# Does progress in music exist?



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

In the previous thread I asked would Eroica be considered imitation if composed today, even if Beethoven didn't compose it in his day. Most answers were affirmative.

But I have another question. Would it be criticized _only _because it is imitation OR, perhaps there is some kind of progress in music, and judging by today's standards works written 2 centuries ago are just simply naive, too simplistic, lacking some depth, immature from today's perspective.

If this is really so, why are old works still so often performed and why so many people listen to them? Are they performed just to please masses that consist mostly of beginners when it comes to classical music. Are old works just a preparation for new, like something that we have to know in order to be able to follow current trends in music?

Are there really any works that are timeless and that can be considered contemporary in each and every time - that transcend time and place in which they are composed?

Is music from every succeeding period more advanced and mature than the music from preceding periods? Can it be even considered superior in some way?

Or it is totally opposite and every era is equal when it comes to quality of music produced - styles just change, but there is no progress in sense that music is getting better.

I am tempted to believe that there is progress in sense that music is getting more advanced. But is "more advanced" = "better"?

At the same time, I believe that greatest pieces of music are composed centuries ago (Bach's Mass in B minor, Beethoven's 9th Symphony, ...). So I don't see progress in terms of quality.

So, is this progress towards ever more advanced music desirable at all?


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Whistlerguy said:


> If this is really so, why are old works still so often performed and why so many people listen to them? Are they performed just to please masses that consist mostly of beginners when it comes to classical music. Are old works just a preparation for new, like something that we have to know in order to be able to follow current trends in music?
> 
> Are there really any works that are timeless and that can be considered contemporary in each and every time - that transcend time and place in which they are composed?
> 
> Is music from every succeeding period more advanced and mature than the music from preceding periods? Can it be even considered superior in some way?


Well, the "old" works are played _because_ they are timeless. They may be old in age, but completely young and relatable when it comes to connecting with people's hearts and souls. That's why it's called _classical _music.

The evolution of music we all hope to have is that music _would _actually get better, not just more mature/complex, but whether that's actually happening is relative, unfortunately. Music is always building on past music, and that is a constant in the equation.

In answer to your question about if music gets more mature/advanced over time, it depends who you talk to. There are some out there that believe that the Baroque era was the apex of musical beauty in our world's history, for many reasons I can't even explain completely. Others believe the quite opposite, that Modernism is the pinnacle of human creation. I personally don't know what to believe. Baroque music such as 2-part inventions, fugues, tocattas, etc. to me are just as complex as the most dissonant and colorful modern work. They are simply complex in different ways: one in polyphony and tonality, the other in atonality and color.


----------



## Falstaft (Mar 27, 2010)

Whistlerguy said:


> Would it be criticized _only _because it is imitation OR, perhaps there is some kind of progress in music, and judging by today's standards works written 2 centuries ago are just simply naive, too simplistic, lacking some depth, immature from today's perspective.


This seems to me like it this is a false dilemma. Yes it would be criticized for imitation. Yes it would be deemed hopelessly naive and either ignorant or contemptuous of history. However, this wouldn't be because of some abstract "progress" in the development of music, but because art cultures tend not to respect new works that are regressive or reactionary. Quality is a value, but so is originality (arguably in certain strands of 20th century art music, the latter is prefered to the former). Now, progress is something many people with a vested interest in having their new, innovative music would boast their music has. But one shouldn't buy into the idea of progress, improvement, evolution or (most of all) necessity in the course of music history.



> Is music from every succeeding period more advanced and mature than the music from preceding periods? Can it be even considered superior in some way?


Emphatically no! 


> I am tempted to believe that there is progress in sense that music is getting more advanced. But is "more advanced" = "better"?


Emphaticallyier no! 

Listen to the ultra-refined chromaticism of the Ars Subtilior (14th Century) or the maddeningly complex prolation canons of Ockeghem (15th) and tell me if you think the Eroica is more mature or advanced. Or heck, the fugues of Bach, the isorhythmic motets of Machaut, the fine grained serial approach of late Stravinsky, the pitch-perfect emotional waves of Golijov. And this is just narrowly defined classical music. The same could be said of jazz, rock, west African drumming, Ambrosian chant. "Advanced" music is dependent on point of view, and largely the product of institutions that encourage the composition and preservation of music. It's also hugely cyclical, with musical movements continually "starting from scratch" because they found their predecessors too _something_.



> Or it is totally opposite and every era is equal when it comes to quality of music produced - styles just change, but there is no progress in sense that music is getting better.


I think judgement of what's "better" reside in your own taste. Maybe certain types of complexity or refinement float your boat better than others -- that's no reason to insist on the onward march of progress. (or for maintaining a "peak" with some favorite composer....who, just if you're curious, is Richard Wagner, after whom all music goes downhill  ).


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Whistlerguy, you think too much.

