


Thanks for your opinion, Simon.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

starthrower said:


> On the contrary I find this discussion quite entertaining, as fruitless as it is.


Good! You have such great taste in all kinds of music, like I do, and I would hate to see you get alienated.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> My reference was a satire on Red Terror's religious lecture. Yours was an invitation to further religious discussion. Context, context.


You're violating the rules, Simon. Now it looks as though I may be the one to report you. :angel:


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Simon of course is correct. Downstairs in Groups--Politics, Religion--are the assigned venues for these conversations as millionrainbows knows better than anyone else, having posted down there regularly. But the allure of a larger and possibly naïve audience up here is too hard to resist for those bursting with a message within that must find release.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Simon Moon said:


> OK, so I just spent quite a while writing a response to this load of rubbish, but decided against posting it.
> 
> This is the wrong forum for this type of post, or my reply.


YES, Simon is very aware and sensitive about "crossing lines" and "borders." He wants forum guidelines to be interpreted as law, and more strictly than we do. Stay on topic, stay in your area, stay legal. Let's not turn this thread into a "sanctuary thread" for "undocumented" opinions.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

It's only a music forum, and we are just spouting feelings and opinions. I don't have enough education or breadth of intellect to get too involved in heavy discussions. And I don't care about political leanings or belief systems of various members. I just like to learn and get turned onto good music whether it's from the 15th century or the 21st.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Strange Magic said:


> Simon of course is correct. Downstairs in Groups--Politics, Religion--are the assigned venues for these conversations as millionrainbows knows better than anyone else, having posted down there regularly. But the allure of a larger and possibly naïve audience up here is too hard to resist for those bursting with a message within that must find release.


Yes, what a great opportunity, to post in an area such as this! We seek more freedom from oppression, and a better life for our opinions. If this means taking a chance and crossing the borders of thread areas, then we shall take it. We can get better responses here, and sometimes they give us free lunches!


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, what a great opportunity, to post in an area such as this! We seek more freedom from oppression, and a better life for our opinions. If this means taking a chance and crossing the borders of thread areas, then we shall take it. We can get better responses here, and sometimes they give us free lunches!


Beware the gas that can often accompany that free lunch!


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

This thread has deviated into purely religious/political comments, but perhaps more importantly, it has almost completely ignored the OP. The thread is about the direction of modern music (or whether it has one) and to what extent classical music is evolving. Please keep comments relevant to the OP and do not post comments about other members.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

starthrower said:


> It's only a music forum, and we are just spouting feelings and opinions. I don't have enough education or breadth of intellect to get too involved in heavy discussions.


I could have _sworn_ you were a Harvard man...



> ...And I don't care about political leanings or belief systems of various members. I just like to learn and get turned onto good music whether it's from the 15th century or the 21st.


Well, I suppose that "not caring about political leanings or belief systems of various members" is preferable to openly protesting any time one of them dares to state their dogmatic, simplistic beliefs. But, after all, this is a diverse world, and we need some sort of "enforcement agency" to keep this kind of stuff out of our schools and forums; we might offend a follower of Anton LaVey. And thus, out of neccessity, was born "The Enlightenment Police."


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

mmsbls said:


> This thread has deviated into purely religious/political comments, but perhaps more importantly, it has almost completely ignored the OP. The thread is about the direction of modern music (or whether it has one) and to what extent classical music is evolving. Please keep comments relevant to the OP and do not post comments about other members.


Um yeah, we just got done acknowledging that fact.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Oh, sorry officer, I was writing that post that while you were posting your warning.

Now, I'm surprised at you, starthrower. You have Sun Ra as your avatar. Do you realize how much religio-political stuff he spewed out over the course of his career?

Back on topic, "Classical" is just an invented historical notion which has nothing to do with the way music is created, or functions in our lives. It's like "scripture" written by dead people, who were responding to their time of existence.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Strange Magic said:


> Beware the gas that can often accompany that free lunch!


We don't care about the consequences; in fact, we feel entitled. And if we have to steal our lunch, we will.

On a more serious note, a friend of mine had 2 snow-cone machines stolen, and various stainless-steel restaurant quality pots and utensils stolen. Now they can make their own lunch. The social perception seems to be "the rules don't apply to us."

