# Thread for the people who think music=harmony.



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

*Thread for the people who think music=TONAL harmony.*

There seems to be a lot of people still shocked by the introduction of atonalism 100 years ago, I repeat: 100 years ago. These people claim that classical music has been "subverted" to a horrendous "monster", :lol:, because of that. Implicit in that fallacious thought is the prejudice that music is equal to harmony or that harmony is the most important musical aspect. Since music is, of course, much more than harmony, for people like me the advent of atonalism is just a new variant in classical music, in fact, it's a very obvious variant, and to some extent, expected.
*So, please, I would like to be convinced that harmony is the most important musical aspect and that tonal harmony=music and non-tonal harmony=no music.

*I'm being sarcastic, by the way


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

Beating up a straw man? Let's talk jazz.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

mud said:


> Beating up a straw man? Let's talk jazz.


I love jazz. . But atonal music is superior.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

Fair enough. I think they both deserve a subforum.


----------



## Guest (Oct 29, 2012)

@aleazk Harmony, melody, form are an essential part of music ! now if you think otherwise *what* do you consider are the essentials??
I would never try to convince you that the music you enjoy has taken a turning that will probably be a dead end, evolution does this and only time will tell. stage now ready for my friend someguy.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Andante said:


> @aleazk Harmony, melody, form are an essential part of music ! now if you think otherwise *what* do you consider are the essentials??
> I would never try to convince you that the music you enjoy has taken a turning that will probably be a dead end, evolution does this and only time will tell. stage now ready for my friend someguy.


I find funny people who think that music _is_ just tonal harmony, that's all.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

I just think it needs more subcategories to prevent meaningless discussions (comparing apples and oranges, as it were).


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

mud said:


> I just think it needs more subcategories to prevent meaningless discussions (comparing apples and oranges, as it were).


Or comparing battleships and roller coasters.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

Kopachris said:


> Or comparing battleships and roller coasters.


I googled that and it pointed back to here. I guess this means you agree.


----------



## Guest (Oct 29, 2012)

aleazk said:


> I find funny people who think that music _is_ just tonal harmony, that's all.


There are one eyed people all over one must be tolerant


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Up until about 1945 (but some say earlier in the 20th c.) it was the era of harmony in classical music. But after whatever date, eg. 1945, we got into an era of sound. 

Think electronic music, or techniques extending music beyond harmony into a new world of sounds (pleasant and unpleasant and in between), eg. microtonal is a big one (think Penderecki's glissandos in the HIroshima piece, or things like this in Xenakis and Partch). We also got innovations getting rid of melody and using only rhythm and layerings to create a musical work (eg. Ligeti). But you've got a lot else besides this.

So basically its a different ball game from before. But that's ok, I don't see a reason for this to be a big deal. People can listen to music coming after the harmonic era, or they can reject it. Just like any other era or type of music. But music is music, even if people don't like it. I just wished sometimes that people took a little effort to read widely about music, and also apply basic critical thinking skills to others thinking and also their own thinking. I've found that I've changed my views on things as I get more information about these things. & I'm only skimming the surface in some ways, I'm not trained in music at all, I'm just a listener and enthusiast. That's it.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

My point is that music from the XX century has shown how important is the _interaction_ of all the musical factors (harmony, rhythm, color, etc.), rather than isolating them. So, when you say XX century music and the first comment is always some appreciation about a harmonic aspect is boring. When a negative appreciation towards non-tonal harmony is added, as usual, it's worse, since not only they are reducing all to harmony, but they are reducing all to the absence of tonal harmony!. All this music discarded just because tonal harmony is not present is ridiculous. It's evidence of an incapability for thinking music as a whole.
That's why I say that it seems that for this people music is just tonal harmony and nothing more, i.e., an identity between tonal harmony and music (false, of course). What a boring and minuscule world in which they live!.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

"Thread for the people who think music=harmony"

Dumb question alert: Does anybody really think this?


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

KenOC said:


> "Thread for the people who think music=harmony"
> 
> Dumb question alert: Does anybody really think this?


Judging by the ubiquitous argument "Atonal music ... some fallacy of negative connotations..." I would say yes. See my comment #12 for the full reasoning.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

for me, harmony is of utmost importance along with timbre. I love the interactions of tones and noises vertically and horizontally, they colors the create. And I love atonal music :3


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

KenOC said:


> "Thread for the people who think music=harmony"
> 
> Dumb question alert: Does anybody really think this?


Does anyone think it is the absence of harmony?


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

In serialism, the harmony is often secondary as as for example with twelve-tone, it is more about unity of harmony than haromny itself.


----------



## Guest (Oct 29, 2012)

Lets have thirteen tone.....that will test the Ears


----------



## MaestroViolinist (May 22, 2012)

Thread for the people who think music=harmony

^^ Sadly I do not think this any more.  I preferred it when I was naive.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

aleazk said:


> My point is that music from the XX century has shown how important is the _interaction_ of all the musical factors (harmony, rhythm, color, etc.), rather than isolating them. So, when you say XX century music and the first comment is always some appreciation about a harmonic aspect is boring. When a negative appreciation towards non-tonal harmony is added, as usual, it's worse, since not only they are reducing all to harmony, but they are reducing all to the absence of tonal harmony!. All this music discarded just because tonal harmony is not present is ridiculous. It's evidence of an incapability for thinking music as a whole.
> That's why I say that it seems that for this people music is just tonal harmony and nothing more, i.e., an identity between tonal harmony and music (false, of course). What a boring and minuscule world in which they live!.


I see atonality not as something opposite to harmony but as a little part of it. It's like considering colors, atonality is black. And it's a bit difficult to make a painting that express joy using only black. Black is powerful for certain things, but has its limits.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

The whole point of atonality is not the it only lacks any kind of comprehensible harmony, but it lacks pretty much everything that is required for a bunch of sounds to be called music. For me harmony is very important, what's wrong with it ? We have pre-tonal music, where harmony was a direct consequence of the counterpoint, so it is not tonal harmony, but it's very pleasing to the ears. So it doesn't have to be tonal harmony, but it doesn't have to be a "harmony" based on whatever a guy like Schoenberg wants either. You can't decide what is music and what is not, and we see how "popular" is atonal music today... No offense, but 100 years of experiments without much result, I think it's enough. Not even Romantic Era lasted so long. So, the today composers are not even original, as they desperately seek to be. Composing music just for the sake of originality, or breaking conventions, it is not what music is supposed to be. You have to invents your own conventions, not to break other's. But these things are good... when no objective appreciation is possible, any crap can be considered a piece of art, and this is very fine for second-rate "artists" because they have the chance to show off. Not talking about Schoenberg here, he is another type of artist.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

aleazk said:


> My point is that music from the XX century has shown how important is the _interaction_ of all the musical factors (harmony, rhythm, color, etc.), rather than isolating them. So, when you say XX century music and the first comment is always some appreciation about a harmonic aspect is boring. When a negative appreciation towards non-tonal harmony is added, as usual, it's worse, since not only they are reducing all to harmony, but they are reducing all to the absence of tonal harmony!. All this music discarded just because tonal harmony is not present is ridiculous. It's evidence of an incapability for thinking music as a whole.
> That's why I say that it seems that for this people music is just tonal harmony and nothing more, i.e., an identity between tonal harmony and music (false, of course). What a boring and minuscule world in which they live!.


All music is equally valid. Harmony is one tool in the composer's toolbox, others being pulse, rhythm, register, dynamics, instrumentation/orchestration etc. That much is evident.
I believe that rhythm is the most essential element in the comprehensibility of music.
But I also believe that harmony is the sharpest and most versatile tool for the nuanced expression of _audible_ development of ideas within a piece, presentation of structure and above all in the conveying of very subtle changes in mood. 
I do not dismiss non-harmonic music. And by harmonic music I include Renaissance polyphony and a great deal of 20th C and late 20C music- Messiaen, Ligeti (some) Ades, Lindberg and all the earlier composers like Debussy, Stravinsky, Bartok and Britten.
I don't think anyone really says music without harmony is not music.
But as for it being a _boring and minuscule world_ I think there is enough there to fill a lifetime full of joy if one wants to restrict themselves.
I don't think Lang Lang looks bored in this


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Petwhac said:


> All music is equally valid. Harmony is one tool in the composer's toolbox, others being pulse, rhythm, register, dynamics, instrumentation/orchestration etc. That much is evident.
> I believe that rhythm is the most essential element in the comprehensibility of music.
> But I also believe that harmony is the sharpest and most versatile tool for the nuanced expression of _audible_ development of ideas within a piece, presentation of structure and above all in the conveying of very subtle changes in mood.
> I do not dismiss non-harmonic music. And by harmonic music I include Renaissance polyphony and a great deal of 20th C and late 20C music- Messiaen, Ligeti (some) Ades, Lindberg and all the earlier composers like Debussy, Stravinsky, Bartok and Britten.
> ...


I agree with some of your points. The thread is acutally dedicated to people who say that atonal (harmony serialized) music and music which is ambiguous in terms of tonal or atonal (like Ligeti, for example) is not music. Like post #21 "but it lacks pretty much everything that is required for a bunch of sounds to be called music."... I used the thing about harmony because they seem to be very sensible about harmony, and particularly about the kind of harmonies I listed before. I think that an exaggerated focusing on that aspect is not convenient for understanding music as a whole.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Renaissance said:


> The whole point of atonality is not the it only lacks any kind of comprehensible harmony, but it lacks pretty much everything that is required for a bunch of sounds to be called music.


Can you be more specific?. What are these required things for "a bunch of sounds to be called music", why do you say they are absent in the kind of music we are talking about?.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

aleazk said:


> ...
> That's why I say that it seems that for this people music is just tonal harmony and nothing more, i.e., an identity between tonal harmony and music (false, of course). What a boring and minuscule world in which they live!.


