# Atonalists/Tonalists - What exactly do you WANT?



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

After spending an inordinate amount of time reading all the "What's the Point of Atonal/Tonal Music?" threads (and related ones) in this forum, I find myself puzzled by one question in particular:

"What is the point of all these discussions?"

In other words, what would make you happy? In an ideal *Talk Classical* world, what would you like to experience when you come here and see people discussing or even just referring to tonality or atonality?

It seems obvious that it is unrealistic to expect every member here to embrace one particular view. So, short of that, what do you hope to achieve by debating the topic?


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I come here to find out about music/composers I haven't encountered before. I could care less about the nerdy debates. Atonal, tonal? It doesn't matter to me.


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

isn't atonal just another technique to make music.


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

I think they just like killing time on the internet.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

EricABQ said:


> I think they just like killing time on the internet.


Most likely.

I think I may just content myself with that answer. Anything more to the point would probably just confuse me more.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

I want popular tonal works to stop being programmed with unpopular atonal works.

I want people to stop telling me or anyone else that I have any obligation of any variety whatsoever to listen to and/or support the "new music".

I want an end to Regietheater. I want audience based control of art funding. 

I want millionrainbows to explain why people like Puccini and Verdi as opposed to other tonal composers whose music is just as easy to "digest". I also want him to explain why Die Meistersinger is such a poor work and why audiences love it anyways. 

I want lots of things.


----------



## Guest (Nov 2, 2012)

brianwalker said:


> I want popular tonal works to stop being programmed with unpopular atonal works.


Of course you do. And is it you who gets to decide what "atonal" means? (I'll bet you'll want to stop programming a bunch of tonal works, too, if you don't like them.)

And what about your mates in the audience who like the "unpopular atonal works"? They're just chopped liver, eh?

Socialization would be a nice thing at this point: when you're at home, you can do whatever you want, eat what you want, see what you want, listen to what you want. But when you go out in public, all that changes. There are now other people around you, and they won't all want the same things you want. And unless you've left the human race, you will acknowledge that those people's wants and needs are just as valid as yours, even if they're different from yours.



brianwalker said:


> I want people to stop telling me or anyone else that I have any obligation of any variety whatsoever to listen to and/or support the "new music".


Hey! Now it's me who wants something. I want you to stop repeating this canard. No one has ever told you that you have any obligation of any variety whatsoever to listen to and/or support the "new music." Stop repeating that you're tired of being told something that no one is saying.



brianwalker said:


> I want an end to Regietheater. I want audience based control of art funding.


"Audience based" is code for "brianwalker based" I strongly suspect--going by other wants you've stated.



brianwalker said:


> I want lots of things.


So do we all, mate. So do we all. That's not the issue. The issue is, who gets to get what they want.

In Haydn's time, audiences went to concerts that were a hodge-podge of all different styles, designed specifically to satisfy all kinds of tastes. Everyone knew, going into them, that they would hear something they liked. Everyone knew, going into them, that they would hear something that someone else liked. And nobody whinged at that. It's called collegiality, and we could certainly use a healthy dollop of that ourselves.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Programming modern music as the medicine to be taken after the traditional lollipop is the *worst* way to try to introduce people to modern music. It should be programmed for itself in a conducive atmosphere. If it doesn't get an audience, it's failed as music, because music people don't want to hear isn't good music.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

bigshot said:


> If it doesn't get an audience, it's failed as music, because music people don't want to hear isn't good music.


I'd love to agree, but can't! Say, Beethoven's late quartets. In the 19th century, they were his least popular quartets and evidently seldom performed. Those who wrote about music for the most part described their perceived deficiencies. Now they are arguably his most-performed, and critics are (again) pretty unanimous but in the other direction. Were they relative failures as music then and relative successes as music now?

Would it have been a bad thing ("medicine to be taken after the traditional lollipop") to program them in the 19th century, despite a lack of public acceptance?


----------



## graaf (Dec 12, 2009)

I do sympathize with people who can't come to TC and talk about atonality without being ambushed by tonality camp and their torrent of name calling. That does not mean that anotal camp is innocent, they are "guilty" of insisting on listening to contemporary music - "because that is what people of Mozart era did too - he was their contemporary" (they might not do it this obviously, but read enough of their posts and you can be sure to see it in one form or another). It is of no use telling them that so many of us couldn't possibly care less about Mozart's contemporaries while listening to his music.

The annoying truth is that some of the people who listen to classical music are proud of it to a certain extent, for listening to relatively rare music (less than 10% of market share in most countries). So they come to the classical music forum and encounter what they perceive to be another form of elitism - listening to the classical music composed recently. So they treat those "perceived elitists" the very same way that they are treated by some pop music listeners when they talk to them about their Mozart - they frown upon to say the least, or attack and ridicule. They give to Stockhausen fans the same they get from Madonna fans (Madonna? I'm getting old...).

But it really is tiresome to see so many "recommend me some Telemann" threads end up in the same boring flame wars of tonal vs anotal...


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Is this a what's the point of "what's the point of ... threads" thread?


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

brianwalker said:


> I want people to stop telling me or anyone else that I have any obligation of any variety whatsoever to listen to and/or support the "new music".


I am with some guy. I am tired of being accused of trying to make people listen to music they dislike. As far as I am concerned, a person can listen to whatever they want to.


----------



## Zauberberg (Feb 21, 2012)

I want sex.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Vesteralen said:


> ...
> It seems obvious that it is unrealistic to expect every member here to embrace one particular view. So, short of that, what do you hope to achieve by debating the topic?


Yeah well I now am implementing a 'policy' of avoiding threads with even a title I think is supsicious. They're like red rags to a bull. We get people telling others what do to, what to think, blah blah blah. I mean its not as if we're in a doctor's surgery. We don't have an illness to diagnose. But that's how some people set this whole dialogue up. Or maybe its as if music is a religion, and we got to proseletyse about it.

Anyway, the basic thing is just enjoy what you enjoy, and talk about it here as you like. Or be critical, that's fine. Or netural, whatever. But the less the agenda or kind of 'thought control' the better. Its wierd when people accuse me of bias, and yeah I am, but isn't everybody ultimately? I mean some people (a minority only) should kinda 'get real.'

Lecture over.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

bigshot said:


> Programming modern music as the medicine to be taken after the traditional lollipop is the *worst* way to try to introduce people to modern music. It should be programmed for itself in a conducive atmosphere. If it doesn't get an audience, it's failed as music, because music people don't want to hear isn't good music.


I don't want to hear Mozart 90% of the time. See how your logic doesn't really work? Mozart's music doesn't fail because I don't want to hear it, and Webern's doesn't fail because you don't wanna hear it.


----------



## Guest (Nov 3, 2012)

Since you're here, posting, I'm curious. When does the implementation begin?

Anyway, I think the real issue is quite other. I think the real issue is are people who enjoy certain things going to be allowed to simply talk about those things with like-minded people, or are they going to be constantly interrupted by people who don't like those things with rants about how crappy that music is, how perverted its creators are, and how the creation and enjoyment of that crap is a sign of how decadent this society is? And, of course, how we must change our ways or the dissolution of society will be on our heads and our children's heads unto the third and fourth generations.

I think they're going to be constantly interrupted. Oh well.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

some guy said:


> And, of course, how we must change our ways or the dissolution of society will be on our heads and our children's heads unto the third and fourth generations.


I can only quote Beethoven's last words, on receiving that case of wine: "A pity, too late."


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

I guess I just don't see what the big fuss is. I think the first time I started liking atonal music was when I found out that Webern transcribed Bach's Musical Offering, Schoenberg talked with great admiration for Mozart's String Quartets, and Carter lost starry-eyed in a Schubert String Quartet. Once I stopped seeing all these people as trying to violently destroy the old order, and saw them as lovers of the same tradition as the music we all love, and that they saw even themselves as a step in that tradition, their music just became part of the fabric of the great musical tradition. I think this is the key to getting into this music; by just don't see it as this great breaking point anymore. Using an analogy, to not like some Baroque music is fine, to prefer Romantic music to Baroque music is also fine, but to hate all the Baroque inherently due to aesthetic ideology is absurd. Or at the very least, one respects the Baroque era, and sees it as an aesthetic condition rather than an aesthetic nightmare. 

So, I'm not sure. I love it all really. I'm against people who disparage Mozart and I'm against people who disparage Schonberg. To me, they are both geniuses, regardless of the style they composed or the ideology they adopted or the people they influenced or whatever. I like to divorce a composer from his or her influence. I don't think influence has anything to do with the merit of the art. Even Brahms loved Wagner. I feel like we should learn from Brahms.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

_{Ante script: I think it is a non-topic. As such, it might be worth considering banning it from the forum altogether.}_

For many of the living 'big boy / girl' composers, both young and old, the very mention of either is irrelevant bordering on 'absurd it is even mentioned', in that 'all and any way to write' is what they use where and when they deem it useful / appropriate. Some have chosen / prefer to use one vocabulary more than another or, rather, exclusively. Almost none of the more important composers I can think of feel the need to mention, let alone defend, 'their vocabulary vs. another.'

Both have been accepted for so long (if one has 'kept up') that there are now about as many numerous general variant 'modes' of atonality that they rival the general 'modes' of tonality as defined by the last several hundred years. Among most professionals this is Not an Issue worth the time to discuss.

Have you seen one rant / rave / political speech about modality vs. tonality? I think not. Why? because they are both valid, and a contentious postulation about one being better or more legitimate than the other would get laughed off the board.

Such is my wish: that neither ever get mentioned At All, Ever again.

Arguments pro or con on this forum most regularly quickly degenerate to the inane and non-pertinent.

Postings which expound that tonality or atonality are 'organic' based on the laws of acoustics, math, arguments wrapped in music-crit babel or reverting to philosophy or logic and other similar wastes of column space (and the readers time) should be relegated to a new category. "Rationale-babel-proofs to ease those with closed ears into believing they love music and are correct in thier limitations of that which they like and dislike."

"There are two kinds of music. Good music, and the other kind." ~ Duke Ellington

Of course, with that out of the way, all would have to step up to bat prepared to discuss the ACTUAL MERITS of a work rather than throw hissy fits about its tonal spectrum or method. That would leave a few of the more hard core 'pro' and 'anti' tonality fanatics with nothing to say at all -- and we would be deprived of their glorious statements and opinions, and left with real discussion over the music itself.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

some guy said:


> Since you're here, posting, I'm curious. When does the implementation begin?
> 
> Anyway, I think the real issue is quite other. I think the real issue is are people who enjoy certain things going to be allowed to simply talk about those things with like-minded people, or are they going to be constantly interrupted by people who don't like those things with rants about how crappy that music is, how perverted its creators are, and how the creation and enjoyment of that crap is a sign of how decadent this society is? And, of course, how we must change our ways or the dissolution of society will be on our heads and our children's heads unto the third and fourth generations.
> 
> I think they're going to be constantly interrupted. Oh well.


Thank you for answering the original question seriously and not trying to turn the thread into yet another debate on the merits of A/T.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

Vesteralen said:


> After spending an inordinate amount of time reading all the "What's the Point of Atonal/Tonal Music?" threads (and related ones) in this forum, I find myself puzzled by one question in particular:
> 
> "What is the point of all these discussions?"
> 
> ...


Like I said in those discussions, and recommended in site feedback, it would be amicable to have separate forums for these fundamentally unrelated topics.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Ignore the video if you want; listen to the lyrics. You may interpret "hoofed at the end of each leg" as metaphorical for "human" and "vegetarian" as metaphorical for "musical" (and "eat hay and oats" therefore as "listen to classical music").






Please keep this song in mind before you post anything. Reread your post. Does it treat everyone fairly? Does it take other opinions into consideration? Does it propose a solution that benefits everyone equally? If you answered *yes* to all of those questions (as they may apply to whatever you're replying to), you may push the "Post reply" button.

Thank you in advance.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

SottoVoce said:


> I guess I just don't see what the big fuss is. I think the first time I started liking atonal music was when I found out that Webern transcribed Bach's Musical Offering, Schoenberg talked with great admiration for Mozart's String Quartets, and Carter lost starry-eyed in a Schubert String Quartet. Once I stopped seeing all these people as trying to violently destroy the old order, and saw them as lovers of the same tradition as the music we all love, and that they saw even themselves as a step in that tradition, their music just became part of the fabric of the great musical tradition. I think this is the key to getting into this music; by just don't see it as this great breaking point anymore. Using an analogy, to not like some Baroque music is fine, to prefer Romantic music to Baroque music is also fine, but to hate all the Baroque inherently due to aesthetic ideology is absurd. Or at the very least, one respects the Baroque era, and sees it as an aesthetic condition rather than an aesthetic nightmare.
> 
> So, I'm not sure. I love it all really. I'm against people who disparage Mozart and I'm against people who disparage Schonberg. To me, they are both geniuses, regardless of the style they composed or the ideology they adopted or the people they influenced or whatever. I like to divorce a composer from his or her influence. I don't think influence has anything to do with the merit of the art. Even Brahms loved Wagner. I feel like we should learn from Brahms.


You should hear Webern's orchestration of some of Schubert's German Dances. It is so beautiful.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Kopachris said:


> Ignore the video if you want; listen to the lyrics. You may interpret "hoofed at the end of each leg" as metaphorical for "human" and "vegetarian" as metaphorical for "musical" (and "eat hay and oats" therefore as "listen to classical music").
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I call shenanigans! The notes Spike is playing aren't the notes in the music! D8<


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

BurningDesire said:


> I call shenanigans! The notes Spike is playing aren't the notes in the music! D8<


How do you know John Cage didn't tune the piano?

(Back on topic...)

(Actually, I have nothing to add to the topic. You can gather my view on this subject by seeing which posts I "liked.")


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Of course, with that out of the way, all would have to step up to bat prepared to discuss the ACTUAL MERITS of a work rather than throw hissy fits about its tonal spectrum or method.


That was tried in the listening club but not many people took much interest.
I guess people just like to argue. Go figure.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> That was tried in the listening club but not many people took much interest.
> I guess people just like to argue. Go figure.


Cult of personality vs. Cult of 'content.' Sigh and Lol.


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

A pizza would be nice right about now.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

mud said:


> Like I said in those discussions, and recommended in site feedback, it would be amicable to have separate forums for these fundamentally unrelated topics.


That is not a suggestion of 'amicability' but a request for mollycoddling because baby gets upset whenever he sees a bicyclist riding by whenever baby is out and about in the perambulator.

I am not in the least worried or sorry that baby is upset.... at least about this particular tonality / atonality non-issue.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

And, as to the nature of the OP:

Some have now grown up in a climate where they think, as is the case for movies television and other 'popular' forms of entertainment, that the lowest common denominator 'popular' audience response actually dictates what is considered 'worthy' in the realms of the fine arts. 

Then they find out there are truly 'an elite' in the fine arts -- the professional composers and critics themselves -- and go kinda crazy, all the while completely not getting that anything where 'top game' is the demand -- including professional sports to art and all in between -- the players and critics will always be / always are 'an elite.' 

Deluded that they had the power of one man one vote, much like Americans forget it is a republic and not a true democracy, the rest of the audience 'plebes' -- whose vote(s) count far less per capita than the actual professional doers, makers, critics -- are actually the perfect demonstration, by behavior, of why they should never have the full vote. 

They are limited in what they know, by lack of exposure or due to arbitrary and empiric personal preferences, and their steering the helm would always point the vessel to the safest, most bland and shallow of waters, thereby curtailing or aborting the journey entirely -- out of fear of anything outside of their general taste or understanding.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

PetrB said:


> And, as to the nature of the OP:
> 
> Some have now grown up in a climate where they think, as is the case for movies television and other 'popular' forms of entertainment, that the lowest common denominator 'popular' audience response actually dictates what is considered 'worthy' in the realms of the fine arts.
> 
> ...


