# Does music progress II?



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I kind of like this quote: "The value of art does not always move forward in an upward graph. We cannot say, as the 19th century tended to say, that Beethoven 'carried on where his predecessors left off', as though one might improve on Haydn or Mozart. Art does not respond to such reasoning. Beethoven plumbed not greater but different depths: here presented a different type of artist, a different age." --Denis Matthews

On the other hand, it seems to me that music *does* progress, at certain times and in certain ways. Can we really deny it? What say you?


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Trends progress, composers (generally) evolve their styles, so they, too, seem to progress, but this _does not_ mean that "the value of [their] art" necessarily increases. One cannot suggest that Beethoven's art is greater than Bach's, or that Schoenberg's is greater than Beethoven's, etc.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Beethoven did carry on from his predecessors.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

You could say that there is a continuous widening of options for what's considered "allowable" in music, and you could call that progress.


----------



## Garlic (May 3, 2013)

Music evolves, it doesn't progress. Any criteria chosen to demonstrate progress will be arbitrary.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Garlic said:


> Music evolves, it doesn't progress. Any criteria chosen to demonstrate progress will be arbitrary.


People stating this should then define what makes musical culture different from that of intellectual culture. Most would agree that there has been intellectual progress, not just a change of viewpoints, in the course of history. And certainly, as it has already been said, a widening of the horizon.


----------



## Garlic (May 3, 2013)

joen_cph said:


> People stating this should then define what makes musical culture different from that of intellectual culture. Most would agree that there has been intellectual progress, not just a change of viewpoints, in the course of history. And certainly, as it has already been said, a widening of the horizon.


I wouldn't agree that there has been intellectual progress in an abstract sense. You have to choose a criterion. Science can be said to have progressed as its predictive power has demonstrably improved. There is no such standard in the arts.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

The arts certainly aren´t devoid of intellectual concepts and ways of understanding. On the contrary, claiming that there are no such standards in the arts is to ignore cultural differences. The cave paintings may be pleasing from a vague, aesthetic viewpoint or the like seen from nowadays, but their conceptual world was much more limited than later art, and they insist on simple repetitions. Likewise, the world of Gregorian chant or Palestrina was more limited than that of Stravinsky or Nørgård.


----------



## Garlic (May 3, 2013)

joen_cph said:


> The arts certainly aren´t devoid of intellectual concepts and ways of understanding. On the contrary, claiming that there are no such standards in the arts is to ignore cultural differences. The cave paintings may be pleasing from a vague, aesthetic viewpoint or the like seen from nowadays, but their conceptual world was much more limited than later art, and they insist on simple repetitions. Likewise, the world of Gregorian chant or Palestrina was more limited than that of Stravinsky.


I'm not sure what you mean by "conceptual world", if you mean art's function, its place in society etc. then that has certainly changed, but to call it progress requires a value judgment. If you mean the art itself is more complex, that's debatable - Philip Glass is not more complex than Palestrina or Stravinsky, for example. And you need to make another value judgment if complexity is to be the measure of progress.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

The most acclaimed classical composers were born over 200 years ago, that might suggest that quality doesn't get better over time in the arts.

The perspective of the time someone is born affects their work, but isn't that always the case, and so wouldn't it be the case now too? Technically as an art develops over time there will be change and some eras when there could be a greater complexity in technique as a result. But does that change in technique necessarily reflect a greater truth for people of that time than it had for people of earlier times? For those who did cave paintings the seasons, hunting and animals reflected the truth of their life as they lived it. It's could be too distant to our own times for us to easily understand that.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Garlic said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by "conceptual world", if you mean art's function, its place in society etc. then that has certainly changed, but to call it progress requires a *value judgment*. If you mean the art itself is more complex, that's debatable - Philip Glass is not more complex than Palestrina or Stravinsky, for example. And you need to make another value judgment if complexity is to be the measure of progress.


It is correct that value judgments must be made, but IMO at least two criteria are essential, and both are from a human perspective of course, and as such not "objective" - those of social progress, to the benefit of the many, and that of self-awareness/understanding of the human conditions, being it in society, nature or the like. Both have gradually and slowly progressed due to science, and both qualities also manifest themselves in the arts.

The time of Gregorian chant had no Palestrina of course, he made his name due to his innovations/expansion of the language. And that of Palestrina had no Stravinsky. We obviously have both Stravinsky and Glass, and a fair knowledge on Gregorian chant and Palestrina too.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Science finds out more, though it is also still far from understanding everything. But whether scientfic progress always has a correlation to improving people is another matter. It could be argued that vices and virtues of human beings haven't obviously changed that much. Technological change can be for the better, or for the worse (bigger weapons, easier control of people by authority etc).


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Yes, I remember we have been having the debate on whether there´s any progress in history here too, but there are statistical results proving that it is the case, at least in some parts of the world, in spite of people not always acknowledging them - average life span, presence of crime and violence, diseases etc. Even the notorious 20th Century wasn´t so bad if compared to others. I´ll mention it but don´t have the time to engage in a debate about that now ;-).