Of course there is that, but there's also other things in our discussions here that maybe indicate restrictive thinking about music. Like people who think non-classical is rubbish, or near that. Or people who - on the other extreme to those who think that composers stopped producing 'good' or 'great' music 100, 200, maybe even 300 years ago - there are those who think that unless (say) a post 1945 composer is less experimental and more traditional in some ways, he's 'useless' to paraphrase the young Mr. Boulez.

I think most people though don't think like these extremes. I accept that at whatever date in the 20th century, many major composers moved away from harmony and aspects of tradition like that. Some like Penderecki started off radical and ended switching back to tradition. Some like Stravinsky went through many phases. Some stuck to popular genres like film and musicals. I think its all valid. I think basically the problem here, as most often, is restrictive thinking. It is often to do with more experimental types of music, but not always. Faulty thinking is not (alas) limited to critics of modern or contemporary classical music.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

aleazk said:


> Can you be more specific?. What are these required things for "a bunch of sounds to be called music", why do you say they are absent in the kind of music we are talking about?.


No, I can't. It doesn't matter what I think about it. This required things are those things that composers have studied and used for centuries. Because they are more universal than any kind of atonal music. And there is much to discuss, and as usually, I won't make myself understood. Funny enough, I got into classical through music like Bartok's, Prokofiev's and even atonal and post-modern music. But I left my ideology behind and with it, my preference for this kind of music.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

Some people may think: A poem is only a poem if the verses rhyme. Music without tonality is not music, and poetry without rhymes isn't poetry.

Just like some wouldn't consider haikus "proper" poetry, others wouldn't consider Webern's works "proper" music.

Are they wrong? Yes, of course. But perhaps only because there are differing ideas as to what "music" means.

Music is a language. The language is mathmatical in nature. The language does not refer to anything outside of itself. The notational system is the means of codifying that language. Any composition is an utterance in that language.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Sid James said:


> I think basically the problem here, as most often, is restrictive thinking.


Precisely.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

Sid James said:


> I think basically the problem here, as most often, is restrictive thinking. It is often to do with more experimental types of music, *but not always*. Faulty thinking is not (alas) limited to critics of modern or contemporary classical music.


Bingo ! This is the problem with much of the XXth century music. I wouldn't say restrictive thinking because music is not about thinking. I can think and rationalize Schoenberg music as much as I want, I won't love it anyway.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

aleazk said:


> I find funny people who think that music _is_ just tonal harmony, that's all.


The music I like has tonal harmony on the whole-------any objections??


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Andreas said:


> Some people may think: A poem is only a poem if the verses rhyme. Music without tonality is not music, and poetry without rhymes isn't poetry.
> 
> Just like some wouldn't consider haikus "proper" poetry, others wouldn't consider Webern's works "proper" music.
> 
> ...


Are they wrong? No of course.because there are differing ideas at what music means.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Kopachris said:


> Or comparing battleships and roller coasters.


Oh no,I hope we are not back to that---you see I have eyes everywhere!


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

moody said:


> Are they wrong? No of course.because there are differing ideas at what music means.


Yet the discussion always bubbles up to asking "what is this music" instead of talking classical.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

Andreas said:


> Are they wrong? Yes, of course. But perhaps only because there are differing ideas as to what "music" means.
> 
> Music is a language. The language is mathmatical in nature. The language does not refer to anything outside of itself. The notational system is the means of codifying that language. Any composition is an utterance in that language.


"Are they wrong? Yes, of course" he said.  This is false dichotomy. Of course music is mathematical in nature, but mathematical means many things. It is all about conventions I think. Tonal and atonal music are both mathematical in language, but they have different conventions. Schoenberg for example used the 12 tone equally, as a convention, and the harmonic functions of the chords have all drastically changed. (well, this fact began with Debussy, I think). While in tonal music, we have a solid hierarchy between pitches. They are all mathematical in language, but they are different things in practice.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

aleazk said:


> My point is that music from the XX century has shown how important is the _interaction_ of all the musical factors (harmony, rhythm, color, etc.), rather than isolating them. So, when you say XX century music and the first comment is always some appreciation about a harmonic aspect is boring. When a negative appreciation towards non-tonal harmony is added, as usual, it's worse, since not only they are reducing all to harmony, but they are reducing all to the absence of tonal harmony!. All this music discarded just because tonal harmony is not present is ridiculous. It's evidence of an incapability for thinking music as a whole.
> That's why I say that it seems that for this people music is just tonal harmony and nothing more, i.e., an identity between tonal harmony and music (false, of course). What a boring and minuscule world in which they live!.


You are extremely audacious to use such language. By the age of 74 I have decided what I like,but in any case nobody has to think music as a whole! You may if you wish I don't have to,are you one of the bullies that Sid has been complaining about?
I think it is highly likely that you are the one trapped in a boring and miniscule life! I have a life that consists of other things as well as music,
If somebody tells me that he only listens to Tchaikovsky but has every piece of his music,I might think it a bit strange but that is his business,his time and his money.
When I was young Schoenberg was THE THING,week in week out. Where is he now?


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

moody said:


> You are extremely audacious to use such language. By the age of 74 I have decided what I like,but in any case nobody has to think music as a whole! You may if you wish I don't have to,are you one of the bullies that Sid has been complaining about?
> I think it is highly likely that you are the one trapped in a boring and miniscule life! I have a life that consists of other things as well as music,
> If somebody tells me that he only listens to Tchaikovsky but has every piece of his music,I might think it a bit strange but that is his business,his time and his money.
> When I was young Schoenberg was THE THING,week in week out. Where is he now?


You have 74... so what?... . You are old, I'm young and fresh on the other hand.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

aleazk said:


> You have 74... so what?... . You are old, I'm young and fresh on the other hand.


Well you are certainly fresh,but in the American sense i.e. rude.
You are apparently not capable of defending your ideas that I find wrong headed and fairly ludicrous,I certainly don't need somebody young and fresh telling me that I am wrong in my musical choices ,I actually find this a dreamlike situation.
If I met you in a bar saying these things I would just laugh and walk away. Everybody as I've tried to say, is allowed his choices in life and nobody,young and fresh or not,has the right to dictate these choices.
I would rather you were young and fresh and your ideas were young and fresh,but they're not they are old hat and have all been said before.
Mostly by young and fresh people who are now old and worn and have changed these opinions.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

moody said:


> Mostly by young and fresh people who are now old and worn...


I hope you meant to write "old and cunning," which is the spin I prefer to put on it!


----------



## Guest (Oct 29, 2012)

aleazk said:


> [...]Since music is, of course, much more than harmony, for people like me the advent of atonalism is just a new variant in classical music, in fact, it's a very obvious variant, and to some extent, expected.
> *So, please, I would like to be convinced that harmony is the most important musical aspect and that tonal harmony=music and non-tonal harmony=no music.


Just checking that you're excluding the role of melody in musics? I get the sense that some of the posts asserting the superiority of "tonal harmony" (not that there have been many) are actually thinking about the need for pretty tunes.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> Just checking that you're excluding the role of melody in musics? I get the sense that some of the posts asserting the superiority of "tonal harmony" (not that there have been many) are actually thinking about the need for pretty tunes.


Well you caught me out---I only love pretty tinkly little tunes. Oh my,oh my ,bless my little boots.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

People keep calling tonal and modal music "harmonic music" and atonal music "non-harmonic music". Do you guys even know what harmony is? Arguably, the only "non-harmonic" music would be pitched monophonic music, and music using only un-pitched instruments (but one could also argue that both are harmonic too, in a sense).


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

norman bates said:


> I see atonality not as something opposite to harmony but as a little part of it. It's like considering colors, atonality is black. And it's a bit difficult to make a painting that express joy using only black. Black is powerful for certain things, but has its limits.


Not every painting is a simple menage of colours, there are forms, lines, perspectives, even movements and various other parameters.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

emiellucifuge said:


> Not every painting is a simple menage of colours, there are forms, lines, perspectives, even movements and various other parameters.


exactly, and in music there are rhythms, timbres, dynamics etc. But i think that the comparison atonal/black is quite good: black is considered a color but it's actually the absence of colors; atonality is the harmony when there isn't a tonal center.
And even in a psychological way i find affinities: black suggests darkness, despair and a lot of negative emotions in the same way atonality suggests the same kind of emotions right from the very first times it was used (Abel Decaux with pieces like "clair de lune" or Schoenberg with Erwartung).


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> People keep calling tonal and modal music "harmonic music" and atonal music "non-harmonic music". Do you guys even know what harmony is? Arguably, the only "non-harmonic" music would be pitched monophonic music, and music using only un-pitched instruments (but one could also argue that both are harmonic too, in a sense).


I hope you realise that only people who have/who are studying music understand some of your posts.
By the way aren't you in danger from Sandy?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

For those who don't want harmony, listen to some Thai music. It uses a scale which divides the octave into 7 equal parts. As used as we are to a 7-note diatonic scale, this Thai scale starts to sound oddly similar to our major scale. Anyway, Thai music is melodic. They have no concept of chords or harmony.