Leaving aside the _critics_ (which is the best thing to do with them), composers have never been united in their belief of what is 'worthy'. They are just as limited by their own personal preferences.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Deluded that they had the power of one man one vote, much like Americans forget it is a republic and not a true democracy, the rest of the audience 'plebes' -- whose vote(s) count far less per capita than the actual professional doers, makers, critics -- are actually the perfect demonstration, by behavior, of why they should never have the full vote.


Most Americans might find this view repellent, although Plato would probably find it agreeable. And perhaps even Mitt Romney as well, but only if he was speaking at a $20,000-per-plate funraiser and he thought nobody was filming it!

Be that as it may, the direction of music in capitalist societies is ultimately driven by the plebes, one concert ticket or CD at a time. This has been true ever since the baroque (throwing in sheet music of course). Other societies have tried other approaches...


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

KenOC said:


> Most Americans might find this view repellent, although Plato would probably find it agreeable. And perhaps even Mitt Romney as well, but only if he was speaking at a $20,000-per-plate funraiser and he thought nobody was filming it!
> 
> Be that as it may, the direction of music in capitalist societies is ultimately driven by the plebes, one concert ticket or CD at a time. This has been true ever since the baroque (throwing in sheet music of course). Other societies have tried other approaches...


Bertrand Russell called Plato "the first fascist". I don't agree with this sentiment, but I do agree that some of Plato's politics is so repulsive to the modern mind. Some of the books on the Republic make me want to quit reading philosophy altogether, as it seems disconcerting to contribute "a footnote to Plato", as some people say all philosophy is. But then, I realize how much of a leap he was to his predecessors (read Heraclitus), and I am grateful once again.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

As an aficionado some atonal music I would like the opportunity hear and discuss atonal music the same way I enjoy Beethoven or Mahler. It seems as if the anti-modernists would like to eradicate all evidence atonal music from the music world.


----------



## Guest (Nov 4, 2012)

Yes, I would like this, too.

But knowing that we'll never get it, what next?


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

graaf said:


> I do sympathize with people who can't come to TC and talk about atonality without being ambushed by tonality camp and their torrent of name calling. That does not mean that anotal camp is innocent, they are "guilty" of insisting on listening to contemporary music - "because that is what people of Mozart era did too - he was their contemporary" (they might not do it this obviously, but read enough of their posts and you can be sure to see it in one form or another). It is of no use telling them that so many of us couldn't possibly care less about Mozart's contemporaries while listening to his music.
> 
> The annoying truth is that some of the people who listen to classical music are proud of it to a certain extent, for listening to relatively rare music (less than 10% of market share in most countries). So they come to the classical music forum and encounter what they perceive to be another form of elitism - listening to the classical music composed recently. So they treat those "perceived elitists" the very same way that they are treated by some pop music listeners when they talk to them about their Mozart - they frown upon to say the least, or attack and ridicule. They give to Stockhausen fans the same they get from Madonna fans (Madonna? I'm getting old...).
> 
> But it really is tiresome to see so many "recommend me some Telemann" threads end up in the same boring flame wars of tonal vs anotal...


That is the best decription of the moronical behaviour of the clever dicks that I've seen!


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

arpeggio said:


> As an aficionado some atonal music I would like the opportunity hear and discuss atonal music the same way I enjoy Beethoven or Mahler. It seems as if the anti-modernists would like to eradicate all evidence atonal music from the music world.


I talk about atonal and other new/newer type music all the time. Including 'lowbrow' stuff like musicals and film musics (which I see as part of classical, but others don't, so what?). Anyway, the place I post my thoughts on all this stuff is 'current listening.' That's okay. But if someone puts 'atonal' or something like that in a thread title, BEWARE! I think we've agreed on this before. Its like the word is a catalyst for all types of things - many of them merry go round/revolving door debates that go nowhere. & potentially not very 'civil' etc.



Klavierspieler said:


> A pizza would be nice right about now.


Cats don't eat pizza. They eat cat food and the odd mouse. Dunno why I'm writing this but...?


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

Sid James said:


> Cats don't eat pizza. They eat cat food and the odd mouse. Dunno why I'm writing this but...?


Garfield does.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Klavierspieler said:


> Garfield does.


Well maybe I should have written 'sensible and health conscious cats don't eat pizza.'

Just like 'listeners who are sensible and have good taste don't listen to atonal music.'

[Only joking, people!]. . .


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Vesteralen said:


> After spending an inordinate amount of time reading all the "What's the Point of Atonal/Tonal Music?" threads (and related ones) in this forum, I find myself puzzled by one question in particular:
> 
> "What is the point of all these discussions?"
> 
> ...


It seems obvious that there are listeners here who do not like Stockhausen, Dallapiccolla, Krenek, Babbitt, Sessions, Cage, or Boulez, which is fine; everyone is entitled to an opinion.
The problem is, these listeners do not consider these composers as legitimate representatives of the Western classical tradition. By extension, they do not feel that these composers should be discussed on a "classical" music forum, because their definition of "classical" stops somewhere after Debussy.
Further, there is great resistance to the idea of Western classical music having "developed" into modernism. The new music is frequently accused of "murdering" tonality, "destroying" music, and of "replacing" a "dead" tonality.

Most of my time is spent attempting to dispel this inaccuracy and explain the methods used in making this music.

*I have no solution to this hatred; I place my faith in the moderators, who are really the ones who should be addressing this problem.*


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Klavierspieler said:


> Garfield does.


I thought he favored lasagna. o3o


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> *I have no solution to this hatred; I place my faith in the moderators, who are really the ones who should be addressing this problem.*


Hah. I would not get your hopes up in _that_ case.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Hoping that some higher power (in this case moderators) will swoop down from olympus and cure people who don't like Krenek, Cage et. al. is ridiculous. Sanctioning people into an appreciation of music will not work, and silencing them from sharing their views is an oppressive offense to art. If the art and the arguments for the art can't stand up against the slings and arrows of outrageous posters then perhaps they aren't worth supporting.

I find many of the criticisms pretty lightweight "no one likes it", "it has failed", "it's just noise". So let people have their criticisms, it is far sweeter to hear some dissent, some discord, than simply echoing agreement.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

quack said:


> Hoping that some higher power (in this case moderators) will swoop down from olympus and cure people who don't like Krenek, Cage et. al. is ridiculous. Sanctioning people into an appreciation of music will not work, and silencing them from sharing their views is an oppressive offense to art. If the art and the arguments for the art can't stand up against the slings and arrows of outrageous posters then perhaps they aren't worth supporting.
> 
> I find many of the criticisms pretty lightweight "no one likes it", "it has failed", "it's just noise". So let people have their criticisms, it is far sweeter to hear some dissent, some discord, than simply echoing agreement.


You know, I'm fine with criticism. But just constantly insulting the music and people who like it is really not very nice, and its hypocritical, considering they dish it but can't take it.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> It seems obvious that there are listeners here who do not like Stockhausen, Dallapiccolla, Krenek, Babbitt, Sessions, Cage, or Boulez, which is fine; everyone is entitled to an opinion.
> The problem is, these listeners do not consider these composers as legitimate representatives of the Western classical tradition. By extension, they do not feel that these composers should be discussed on a "classical" music forum, because their definition of "classical" stops somewhere after Debussy.
> Further, there is great resistance to the idea of Western classical music having "developed" into modernism. The new music is frequently accused of "murdering" tonality, "destroying" music, and of "replacing" a "dead" tonality.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure what problem you want moderators to address. Nothing you mention in your post is against the Terms of Service. People are allowed to dislike or even hate modern/atonal/avant-garde/whatever music they like. They are even allowed to express that hatred. They can harbor any inaccuracies about the music or composers they wish (and again express those inaccuracies). There are explicit things posters may not do, and generally those violations don't seem to belong only to those who dislike modern music.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

quack said:


> Hoping that some higher power (in this case moderators) will swoop down from olympus and cure people who don't like Krenek, Cage et. al. is ridiculous. Sanctioning people into an appreciation of music will not work, and silencing them from sharing their views is an oppressive offense to art. If the art and the arguments for the art can't stand up against the slings and arrows of outrageous posters then perhaps they aren't worth supporting.
> 
> I find many of the criticisms pretty lightweight "no one likes it", "it has failed", "it's just noise". So let people have their criticisms, it is far sweeter to hear some dissent, some discord, than simply echoing agreement.


Agreed; I'm happy to fight "the good fight." The thread-starter acts as if he is somehow offended that this issue is a hot topic. I'm not conflicted about modern music, so I did not create the conflict, and do not take blame for the heated arguments.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> I'm not sure what problem you want moderators to address. Nothing you mention in your post is against the Terms of Service. People are allowed to dislike or even hate modern/atonal/avant-garde/whatever music they like. They are even allowed to express that hatred. They can harbor any inaccuracies about the music or composers they wish (and again express those inaccuracies). There are explicit things posters may not do, and generally those violations don't seem to belong only to those who dislike modern music.


I agree; I'm addressing the thread-starter, mainly, who acts as if he is somehow "offended" that there is heated discussion about this topic. The opening post sounds like he issued an "ultimatum" urging the participants to cease and desist.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Vesteralen said:


> After spending an inordinate amount of time reading all the "What's the Point of Atonal/Tonal Music?" threads (and related ones) in this forum, I find myself puzzled by one question in particular:
> 
> "What is the point of all these discussions?"
> 
> ...


I must counter with "What's the Point of This Question?"

Of course it is "unrealistic to expect every member here to embrace one particular view," so this demands tolerance and respect.

But when generalizations are flung about, putting down major composers like Cage, Babbitt, Stockhausen, and Boulez, and lumping all of their music into one negative category of _"noise"_ and _"unlistenable,"_ and then suggesting that these composers are _"not part of the Western classical tradition"_ and by extension should not be included in a 'classical' music forum, then I feel compelled to come to modern music's defense. 
*When my position is attacked, I will defend it.*


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> ...lumping all of their music into one negative category of _"noise"_ and _"unlistenable,"_ and then suggesting that these composers are _"not part of the Western classical tradition"_ and by extension should not be included in a 'classical' music forum, then I feel compelled to come to modern music's defense. _When attacked, I will defend myself._


Do you really feel that criticisms of such music are ad hominem attacks on yourself? That seems more than a little curious.


----------



## Guest (Nov 5, 2012)

Not to speak for million or anything, but of course he doesn't feel that way. Even if you remove the inappropriate reference to ad hominem, he doesn't feel that way, I am sure.

In any case, whether or not million feels personally attacked when music he loves is attacked, this comment of yours is impertinent. Why, it's kind of an ad hominem (according to the actual meaning of that phrase) itself, as it substitutes speculation about a person's motives for a comment on what the person actually said.

And speaking of speculation, I more than half suspect that you know all this anyway and are just being provoking.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

some guy said:


> And speaking of speculation, I more than half suspect that you know all this anyway and are just being provoking.


This is not accurate. Any reading of what MR wrote will, I think, lead to the conclusion I drew. Many of us sometimes feel personally attacked when "our" music is criticized, but most of us are still aware that this is (to say the least) illogical.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> It seems obvious that there are listeners here who do not like Stockhausen, Dallapiccolla, Krenek, Babbitt, Sessions, Cage, or Boulez, which is fine; everyone is entitled to an opinion.
> The problem is, these listeners do not consider these composers as legitimate representatives of the Western classical tradition. By extension, they do not feel that these composers should be discussed on a "classical" music forum, because their definition of "classical" stops somewhere after Debussy.
> Further, there is great resistance to the idea of Western classical music having "developed" into modernism. The new music is frequently accused of "murdering" tonality, "destroying" music, and of "replacing" a "dead" tonality.
> 
> ...


What a very strange post this is. I don't enjoy any of the composers that you list but you may discuss them as much as you wish, I would not dream of interfering with your right to enjoy anything that appeals to you,furthermore I see no evidence of these mysterious people that make murderous attacks on your choice of music. As for suggesting that moderators should become involved that is ridiculous,but if you have noted behaviour that breaks TC rules report it which is the correct way to tackle your problems.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Do you really feel that criticisms of such music are ad hominem attacks on yourself? That seems more than a little curious.


And you get all that from "When attacked (meaning my stance) I will defend myself (meaning my position)"? Poppycock!

Cheap debate tactics! *(see my edit, done to thwart KenOC's skewing of it in a personal direction. -millions)*It sounds like _you're_ trying to invalidate _my_ defense of modern music by calling it a "character defect." Congratulations, _*you're*_ in ad-hominem territory now, but by choice, not as figure of speech. You're always skewing words like that.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

moody said:


> ...furthermore I see no evidence of these mysterious people that make murderous attacks on your choice of music...


Then apparently you have not been paying close attention to "mud"'s posts.

Are you insinuating that this is a fabrication, and questioning my perceptions? Because it's the tonalists who always say Schoenberg "murdered" tonality.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KenOC said:


> ...Many of us sometimes feel personally attacked when "our" music is criticized...





some guy said:


> Not to speak for million or anything, but of course he doesn't feel that way. _*(True. See my edited clarification, done to thwart KenOC's distortion of it-millions) *_Even if you remove the inappropriate reference to ad hominem, he doesn't feel that way, I am sure.
> 
> In any case...this comment of yours is impertinent. Why, it's kind of an ad hominem (according to the actual meaning of that phrase) itself, as it substitutes speculation about a person's motives for a comment on what the person actually said. _*(That sounds like KenOC's old Amazon tactics.-millions)*_
> 
> And speaking of speculation, I more than half suspect that you know all this anyway and are just being provoking.


*Ah ha!* So *KenOC *admits that *"we"* invest personal identity in our music!

And since music represents human intent and struggle, and has elements of culture built-in to it, then *music is an expression of our humanity.* Therefore, when we say we "hate" certain forms of music, then this is what I call "musical racism."

Remember, music almost always has _other functions_ than just being "music." Music is used to _reinforce identity,_ to _create social bonding,_ to _represent (however unconsciously) an ideology._

_*That's right;*_ music is a cultural language, and is an expression of all aspects of being human. So when anybody says they _hate _*rap* music, they are *rejecting* the culture and mindset which that music is an expression of.

Similarly, with *John Cage,* they are rejecting the aesthetic which produced the music, in all its manifestations: Cage was into *Eastern religion,* Cage was *gay,* and had an *artistic sensibility**...they must admit it,* they are really saying that they reject *John Cage the person* and all that he stands for.


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

graaf said:


> The annoying truth is that some of the people who listen to classical music are proud of it to a certain extent, for listening to relatively rare music (less than 10% of market share in most countries). So they come to the classical music forum and encounter what they perceive to be another form of elitism - listening to the classical music composed recently. So they treat those "perceived elitists" the very same way that they are treated by some pop music listeners when they talk to them about their Mozart - they frown upon to say the least, or attack and ridicule. They give to Stockhausen fans the same they get from Madonna fans (Madonna? I'm getting old...).


So true.


----------



## Guest (Nov 5, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Therefore, when we say we "hate" certain forms of music, then this is what I call "musical racism."
> 
> [...]
> 
> _*That's right;*_ music is a cultural language, and is an expression of all aspects of being human. So when anybody says they _hate _*rap* music, they are *rejecting* the culture and mindset which that music is an expression of.[...]


I think we can afford to be slightly less definitive. If I say I hate rap (not that I would, or do) I could merely mean that I hate rap. I might also mean that I hate the culture too. Let's not define things as all or nothing, black or white.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> *Ah ha!* So *KenOC *admits that *"we"* invest personal identity in our music!


Of course we do -- what enjoyment could we get from music if we didn't, at some level, "care" for it? But most of us realize that somebody else's dislike of "our" music doesn't imply an attack on ourselves or our values. In other words, we grin (if somewhat wryly) and move on.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> I think we can afford to be slightly less definitive. If I say I hate rap (not that I would, or do) I could merely mean that I hate rap. I might also mean that I hate the culture too. Let's not define things as all or nothing, black or white.


