# My views about the future of classical music



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

In the discussion The "Bubbles" experiment - What is contemporary music worth? many users are discussing about their personal views of avant-garde music, but I'd like to discuss about the subject from a social perspective.
I have nothing to say about the fact that many users here enjoy avant-garde music, but you have to be aware that it's not music for everyone, because the average human ears enjoy tonal and melodic music.

As I'm 33 years old, I'd like to speak about my perspective about the future of classical music.
I know no one in my age who listens to classical music. I don't tell to my friends that I listen to it because they wouldn't understand. My sister, six years older than me, laughs at me because I have Mozart's music in my phone.
Instead of saying that my generation is composed mainly by musical idiots, I think that we should reflect a little bit about the reasons.

The reasons, in my point views, are that while the world of classical music has become snob ("the opinions of the folks don't matter, we know what is good music better than them"), the music industry "speak" to the young persons. This is perfectly normal: the industry can not be snob, otherwise it fails in a free market system.

The Mozart's music is tonal, melodic and pleasant (like pop music), but the persons of my age perceive it as "obsolete music": not music of our world, our era.
Therefore the classical music world can not think that it's possible to keep classical music alive in the future with Mozart's music or with pastiches of Mozart's music.
If the musical tradition wants to survive, the composers have to produce new and updated tonal/melodic music.

When you say that modern classical music can be melodic and tonal, many users answer "so, do you want pastiches of Mozart or Brahms?".
I didn't know that Mozart and Brahms had copyrighted tonality!

No, I'm not saying that the modern composers have to create pastiches, but tonal and updated music.

The Symphony No. 4 (1950) of Joly Braga Santos is an example of what modern classical music might be.
Is it a pastiche of Mozart's music? Surely not!
I wouldn't neither say that it's a pastiche of romantic music. If anything, it might be seen as a pastiche of film music... and film music is modern!






I'm not saying that it's an excellent symphony, but it's quite good and it's an example of a style that the young persons of today might like.
The cinematic industry has worked to find out what is the right sound for the persons of today, so you just have to create symphonies and other concert works with the style of film music to relaunch classical music.

You are free to say "no thanks, we prefer avant-garde", but you have to be aware that classical music will probably die in some decades if the actual trend will not change.
I suggest to apply the free markets in classical music too, so the classical music institutions will be forced to abbandon the snobbery.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

HansZimmer said:


> In the discussion The "Bubbles" experiment - What is contemporary music worth? many users are discussing about their personal views of avant-garde music, but I'd like to discuss about the subject from a social perspective.
> I have nothing to say about the fact that many users here enjoy avant-garde music, but you are to be aware that it's not music for everyone, because the average human ears enjoy tonal and melodic music.
> 
> As I'm 33 years old, I'd like to speak about my perspective about the future of classical music.
> ...


I wonder if you think you will ever get a little bit tired of sweet, predictable tonal music. Composers I talk to say that they have gotten tired of it. 

I've only had lengthy conversations with two composers, and one asked facetiously, "How many tonal resolutions can one hear in a lifetime?" I was a little bit annoyed that he worded it like that, but then he immediately started explaining his technical approaches to me. And then at the end, he said there's so much more to music than just predictable resolutions. We agreed to somewhat disagree, because I stated that the mystery of music is what I seek out and follow - and I'm grateful for whatever composers come up to offer us original, mysterious music (challenges, games to solve, related experiences in other facets of life).
So think of new music as a mystery to be added to your favorites. I see the parallels in scientific explorations, but that's probably just me..

It's difficult for others to understand what I write about this, because we all have very different paths of life.


----------



## Monsalvat (11 mo ago)

I think the social/economic/political upheavals of the early 20th century, combined with the tendency among composers in the late 19th century/early 20th century towards increasing chromaticism, dissonance, and harmonic tension (Wagner, Reger, etc.), plus the radical avant-garde tendencies in art (and politics) around that time, all contributed to the kind of art we have today. There's the Vienna Secession, for example, “seceding” from the more conservative elements of art in 1897; Gustav Klimt is an example.








And Mahler was somewhat connected artistically with this movement, conducting for the Secession during their Beethoven exhibit. Klimt's Beethoven Frieze also includes a figure that resembles Mahler (another link).









Around this time in Vienna we had the Second Viennese School in music, abandoning tonality completely. Like the Secession, this reflects a period of upheaval, artistic and otherwise. And after two major wars in Europe, dissonance was certainly in vogue; see Boulez's second piano sonata. So I can understand the reasons why avant-garde music is so hard to listen to; it's meant to be difficult. Music written after Berg, or Bartók, or Boulez, will draw on what came before. That said, it is curious that "classical"/"art"/"avant-garde" music became so divorced from popular opinion; as early as 1913 (and also in Vienna), a concert of the Second Viennese School was received so poorly that a riot was started, with one witness testifying that the sound of a fist blow was the most harmonious sound heard in the concert (Skandalkonzert), and the nearly contemporaneous demonstrations occuring at the premiere of The Rite of Spring. Schoenberg once predicted that people would one day whistle twelve-tone melodies in the streets; why has that not happened?


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

I will not yet, respond to your overall thesis, but I will make some comments and observations.



> I have nothing to say about the fact that many users here enjoy avant-garde music, but you are to be aware that it's not music for everyone, because the average human ears enjoy tonal and melodic music.


My ears also enjoy tonal and melodic music, despite my love for music that is decidedly not those things. They are not mutually exclusive.

But, there are many emotions, moods, atmospheres, etc., that cannot be conveyed with tonal music. And, for me, those things are often more important, profound, and cathartic, than tonal music is capable of. Art is often about conveying things other than pleasantness, awe, grandeur, which tonality is, IMO, largely incapable of doing.



> The Mozart's music is tonal, melodic and pleasant (like pop music), but the persons of my age perceive it as "obsolete music": not music of our world, our era.
> Therefore the classical music world can not think that it's possible to keep classical music alive in the future with Mozart's music or with pastiches of Mozart's music.
> If the musical tradition wants to survive, the composers have to produce new and updated tonal/melodic music.


And there it is again...

Pleasantness. For me, pleasantness in music can be good. But there are so many deeper, more important, more profound aspects music can convey, that often makes pleasant classical music sound trite and predictable to me.

Pleasantness is way down on my list on things I love about all artforms, music included.



> When you say that modern classical music can be melodic and tonal, many users answer "so, do you want pastiches of Mozart or Brahms?".
> I didn't know that Mozart and Brahms had copyrighted tonality!


I don't think you are referring to the vast majority of members of TC who like avant-garde, atonal music. I would say that those of us that like avant-garde and atonal music, are well aware of many, many tonal late 20th century, and contemporary composers, that are not pastiches of previous eras.

I can list dozens and dozens of tonal contemporary composers, and often do. It is not us that are painting the entire 2nd half of the 20th century with a broad brush of "all classical music after WWII is atonal and avant-garde".



> You are free to say "no thanks, we prefer avant-garde", but you have to be aware that classical music will probably die in some decades if the actual trend will not change.
> I suggest to apply the free markets in classical music too, so the classical music institutions will be forced to abbandon the snobbery.


Seems to me, treating classical music as a "museum piece", the way most establishments do, is just as likely to lead to the death of classical music, than the avant-garde. Just how many people of your generation do you think will be attending classical concerts, whether tonal or atonal?


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

HansZimmer said:


> In the discussion The "Bubbles" experiment - What is contemporary music worth? many users are discussing about their personal views of avant-garde music, but I'd like to discuss about the subject from a social perspective.
> I have nothing to say about the fact that many users here enjoy avant-garde music, but you are to be aware that it's not music for everyone, because the average human ears enjoy tonal and melodic music.
> 
> As I'm 33 years old, I'd like to speak about my perspective about the future of classical music.
> ...


In terms of sound, I think a significant number of contemporary composers have re-embraced tonality. But really, the story of the 20th (late) and 21st centuries has been that of Polystylism. When boundaries can't be pushed much further, all that is left is to retread and re-interpret.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

Monsalvat said:


> a concert of the Second Viennese School was received so poorly that a riot was started, with one witness testifying that the sound of a fist blow was the most harmonious sound heard in the concert (Skandalkonzert), and the nearly contemporaneous demonstrations occuring at the premiere of The Rite of Spring.


This is a fine example really of the sort of mob reaction that caused Schoenberg to start conducting performances of new music in a closed shop. Which is probably what the complainers would prefer.

The fact of the matter though is that once the cat was out of the bag people (composers mainly) voluntarily took up this thread and the tools and found ways to either use it or not use it. Aside from direct Schoenberg and his immediate serial composition students, others had already trod similar paths; Hindemith for example. One can see that many composers in the early decades of the 20th century didn't just go the whole hog with serial composition. Instead they took from it what they thought they could use. My favourite example is Malipiero (who attended the première of _Rite of Spring_). He was unwilling to submit to 'schools', but found release when he met impressionism, serial music and ability to reject 'forms'. This is what all those movements did.

I think Schoenberg was being facetious when he said that 'people would one day whistle twelve-tone melodies in the streets'. And if not he was just in error. Either way it doesn't matter. No-one whistles now anyway.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Mmmmph.

Tonal music has its place, as does atonal music.

But atonal music requires so much attention to appreciate. The unpleasantness of tonal clusters and random pitches and rhythms (or lack thereof) repels more listeners than it attracts.

As for the future though, everyone seems to be ignoring microtonal music, which often encapsulates the best of both worlds (and sometimes the worst of both).


----------



## RICK RIEKERT (Oct 9, 2017)

Chat Noir said:


> I think Schoenberg was being facetious when he said that 'people would one day whistle twelve-tone melodies in the streets'. And if not he was just in error. Either way it doesn't matter. No-one whistles now anyway.


Chat, it wasn't a prediction but his "most fervent desire...that people should know my tunes and whistle them". Schoenberg was keenly aware that the crux of this was the knowing-the ability of listeners not only to recognize his music when they hear it, but also the ability to remember it (possibly by whistling). Schoenberg believed that a composer should present his ideas in a coherent and logical way. If listeners could follow the logic of this coherence during performance, they had understood the work. It required according to Schoenberg, "nothing other than a swift analysis, a determination of the components and their cohesion." A listener who could do this would, Schoenberg believed, even be able to reproduce his tunes from memory.

As for no one whistling nowadays, in at least 80 cultures worldwide, people have developed whistled versions of the local language when the circumstances call for it. As the song says, fairy tales can come true...so there's still a chance, however remote, that Schoenberg's fairy tale about his ditties being whistled may one day come true.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

For me it always comes bac k to a very simple premise: the further music gets from folksong traditions, the less popular and appreciated it becomes. The most popular music is music that people can hum the tune, tap their toes to, and remember. Everything from a Handel chorus, a Mozart aria, a Beethoven piano sonata, a Tchaikovsky waltz, a Dvorak symphony...they are all memorable and singable. But bring in thornier composers whose music the average person cannot sing or remember and it's going to the garbage bin of history. There will be specialists who study it and perform it. But not enough to keep it vital. Too many modern composers still can't write a good tune, and when they do they seem to have to harmonize it most unmusically just to be "out there" and different. Some composer today do write good tunes and their music is popular because of it: Andrew Lloyd Weber and John Williams. This largely explains why orchestra keep repeating the same repertoire. It's why Messiah and Nutcracker are popular every year. I look at Pop music today and can't believe anyone thinks any of it is good. The writers today are childish infants compared to the great song writers of yesterday, and I'm not just talking Jerome Kern, Irving Berlin, Harold Arlen, Richard Rodgers, Cole Porter and that group. I include people like Paul McCartney, Bob Crewe and a whole bunch of others at work from the '50s through '70s who knew how to write beautiful music that people liked - it meant something. I've gotta stop...getting too serious and blood pressure up. Read Robert Bork's book Slouching Towards Gomorrah. He nails it.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

mbhaub said:


> For me it always comes bac k to a very simple premise: the further music gets from folksong traditions, the less popular and appreciated it becomes. The most popular music is music that people can hum the tune, tap their toes to, and remember.