Of course there is progress in music. A Mahler symphony is much more intricate than the _Sinfonia_ to Mozart's _Ascanio in Alba_ K.111. Yes, this progress is desirable because it gave rise to more intricate works of the Classical period and beyond. But are all of these more intricate/complex works necessarily "better" in the sense that they can reach out to all generations of future listeners? Of course not. That's where posterity has the advantage to judge and to decide whether a piece has any meaning (superficial or not) in its own time. Many of us do not buy into the notion that "all art is good, none are bad". There is bad art around, while there is also a lot of good art.


----------



## Falstaft (Mar 27, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Of course there is progress in music. A Mahler symphony is much more intricate than the _Sinfonia_ to Mozart's _Ascanio in Alba_ K.111


HarpsichordConcerto, this example seems a little disingenuous to me -- you picked a very youthful work written quite firmly in the stille semplice that was vogue in opera for the several decades: clear and limpid lines, memorable tunes, and accompaniment that doesn't get in the way of text. Of course, Mozart being Mozart it's still full of subtleties (and perhaps discovering novel ways of conveying simplicity is an art every bit as nuanced as writing for a 200 piece orchestra). Regardless, this is hardly a representative of the potential of "intricacy" in the Viennese Classical style. Wouldn't it have been fairer to cite the last movement of the Jupiter Symphony, where Mozart, writing entirely in the confines of the Classical style, produces a passages of counterpoint that dwarf even Bach?

I could have just as easily written "of course there is [backwards] progress in music. The monotony and awkward interpolations of folk music in Mahler's 1st Symphony 3rd movement is nothing compared to the intricacy of a Mozart C-minor fantasia or the perfectly controlled canons that initiate the Dissonance Quartet" I'm kidding of course, but I just think these kinds of statements could be made selectively for any purpose.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Art is not like science where the average medical student today knows more about anatomy and physiology than the most brilliant doctor 500 years ago. There is change in art... and this builds upon the examples of previous art... but it does not inherently result in something better. Schoenberg is not better than Bach nor is Jackson Pollack better than Michelangelo. Certain individuals have achieved more than others (I don't buy the notion either of cultural relativism... that there is no good nor bad, but thinking makes it so...). The opera by Mozart's time had developed far beyond what Monteverdi had wrought... but I wouldn't suggest that many operas of the era... beyond a few of Mozart's finest... are "better" than Monteverdi's.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Falstaft said:


> HarpsichordConcerto, this example seems a little disingenuous to me -- you picked a very youthful aria written quite firmly in the stille semplice that was vogue in opera for the several decades: clear and limpid lines, memorable tunes, and accompaniment that doesn't get in the way of text. Of course, Mozart being Mozart it's still full of subtleties (and perhaps discovering novel ways of conveying simplicity is an art every bit as nuanced as writing for a 200 piece orchestra). Regardless, this is hardly a representative of the potential of "intricacy" in the Viennese Classical style. Wouldn't it have been fairer to cite the last movement of the Jupiter Symphony, where Mozart, writing entirely in the confines of the Classical style, produces a passages of counterpoint that dwarf even Bach?
> 
> I could have just as easily written "of course there is [backwards] progress in music. The monotony and awkward interpolations of folk music in Mahler's 1st Symphony 3rd movement is nothing compared to the intricacy of a Mozart C-minor fantasia or the perfectly controlled canons that initiate the Dissonance Quartet" I'm kidding of course, but I just think these kinds of statements could be made selectively for any purpose.


My next sentence following the one you quoted was getting onto that. I wrote progress is desirable because it gave rise to more intricate works of the Classical and beyond. Yes, for example Mozart _Paris_ symphony is less intricate than the _Juipter_, and perhap the latter's final movement might even dwarf some of Bach's works. We all know that. I was just trying to demonstrate the point to the original poster that there is progress in music.


----------



## Falstaft (Mar 27, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I was just trying to demonstrate the point to the original poster that there is progress in music.


HC, I'm sorry I misrepresented what you said earlier -- I may have misconstrued your sentence about the _Sinfonia _ as referring to a direct line of increased intracity from early WAM to (I guess) full blown Mahler - deeply problematic - rather than your reasonable view about how individual composers mature, and through that maturity can enrich style from a single period and its proximate successors. If this is the case, apologies.

I also think we agree on what you said earlier about the fact that "more intricate" doesn't imply "better" (or that just because it came after, or just b/c it has more sophisticated polyphony, that doesn't mean it's more worthy music to listen to). However, words like "progress" and "advancement" are value-laden terms whether we like it or not. I'd prefer if we turn to to other ways of describing the way music changes over time (in terms of "developments," "additions," "subtractions," change of attitude, new approaches, etc). At any rate, I'm more comfortable discussing progress in an individual composer's ouvre than across music history, which I think both of us agree on. But I stand firm on my view expressed in my first post that progress is a highly questionable attribute of overall music history, which I think was OP's main interest.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

This reminds me of the misconception a lot of people (including me) have had about the process of biological evolution. We think of it as a progression of species each more advanced than the one that came before, finally culminating in us.