But naaaahhh, music is _*rhythm.*_ If you put a good beat under it, even a speech by Mitt Romney becomes music.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Double-ditto for Indian classical music. Here's a great old-time favorite!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

West Eats Meat...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I've been listening to Ravi Shankar's music lately, and also again watched the Hollywood film of Gandhi's life (the score was done by Shankar). But reading all this, we are not going to change eachother's tastes. I mean (this is true!), I know an Indian who can't stand the sitar! & I'm not Indian, and I like it now and again. Similar to what some people say about the harpsichord, some think it wierd, for others its natural. All we can do is add to the mix of the forum in our own ways. Negating others views just leads to merry go rounds and trainwrecks. I don't mind if someone expresses disapproval of music I like, as long as its not to insult me, score a cheap point, and all of these games which I think is below us all on this forum. But I think now its even unwise to respond to that type of negativity/insult. Just adds heat to the fire. We can do better than play these games though, i think.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Sid James said:


> I've been listening to Ravi Shankar's music lately, and also again watched the Hollywood film of Gandhi's life (the score was done by Shankar). But reading all this, we are not going to change eachother's tastes. I mean (this is true!), I know an Indian who can't stand the sitar! & I'm not Indian, and I like it now and again. Similar to what some people say about the harpsichord, some think it wierd, for others its natural. All we can do is add to the mix of the forum in our own ways. Negating others views just leads to merry go rounds and trainwrecks. I don't mind if someone expresses disapproval of music I like, as long as its not to insult me, score a cheap point, and all of these games which I think is below us all on this forum. But I think now its even unwise to respond to that type of negativity/insult. Just adds heat to the fire. We can do better than play these games though, i think.


What are you referring to, Sid?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

mud said:


> I just think it needs more subcategories to prevent meaningless discussions (comparing apples and oranges, as it were).


NO MORE SUB-CATEGORIES, If You Please!!!

*Harmony is harmony, any two (or more) discreet pitches sounding simultaneously = HARMONY, Period.*

Now as to 'a preference for one type / style of harmony over another, that is an entirely personal and subjective matter undeserving of a vote to make a new category or subgenre.

Look up 'dissonance' and you will find just how relative that is to a given particular context.

Time to swallow that 'adult music consumer pill' and stop grinding the axe that "they" are not, as per your opinion, 'writing songs of love' for you anymore.

Really


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Andante said:


> @aleazk Harmony, melody, form are an essential part of music ! now if you think otherwise *what* do you consider are the essentials??
> I would never try to convince you that the music you enjoy has taken a turning that will probably be a dead end, evolution does this and only time will tell. stage now ready for my friend someguy.


Well, if you care to name a piece which does not have Harmony, something 'melodic,' and form, feel free to do so. I hasten to add your personal and empirical definitions of those terms does not count, this is an earnest music forum, ya know.... and with that proviso, I think you will find that you will be completely stumped.

The following two links are pieces which contain all three essential elements, just so you know you cannot casually select an 'atonal' work and successfully win the argument....

Lucia Dlugoszewski ~ Fire Fragile Flight (Beautiful piece, btw.)





Luciano Berio ~ Visages (another stunner.)


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Bach's unaccompanied cello suites? Although Beethoven's description of Bach as "the father of harmony" makes me hesitate...


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

KenOC said:


> Bach's unaccompanied cello suites? Although Beethoven's descriptioon of Bach as "the father of harmony" makes me hesitate...


Even a monophonic melody implies harmony because of the way our brains have been conditioned to listen to music. That harmony could be implied and prolonged even when not literally present, I think, was one of Schenker's more brilliant ideas.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

There seems to be some confusions with regard to the original intention of the thread. I'm not saying that harmony is unimportant, or that atonal harmony is not harmony, etc. All that is non-sensical. The point was that it seems that there are people who disminss music just because the fact the harmony is non-tonal. So, leaving aside the bias toward tonal harmony, if these people are willing to dismiss a major part of music because of harmonic considerations, they also have a bias toward harmony in detriment of other musical elements also. I think that this harmony based approach for listening to music is not the most intelligent thing, since music, I think, is much more... and of course much more than tonal harmony.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

aleazk said:


> There seems to be some confusions with regard to the original intention of the thread. I'm not saying that harmony is unimportant, or that atonal harmony is not harmony, etc. All that is non-sensical. The point was that it seems that there are people who disminss music just because the fact the harmony is non-tonal. So, leaving aside the bias toward tonal harmony, if these people are willing to dismiss a major part of music because of harmonic considerations, they also have a bias toward harmony in detriment of other musical elements also. I think that this harmony based approach for listening to music is not the most intelligent thing, since music, I think, is much more... and of course much more than tonal harmony.


Schenker would disagree with you, but I don't.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

From the OP: "There seems to be a lot of people still shocked by the introduction of atonalism 100 years ago, I repeat: 100 years ago. These people claim that classical music has been 'subverted' to a horrendous 'monster' because of that. Implicit in that fallacious thought is the prejudice that..."

A large number of unsupported assertions and non sequiturs in such a small space:

1. "...a lot of people still shocked" a hundred years later... How many? Can you name any?
2. "These people claim..." Examples please? All of "these people"? Some? Any?
3. "Implicit in this fallacious thought..." Fallacious? Why? What's the fallacy?
4. "...is the prejudice that..." Prejudice? Or simply normal observations or reactions?

Loose words often mean loose thinking.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

KenOC said:


> 2. "These people claim..." Examples please? All of "these people"? Some? Any?


I think this was in response to my topic on whether atonal music should have become a separate genre. If so, these assertions were projected on to me as a straw man fallacy, hence my comments at the beginning of this topic. If not, I still think it is a straw man fallacy in general.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

KenOC said:


> From the OP: "There seems to be a lot of people still shocked by the introduction of atonalism 100 years ago, I repeat: 100 years ago. These people claim that classical music has been 'subverted' to a horrendous 'monster' because of that. Implicit in that fallacious thought is the prejudice that..."
> 
> A large number of unsupported assertions and non sequiturs in such a small space:
> 
> ...


1) Have you read the thread "what's the point of atonal music"?. In that thread you will find a lot of people in that position.

2) As user mud says, in his thread he implies that atonalism has subverted classical music to the point that it does not deserve to be called classical music...

4) those _are_ prejudices and then any conclusion from them will be fallacious.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

aleazk said:


> 2) As user mud says, in his thread he implies that atonalism has subverted classical music to the point that it does not deserve to be called classical music...


I responded to that, and it was not my implication, it was yours.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I looked at the thread and didn't see anybody "shocked" or saying that "classical music has been 'subverted' to a horrendous 'monster'." Possibly some hyperbole here?



aleazk said:


> 4) those _are_ prejudices and then any conclusion from them will be fallacious.


Loose thinking again. 1) Why are they prejudices (warning--better look the word up first!) 2) Why is a conclusion drawn from a prejudice necessarily fallacious? To quote Sporting Life: "It ain't necessarily so."

Example: I have seen four rabbits. The two gray ones were smaller than the two white ones. I expect the same on meeting other rabbits, but that might be a prejudice because my sample size was small. So I survey a thousand rabbits with good methodology and an unbiased sample. I find that gray rabbits, on average, are indeed smaller than white ones.

I was right in the first place!


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

KenOC said:


> I looked at the thread and didn't see anybody "shocked" or saying that "classical music has been 'subverted' to a horrendous 'monster'." Possibly some hyperbole here?
> 
> Loose thinking again. 1) Why are they prejudices (warning--better look the word up first!) 2) Why is a conclusion drawn from a prejudice necessarily fallacious? To quote Sporting Life: "It ain't necessarily so."


They are still shocked, otherwise there would not be those hot discussions about the topic... , always with virulent positions from both sides.



> The word prejudice refer to unfounded beliefs


Give me, then, a founded argument for the case that tonal harmony is indispensable for something to be called music.

Informally,


> a fallacy is usually an error in reasoning often due to a misconception or a presumption.


....


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

"The word prejudice refer(s) to unfounded beliefs."

Not at all. Per Wiki, Gordon Allport defined prejudice as a "feeling, favorable or unfavorable, toward a person or thing, prior to, or not based on, actual experience." Hardly the case here. I prefer to define "prejudice" based on the word's origins: Judging a class of things, positively or negatively, prior to a sufficient exposure to members of the class.

In neither case is there any assurance that conclusions drawn as a result of prejudice will be wrong. Or, as you will have it, "fallacious" (which is really not the correct word here).

Re your request for a "founded argument" re tonal harmony being indispensable for something to be called music, what makes you think I believe that? In fact, you may call whatever you like "music."

Overall, my impression is that you're merely linking words and phrases that you think have negative connotations (shocked, fallacious, prejudice) to views that disagree with yours. This is not an unusual tactic, but you might want to do it a bit better.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

aleazk said:


> Give me, then, a founded argument for the case that tonal harmony is indispensable for something to be called music.


I concluded in the other topic with an example of atonality being defined as something apart from classical music. And like I said elswhere, these discussions naturally exclude classical music and bubble up to the subject of music in general (no less on the part of those arguing for atonality). This basically of proves my point that it is a separate genre.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

KenOC said:


> "The word prejudice refer(s) to unfounded beliefs."
> 
> Not at all. Per Wiki, Gordon Allport defined prejudice as a "feeling, favorable or unfavorable, toward a person or thing, prior to, or not based on, actual experience." Hardly the case here. I prefer to define "prejudice" based on the word's origins: Judging a class of things, positively or negatively, prior to a sufficient exposure to members of the class.
> 
> ...


Come on!... The informal meaning of "prejudice" and "fallacious" are the ones I have used. This is common knowledge. "In neither case is there any assurance that conclusions drawn as a result of prejudice will be wrong", indeed, that's why it's not convenient to use them, since the results can be arbitrary.
Your tactic, on the other hand is the one which is not unusual... Taking words that in other contexts may have a different meaning for discredit its use in an informal discussion is something intellectually dishonest. "my impression is that you're merely linking words and phrases that you think have negative connotations ", curious, since I have stated the definitions and they are consistent with what I said...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

The thing with* prejudice* (re the discussion/debate above) is that on this forum, when I came here I said some prejudicial things. But saying/writing them made me see them for what they are. Then I could work on changing them. I didn't have to do this with 'atonal' or other modern/contemporary musics. I had to do it with modern music that had more emphasis on tradition. I now don't judge guys like Rodrigo, I actually quite like his stuff. Before, I said he was predictable, and I even took on some thinking I now see as incorrect (eg. that neo-classical music - even Stravinsky's - was not good music as it was looking back at tradition too much).