So why is it that wordless club dance music, relying on hypnotic rhythms and minimal melody, has been popular for several decades. It's certainly 'folk' as in _die Volksmusik_, though not in the way I think you are referring to 'folksong'.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

RICK RIEKERT said:


> Chat, it wasn't a prediction but his "most fervent desire...that people should know my tunes and whistle them". Schoenberg was keenly aware that the crux of this was the knowing-the ability of listeners not only to recognize his music when they hear it, but also the ability to remember it (possibly by whistling). Schoenberg believed that a composer should present his ideas in a coherent and logical way. If listeners could follow the logic of this coherence during performance, they had understood the work. It required according to Schoenberg, "nothing other than a swift analysis, a determination of the components and their cohesion." A listener who could do this would, Schoenberg believed, even be able to reproduce his tunes from memory.
> 
> As for no one whistling nowadays, in at least 80 cultures worldwide, people have developed whistled versions of the local language when the circumstances call for it. As the song says, fairy tales can come true...so there's still a chance, however remote, that Schoenberg's fairy tale about his ditties being whistled may one day come true.


I still can't hum a Schoenberg 12-tone tune, but I love him anyway. Schoenberg's music, for me, is more about atmosphere and mood. He certainly could write a melody as evident by his earlier Late-Romantic period, but whatever he believed, his music was about so much more than writing good, whistling tunes.


----------



## AndorFoldes (Aug 25, 2012)

Let's not forget the most important factor that will determine the future of classical music: Funding. The reason serialism became a big deal after the Second World War, in spite of having little commercial appeal, was, you guessed it, funding.

As long as states and patrons keep supplying money to classical musicians, classical music will have a future. And the specific direction it will go will be determined by the people who are in charge of allocating the funds.

The classics will likely survive as they do have the benefit of having some commercial appeal, and so there will be an incentive to keep playing them in order to fill concert halls.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

To get a more accurate perspective of what the future of classical music is, it is important to understand how much the genre has become a less important and influential factor in the overall music world since the mid 20th century.

Classical music had a significant musical impact and presence in the West up until the 1980s. There were movies about CM composers and musicians acted by famous actors. In the U.S. there were frequent classical music artists on TV eg. Liberace, Ed Sullivan Show, Victor Borge and so on. Record stores had substantial CM sections; in fact, the famous Tower Records on Sunset Blvd in Los Angeles had a separate Classical Music Annex store with an enormous selection across the street. There were also smaller stores dedicated to CM alone during the vinyl era.

It was not unusual for schools to have music classes that emphasized classical music. It was not unusual for there to be school field trips to afternoon CM concerts aimed particularly at young people. There was constant output of new CM recordings from numerous record labels from the more expensive to the incredibly inexpensive ($2.00 a record). There were CM commercial mail programs where you would get a new recording every month.

This is all or mostly gone now. There will continue to be a presence of classical music mostly dependent on pre-1950 classical music whether it be recordings or concerts. Modern/contemporary music will continue to have a role, but IMO it will not grow much interest in CM. I don’t believe that modern/contemporary music caused the overall reduced societal presence of CM, but some of it has probably confused some of the public that occasionally attends concerts, and doesn‘t regularly seek out classical music.

I don‘t know what the future holds for those coming out of academic music institutions. I think it’s true, as posted above that income to new composers will depend highly on funding (and commissions), but, from my reading, one has to be particularly successful to make a living that way. If I was taking that educational route these days, I would probably be thinking more about composing movie soundtracks, as difficult to break in to the business as that apparently is (high risk with possible reasonable reward).


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

@DaveM talks about education and I think he has a point. I also think the internet is one of several suspects responsible for the decline and attitude to CM, but the internet's reach is also an opportunity for the future of music imo.
Institutions will no doubt continue to pump out composers (and performers for that matter) and at a high rate and standard. Sadly, the option to break into film music is probably much harder than getting tenure for a composer. The film industry is frankly saturated and has been for many years with wannabee composers who are not up to the task and good to excellent composers who will be lucky to get a break. Besides, a composer schooled enough to have their own musical wits sharpened for the concert hall may not want to write in such a popular or utilitarian way as they may feel as though they have a more personal expression that needs to be vented. If art music becomes entirely a priori utilitarian and/or simply cowtowing to popular tonal taste, then classical music as a continuing art form will lose out imo.

Also pertinent to the future of CM will surely be the shift we are seeing now in how we consume music. I know that even established composers writing atonally today will be lucky if their work gets a handful of performances in their lifetime - if any at all. However that state of affairs can be ameliorated if their work is recorded. The audience online far exceeds a concert hall one off and so all is not lost for works that are of a more personal expression for they will find their audience online. In fact and somewhat ironically, profiles of modern composers are probably at their highest already given the wider reach their music has found on internet platforms - far more widespread than a traditional publisher could reach. The future I feel is good for music in the last 100 years or so and even lost works are being unearthed and recorded for the first (and probably last) time. The 'concert hall' will soon be more 'digital hall' than live, if it isn't already for the listener and that's an exploitable market for composers imv.

Atonality/modernity/ expanded tonality etc. are niche compared to the canon, but they are also culturally important and should not be ousted to make way for entertainment and immediacy. There is more promise for the future of CM in the variety of newer ways to compose (to include new attitudes to tonality btw), than the stagnating effect we would witness if composers where all somehow coerced into writing alberti basses, perfect cadences and pretty tunes. Composers are not only writing for the end user, there is much more to consider.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I think DaveM mentioned several salient points. One might add that we always take things for granted or "normal" that often are not. E.g. for a very general point, most of the 20th century was totally extraordinary. Many of our (grand)grandparents lived to see two of the most atrocious wars in history whereas we and our parents usually grew up in a half century without wars in our lives (or only at the margin in some exotic place) and commonly accessible high standard of living, including unprecedented mass media entertainment. 

Mass media completely changed reception (and thus eventually production) of music within the last 120 years. So our time, or even the mid-20th century (when mass media and eventually their popular music really began to dominate everything) is very different from the centuries before when the still most popular so called classical music was composed. Similarly, both the relatively broad popularity of classical music until the late 20th century and the dominant status of popular mass media culture since the 1960s, were "normal" at that time but very different to former historical epochs. This is why the people who claim that "Mozart was the Michael Jackson of 1785" are as wrong as those who point out that the hermetic, elite status of a lot of 20/21st century avantgarde music was similar in the past with the reactions to Late Beethoven etc.
Most of these changes are not clearly related to the developments that put a lot of 20th century avantgarde in a small niche, even within CM in general.

In any case, I don't think there is any demand for quasi-romantic music in 2022. Braga Santos was 70 years ago and old-fashioned then. There is more than enough classical and romantic music from the 18th through the 20th century to easily cover the demand. I think classical music will mostly remain this "museum of sound" and contemporary music will remain a small niche. Both might shrink more as the general demand for "high culture" is reduced (as it has been for about half a century but it might remain stable at a lower level). But like with other museums and monuments most countries/societies will keep paying for at least some amount of it.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

It's just one more casualty of large-scale change, but so is traditional film (linear story etc) and so many other things that represent culture as it was. Our problem is that we live at the end of an era and assumed it would always be like the 20th century.


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

I agree that the point regarding education is very important. From what I have seen, music education does correlate strongly with how people engage with CM (both common practice and post-1900). I've lived in a few different countries: one of them has very strong government support for the arts (A), one of them has almost none (B), and the third is somewhere in the middle (C), although the arts has suffered from funding cuts very recently. 

In country A, there is widespread music education across the country, including publicly funded music institution for children and continuing education. This is in addition to conservatoire training that is available at uni level and beyond. Notably, there isn't a view of contemporary classical music as somehow being "elitist" or "difficult." Sure, people acknowledge that it's more abstract, but there doesn't seem to be this view that it's somehow inherently difficult, at least not as much as I've seen elsewhere. I've seen concerts with programmes that might be considered a difficult sell in other countries, where the concert hall is completely packed. Another interesting point: because there is more arts funding, ticket prices in concert halls tend to be relatively reasonable, and this encourages people to go watch concerts. 

In country B, classical music as a whole tends to be viewed as more of an elite pursuit, partially because it costs so much money to get instrumental lessons and any kind of meaningful musical training in the first place. Orchestras rely heavily on private donors, and tend to keep to more established repertoire (this is partially to please the donors funding them, among other reasons). With this kind of system, it is more difficult to programme adventurous repertoire, and contemporary classical tends to be viewed as even more of an elite sub-niche within an already elite niche. 

Country C is somewhere in the middle of these two. Another thing that complicates things with country C is a long-established class divide between a rich upper class that is primarily educated at specific private schools and prestigious universities, and a middle and lower class that is more commonly educated at public schools. As with country B, classical music is often viewed as more of an elite pursuit, and a lot of people in the field do come from this aforementioned upper class (this includes a number of the so-called gatekeepers). I think there is overall more awareness of classical music and contemporary classical music than in country B, but it doesn't permeate the fabric of the society as with country A. 

It is important to mention that country A has a small, relatively homogenous population, and in comparison to either country B or C, there isn't a well-established class system.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

Can I just say that despite me not being irked or bothered by 'avant-garde' music, there are modern artistic trends that I do find exhausting. Literature for example. There are books, especially from France, which win the Prix Goncourt, and are practically unreadable. I tend not to finish them. In general they do represent a certain tend as representative of the expectation for 'profound literature', but which a goodly portion of the general reading public will never read. However that latter is not unusual; practically all throughout history (the idea that the general public all were acquainted with 'classical music' is also a myth). I have no desire to reclassify it as a new offshoot form of literature and it doesn't remove the existence of pre-existing forms.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

So is this a game? A: Austria? (Or Czech Republic or Netherlands?) B: US, C: UK


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Kreisler jr said:


> So is this a game? A: Austria? (Or Czech Republic or Netherlands?) B: US, C: UK


yeah C=UK for sure. I wanna live in country A wherever it is. Salzburg'll do, me and my wife loved it there...


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

mikeh375 said:


> yeah C=UK for sure. I wanna live in country A wherever it is. Salzburg'll do, me and my wife loved it there...


Finland! But from what I've heard, this could apply to varying degrees to a number of countries like Germany, the Netherlands, other Nordic countries... 

My current situation is that I'm studying in the UK, but a lot of my work seems to be coming from Finland at the moment.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

composingmusic said:


> Finland! But from what I've heard, this could apply to varying degrees to a number of countries like Germany, the Netherlands, other Nordic countries...
> 
> My current situation is that I'm studying in the UK, but a lot of my work seems to be coming from Finland at the moment.


Brrrrrrr.
To emphasise the importance of the web, in the last decade or so, I have listened to much in the way of 20thC Nordic Symphonies. Pieces I would never have known about otherwise. I still say the future's bright if different for CM's continued development and hopefully for you too.
One of TC's regular composer posters is @pkoi who I think hails from Finland and is pretty good imo.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

mikeh375 said:


> yeah C=UK for sure. I wanna live in country A wherever it is. Salzburg'll do, me and my wife loved it there...