But that is a simple linear way of thinking. It doesn't work that way. It needs to be pictured as a very large tree with millions upon millions of branches and sub-branches where each branching is a change in the environment and each species is a response to the environment of its time. Are we more advanced than Neanderthal? Maybe, but I doubt any of us would fare very well if somehow thrown back to one of the ice ages.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Falstaft said:


> I also think we agree on what you said earlier about the fact that "more intricate" doesn't imply "better" (or that just because it came after, or just b/c it has more sophisticated polyphony, that doesn't mean it's more worthy music to listen to).


Certainly.



Falstaft said:


> However, words like "progress" and "advancement" are value-laden terms whether we like it or not. I'd prefer if we turn to to other ways of describing the way music changes over time (in terms of "developments," "additions," "subtractions," change of attitude, new approaches, etc). At any rate, I'm more comfortable discussing progress in an individual composer's ouvre than across music history, which I think both of us agree on. But I stand firm on my view expressed in my first post that progress is a highly questionable attribute of overall music history, which I think was OP's main interest.


Yes, I think I may have come across initially too strong on "progress". Let me elaborate a little. There is progress in a Bach harpsichord concerto as an early example of keyboard concerto development. I think all of us would agree on that. Bach's harpsichord concertos, along with Handel's organ concertos in England, were early/first mastery pieces of the keyboard concerto genre, later developed further by Classical masters who wrote louder and grander concerto music for the fortepiano. The Romantics came along and the rest is all familiar history. So, there is clear objective progress in that sense - development and building on earlier works/models.

But I am confused with the original poster's question because the progress I assumed in the example above is an obvious one to anyone reasonably familiar with classical music, unless progress is taken to mean "better" (subjective to a large extent)?

I love the keyboard concerto genre (I even named my membership after one). But is a Rachmaninov piano concerto "better" than a Bach harpsichord concerto? I can only answer that for myself. I find a Bach harpsichord concerto "better" only because I find it more entertaining; that it communicates with me on a level that I can understand and appreciate more than with a Rachmaninov piano concerto. But to objectively assess whether one piece of a period is "better" than another much later piece opens up heaps more subjectivity.

So, I don't think objective progress is necessarily always "better", especially when it comes to art. But isn't this point obvious? Here is my confusion with what the original poster wants answered.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I think that we have to remember the saying that there's "nothing new under the sun." Musical history is much like a relay race, one generation passing the baton onto the next. So there are certain fundamentals which have survived throughout the ages, and most composers either study them or have some knowledge of them - things like counterpoint, harmony and the various forms. Sure, Lutoslawski's counterpoint doesn't sound exactly like Beethoven's or Bach's, but there are certain fundamentals there which transcend the centuries. I think you'll find that there are many more commonalities than differences between the music of various eras, if you dig a bit below the surface...


----------



## Guest (Jun 29, 2010)

Harpsichordconcerto said "Whistlerguy, you think too much." I hope I'm not out of line to observe that perhaps Whistlerguy doesn't think _enough._ Though looking over his threads, one does begin to wonder if thinking too much or too little is quite the point. If he is as he appears to be, a self-appointed _agent provocateur,_ then it's not.

If he is, that would be one way to account for dragging around this idle speculation from thread to thread.



Whistlerguy said:


> In the previous thread I asked would Eroica be considered imitation if composed today, even if Beethoven didn't compose it in his day. Most answers were affirmative.


That the Eroica could not by any means be composed today was also one of the answers. It was a highly original and influential work in 1805, and for a good long time afterward. If it had been written in 1835, all else being equal, it would not have been either so original or so influential. Why? Because too many other things had happened in those thirty years. Of course, many of those other things might not have happened had Eroica not premiered in 1805. All things would _not_ have been equal.

Here's another speculation: what if a highly original work were created in 1805 but then lost for two hundred years? Would it be considered highly original once it was discovered? The answer to that should suffice for an answer to the other speculation.

Is it useful to talk about "progress" in the arts? One could certainly call _Symphonie fantastique_ more advanced than _Eroica._ More radical. More innovative. But one might hesitate to call it better. Original and influential are things that operate in a particular time. But even long after a work is no longer avant garde (in its original sense), it can please audiences. That's just how art works (as opposed to, say, science, as St points out). We don't judge works from the past by today's standards, we judge them by the standards they set up themselves just by existing. Or we do if we're sensible. And we can judge today's works by today's standards. It seems like there might be a hidden agenda in some of these recent threads to try to judge today's works by yesterday's standards, an activity as dubious as judging a past work by today's standards.