It just boils down to ideology. & I've found that this forum, maybe a bit like a diary, makes me confront my own ideology. & makes me see other people's too of course. So it kind of helped break down prejudices I had (but some I won't have likelihood of breaking down, for good or ill - Wagner!). Not unless hell freezes over?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

aleazk said:


> Your tactic, on the other hand is the one which is not unusual... Taking words that in other contexts may have a different meaning for discredit its use in an informal discussion is something intellectually dishonest.


Well, let's see, using the three words I called out.

1 - "Shocked": Seems to me like hair standing on end, eyes bulging from sockets, and so forth. It's hard to think of people "shocked" by atonal music at this late date, although many seem to dislike it (often with exceptions, of course). Is there a different "commonly used" definition?

2 - "Fallacious": A pretty common term. A conclusion may be right or wrong, but it isn't "fallacious," though the reasoning behind it may be. And even fallacious reasoning is no guarantee of a wrong conclusion. Again, did you have something different in mind?

3 - "Prejudice": I have already given two possible definitions; you have given none. As far as I can tell, people are "prejudiced" if they don't like the music you do. Or is this, again, an issue of definition?

Please point out more specifically how I'm being dishonest and I'll try to mend my ways. But your instruction is sorely needed!


----------



## Guest (Oct 31, 2012)

aleazk said:


> They are still shocked, otherwise there would not be those hot discussions about the topic... , always with virulent positions from both sides.


Brianwalker tried to use the same argument to justify his view that Beethoven's 9th is still controversial. I know that the provinces are traditionally behind the metro set...but a hundred years?



KenOC said:


> Well, let's see, using the three words I called out.
> 
> 1 - "Shocked": Seems to me like hair standing on end, eyes bulging from sockets, and so forth. It's hard to think of people "shocked" by atonal music at this late date, although many seem to dislike it (often with exceptions, of course). Is there a different "commonly used" definition?
> 
> ...


I think you're just prejudiced against people who don't like the definitions of the words you do, Ken.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> I think you're just prejudiced against people who don't like the definitions of the words you do, Ken.


MacLeod, I am (again) open to instruction. But PLEASE don't talk about "informal" meanings of words or "other contexts." That's a bit too close to Humpty Dumpty territory: "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." And no, I'm not referring to you!


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

KenOC said:


> Well, let's see, using the three words I called out.
> 
> 1 - "Shocked": Seems to me like hair standing on end, eyes bulging from sockets, and so forth. It's hard to think of people "shocked" by atonal music at this late date, although many seem to dislike it (often with exceptions, of course). Is there a different "commonly used" definition?
> 
> ...


, I have given a definition of prejudice, the word prejudice refer to unfounded beliefs, which in this case corresponds to considering that tonal harmony is indispensable for something to be called classical music. Many people here think this.

Formally, i.e., only in the context of formal logic, a fallacy is an error in reasoning and nothing more. But informally is also used when someone use false premises. From the Oxford dictionary: "a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument", as you see, the informal meaning of the word fallacy has nothing to do with the formal one. In the OP, the fallacy is the mistaken belief that classical music has been "subverted", based on the unsound prejudice I mentioned. As you see, my use of the word fallacy, in this informal context, is correct according to the Oxford dictionary.
Your dishonesty relies in the fact that you deny the existence of this valid definition in order to try to discredit what I said.
I'm not going to pursue this thing about definitions, since it's clear that I have used the words right, according to the Oxford dictionary as I showed.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

KenOC said:


> MacLeod, I am (again) open to instruction. But PLEASE don't talk about "informal" meanings of words or "other contexts." That's a bit too close to Humpty Dumpty territory: "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." And no, I'm not referring to you!


The meaning of words is contextual, it is for that reason that dictionaries have many definitions for the same word.


----------



## Guest (Oct 31, 2012)

Doesn't the necessity of any component of music (harmony, rhythm, melody...) depend on the definition of 'music' (never mind 'classical music')?

And since classical music has not changed in isolation from other forms of music and art, but influenced and been influenced by those other forms, it would now be difficult to argue that there is any longer a hard definition of the term. Even purists might struggle to offer a narrow definition which has no exceptions.

The OP has a point that it the resistance of some listeners to less harmonious forms might have more to do with obstinacy than a genuine aversion, but to claim that they are still shocked after a hundred years omits the facts that


a newcomer to music is a newcomer to music. As has been argued elsewhere, if the vernacular is pop, then Boulez (synecdoche) is a specialised language which will sound more than just 'unfamiliar' to someone who has never heard it before. In other words, aleazk may have been listening to Schoenberg for 100 years, and got used to it, but not all TCers will have done.

TC is place where people like to debate: some, to argue for argument's sake, and adopted positions should not always be assumed to be genuine.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Doesn't the necessity of any component of music (harmony, rhythm, melody...) depend on the definition of 'music' (never mind 'classical music')?
> 
> And since classical music has not changed in isolation from other forms of music and art, but influenced and been influenced by those other forms, it would now be difficult to argue that there is any longer a hard definition of the term. Even purists might struggle to offer a narrow definition which has no exceptions.


The discussion of traditional classical music, over its vast development, does not get caught up on the semantics of its components and the definition of music though. It may be a consideration, but this is not a point of departure in those discussions.

At least in the art world, people do not insist (I hope) that abstract paintings belong in the category of the renaissance, and then go on to debate why they are the same thing based on having their medium and instruments in common. Funny, because classical music albums often have renaissance art covers, while atonal music albums display abstract art. What is the point of having them in the same category?

What do they have in common? The musicians and their instruments. However, the same holds true when those musicians perform arrangements of rock music. Is this to say that rock music is the same as traditional classical music? Would you say, as a listener, that we should discuss rock music as if it were classical, simply because it can be arranged for classical instruments? I think what is being discussed is a different kind of music.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> The OP has a point that it the resistance of some listeners to less harmonious forms might have more to do with obstinacy than a genuine aversion, etc.


At the end, yes, that's what I say.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

mud said:


> The discussion of traditional classical music, over its vast development, does not get caught up on the semantics of its components and the definition of music though. It may be a consideration, but this is not a point of departure in those discussions.
> 
> At least in the art world, people do not insist (I hope) that abstract paintings belong in the category of the renaissance, and then go on to debate why they are the same thing based on having their medium and instruments in common. Funny, because classical music albums often have renaissance art covers, while atonal music albums display abstract art. What is the point of having them in the same category?


Because classical music is not about epochs or instrumentations, it's about an _attitude_ towards music, an attitude on how to compose music and how to listen to this music. This attitude consists mainly on having an intellectual profundity.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

aleazk said:


> Because classical music is not about epochs or instrumentations, it's about an _attitude_ towards music, an attitude on how to compose music and how to listen to this music. This attitude consists mainly on having an intellectual profundity.


Does this mean that you consider rock music to be classical, based on what I added to that thought?


mud said:


> What do they have in common? The musicians and their instruments. However, the same holds true when those musicians perform arrangements of rock music. Is this to say that rock music is the same as traditional classical music? Would you say, as a listener, that we should discuss rock music as if it were classical, simply because it can be arranged for classical instruments? I think what is being discussed is a different kind of music.


Because I do not agree that atonality has either attitude or intellectual profundity in common with its predecessors (any more than arrangements of rock music for classical instruments).


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

mud said:


> Does this mean that you consider rock music to be classical based on what I added to that thought?


Do you consider that rock music can have the same intellectual profundity as the best classical music?. I think not, because that's not the intention of rock music in the first place. (note: this is not saying that rock music does not have intellectual profundity at some degree). With respect to the instrumentation, it depends. A piece of music played on another instrumentation different to the intended by the composer can lose all of its power. I does not makes much sense to ask this kind of question about if a transcription for electric guitar of some piece would be classical music. On the other hand, the meaningful question is that if some piece composed, say by a great composer of classical music, for electric guitar is classical music or if it is not because of the sole use of the electric guitar. If the piece has intellectual profundity, as I say, I would not have any problem in calling it classical music. Like this piece by Steve Reich:


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

My point was that the attitude of atonality is as profoundly different to that of its predecessors as rock music is, regardless of how it is performed. As if the arrangement of rock music for classical instruments had been composed that way. The same is not true of developments in classical music up to that point.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

mud said:


> My point was that the attitude of atonality is as profoundly different to that of its predecessors as rock music is, regardless of how it is performed. The same is not true of developments in classical music up to that point.


I don't agree. The only thing that changed is the harmonic system used in the pieces. The artistic considerations and intellectual profundity are the same. That's the point, I simply can't see how changing the harmonic system means that the music does not belong to the tradition of classical music, since innovation in aspects of music is also one of the main values of classical music. Classical music is not just tonal harmony, despite that music from the previous period was composed using that system. Moder music is certainly different, but no enough to consider it another genre. The intellectual approach in the music making and listening is the same, and that's what it counts. It's different music, for that reason it belongs to another _period_ of classical music. That's more than enough differentiation for me. There's no need for something more.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Before harmony became an "attitude" or aesthetic preference, it was sound. From my blog "Harmonic Function:"

Most dissonant intervals to most consonant intervals, within one octave:

1. minor seventh (C-Bb) 9:16
2. major seventh (C-B) 8:15
3. major second (C-D) 8:9
4. minor sixth (C-Ab) 5:8
5. minor third (C-Eb) 5:6
6. major third (C-E) 4:5
7. major sixth (C-A) 3:5
8. perfect fourth (C-F) 3:4
9. perfect fifth (C-G) 2:3
10. octave (C-C') 1:2
11. unison (C-C) 1:1

The steps of our scale, and the "functions" of the chords built thereon, are the direct result of interval ratios, all in relation to a "keynote" or unity of 1; the intervals not only have a dissonant/consonant quality determined by their ratio, but also are given a specific scale degree (function) and place in relation to "1" or the Tonic. 