I am not well travelled, but Salzburg and Hawaii were probably the places where I thought more than anywhere else (certainly more than in Venice, Paris, Vienna) that they were postcard-style beautiful in an almost unrealistic way. I think Germany and Austria retain some of the early to mid 20th century notion of both the status and the "grantedness" or natural presence of classical music in life. I have found that especially in this forum it seems very hard to grasp for US/UK socialized people that something like classical music can both be regarded as "high status" AND for (almost) everyone, i.e. at least everyone with a lower middle class social status, and be a normal part of cultural life.
(Not sure about Austria but the education system in Germany is also worsening if not failing since decades and not only wrt music.)


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

mikeh375 said:


> Brrrrrrr.
> To emphasise the importance of the web, in the last decade or so, I have listened to much in the way of 20thC Nordic Symphonies. Pieces I would never have known about otherwise. I still say the future's bright if different for CM's continued development and hopefully for you too.
> One of TC's regular composer posters is @pkoi who I think hails from Finland and is pretty good imo.


Haha, brrrrr is right 😂 – but I love the winter there! There's just something magical about it, which I find much more invigorating than wet, rainy weather around 0-5ºC... Good to hear about @pkoi! Nice to have other Finnish composers here. I know I haven't really posted my work here, but it's always nice to hear what other people are doing.


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

On the subject of winter, there's quite a few Nordic composers who seem to be influenced by the cold climate and a particular type of magical snowy landscape. I've just posted some photos I've taken of this climate in another thread – it is something really quite special!



composingmusic said:


> Here's a few photos from northern Finland. These were taken with the same DSLR camera I was using for the other photos, with a wide-angle lens and tripod. All of these are multiple exposure HDRs with a variety of exposures to try and really capture the light.
> View attachment 179367
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

For me, so much music still to discover in the past. It would be nice if there was groundbreaking music coming out now. But not a necessity.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

composingmusic said:


> Finland! But from what I've heard, this could apply to varying degrees to a number of countries like Germany, the Netherlands, other Nordic countries...
> 
> My current situation is that I'm studying in the UK, but a lot of my work seems to be coming from Finland at the moment.


It does apply to the Netherlands (and Belgium and France ), though for all these it depends where it is. There are cities where it has been so deeply intertwined into the culture and character of the city that infrastructure and prevailing culture has built up over the centuries. In that sense it is expected to exist. Some places hold festivals, there's one in Utrecht in the Netherlands wholly concerned with 'early music' (festival oudmuziek), perhaps you know it? This is facilitated by the long history of music in that city and assisted now by the large presence of the old churches holding regular music performances. All these provide opportunities for those coming from the conservatoire and also for organists. The one in the Janskerk has a youtube channel. 

And still this doesn't mean that the wider general public is involved. When I lived in Bruges for a time it was fairly easy to find music performances, but it's not like the public were especially imbued with the music there. The presence of this sort of culture within the wider culture is a choice made by government, schools and individuals. In that order. Syllabuses for education in these countries are usually national policy, not fractured between states. It's one way to gain a least some cultural cohesion. It's a choice because it matters what the general policy wants to promote. When governments wanted to promote computing for public education into new technologies, they just did that. They exposed people to it. It doesn't mean everyone becomes a programmer, but it becomes part of the general education. 

I know that had music not been part of my early schooling - plus being part of a choir and seeing instrumental music - I possibly would have been largely ignorant of it. Mathematics, history, geography etc is taken for granted as obviously needed, whereas with things like music and other arts you're only encouraged if you first demonstrate interest.


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

I always thought that the music from the 20th century was basically academic music and not written for the general public

But take heart, back in the old days "Classical" music was only enjoyed in the courts of the nobility. The rest of us had to make do with dance tunes played on ratty folk instruments

To me all that has really changed is that today you and me can read


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

Nate Miller said:


> I always thought that the music from the 20th century was basically academic music and not written for the general public
> 
> But take heart, back in the old days "Classical" music was only enjoyed in the courts of the nobility. The rest of us had to make do with dance tunes played on ratty folk instruments
> 
> To me all that has really changed is that today you and me can read


Yes, this is the truthful scenario. And also in the past a composer's 'serious' and experimental jottings stayed as jottings in a drawer. Just like Turner's paintings he did for himself as an artist weren't the ones he submitted to the gallery. Post-1900 music is more like the latter. However it happened that some people did like it and wanted to listen to it; some were composers who also wanted to try it. Thesis-antithesis-synthesis.


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

Chat Noir said:


> Yes, this is the truthful scenario. And also in the past a composer's 'serious' and experimental jottings stayed as jottings in a drawer. Just like Turner's paintings he did for himself as an artist weren't the ones he submitted to the gallery. Post-1900 music is more like the latter. However it happened that some people did like it and wanted to listen to it; some were composers who also wanted to try it. Thesis-antithesis-synthesis.


Indeed. This does vary from country to country though – and in the US, classical music is somewhat of an elite pursuit, with contemporary classical being even more so (this and in academic circles). From a composer's perspective, it is quite difficult to write for an audience, and one big issue with this is that an audience is not homogenous. However, if you write something that expresses something you feel is worth expressing something, then you can hope to communicate with other people on some degree.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

composingmusic said:


> Indeed. This does vary from country to country though – and in the US, classical music is somewhat of an elite pursuit, with contemporary classical being even more so (this and in academic circles). From a composer's perspective, it is quite difficult to write for an audience, and one big issue with this is that an audience is not homogenous. However, if you write something that expresses something you feel is worth expressing something, then you can hope to communicate with other people on some degree.


On the same theme, and especially the underlined bit, I was listening to a podcast of an old radio programme where the actress Isabelle Huppert is being interviewed (she was 25 at the time). Somewhere is the long interview the interviewer asks about her cultivating an audience for her performances. She thinks for a moment and says 'no'. That she'd been rather focused on the film itself, not thinking how a film would be received, but about choosing things that would be interesting and to test her capacities. That it was a sort of happy outcome that audiences seemed to like what came of it.

To me that's how it should be. Not constantly working with an eye or ear on 'what are the audience going to think?!' That is a mistake. Unless the aim actually to be a crowd pleaser. But audiences are fickle.


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

Chat Noir said:


> On the same theme, and especially the underlined bit, I was listening to a podcast of an old radio programme where the actress Isabelle Huppert is being interviewed (she was 25 at the time). Somewhere is the long interview the interviewer asks about her cultivating an audience for her performances. She thinks for a moment and says 'no'. That she'd been rather focused on the the film, not thinking how a film would be received, but about choosing things that would be interesting and test her capacities. That is was a sort of happy outcome that audiences seemed to like what came of it.
> 
> To me that's how it should be. Not constantly working with an eye or ear on 'what are the audience going to think?!' That is a mistake. Unless the aim actually to be a crowd pleaser. But audiences are fickle.


Yes, having the priority be on crowds rather than what you feel you need to do as an artist can lead to all kinds of issues. 

Something that comes to mind from this: are you familiar with The Most Wanted Music and The Most Unwanted Music? Dave Soldier, Komar & Melanid, did an experiment: they went around asking people what they liked in music, and what they didn't like in music. Based on the responses they received, they wrote a piece of music that fit all the criteria that people liked, and another piece that fit all the criteria that people didn't like. The Most Wanted Music is a 5 minute long pretty generic love ballad, and The Most Unwanted Music is... well, it's difficult to find words to describe it, honestly. It's a 20 minute long piece that defies categories – it contains bagpipe solos, organ, opera rap about cowboys, children's choruses, holidays, jingles, and loads of other things. Say what you will, The Most Wanted Music is a bit generic, and The Most Unwanted Music is definitely not that. This is not to say that the experiment isn't flawed, or that there is a clear conclusion to draw from this.


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)




----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

The unwanted music is clearly superior. 😂 I was almost crying with laughter, but I actually liked it. So I suppose certain numbers of people dislike: bagpipes, opera, country music (except for country music fans), rap, impressionism, advertising jingles, stage-school kids singing, political slogans, bluegrass, harmonicas and who knows what else.

Well, it sort of speaks to the audience pandering that has gone on since people started _only_ thinking about end consumption. This happened in broadcasting, where it was thought that specialists curating programming for people is paternalistic, and that people wanted tailored on-demand TV. Where they can just cut out all the boring stuff like 'the news' and those boring things were people visit a monastery or solve maths problems and just get wall-to-wall sitcoms or endless police procedural dramas. Before that the rebirth of monastery visits reshaped as a sexed-up true-life version where you put some celebrities in a real monastery. That's where we are. It's what happened when audiences are pandered to. You can't know you possibly would like things you don't even know about, so you just keep on consuming the same narrow diet. If a cook only knows three recipes, only three dishes will ever get made.

It doesn't surprise me that the most wanted music was what it was. I wonder though if people said what they said to fall into line or appear cool. People seem to like to repeat popular tropes, like 'ooh aren't clowns scary though?!' and how horrid bagpipes are. It's pretty trite stuff and I rarely believe they've ever thought it through.


----------



## RandallPeterListens (Feb 9, 2012)

I think one way to approach this question/topic is by asking what is the function of classical music. Up until about about 1600, "classical" music served three functions: dancing for aristocrats, church/religious activities and self-performance as a leisure time activity. From, say, 1600 until the present, the primary role of "classical" music is appreciating through listening, be it in live, concert performances or by some means of recording. Classical music is primarily meant to be listened to - other types of music accompany dancing, social events (as background noise), to accompany films and other arts and to fill empty space (elevator music). Classical music requires a certain degree of quiet and attention (concert hall, headphones) for the listener to adequately hear and appreciate what is usually a complex web of sounds.
That said, any music primarily meant to be focused on and just listened to, is "classical" music. If you sit at home and listen to hip-hop music through your $1,000 headphones and concentrate on every lyric and every blip and electronic drum beat - well, then that's classical music. Sorry. If you repeatedly go to Yanni concerts, sit in your seat, quietly listen and hear new things going on in the same piece of music each time - well, then that's classical music.
For many people, such as those who post on this site, their aural attention usually requires something a bit more complex than hip hop or Yanni. They want their sounds arranged in a bit more orderly, harmonically, melodically and rhythmically complex way which bears repeated listening and admiration for their creators. Tonal or atonal.
So as long as people are writing music for which people are willing to set aside a chunk of time without distractions for the sole purpose of listening to it, we will continue to have some avatar of "classical" music. What it will sound like, I think no-one quite knows.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I think that the obvious disruptor for all types of music has been changes in its dissemination due to the internet. In terms of classical, I think that the traditional concert format is already changing, so film and video game music is probably another disruptive influence. It could potentially lead further to changes in the way music and images come together in live performance.

I think that there’s potential to develop new areas of repertoire, especially for smaller ensembles, including string quartets and those specialising in areas like HIP. In these tough post-covid times, economies of scale are in their favour. Over time, lesser known composers of the past (e.g. Zelenka, the Bach sons, Hummel) have become more widely recorded, which has increased listener familiarity of them. Harnessing this could actually help diversify live performance, at least on a small scale.

I don’t think that avant-garde (or alternative) music is a problem. If anything, it’s part of the diversity of what’s happening, and has been for some time now. Give a bit of time, and some of it could even become more mainstream. This happened with Philip Glass, who was part of that New York loft scene in the '70's, before becoming famous. Same thing has happened outside classical, for example with rap, punk and techno.