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

joen_cph said:


> It is correct that value judgments must be made, but IMO at least two criteria are essential, and both are from a human perspective of course, and as such not "objective" - those of social progress, to the benefit of the many, and that of self-awareness/understanding of the human conditions, being it in society, nature or the like. Both have gradually and slowly progressed due to science, and both qualities also manifest themselves in the arts.
> 
> The time of Gregorian chant had no Palestrina of course, he made his name due to his innovations/expansion of the language. And that of Palestrina had no Stravinsky. We obviously have both Stravinsky and Glass, and a fair knowledge on Gregorian chant and Palestrina too.


But conversely, we don't have a Palestrina today. So although the options for music are wider, to some extent certain avenues are if not closed off then at least grassed over.
Could it not be argued that this represents a _loss_?


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

Music does progress in a way, but not always for the better. Early music had very strict rules but Monteverdi broke them. Haydn and Mozart had something of a rulebook but Beethoven went beyond it. Every musical innovator breaks the unwritten rules of his predecessor. But now it seems to me that there are no rules left to break. I think that's why new music is for many people no longer shocking. If so, that strikes me as something of a dead end. I'm not sure in what direction music has left to "progress" into.


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

Winterreisender said:


> Music does progress in way, but not always for the better. Early music had very strict rules but Monteverdi broke them. Haydn and Mozart had something of a rulebook but Beethoven went beyond it. Every musical innovator breaks the unwritten rules of his predecessor. But now it seems to me that there are no rules left to break. I think that's why new music is for many people no longer shocking. If so, that strikes me as something of a dead end. I'm not sure in what direction music has left to "progress" into.


I've often felt the very same thing. Sometimes I think the only "rule" of this era is to break all the rules, so the only way to break the rules is not to break the rules at all.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Their is progression: it is not logical, but subject to the caprices of one born, what that one musician did, the public taste leaning strongly to that while other composers think that music is the new, better direction, etc.

If Beethoven had not been born that would not have been enough to stop romanticism, but what we have of and in romantic music may have been mightily different. There is no further explaining Stravinsky, and his influence, and certainly no guessing what would have transpired in the 20th century if both Stravinsky, Schoenberg, had not been born.

Since all art music is a mighty artifice and extremely artificial, and the western canon an agreed upon set of artifices, one cannot expect a "logical" or "inevitable" path of development as perhaps the less surprising developments in maths or science. The randomness of one born, inclined to music, talented enough to compose and that much more being an influence on the public and other musicians seems -- to me -- truly capricious, like all history which involves people.


----------



## Ondine (Aug 24, 2012)

Progress... in music? 

Science has progress and it is not the main descriptor scientists use. They [we] do not like it. They [we] prefer to say expansion, understanding, predictability, etc.

Just when politicians come into scene they proudly state such a thing as progress and scientists... well they do science... but the political correctness of progress is needed for funds, unfortunately.

Stephen Jay Gould once said:

_"...a harmful concept, culturally binged, bulky, nothing operational, an intractable idea that must be replaced if we want truly to understand something of our history"._

But well... people gets fascinated with the idea of progress. Trying to be cautious, for the particular case of music, my take is with 'change' with nuances of something that 'evolves'.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

starry said:


> The most acclaimed classical composers were born over 200 years ago, that might suggest that quality doesn't get better over time in the arts.


That could be a mere demonstration of how slow the general public is on the pick-up...
_and "we" all know how much "they" love to hear that_


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> That could be a mere demonstration of how slow the general public is on the pick-up...
> _and "we" all know how much "they" love to hear that_


I will not...repeat WILL not...absolutely WILL NOT bring up the futility of the "blame the audience" argument. Nossir, not here, not now, no time, no where. Trust me.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

The whole concept of progress is the result of real economic and societal developments taking place, as opposed to a static society with few changes. The more static the society, the less musical variation, it seems. 

Take such phenomena as the opera or the concerto genre, as opposed to Gregorian chant - 
haven´t these genres, based on societal and cultural developments, with their interplay of an individual voice going through struggles and/or reconciliations with the collective, in an increasingly varied form through history - been a basis for musical variation, expansion and innovation, the breaking of new grounds, as opposed to the repetitious monotonies of the time when the chant was the most celebrated musical art form?


----------



## Guest (Oct 3, 2013)

Does music 'progress'? Come on Ken, how many times does this need to be asked??

No!!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> Does music 'progress'? Come on Ken, how many times does this need to be asked??
> 
> No!!


Your reply has the virtue of brevity.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

Winterreisender said:


> Music does progress in a way, but not always for the better. Early music had very strict rules but Monteverdi broke them. Haydn and Mozart had something of a rulebook but Beethoven went beyond it. Every musical innovator breaks the unwritten rules of his predecessor. But now it seems to me that there are no rules left to break. I think that's why new music is for many people no longer shocking. If so, that strikes me as something of a dead end. I'm not sure in what direction music has left to "progress" into.


I think that jazz musicians have found an interesting solution to this problem. Free jazz has been around a long time and is now often considered to be a musical "dead end", a lot of modern modern jazz musicians have instead combined elements from past styles(bebop, free jazz, modal) in interesting ways.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

Piwikiwi said:


> I think that jazz musicians have found an interesting solution to this problem. Free jazz has been around a long time and is now often considered to be a musical "dead end", a lot of modern modern jazz musicians have instead combined elements from past styles(bebop, free jazz, modal) in interesting ways.