Hearing harmonic (vertical) dissonance/consonance happens instantaneously, as the result of the ear/brain perceiving a harmonic relationship, or ratio (a ratio is not a fixed quantity, it is a relationship between two things).


----------



## Chrythes (Oct 13, 2011)

Why Steve Reich's is more intellectual than say Dylan's The Times They Are A-Changin'?
Dylan seems to arouse more thoughts in me than that Reich's piece. What is intellectual about Reich's piece apart from the music, which is certainly more complicated than that of Dylan's, but surely, it isn't the only factor I hope?


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Chrythes said:


> Why Steve Reich's is more intellectual than say Dylan's The Times They Are A-Changin'?
> Dylan seems to arouse more thoughts in me than that Reich's piece. What is intellectual about Reich's piece apart from the music, which is certainly more complicated than that of Dylan's, but surely, it isn't the only factor I hope?


Well, in Dylan the most important is the letter, the music is secondary, an accompaniment. In Reich the important is the music, and all the intellectual effort is put on the music. I should say then, _musical_ intellectual profundity.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

aleazk said:


> Because classical music is not about epochs or instrumentations, it's about an _attitude_ towards music, an attitude on how to compose music and how to listen to this music. This attitude consists mainly on having an intellectual profundity.


Intellectual profundity wasn't the most important goal for composers back in the past. They didn't create music just for the sake of being intellectual-complex or profound. If that, Bach could have written atonal music as well. I am pretty sure that he could do it more better than anyone.

The attitude towards music is fundamentally different in modernism than it was in the past. Back then, music for created for "higher" purposes, whatever they may have understood by this. Read what the composers of the past thought about music, and we will see that intellectual profundity was not the most important thing for them.

For example, Beethoven : " Music should strike fire from the heart of man, and bring tears form the eyes of woman".

"Music is the mediator between the spiritual and the sensual life".

Or maybe this : "Music is the wine which inspires one to new generative processes, and I am Bacchus who presses out this glorious wine for mankind and makes them spiritually drunken."

Now you tell me that Schoenberg, Ligeti, and Cage composed music with the SAME attitude ?? They composed music only for themselves. There is nothing wrong with it, but you can't say that it is the same attitude. Nowadays music is created for the sake of originality, innovation, for shocking, to go with the flow, anyway, music is created with any other purpose than the one it should be normal.

So the modern music and the classical music only have some instruments in common. And sometimes, not even these, if we speak of electronics or others noise-generators. Sorry, but I can't put people like Cage or Stockhaunsen in the same category as Bach, Haydn, Beethoven, Mahler, Debussy and so on. Classical music should remain classical music, and today's "classical" composers can take their depressive and crazy noises and make a trend for themselves.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

aleazk said:


> *The point was that it seems that there are people who disminss music just because the fact the harmony is non-tonal*. So, leaving aside the bias toward tonal harmony, if these people are willing to dismiss a major part of music because of harmonic considerations, they also have a bias toward harmony in detriment of other musical elements also. I think that this harmony based approach for listening to music is not the most intelligent thing, since music, I think, is much more... and of course much more than tonal harmony.


I really don't think that anyone avoids atonal music just because it is called "atonal". There is no bias. You like it or not. This is like saying that one is biased because he is not homosexual. You like it or not, we don't need complex philosophies to enjoy music, it is stupid to think that way. You can listen to whatever you want, it is your choice, but please, don't consider other's choices unintelligent because they are different from yours.

Music is more than tonal harmony, I agree, but it is also more than those caricatures that modernists have made from it.

LE : I know I am very "close-minded" but I really don't care. Ignorant, close-minded, any of this may work in describing me, but I am a bit sick of this trend which most people seem to follow. Everything intellectualized too much, too much ideology, too many unnatural ideas, it is like educations acts as a kind of wall for our minds and we can't see through it.


----------



## Guest (Oct 31, 2012)

PetrB said:


> Well, if you care to name a piece which does not have Harmony, something 'melodic,' and form, feel free to do so. I hasten to add your personal and empirical definitions of those terms does not count, this is an earnest music forum, ya know.... and with that proviso, I think you will find that you will be completely stumped.


Well how about Living Sound by Maryanne Amacher as posted in http://www.talkclassical.com/22174-alternate-view-twentieth-century.html
by HarpsichordConcerto?

Have I missed something?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> The OP has a point that the resistance of some listeners to less harmonious forms might have more to do with obstinacy than a genuine aversion...


Well, I'm glad to see that somebody has finally found the courage to state the truth: The audience is the problem! And it's not just an unfeigned casual dislike of "new" music, it's both purposeful and malign. Such obstinacy and pigheadedness don't just spring up naturally -- this is a long-term concerted attempt to subvert the natural development of music.

However, there is a remedy. Audiences have wrongfully deprived composers of income from their "new" music for a long time. The economic losses of career earnings can be estimated. So all composers have to do is sue audiences! I'm sure that any rational judge will be happy to add punitive damages to direct damages once the facts are out on the table.

Audiences obviously won't like this, but their behavior will be forced to improve. And in the end, they'll thank the composers for it. Most certainly.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

aleazk said:


> I don't agree. The only thing that changed is the harmonic system used in the pieces. The artistic considerations and intellectual profundity are the same. That's the point, I simply can't see how changing the harmonic system means that the music does not belong to the tradition of classical music, since innovation in aspects of music is also one of the main values of classical music. Classical music is not just tonal harmony, despite that music from the previous period was composed using that system. Moder music is certainly different, but no enough to consider it another genre. The intellectual approach in the music making and listening is the same, and that's what it counts. It's different music, for that reason it belongs to another _period_ of classical music. That's more than enough differentiation for me. There's no need for something more.


It is more than a lack of harmony, because all of the nuances are different (or lacking) as well. I don't really care about a technical comparison or "intellectual profundity" though, because it is obscurant to the point, when it obviously sounds like a different kind of music.

Q: What are you listening to?
A: Intellectual profundity!

Oh, it must be atonal.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

On John Cage's String Quartet in Four Parts: "Much of the quartet sounds polyphonic, but Cage considered the music an unaccompanied melodic line, even though it contains triads and other aggregates of pitches produced by more than one instrument. The harmonies are not functional, but are unrelated sonorities designed as elements of color."

So, there's an example of "unintended harmony."









from The Development of Western Music (Stolba)


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

1. minor seventh (C-Bb) 9:16
2. major seventh (C-B) 8:15
3. major second (C-D) 8:9
4. minor sixth (C-Ab) 5:8
5. minor third (C-Eb) 5:6
6. major third (C-E) 4:5
7. major sixth (C-A) 3:5
8. perfect fourth (C-F) 3:4
9. perfect fifth (C-G) 2:3
10. octave (C-C') 1:2
11. unison (C-C) 1:1

So, our system of harmony is based on the way the ear hears consonance and dissonance. These are just ripples on your eardrum, a "_no-brainer."_ The consonances are ranked in order of importance by their ratios, in relation to their octave (I), of which they are fractional divisions, as on a string:

I = (1:1, 1:2), 
V = (2:3), 
IV = (3:4) are the main chord functions,

and the others are built on more dissonant steps (in relation to I): 
ii = (8:9), 
iii = (5:6), 
vi = (3:5), and 
vii = (8:15).

Note that the "relative minor" of the I (let's call it C) is vi (3:5), or A minor, whose ratio of 3:5 is next in line after the I-IV-V.

So, our "system" of harmony was not "thought out" so much as it is a _natural consequence_ of ratios and consonance/dissonance. It is a truly _sensual_ and _visceral_ system which can be naturally and intuitively grasped by almost anyone, like swallowing. You can swallow, can't you?

Harmony could be based on other scales, the way our modes are. Some, like the Locrian or Phrygian, would be inherently more dissonant than our major scale.

What if they based their "hierarchy" of chord functions on an arbitrary set of pitches chosen for reasons other than harmony? The result would be a "harmony" based on non-harmonic considerations, yet, it would have harmonic consequences because it is sound. So is "harmony" simply in the "ear" of the beholder?

Should musical harmony always be based on natural principles, such as small-number ratios? Should composers always cater to the sensual, vicseral experience by writing consonant music? I don't think so, because the possibilities are almost endless in creating "other" harmonies, "other" colors.


----------



## Guest (Nov 1, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Well, I'm glad to see that somebody has finally found the courage to state the truth: The audience is the problem! And it's not just an unfeigned casual dislike of "new" music, it's both purposeful and malign. Such obstinacy and pigheadedness don't just spring up naturally -- this is a long-term concerted attempt to subvert the natural development of music.
> 
> However, there is a remedy. Audiences have wrongfully deprived composers of income from their "new" music for a long time. The economic losses of career earnings can be estimated. So all composers have to do is sue audiences! I'm sure that any rational judge will be happy to add punitive damages to direct damages once the facts are out on the table.
> 
> Audiences obviously won't like this, but their behavior will be forced to improve. And in the end, they'll thank the composers for it. Most certainly.


Hear hear if it wasn't for these bliddy audiences we could get away with any old crap.