Back on topic, music represents cultures. A friend of mine accommodated a new worker in the warehouse area, and she played her music on a portable player so loud that it was a real problem. He asked her nicely to back it off, or use headphones, but she defiantly refused. She also ignored the fact that she got fired after that, and came back into my area to continue work, because a compadre of hers enabled her to do so. The boss had to come back and explain to her that she was, indeed fired. After that, the compadre also left, after being caught up in the ceiling (attic ladder entry) looking down through a peephole into the women's restroom. Is this reality, or a caricature? You decide.
So, music can be used as a "cultural bludgeon." I think Classical music can be used in a similar way, to "bludgeon the lower class."


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 29, 2018)

Enthusiast said:


> ^^^ That timeline is good, I think. What a shame the video didn't somehow manage to focus in and out of the music of the different named composers. It would have been quite a cacophony!
> 
> The list in the OP is also good, I think, especially as there are links to each of the named genres. The trouble is that we just won't use the terminology in the same ways. If we could all agree to use the same terminology for describing the different genres and schools then that could help make our discussions about music post-1900 much more meaningful.
> 
> ...


The timeline serves a purpose in identifying a number of varieties in modern music, and is interesting in that regard. However it perpetuates the snobbery against composers working in a more 'traditional' idiom (especially perhaps British composers). How can any serious presentation of music from the start of the 20th century exclude the likes of Vaughan Williams, Bax, Holst and Elgar, while nevertheless including any number of names whose output was less in terms of both significance and quantity?

The composers who developed the ideas of Schoenberg and Webern undoubtedly made a contribution to the direction of much modern music, but there were other directions of travel as well. It is wrong to dismiss these (despite what Boulez might have thought).


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> Now, I'm surprised at you, starthrower. You have Sun Ra as your avatar. Do you realize how much religio-political stuff he spewed out over the course of his career?


Sun Ra wasn't religious in the traditional sense. And he didn't takes sides in politics. He was more new age for lack of a better term. But like all great artists he felt connected to a spiritual source of creativity. Zappa notwithstanding. I like his music, and the fact that he took a stand against violence and injustice in his own gentle way. He was eccentric and he had his own theories, but I never felt like he was brow beating people.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

starthrower said:


> Sun Ra wasn't religious in the traditional sense. And he didn't takes sides in politics. He was more new age for lack of a better term. But like all great artists he felt connected to a spiritual source of creativity. Zappa notwithstanding. I like his music, and the fact that he took a stand against violence and injustice in his own gentle way. He was eccentric and he had his own theories, but I never felt like he was brow beating people.


Sun Ra had an album called "Magic City" which referred to Birmingham. His early experiences there led him to completely renounce his identity, claiming he was from another planet. I see this as a political act.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> Sun Ra had an album called "Magic City" which referred to Birmingham. His early experiences there led him to completely renounce his identity, claiming he was from another planet. I see this as a political act.


Like I said, he took a stand against violence and injustice. What else would a thinking person in the south do, especially a black man?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

starthrower said:


> Like I said, he took a stand against violence and injustice. What else would a thinking person in the south do, especially a black man?


Well, that's what I said: "Do you realize how much religio-political stuff he spewed out over the course of his career?" in the form of album titles, cultural acts (like the use of Egyptian music), religious themes (see the books), renouncing his identity as a black man and Earthling, etc.
If you think he somehow "transcended" this categorization because he is an artist and was "beyond that," I think you are guilty of "sanitizing" his art and "whitening" it into a sort of harmless pablum. 
I think you need to Listen to Sun Ra more in terms of racial awareness, and of him being a black man in America, and remain humbled as a white man: recognize the anger, be aware that you are a white man, human, and part of the problem. A large part of the problem in this case being the "assimilation of jazz" by white culture until it is almost unrecognizable, like some sort of processed food.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I'm already aware of these things. Where did I allude to the fact that Sun Ra was some innocuous, good time jazz piano tickler and Uncle Tom?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

starthrower said:


> I'm already aware of these things. Where did I allude to the fact that Sun Ra was some innocuous, good time jazz piano tickler and Uncle Tom?