Transcending time and place is different from being contemporary. As I've noted before, on another of our friend's threads, some of his points depend utterly on confusing the activities of audience and creator. Old works being performed today is a quite different thing than old styles/techniques/sounds being used by composers today as if nothing had happened between, for example, _Eroica_ and today. Works of art are timeless. The conditions under which they were created are not. The styles current in 1710 are not current in 2010. Music written in 1710 continues to give pleasure. The styles, however, do not continue to motivate composers, for the most part. The word for continuing to use styles of the past is "anachronism." It's a form of nostalgia. In an auditor, nostalgia is perhaps understandable enough, only mildly to be deprecated.

In a creator, nostalgia is a sure sign that creation is no longer operating at full tilt.


----------



## hocket (Feb 21, 2010)

I'd suggest that the science of music does , or at least can, progress but that as an art or craft it does not. For instance, I don't think there's much doubt that the shift to tonality developed around 1600 in contrast to the modes that were previously used. These are a more developed conception as far as I understand it, and we probably still have much to learn about that and other things that will shape understanding of music in the future -on the academic side at least. As Falstaft said, periods that were once considered 'primitive' because their music wasn't based on tonality have since been discovered to have been alarmingly sophisticated in ways that later musics couldn't even approach. IMHO this is because following the 'rules' of any given period isn't what makes great music -indeed to do so slavishly will often produce quite the contrary effect.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

some guy said:


> If he is, that would be one way to account for dragging around this idle speculation from thread to thread.


 Yes, the angle where I was coming from. (We seem to be agreeing on a few topics of late. We are getting close to becoming drinking buddies soon ... )

Anyway, I still suspect member Whistlerguy is doing an academic assignment or a formal research for some purpose other than a general/personal interest. Thus far in this thread alone, no response yet from Whistlerguy despite over a dozen good responses above, and I noticed Whistlerguy has been online for quite some time, perhaps summarising our thoughts, preparing his report.


----------



## LazsloPap (Jun 29, 2010)

“I occasionally play works by contemporary composers and for two reasons. First to discourage the composer from writing any more and secondly to remind myself how much I appreciate Beethoven.”

Jascha Heifetz


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

> Anyway, I still suspect member Whistlerguy is doing an academic assignment or a formal research for some purpose other than a general/personal interest. Thus far in this thread alone, no response yet from Whistlerguy despite over a dozen good responses above, and I noticed Whistlerguy has been online for quite some time, perhaps summarising our thoughts, preparing his report.


Don't jump to conclusions HarpsichordConcerto,
I am naturally curious and on some other forums too I like asking challenging questions. I am not conducting any kind of research. I am asking because I am interested in such things. I am perplexed by two opposing trends. One is that musical theory is ever more sophisticated and contemporary works tend to be more advanced than old works. At the same time, some of the greatest pieces of music are very old, and it seems that nothing produced nowadays can match their greatness. Why no one tries today to compose works such as Matthew Passion (Bach), Mass in B Minor (Bach), 9th Symphony (Beethoven) or 41st symphony (Mozart)? It doesn't have to be in the same style - but using any style at all - even combining styles - it seems that contemporary composers are unable to produce works of such magnitude, even with more knowledge of music theory than Bach, Mozart and Beethoven had, and even with totally new concepts such as atonality at their disposal.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Whistlerguy said:


> Don't jump to conclusions HarpsichordConcerto,
> I am naturally curious and on some other forums too I like asking challenging questions. I am not conducting any kind of research. I am asking because I am interested in such things. I am perplexed by two opposing trends. One is that musical theory is ever more sophisticated and contemporary works tend to be more advanced than old works. At the same time, some of the greatest pieces of music are very old, and it seems that nothing produced nowadays can match their greatness. Why no one tries today to compose works such as Matthew Passion (Bach), Mass in B Minor (Bach), 9th Symphony (Beethoven) or 41st symphony (Mozart)? It doesn't have to be in the same style - but using any style at all - even combining styles - it seems that contemporary composers are unable to produce works of such magnitude, even with more knowledge of music theory than Bach, Mozart and Beethoven had, and even with totally new concepts such as atonality at their disposal.


Finally, we are reading somehing from you!

A superficial answer could be: we have no musical geniuses "these days". Sadly. Maybe you might like to ask why then, did those periods of old produce so many musical geniuses? Bach, Handel and D. Scarlatti all born in 1685? Mozart, Mendelssohn etc. were child prodigies.

The religious amongst us might say it was God's intention. Others might think maybe aliens put them there ... 

Teenagers at high school today could take up calculus (a branch of mathematics), but with this advanced knowledge, does it imply that they should all be brilliant mathematicians later in life?


----------



## Toccata (Jun 13, 2009)

Whistlerguy said:


> I am naturally curious and on some other forums too I like asking challenging questions. I am not conducting any kind of research. I am asking because I am interested in such things. I am perplexed by two opposing trends. One is that musical theory is ever more sophisticated and contemporary works tend to be more advanced than old works. At the same time, some of the greatest pieces of music are very old, and it seems that nothing produced nowadays can match their greatness. .....