----------



## Guest (Nov 1, 2012)

mud said:


> The discussion of *traditional classical music*, over its vast development, does not get caught up on the semantics of its components and the definition of music though. It may be a consideration, but this is not a point of departure in those discussions.
> 
> At least in the art world, people do not insist (I hope) that abstract paintings belong in the category of the renaissance, and then go on to debate why they are the same thing based on having their medium and instruments in common. Funny, because classical music albums often have renaissance art covers, while atonal music albums display abstract art. What is the point of having them in the same category?
> 
> What do they have in common? The musicians and their instruments. However, the same holds true when those musicians perform arrangements of rock music. Is this to say that rock music is the same as traditional classical music? Would you say, as a listener, that we should discuss rock music as if it were classical, simply because it can be arranged for classical instruments? I think what is being discussed is a different kind of music.


But we're not talking about 'traditional classical music' in isolation from other forms, are we? There may have been a period when the rich and powerful patronised a particular type of composer and a particular type of music leading to its being established as the staple for the concert-going and piano-playing cognoscenti for 300 years, but the dominance/preeminence of this musical tradition does not make it the sole musical form in comparison with which all other musics are invalid. Nor did classical music just stop, and a new tradition start: it was already evolving and continued to evolve to the extent that the lineage became obscure. It so happened that with the rise of democracies and the fall of the aristocracies and society's deference to them, other musics became more dominant.



aleazk said:


> Because classical music is not about epochs or instrumentations, it's about an _attitude_ towards music, an attitude on how to compose music and how to listen to this music. This attitude consists mainly on having an intellectual profundity.


Some who would assert the superiority of their precious classical music might adopt such an attitude: "I listen to this music because I am an intellectually profound person." But I doubt that it was generally true of the composers themselves. They just got on and wrote the music they wrote because they enjoyed doing it, because that was the tradition they worked in, and what paid. The aristocracy were hardly going to keep Haydn in funds to have him compose "Musicke Made When The Cooke Beates the Servind Boye".

More generally, composers write music that appeals to them (duh!) but they won't all have a conscious manifesto to be intellectually profound (either in the technical content of the music, or in any ideas they want the music to transmit). Similarly, with other musics. Punk was allegedly launched with a conscious manifesto, but its forms were already evolving before the Sex Pistols and Malcolm McClaren appeared on the scene. The fact that some composers were explicit about their intentions with their music does not mean that they alone are responsible for the musical changes and fractures that we read back into the past.



Chrythes said:


> Why Steve Reich's is more intellectual than say Dylan's The Times They Are A-Changin'?
> Dylan seems to arouse more thoughts in me than that Reich's piece. What is intellectual about Reich's piece apart from the music, which is certainly more complicated than that of Dylan's, but surely, it isn't the only factor I hope?


"Intellectual profundity" comes in (at least) two forms. One is the message - "I have something deeply penetrating to say, and it is this:" - while the other is the musical form that the message takes. Surely anyone can listen to Dylan and Reich and begin to distinguish that the musical form of the one requires a greater degree of concentration to unravel and follow than the other - more "intellectually profound", if you like. But that does not make one more valid than the other.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> But we're not talking about 'traditional classical music' in isolation from other forms, are we?


Do you have a better term which includes classical music that was composed for aesthetic appeal, and excludes atonal/modernist/contemporary music that is about as aesthetical as an abstract minimalist painting?

This was the context in which I was using the word traditional.

I could have said "aesthetic classical music"...


----------



## Guest (Nov 1, 2012)

mud said:


> Do you have a better term which includes classical music that was composed for aesthetic appeal, and excludes atonal/modernist/contemporary music that is about as aesthetical as an abstract minimalist painting?
> 
> This was the context in which I was using the word traditional.
> 
> I could have said "aesthetic classical music"...


I'm not arguing with your _terminology_, but your _separation _of "aesthetic classical music" from other forms.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> I'm not arguing with your _terminology_, but your _separation _of "aesthetic classical music" from other forms.


Why stop there? Just call every kind of music classical.


----------



## Guest (Nov 1, 2012)

mud said:


> Why stop there? Just call every kind of music classical.


Why would we do that?


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Why would we do that?


Because you are content with putting aesthetic classical music in the same category with non-aesthetic modern music. So you should not bother to distinguish between any other form of music.


----------



## Guest (Nov 1, 2012)

mud said:


> Because you are content with putting aesthetic classical music in the same category with non-aesthetic modern music. So you should not bother to distinguish between any other form of music.


I'm not "putting them together." I'm observing that the musics that you want to keep separate evolved together, and their evolution was intertwined with the evolution of other things - the rise of recorded music, 'popular' music, major historical events, attitudes to art, the changing shape of society...

Of course, if you just want to say that the only _worthwhile _music is that which was written between date x and date y and which was characterised by a,b,c and d features, that's fine. Just don't expect everyone to agree with either your value judgement ('worthwhile') or the conclusion you seem to draw: that anything after date y is, by definition, not music.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Of course, if you just want to say that the only _worthwhile _music is that which was written between date x and date y and which was characterised by a,b,c and d features, that's fine. Just don't expect everyone to agree with either your value judgement ('worthwhile') or the conclusion you seem to draw: that anything after date y is, by definition, not music.


How is my calling it a different kind of music equivalent to defining it as not music?


----------



## Guest (Nov 1, 2012)

mud said:


> How is my calling it a different kind of music equivalent to defining it as not music?


If my post has misread what you are saying, please put me right.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> If my post has misread what you are saying, please put me right.


I just referred to what I had already said (explicitely).


----------



## Guest (Nov 1, 2012)

mud said:


> I just referred to what I had already said (explicitely).


Clearly, I am misunderstanding the point of your wanting to separate music into 'types'.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Clearly, I am misunderstanding the point of your wanting to separate music into 'types'.


So you concede that I did not define it as non music.


----------



## Guest (Nov 1, 2012)

mud said:


> So you concede that I did not define it as non music.


If 'conceding' makes you happy, of course - why else would I say that I misunderstand?

Now, perhaps you'll clarify why you want to separate music into types.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

mud said:


> I just referred to what I had already said (explicitely).


I would rather repeat myself.


----------



## Guest (Nov 1, 2012)

mud said:


> I would rather repeat myself.


So will I, but to some purpose...

"Of course, if you just want to say that the only _worthwhile _music is that which was written between date x and date y and which was characterised by a,b,c and d features, that's fine. Just don't expect everyone to agree with either your value judgement ('worthwhile') or the conclusion you seem to draw: that anything after date (or event) y is, by definition, *a different type of music."

*Is that better?


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> So will I, but to some purpose...
> 
> "Of course, if you just want to say that the only _worthwhile _music is that which was written between date x and date y and which was characterised by a,b,c and d features, that's fine. Just don't expect everyone to agree with either your value judgement ('worthwhile') or the conclusion you seem to draw: that anything after date (or event) y is, by definition, *a different type of music."
> 
> *Is that better?


We are not discussing dates, we are discussing how the music is different. So how is it that you want to insist that different music is the same thing, when the topic itself is about how it is different?


----------



## Guest (Nov 1, 2012)

mud said:


> We are not discussing dates, we are discussing how the music is different. So how is it that you want to insist that different music is the same thing, when the topic itself is about how it is different?


Actually, we are talking dates, to the extent that we are talking about the change of music over time. You yourself (#57) referred us all to your other thread where you said



> [Classical] was a cohesive genre before it went atonal, all the way back to early music, in my opinion (to my ear, that is), and has commonly been categorized as such.


http://www.talkclassical.com/22152-should-atonal-music-have.html#post376558

and



> classical music only became a load of nonsense after atonality took over


http://www.talkclassical.com/22152-should-atonal-music-have-2.html#post376592

You then complain that you did not say this when you were paraphrased by aleazk



> _2) As user mud says, in his thread he implies that atonalism has subverted classical music to the point that it does not deserve to be called classical music..._


 to which you replied



> I responded to that, and it was not my implication, it was yours.


http://www.talkclassical.com/22157-thread-people-who-think-4.html#post377435

What I'm not clear about is why you want to assert that classical "forked into jazz/swing and atonality"?
http://www.talkclassical.com/22152-should-atonal-music-have.html#post376566

or why "there be a separate forum for atonal discussion. Then everyone will be that much closer to knowing what they are talking about in regard to the classical musics."

It was clear from your other thread that no TCers supported your proposal, yet you try to return to the idea here. If TCers want to discuss how/whether tonal/atonal musics are or are not comparable, let them.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

So you are speaking for everyone, and taking my posts out of context in multiple topics?

Well, if you care to post my entire history in those discussions, then you might realize that you are only contradicting yourself here.



MacLeod said:


> Actually, we are talking dates, to the extent that we are talking about the change of music over time. You yourself (#57) referred us all to your other thread where you said
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/22152-should-atonal-music-have.html#post376558
> 
> ...


----------



## Guest (Nov 1, 2012)

mud said:


> So you are speaking for everyone, and taking my posts out of context in multiple topics?


No. Yes. But with the (sincere) aim of trying to follow what it is you have been trying to say.



> Well, if you care to post my entire history in those discussions, then you might realize that you are only contradicting yourself here.


I might indeed realise, if I were to waste more of my time trawling through your posts. It would be quicker if you just pointed to where I've contradicted myself, and then confirmed whether any part of my post is in any way accurate and if not, taking the trouble to make yourself clear.


----------



## Chrythes (Oct 13, 2011)

> "Intellectual profundity" comes in (at least) two forms. One is the message - "I have something deeply penetrating to say, and it is this:" - while the other is the musical form that the message takes. Surely anyone can listen to Dylan and Reich and begin to distinguish that the musical form of the one requires a greater degree of concentration to unravel and follow than the other - more "intellectually profound", if you like. But that does not make one more valid than the other.