Well, I was responding to your counter-assertion that Sun Ra was somehow "not religiously or politically motivated," and there's plenty of mention in the "_Polemical Tracts and Streetcorner Pamphlets"_ of Biblical figures, interpretations, etc. 
In fact, the very idea of someone handing out "streetcorner pamphlets" is either religious or political.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Sun Ra encouraged people to think creatively. Think outside the box. To not settle for the possible, but to strive beyond that. His approach to religion and politics was not mundane. He knew the transformation of society and humanity can only be achieved through a higher consciousness. Not by the outdated thinking, politics, and organized religion that got humanity into this mess.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I agree, he was coming from a place of higher awareness, but that automatically put him at odds with established religion and the culture as a whole. You can't really say that's 'non-political' or 'non-religious' if it affects those contexts he is immersed in.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I heard Ornette Coleman say that the important thing for an individual is to get through this life doing what you want to do. Following through with your convictions. Because there are so many forces allied against one accomplishing this goal. And I believe Sun Ra was successful in doing this. He made music on his own terms, he refused to join the military and kill people. He did it his way despite efforts to coerce him to act against his convictions.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I agree; Sun Ra had left the realm of situational politics and religion, and entered the world of timelessness, which is connected to the universal well of being. And there are constantly forces at work which try to draw one away from this state.

However, there may be consequences to this way of being, as we are all, to an extent, stuck in a world which is situational and limited. Our act of residing in a place where our being is free of this might cause "ripples" in that pond, which may upset the other denizens of the pond. We must therefore be mindful that our being-place is the only real 'safe' place to get a perspective.

In Sun Ra's case, just the situational fact that he was a black man in the southern USA was a big factor in this "ripple-making" effect.
And Sun Ra was only human, so this and other factors may have had "political" consequences, which he did not necessarily set out to create.


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> I did wonder on reading your OP how you would categorise your own music on your list (and if possible on Simon Moon's timeline)?
> 
> *But it is sad that you are not inspired by the music being written today*. I guess that puts you in agreement with 80% or more of this forum's members but there are also quite a number of us who have found a lot of music to love in the music of the last 30 years. For some of us that is our main musical interest but there are others who came to the contemporary via "the tradition". I think most of us feel that we are in something of a golden age. Of course, that doesn't mean you should agree or share in this enthusiasm ... but it does exist.


There is nothing sad about not being inspired by the immense amount of ugly music being written today. That makes complete sense. What is sad is that such music is being written.


----------



## fliege (Nov 7, 2017)

Haydn70 said:


> There is nothing sad about not being inspired by the immense amount of ugly music being written today. That makes complete sense. What is sad is that such music is being written.


Of course most music of the past was rubbish too. We just ignore the crap and focus on the tiny proportion of wonderful music that is left. You don't have the filter of history for contemporary music so it's easier to complain about it.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Steerpike said:


> The timeline serves a purpose in identifying a number of varieties in modern music, and is interesting in that regard. However it perpetuates the snobbery against composers working in a more 'traditional' idiom (especially perhaps British composers). How can any serious presentation of music from the start of the 20th century exclude the likes of Vaughan Williams, Bax, Holst and Elgar, while nevertheless including any number of names whose output was less in terms of both significance and quantity?
> 
> The composers who developed the ideas of Schoenberg and Webern undoubtedly made a contribution to the direction of much modern music, but there were other directions of travel as well. It is wrong to dismiss these (despite what Boulez might have thought).


I am a big fan of the diversity we have developed in music since WW1! I guess it would be easy to put in a strand that represented the conservative but great Brits. I'm not sure why Britain became such a "conservative backwater" but do agree that we were lucky with Elgar and Vaughan Williams. I see Holst and Bax as more minor but enjoy many of their pieces. The downside was that some of the more avant garde British composers were a little suffocated.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Haydn70 said:


> There is nothing sad about not being inspired by the immense amount of ugly music being written today. That makes complete sense. What is sad is that such music is being written.


We have different opinions on that. Of course, if music is genuinely and meaningfully ugly it is of no value but your apparent ignorance is misleading you into believing that all music being written today is ugly! This is an extraordinary view. Presumably you believe living composers should write pastiche? Or do you think they should simply give up? I'm amazed that so many people inspired by the very great of the past totally miss the greatness around us now!