You wont find satisfactory answers to questions like this from the generality of members of this board. This is because the issues you raise are merely specific examples of a much wider subject concerning the way markets come to value different goods/services.

To make any progress some knowledge of the relevant economic theory is required, specifically the "theory of value". It involves delving into things like the "paradox of value", marginalism, diamond-water paradox, etc. Stanley Jevons (the very famoust 19th British Economist) worked it all the key fundamentals of the relevant issues here about 150 years ago. You might ask an economics undergraduate to explain it if that is convenient, or look it up on the internet.

The purely musical "explanations" that typically get trotted out here from the musical bull-shitters (you must have worked out by now who they are) are generally way off track in terms of identifying the correct issues and answers. Much of it is too painfully awful to read.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

You know what Ferruccio Busoni said? That music was born free and her destiny is to win this freedom. 

And this pretty sums all progress of music that was made during common practice era. 

After the birth of music people tried to recude it to clear rules so they could, so to say, ride this monster called: the sound. At the beginning these rules limited them to very basic possibilites. Then, during all those ages, began to appear bold riders that did not afraid to free the rein to see how can the monster look like if you will give him more space. After rider Monteverdi there was riders like Bach, Beethoven, Debussy, Schoenberg. 

So we get to the point in which the rider stands before the free, raging beast and he either master it or it takes him into wilderness and he is lost. To say more literal, the progress brought us to the point in which composer shapes the raw rock - it says: you have wide range of tones, you have written musical language - do what you want, there is nothing except of those two things which you can freely dispose.

There is still fashion and trends, but I belive that music won it's freedom. Everything is allowed and you can abandon all rules in order to shape the rock of sound into anything you like. 

Of course it doesn't concern mediacore pop "artists" that compose using ancient methods so they won't hurt anyone's ears.


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

> There is still fashion and trends, but I belive that music won it's freedom. Everything is allowed and you can abandon all rules in order to shape the rock of sound into anything you like.
> 
> Of course it doesn't concern mediacore pop "artists" that compose using ancient methods so they won't hurt anyone's ears.


If there are indeed no rules, how can there be a rule that prohibits using ancient methods?


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> If there are indeed no rules, how can there be a rule that prohibits using ancient methods?


There is no such rule, there is only common sense which tells us that these methods are for people with no greater talent or imitators.


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

But if someone writes music using serialism, he is an imitator too. Only he doesn't imitate Bach or Beethoven, but Schoenberg and Webern.

Do you agree?


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Yes, I do.


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

So, in order to compose great music, you have to invent something completely new? Maybe absolutely new compositional technique or very original combination of old styles?
I am sure there are such great composers today who do this, only it is sad that they are not very well known, unlike Beethoven and Mozart who were extremely famous even during their life.

But, there is another question.

If someone composed today a piece of music of the magnitude of Mass in B minor or 9th Symphony, would we even know it? Would we be able to recognize its greatness? Would such great achievement make headlines, if not in daily newspapers, then at least in music publications?


----------



## Falstaft (Mar 27, 2010)

I wonder, Whistlerguy, that your questions are being motivated by a certain inexposure to contemporary music. Maybe you should head over to the various new music threads and consider what people recommend there. I'd be surprised if you still leaped to make statements like:



Whistlerguy said:


> If someone composed today a piece of music of the magnitude of Mass in B minor or 9th Symphony, would we even know it? Would we be able to recognize its greatness? Would such great achievement make headlines, if not in daily newspapers, then at least in music publications?


This is a common complaint for people who like to bemoan the death of classical music when instead they should be out there going to new music concerts and exploring the vibrant, living classical tradition going on. [Also, I think you'd be surprised if you did some research on the origins of the B-minor mass, and how much it's status as coherent "masterpiece" was the result of some very powerful shoe-horning of Germans in the 19th century.]



Whistlerguy said:


> - it seems that contemporary composers are unable to produce works of such magnitude, even with more knowledge of music theory than Bach, Mozart and Beethoven had, and even with totally new concepts such as atonality at their disposal.


Let's table the huge issue of canonization you are leaving out, and concentrate on your statement that "contemporary composers are unable to produce works of such greatness as magnitude [as B-minor mass, Beethoven 9 etc]. I doubt any but the most new-music-intolerant here would deny that a) it's impossible for masterworks to be produced now adays, or b) that there * haven't* been masterworks created. I wonder what others on the board would consider today's new masterpieces, or what's the most recent music they believe deserves this title.

Classical music may not be the most popular art form right now, but listener for listener, there are more in the world who follow the latest art music than there were for Bach! I'll offer two massive, highly publicized and popular examples from the past 10 years: John Adams "Dr. Atomic", Golijov's "La Pasión según San Marcos." You might argue that these haven't truly attained masterpiece status yet b/c it's too early to gain that perspective on them. But if that's the case, what's the point in bemoaning the dearth of contemporary masterpieces at all, if we're not allowed to assign that description to an artwork either.