_*You might as well go on ahead and reject rap culture as well, because the rap music embodies it, and reflects it, and puts it "in yo' face" like no other medium could, except maybe I-Max film.
If you reject the "symbol" of something, you might as well have rejected the thing it embodies.

*_


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Of course we do -- what enjoyment could we get from music if we didn't, at some level, "care" for it? But most of us realize that somebody else's dislike of "our" music doesn't imply an attack on ourselves or our values. In other words, we grin (if somewhat wryly) and move on.


_*Then you are distanced from yourself and your values, my friend. And, yes, I feel personally offended when Stockhausen, Babbitt, Boulez, and Cage are castigated; after all, these were, and are, real people. Yes, if I were a black youth who liked rap, I would more than likely feel personally attacked if rap were talked about in this way. As I said, music is used to reinforce identity, to create social bonding, to represent an ideology or lifestyle. It's a symbol of who we are. 
Music is a cultural language, and is an expression of all aspects of being human. So when anybody says they hate modern art and music, they are rejecting the culture and mindset of which that music is an expression.

Like the American flag, many great aesthetic battles have been fought, many lives invested in creating modernism. If you throw it on the ground and burn it, you are burning more than just a symbol. I would gladly pick up a rifle and fight for the right to listen to Schoenberg, if some fascist decreed that it was "degenerate" music! Let us not forget the past...*_


----------



## Guest (Nov 6, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> _*Then you are distanced from yourself and your values, my friend. And, yes, I feel personally offended when Stockhausen, Babbitt, Boulez, and Cage are castigated; after all, these were, and are, real people. Yes, if I were a black youth who liked rap, I would more than likely feel personally attacked if rap were talked about in this way. As I said, music is used to reinforce identity, to create social bonding, to represent an ideology or lifestyle. It's a symbol of who we are.
> Music is a cultural language, and is an expression of all aspects of being human. So when anybody says they hate modern art and music, they are rejecting the culture and mindset of which that music is an expression.
> 
> Like the American flag, many great aesthetic battles have been fought, many lives invested in creating modernism. If you throw it on the ground and burn it, you are burning more than just a symbol. I would gladly pick up a rifle and fight for the right to listen to Schoenberg, if some fascist decreed that it was "degenerate" music! Let us not forget the past...*_


Try not to take yourself so seriously, million!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> _*Like the American flag, many great aesthetic battles have been fought, many lives invested...I would gladly pick up a rifle and fight for the right to listen to Schoenberg...*_


Well, MR has well and truly wrapped himself in the flag! Perhaps he has forgotten the adage that patriotism is the last refuge of -- what was it now?

Anyway, I am struck by the image of that grandly waving flag, as the music swells and Henry Fonda's voice intones: "As I would not be an atonal composer, so I would not be a serialist. This expresses my idea of good music. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no good music."

Apologies to Aaron, Abraham as well. And Henry was always an old-fashioned kind of guy.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> _*Then you are distanced from yourself and your values, my friend. And, yes, I feel personally offended when Stockhausen, Babbitt, Boulez, and Cage are castigated; after all, these were, and are, real people. Yes, if I were a black youth who liked rap, I would more than likely feel personally attacked if rap were talked about in this way. As I said, music is used to reinforce identity, to create social bonding, to represent an ideology or lifestyle. It's a symbol of who we are.
> Music is a cultural language, and is an expression of all aspects of being human. So when anybody says they hate modern art and music, they are rejecting the culture and mindset of which that music is an expression.
> 
> Like the American flag, many great aesthetic battles have been fought, many lives invested in creating modernism. If you throw it on the ground and burn it, you are burning more than just a symbol. I would gladly pick up a rifle and fight for the right to listen to Schoenberg, if some fascist decreed that it was "degenerate" music! Let us not forget the past...*_


This is coming from the guy who compared tonal music to bread pudding, called Mozart and Strauss boring and predictable, etc.



millionrainbows said:


> I think it takes some effort to appreciate post-war serial-derived music, wheras with tonality, it's a knee-jerk reaction; the food smells good and Pavlov's unfortunate dogs begin to salivate. It's as simple as that.
> 
> When I hear Corelli or Mozart, I can almost predict what the next event will be. The only way Mozart can be "brilliant" in such a predictable context is when he throws in an extra half-measure, or lands on a halfway "surprising" chord. The whole experience is based on clichés, and how cleverly these are juggled, like a "hidden pea" carnival game for rubes.
> Also, this "tonal food" tastes good; it sits on the ears like a sweet bread pudding, with no skill except that of swallowing. _You can swallow, can't you?_
> ...





millionrainbows said:


> And since music represents human intent and struggle, and has elements of culture built-in to it, then *music is an expression of our humanity.* Therefore, when we say we "hate" certain forms of music, then this is what I call "musical racism."


We all hate certain forms of music.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

SottoVoce said:


> Bertrand Russell called Plato "the first fascist". I don't agree with this sentiment, but I do agree that some of Plato's politics is so repulsive to the modern mind. Some of the books on the Republic make me want to quit reading philosophy altogether, as it seems disconcerting to contribute "a footnote to Plato", as some people say all philosophy is. But then, I realize how much of a leap he was to his predecessors (read Heraclitus), and I am grateful once again.


When we react to philosophers with monikers like "repulsive", we are thinking in anachronistic terms. We want Plato to see the consequences we've seen of his ideas. Because of our predispositions, we have trouble assenting to some of the merits that Plato points out in monarchies, oligarchies, fascism, etc. It's because of our modern western minds. We've been presented all kinds of alternatives that he hadn't been presented. The democracy he knew was capricious, changing it's own definition repeatedly, easily falling prey to cult personalities and functioning only as democracy in name, a bully to it's neighbors (think of the military pressure of Athens, and it's starting a Greek league fund that it just stole from all the time), and at times anything but humanistic. I would have been frustrated with democracy, too. Just look at Athens' behavior around and during the Peloponnesian wars.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

millionrainbows said:


> _*Then you are distanced from yourself and your values, my friend. And, yes, I feel personally offended when Stockhausen, Babbitt, Boulez, and Cage are castigated; after all, these were, and are, real people. Yes, if I were a black youth who liked rap, I would more than likely feel personally attacked if rap were talked about in this way. As I said, music is used to reinforce identity, to create social bonding, to represent an ideology or lifestyle. It's a symbol of who we are.
> Music is a cultural language, and is an expression of all aspects of being human. So when anybody says they hate modern art and music, they are rejecting the culture and mindset of which that music is an expression.
> 
> Like the American flag, many great aesthetic battles have been fought, many lives invested in creating modernism. If you throw it on the ground and burn it, you are burning more than just a symbol. I would gladly pick up a rifle and fight for the right to listen to Schoenberg, if some fascist decreed that it was "degenerate" music! Let us not forget the past...*_


Here, you say you do feel personally attacked, and elsewhere you seem to say you don't (post 53). Also, that you admit this here, does actually lend some credence to KenOC's idea that you've taken criticisms of the music you like as ad hominem attacks. Of course, I don't think you take it that way because KenOC hasn't properly used the expression "ad hominem", which is a type of fallacious argument. I highly doubt you've taken those criticisms as red herring arguments that had to do with your own qualities as opposed to the qualities of the music in question, which is what KenOC's claim would mean, as opposed to you taking this extra implication that you take.

But with these silly arguments about the use of ad hominem aside, and a mind towards answering the OP: I don't want much of anything specific. I'm content to see people try to think through these issues, maybe not always arguing with the most admirable intentions, because I am intrigued enough by what some write on both sides of the issue, and can either ignore or forget what others write that isn't intriguing. I'm also content to discuss music simply in the context of appreciating it with others who appreciate it. IMO, not all of what's been said in these threads the OP refers to is drivel, futile, useless, or whatever. It doesn't all have to sound like it has come from a music, history, or philosopher professor for me to contentedly read and just find myself less impressed by some arguments and more impressed by others, made by the same poster. While I don't see these issues as irrelevant, I can understand and empathize a bit with others who have said that they tire of seeing these kinds of threads as opposed to the type of musical discussions you would typically think of when you come to a site like this.

So, I have no wants. They are satisfied well enough. I have no complaints with either camp, or with the disinterested parties here, because I wouldn't expect anything else from them. They fascinate me because they are themselves, not all the same people. If there were just one dominant posting trend around here, then this site would lose some colour.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

some guy said:


> Of course you do. And is it you who gets to decide what "atonal" means? (I'll bet you'll want to stop programming a bunch of tonal works, too, if you don't like them.)


The pairing of works disparate in style and popularity where the unpopular work is riding on the coat-tail of the more popular work.



> And what about your mates in the audience who like the "unpopular atonal works"? They're just chopped liver, eh?


I'm not against separate concerts where likes are paired with likes.



> Hey! Now it's me who wants something. I want you to stop repeating this canard. No one has ever told you that you have any obligation of any variety whatsoever to listen to and/or support the "new music." Stop repeating that you're tired of being told something that no one is saying.


Millionrainbows, all day every day. "Tonality is exhausted". "Tonality is a museum." "Humble yourself to the great artists of our time." He's emblematic of the Whig moralism stuffed down everyone's throat since forever and responsible for the tyranny of the serialists in the 50s and 60s and Regietheater and most other abominable things in music.



> "Audience based" is code for "brianwalker based" I strongly suspect--going by other wants you've stated.


Sure.



> In Haydn's time, audiences went to concerts that were a hodge-podge of all different styles, designed specifically to satisfy all kinds of tastes. Everyone knew, going into them, that they would hear something they liked. Everyone knew, going into them, that they would hear something that someone else liked. And nobody whinged at that. It's called collegiality, and we could certainly use a healthy dollop of that ourselves.


No one pairs Mahler with Bach. I wouldn't like it if someone did.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

I know it's election day, but let's calm down with the flagwavin'. Oops, I see a censor waiting in the wings.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Vaneyes said:


> I know it's election day, but let's calm down with the flagwavin'...


I only wave one flag and that's one with a big M, the Golden Arches (the company pays me and I get a good 'super sized' feed as well). Its of McDonald's. I want Ronald McDonald for President. I'm not American but what the hell...


----------



## Guest (Nov 7, 2012)

brianwalker said:


> I'm not against separate concerts where likes are paired with likes.


Think about what this would mean if it were carried out strictly. People who only go to old music concerts would never get a chance to hear and appreciate music from their own time, written by their contemporaries. They would be insulated. And insulation leads to insularity.

People who only go to new music concerts would continue to go to old music concerts as well, spending twice as much time and effort for the results. But only those people would win in this situation.



brianwalker said:


> "Tonality is exhausted". "Tonality is a museum."


Not to defend million, who is totally capable of defending himself, even against the criticisms that I level at him from time to time, but these statements do not constitute telling you, brianwalker, that you have any obligation to listen to anything.

"Humble yourself to the great artists of our time." This skates the closest, but even this isn't really saying that you're obliged to listen to anything, merely that you should respect even things that you might not understand. (It's what classical listeners are saying (or implying) to their pop music friends all the time.)



brianwalker said:


> He's emblematic of the Whig moralism stuffed down everyone's throat since forever and responsible for the tyranny of the serialists in the 50s and 60s and Regietheater and most other abominable things in music.


Yes, of course he is. (For the record, I do not find serial music of the 50s and 60s abominable. And you might find, speaking of records, that the record does not support the oft repeated contention that there was any sort of tyranny about it.)

Regietheater, which both of us abominate, has nothing to do, really, with music.



brianwalker said:


> No one pairs Mahler with Bach. I wouldn't like it if someone did.


I'm sure Mahler and Bach get paired on concerts all the time. As for what you like or don't like, again, what you do in your own home is entirely up to you.

When you go outside your home, you are in public, where there are all sorts of people with all sorts of different needs and desires. It's called society. And some of those people are going to be very pleased with Mahler paired with Bach. Each composer will sound different and fresh in that context, a very good reason for pairing them, I'd say. And some of those people will be equally pleased if Bach is paired with Xenakis, too. Maybe not you, but really Brian, you must at some point acknowledge that you and your desires are not the only things that matter in this world. It's pretty simple. If there's a concert that pairs Bach and Xenakis, you are under no sort of obligation to attend that concert. And while this may not be an obligation, if you do go, it would be pleasant and courteous of you not to whinge about it.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

*One good thing* about modernism is that, to a great extent, it transcends nationalities. Tonality cannot make such a claim, in view of Wagner, military marching-music, folk music, etc.; all these having elements of nationalism. Which, in itself is not bad, except insofar as it emphasizes differences and is identity-based, instead of celebrating a more global, inclusive view.

_A complete return to tonality would bring with it a return of nationalism;_ John Williams' newest music for the movie "Lincoln" is evidence of this, with titles like "The American Process" and "Freedom's Call."

Personally, I find this to have potentially _*sinister*_ implications...nationalism, esp. as exemplified by Wagner, can touch on _archetypal aspects of identities, mythologies which can unlock forces of the unconscious psyche, creating a collective consciousness,_ as Germany tapped-in to during World Wars I & II...

Likewise, *John Williams' soundtrack to Lincoln* is dealing with Democracy, American style, which might not be to the rest of the world's needs or desires...Didn't we learn in Korea and Viet Nam that Democracy can't be shoved down the throats of others?


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> _..._Likewise, *John Williams' soundtrack to Lincoln* is dealing with Democracy, American style, which might not be to the rest of the world's needs or desires...Didn't we learn in Korea and Viet Nam that Democracy can't be shoved down the throats of others?


Democracy and slave-freeing aside, "Lincoln" should bomb in 2012. Spielberg is largely asking urban democrats to sit through more political rhetoric, after nearly two years non-stop of Romney & Obama.

Everyone together now, "Bond, James Bond."


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> Likewise, *John Williams' soundtrack to Lincoln* is dealing with Democracy, American style, which might not be to the rest of the world's needs or desires...Didn't we learn in Korea and Viet Nam that Democracy can't be shoved down the throats of others?


Two comments, modestly offered.

First, _Lincoln _is primarily aimed at the US market. I have no doubt it will make a fair return in overseas markets as well, if it's good as early views indicate. There is and has been a market for "democracy" overseas that we tend to dismiss because, to whatever extent, we already have it.

Second, democracy was pretty soundly established in (South) Korea last time I checked, and it seems popular there. If we "shoved it down their throats," well, it worked. I can't remember that we were ever seriously interested in democracy in Vietnam. If we were, we wouldn't have supported cancelling the reunification election in the early 1950s, which Ho Chi Minh would certainly have won. A mistake that cost us many lives and much gold (and cost Vietnam far more of course).


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

More George Perle, his String Quartet No. 5, 1960.

From the blurb:

George Perle was born in 1915 and, like Babbitt, became interested as early as 1939 in transforming the twelve-tone system to suit his own compositional ends. There the similarity ends, however, for Perle chose an entirely different direction for his extension of serialism. Perles interest in the row has been not so much in its linear implications as in the totality of relationships existing among all of the twelve tones, including their vertical or harmonic associations. He has evolved an elaborate system for generating twelve-tone sets that are characterized by recurring intervallic patterns, and which can be arranged in groups so as to create closely related chordal successions. In the String Quartet No. 5, written in 1960 and revised in 1967 (with the addition of a new finale), the interval of the third plays a particularly important role for instance, each movement ends with an identical chord placed a minor third lower at each appearance. Perles frequent combination of these thirds into chordal units gives much of the work an almost triadic quality. Yet the underlying organization of these chords has nothing to do with the diatonic tonal system but is completely consistent with the composers unique twelve-tone modal system. The result is a piece which, despite superficial associations with older music, is entirely original in generation and application of its materials. Another innovative technique with an important formal function in the quartet is metrical modulation, a procedure by which tempos are altered by applying new metrical groupings to previously established durations. Although this technique has attracted general interest only in recent years, Perle has himself employed it consistently throughout his compositional career.