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> We have different opinions on that. Of course, if music is genuinely and meaningfully ugly it is of no value but your apparent ignorance is misleading you into believing that all music being written today is ugly! This is an extraordinary view. Presumably you believe living composers should write pastiche? Or do you think they should simply give up? I'm amazed that so many people inspired by the very great of the past totally miss the greatness around us now!


Ever since I joined Talk Classical, I always got the impression (confirmed more than once) that most members that dislike modern and contemporary music, have heard a small sample, usually the most extreme examples, and paint the entirety of contemporary music with the same broad brush.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Vaughan Williams may be considered the major English composer, but I find the music of Britten and Bax more interesting. VW strikes me as a bit bland with the exception of a few pieces.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^^ _*The *_major? That has to be shared between Purcell and Britten. _*A *_major? Then add Elgar and Vaughan Williams. And, also, Tippett. Also good? Add Holst, Bax, Finzi, Moeran etc.

And then you have to work out whether Maxwell Davies, Birtwistle and Benjamin are among _*the *_major or are merely more major composers!

But I think Britten, Tippett, and the last three fit within the overall (international) scheme so you don't need to put them into a "British composer ghetto".


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Enthusiast said:


> ^^ _*The *_major? That has to be shared between Purcell and Britten. _*A *_major? Then add Elgar and Vaughan Williams. Also good? Add Holst, Bax, Finzi, Moeran etc.


*Purcell*. Britten's music sounds rather static to my ears.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I don't hear Britten's music that way. I don't like everything he's done. I haven't warmed to the War Requiem, and his piano concerto strikes me as light weight.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

OT: I don't think young people do find a niche and stick to it. Historically, I would say that used to be the case but listening by many of the young (my 4 sons are a prime example) seems to be far more eclectic. I was talking to a young friend of my son, a few weeks back, and he listens to grime, Metallica, some indie stuff and has a big soft spot for cheesy 80s pop. An odd mix but it works for him. He doesn't listen to classical music as he's never heard any apart from what he's heard "on adverts" !


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Merl said:


> OT: I don't think young people do find a niche and stick to it. Historically, I would say that used to be the case but listening by many of the young (my 4 sons are a prime example) seems to be far more eclectic. I was talking to a young friend of my son, a few weeks back, and he listens to grime, Metallica, some indie stuff and has a big soft spot for cheesy 80s pop. An odd mix but it works for him. He doesn't listen to classical music as he's never heard any apart from what he's heard "on adverts" !


Grime, Metallica, "indie stuff" and cheesy 80s pop are all cut from the same cloth-it's all pop music.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> ^^ _*The *_major? That has to be shared between Purcell and Britten. _*A *_major? Then add Elgar and Vaughan Williams. And, also, Tippett. Also good? Add Holst, Bax, Finzi, Moeran etc.
> 
> And then you have to work out whether Maxwell Davies, Birtwistle and Benjamin are among _*the *_major or are merely more major composers!
> 
> But I think Britten, Tippett, and the last three fit within the overall (international) scheme so you don't need to put them into a "British composer ghetto".


Purcell is THE English composer. He is a first tier composer at the level of Mozart. Handel is his only competition and would be No. 2, although I am not sure if to count him among English composers. All the rest including RVW, Elgar, Britten etc. are great, but second-tier composers.


----------



## Zofia (Jan 24, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> I believe your perception is fundamentally correct. I say "fundamentally" because music will always "evolve," i.e., develop and change. But - please indulge a metaphor - the central stream in the development of Western music in the tradition we call "classical" has been losing its containing banks for roughly the last hundred years and is now broken into numerous shallow rivulets spread thinly over a landscape characterized by busy eclecticism, constant experimentation, and a great deal of recycling of old merchandise sold in new wrappers. There is no longer a coherent classical musical culture capable of evolving. This merely reflects the loss of unity and definition, the globalization and fragmentation, of the culture as a whole.


I agree very much with what you said here sorry for ignoring the thread did not get new post updates.


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> We have different opinions on that. Of course, if music is genuinely and meaningfully ugly it is of no value but your apparent ignorance is misleading you into believing that all music being written today is ugly! This is an extraordinary view. Presumably you believe living composers should write pastiche? Or do you think they should simply give up? I'm amazed that so many people inspired by the very great of the past totally miss the greatness around us now!


Nowhere in my post do I state that, to quote you: "all music being written today is ugly". I said there is an "immense amount of ugly music being written today". I am a degreed composer of classical music and I am fully aware of today's contemporary classical music scene and I stand by that statement.