> So, in order to compose great music, you have to invent something completely new? Maybe absolutely new compositional technique or very original combination of old styles?
> I am sure there are such great composers today who do this, only it is sad that they are not very well known, unlike Beethoven and Mozart who were extremely famous even during their life.


People who blend styles like this (a value in *post* modern music) are well known, if you get to know contemporary classical music. Their names -- Gubaidulina, Rautavaara, Del Tredici, Part, Gorecki, Gandolfi, etc. -- are familiar to many people who have a general interest in what's happening in the world of music around them. Try some out!


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

Thanks for the suggestions! I will try some of that new music, because I am really interested. In this previous thread "Contemporary classical music" we could try to recommend to each other our favorite new pieces of music and to comment on new trends. This would be more constructive direction for that thread.


----------



## Guest (Jun 29, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> (We seem to be agreeing on a few topics of late. We are getting close to becoming drinking buddies soon ... )


I'm always ready to be a drinking buddy!!


----------



## Earthling (May 21, 2010)

"Don't follow in the footsteps of the old poets, seek what they sought." (Basho)

"Make it new." (Ezra Pound)

"Imitation is suicide." (Ralph Waldo Emerson)

This doesn't mean each composer has to create a whole new method of composition (even Schoenberg himself said there was still much great music to be written in the key of C). It doesn't matter whether someone writes tonally, modally, serially, using chance methods, microtonally, or an eclectic combination of all these things or whatever. These are merely a means to an end for musical expression. Webern wrote using the 12-tone method, however he sounds quite different from Schoenberg. Berg sounds quite different as well-- it may be hard to notice with initial hearings, but all three had very distinct voices. They employed certain techniques _in their own way_. They weren't content to just say "I'm going to write in the 12-tone method" and this resolves of them of the problem of finding their own individual voice. This is true in all the arts.


----------



## Earthling (May 21, 2010)

Whistlerguy said:


> If someone composed today a piece of music of the magnitude of Mass in B minor or 9th Symphony, would we even know it? Would we be able to recognize its greatness? Would such great achievement make headlines, if not in daily newspapers, then at least in music publications?


People didn't recognise the importance of the B minor mass in their own day!

Aside from certain composers who were aware of him, the general public had little love for the man's works til Mendelssohn said, "Hey folks, check this out!" some 80 years after his death. The _Cello Suites _were virtually unknown until Pablo Casals starting performing them (for those few that even knew the Cello Suites existed, they were dismissed as mere "finger exercises"!).


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Earthling said:


> "Don't follow in the footsteps of the old poets, seek what they sought." (Basho)
> 
> "Make it new." (Ezra Pound)
> 
> ...


I've highlighted a good point you've mentioned there. But also remember the end has no meaning.

As for progress in music, I'd say a better term would be either change or better yet expansion. The old is never forgetten but the new is always introduced. But also everything new becomes old and if no new was introduced everything would be old. This would please some people and not others. Surely better to please more than less?


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

> People didn't recognise the importance of the B minor mass in their own day!
> 
> Aside from certain composers who were aware of him, the general public had little love for the man's works til Mendelssohn said, "Hey folks, check this out!" some 80 years after his death. The Cello Suites were virtually unknown until Pablo Casals starting performing them (for those few that even knew the Cello Suites existed, they were dismissed as mere "finger exercises"!).


You are right about Bach, but this is more like exception than rule. Mozart and Beethoven were very famous and extremely respected as composers in their lifetime.

However, I don't see that _any_ of living composers is so much respected as those 2 guys were in their lifetime.


----------



## Earthling (May 21, 2010)

What difference does it make whether a composer is respected in their lifetime or not?


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

It doesn't make much difference, but still, it is more likely that someone will be regarded great in 200 years if he is regarded great during his lifetime, than if he is not.

Maybe some of us don't like Schoenberg, but even he was quite famous in his lifetime.


----------



## Earthling (May 21, 2010)

Whistlerguy said:


> It doesn't make much difference, but still, it is more likely that someone will be regarded great in 200 years if he is regarded great during his lifetime, than if he is not.
> 
> Maybe some of us don't like Schoenberg, but even he was quite famous in his lifetime.


Ages ago when I was in university, I took a literature course and all of the tests were essays. For example, we read and discussed a short story by Hawthorne. For the test, the professor said we could write about whatever we thought about the story, as long as we could _back up _what we had to say by referring to the story itself. A lot of students dropped out of his class. They wanted tests with clear right or wrong answers that could simply be regurgitated.

Its the _reasons _why a composer is great, important, unique or original that actually matter, not their popularity. Other people are irrelevant. I'm not concerned if classical listeners and musicians are going to be seriously engaging with Vaughan Williams or Schoenberg or whoever 200 years from now. If I enjoy a composer, I enjoy them for particular reasons. I might not even know initially what those reasons are, but I seek to articulate it to myself, not only to understand the music, but to understand myself. It doesn't even matter that other people agree with my reasons or if I can articulate it in a very precise manner. They are _my_ reasons. Its not enough to just state vacuous opinions, "I like this because its pleasing to me." Are you really listening to music when it comes down to that? If so, you are doing the composer, the performers and _yourself _a great injustice.