I understand, but the point here that Reich's music is more intellectual on the musical level, while Dylan is more intellectual on an ideological level. I was just being pedantic to alezak's remark "Do you consider that rock music can have the same intellectual profundity as the best classical music?" , the intellectualism here is more of a musical, emotional nature, while in rock the lyrics can evoke rather concrete ideas intended by the author, which is another kind of intellectualism you might not always find in classical music.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> I might indeed realise, if I were to waste more of my time trawling through your posts. It would be quicker if you just pointed to where I've contradicted myself, and then confirmed whether any part of my post is in any way accurate and if not, taking the trouble to make yourself clear.


Maybe for you, but I would have to repost everything in the context that you took it out of.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

Chrythes said:


> I understand, but the point here that Reich's music is more intellectual on the musical level, while Dylan is more intellectual on an ideological level. I was just being pedantic to alezak's remark "Do you consider that rock music can have the same intellectual profundity as the best classical music?" , the intellectualism here is more of a musical, emotional nature, while in rock the lyrics can evoke rather concrete ideas intended by the author, which is another kind of intellectualism you might not always find in classical music.


This seems like a fallacy, because the intellectual side would be filling in the blanks of music that is lacking in harmony and emotion. One could equally fill in the blanks of abstract lyrics and rock music.


----------



## Chrythes (Oct 13, 2011)

mud said:


> This seems like a fallacy, because the intellectual side would be filling in the blanks of music that is lacking in harmony and emotion. One could equally fill in the blanks of abstract lyrics and rock music.


But when I say musical I don't mean only harmony. This thread is essentially about that. By musical I also mean theme development, counterpoint, modulation, playing techniques (glissandos, pizzicatos, overall dynamics), usage of various sounds (in this case might be synthetic, noise inspired etc.) and other things that musicologists could probably name. There's a lot you can analyze in a piece apart from the harmonic progression, which is some sort of intellectualism in itself. Wouldn't you agree that Reich's piece is more intellectual in musical terms than most of Dylan's musical output?

What is wrong with abstract lyrics? Do you think they are meaningless? What is your view on abstract art then - do you think of it in the same terms as of contemporary classical music?


----------



## Guest (Nov 1, 2012)

mud said:


> Maybe for you, but I would have to repost everything in the context that you took it out of.


So, I haven't contradicted myself in post #106.


----------



## Guest (Nov 1, 2012)

Chrythes said:


> I understand, but the point here that Reich's music is more intellectual on the musical level, while Dylan is more intellectual on an ideological level. I was just being pedantic to alezak's remark "Do you consider that rock music can have the same intellectual profundity as the best classical music?" , the intellectualism here is more of a musical, emotional nature, while in rock the lyrics can evoke rather concrete ideas intended by the author, which is another kind of intellectualism you might not always find in classical music.


I think I agree. Music-with-lyrics can offer concrete ideas in a way that music-without-lyrics generally doesn't (though music alone can and does offer ideas).



Chrythes said:


> But when I say musical I don't mean only harmony. This thread is essentially about that. By musical I also mean theme development, counterpoint, modulation, playing techniques (glissandos, pizzicatos, overall dynamics), usage of various sounds (in this case might be synthetic, noise inspired etc.) and other things that musicologists could probably name. There's a lot you can analyze in a piece apart from the harmonic progression, which is some sort of intellectualism in itself.


And the complexity of the musical content of classical can usually offer greater cerebral challenge than traditional rock (though some rock music explores the possibilities of greater complexity).

I think the risk is in using terms such as 'profundity', which seems to confer a value of superiority over the 'less profound.'


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Problems always arise when you don't have defined criteria for different genres of music.

To compare Steve Reich and Dylan is absurd. Firstly, music is just a vehicle for Dylan, as he is a singer/songwriter, poet and storyteller. Dylan uses standard folk forms as his prototypes.


----------



## Chrythes (Oct 13, 2011)

Of course is it's absurd. But it's more absurd when you define a whole genre as being less intellectual than the other, espcially when "intellectual" is such a vague definition in this case.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Chrythes said:


> Of course is it's absurd. But it's more absurd when you define a whole genre as being less intellectual than the other, espcially when "intellectual" is such a vague definition in this case.


"Less intellectual" is in itself a vague term, not worthy of being a criterion.

Bob Dylan, Woody Guthrie, and other folk music in America performs a social function; both men were proponents of civil rights and the struggles of the marginalized segments of society. To ignore this obvious dimension and compare these men to Steve Reich on purely musical terms is not only irritating, but ignores many key aspects of the folk music genre. Why am I even bothering to address this?


----------



## Guest (Nov 2, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> [...] Bob Dylan, Woody Guthrie, and other folk music in America performs a social function; both men were proponents of civil rights and the struggles of the marginalized segments of society. To ignore this obvious dimension and compare these men to Steve Reich on purely musical terms is not only irritating, but ignores many key aspects of the folk music genre. Why am I even bothering to address this?


I don't suppose Chrythes was 'ignoring' it, but since it's not relevant to the music I don't why s/he should have taken it into account. 
Why not compare them to Steve Reich, on musical terms, provided that the criteria for comparison are made clear, and provided that it does not lead to a value judgement about one being 'better' than another?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Why not compare them to Steve Reich, on musical terms, provided that the criteria for comparison are made clear, and provided that it does not lead to a value judgement about one being 'better' than another?


You're getting your criteria mixed-up with your comparisons. With two completely different genres, with different functions and aims, such comparisons are absurd.

Remember this key phrase: "ridiculous comparisons."

The reason for different criteria for different genres is to keep the two apart, and recognize each one's qualities on its own, within the defined parameters of that genre. Make your comparisons within a defined genre; if you cross genres, you'll be so far off into left field that anything you compare will be ignored by cognizant memmbers of each camp, with probably a good laugh and a knee-slap thrown in.


----------



## Guest (Nov 2, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> You're getting your criteria mixed-up with your comparisons. With two completely different genres, with different functions and aims, such comparisons are absurd.


No, I'm not getting mixed up at all. If I wish to compare Steve Reich with Bob Dylan, I can and I will. I'm not really bothered that some might think such comparisons are absurd.

In fact, if you follow the train of thought that threw up this specific comparison, you'll realise that it was merely an illustration of a possible comparison between two types of music on the issue of technical complexity. I don't think Chrythes was offering a complete argument for this specific example.



millionrainbows said:


> ... or you'll be so far off into left field that anything you compare will be ignored by cognizant memmbers of each camp, with probably a good laugh and a knee-slap thrown in.


Not if they have any manners. If they are genuinely cognisant, they'll gently explain the error of my ways, aiming to avoid put-downs and embarrassment, because they will have well-thought out arguments developed over long experience. They'll recognise that though I may be an amateur, I don't need to be laughed at, but educated.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Not if they have any manners. If they are genuinely cognisant, they'll gently explain the error of my ways, aiming to avoid put-downs and embarrassment, because they will have well-thought out arguments developed over long experience. They'll recognise that though I may be an amateur, I don't need to be laughed at, but educated.


Don't take yourself so seriously. Learn to laugh at yourself.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Problems always arise when you don't have defined criteria for different genres of music.


And this is also the problem with classical music (when its criteria are redefined it does not admit to becoming a different genre).


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

Chrythes said:


> What is wrong with abstract lyrics? Do you think they are meaningless? What is your view on abstract art then - do you think of it in the same terms as of contemporary classical music?


My point was that analyzing them in rock music (of which they are a trademark) is no less intellectually profound than filling in the blanks of what is missing from contemporary classical music.

My view on abstract art is that it should be compared and discussed in the context of other abstract art. Not categorized and discussed as if it were Renaissance art.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

mud said:


> And this is also the problem with classical music *(when its criteria are redefined it does not admit to becoming a different genre).*





mud said:


> *My view on abstract art is that it should be compared and discussed in the context of other abstract art. Not categorized and discussed as if it were Renaissance art.*


Let us not fall prey to the perception that modernism somehow supplants, redefines, or destroys earlier traditions; it must be seen as a continuation and development.

mud's argument is a distortion of the post-modern tolerance argument, which was originally intended to oversee and regulate traditional BBB elitist conglomerates from turning a democratic inclusive music forum into a third-world version of itself, a forum of "haves" in club med and "have-nots" living in squalor.

Modernism should not be shuttled-off to another genre, or placed in a "ghetto." If you wish to call Serialism and electronic music "sub-categories" of classical music, as Baroque and Impressionism are, that is tolerable, but modern music after 1900 is discussed here in this classical music forum for that reason; that the Western classical tradition includes the great changes which took place after 1900.

After Debussy, to imply that more modern music should have its own separate genre because it is not "classical" enough begins to erode slowly, with no defined beginning or stopping point.

The music of Haydn and Mozart will be preserved forever for us to enjoy; nobody re-defined or "destroyed" the genre or tradition which produced it. Their music is frozen in its chronological context.

Time is a moving thing, and the only thing you can count on is that things will change. Look at your old driver's license photo. You're still "you;" nobody redefined you.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Let us not fall prey to the perception that modernism somehow supplants, redefines, or destroys earlier traditions; it must be seen as a continuation and development.


Fall prey? No it must not be seen as a continuation and development of something that it did not continue nor develop.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

mud said:


> Fall prey? No it must not be seen as a continuation and development of something that it did not continue nor develop.


So, apparently, your opinion is at odds with mine, as well as music history. That's okay; fringe opinions are always welcome in our inclusive, open forum format.

How would you like to have your own little fringe thread? Wouldja _like_ that? We can make special accomodations for those who have broken off from the Western classical tradition and are dwelling in its past somewhere.

Meanwhile, the show must go on! We must continue this great classical tradition! Minimalist opera, anyone?