It appears YOUR ignorance is leading you to believe that the only choices facing a living composer of classical music is between composing ugly music or pastiche or not composing at all. There composers today-some, not many--that have rejected the "Cult of the Ugly" and write music that is tonal and original (not pastiche), powerful, moving and, yes, beautiful.

You should expand your listening horizons and thus minimize your ignorance.


----------



## Zofia (Jan 24, 2019)

millionrainbows said:


> You talk as if there were some period in the past where this "perfect moral man" existed. The "Enlightenment" was good insofar as it was reasonable, and recognized the value of the individual, but it was a fabrication of mind. It seems that the more "civilization" develops, the more it reveals itself to be traveling away from the individual, into a larger collective mentality, which is depersonalized, mechanical, and much like a virus..."Life-like" but not living. Man's essential being seems to be the "host" it feeds on. A Golem.


I don't think he is saying perfect moral man existed. I think you can say there is certainly a I don't know how to say it in English. Society is there to impose it's standards on the people those standards are in an abstract way made of the people. What was once unthinkable or shunned is fine now for the most part.

Children outside marriage, no fault divorce, abortion, many many sexual partners, almost acceptable to view pornography in the normie culture. How much society should punish if at all is not up for me to say but I do not think we are any different from 1900 in terms of how moral we are just powers out of sight plan to shift what is acceptable.

I certainly do not think we should be like an islamic country and ban music and movies and make you wear the face covering. I do think we are too far from proper society pressure. As evidenced by what causes outrage online younger people have less of the idea how to be moral in my experience but that is society based not inherently.


----------



## Iota (Jun 20, 2018)

Haydn70 said:


> There is nothing sad about not being inspired by the immense amount of ugly music being written today. That makes complete sense. What is sad is that such music is being written.


Why is it sad that music you don't like is being written, when other people enjoy it?


----------



## Zofia (Jan 24, 2019)

Iota said:


> Why is it sad that music you don't like is being written, when other people enjoy it?


You can still like something even if it is ugly or shallow. I like pop music but I do not pretend there is much if any substance to it.


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

Iota said:


> Why is it sad that music you don't like is being written, when other people enjoy it?


What is sad is when ugliness is embraced and not rejected as it should be.


----------



## Iota (Jun 20, 2018)

Haydn70 said:


> What is sad is when ugliness is embraced and not rejected as it should be.


It seems sadder to me, that somebody should decide other people should not enjoy or find music attractive, simply because they themselves do not. Indeed, it seems positively ugly.


----------



## Zofia (Jan 24, 2019)

Iota said:


> It seems sadder to me, that somebody should decide other people should not enjoy or find music attractive, simply because they themselves do not. Indeed, it seems positively ugly.


Some things are objectively ugly though. Like fetishising certain disorders or really disgusting art. You know I saw on German news American women paint with their monthly blood...

I see no redeeming feature in that it is the same for a lot of rap music for example that curses and objectives money and women.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

I prefer to delete the my reply to Red Terror, after I've seen how the thread was going. And it's an interesting topic and I don't want to ruin it.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Goddess save us from more lectures on the degeneracy of non-Christians and secular society! May she save us too from the kind of "cohesion" that humans suffered under prior to the Enlightenment you deplore (the Enlightenment which gave you the free society whose benefits you enjoy). Let me assure you that people who are not Christians do in fact produce "things of worth," and have done so at least since the cave paintings of Lascaux.
> 
> Please observe the basic rules of the forum - and polite public discourse - and take politics and religion to the subforum designated for them.


Since Redterror was replying to me, I feel compelled to add that mine is a basic, pre-religion, pre-dogma stance which transcends morality in that sense. My only point is that Man has usually been separated from his essential, sacred state of being, period.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> My only point is that Man has usually been separated from his essential, (sacred) state of being, period.


You must admit that Marx made the point with more force though and without obfuscation. This Heideggerian-style 'problem of being' you seem to be suggesting is so vague and nebulous that I think it just winds people up.

Be assured my dear MR, I'm not saying you have nothing to say on the matter; truly. I just don't know _what _it is you are saying!

What is the essential, sacred state of being? And why/how are people separated from it?


----------