I don't feel my listening habits are invalidated because of what other people think now or 200 years from now-- should you?


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Earthling said:


> Ages ago when I was in university, I took a literature course and all of the tests were essays. For example, we read and discussed a short story by Hawthorne. For the test, the professor said we could write about whatever we thought about the story, as long as we could _back up _what we had to say by referring to the story itself. A lot of students dropped out of his class. They wanted tests with clear right or wrong answers that could simply be regurgitated.
> 
> Its the _reasons _why a composer is great, important, unique or original that actually matter, not their popularity. Other people are irrelevant. I'm not concerned if classical listeners and musicians are going to be seriously engaging with Vaughan Williams or Schoenberg or whoever 200 years from now. If I enjoy a composer, I enjoy them for particular reasons. I might not even know initially what those reasons are, but I seek to articulate it to myself, not only to understand the music, but to understand myself. It doesn't even matter that other people agree with my reasons or if I can articulate it in a very precise manner. They are _my_ reasons. *Its not enough to just state vacuous opinions, "I like this because its pleasing to me." *Are you really listening to music when it comes down to that? If so, you are doing the composer, the performers and _yourself _a great injustice.
> 
> I don't feel my listening habits are invalidated because of what other people think now or 200 years from now-- should you?


To say that is a vacuous opinion leads me to believe you must think other opinions on music are not vacuous, because in my mind that one likes the sounds is the only thing that matters when one listens to music. Everything else is unnecessary. So to say 'I like this because it's pleasing to me' is the only reason to like something. From a listeners perspective, I don't try to understand music or even understand why I like certain music as there is nothing to understand.


----------



## Earthling (May 21, 2010)

Argus said:


> To say that is a vacuous opinion leads me to believe you must think other opinions on music are not vacuous, because in my mind that one likes the sounds is the only thing that matters when one listens to music. Everything else is unnecessary. So to say 'I like this because it's pleasing to me' is the only reason to like something. From a listeners perspective, I don't try to understand music or even understand why I like certain music as there is nothing to understand.


If your opinion is "I like Beethoven because it's pleasing to my ear," _full stop_, then that's an empty statement, yes. It is still subjective (opinions by definition are subjective), but if you can't back up your personal opinion for why you think a piece of music is good, then you must not be listening very closely.

Even if I disagree with someone's opinion, at least if they back it up with their own thoughts, that's something to respect (and might even convince me to give it another listen). So such and such likes Beethoven. That's all? Big deal.

p.s I'm not even talking about lots of in depth knowledge of music theory, a little is enough for the average listener to have a deeper appreciation of classical music.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Opal said:


> You wont find satisfactory answers to questions like this from the generality of members of this board. This is because the issues you raise are merely specific examples of a much wider subject concerning the way markets come to value different goods/services.
> 
> To make any progress some knowledge of the relevant economic theory is required, specifically the "theory of value". It involves delving into things like the "paradox of value", marginalism, diamond-water paradox, etc. Stanley Jevons (the very famoust 19th British Economist) worked it all the key fundamentals of the relevant issues here about 150 years ago. You might ask an economics undergraduate to explain it if that is convenient, or look it up on the internet.
> 
> The purely musical "explanations" that typically get trotted out here from the musical bull-shitters (you must have worked out by now who they are) are generally way off track in terms of identifying the correct issues and answers. Much of it is too painfully awful to read.


Funny (in a good way). Are you a trained analytical economist? I studied economics for four years at university level. Marginal "utility", or in simple explanation, that sense of satisfaction when enjoying that last extra bit of something compared with the associated extra cost, usually makes one decide whether to continue or to stop. That sense of satisfaction/enjoyment Whistlerguy probably gets from listening to an extra minute of the first movement of Bach's _Mass in B Minor_ compared with the first movement of Schoenberg's _Violin Concerto_ is so much more, that it motivates him to want to listen to more, despite giving up time and money in order to listen to it. Everyone here makes this choice, whether consciously or subconsciously.

About the musical bull-shitters (maybe I am one in your mind), all I would like to add is actually about communication by way of written texts. Many tend to write badly structured paragraphs that make their argument/thinking difficult to follow, thus a lot of that contributes to the pain of reading it.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Earthling said:


> People didn't recognise the importance of the B minor mass in their own day!


Are you referring to Bach's day? Well of course not, simply because the _Mass in B Minor_ was likely never performed in its entirety as we know it. It was Bach's own summary of the art of mass setting applied to music. The entire version as we know it was composed and compiled well over a decade or two. Parts of it were performed for different purposes during different periods, but not as a single large scale piece that we today enjoy.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Earthling said:


> If your opinion is "I like Beethoven because it's pleasing to my ear," _full stop_, then that's an empty statement, yes. It is still subjective (opinions by definition are subjective), but if you can't back up your personal opinion for why you think a piece of music is good, then you must not be listening very closely.