The first of the three movements of the quartet has much in common with traditional sonata form. It begins with a gently swaying theme which is expanded throughout the opening section. After a pause, the second theme (already hinted at in the first section) appears in the first violin. Both themes are then developed and recapitulated in modified form. The second movement, which is in brisk tempo, is quite short and develops out of the initial eighth-note motive played pizzicato in the cello and the sixteenth-note violin figure which accompanies it. (This movement, as well as the third, contains several references to the first movement.) The last movement, the most complex and dramatic of the three, is sectional in layout and features more abrupt contrasts than the first two. Like the first, the external form results from the repetition of diversified melodic ideas, but here these are placed in a considerably more continuous developmental framework.


----------



## Guest (Nov 8, 2012)

_Lincoln_? I'm going to see it!


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

millionrainbows said:


> *One good thing* about modernism is that, to a great extent, it transcends nationalities. Tonality cannot make such a claim, in view of Wagner, military marching-music, folk music, etc.; all these having elements of nationalism. Which, in itself is not bad, except insofar as it emphasizes differences and is identity-based, instead of celebrating a more global, inclusive view.
> 
> _A complete return to tonality would bring with it a return of nationalism;_ John Williams' newest music for the movie "Lincoln" is evidence of this, with titles like "The American Process" and "Freedom's Call."
> 
> ...


What you're saying is similar to what those who went through the war and thus saw tunes as bad, as the likes of Hitler had manipulated the masses with classical music, and it was the soundrack to the Holocaust and all that. So these post-war composers, a number of them (Boulez included) said radical things like bomb the opera houses and that famous thing about composers not being serial or recognising its primacy as being useless.

But unless you are of that generation (eg. in your eighties?) I don't know why you would argue that. I can understand eg. Holocaust survivor's abhorrence of Wagner's music (& even Beethoven's & Bruckner's, or any composers the Nazis pushed) but just because of them, I don't know if its wise to pull down tonal composers after him. Eg. post-war guys like Barber, Arnold, even Shostakovich, who where seen as old hat by the more fanatical adherents of serialism.

I think its just an agenda. If you don't like John Williams, just say it. I like his music and I think he's at the top of the tree when film composers are concerned.

The other thing is you appear to be saying nationalism is the same as Fascism. I see Fascism as an extreme form of nationalism, or patriotism. I think that its similar to how Stalin took the Communist ideology to such an extreme that Marx himself would have not recognised it, and probably disagreed the way Stalin made it play out so horribly in reality. I see the extreme right (Fascism) and the extreme left (Stalinism or Maoism) as being the same, at least in effect. They meant death to millions.

Anyway this is what your post bought to my mind. Thats all, I am not meaning this in a nasty way. I just think that how you're thinking about tonality is kind of tarnishing it with the brush of these extreme ideologies. It can be related to those, but it doesn't have to be. & btw, Mussolini was a supporter of new music (eg. Futurism). I don't think that was 'tonal.' In any case, when ideology is rotten, it doesn't matter what music these dictators support. All it does is legitmise the most horrible and oppressive regimes. They use culture, music, literature, fancy words, you name it to underpin these things. AS Mandela said of Apartheid, it was like a coffin draped in the flag, nice on the outside, but filled with evil and death within.


----------



## Guest (Nov 8, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> _A complete return to tonality would bring with it a return of nationalism;_


It seems perfectly evident to me that whatever the classical music fraternity gets up to, nationalism will continue unabated in one corner of the world or another...or another...or another...


----------



## Guest (Nov 8, 2012)

Well, in the worlds I frequent, worlds in which no one is using common practice tonality or reacting to it in anyway or doing anything other than ignore it, internationalism is certainly commonplace. Argentines in living in France, Poles and Spaniards living in Switzerland, an American living in Denmark, a Brit living in Norway. And lots of collaborations between Brits and Japanese and Canadians and French and Americans both North and South and Chinese and Russian and Dutch and Egyptians and Turks and so forth. Lots of people touring all over the world and collaborating with everyone else. 

I don't know if "a return to tonality would bring with it a return of nationalism" or not. I do know that the world of new music right now is quite a free and lively mix of everyone from everywhere. (Did I mention Lithuania? The founder of Fluxus, one of the more prominent new music movements (from after 1960, if bigshot is reading this), was from Lithuania. Yoko Ono was a member. John Cage participated from time to time. Nam June Paik was one.)


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

some guy said:


> Well, in the worlds I frequent, worlds in which no one is using common practice tonality or reacting to it in anyway or doing anything other than ignore it, internationalism is certainly commonplace. Argentines in living in France, Poles and Spaniards living in Switzerland, an American living in Denmark, a Brit living in Norway. And lots of collaborations between Brits and Japanese and Canadians and French and Americans both North and South and Chinese and Russian and Dutch and Egyptians and Turks and so forth. Lots of people touring all over the world and collaborating with everyone else.
> 
> I don't know if "a return to tonality would bring with it a return of nationalism" or not. I do know that the world of new music right now is quite a free and lively mix of everyone from everywhere. (Did I mention Lithuania? The founder of Fluxus, one of the more prominent new music movements (from after 1960, if bigshot is reading this), was from Lithuania. Yoko Ono was a member. John Cage participated from time to time. Nam June Paik was one.)


Didn't John Cage use very simple harmony in pieces like Dream or In a landscape?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Sid James said:


> What you're saying is similar to what those who went through the war and thus saw tunes as bad, as the likes of Hitler had manipulated the masses with classical music, and it was the soundrack to the Holocaust and all that. So these post-war composers, a number of them (Boulez included) said radical things like bomb the opera houses and that famous thing about composers not being serial or recognising its primacy as being useless.
> 
> But unless you are of that generation (eg. in your eighties?) I don't know why you would argue that. I can understand eg. Holocaust survivor's abhorrence of Wagner's music (& even Beethoven's & Bruckner's, or any composers the Nazis pushed) but just because of them, I don't know if its wise to pull down tonal composers after him. Eg. post-war guys like Barber, Arnold, even Shostakovich, who where seen as old hat by the more fanatical adherents of serialism.
> 
> ...


I will take what you say into consideration, but my agenda is to level the playing field in the atonality/tonality debate. Serialism is always being accused of being too ideological. Boulez and the post-war serialists were trying to jettison the baggage of tradition and nationalism. I'm saying that within the Western classical tradition, tonality is equally culpable, and its traditional icons (Beethoven, Wagner) have been used to further nationalistic ideologies. This includes America, who you seem to exempt from culpability as an imperialist bully who dropped the atomic bomb on Japan just to impress and intimidate the soviets, not to save lives (Japan was on the verge of surrender). I eagerly await Oliver Stone's "unknown history" of the US.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

What I want out of atonalism/tonalism debate is heated, passionate and intense threads like this one! It's almost like... music!


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

millionrainbows said:


> I will take what you say into consideration, but my agenda is to level the playing field in the atonality/tonality debate...


So is mine, but ultimately its about attitude. I've been insulted by many people over my time here, sometimes I don't know why I bother. Has little to do with what they do or don't listen to but about attitude.



> ...
> Serialism is always being accused of being too ideological. Boulez and the post-war serialists were trying to jettison the baggage of tradition and nationalism...


Well it may well be accused due to the young Boulez, who did have a high profile, putting quite a few noses out of joint back then (so to speak, not literally as far as I know, but as the saying goes, the pen is mightier than the sword). He's mellowed now and has been less dogmatic for many decades now. Of course I am not saying all people advocating serialism or avant-garde where or are like that. Again it boils down to attitude. & probably our perception of things too.



> ...
> I'm saying that within the Western classical tradition, tonality is equally culpable, and its traditional icons (Beethoven, Wagner) have been used to further nationalistic ideologies...


The fact is that classical music, throughout history, has been used to underpin some things that where oppressive and plainly wrong. I was thinking of making a thread on this but I think it'd end up as a virtual bloodbath. One big example I can give is J. Strauss II's 'Radetzky March,' dedicated to the guy who was an oppressor of Czechs and Hungarians, crushing their attempt for freedom in 1848, and basically a genocidal maniac. There are other examples like this. I am not one to whitewash music, even by composers I like (eg. I don't know why Walton did the _Johanesburg Festival Overture _in the 195o's, South Africa was still under the Apartheid regime then). But maybe knowing too many things can be bad? Why not just make music totally formalist and devoid of any context which is again a think I see as another extreme. What if someone wrote a Hilter March? Would we enjoy that? But anyway.

The other thing is that I don't know much about and don't care frankly about the musical tastes of guys like Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Mandela, Aung Saan Suu Kyu and so on. All I know is they aimed to do good, to improve things for their people. Give a good example (even though they where not aiming to be saints). They did what they thought was right. So we don't know about their music, unlike Hitler and Stalin, they made it very clear how they had 'good taste' and used that as a thing to manipulate. So you are right, but I'll let it rest. I can write an essay about this, but I think this is falling on deaf ears here. Not many people on this forum seem to care about these sorts of issues, maybe they are discomfiting. Classical music is sanctified and holy, right? Well no, its not better than any other type of music. Its just music basically.



> ...This includes America, who you seem to exempt from culpability as an imperialist bully ....


Just because I didn't refer to America did not mean anything. I mean I cannot put everything into one post. I gave examples of totalitarian states which I think are different, they are the most extreme examples of using music to underpin ideology which is itself extreme (eg. Nazism, Stalinism, Maoism, Apartheid).


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> This includes America, who you seem to exempt from culpability as an imperialist bully who dropped the atomic bomb on Japan just to impress and intimidate the soviets, not to save lives (Japan was on the verge of surrender).


I refer you to Paul Fussell's essay "Thank God for the Atom Bomb." Mr. Fussell was there and had a more than theoretical interest in the bomb's use.

http://www.amazon.com/Thank-Atom-Bo...sr=1-1&keywords=thank+god+for+the+atomic+bomb


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Why are people attracted to wilderness exploration and mountains? A large part of it, I think, is to escape from Humanity, jobs, cities, and the "matrix" we call civilization.

When you think about it, the movie _The Matrix _is modeled after Christianity: we are in an essentially corrupt, evil world; when we "die" we will awaken to a new world and cast off our pods. Tonality is part of _The Matrix._

Modernism and serialism do not reflect "the matrix" like tonality does, with its baggage of religion and nationalism; modern music can give us glimpses into new worlds, and allows us to_ "breathe the air of another planet."_


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> Why are people attracted to wilderness exploration and mountains? A large part of it, I think, is to escape from Humanity, jobs, cities, and the "matrix" we call civilization.
> 
> When you think about it, the movie _The Matrix _is modeled after Christianity: we are in an essentially corrupt, evil world; when we "die" we will awaken to a new world and cast off our pods. Tonality is part of _The Matrix._
> 
> Modernism and serialism do not reflect "the matrix" like tonality does, with its baggage of religion and nationalism; modern music can give us glimpses into new worlds, and allows us to_ "breathe the air of another planet."_


It's very hard to tell when your tongue is in your cheek. I suspect (hope) it is but..

I think it's better to stick to musical matters in support of your views on music. Some of them are quite sound. But when you start using The Matrix, baggage and nationalism and who knows what else, you undermine your own position.
Just sayin.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Petwhac said:


> I think it's better to stick to musical matters in support of your views on music. Some of them are quite sound. But when you start using The Matrix, baggage and nationalism and who knows what else, you undermine your own position.Just sayin.


Thanks for that! Now I don't have to point out that "the air of other planets," at least those we've visited so far, has been uniformly toxic.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Why are people attracted to wilderness exploration and mountains? A large part of it, I think, is to escape from Humanity, jobs, cities, and the "matrix" we call civilization.
> 
> When you think about it, the movie _The Matrix _is modeled after Christianity: we are in an essentially corrupt, evil world; when we "die" we will awaken to a new world and cast off our pods. Tonality is part of _The Matrix._
> 
> Modernism and serialism do not reflect "the matrix" like tonality does, with its baggage of religion and nationalism; modern music can give us glimpses into new worlds, and allows us to_ "breathe the air of another planet."_


You are joking, right ? What makes you feel that serialism allows you to breathe the air of another planet ? Actually, serialism is as earthly as music can be, it is the result of modern thinking...full of alienation, absurd and the list may go on forever. For me baroque is much like music of another planet, a world dead for the last 200 years. But serialism/modernism is just born out of this world, with all its struggles and absurdities.

And you don't have to be religious to realize that we are corrupt and evil, indeed. Much because we are blind. Religion doesn't bother me too much, and anyway, atheism is too mainstream today for my taste. We blamed religion for everything in the past, but today, things aren't different.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

KenOC said:


> Thanks for that! Now I don't have to point out that "the air of other planets," at least those we've visited so far, has been uniformly toxic.


Ah well, I don't mind some imaginative material. But of course the implications if brought very far are silly, especially how they paint tonality. But I can appreciate that freshness, a kind of more total freshness, is something that he looks for in music. Tonal music is very cultural, very much stuck on the same stories, same themes, same people, variation on the same ideas... While a lot of modern music is made by people who seemingly want to run, not walk, in another direction. They get their freshness more from something totally, or at least more new, than they do from mastering older methods. Rehash and improvement aren't quite as important any more, although they still play a part.


----------



## dionisio (Jul 30, 2012)

I prefer Raphael (and the other turtles) than Pollock because i understand it. That's it.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Lukecash12 said:


> Ah well, I don't mind some imaginative material. But of course the implications if brought very far are silly, especially how they paint tonality. But I can appreciate that freshness, a kind of more total *freshness, is something that he looks for in music. Tonal music is very cultural, very much stuck on the same stories, same themes, same people, variation on the same ideas... While a lot of modern music is made by people who seemingly want to run, not walk, in another direction. They get their freshness more from something totally, or at least more new*, than they do from mastering older methods. Rehash and improvement aren't quite as important any more, although they still play a part.


_*Lukecash is the closest to getting what I'm saying, and serialism, especially early post-war serialism, reflects an aesthetic which Boulez and Cage were both after, in different ways: to transcend "Man," to get past History's perception of itself, to escape the nationalism which destroyed Europe in WWII, to prevent Humanity from destroying itself with nuclear bombs, to escape the "matrix" of civilization. In light of these things, it's easier to understand why Pierre Boulez wanted to "destroy tradition" and for John Cage to want to create "ego-less" music.

Boulez in particular seemed to want to create a new kind of "matrix" to replace the old one. He referred to modern artworks, such as his own and works like Finnegans Wake, as 
"labyrinths" created by the artist in which the artist, too, would be "lost" in. These creations would have an impenetrable mystery about them, unknowable in any older "complete" sense.

The labyrinth was an edifice which was larger than any "idea" which created it; a self-generating system, it used principles of nature, outside of man, to create an 'environment,' or, as I've been calling it, a matrix or labyrinth.

As far as these ideas being "whimsical," "overly imaginative" and such, may I remind everyone that this is art, not science.*_


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Renaissance said:


> You are joking, right ? What makes you feel that serialism allows you to breathe the air of another planet ? Actually, serialism is as earthly as music can be, it is the result of modern thinking...full of alienation, absurd and the list may go on forever. For me baroque is much like music of another planet, a world dead for the last 200 years. But serialism/modernism is just born out of this world, with all its struggles and absurdities.
> 
> And you don't have to be religious to realize that we are corrupt and evil, indeed. Much because we are blind. Religion doesn't bother me too much, and anyway, atheism is too mainstream today for my taste. We blamed religion for everything in the past, but today, things aren't different.