I suppose neo-classicism can be a very interesting genre for the same reasons, i.e. a new take on old conventions.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

Winterreisender said:


> I suppose neo-classicism can be a very interesting genre for the same reasons, i.e. a new take on old conventions.


This is not the same as neo-classicism. it's combining something old to make something truly new.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> Does music 'progress'? Come on Ken, how many times does this need to be asked??
> 
> No!!


Do classical music discussions progress?

'Progress' simply means moving forward, it doesn't particularly mean 'improve' as progress can be downwards just as much as upwards. There is more music every year, that is progress. Whether music is improving or simply progressing down the mountain of Beethoven like the progress of a terminal disease is another question entirely.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

Piwikiwi said:


> This is not the same as neo-classicism. it's combining something old to make something truly new.


I am not familiar with the jazz of which you speak. However I was under the impression that neo-classicist composers like Stravinsky and Poulenc were not simply recreating the music of Haydn and Mozart, but rather coming up with new ways of composing based upon earlier traditions. I find that an innovative solution to get out of the "dead end."


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Piwikiwi said:


> This is not the same as neo-classicism. it's combining something old to make something truly new.


Which Neoclassism is. No one would confuse the non-functional tonality of Neoclassical Stravinsky for the common practice tonality of high Classicism.

Although with the description above (combining elements from past styles [bebop, free jazz, modal]), I'm reminded more of contemporary Postmodern concert music.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

Okay I stand corrected than it is very similar to neo-classicism.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

I've been sitting here after reading this thread trying to come up with a reason to care enough about this question to post something really phenomenal. But, I don't.............


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Vesteralen said:


> I've been sitting here after reading this thread trying to come up with a reason to care enough about this question to post something really phenomenal. But, I don't.............


I know, another potboiler tossed out knowing there is no answer 

After the fact, I recalled that in many a theory or music history text, it is pointed out that the earliest medieval musicwas a unison solo, the first "harmony" added a unison at the octave, followed by the fifth, the fourth, the sixth (inverted third) the seventh, the second, etc.

This progress of the "development' of the harmonic syntax of western art music -- over hundreds of years -- follows exactly the overtone series from the fundamental, octave, fifth, fourth, third, second, minor seconds (chromaticism) and music has made forays into the last of the harmonic overtone sequence, microtones.

Oh, and at each and every step of the way, the newly introduced harmony, interval, and subsequent music had detractors who abhorred it because the new interval and new harmony was "dissonant."

Ha. Haaaaa. Haaaaaa. _Thirds, major or minor, dissonant, folks!_

All of which, relative to dissonance, is why I almost always laugh when someone comments on a work being "dissonant."


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> I know, another potboiler tossed out knowing there is no answer


It seems to me, reading this thread, that there are quite a few answers! In fact, just after the statement quoted, you supplied yet another. Thank you!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> It seems to me, reading this thread, that there are quite a few answers! In fact, just after the statement quoted, you supplied yet another. Thank you!


I meant "potboiler" as an instigator to lively discussion and dozens of points of view. You're an expert, sir. Some native flair for the dramatic / melodramatic which I certainly lack, and you have in abundance. I've seen nothing negative about the way you deploy it, either.

It stirred up the desired dust, made a few think, those of us who have thought of it enough are either bored with it, or not 

But it does beg an unstated question: is there a way to logically order and explain what has happened in the course of the vagaries of harmonic use, aesthetic and styles? -- and to that, I think there is not and will not ever be such an answer. Like all recorded history, it is a line of "what happened," only, and little more.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

I have to beg your pardon for my uncharacteristically snarky post. Just because I was feeling bored .... still no reason for me to put my two cents in. Other people were obviously into this discussion and I should have just left it alone. Sorry.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Vesteralen said:


> I have to beg your pardon for my uncharacteristically snarky post. Just because I was feeling bored .... still no reason for me to put my two cents in. Other people were obviously into this discussion and I should have just left it alone. Sorry.


"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin," if brought up often enough, can be more than boring. I too, am guilty of forgetting that TC is not a closed community, that everyone I am usually aware of in threads is not always present, and others are. But it does take more than a little biting of the lip to refrain from going bonkers when some subjects come up again, and again, and from the same poster. But, that is fora, and that is some people.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

quack said:


> Do classical music discussions progress?
> 
> 'Progress' simply means moving forward, it doesn't particularly mean 'improve' as progress can be downwards just as much as upwards. There is more music every year, that is progress. Whether music is improving or simply progressing down the mountain of Beethoven like the progress of a terminal disease is another question entirely.


It's simply change. Some of that change could be the result of a change in society, but that in itself doesn't have to mean human beings have changed fundamentally as well. Human evolution is a rather slow happening in the overall scheme of things. If we considered it as progress surely we wouldn't bother listening to the older stuff as it wouldn't be worth as much as newer material. We may view art less as progress now than they did at some points in the past, as works that have stood longer seem to get more respect for having been admired for so long.


----------