I think that the real danger is stagnation, or even irrelevance. I don’t know if opera is there yet, but in all honesty I think it’s even less sustainable than mainstream orchestral (even though there too, financial imperatives have come to influence programming, with musicals being produced as part of the regular season). Perhaps I’m showing some bias, because I couldn’t care less about opera.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Sid James said:


> I think that the real danger is stagnation, or even irrelevance. I don’t know if opera is there yet, but in all honesty I think it’s even less sustainable than mainstream orchestral (even though there too, financial imperatives have come to influence programming, with musicals being produced as part of the regular season). Perhaps I’m showing some bias, because I couldn’t care less about opera.


I think anyone who denies that classical music and opera are about 100 years past their prime (not wrt quality but general relevance and societal status) is kidding themselves. It has only become less relevant for decades and I don't think there is anything anyone can do about that now. 
This decline was "masked" by its slowness and by the spread of middle class habits to broader sections of the populace in the affluent 1950s-70s. This does not mean that classical music will completely vanish, of course it will not, but it will become more niche and not regain the societal status it had until the early 20th century (and to some extent until the 1960s or so). We also might have our perception skewed by the (late) 19th century when classical music had probably its highest status in history and there was also a fringe of semi-classical-popular music (like operetta, waltzes etc.) that was continuous with "serious CM". Remnants of the latter still existed until a few decades ago but with the Webber-style musicals (that are often more reliant on varieté-like show and stagecraft than music) having replaced operetta (that were basically light comic operas) this continuum is basically disrupted.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

RandallPeterListens said:


> If you sit at home and listen to hip-hop music through your $1,000 headphones and concentrate on every lyric and every blip and electronic drum beat - well, then that's classical music. Sorry.


No. Not sorry. If you use a stone or a heavy spanner to drive a nail into a plank, the stone or spanner do not become a hammer only because they are used like one. 
I agree that there is an attentive (or even contemplative) mode of listening and as you say, one can listen in this mode to everything (including birdsong or forest murmurs). But there is still a difference between music that was intentionally written for the attentive listening mode and music that was not mainly written for the attentive mode (but for dancing, background, worship, whatever). Most classical is of the former type, most popular is not.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

There may be some classical listener bias involved. I don't really believe that the majority of the population were invested in this sort of music in the 19th century. Certainly more people than when it was a closed shop in royal courts or gala evenings for the toffs, but the majority of people outside that strata perhaps not. There's also this notion that loads of people had pianos in the parlour and bought sheet music. Again, a section of the middle classes. I don't doubt that some people would have likely enjoyed it had they been given access, but not everyone. As such the idea that it's all drastically shrivelled up in the face of whatever changes is make believe.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

The majority rarely matters and never did and probably never will (cf. Italian elite theory, Pareto, Michels etc.). Something like the status of art is determined by complex processes, it's not a majority but neither elites or some "experts" (because not all experts are influential).
As I wrote often before, I think people underestimate how widespread at least some "classical" music was. Everybody could go to church to listen to music. At least in some places and epochs there was additionally public free CM, think of occasions like "Royal Fireworks".
As of the late 18th century, opera was not as exclusive as one might think (e.g. Magic flute in a not at all courtly theater attended by middle classes) and popular tunes travelled beyond this. Mozart's tunes from Figaro were supposedly sung by maidservants and only one generation later around 1820 we have a hilarious vignette by Heinrich Heine who cannot escape the bridesmaid's chorus ("Wir winden dir den Jungfernkranz") from Freischütz because it's whistled, sung or played on some piano everywhere. And later the popular tunes from Italian opera were played by organ grinders.
What changed in the last 50 years it that the societal elites mostly ceased to care for any "high culture", incl. classical music (probably an unintended consequence of the social and cultural changes in the 60s), so the middle classes that usually tend emulate the cultural habits of upper classes also cared less about CM and opera. So despite the growth of the middle class since the mid-20th century, CM has vaned in the last decades.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Kreisler jr said:


> No. Not sorry. If you use a stone or a heavy spanner to drive a nail into a plank, the stone or spanner do not become a hammer only because they are used like one.
> I agree that there is an attentive (or even contemplative) mode of listening and as you say, one can listen in this mode to everything (including birdsong or forest murmurs). But there is still a difference between music that was intentionally written for the attentive listening mode and music that was not mainly written for the attentive mode (but for dancing, background, worship, whatever). Most classical is of the former type, most popular is not.


Rap music of the highest class requires attention to details.
The beat is usually not sophisticated, but the things that happen inside the lyrics are crazy.






This doesn't mean tha rap is classical music. It's simply wrong the premise that ONLY classical music requires analytic ears to fully understand the artistic value. So, a piece of music is not classical only because it requires attention.

As I've already written, classical music is simply a musical and cultural tradition, which before the 20th century used to produce music with a recognizable aesthetics and forms.


----------



## HerbertNorman (Jan 9, 2020)

@DaveM gets it completely right regarding education and upbringing imo.
How about the views of some young children? Like my children now, they're just getting to know classical music, music in general and starting out playing an instrument. They start out with tonal, melodic music and relate to easy to understand melodies... , I think we can all agree on that. Atm I am explaining them the basics of music theory.
It's all about getting them into music , for instance by letting them discover the repertoire of the instrument of their choice ... (In my case that is the french horn and the piano)...
In primary school they are just starting out with getting some music during the week.
I mostly listen to tonal and sometimes to atonal music . I've let my children hear some Mozart , Beethoven, Brahms and some Ligeti, Lutoslawski (amongst others)... while explaining the difference a bit in their "language" , so they could understand why the sound was so different.
I feel that this is what will make, form the classical music listeners of tomorrow ... It's all about offering your children the chance of getting to know the music. But at the end of the day it is their choice. I will take them to concerts , be it Brahms , Mozart, Ligéti or Webern !


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

How much better will DeepBach get in the future?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Kreisler jr said:


> it will become more niche and not regain the societal status it had until the early 20th century (and to some extent until the 1960s or so).


Here's a perspective on classical music, from the early 20th century-

"But generally speaking, the interest in the older oratorios is waning, not only in New York but all over the country. The ears of our audiences have lost pleasure in the simpler harmonies of Handel and Haydn, and accustomed to the richer orchestration of today, find the accompaniments of the Handelian orchestra thin and archaic. Something of the simple and naïve religious faith that inspired the old oratorios has also gone, and the composer has not yet been found who can voice the faith and aspirations of today. It is a pity that the old oratorio form should therefore be neglected. I think, however, that it is not dead but only sleeps, and will awaken again." -Walter Damrosch, 1923 (from "Reviving Haydn: New Appreciations in the Twentieth Century", by Brian Proksch, P. 54)


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

This was old music, of course nobody cared. But this is an indication that the music was alive and not to 80% or more a museum of the past. Most music on stage in 1900 was probably from the last 30-50 years at that time. When do you think actual, new classical music was for the last time as "hot" as e.g. operas Puccini, Strauss, Leoncavallo etc. around 1900? Or the premiere of Mahler's 8th, attended by lots of famous musicians, writers, intellectuals. These were major cultural events and a lot of the music was also fairly popular. I doubt there has been anything like that after 1940 and very little even in the 1920s and 30s. (The biggest hits then were probably already from classical-popular intersection like Weill and Gershwin.)
Not for new compositions but we see an afterglow of this in the 1950s and 60s with e.g. Callas being a superstar like today's movie or popular music stars.

The status and the presence in everyday cultural life (like public TV) has sharply declined since that time. I doubt that today even heavily popularified stuff like Three Tenors or Mercury+Caballé 25-30 years ago would take place. This doesn't much affect the 5% or so of core fans and listeners but it dries up the "new recruits" and lets the music vanish from the general awareness.
(I wrote this once in the opera forum or so; when I was a teenager around 1990 not only Carreras with his leucemia charity would appear in German saturday night quiz&game shows but even an aging Hermann Prey could show up there and sing the first song of Winterreise. In general public TV saturday night! A bit earlier in the 70s, so I am too young for it, Anneliese Rothenberger had for a while her own TV show with popular operetta and opera stuff. This sounds like another millenium )


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

Kreisler jr said:


> This was old music, of course nobody cared. But this is an indication that the music was alive and not to 80% or more a museum of the past. Most music on stage in 1900 was probably from the last 30-50 years at that time. When do you think actual, new classical music was for the last time as "hot" as e.g. operas Puccini, Strauss, Leoncavallo etc. around 1900? Or the premiere of Mahler's 8th, attended by lots of famous musicians, writers, intellectuals. These were major cultural events and a lot of the music was also fairly popular. I doubt there has been anything like that after 1940 and very little even in the 1920s and 30s.


That 'old music' at the time though was 'the classics' and to be frank there wasn't a great deal of choice for the general public and a lot of people didn't hear much music anyway. Only later with radio and sound recordings. Anything in 1900 that was from the previous decade was still 'new' and not everyone liked it, let alone the contemporary music after 1900. From our perspective here in 2022 people are talking about music in ranges from between 500 to 150 years old, which we've had the good fortune to rediscover and hear at will, and lamenting that the general public isn't enthusiastic enough. That's fairly absurd.
Back in the late '40s and especially in the '50s to '70s, was when classical music had a (still niche) audience and it was in good measure driven by the development of sound recordings. Yet it was also during the rise of flm and TV and popular music. From the 50s onwards the bulk of youth were not listening to so-called classical music. In fact most weren't listening to it before then either apart from 'orchestra pops'. Big sheet music sales in the 1920s was for things like Irving Berlin and Ivor Novello songs and Tin Pan Alley, not reductions of Mahler.

Most of all the classical music after the 1920s, with some moving in a different direction, simply _coincides_ with the rise of a different strand of popular culture. The thesis in a couple of recent threads is that 'new music' somehow caused a general classical audience decline; as if up to then the general public were eagerly anticipating Arthur Bliss's next new symphony. It's not even real.

This thread in particular is like discussing: 'My views on the _future_ of the novel as written between 1600 to 1890..' They don't have a future as the centre-point of the cultural present, they are the past. The OP is saying something equal to: I prefer novels such as the picaresque novel of Cervantes and those grand novels of the 19th century...newer novels are not identical to these...therefore something is wrong and we must fix it!'

The short answer to this is: _no_.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

AndorFoldes said:


> Let's not forget the most important factor that will determine the future of classical music: Funding. The reason serialism became a big deal after the Second World War, in spite of having little commercial appeal, was, you guessed it, funding.
> 
> As long as states and patrons keep supplying money to classical musicians, classical music will have a future. And the specific direction it will go will be determined by the people who are in charge of allocating the funds.
> 
> The classics will likely survive as they do have the benefit of having some commercial appeal, and so there will be an incentive to keep playing them in order to fill concert halls.





composingmusic said:


> I agree that the point regarding education is very important. From what I have seen, music education does correlate strongly with how people engage with CM (both common practice and post-1900). I've lived in a few different countries: one of them has very strong government support for the arts (A), one of them has almost none (B), and the third is somewhere in the middle (C), although the arts has suffered from funding cuts very recently.
> 
> In country A, there is widespread music education across the country, including publicly funded music institution for children and continuing education. This is in addition to conservatoire training that is available at uni level and beyond. Notably, there isn't a view of contemporary classical music as somehow being "elitist" or "difficult." Sure, people acknowledge that it's more abstract, but there doesn't seem to be this view that it's somehow inherently difficult, at least not as much as I've seen elsewhere. I've seen concerts with programmes that might be considered a difficult sell in other countries, where the concert hall is completely packed. Another interesting point: because there is more arts funding, ticket prices in concert halls tend to be relatively reasonable, and this encourages people to go watch concerts.
> 
> ...