The air from another planet bit is a reference to Schoenberg's setting in his 2nd string quartet the poetry of Stefan George which contains that line (or something near it). It is a celebrated moment and seems to aptly usher in the new world of expression and musical thinking associated with the period in Schoenberg's development.
But you are right that Serialism is a very human intellectual construct which without that great mind may never have come to be. (For better or worse?)

You are wrong about corruption and evil though. Evil _is_ a religious concept.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> _*Lukecash is the closest to getting what I'm saying, and serialism, especially early post-war serialism, reflects an aesthetic which Boulez and Cage were both after, in different ways: to transcend "Man," to get past History's perception of itself, to escape the nationalism which destroyed Europe in WWII, to prevent Humanity from destroying itself with nuclear bombs, to escape the "matrix" of civilization. In light of these things, it's easier to understand why Pierre Boulez wanted to "destroy tradition" and for John Cage to want to create "ego-less" music.
> 
> Boulez in particular seemed to want to create a new kind of "matrix" to replace the old one. He referred to modern artworks, such as his own and works like Finnegans Wake, as
> "labyrinths" created by the artist in which the artist, too, would be "lost" in. These creations would have a mystery about them, unknowable in any older "complete" sense.
> ...


But Boulez failed to "destroy tradition" he just participated in an alternative one. And he didn't manage to escape nationalism either as he had a very Eurocentric view and dismissed minimalism as something emanating from a culturally challenged America (or words to that effect).

As for Cage's egoless music. He himself is now an Icon!

The ideas which inspire or motivate the artist are really only fuel. It doesn't matter what the ideas are because they will soon be burnt out and only the music will remain. It is the music which is important.
Beethoven may have been inspired by Napoleon but that didn't last long. The Eroica symphony has. If that symphony wasn't the masterpiece it is then no amount of historical perspective or understanding of his motives would improve it.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Renaissance said:


> For me baroque is much like music of another planet, a world dead for the last 200 years. But serialism/modernism is just born out of this world, with all its struggles and absurdities....And you don't have to be religious to realize that we are corrupt and evil, indeed. Much because we are blind. Religion doesn't bother me too much, and anyway, atheism is too mainstream today for my taste. We blamed religion for everything in the past, but today, things aren't different.


*Your mention of religion underscores what I said earlier about Christianity being a "matrix." It just happens to be the matrix you prefer; the accepted matrix, the traditional matrix, the matrix we know as Western civilization.

Not to blame religion for all of it; there is psychology at work here as well. WWII very nearly destroyed Europe, and we, in an act of "Christian mercy," dropped the bomb on an already-defeated Japan in order to intimidate the Soviets. And Germany, a Christian nation, was the start of it all.

Yes, I agree that it would be unfair to blame Christianity for all of Man's errors; but it's all part of the same matrix of Western civilization which nearly destroyed itself, and unleashed atomic weaponry in the name of "saving lives" (which I think, as well as Oliver Stone, is a bogus view of history).

Boulez, Cage, and the serialists simply wished to disassociate themselves from such views, and created a new "matrix" which put Man in a lesser position of power.*


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> *Your mention of religion underscores what I said earlier about Christianity being a "matrix." It just happens to be the matrix you prefer; the accepted matrix, the traditional matrix, the matrix we know as Western civilization.
> 
> Not to blame religion for all of it; there is psychology at work here as well. WWII very nearly destroyed Europe, and we, in an act of "Christian mercy," dropped the bomb on an already-defeated Japan in order to intimidate the Soviets. And Germany, a Christian nation, was the start of it all.
> 
> ...


I can't agree with you. WWII had nothing religious about it. No war was ever "religious", but religions were used as pretext for man's greed and ignorance. WWII was more a result of an atheist ideology as darwinism. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against evolutionism, but even a scientific truth can be used to create ideologies because of a limited and partial understanding, as it was the case with Hitler's ideologies. We must make a difference between religious hypocrisy and religion itself. Not organized religions, as they are made by people and institutions, but religion as philosophy. In the same way that religion was used to create violence, science can be used too. And everything, as well as you know how to manipulate people and give them only the *incomplete* truth. Why is the incomplete truth so bad ? Because it gives you the false impression of knowledge, and from this to the manipulation is only a small step. Religion itself can be very good if understood properly. I've met religious people more human than I will ever be. We must be careful and not create such separations because they only lead to conflict. There are enough people today in the scientific community and not only there, who fool us with incomplete truths and errors because these are the best tools for creating durable ideologies. Doesn't matter what we are, atheist or believers, we must see each others as people if we want to live on this planet together.

The main problem with this humanity isn't religion or traditions, but incapacity to think for ourselves. We just make associations in our mind not based on reality, but on what others tell us. I told you these things not to open this subject here, because there are a lot of people very angry on the word "religion" as if they were burned alive because of it. The reality is that they were just "programmed" to behave this way. And I told you these things because you seem to think outside the box. Spirituality or religion or how would you like to call it, is only about the dissolution of the Ego. Atheism, as a philosophy is the opposite. I only discuss these as ideas, because their followers are of all kinds.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> But Boulez failed to "destroy tradition" he just participated in an alternative one. And he didn't manage to escape nationalism either as he had a very Eurocentric view and dismissed minimalism as something emanating from a culturally challenged America (or words to that effect).


I think Boulez' resistance to minimalism is based more on musical principles, which thereafter resonate culturally..

Minimalism takes music back to "Man," as the confirmation of tone-centricity and regular pulse being "universal" and hard-wired facts of being human. Also, in being tone-centric, this reinforces the more elaborate tonal system of classicism. Of course, this is antithetical to Boulez' aesthetic, which is to escape from tonality and its associated cultural baggage/matrix.



Petwhac said:


> As for Cage's egoless music. He himself is now an Icon!


Hollow space has a tendency to fill up.



Petwhac said:


> The ideas which inspire or motivate the artist are really only fuel. It doesn't matter what the ideas are because they will soon be burnt out and only the music will remain. It is the music which is important.
> Beethoven may have been inspired by Napoleon but that didn't last long. The Eroica symphony has. If that symphony wasn't the masterpiece it is then no amount of historical perspective or understanding of his motives would improve it.


In the realm of idea and ideology this may be true, but the music itself also carries cultural and ideological information by its very nature. I assert that tonality represents a Man-centric universe; serialism does not, or attempts to minimize and transcend this, insofar as it does not cater to hard-wired physical sound (although on the surface it results in being perceived that way regardless, and may, indeed, reinforce that aspect), but is created, and generates, and emphasizes musical structures created and generated out of purely cerebral and mathematical procedures as well as artistic ones.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Renaissance said:


> WWII was more a result of an atheist ideology as darwinism.


I think there is truth in this. Some time ago I read that social Darwinism took a very deep hold among the German officer classes during and after WW I. There was little that happened in the subsequent development of German political thought that wasn't affected by this.

What's scary, of course, is that *all* our philosophies of that sort (and yes, we've got plenty) are based on limited understandings. We feel secure judging Germany, but how will the future judge us?


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

KenOC said:


> I think there is truth in this. Some time ago I read that social Darwinism took a very deep hold among the German officer classes during and after WW I. There was little that happened in the subsequent development of German political thought that wasn't affected by this.
> 
> What's scary, of course, is that *all* our philosophies of that sort (and yes, we've got plenty) are based on limited understandings. We feel secure judging Germany, but how will the future judge us?


Atheism is not an ideology.
Evolution by natural selection is not an ideology.
WWII was the result of German military expansion and the invasion of Poland and France.


----------



## Guest (Nov 9, 2012)

The fact that some composers may have had an explicit or overt political ideology alongside or informing their musical values does not, IMO, justify an extended discussion about those ideologies.

It must be possible to stick to the music and the world of musical politics without straying into discussions about the presence of 'Evil' in the world, evolution, social Darwinism etc.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Renaissance said:


> I can't agree with you. WWII had nothing religious about it. No war was ever "religious", but religions were used as pretext for man's greed and ignorance. WWII was more a result of an atheist ideology as darwinism.


There are definite strains of religious motivation in the hatred of Jews. This has roots which go all the way back to Christianity's inception.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Petwhac said:


> Evolution by natural selection is not an ideology.


Correct. But I was speaking of social Darwinism, a totally different thing ("inspired" by Darwin's theories, in the Hollywood sense). I doubt that Darwin would have suggested the use of human intervention to mimic the natural processes of nature. Well, I hope not! Social Darwism was simply understood as eugenics -- improving the human race by promoting breeding of the "best" while pruning undesired branches.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> The fact that some composers may have had an explicit or overt political ideology alongside or informing their musical values does not, IMO, justify an extended discussion about those ideologies.


I'm saying that tonality itself has a long enough tradition to represent and embody religion and ideology in purely musical terms, which transcend overt references to religion and ideology. If there are those who wish to argue to the contrary, overt mention of ideologies is inescapable.



MacLeod said:


> It must be possible to stick to the music and the world of musical politics without straying into discussions about the presence of 'Evil' in the world, evolution, social Darwinism etc.


I disagree with your assumption that music somehow "transcends" ideologies as "pure art" or whatever. Music of certain types (tonal, tone-centric) has always been used in conjunction with religion and power, because of its universal presence in most all cultures, and because it is a fact of Man's nature. I think serial thought is the first music to dare to step beyond this, into a new matrix of possibilities in which Man, the Romantic aesthetic, mythology, and tradition play only incidental roles, if any.


----------



## Guest (Nov 9, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> I'm saying that tonality itself has a long enough tradition to represent and embody religion and ideology in purely musical terms, which transcend overt references to religion and ideology. If there are those who wish to argue to the contrary, overt mention of ideologies is inescapable. I disagree with your assumption that music somehow "transcends" ideologies as "pure art" or whatever. Music of certain types (tonal, tone-centric) has always been used in conjunction with religion and power, because of its universal presence in most all cultures, and because it is a fact of Man's nature. I think serial thought is the first music to dare to step beyond this, into a new matrix of possibilities in which Man, the Romantic aesthetic, mythology, and tradition play only incidental roles, if any.


I'm not assuming anything of the kind. I'm just pointing out, before we get into substantive discussions about atheism etc, that we don't need to...get into substantive discussions. For example, Renaissance says,



> WWII was more a result of an atheist ideology as darwinism. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against evolutionism, but even a scientific truth can be used to create ideologies because of a limited and partial understanding, as it was the case with Hitler's ideologies. We must make a difference between religious hypocrisy and religion itself. Not organized religions, as they are made by people and institutions, but religion as philosophy. In the same way that religion was used to create violence, science can be used too.


I fail to see how this has anything to do with music.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> Atheism is not an ideology.
> Evolution by natural selection is not an ideology.
> WWII was the result of German military expansion and the invasion of Poland and France.


If you know how to present them to the world, they can form ideologies as well. Darwinism explained in simple and reductionist terms is capable of very many things, we saw it, and it is only the beginning. Any idea, faulty or not, if applied in a wrong context and you know how to manipulate people's feelings to get what you want, you already have an ideology. Darwinism is correct as a scientific fact, but if you apply these facts in a social context (social Darwinism) you get an ideology. People are proud-spirited and reluctant to what they do not understand, so these kinds of ideologies always fooled them.

And atheism can be ideological too, because no scientific experiment will ever prove the existence or the inexistence of god. Your choice is up to you, because the reality is the same, no matter what you choose to believe.

Any fact, no matter how correct or wrong, if you apply it in a unsuitable context, you can create enough confusion because people follow the trends anyway. If you look at modern science, there are same tendencies in this directions, especially in the field of genetics, where scientists discover everyday a gene for something. Actually, their message is more...deeper than that, because if you know something about this science, and science in general, as methodology, you realize that things can't be that way as they try to convince us. And scientific community is not a bunch of people independent from the social and political order, so we must be careful about what we accept for real, because very many things are only hypothesis based on the actual level of understanding, and very often they are seen as an absolute truth.

As about the WWII, you really think that Hitler would have been followed by the German people if he hadn't fooled them with his ideologies ? Certainly you know his words :

"All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach." / "By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise."

First and foremost, Hitler did what he did with the help of his people, people that he fooled very well.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Correct. But I was speaking of social Darwinism, a totally different thing ("inspired" by Darwin's theories, in the Hollywood sense). I doubt that Darwin would have suggested the use of human intervention to mimic the natural processes of nature. Well, I hope not! Social Darwism was simply understood as eugenics -- improving the human race by promoting breeding of the "best" while pruning undesired branches.


And it was something that was embraced by much of the world, and much of the world was quite religious, and still is. It was the case in hyper-Christian American, which had a eugenics program for years in the early parts of the 20th Century, and Germany was quite religious too.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> I disagree with your assumption that music somehow "transcends" ideologies as "pure art" or whatever. Music of certain types (tonal, tone-centric) has always been used in conjunction with religion and power, because of its universal presence in most all cultures, and because it is a fact of Man's nature. I think serial thought is the first music to dare to step beyond this, into a new matrix of possibilities in which Man, the Romantic aesthetic, mythology, and tradition play only incidental roles, if any.


Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with human nature.  We may be dangerous, stupid, egocentric, but we must remain humans, after all. If we still see the same colors, we should also like the same sounds.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> I'm not assuming anything of the kind. I'm just pointing out, before we get into substantive discussions about atheism etc, that we don't need to...get into substantive discussions.
> 
> For example, Renaissance says, "WWII was more a result of an atheist ideology as darwinism. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against evolutionism, but even a scientific truth can be used to create ideologies because of a limited and partial understanding, as it was the case with Hitler's ideologies. We must make a difference between religious hypocrisy and religion itself. Not organized religions, as they are made by people and institutions, but religion as philosophy. In the same way that religion was used to create violence, science can be used too."
> 
> I fail to see how this has anything to do with music.


I do, because WWII and its ramifications (atomic bomb, genocide) shaped the post-war serialist aesthetic to escape from the matrix of Man and his institutions, embodied in tonality and the Romantic aesthetic.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Renaissance said:


> As about the WWII, you really think that Hitler would have been followed by the German people if he hadn't fooled them with his ideologies ? Certainly you know his words :
> 
> "All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach." / "By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise."
> 
> First and foremost, Hitler did what he did with the help of his people, people that he fooled very well.


And I see tonality and Western classical music, as it was used by Hitler, as a major component of this ideology. Everyone knew and recognized the clichés of traditional music, and tonal music is universally understood by even the least intelligent. (you can swallow, can't you?)

There's no way that serial music could be used in the same way, to control masses of people. At its purest, it has no traces of Romanticism, heroes, or myth-building.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Renaissance said:


> We may be dangerous, stupid, egocentric, but we must remain humans, after all. If we still see the same colors, we should also like the same sounds.


That's exactly what I said and meant; tonality is based on actual physical phenomena of vibration, which as humans, we all respond to intuitively and pre-cognitively, as we respond to color, taste, and tactile sensory input.

Serialism dared to eschew the purely sensual, and enter the realm of the objective.

I hope that the critics will finally see this.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

I really don't think that masses were controlled by music. What's next, anyway ? Are we heading to that dystopia like in the movie "Equilibrium" ? Will we bury everything romanticized, myth-building, heroic (pretty much all the human nature) just because we are week and easily-blinded by others ? I don't think it's a good way, really. It is too artificial, unnatural, it won't last.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> That's exactly what I said and meant; tonality is based on actual physical phenomena of vibration, which as humans, we all respond to intuitively and pre-cognitively, as we respond to color, taste, and tactile sensory input.
> 
> Serialism dared to eschew the purely sensual, and enter the realm of the objective.
> 
> I hope that the critics will finally see this.


The tonal system is a musical reality within human nature, we can't change that. We can listen to as much Ligeti as we want, the V-I cadence will always be as "authentic" as it can get. Should we create a grey world, just because the usual colors are associated with human emotions ? Like red for furry/angry...

And...people respond pre-cognitively to the atonal/serialist music as well. That's why so many are terrified by it. It is a big mistake to suppress the role of the emotions.