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> So, apparently, your opinion is at odds with mine, as well as music history. That's okay; fringe opinions are always welcome in our inclusive, open forum format.
> 
> How would you like to have your own little fringe thread? Wouldja _like_ that? We can make special accomodations for those who have broken off from the Western classical tradition and are dwelling in its past somewhere.
> 
> Meanwhile, the show must go on! We must continue this great classical tradition! Minimalist opera, anyone?


I think not, classical music has continued to be developed in spite of the contemporary cutting edge (that seeks to redefine it on a fundamental level), as in the examples I gave in the Jazzy classical music topic. I can appreciate that it incorporates motifs from other genres while maintaining its fundamental characteristics. They are complimentary to that end. However, when it abandons those characteristics, it becomes a different kind of music, no matter who insists otherwise, because at that point the genre is incomparable to itself, and this clearly indicates that we are talking about different genres (in spirit).

Your example of Philip Glass is one composer who I do not consider to have abandoned the classical tradition, while incorporating new themes. Other composers mentioned (in related topics, if not here), such as Gubaidulina, I think composed for multiple genres (in spirit), classical being one, yet contemporary music was their pursuit in general.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

mud said:


> However, when it abandons those characteristics, it becomes a different kind of music, no matter who insists otherwise, because at that point the genre is incomparable to itself, and this clearly indicates that we are talking about different genres (in spirit).


Well, as soon as you can identify these "abandoners and redefiners" of the Western classical tradition, let us know.

In the meantime, I think that music and art produced in our universities and places of higher learning is pure and true "art," because it is art created for art's sake, not under any utilitarian pressure or purpose. These are the centers of music composition. The mentors and leaders of this art music have included America's top music theorist Allen Forte at Yale, Milton Babbitt, Charles Wuorinen, and others.

In continuing this "pure art" tradition, this is the true continuation of the Western classical tradition.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Well, as soon as you can identify these "abandoners and redefiners" of the Western classical tradition, let us know.
> 
> In the meantime, I think that music and art produced in our universities and places of higher learning is pure and true "art," because it is art created for art's sake, not under any utilitarian pressure or purpose. These are the centers of music composition. The mentors and leaders of this art music have included America's top music theorist Allen Forte at Yale, Milton Babbitt, Charles Wuorinen, and others.
> 
> In continuing this "pure art" tradition, this is the true continuation of the Western classical tradition.


I was just talking about that in the Contemporary Classical that (hopefully) doesn't suck topic. I disagree that "pure art" qualifies as the continuation of classical music. Any more than "Abstract art" would be the continuation and development of "Renaissance art". It is the continuation of musical study, but I do not see its result as classical music for the most part. I think it resulted in different forms of music (and performing arts). Just as developments in the plastic arts have resulted in different art forms.


----------



## Guest (Nov 4, 2012)

mud said:


> I disagree that "pure art" qualifies as the continuation of classical music. Any more than "Abstract art" would be the continuation and development of "Renaissance art".


But Abstract art _is _a continuation and development of Renaissance Art. It's just that there's roughly 500 years between them, and a lot of continuation and development which went on between!

You sound like someone who would reject the theory of evolution by natural selection on the grounds that man can't possibly have been a continuation and development of the ape, because man=ape just seems so improbable.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> But Abstract art _is _a continuation and development of Renaissance Art. It's just that there's roughly 500 years between them, and a lot of continuation and development which went on between!
> 
> You sound like someone who would reject the theory of evolution by natural selection on the grounds that man can't possibly have been a continuation and development of the ape, because man=ape just seems so improbable.


No, it is the development of a separate artform, not a continuation of Renaissance art development. You sound like someone who would insist that scientific taxonomies are all referring to the same thing, because the divisions are interchangeable (even though they are precicely not so by definition).


----------



## Guest (Nov 4, 2012)

mud said:


> No, it is the development of a separate artform, not a continuation of Renaissance art development.


Somehow I just knew you were going to say that.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Somehow I just knew you were going to say that.


But why did you argue to the contrary? What is the use of equivocating the two?


----------



## Guest (Nov 4, 2012)

mud said:


> But why did you argue to the contrary? What is the use of equivocating the two?


I...I...I'm sorry, I just...can't...help myself!


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> I...I...I'm sorry, I just...can't...help myself!


Perhaps it is the music you listen to.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

OK, I can understand that Schoenberg has somehow continued the classical music tradition, but what about people like Stockhaunsen ? Or Cage ? What does those weird sounds and textures have to do with the classical music tradition ? Is randomness or harsh noise a related factor to this tradition ? What exactly do they have in common, aside from snobbish ideologies ? If Stockhaunsen is a continuation of classical music tradition, why not say about Lady Gaga the same thing ?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

mud said:


> I disagree that "pure art" qualifies as the continuation of classical music. Any more than "Abstract art" would be the continuation and development of "Renaissance art". It is the continuation of musical study, but I do not see its result as classical music for the most part. I think it resulted in different forms of music...


I never said that contemporary art "continued classical music" and its forms in a literal sense; I said it was a continuation of the "Western classical tradition."

I must agree with MacLeod and the consensus of history. Abstract Expressionism was the pinnacle of art in the 1950s, and New York, not Paris, was the center of the universe where painting was concerned.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> I never said that contemporary art "continued classical music" and its forms in a literal sense; I said it was a continuation of the "Western classical tradition."


That is like saying America was a continuation of the Native American tradition (which it heavily marginalized).


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Renaissance said:


> OK, I can understand that Schoenberg has somehow continued the classical music tradition, but what about people like Stockhaunsen ? Or Cage ? What does those weird sounds and textures have to do with the classical music tradition ? Is randomness or harsh noise a related factor to this tradition ? What exactly do they have in common, aside from snobbish ideologies ? If Stockhaunsen is a continuation of classical music tradition, why not say about Lady Gaga the same thing ?


Open any comprehensive music history book, and you will find Babbitt, Stockhausen, and Cage discussed. The questioning of this is ridiculous, and is just an argument and debate ploy.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> I never said that contemporary art "continued classical music" and its forms in a literal sense; I said it was a continuation of the "Western classical tradition."
> 
> I must agree with MacLeod and the consensus of history. Abstract Expressionism was the pinnacle of art in the 1950s, and New York, not Paris, was the center of the universe where painting was concerned.
> 
> ...


Yeah Millions. I also have both of those recordings. Rats!!! I do not have the paintings.


----------



## Guest (Nov 4, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Don't take yourself so seriously. Learn to laugh at yourself.


No, _you _must be taking _me _too seriously. I just can't be a$$ed to use emoticons all the time, especially when I think that to do so is like a sharp dig in the ribs - "He's mocking, doncha know, wink, wink."


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Open any comprehensive music history book, and you will find Babbitt, Stockhausen, and Cage discussed. The questioning of this is ridiculous, and is just an argument and debate ploy.


I already knew this, I just wanted an argument, because I don't see any "development" to the classical music brought by these guys. Maybe I am ignorant, but in this case, please, anybody, light me up ! What style characterized these guys and how it developed or continued the classical music tradition. Because I do not see any link between Mahler and Cage for example. Cage might have used piano sometimes, but even pop music use it a lot. So, what is the common link ? We can 't talk about harmonic systems, forms, and so on.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Renaissance said:


> OK, I can understand that Schoenberg has somehow continued the classical music tradition, but what about people like Stockhaunsen ? Or Cage ? What does those weird sounds and textures have to do with the classical music tradition ? Is randomness or harsh noise a related factor to this tradition ? What exactly do they have in common, aside from snobbish ideologies ? If Stockhaunsen is a continuation of classical music tradition, why not say about Lady Gaga the same thing ?


Stockhausen's music developed from the serialist ideas put forth by Schoenberg. Stockhausen also delved into his own theories and ideas about the nature of sound. Cage's music sprang out of influences from Schoenberg's serialist ideas as well as the influence of Eastern music on Western composers, from his teacher Henry Cowell, and from his big influence Satie, and such things go all the way back to the Russian Romantic composers like Borodin and Mussorgsky.

Also good question, why not? Lady Gaga is a classically trained musician, and she does have an ear for interesting harmony. Is she not classical simply because she is popular? or because she uses instruments not usually associated with classical music? 

The thing is, these are part of a tradition (going back to Cage and Stockhausen) that is rife with developments and different approaches. I mean, would we call the development of equal-temperment tuning (which is a pretty huge development) a break from the past? Would we say that Bach isn't part of the same tradition that Palestrina and Gabrielli were because he championed this new thing? Serialism was a new thing, influence from other musical cultures was a new thing, expansion of the already existing concepts of indeterminate elements in music was a new thing, and explorations into the nature of sounds and the basic elements of music was a new thing, but they're just additions to this tradition. They arose out of this long artistic tradition. The only way one can argue not is through simply not really knowing much of music history, or just because they like the old music and don't like the new music, and they refuse to acknowledge that something they like and something they don't like fit into the same idiom.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Renaissance said:


> I already knew this, I just wanted an argument, because I don't see any "development" to the classical music brought by these guys. Maybe I am ignorant, but in this case, please, anybody, light me up ! What style characterized these guys and how it developed or continued the classical music tradition. Because I do not see any link between Mahler and Cage for example. Cage might have used piano sometimes, but even pop music use it a lot. So, what is the common link ? We can 't talk about harmonic systems, forms, and so on.


Well, it's obvious that you were never so stressed-out from a job that sitting down with John Cage's "Concert for Piano" or "Atlas Eclipticalis" was preferable to Mahler or Brahms.

Enjoying the space, savoring each note on its own, escaping from the "ego" of humanity, with no bombast, no heros, no nationalism...Cage's music is interesting as much for what it does _*not*_ contain.

If you haven't enjoyed Cage's music, then it shouldn't concern you so much.


----------