Chat Noir said:


> It does apply to the Netherlands (and Belgium and France ), though for all these it depends where it is. There are cities where it has been so deeply intertwined into the culture and character of the city that infrastructure and prevailing culture has built up over the centuries. In that sense it is expected to exist. Some places hold festivals, there's one in Utrecht in the Netherlands wholly concerned with 'early music' (festival oudmuziek), perhaps you know it? This is facilitated by the long history of music in that city and assisted now by the large presence of the old churches holding regular music performances. All these provide opportunities for those coming from the conservatoire and also for organists. The one in the Janskerk has a youtube channel.
> 
> And still this doesn't mean that the wider general public is involved. When I lived in Bruges for a time it was fairly easy to find music performances, but it's not like the public were especially imbued with the music there. The presence of this sort of culture within the wider culture is a choice made by government, schools and individuals. In that order. Syllabuses for education in these countries are usually national policy, not fractured between states. It's one way to gain a least some cultural cohesion. It's a choice because it matters what the general policy wants to promote. When governments wanted to promote computing for public education into new technologies, they just did that. They exposed people to it. It doesn't mean everyone becomes a programmer, but it becomes part of the general education.
> 
> I know that had music not been part of my early schooling - plus being part of a choir and seeing instrumental music - I possibly would have been largely ignorant of it. Mathematics, history, geography etc is taken for granted as obviously needed, whereas with things like music and other arts you're only encouraged if you first demonstrate interest.



I see that in your posts there is the recurrent idea that reviving classical music is a task of the state.

Now, if you tell me that the state must fund education (including music education) so that it's accessible to anyone I completely agree, but it's not the state that must revive classical music.
It's basically the opposite.

In short, does the state have to sustain orchestras and classical music composers with public funds? No!


State service with public funds Vs Private service without public funds. What's difference?

The first kind of services don't have to make the consumers happy, because they can't decide if they want to buy the services or not. They pay the services through the taxes, and taxes are money taken by citzens with the use of the force.
The second kind of services, on the other hand, have to make the consumers happy, otherwise they don't have revenue and so they fail.

Now, you can pay classical music composers with the money of people who don't like their music, if you want, but this won't persuade them to listen to music they don't like. They won't go to classical music concerts.

On the other hand, a private classical music business that has to survive with its own forces will have to elaborate some kinds of classical music that the folks enjoy, and therefore there is a greater chance that classical music is relaunched with the free market.

In simple words: Mozart and Beethoven were crowd-pleasers. The contemporary composers must become crowd-pleasers like them, otherwise classical music will die.


You seem to not understand the reasons for which popular music is winning the competition against classical music with a score 10-1.
The reason is precisely that popular music is a private, aggressive market, so the composers of the industry are crowd-pleasers and their products are highly promoted.
It's not the state that has promoted the pop/rock stars! If the state would produce the popular music, there would be no connection between the public artists and the tastes of the folks, while the industry has to make sure to understand the tastes of the folks and launch artists that create a connection with them.


Finally, the cinema is also an industry and shows what is the kind of orchestral music that the folks like. You simply have to create symphonies with the aesthetic/sound/style of film music to relaunch classical music.
We need piececes of modern classical music that become popular like the Swan Theme, Eine Kleine Nachtmusik and The Four Seasons. Our era must leave its mark on popular culture like the music of the past eras.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

HansZimmer said:


> In short, does the state have to sustain orchestras and classical music composers with public funds? No!


'Have to' is not the question. It's if they 'want to' for whatever reasons.


HansZimmer said:


> State service with public funds Vs Private service without public funds. What's difference?


The words 'public funds' are misleading you. You think (as stated below) that this consists of money they 'raised' from the public. You are wrong. Not a bit wrong, but 100% in error. The big difference is that the state (or a monetary sovereign nation anyway, like e.g. Switzerland) does not save in the currency it issues. It doesn't have to make profits. It also doesn't go financially bankrupt. Note 'financially'. It can purchase anything for sale its own currency. Private sector players cannot. They are currency _users_. The difference is gigantic.


HansZimmer said:


> The first kind of services don't have to make the consumers happy, because they can't decide if they want to buy the services or not. They pay the services through the taxes, and taxes are money taken by citzens with the use of the force.


Wrong. None of those service are funded by any taxes when the state pays for them. The state issues money by the act of spending. Every time. None of this is 'from citizens'. It is in fact the complete reverse: the money you are using came because government spent at all.


HansZimmer said:


> The second kind of services, on the other hand, have to make the consumers happy, otherwise they don't have revenue and so they fail.


What? This is incoherent. There is no financial 'loss' even if the government decided to run regular nightly concerts. They pay musicians who use that money to pay to live. It makes no difference who provides that money in that sense. The major difference, as above, is that the private sector as a user can run out of it. The issuer never does. Only 'real resources' have a limit.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Chat Noir said:


> 'Have to' is not the question. It's if they 'want to' for whatever reasons.
> 
> The words 'public funds' are misleading you. You think (as stated below) that this consists of money they 'raised' from the public. You are wrong. Not a bit wrong, but 100% in error. The big difference is that the state (or a monetary sovereign nation anyway, like e.g. Switzerland) does not save in the currency it issues. It doesn't have to make profits. It also doesn't go financially bankrupt. Note 'financially'. It can purchase anything for sale its own currency. Private sector players cannot. They are currency _users_. The difference is gigantic.
> 
> ...


Sorry, are you saying that in the western states the citzens pay thousands of dollars of taxes because the governments are sadistic? This is not a forum for politics and economics, but the money doesn't grow on trees like many users in this forum think, and this is why the citzens pay taxes.

Do you want to use the public debt? The state must give back the money to the creditors with the interests! In Italy, where there is a big public debt, 10% of the taxes paid by the citzens are used to pay the interest of the public debt.
The public debt must be used for emergency situations, like for example when the government has not sufficient money for the public healthcare of this year: it's not a tool of which you can abuse.

Do you want to print new money? Have you ever heard about the inflation and about the Hyperinflation in Zimbabwe?
It must be noted that the inflation is worse than the public debt, especially for the poorest citzens.
This is why in western states the public banks are now independent (we don't want that politics have the control in monetary issuance) and we use the public debt (not the printer) when we don't have enough money for something.


By the way, this doesn't change the fundamental issues about which I was speaking.
If the state prints money to pay the classical music composers, there will be no connection between their music and the tastes of the folk, so the classical music will die.
If the composers have to persuade the folks and sell tickets, they will have to take in consideration the tastes of the folks and they will create a kind of classical music that people like.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

HansZimmer said:


> Sorry, are you saying that in the western states the citzens pay thousands of dollars of taxes because the governments are sadistic? This is not a forum for politics and economics, but the money doesn't grow on trees like many users in this forum think, and this is why the citzens pay taxes.


I'm glad you apologised at the start. Hopefully it was for the incoherent drivel that followed. There's no 'sadism' involved, taxes are paid to REMOVE money from circulation. It is a credit cancelling mechanism, not a funding one. The money you pay taxes with originated as money issue. It's a concept that runs counter o the usual newspaper chatter I grant you, but this is what it is.


HansZimmer said:


> Do you want to use the public debt? The state must give back the money to the creditors with the interests! In Italy, where there is a big public debt, 10% of the taxes paid by the citzens are used to pay the interest of the public debt.
> The public debt must be used for emergency situations, like for example when the government has not sufficient money for the public healthcare of this year: it's not a tool of which you can abuse.


I just informed you that taxes are not funding. Bond interest payments are funded by money issue. It is tiny. And they can always meet it (special circumstances though for EU countries because they are essentially users rather than issuers). If you know of a sovereign money issuer which has failed to meet such a payment, I will be interested to hear about it. You won't find it. The government always has sufficient money for public spending, I just told you this. The limit is 'real resources' not currency. Bond sales aren't 'borrowing' anything, they are the normal draining of excess bank reserves in exchange for an interest-bearing asset; since banks prefer them to non-interest accruing excess reserves. It is a relic of the gold standard economy repurposed. It now functions to create fiscal space in monetarist closed economy which imagines it can directly control money supply, and rich people who buy them on the secondary market prefer them to taxation. They are in effect corporate welfare.


HansZimmer said:


> Do you want to print new money? Have you ever heard about the inflation and about the Hyperinflation in Zimbabwe?
> It must be noted that the inflation is worse than the public debt, especially for the poorest citzens.
> This is why in western states the public banks are now independent (we don't want that politics have the control in monetary issuance) and we use the public debt (not the printer) when we don't have enough money for something.


Do I want to? Issuing money already happens daily for all spending. They have complete control over issuance. It's just a factual operation. I have heard of Zimbabwe. I think you've only heard the name and the association and don't really know anything else about it. They had foreign-denominated debt and not enough resources/resource space. There are only two actual cases of hyperinflation, both are caused by the same group of background circumstances. Nothing to do with normal spending.

My advice to you is this: stick very closely to music. Because even though your opinions on that are shaky, you have no real understanding how monetary economies work and will end up looking very foolish indeed.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

mikeh375 said:


> @DaveM talks about education and I think he has a point. I also think the internet is one of several suspects responsible for the decline and attitude to CM, but the internet's reach is also an opportunity for the future of music imo.
> Institutions will no doubt continue to pump out composers (and performers for that matter) and at a high rate and standard. Sadly, the option to break into film music is probably much harder than getting tenure for a composer. The film industry is frankly saturated and has been for many years with wannabee composers who are not up to the task and good to excellent composers who will be lucky to get a break. Besides, a composer schooled enough to have their own musical wits sharpened for the concert hall may not want to write in such a popular or utilitarian way as they may feel as though they have a more personal expression that needs to be vented. If art music becomes entirely a priori utilitarian and/or simply cowtowing to popular tonal taste, then classical music as a continuing art form will lose out imo.


In many (most?) of the films a memorable soundtrack is not required. The producers only need someone who fills the silence.

In other films (a minority?) the music is considered an important part of the product and in these cases the film producers will usually take an elite composer from a shortlist. In USA the elite composers of the last decades have been John Williams, Hans Zimmer, James Horner (dead), Thomas Newman, Howard Shore, Alan Menken, Dave Grusin, John Barry...

I wouldn't say that the list of the elite composers is saturated, but it's surely not easy to join the list because the mentioned composers are very skilled in their job.


It must be noted that the best technician is not necessarily the best artist and the best artist is not necessarily the best technician. In some cases (Mozart and Beethoven) you have the both qualities in the same persons.
All of the composers mentioned here above have a university degree in music, except for Hans Zimmer, and this shows that the formal education helps in becoming succesful artists, but on the other hand Hans Zimmer is the exception that proves what I say: he has success despite the fact that he has not the same preparation in music theory like others. This is because a good artist is not always the best technician.


Finally, it must be noted that there is no conspiracy. The elite composers are not where they are because they are recommended. There were 10'000 composers in the industry (random number) and ten of them have composed many film scores which got nominations at the Grammies and at the Oscars.
The composers with high records became the elite composers.