----------



## Guest (Nov 9, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> I do, because WWII and its ramifications (atomic bomb, genocide) shaped the post-war serialist aesthetic to escape from the matrix of Man and his institutions, embodied in tonality and the Romantic aesthetic.


OK. So, it's relevant to music if I begin an analysis of the causes of WWII - British militarism, Hitler's belief in the supernatural, rise of the power of the Jewish business community, the Irish Question - and enter into subsequent debate about the relevance of all these and other theories?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Renaissance said:


> ...but we must remain humans, after all. If we still see the same colors, we should also like the same sounds.


Does not follow. We do not, in fact, all *like* the same colors. Further, I think it will be hard to determine even that we all *see* the same colors.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> I do, because WWII and its ramifications (atomic bomb, genocide) shaped the post-war serialist aesthetic to escape from the matrix of Man and his institutions, embodied in tonality and the Romantic aesthetic.


...and looked what happened - this "serialist aesthetic" escape you mentioned isolated the vast majority of music listeners, and other musical genres took over from jazz to general popular music, essentially *back to tonality* by and large for the masses.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> There's no way that serial music could be used in the same way, to control masses of people.


There may be more obvious reasons for that... 

Added in edit: It might have useful applications in crowd control, which qualifies as "controlling masses of people."


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

We don't see the same colors, but hey, I was just making a quick comparison. Actually, this only proves that music is even more universal as a language.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> That's exactly what I said and meant; tonality is based on actual physical phenomena of vibration, which as humans, we all respond to intuitively and pre-cognitively, as we respond to color, taste, and tactile sensory input.
> *Serialism dared to eschew the purely sensual, and enter the realm of the objective.*


And thereby contained the seeds of it's own destruction. [My bold]


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

KenOC said:


> Correct. But I was speaking of social Darwinism, a totally different thing ("inspired" by Darwin's theories, in the Hollywood sense). I doubt that Darwin would have suggested the use of human intervention to mimic the natural processes of nature. Well, I hope not! Social Darwism was simply understood as eugenics -- improving the human race by promoting breeding of the "best" while pruning undesired branches.


The use of human intervention to mimic the natural processes of nature is called _artificial selection_ as opposed to _natural selection_.
We've been doing it for a very long time in horticulture, farming and animal breeding.
The Nazis were wrong about very many things and through discoveries of more recent times, DNA and the sequencing of the human genome, we can say that their views on race were completely wrong because there is no such thing as race.


----------



## Guest (Nov 9, 2012)

Just a quick reminder of a couple of things:

Audiences for classical music had isolated themselves from new music long before Schoenberg.

Not all people see the same colors. And even if they did, sounds are not equivalent to colors.

I'm a human. I enjoy musics that make serialism look like a walk in the park. Actually, if its haters would spend more time listening to music and less time ranting, they'd be out in the park with me. It's nice out here. Get over the "human" arguments and the "audience" arguments for cryin' out loud.

Everything comes to an end or at least morphs into something else. That serialism has also done that should not be taken as a sign of failure. That or admit that Baroque, Classical, and Impressionist musics have also failed. That people are still trying to do Romantic music isn't really a sign of success, either. It's just awkward.

Despite what million keeps saying, serialism is perfectly sensual. Why? Because it's experienced by humans. And humans turn everything they do into a sensual thing. Hearing is, after all, one of the _senses._ Tonality is no more (and no less) "based on actual physical phenomena of vibration" than any other kind of music, serial or experimental or acousmatic or noise or whatever. Everything that makes sound vibrates. Everything that you can hear is a result of vibrations. How any given person reacts or responds to the sounds will differ, sometimes widely.

That difference is not to be taken as some kind of referendum on the quality of the music itself. (Does anyone really and truly believe that it's arithmetic? That 100 people liking something is ten times better than only 10 people liking the something? Come on. We're brighter than that, aren't we?)


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Petwhac said:


> The use of human intervention to mimic the natural processes of nature is called _artificial selection_ as opposed to _natural selection_.We've been doing it for a very long time in horticulture, farming and animal breeding.


I would hope that the reference to social Darwinism was taken to apply to people. In fact, selective breeding (artificial selection) of plants and animals was around for a VERY long time before Darwin came along.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

some guy said:


> Not all people see the same colors. And even if they did, sounds are not equivalent to colors.


Actually, they are. They are both the result of things vibrating at different frequencies and wavelengths. These are received by the appropriate organ (ear or eye) and processed by the brain.



some guy said:


> I'm a human. I enjoy musics that make serialism look like a walk in the park. Actually, if its haters would spend more time listening to music and less time ranting, they'd be out in the park with me. It's nice out here. Get over the "human" arguments and the "audience" arguments for cryin' out loud.


I hadn't noticed any hating or ranting in this particular thread (not recently anyway), at least not until you just started ranting about haters and ranting and crying out loud.
I'd like you to analyse your own statement "I enjoy musics that make serialism look like a walk in the park" and ask what you think that says about you and/or serialism and for that matter, music.



some guy said:


> Everything comes to an end or at least morphs into something else. That serialism has also done that should not be taken as a sign of failure. That or admit that Baroque, Classical, and Impressionist musics have also failed. That people are still trying to do Romantic music isn't really a sign of success, either. It's just awkward.


Awkward for you (and me too actually) but so what? Who are we eh? People will 'do' whatever they think fit, whether they are Robert Ashley of Ludovico Einaudi. We are free to take it or leave it.
Baroque, Classical and Impressionism are styles that became outmoded as a new generation had to find a style of it's own. Serialism was an invention that sought to replace a whole system so it is not an equivalent.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

some guy said:


> Despite what million keeps saying, serialism is perfectly sensual. Why? Because it's experienced by humans. And humans turn everything they do into a sensual thing. Hearing is, after all, one of the _senses._


That's true, after the fact of its creation. It becomes what it ultimately was destined to be, sound. But the point is to see that serialism's methods are not _based_ on acoustic factors, but other more mathematical factors. Once those determinants are satisfied, ways can be found to "reconcile" these with harmonic factors.



some guy said:


> Tonality is no more (and no less) "based on actual physical phenomena of vibration" than any other kind of music, serial or experimental or acousmatic or noise or whatever.


I disagree. The more advanced horizontal time-based functions of tonality, experienced as anticipation, expectation, surprise, etc. are based on degrees of consonance/dissonance in relation to a "root" or tonic note. This horizontal dimension of function is the consequence of the vertical manifestation of harmonics of a single note, and their prominence. This is even reflected mathematically as ratios: 2:1----1:2---1:1---2:3---3:4---4:5, etc.



some guy said:


> Everything that makes sound vibrates. Everything that you can hear is a result of vibrations. *How any given person reacts or responds to the sounds will differ, sometimes widely.*


You need to look at commonalities, not differences. Consonance and dissonance are firstly physical facts, not subjective, as the ratios demonstrate. There are other universals in folk musics of the world, which always have a pentatonic scale. See Bobby McFerrin's demonstration of this:






These universals are why tone-centric musics, whose larger umbrella includes both folk musics and Western tonality, are "natural" musics, because they are based on naturally occurring acoustic phenomena, which we are hard-wired to experience as being less, or more consonant or dissonant.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Originally Posted by millionrainbows: 
"There's no way that serial music could be used in the same way, to control masses of people."



KenOC said:


> There may be more obvious reasons for that...
> 
> Added in edit: It might have useful applications in crowd control, which qualifies as "controlling masses of people."


You mean like starting riots?:lol:

That reminds me of the Feds using Tibetan Buddhist chant recordings to spook David Koresh outside his compound in Waco, Texas.


----------



## Guest (Nov 10, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> erialism's methods are not _based_ on acoustic factors, but other more mathematical factors.
> 
> ... The more advanced horizontal time-based functions of tonality, experienced as anticipation, expectation, surprise, etc. are based on degrees of consonance/dissonance in relation to a "root" or tonic note. This horizontal dimension of function is the consequence of the vertical manifestation of harmonics of a single note, and their prominence. This is even reflected mathematically as ratios: 2:1----1:2---1:1---2:3---3:4---4:5, etc.


So serialism is mathematical but tonality is mathematical...

Yes. I agree. Both methods can be expressed as mathematical relationships. Both methods are unnatural (artificial, man-made). Both create sounds than can be listened to. Any individual piece can be liked or disliked by any individual listener. And the ratios of equal temperament (an artificial regularization of tuning that allows for easy modulation) are different from the ratios of just intonation.



millionrainbows said:


> Once those determinants are satisfied, ways can be found to "reconcile" these with harmonic factors.


? Not sure what this is all about, but I'm pretty sure that it leaves out the reality of the listener. As does this:



millionrainbows said:


> Consonance and dissonance are firstly physical facts, not subjective, as the ratios demonstrate.


The ratios demonstrate nothing of the sort. (Equal temperament demonstrates that the human ear can adjust to having everything a little bit out of tune.) Whatever a ratio looks like on paper or on-screen, the actual music is being listened to by actual humans, each one of which has different experiences, different expectations, different tastes, and different senses of what's consonant and what's dissonant. There's an anecdote about Berlioz taking a trained choir singing four part harmony to a village around where he had grown up. The response was that they seemed like nice people, but they couldn't sing in tune. In tune to those villagers meant unisons and octaves, only.



millionrainbows said:


> [T]one-centric musics, whose larger umbrella includes both folk musics and Western tonality, are "natural" musics, because they are based on naturally occurring acoustic phenomena, which we are hard-wired to experience as being less, or more consonant or dissonant.


Musical instruments are certainly not natural nor are any of the tuning systems they use. The only thing natural about music is that its sounds, like the consistently non-tonal sounds of the natural world (thunder, wind, rain, birds, animals), are carried to our ears by waves.

Whatever else one might say about those waves or about their shapes or their measurements, consonance and dissonance and even other phenomenona like volume are a matter of how a listener responds to those waves. And whatever else one might say about the similar structure of humans' ears, it's how each individual responds that matters. Each individual pair of ears is part and parcel of a very complex system and not a system that can be explained or understood fully by measurements and ratios and math.

I know from reading your posts over the years on another forum how fascinated you are by math and ratios, so I'm sure this one little post isn't going to change anything for you. I just wanted to present an alternate view, whether that resonates (!) with you or with maybe another reader.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

some guy said:


> Audiences for classical music had isolated themselves from new music long before Schoenberg.


I don't think they did then and I don't think they do now. There is plenty of appetite for new music. Audiences are just being their usual pesky selves and demanding music that appeals to them. Sometimes in these discussions I get the feeling that this behavior is, somehow, unreasonable.


----------



## Guest (Nov 10, 2012)

some guy said:


> That difference is not to be taken as some kind of referendum on the quality of the music itself. (Does anyone really and truly believe that it's arithmetic? That 100 people liking something is ten times better than only 10 people liking the something? Come on. We're brighter than that, aren't we?)


Apparently not, in some cases.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> That's true, after the fact of its creation. It becomes what it ultimately was destined to be, sound. But the point is to see that serialism's methods are not _based_ on acoustic factors, but other more mathematical factors. Once those determinants are satisfied, ways can be found to "reconcile" these with harmonic factors.
> 
> I disagree. The more advanced horizontal time-based functions of tonality, experienced as anticipation, expectation, surprise, etc. are based on degrees of consonance/dissonance in relation to a "root" or tonic note. This horizontal dimension of function is the consequence of the vertical manifestation of harmonics of a single note, and their prominence. This is even reflected mathematically as ratios: 2:1----1:2---1:1---2:3---3:4---4:5, etc.
> 
> ...


Great Vid. Big fan of B.McF


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

I want mankind to live in eternal peace, love and harmony. Is that too much to ask?


----------



## Guest (Nov 10, 2012)

crmoorhead said:


> I want mankind to live in eternal peace, love and harmony. Is that too much to ask?


Harmony? Are you sure that's what you meant?


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> Harmony? Are you sure that's what you meant?


LOL, you know what I mean!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

crmoorhead said:


> I want mankind to live in eternal peace, love and harmony. Is that too much to ask?


_*Then Man must learn to transcend his own ego; and listening to serial music and John Cage is a good place to start.
*_


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> _*Then Man must learn to transcend his own ego; and listening to serial music and John Cage is a good place to start.
> *_


You are so funny :lol: But serial music et. Co can also sound egocentric, stormy, I don't really see peace, love and harmony in it.  Instead, I see these a lot in Early Music. Back then, music was composed to please God, so no Ego involved.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Renaissance said:


> You are so funny :lol: But serial music et. Co can also sound egocentric, stormy, I don't really see peace, love and harmony in it.  Instead, I see these a lot in Early Music. Back then, music was composed to please God, so no Ego involved.


Unless you consider god is basically a manifestation of one's ego, and then you realize its among the most egotistical music imaginable. :3


----------



## Guest (Nov 10, 2012)

KenOC said:


> I don't think they did then and I don't think they do now. There is plenty of appetite for new music. Audiences are just being their usual pesky selves and demanding music that appeals to them. Sometimes in these discussions I get the feeling that this behavior is, somehow, unreasonable.


This at least is a matter of historical fact, not what you or I or anyone else thinks or believes. Of course there has always been an appetite for new music, but the ratios began to change around the beginning of the nineteenth century and have gone from bad to worse since then. You can trace this trend by looking at the changes in concert programming over the years and seeing how the ratio of dead composers to living changed from around 1 to 9 in the 1700s to as much as 10 to zero in the 1860s. And you can supplement that with contemporary commentary by the people tasked with making programs to point the moral:

When a new conductor was asked about the paucity of living composers on his programs, he answered that some of the orchestra's subscribers would "get upset when they see the name of a single contemporary composer on the programs, and say loudly that we should only perform pieces by dead composers."

The year that was written? 1856.

_Requesting_ music that appeals to one is not unreasonable, but what if what appeals to you doesn't appeal to someone else? I asked the conductor of my local symphony after a performance of a mid-twentieth century piece (which they did very well) if the orchestra would ever consider performing something more recent, say, a piece by Lachenmann.

"No. Never."

He and the general manager were both sure that symphony patrons in our town would never tolerate Lachenmann. And perhaps they were right. A patron of my local orchestra came storming into the lobby at the end of last season, incensed that the orchestra had played some modern music so hideous that it gave her a headache and said that she would contact the board to insist that the orchestra never play that kind of stuff again. When another patron said that she had rather liked the music, the first patron simply repeated that it gave her a headache and she wasn't going to stand for that.

(The music, just by the way, was Britten's _Four Sea Interludes and Passacaglia from Peter Grimes._)

Demanding, from either side, is always unreasonable, and in the latter instance, anti-social. As I have pointed out before, most recently on this board to brianwalker, when you're in your own home, you can listen to whatever you like. When you go outside, however, the rules change. You are now in public. There are other people besides you in this public place, other people with other tastes and other needs. Now there is a general need for compromise and flexibility.

Besides, no one anywhere at any time is compelled to attend a concert. That is something that is entirely up to you. Once you have chosen of your own free will to attend a concert, it is indeed unreasonable to whinge at what is being performed. So soon as the orchestra comes into your house with that horrible music (Britten, anyone?) and ties you to a chair and forces you to listen to it, then and only then do you have a legitimate gripe.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> Unless you consider god is basically a manifestation of one's ego, and then you realize its among the most egotistical music imaginable. :3


For some is, for some isn't.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> _*Then Man must learn to transcend his own ego; and listening to serial music and John Cage is a good place to start.
> *_


*Silent* meditation would be a better place.

Then again, eternal peace, love and harmony may be a tad overrated.

There is no beauty without strife. There is no art without conflict.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

_*Originally Posted by millionrainbows 
"Then Man must learn to transcend his own ego; and listening to serial music and John Cage is a good place to start."*_



Petwhac said:


> *Silent* meditation would be a better place.
> 
> Then again, eternal peace, love and harmony may be a tad overrated.
> 
> There is no beauty without strife. There is no art without conflict.