I don't get it. My neighbour, a retired lady, said to me: "I really like Mozart's _Eine Kliene Nachtmusik_ because its melody is so pleasing to me". Now, you are suggesting that is a vacuous statement? Do you think Mozart gave a damn why his audience might care more than what my neighbour said? What's wrong with the very basic reason that one likes a piece of music simply because it has "very pleasing melody"?

Now, why do you think _Eine Kliene Nachtmusik_ and Vivaldi's _Four Seasons_ are so popular? Why were these pieces amongst the first pieces of music that even I thought were "nice" when I first heard them as a child?


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

> Now, why do you think Eine Kliene Nachtmusik and Vivaldi Four Seasons are so popular?


Because they have a very pleasing melody


----------



## Earthling (May 21, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I don't get it. My neighbour, a retired lady, said to me: "I really like Mozart's _Eine Kliene Nachtmusik_ because its melody is so pleasing to me". Now, you are suggesting that is a vacuous statement? Do you think Mozart gave a damn why his audience might care more than what my neighbour said? What's wrong with the very basic reason that one likes a piece of music simply because it has "very pleasing melody"?
> 
> Now, why do you think _Eine Kliene Nachtmusik_ and Vivaldi's _Four Seasons_ are so popular? Why were these pieces amongst the first pieces of music that even I thought were "nice" when I first heard them as a child?


You don't reflect on a piece of music, why or how it moves you? Does it just go in one ear and out the other? Its not about what anyone else thinks, but about what you think-- _to yourself_.

There's nothing wrong with liking a piece of music because it has "a very pleasing melody." Certainly it makes a piece of music easily appealing. But if that's all one has to say, hey, that's cool I like those piece too-- but its not JUST because a piece has a pleasing melody that makes _Eine Kliene Nachmusik _remarkable. John Rutter writes very pleasing melodies too.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Earthling said:


> You don't reflect on a piece of music, why or how it moves you? Does it just go in one ear and out the other? Its not about what anyone else thinks, but about what you think-- _to yourself_.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with liking a piece of music because it has "a very pleasing melody." Certainly it makes a piece of music easily appealing. But if that's all one has to say, hey, that's cool I like those piece too-- but its not JUST because a piece has a pleasing melody that makes _Eine Kliene Nachmusik _remarkable. John Rutter writes very pleasing melodies too.


Yes, as listening adults, of course we reflect on why. Often it is because I find it uplifting and reassuring on an emotional level. And yes, it is why I as an individual, who like a piece that matters most. My own preference and how much resources I am willing to give up to listen to it matter.

But I am not discounting that a 6 year old or a 60 year old who likes _Eine Kliene Nachtmusik _ just because it has nice pleasing melodies either, if that is all they tell you.


----------



## Earthling (May 21, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> But I am not discounting that a 6 year old or a 60 year old who likes _Eine Kliene Nachtmusik _ just because it has nice pleasing melodies either, if that is all they tell you.


That's all fine. But if you were considering a purchase of a CD and a reviewer on Amazon simply said "This CD is awesome-- the melodies are so wonderful!!!!11!!!" or "This music is pure crap because it was too long," it wouldn't be very convincing to check out based on just that. That seems to indicate very superficial listening-- especially if its an adult that claims they "listen to classical music."

I'm not even talking about having deep knowledge of music theory-- but the growth of musical illiteracy is probably the most important reason why classical music audiences have become so small just over the past 100 years-- they don't even know what they are listening to, they just know they are "great" and so they're "supposed" to listen to it. That's a sure way to turn classical music into an endangered species.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Falstaft said:


> This is a common complaint for people who like to bemoan the death of classical music when instead they should be out there going to new music concerts and exploring the vibrant, living classical tradition going on...


I agree with this. My advice to people like Whistlerguy is the same. Stop theorizing whether a particular work by a contemporary composer is "greater" (whatever that means?) than something by J.S.Bach. Get out there and attend some live concerts, of both old and new music. That's exactly what I've been doing, and it's been great. The weekend before last I went to two concerts where the main works were by Brahms (Violin Concerto) and Beethoven (Choral Symphony). Last Saturday I went to a new music concert, where works by Rojas, Golijov and Crumb were performed (the first a premiere). Which concert or piece did I like the most? Frankly (as the friend who went with me to them said), I don't have to choose, I can like all of them equally. I'm sick to death of this mentality of "ranking," it's pure BS. We should all be able to enjoy all of the masterpeices, of both today and yesterday. I see no contradiction. Musicians who perform both see no contradiction. It's the "fans" and "groupies" that have a problem, and I don't want to be part of that...


----------