You speak about "wannabee composers who are not up to the task". Who are? If you were thinking about the composers of the above list, you are completely wrong. They are where they are because their music works in respect to what the folks expect from film music.
What I'm saying in this discussion is that classical music must work in the same way in order to survive: the classical music composers which are able to create music of quality in respect to what the modern folks expect from music must become the new "classical music icons".


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

HansZimmer said:


> I wouldn't say that the list of the elite composers is saturated, but it's surely not easy to join the list because the mentioned composers are very skilled in their job.



err Hans, you have misunderstood my post completely. I wasn't talking about elite composers, my post was referring to how difficult it is to break in to the film industry and how many 'wannabee' composers are trying to do just that, good and bad . This is all within the context of DaveM's post about composers making a living...do keep up for the sake of good conversation.
It's always a good idea to read posts properly and to also consider the context and content of the posts they are responding too I've found. That way, there's no shooting off in the wrong direction and attempting to preach to people who know the score anyways...just a thought.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Kreisler jr said:


> The majority rarely matters and never did and probably never will (cf. Italian elite theory, Pareto, Michels etc.). Something like the status of art is determined by complex processes, it's not a majority but neither elites or some "experts" (because not all experts are influential).
> As I wrote often before, I think people underestimate how widespread at least some "classical" music was. Everybody could go to church to listen to music. At least in some places and epochs there was additionally public free CM, think of occasions like "Royal Fireworks".
> As of the late 18th century, opera was not as exclusive as one might think (e.g. Magic flute in a not at all courtly theater attended by middle classes) and popular tunes travelled beyond this. Mozart's tunes from Figaro were supposedly sung by maidservants and only one generation later around 1820 we have a hilarious vignette by Heinrich Heine who cannot escape the bridesmaid's chorus ("Wir winden dir den Jungfernkranz") from Freischütz because it's whistled, sung or played on some piano everywhere. And later the popular tunes from Italian opera were played by organ grinders.
> What changed in the last 50 years it that the societal elites mostly ceased to care for any "high culture", incl. classical music (probably an unintended consequence of the social and cultural changes in the 60s), so the middle classes that usually tend emulate the cultural habits of upper classes also cared less about CM and opera. So despite the growth of the middle class since the mid-20th century, CM has vaned in the last decades.


I think there was a period for a while where "light music" was fairly popular among average listeners but that fell by the wayside with the rise of modern pop music. 

In any case light music/light classical isn't really what most really "hardcore" classical listeners have too much of an interest in.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Chat Noir said:


> I'm glad you apologised at the start. Hopefully it was for the incoherent drivel that followed. There's no 'sadism' involved, taxes are paid to REMOVE money from circulation. It is a credit cancelling mechanism, not a funding one. The money you pay taxes with originated as money issue. It's a concept that runs counter o the usual newspaper chatter I grant you, but this is what it is.


It look like the Modern Money Theory. Isn't it?

My source are not the newspapers, but Michele Boldrin, a famous university professor in the field of economy.

Michele Boldrin - Wikipedia

I don't know if you are able to follow this video. It's in italian. I can translate the beginning for you.

"Today I will speak of a difficult subject: to try to discuss the difference between money and debt. The goal is to silence the argument according to which the public debt wouldn't be a problem if Italy had the so called 'monetary sovereignty', namely that if the italian central bank could issue money to buy the debt, or, even better, if the central italian bank would directly finance the italian government, we wouldn't have any problem. Now, to understand why a monetary politic of this kind would be wrong and could cause damages, and why we try to mantain a balance between the public debt, the PIL and the money supply and why we now understand that the central banks which issue FIAT money used without any control and without any constraint to buy the public debt create disasters, we have to understand what is the money and what is the public debt".






After my translation there is a long explanation. I can not translate the entire video, but the opinion of the professor is quite clear.



> My advice to you is this: stick very closely to music. Because even though your opinions on that are shaky, you have no real understanding how monetary economies work and will end up looking very foolish indeed.


So, are there wrong opinions in music?

I think that you should tell to Michele Boldrin that he doesn't understand the monetary economies. You have to know that he's open to debates with the folks in youtube live streams.

He has already made a debate with a man who supports the Modern Money Theory.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

HansZimmer said:


> I think that you should tell to Michele Boldrin that he doesn't understand the monetary economies. You have to know that he's open to debates with the folks in youtube live streams.


I know about this fellow already. He's exceptionally confused and stubborn. Like a lot of them who have had the rug pulled from under their feet in the last 10-15 years. He still can't get the past the idea of what 'public debt' means, he also wheels out the 'money supply control', a notion even deprecated by the New Money Consensus (new monetarism) which originally promoted it in the first place! He claims there are 'no constraints' positied, even when no-one ever said so. It makes him another unwitting monetarist. His statement:



> ...the argument according to which the public debt wouldn't be a problem if Italy had the so called 'monetary sovereignty', namely that if the italian central bank could issue money to buy the debt, or, even better, if the central italian bank would directly finance the italian government, we wouldn't have any problem.


Is both ignorant (even on a basic level) and a symptom of not having even read the arguments he's aiming to critique. He thinks it is there as law of nature rather than policy, or something 'unavoidable'. There's no argument made that 'if' the Italian central bank could do this or that, it already does it. As far as the ideological growth and stability pact of the EU allows, which otherwise ties their hands, leaving the slack to be picked up by the ECB. Anyone with a functioning brain who cares to look closely can see this. It's very clear that this problem doesn't exist for e.g. Japan (yes we know 300% of GDP...gosh! and still they're in a better position than any EU country and for the last 30 years. And guess what, they also subsidise classical music).
Greece is a classic example of what happens when you dissolve your own monetary sovereignty and can no longer meet bond interest payments after issuing them, since the new risk factor for a government which can ow actually default demands a raise in the interest payment rate. It's clear they didn't understand what they were doing. What people like Boldrin can't grasp is that 'debt issue' for sovereign issuers is a policy _choice,_ not a necessity. He was roundly demolished by Mosler in one of his debates, who just stopped it when Boldrin became merely obtusely repetitive and abusive. He's a noisy lightweight.

I'll gladly tell him so as well. I've already done it with Gerald Epstein on Twitter; another with the same sort of uninformed critique.



HansZimmer said:


> So, are there wrong opinions in music?


Not in matters of taste, but otherwise, yes there are wrong opinions. This OP of this thread started with a list of them.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

HansZimmer said:


> Rap music of the highest class requires attention to details.
> The beat is usually not sophisticated, but the things that happen inside the lyrics are crazy.
> 
> 
> ...


Anyone who has experience writing poetry will understand that the above is not impressive. In addition to being a composer, I am also a poet and have been published several times so I have experience with this.

What Eminem is essentially doing is writing Abstract Verse and Rhyme. It is a form of “Sound Poetry”. Abstract Poetry is some of the easiest to write. See here for its formal definition:

Abstract or Sound Poetry: Poetic Forms

The reason it is so easy is because you don’t have to follow any formal structure when putting the rhyming words together (meaning, that you can put the words one after the other or put in one or two words between the rhyming words if you need help with the context), further, the words you are using mold your thoughts so that it is easier to focus your ideas with where you are going and what you are saying. Sometimes the number of rhyming words you can choose from to rhyme with the word you are using is limited, which can actually make it easier, not harder. If a word doesn’t fit, start with a new word, and within seconds you’ll be back on track.

It would be much harder to do if the rhymes were NOT rapid-fire one after the other (INTERNAL rhyming, assonance) and if they all weren’t the same sound. Let’s say Eminem had to write a sonnet in iambic pentameter with the abab rhyme scheme in the first quatrain and the rhymes at the END of the lines. It is MUCH harder than what he is doing above.

Why? Because the choices are exponentially higher. When he’s rhyming one after the other, he knows the sound of the next word (or one of the next words) already. It MUST be same as a previous one that is close by (let’s say it’s the very next one). That is only ONE word to look for. Let’s say there are only 8 words that rhyme with that word. That’s only 8 options you are choosing from. But if you’re writing a sonnet or sestina or something with end rhymes that where you have to fill up space between the lines (if a sonnet, it’s 5 iambs, possibly 10 syllables, and the rhyme is going to be TWO lines away, so double the iambs/syllables) BEFORE the rhyme happens, now how many choices do you have to make? See how it went WAY up?

Don’t believe me?

Here, this took me literally 30 seconds to write this:


_Who can’t maintain a straight face, losin’ his breath that ain’t fresh,

Wearin’ pants so tight he might cry so slight like my boy Franz,

Thinner than HanzZimmer…_



And just on and on and on and on and on forever.



I rhymed who with lose (losin’)

I rhymed main with tain (maintain)

I rhymed straight with face,

I rhymed maintain with straight and face

I rhymed breath with fresh

I rhymed tight with might and cry and slight and like

I rhymed Franz with Hanz

I rhymed thinner with Zimmer



I know it’s not exactly Grammy award stuff, but given a few days or hours,* anybody could write* this.

Anyone here should try it. If you don’t want to do a rap, just do a little abstract poem. Pick an easy word to rhyme, like day or cat.

Do that. Improvise a poem or rap with day and cat in the abstract sound poem style. It ain’t hard.

Day, today, may, pray, stay, way, cat, hat, mat, sat, bat, rat, etc. Go to a rhymer website and type in those words and improvise something. It’s easy. I did all those words in a few seconds without any help.

NOW try and write a poem with those same words AT THE END OF THE LINES ONLY, no internal rhyming. And use 8 syllables per line. See the difference?



BTW, I like Weird Al’s version of the song better. Much more clever. I don’t think he struggled to hard with it. And this is much more imaginative in my view. The rhyming is similar to the Eminem, but they had to write melodies and harmonies with the lyrics:


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

This is marvellous. I'm giving up work and becoming an abstract poet (or rapper). If it's that popular I can retire richer than slaving over string and big band arrangements!


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

> know it’s not exactly Grammy award stuff, but given a few days or hours,* anybody could write* this.


Remember that Eminem became a rap star because he had excellent skills with improvisation. He doesn't need a few days to create good rhymes. Only one second.

He began his career as an improviser, and then he became a rap songwriter and a producer.



Torkelburger said:


> Here, this took me literally 30 seconds to write this:
> 
> 
> _Who can’t maintain a straight face, losin’ his breath that ain’t fresh,
> ...


This text doesn't make sense, however. The mission in the Eminem's song is to tell a story.

I don't know exactly how good is Eminem as a poet. I just know that he is much better than the average pop songwriters and librettists of operas.

The point is that rap is less sophisticated from the compositional perspective than other genres, but this is compensated by the greater complexity of lyrics.
Furthermore there is a fundamental difference between poems and lyrics of songs: in the latters the lyrics must be combined with music. As explained in the above video, Eminem make sure that a determined sound is always on the same drum.
In few words, in a rap song the whole thing must produce a perfect sound because it's music. Eminem is probably one of the best rapper of the world considering all the skills required in his genre: he creates a perfect sound.

You should also consider what he does with the lyrics in the final part of this song (11:51).


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

Chat Noir said:


> This is marvellous. I'm giving up work and becoming an abstract poet (or rapper). If it's that popular I can retire richer than slaving over string and big band arrangements!