_*I'm advocating a new paradigm, not some exaggerated "eternal peace, love and harmony" hippie philosophy.

As to the assertion that "there is no beauty without strife, there is no art without conflict," the only strife and conflict will be when people finally wake up to the realization that their precious "strife and conflict" have destroyed the world.*_


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> _*Originally Posted by millionrainbows
> "Then Man must learn to transcend his own ego; and listening to serial music and John Cage is a good place to start."*_
> 
> _*I'm advocating a new paradigm, not some exaggerated "eternal peace, love and harmony" hippie philosophy.
> ...


Are you serious ?  The world will never be destroyed because of art, that's for sure. The purpose of art should be the ennoblement of the spirit. I know how it sounds, and I don't care for it, it's just the truth. Music which pushes you into decadence, horror, confusion isn't music for me. I can get these effects without any sound as well, so I don't see why would I bother to seek for such music. On the contrary, what is foreign to the human nature is more dangerous on a larger scale, because nothing artificial can replace what's natural. It is a strange tendency today to replace everything, to make everything artificial, and this also occurs in music as well. I had enough of this alienation, I won't go with the flow, with the so-called "modern" flow. Better old-fashioned and ignorant.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> As to the assertion that "there is no beauty without strife, there is no art without conflict," the only strife and conflict will be when people finally wake up to the realization that their precious "strife and conflict" have destroyed the world.


If the world is destroyed we're not going to wake up at all. But as we evaporate back into the stardust from which we came we will know that it wasn't the winning or losing that was important but only how we played the game!:tiphat:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Renaissance said:


> ...The purpose of art should be the ennoblement of the spirit. I know how it sounds, and I don't care for it, it's just the truth...Music which pushes you into decadence, horror, confusion isn't music for me. I can get these effects without any sound as well, so I don't see why would I bother to seek for such music. On the contrary, what is foreign to the human nature is more dangerous on a larger scale, because nothing artificial can replace what's natural. It is a strange tendency today to replace everything, to make everything artificial, and this also occurs in music as well. I had enough of this alienation, I won't go with the flow, with the so-called "modern" flow. Better old-fashioned and ignorant.


*Modern music can ennoble the spirit;

...decadence, horror, and confusion sounds like you've been listening to old horror movie soundtracks. There is nothing 'artificial' about modern music, either.

*


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> *Modern music can ennoble the spirit;
> 
> ...decadence, horror, and confusion sounds like you've been listening to old horror movie soundtracks. There is nothing 'artificial' about modern music, either.
> 
> *


This is a good exemple of serial work, sounds pretty much like a horror movie soundtrack to me. Actually, it would fit perfectly. 





And there is a lot artificial about modern music, as you told once that modern music use mathematical constructs with no pre-cognitive impact on people, and no acoustic principles behind it. So to speak, it has no musical reality, no echo into human nature, because it is not music composed for a human being, just organized sounds based on abstract principles. No musical reality. V-I authentic cadence is a strong musical reality for example. As Debussy said, rules don't makes art masterpieces, but masterpieces make rules.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

I hate the taste of Nietzsche or B.Russell in music!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Renaissance said:


> This is a good exemple of serial work, sounds pretty much like a horror movie soundtrack to me. Actually, it would fit perfectly......_*(This doesn't sound serial to me; it sounds decidedly tonal.-millions)*_ And there is a lot artificial about modern music, as you told once that modern music use mathematical constructs with no pre-cognitive impact on people, and no acoustic principles behind it. So to speak, it has no musical reality, no echo into human nature, because it is not music composed for a human being, just organized sounds based on abstract principles. No musical reality. V-I authentic cadence is a strong musical reality for example. As Debussy said, rules don't makes art masterpieces, but masterpieces make rules.


I disagree with that. Although the pitch-material in serialism is often based on mathematical set theory, this is only one aspect. When the music is performed, it does have an acoustic reality, as all sound and music does.

Plus, as Elliott Carter and George Perle's music demonstrates, "special-case" tone-sets can be used to control the vertical (harmonic) aspects of the music, and produces beautiful results, as in George Perle's piano concerto.

But bear in mind that serial music is chromatic music, so it will sound pretty chromatic regardless. I think you're applying the wrong criteria to serial music.

If Arvo Pärt upsets you, then listen to Morton Feldman or Webern. Much of their music is quiet, and does not induce anxiety, but creates a relaxing, calming effect. Webern's leider are especially exquisite.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Arsakes said:


> I hate the taste of Nietzsche or B.Russell in music!


That sounds like you're casting "atheistic" aspersions. To the contrary, Arvo Pärt is a very religious man, as were Schoenberg, Webern, Stockhausen, etc. The only exception I can think of is Boulez.:angel:


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Arsakes said:


> I hate the taste of Nietzsche or B.Russell in music!


What do you mean?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Originally Posted by Arsakes:* "I hate the taste of Nietzsche or B.Russell in music!"*



BurningDesire said:


> What do you mean?


As I read his short, pithy aphorism, I thinks *Arsakes* is casting "atheistic" aspersions on to modern music. *Bertrand Russell* was an atheist and wrote the book _Why I Am Not A Christian._ *Nietzsche,* as we all know, had similar views on religion.

My blog _*Tonality and Serial Thought: Two Different Universes*_ deals with the differing world views. Remember that *Bertrand Russell* was a scientist. The scientific perspective took over from religion's dominance as early as the enlightenment (or even the rediscovery of *Aristotle's* writings by the West), but this does not exclude or displace religion; it simply placed religion as the basis for all thought in a more proper perspective.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> I disagree with that. Although the pitch-material in serialism is often based on mathematical set theory, this is only one aspect. When the music is performed, it does have an acoustic reality, as all sound and music does.
> 
> But bear in mind that serial music is chromatic music, so it will sound pretty chromatic regardless. I think you're applying the wrong criteria to serial music.


What do mean that it's decidedly tonal ? It pretty sounds like 12-tone for me. And if I remember well it was the first work from Part which was composed with 12-tone techniques. Some neoclassic influences are obvious too. But really tonal, I wouldn't say. No mystery, I think it's evident that it's purely chromatic music.

L.E. : _Pärt was first associated with mainstream modernist and avant-garde composition. He particularly explored serial composition, in works such as the orchestral piece "Nekrolog" (1960-1961) and many others up through "Credo" (1968)._

http://www.answers.com/topic/arvo-p-rt


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> What do you mean?


& @ millionrainbows

Well I didn't mean the atheistic part ... but Madness and extra-ordinary emotions (based on anti-rationalism/anti-romanticism) about Nietzsche and the focus on mathematics for B.Russell. 
It's very complex, but I use to write short paragraphs.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Renaissance said:


> What do mean that it's decidedly tonal ? It pretty sounds like 12-tone for me. And if I remember well it was the first work from Part which was composed with 12-tone techniques. Some neoclassic influences are obvious too. But really tonal, I wouldn't say. No mystery, I think it's evident that it's purely chromatic music.
> 
> L.E. : _Pärt was first associated with mainstream modernist and avant-garde composition. He particularly explored serial composition, in works such as the orchestral piece "Nekrolog" (1960-1961) and many others up through "Credo" (1968)._


Ok, I concede that this piece is serial, but I hear tonal references. I'd usually characterize this type of later 20th century tonality as "neo-romantic," but if it's serial, it's serial.


----------



## Guest (Nov 12, 2012)

I would not have thought that this quite mild and quite late romantic sounding work by Pärt would have made Renaissance's point very well.

But then I never would have thought that a symphony patron would have come busting into the lobby screaming bloody murder about the horrible headache-inducing Britten (4 Sea Interludes) that she had just had to suffer through. But she did.

The example of Pärt says very little about music, twelve-tone or otherwise, but speaks volumes about Renaissance's inability to listen to music without a lot of preconceived notions getting in the way.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

some guy said:


> The example of Pärt says very little about music, twelve-tone or otherwise, but speaks volumes about Renaissance's inability to listen to music without a lot of preconceived notions getting in the way.


Well, technically, Renaissance is correct; it is serial. But the "anxiety" is very late Romantic, I agree. And I have no problem with "dark" art.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

Arvo Pärt is probably the only living famous classical composer who I like; not that early stuff of course.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

This came up today. I think it is pretty horrifying.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Ramako said:


> Arvo Pärt is probably the only living famous classical composer who I like; not that early stuff of course.


Of course, wouldn't want to get the idea you had diverse musical horizons.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Ramako said:


> This came up today. I think it is pretty horrifying.


I think he must have intended it to be as it is. You apparently are not ready for "dark art" or the dark side of the Human psyche. Stick with "lollipop" music, sweet stuff. This 'darkness' is for explorers who wish to enter darker places.

*Listeners like me? We thrive on darkness, we bathe in it. *

_*Ahh, depression, my old friend! 
Fear! Come in! I'm so glad you are visiting! 
Anxiety! Come in, have some coffee!!
*_


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> You apparently are not ready for "dark art" or the dark side of the Human psyche. Stick with "lollipop" music, sweet stuff.


Perhaps, then, Aleister Crowley might have enjoyed it. For me, it's "Yummy Yummy Yummy I got love in my tummy" every time!


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

some guy said:


> The example of Pärt says very little about music, twelve-tone or otherwise, but speaks volumes about Renaissance's inability to listen to music without a lot of preconceived notions getting in the way.


My inability to appreciate it is not due to the techniques used. It might have used medieval counterpoint, I don't care, I would have thought the same of it. I am not rejecting a composition simply because it's labeled "serial"/"atonal". Actually, they are all interesting stuff, but I can't use them as music. That anxiety and confusion...don't want to get back to my old depression. Actually I used to find Ligeti's music as fascinating, but now I can't get back into it, not anymore. It's not that I don't understand such pieces, but I find them hard to listen to, especially on a regular basis. It is pretty unhealthy. And my problem is with people (actually composers, because these are creating the trends) who think that their music is the only valid and reject everything else as "old" and "museum art". Because this stops others from going on their own way, like Arvo Part did, for example.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> *Listeners like me? We thrive on darkness, we bathe in it. *
> 
> _*Ahh, depression, my old friend!
> Fear! Come in! I'm so glad you are visiting!
> ...


You wouldn't say these things if you knew what they really feel like. For those you really know how it feels like and struggled with them, these things are very avoidable and unpleasant.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Renaissance said:


> And my problem is with people (actually composers, because these are creating the trends) who think that their music is the only valid and reject everything else as "old" and "museum art". Because this stops others from going on their own way, like Arvo Part did, for example.


I absolutely agree with this. However, you can't then turn around and insult a composer who follows these avant-garde paths because those are the ones they choose. Otherwise it invalidates your entire point about artistic freedom. You don't have to like what they're doing, but calling it "not music" and assuming they must be elitists or snobs is no better than the hardcore avant-garde folks insulting the use of old stylistic elements as "out-dated" or "worthless".


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> I absolutely agree with this. However, you can't then turn around and insult a composer who follows these avant-garde paths because those are the ones they choose. Otherwise it invalidates your entire point about artistic freedom. You don't have to like what they're doing, but calling it "not music" and assuming they must be elitists or snobs is no better than the hardcore avant-garde folks insulting the use of old stylistic elements as "out-dated" or "worthless".


Actually there is a difference. I am a simple listener, with no influence, while they are creating fashions which really puts others obstacle in finding their own voice. If I criticize X, he has no problem with that, he is on his way. But if X criticize everything except his works, this is bad and stupid, because his opinion really matters, while mine is insignificant.

And if you think well, avant-garde folks insulting the old styles and composers are really snobs and elitist, aren't they ? If I would say that Cage is a snob and elitist, yes, it would be an insult because the man was really calm and fine. But about Boulez wouldn't be so far from truth


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Renaissance said:


> My inability to appreciate it is not due to the techniques used. It might have used medieval counterpoint, I don't care, I would have thought the same of it. I am not rejecting a composition simply because it's labeled "serial"/"atonal". Actually, they are all interesting stuff, but I can't use them as music. That anxiety and confusion...don't want to get back to my old depression. Actually I used to find Ligeti's music as fascinating, but now I can't get back into it, not anymore. It's not that I don't understand such pieces, but I find them hard to listen to, especially on a regular basis. It is pretty unhealthy. And my problem is with people (actually composers, because these are creating the trends) who think that their music is the only valid and reject everything else as "old" and "museum art". Because this stops others from going on their own way, like Arvo Part did, for example.


Well, this is a lot more clear than your previous posts, and now I can see your position. 
With respect to composers' personal opinion about other composers, I simply don't care. Composers can have complex personalities. At the end, what is important is the music. I agree with BD's comment above.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Renaissance said:


> Actually there is a difference. I am a simple listener, with no influence, while they are creating fashions which really puts others obstacle in finding their own voice. If I criticize X, he has no problem with that, he is on his way. But if X criticize everything except his works, this is bad and stupid, because his opinion really matters, while mine is insignificant.
> 
> And if you think well, avant-garde folks insulting the old styles and composers are really snobs and elitist, aren't they ? If I would say that Cage is a snob and elitist, yes, it would be an insult because the man was really calm and fine. But about Boulez wouldn't be so far from truth


Boulez was an idiot. But despite his efforts, he could not convince Ligeti to follow serialism, for example. On the other hand, he convinced Stravinsky. So, it's a complex social interaction. What if Stravinsky was really interested in serialism?. In that case Boulez's insistence would have been good!.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

aleazk said:


> Boulez was an idiot. But despite his efforts, he could not convince Ligeti to follow serialism, for example. On the other hand, he convinced Stravinsky. So, it's a complex social interaction. What if Stravinsky was really interested in serialism?. In that case Boulez's insistence would have been good!.


Well...you said it  Yes, there are really complex social interactions, but any idea, no matter how subtle has a potential of becoming fashion. And this is what I really don't like. About Stravinsky, no one can say it for sure, but ideas like Boulez's certainly make a difference if they are spread among folks. Not only in good...but also in bad. If tonality was ended, serialism should have its end too sooner or later.


----------



## Guest (Nov 12, 2012)

Renaissance said:


> And my problem is with people (actually composers, because these are creating the trends) who think that their music is the only valid and reject everything else as "old" and "museum art". Because this stops others from going on their own way, like Arvo Part did, for example.


So Arvo was stopped from going his own way but he went his own way? Say what??

If anyone has ever been stopped from doing anything, it's the searchers, the pushers of boundaries. Those are the people who really **** the conservative concert managers off. Those are the people who are, with few exceptions, shut out of the concert halls, and have been shut out since mid-19th century.

Enough already!


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

Don't be such a naive... These things may work on teenagers who just read Einstein quotes...The facts are more complicated than that, my friend, don't blend art's progress with any other type of progress. There is no progress in music, only conventions that changes. Noise, dissonances, chord clusters, all these stuff have been around in Bach's time too. Nothing new, only the fashion has changed. And if you look now, you can see that those conventions were good at something after all. Because we are now in a dead-end. No one shuts you out of the concert halls, be serious. The only preoccupation should be finding a middle-ground. So that the changes are not made in vain...


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

some guy said:


> ...it's the searchers, the pushers of boundaries. Those are the people who really **** the conservative concert managers off.


"Concert managers," which are really some combination of the conductor/music director, the orchestra's board, major donors, and others, obviously have several goals. One big one is to fill those seats with warm behinds. So how about a concert or two of the 2nd Viennese School followed by more recent atonalists? If there were a single "concert manager," he or she would probably have heard the term "career-limiting move."