Be smart, put your heart into those charts, aim for the stars hard.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

Oh please. The fat cat sat on the mat so I took a bat and hits it dead in the head, Fred. Good grief dude.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Chat Noir said:


> I know about this fellow already. He's exceptionally confused and stubborn. Like a lot of them who have had the rug pulled from under their feet in the last 10-15 years. He still can't get the past the idea of what 'public debt' means, he also wheels out the 'money supply control', a notion even deprecated by the New Money Consensus (new monetarism) which originally promoted it in the first place! He claims there are 'no constraints' positied, even when no-one ever said so. It makes him another unwitting monetarist. His statement:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are saying that an university professor of economy doesn't know what he says and that you know his subject better than him. Why should I believe to you and not to him?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

I didn’t realize that Mozart and Brahms composed in the 1980s. That’s 40 years ago now. No wonder only people of my generation still listen to it.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

HansZimmer said:


> Remember that Eminem became a rap star because he had excellent skills with improvisation. He doesn't need a few days to create good rhymes. Only one second.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Um, no. I do not care to listen to someone tell me about vomiting their mommy's spaghetti on their sweater before that all-important rap-battle, thanks. And the theme is extremely tired and worn out.

The point as I said and you didn't listen, was that it took literally a few seconds so sure. Further, rhyming, especially abstract rapid-fire assonance which this is, is cheap and easy and is the easiest form of poetic art to do. People are easily impressed by these cheap tricks because they have no experience and are ignorant.

There is not near as much complexity in this as you think. The incessant rhyming is NOT impressive. It is cheap and easy, vlugar and incredibly ANNOYING. There is one instance where he rhymes a word with itself. Sweat with sweat (sweaty with sweater, the "analyst" counted this as a "rhyme". It ain't. That's repetition. Not rhyme. If you count it as rhyme, that's cheating.) What is more, many of the rhyming words are not actual words in the english language and I'm not even sure some of them are even words in street slang. Sounds like he just made up words in the chorus just to cheat on a rhyme.

And the point you are making about lining up syllables and/or words on a beat/drum is not special to rap. Even free verse poets count syllables and iambs (Sylvia Plath, for one example).


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

HansZimmer said:


> You are saying that an university professor of economy doesn't know what he says and that you know his subject better than him. Why should I believe to you and not to him?


Yes, I am saying exactly that. I don't really care who you believe, it doesn't change the operational facts. I've given you many of them and you have no answers, no matter who your guru is. Normally I don't enter into such discussions because they're exhausting. Large swathes of the general public and unfortunately many mainstream 'economists' (which is now a dubious subject, with people entering way outside their sphere of knowledge) are clueless and trapped in a 45-year ideological bubble. The only reason I have pushed back is because I'm not going sit back whilst dabblers use false information as part of their arguments about the funding of classical music.

It's probably wiser to not discuss that aspect. However, if you do persist I will continue to correct you.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

Clips from actual interviews with the colossal moron who, I mean "genius wordsmith", who does not know the word "genre" (says music has a "gender" when he means "genre"), and speaks in TRIPLE NEGATIVES, not once, but twice. Hilarious.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

Torkelburger said:


> Be smart, put your heart into those charts, aim for the stars hard.


It might be too late for me anyway. I only have about ten years of work left (apart from anything I want to do for myself afterwards). I should have made the leap 25 years ago.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Torkelburger said:


> Clips from actual interviews with the colossal moron who, I mean "genius wordsmith", who does not know the word "genre" (says music has a "gender" when he means "genre"), and speaks in TRIPLE NEGATIVES, not once, but twice. Hilarious.


Eminem is a moron, it's a known fact. He is also one of best rappers of the world. Sometimes morons are highly skilled in something.

You will probably find many morons also between skilled guitarists.

Eminem also admits that he doesn't understand nothing except rap.


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

Chat Noir said:


> Yes, I am saying exactly that. I don't really care who you believe, it doesn't change the operational facts. I've given you many of them and you have no answers, no matter who your guru is. Normally I don't enter into such discussions because they're exhausting. Large swathes of the general public and unfortunately many mainstream 'economists' (which is now a dubious subject, with people entering way outside their sphere of knowledge) are clueless and trapped in a 45-year ideological bubble. The only reason I have pushed back is because I'm not going sit back whilst dabblers use false information as part of their arguments about the funding of classical music.
> 
> It's probably wiser to not discuss that aspect. However, if you do persist I will continue to correct you.


Another note on this: as you've mentioned before, arts funding is another area. The amount of funding going into the arts in countries such as Finland or Germany is a tiny percentage of the entire government budget, so even if it were directly coming from taxpayer dollars, it would be a minuscule amount per person. Actually, supporting the arts generates quite a good return on investment, both culturally and otherwise, considering how much you get for what the government spends.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

HansZimmer said:


> Eminem is a moron, it's a known fact. He is also one of best rappers of the world. Sometimes morons are highly skilled in something.


A broken clock is highly skilled at telling the correct time twice a day. Wonderfully skilled.


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

Torkelburger said:


> Be smart, put your heart into those charts, aim for the stars hard.


I suppose you could say I'm trying to do this in contemporary classical music (and it seems to be working out relatively well so far!)


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Torkelburger said:


> A broken clock is highly skilled at telling the correct time twice a day. Wonderfully skilled.


I don't get the point.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

HansZimmer said:


> Sometimes morons are highly skilled in something.


Quite.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

broken clock = moron

tell time = skill

broken clock, no skill, except the kind that requires none (the time of day that matches when it broke)


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Chat Noir said:


> Yes, I am saying exactly that. I don't really care who you believe, it doesn't change the operational facts. I've given you many of them and you have no answers, no matter who your guru is. Normally I don't enter into such discussions because they're exhausting. Large swathes of the general public and unfortunately many mainstream 'economists' (which is now a dubious subject, with people entering way outside their sphere of knowledge) are clueless and trapped in a 45-year ideological bubble. The only reason I have pushed back is because I'm not going sit back whilst dabblers use false information as part of their arguments about the funding of classical music.
> 
> It's probably wiser to not discuss that aspect. However, if you do persist I will continue to correct you.


"*Modern Monetary Theory* or *Modern Money Theory* (*MMT*) is a heterodox[1] macroeconomic theory that describes currency as a public monopoly and unemployment as evidence that a currency monopolist is overly restricting the supply of the financial assets needed to pay taxes and satisfy savings desires.[2][3] MMT is opposed to the mainstream understanding of macroeconomic theory and has been criticized heavily by many mainstream economists."

Modern Monetary Theory - Wikipedia

Basically, it's a bit like the flat earth theory.
Boldrin explains the macroeconomic theory that he teaches in university.
There are some persons in the population who believe in a fringe theory (MMT) and you are telling me that I have to consider this as a more reliable theory than the accademically accepted theories.

If I have a disease I have to go to the doctor or ask help to someone in a forum?
I still don't understand why you think to have more credit and knowledge in the field of economy than Boldrin.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Torkelburger said:


> broken clock = moron
> 
> tell time = skill
> 
> broken clock, no skill, except the kind that requires none (the time of day that matches when it broke)


To rap like eminem requires a lot of skills and training. Most rappers are not skilled like him. I've seen many persons who try to rap and look like clowns. It's not for everyone.

If what you said was true, everyone would be able to replace eminem tomorrow and become a millionaire.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

HansZimmer said:


> Basically, it's a bit like the flat earth theory.
> Boldrin explains the macroeconomic theory that he teaches in university.
> There are some persons in the population who believe in a fringe theory (MMT) and you are telling me that I have to consider this as a more reliable theory than the accademically accepted theories.
> 
> ...


I suppose the fact that the two main MMT theorists are also both professors of economics and both come in a long line of respected people (Kalecki, Minsky (who was Randy Wray's tutor), essentially Keynes arguably the most influential economist of the 20th century, Wynn Godley, Georg Knapp, Mitchell-Innes...) is just 'fringe' stuff? And some backwoods noise-maker is 'the facts'?

You'd do well to find out what you want to criticise before making that attempt. When the chief of the Fed says 'yes, it's essentially true as a description of operations'... it doesn't really matter what youtube's 'Boldrin' says does it? You're confusing the difference between things you want to be true, with things that actually are true.

Honestly, stick to being angry about modern music.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

HansZimmer said:


> To rap like eminem requires a lot of skills and training. Most rappers are not skilled like him. I've seen many persons who try to rap and look like clowns. It's not for everyone.
> 
> If what you said was true, everyone would be able to replace eminem tomorrow and become a millionaire.


Doesn't matter. Most painters can't paint like or be as famous as Bob Ross, but that doesn't make him any sort of artist to fawn over or vindicate for his style or technique.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

HansZimmer said:


> To rap like eminem requires a lot of skills and training. Most rappers are not skilled like him. I've seen many persons who try to rap and look like clowns. It's not for everyone.
> 
> If what you said was true, everyone would be able to replace eminem tomorrow and become a millionaire.


I'll take that bet, if Eminem died tomorrow, I would bet you all your money he would be replaced.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

HansZimmer said:


> As I'm 33 years old, I'd like to speak about my perspective about the future of classical music.
> I know no one in my age who listens to classical music.


I am 69, as of yesterday, and I know no one in my age who listens to classical music.  

(except for my new friends in cyber that I met here)


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Torkelburger said:


> Doesn't matter. Most painters can't paint like or be as famous as Bob Ross, but that doesn't make him any sort of artist to fawn over or vindicate for his style or technique.


Bob Ross might be not the best painter, as you put it, but Eminem is considered by many one of the best (if not the absolute best) of the world inside his art. I think that it's a resoneable point of view. 

I'm not a fan of rap music. I listen only to classical music and film music. I'm still able to see if someone is good or not in his genre of music.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Torkelburger said:


> I'll take that bet, if Eminem died tomorrow, I would bet you all your money he would be replaced.


At the moment I see no one who could replace Eminem between the famous rappers. A few of them might be as good as him technically, but his style is highly distinctive. You would need a clone to replace him.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

HansZimmer said:


> Bob Ross might be not the best painter, as you put it, but Eminem is considered by many one of the best (if not the absolute best) of the world inside his art. I think that it's a resoneable point of view.
> 
> I'm not a fan of rap music. I listen only to classical music and film music. I'm still able to see if someone is good or not in his genre of music.


McDonald’s is considered one of the best in the fast food industry. Let’s not put it on the same pedestal as legal seafoods (my fav ritzy renown place in Boston).


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

HansZimmer said:


> At the moment I see no one who could replace Eminem between the famous rappers. A few of them might be as good as him technically, but his style is highly distinctive. You would need a clone to replace him.


As you said plenty just as good. Style could be copied. Still taking that bet.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

HansZimmer said:


> At the moment I see no one who could replace Eminem between the famous rappers. A few of them might be as good as him technically, but his style is highly distinctive. You would need a clone to replace him.


how about weird Al?


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Torkelburger said:


> McDonald’s is considered one of the best in the fast food industry. Let’s not put it on the same pedestal as legal seafoods (my fav ritzy renown place in Boston).


Ok, basically you are saying that you don't like rap music. Fine. I've also become quite allergic to popular music in general (including rap) in the last years.

Yes, hip hop is a low culture which mostly produces music for teens. However I still think that to become a rap songwriter of the level of Eminem you need a lot of technical skills and fantasy.


----------



## AndorFoldes (Aug 25, 2012)

HansZimmer said:


> I see that in your posts there is the recurrent idea that reviving classical music is a task of the state.
> 
> Now, if you tell me that the state must fund education (including music education) so that it's accessible to anyone I completely agree, but it's not the state that must revive classical music.
> It's basically the opposite.
> ...


I didn't express the idea that states are responsible for funding classical music, I pointed out that funding will determine its future. At present, states play a major role in funding musicians and orchestras, including education as you mention.