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Renaissance said:


> Don't be such a naive... These things may work on teenagers who just read Einstein quotes...The facts are more complicated than that, my friend, don't blend art's progress with any other type of progress. There is no progress in music, only conventions that changes. Noise, dissonances, chord clusters, all these stuff have been around in Bach's time too. Nothing new, only the fashion has changed. And if you look now, you can see that those conventions were good at something after all. Because we are now in a dead-end. No one shuts you out of the concert halls, be serious. The only preoccupation should be finding a middle-ground. So that the changes are not made in vain...


There is a book you might like called 'Breaking The Sound Barrier' by John Winsor, you can read it online for free.
It has some very interesting things to say about 'progress' in music and it is _not_ from a modernist or post modernist perspective.
There is a chapter which charts the development from plainchant to 20C and shows that each new era and development increased music's ability to convey information.


----------



## Guest (Nov 12, 2012)

As you know, Ken, art museums did indeed take that path, with pretty stunning results.

It might be too late now for symphony orchestras to try that, but even you can see (even if you're unable or unwilling to admit it) that "warm behinds" really means, "the warm behinds that we already know."

Whatever happened to promoting? Whatever happened to teaching? Whatever happened to the new being exciting and alluring? 

Art museums made the extremes of modern art seem sexy and desirable and succeeded in cramming people in for new exhibits of new art. If only symphony orchestras had had the cojones to have done the same, we would not be having these silly conversations. We would take it for granted that the behinds of people who like contemporary music are just as warm as the behinds of those who don't.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> I think he must have intended it to be as it is. You apparently are not ready for "dark art" or the dark side of the Human psyche. Stick with "lollipop" music, sweet stuff. This 'darkness' is for explorers who wish to enter darker places.


I'll steer clear of the dark arts thank you.

Horror is a regrettable part of life, all darkness is. If it is framed musically then suddenly you find yourself with the Beethovian paradigm: light triumphs over dark (essentially).

But if a piece is solely about darkness - if there is no light - what then? The piece can become nothing but fascination with darkness (I am not saying that this _is_ what will happen, but it definitely can) and I have no intention with becoming more fascinated by darkness than I already am. Becoming interested in something is the first step to doing it.

In literature (and even sometimes in music written for this purpose) darkness can serve a good end by enlightening us about real suffering in the world, for example - it depends greatly on the piece of music and also on the listener - what may be a meditation on evil for one may be an edifying warning for another. But we should not equate artistic suffering with real suffering; artistic joy is not real joy. The former should shame us, while the latter is but a shadow. Art is beautiful, art is sublime art can be many things that real life cannot be... But let us not mistake the two - let us not believe that because we can or can't take suffering in art then it implies something about real life. People who have suffered in reality - do they wish to suffer in art as well? I have no direct experience of this but from what I hear - the answer is no.

So really it depends on the listener and the music and the gel between them, but I will not persuaded that all music is the same and I will not be persuaded that I am too naive to like darkness. This latter is a cliche of evil in so many myths, now cheesy films... I have never suffered truly, but I am quite aware of the darker machinations of the human mind, and I will not revel in them.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

KenOC said:


> "Concert managers," which are really some combination of the conductor/music director, the orchestra's board, major donors, and others, obviously have several goals. One big one is to fill those seats with warm behinds. So how about a concert or two of the 2nd Viennese School followed by more recent atonalists? If there were a single "concert manager," he or she would probably have heard the term "career-limiting move."


Yes it's hard to argue against this.
A restaurant that serves food that enough people don't want to eat will soon go out of business no matter how hard the chefs protest that if the public would just keep trying it they'll acquire a taste for it.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

some guy said:


> As you know, Ken, art museums did indeed take that path, with pretty stunning results.
> 
> It might be too late now for symphony orchestras to try that, but even you can see (even if you're unable or unwilling to admit it) that "warm behinds" really means, "the warm behinds that we already know."
> 
> ...


Who's money should be spent on promoting and teaching?


----------



## Guest (Nov 12, 2012)

Whose money should be spent on manufacturing bullets to kill people on the other side of the world?

Whose money should be spent bailing out banks so they can continue to steal?

Whose money should be spent repairing roads and bridges?

The point is, the art museums did do it, and it worked. The symphony orchestras did not, and they're having a hard time keeping the halls filled with just the fans of old music.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

some guy said:


> Whose money should be spent on manufacturing bullets to kill people on the other side of the world?
> 
> Whose money should be spent bailing out banks so they can continue to steal?
> 
> ...


Oh come on some guy you are not really equating those things. If you are then I think you need an emergency reality check.

The visual arts occupy a completely different place in society. And there are wealthy, high profile collectors to add 'value' to modern art. Saatchi and others.

Is the government going to appoint a contemporary music Czar to oversea the spending of tax payers money on whichever composers they deem fit to receive commissions? We already have this in the UK with the BBC and licence payers' money without which the names Ades and Mcmillan would be even more obscure to the listenership.
The BBC get enough stick as it is when the throw in some Boulez with the Beethoven. What are they supposed to do?
As for education, the kids are busy being helped to bash out some drum n bass masterpiece on the rows of imacs in the music rooms.


----------



## Guest (Nov 13, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> As for education, the kids are busy being helped to bash out some drum n bass masterpiece on the rows of imacs in the music rooms.


Yes, yes I see the utility of having some emergency reality checks myself, here. Indeed I do.


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

I agree with atonal music having the problem of being generally "non-expressive". But then again, so is Renaissance music, and generally up untill Beethoven tonality, still in it's baby steps so to speak, was not nearly as expressive as it is thought to be. Mozart's music almost always begins in a Major key, he uses very little modulations, and Mozart with chromaticism was seen as one of the most expressive of his era; if you listen to this contemporaries, they are much less emotionally expressive. Atonality, being it's baby steps, I think has some problem with expressivity, but this is not to be seen as a game-breaker for atonality, just as it wasn't for Renaissance tonality or Classical tonality.

Plus, there are instances where I think there are happy, or at least moments, in atonal music. Some of Schnabel's music fits this category. Schoenberg's Piano Concerto is highly humorous. Even Webern's third movement for his Symphonie, the Variations, is light at times.

Or maybe this idea. Maybe it's so expressive, that it comes off as unexpressive. Check this out:






And what of this? To me, this Contrapunctus shows no emotion. Schweizter said it was the laying out of a "quiet and serious world, with no light, no color, no emotion". And I think it's one of the highest musical achievements, maybe even human achievements, ever. Emotion, subjective as it is, should never be the criteria for great art; I find it a Romantic bias. Most of the aesthetic theories didn't see music as expressive or emotional at all (Baroque saw it as spiritual, Classical thought it as formal).


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

After all of these posts there is one thing I still do not understand.

For example, let us take John Cage. Individuals who know me are aware that for every Cage piece that I like there are a hundred that I dislike. I only have one Cage CD in my entire collection. I still respect the aficionados of Cage and refrain from picking fights with them.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that every complaint from the anti-Cage faction is valid. According to the poll "Favorites of the 20th Century List 2" out of thirty-two participants only four liked Cage. He came in last place (Note: Somebody had too.)

So what are these individuals suppose to do? Should we ban them from TC? Why can't they start a thread about Cage and the rest of us leave them alone? Are their musical tastes really a threat to the future of Western Civilization? To my knowledge the vast majority of those who like Cage still like Bach. I seriously doubt that subjecting them to bogus rhetoric is going to change their minds. I do not understand what the anti-modernists are trying to prove.

Disclaimer: Please refrain from accusing me of thinking my tastes are superior to everybody else's because I like some atonal music. No mature adult believes that there is something wrong with anyone who dislikes Cage. There are over seven billion people on this planet. I am sure we can find one nut who believes that giant jellyfish live on Jupiter.


----------



## Guest (Nov 13, 2012)

arpeggio said:


> After all of these posts there is one thing I still do not understand.


Xenophobia?

That's my best guess at understanding all this, anyway.

Doesn't really explain anything, I know. Not sure that's possible. Here's an irrational thing. It's puzzling. And calling it xenophobia just puts a fancy name on what we already know, that there's this irrational thing, here.

[I must say, I'm rather attracted to the jellyfish idea, though. I might start believing that. (Before this, I believed very strongly that I needed another beer.)]


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

It should be obvious by now what the real objections to modern music are.


----------



## Guest (Nov 13, 2012)

million, I think the issue here for arpeggio and myself is "why?"

Why do people object? It just doesn't make any sense. 

That they object is more than clear. What their objections are is also clear.

Why those objections are the same as people were using hundreds of years ago seems a trifle off, though, I must say. The music has changed. Why are the objections still the same?


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

some guy said:


> Why those objections are the same as people were using hundreds of years ago seems a trifle off, though, I must say. The music has changed. Why are the objections still the same?


I thought that part was what you _did_ understand. People are essentially the same as they were in the past, and new music is, well, new music.


----------



## Guest (Nov 13, 2012)

Well, yes. You are correct. I do understand that the new, whatever the new looks or sounds like, seems the same to people at first, i.e. new.

I should have said, "I wish that critics of new music could come up with some new criticisms instead of just recycling all the old ones."

And if I had said it that way, I would have been wrong. It's natural and comprehensible that an initial reaction to something outside what one's familiar with will be negative. There are very few people who can boldly follow creators to where no creator has gone before. As it were. And none of that is really all that surprising or even objectionable.

Yes.

What I really hope to accomplish is getting across the idea that an initial negative response does not need to automatically and universally become set in stone immediately. Too many adverbs there? Too bad!

Don't be so quick to judge. (Not you, mmsbls, people generally.)

Give the people who do understand, who do enjoy, who do appreciate some credit. (After all, it's more than likely that they also like Monteverdi and Mozart and Wagner as well.)

Those are my two main requests.

The other ones, like putting the cap back on the toothpaste, are negotiable.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

KenOC said:


> Two comments, modestly offered.
> 
> First, _Lincoln _is primarily aimed at the US market. I have no doubt it will make a fair return in overseas markets as well, if it's good as early views indicate. There is and has been a market for "democracy" overseas that we tend to dismiss because, to whatever extent, we already have it.
> 
> Second, democracy was pretty soundly established in (South) Korea last time I checked, and it seems popular there. If we "shoved it down their throats," well, it worked. I can't remember that we were ever seriously interested in democracy in Vietnam. If we were, we wouldn't have supported cancelling the reunification election in the early 1950s, which Ho Chi Minh would certainly have won. A mistake that cost us many lives and much gold (and cost Vietnam far more of course).


We didn't go out of our way to get it going in South Korea either. The war started in 1950; democracy came after the protests of 1988.

Still, I am intrigued by millions' connection of tonality to nationalism. Probably just historical coincidence, plus a bit of ideology circa 1930s. Atonal music probably can't be nationalistic because it isn't traditional enough yet.

Re: the original post: I want both sides to tolerate each other. I don't care what happens in the concert halls; I just want a message board where brianwalker and millionrainbows can discuss music without insulting each other - or anybody else. It doesn't matter which of them insults the other, it hits me, because I like both of their musics.

There was an interesting discussion about whether a criticism of a type of music is a criticism of its fans. It can be. If I say something that means a certain kind of music is objectively horrible, that is implicitly a criticism of the people who like that music: something must be wrong with them. But if I say that I don't like a certain kind of music, there is no criticism implied. In one case the others are objectively wrong to have different tastes than I do, objectively inferior to me. In the other, we have different tastes but no one is inferior to anyone.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> I thought that part was what you _did_ understand. People are essentially the same as they were in the past, and new music is, well, new music.


Like that "Composer's Datebook" show on the radio says at the end, "And remember: _all _music was at one time new."


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

science said:


> We didn't go out of our way to get it going in South Korea either. The war started in 1950; democracy came after the protests of 1988.


I'm glad you cleared that up, science.



science said:


> Still, I am intrigued by millions' connection of tonality to nationalism. Probably just historical coincidence, plus a bit of ideology circa 1930s. Atonal music probably can't be nationalistic because it isn't traditional enough yet.


I bring that difference up to underscore, as you have already surmised, that atonal music, neither as a system or as realised art, is not suited for appropriation in political propaganda, as it is not inherently "anthemic."

Which is a shame, really; the anxiety-inducing and fear factor of serial music could be played in the background of negative political campaign ads on television, as: *OBAMA: are you really better off now? *(Boulez' Sonatina plays in background)



science said:


> If I say something that means a certain kind of music is objectively horrible, that is implicitly a criticism of the people who like that music: something must be wrong with them...In (this) case the others are objectively wrong to have different tastes than I do, objectively inferior to me.


That doesn't make sense; how can a certain kind of music, be "objectively horrible," or people who like that music be "objectively inferior"? Are you saying that the critics of modernism feel that they are the victims of discrimination? What do you call this, "musical racism"?



science said:


> But if I say that I don't like a certain kind of music, there is no criticism implied. In (this instance), we have different tastes but no one is inferior to anyone.


Well, there's a handy loophole around all of this 'walking on eggshells' and 'political correctness'! Just _disparage and insult the composer:_ easy! No ad-hominem, nothing a moderator can do; plus, it _"baits"_ the people who like the composer into ad-hominem territory, so you can lodge a complaint and get them banned! A nice, tidy solution.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

science said:


> Still, I am intrigued by millions' connection of tonality to nationalism. Probably just historical coincidence, plus a bit of ideology circa 1930s. Atonal music probably can't be nationalistic because it isn't traditional enough yet.


Why should you be surprised at all? Didn't the Nazis forbid modernism, as well as the Soviets?

Why, it wasn't until Stalin's death in 1953 that the situation in Russia began to "thaw," and younger composers like Schnittke were finally able to gain access to Western modernism, like Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Hindemith, Debussy, and even Stravinsky.

From the liner notes to Nimbus NI5582:
"According to Stalin's Russia, music was deemed to have a social function. If ordinary Soviet audiences could not understand serialism, if it expressed nothing, but was merely a self-gratifying piece of artistic experimentation, then its very existence could not be justified. The official response to this 'mathematical' approach to musical language was accordingly largely suspicious, thereby rendering it all the more attractive to the younger generation, like Schnittke."

That's an advantage of serial music: it is unencumbered by "social function" like tonality is.

And, yes, there is a direct connection between traditional tonal music and nationalism. Historical coincidence? 1930's ideology?



science said:


> Atonal music probably can't be nationalistic because it isn't traditional enough yet.


That's the understatement of the century!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

SottoVoce said:


> I agree with atonal music having the problem of being generally "non-expressive". Maybe it's so expressive, that it comes off as unexpressive...(Rosen on Schoenberg video)...And what of this? To me, this Contrapunctus shows no emotion. Schweizter said it was the laying out of a "quiet and serious world, with no light, no color, no emotion". And I think it's one of the highest musical achievements, maybe even human achievements, ever. Emotion, subjective as it is, should never be the criteria for great art; I find it a Romantic bias. Most of the aesthetic theories didn't see music as expressive or emotional at all (Baroque saw it as spiritual, Classical thought it as formal).


Plus, statements such as "atonal music having the problem of being generally non-expressive" break down under specific scrutiny. Schoenberg was an Expressionist, after all, so the overall emotion he wished to convey in the _Five Pieces_ strike me as appropriately dark, fearful, and hyper-expressive, to the point of being garishly bizarre compared to a pastoral scene.

It's easier to see that serialism is an *arguably* inexpressive_ *compositional technique.*_ Alfred Schnittke overcame this _arguable_ limitation with his _Sonata for Violin and Chamber Orchestra (1963) _(Nimbus NI 5582), which combines the expressive qualities of Shostakovich with serial techniques.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> Which is a shame, really; the anxiety-inducing and fear factor of serial music could be played in the background of negative political campaign ads on television, as: *OBAMA: are you really better off now? *(Boulez' Sonatina plays in background)


Way ahead of you man.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

brianwalker said:


> Way ahead of you man.


So was Frank Zappa, with his sinister-sounding guitar instrumental simply entitled "Republicans." Or how about that other one, called "Orrin Hatch On Roller Skates"?


----------