Failure depends on your definition of the word. All those musicians who get paid for their work may not be too concerned that they aren't as popular as pop musicians.

It would certainly be interesting to see what would happen if market forces were allowed to take over completely. Remember that the recording industry has been mostly part of the free market, which is why we get so many recordings of the most popular repertoire.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

HansZimmer said:


> At the moment I see no one who could replace Eminem between the famous rappers. A few of them might be as good as him technically, but his style is highly distinctive. You would need a clone to replace him.





HansZimmer said:


> Ok, basically you are saying that you don't like rap music. Fine. I've also become quite allergic to popular music in general (including rap) in the last years.
> 
> Yes, hip hop is a low culture which mostly produces music for teens. However I still think that to become a rap songwriter of the level of Eminem you need a lot of technical skills and fantasy.



The fact that you're elevating "rap" as some kind of lofty musical genre tells me everything I need to know about you as a listener. Rap has been a cultural boon since its existence and has done nothing for music except give the masses their daily dosage of ear garbage. People only listen to it because it makes them look hip or cool. It certainly isn't because "rap" has anything meaningful or compelling to say musically, but most people have low musical standards anyway.

P.S. It takes zero talent to be a "rapper". Anyone can be a "rapper".


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Neo Romanza said:


> The fact that you're elevating "rap" as some kind of lofty musical genre tells me everything I need to know about you as a listener. Rap has been a cultural boon since its existence and has done nothing for music except give the masses their daily dosage of ear garbage. People only listen to it because it makes them look hip or cool. It certainly isn't because "rap" has anything meaningful or compelling to say musically, but most people have low musical standards anyway.
> 
> P.S. It takes zero talent to be a "rapper". Anyone can be a "rapper".


I have never written that it's a lofty musical genre. I have simply written that most people (including you, very likely) would never be able to create succesful rap songs with the quality standards of Eminem.

1) Creating a musical base with a catchy hook.
2) Writing MEANINGFUL lyrics (story telling) with intensive rhyming and a good metric
3) Interpret the lyrics in an intense and effective way

... which is what Eminem does for example in this song (catchy musical base, MEANINGFUL lyrics with intensive rhyming and good metric, intense and dramatic interpretation).






If your concept of rap is to write meaningless ryhmes (I put the rat in the mouth of the fat cat) and interpret it in a cheesy way over a musical base downloaded by internet, then everyone can be a rapper.
Becoming succesful and respected rap songwriters however is a completely different thing.

I'm able to run. All humans are able to run. However, not everyone is able to run like Marcell Jacobs.


To appreciate or not a determined rap song is a matter of tastes. You are free to think that the above song is "ear garbage", while I think that it's more catchy than a lot of modern classical music. So, what does exactly mean "ear garbage"?

If the people of the classical music world don't understand that the popular music (including rap) is winning the competition against classical music because it's perceived as more catchy than modern classical music by most persons, then classical music is doomed.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Torkelburger said:


> how about weird Al?


It sounds cheesy compared to the original song. There is clearily not the flow and the fluid metric of Eminem.

He sounds basically like the typical person who tries to rap without to have the skills required to do it well.

As English is not my native language I can't understand well what the lyrics say, but I can imagine that these are not serious/meaningful lyrics, like in the Eminem's song of my previous post.


In the industry there are also some rappers that are not very skilled. It's probably because many persons don't have good musical ears and can not distinguish cheesy rap from good rap.
The rappers without skills can reinforce the stereotype that everyone can become a rapper, thing which is basically true, because many of the uneducated teens that listen to this kind of music are apparently not able understand who is skilled and who is not skilled, so the music industry promotes singers and rappers without talent (in pop music there are also many singers who are not able to sing three notes without the autotune).
You could even say that everyone can become a singer in the modern industry: you just have to have the right knowledge, the autotune will do the rest.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

It's odd that our esteemed host is such a classical music conservative, but has risen to the defence of Sir Marshall Mathers (whom I find to be a very decent sort, even if I don't care for the music). Your talents are wasted Lord Zimmer, you should be on a hip-hop forum telling it how it is. 

By the way, has anyone ever noticed the astonishing similarities between Hans Zimmer's music and the hits of Gary Glitter?


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

HansZimmer said:


> It sounds cheesy compared to the original song. There is clearily not the flow and the fluid metric of Eminem.
> 
> He sounds basically like the typical person who tries to rap without to have the skills required to do it well.


No, the original song is what is a double whopper with cheese fest. The flow and fluid metric Al is doing is what makes the comedy work. If he couldn't do it, then it wouldn't be funny. And it is.



HansZimmer said:


> As English is not my native language I can't understand well what the lyrics say, but I can imagine that these are not serious/meaningful lyrics, like in the Eminem's song of my previous post.


Correct, it's much more entertaining, IMO. Lyrics here:



https://genius.com/Weird-al-yankovic-couch-potato-lyrics





HansZimmer said:


> The rappers without skills can reinforce the stereotype that everyone can become a rapper, thing which is basically true, because many of the uneducated teens that listen to this kind of music are apparently not able understand who is skilled and who is not skilled, so the music industry promotes singers and rappers without talent (in pop music there are also many singers who are not able to sing three notes without the autotune).


I would say the problem is with people like you who think that think that trivial skill to rhyme and count syllables at a very basic level is somehow miraculous, because they think rhyming is hard when it is isn't. Just look at the guy in the videos you post. And yes, the music industry promoting this as "genius".


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

HansZimmer said:


> 2) Writing MEANINGFUL lyrics (story telling) with intensive rhyming and a good metric


I see nothing great about the story telling at all. I see a lot of "telling" and not "showing" in most places. Also, as in most fiction that is written quickly or improvised, there are errors in story consistency. For example, in Lose Yourself he says that there is vomit on his sweater but then states "on the surface he looks calm and ready". It is impossible to look calm and ready with vomit all over you, no matter how much you've calmed down after vomiting on yourself.



HansZimmer said:


> If your concept of rap is to write meaningless ryhmes (I put the rat in the mouth of the fat cat)


Right, and of course you have absolutely no problem with say, this wonderful example from Till I Collapse (from the video you posted on page 3):

"Fa shizzel, my wizzel, this is the plot, listen up

you bizzels forgot, slizzel does not give a (expletive)"

Nah, we'll just let that lovely dose of "meaningful rhymes" slide, right? That ain't forced. Nope. He didn't pull that out of where the sun don't shine. That's stuff's "brilliant"!!!

A fat cat sitting on a mat is SOOO much more meaningless [roll eyes].

Or how about the chorus from Lose Yourself, eh? This lovely gem?:

"...the clock run out
time's out, Blaow!"

(that is literally what he said and is the exact spelling in the video)

Is Blaow even a word??? Even if it is (which it isn't) is it a MEANINGFUL word? He wouldn't be, oh, I don't know...FORCING RHYMES here, would he??? Making up utter nonsense just to be lazy and get a sound out that matches?

That old fat cat is making more and more sense these days.

Why couldn't he come up with "bow"? As in taking a bow? Time's out, bow...? IDK, I guess rappers don't take bows apparently.

What about all of those times he is cheating in the chorus with repeated "oh"s and just putting in "yo" just to fit a rhyme? More laziness and very bad technique. Tsk. Tsk. Lazy, lazy, lazy.

Nope, your spin doctoring isn't fooling anyone. Feel free to keep digging that hole though.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

HansZimmer said:


> If the people of the classical music world don't understand that the popular music (including rap) is winning the competition against classical music because it's perceived as more catchy than modern classical music by most persons, then classical music is doomed.


I chose to ignore all of the comments you made in favor of M & M (or whatever he wants to be called --- how about McSnickers Bar?), because I'll never understand your liking for rap just as you will never understand my reasoning for considering it an abomination.

Anyway, classical music isn't popular and will never be popular. If it does, in fact, become popular I would be rather suspicious of it. People like you have been saying classical music is doomed for years and it's still here. There's an audience for it albeit it's a niche audience, but there are still a lot of listeners out there that have been moved by it and I'm certainly one of them. Look at the membership of this forum when if you have any doubt! As for the an alleged "competition", I couldn't be bothered with such a silly assertion.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Personally, I enjoy some rap music a lot. I don't like what it has become - basically another form of pop music (and I don't really like pop music or any art that seems to take the easy options and not to care for being true) - but do think the genre has seen quite a number of people who might otherwise have no chance to excel creatively in life to demonstrate amazing vision. And, yes, I do think Eminem is (was?) a greatly talented and rewarding creator of a lot of fairly humorous and greatly enjoyable music. 

Of course, there is no reason to expect that members of a classical music forum would necessarily agree. But I do feel they are missing something just as they would be if they rejected jazz or "avant garde" classical music or the best of the old 60s/70s rock. In all those genres there is music I enjoy greatly (by artists I revere) and also music that just seems to me to be boring and/or cheap. But, as we all know by now, taste is subjective and can't really be right or wrong. Still, I have my tastes and have formed them from a lot of listening. I can reason about my tastes and feel I am tapping into whether or not a piece, an artist, a composer is really good or even great ... and how and why. But I know that others who might have put in as much effort as me who will have come to different opinions. Let's celebrate their enthusiasms even when we don't share them. But, yes, let's also debate them - that's what we are here for.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Chat Noir said:


> It's odd that our esteemed host is such a classical music conservative, but has risen to the defence of Sir Marshall Mathers (whom I find to be a very decent sort, even if I don't care for the music). Your talents are wasted Lord Zimmer, you should be on a hip-hop forum telling it how it is.


I've already written that, unlike other users, I haven't listened to classical since my childhood. I started to listen to classical music in the adult age.
In my childhood and teenhood classical music didn't exist for me.
Now I only occasionally listen to popular music (basically, only when I have to argument about it in the forums), but I have a culture and opinions about it.

My general opinions about the popular music of today are negative. I opened a thread in this forum in which I say that I'm happy that I've outgrown popular music because the music industry deserves to be boycotted.

Now, why do I think that the popular music of today is a disaster? Not because there are not the compositional skills of Mozart. After all, the artists are not called "composers", but "songwriters", "singers" and "rappers".
So, I'll judge them for what they claim to be.

From a songwriter I expect that he is able to write meaningful lyrics and catchy melodies.
From a singer I expect that he is able to sing much better than the folks in the general population.
From rappers I expect that they are able to write meaningful and sophisticated lyrics and that they are good performers.

Now, what I see is that the top-selling music is full of meaningless songs sing by bad performers.
I might add (more subjective point) that many of these songs are also terrible from an aesthetic perspective, and not because they have terrible melodies, but because they sound like plasticized products from the supermarket. In the italian pop the situation is even worse, because even the melodies are awful.

You might say that it's not a crime to be bad performers, but what about the situations we see in this video? Are these not crimes?






For a lot of "artists" in the music industry, it's just a normal work day. It's perfectly acceptable to cheat the public.


IMO there are not bad musical genres (as stated by @Neo Romanza and @Torkelburger), but bad artists and good artists.
I get where does the idea that rap sucks coem from: it's full of terrible rappers who make meanigless songs and are bad performers (and, more subjective point, their music suck ahestetically). I'd say that the problem in this case is not only the industry, but the fundamental culture: hip hop is a low culture.
However my question is: is the situation of pop really different (see the video here above)? I think that pop, as a genre of music, it's getting raped as much as rap.

So, you can say that the mainstream rap sucks as long as you are quite honest to admit that the mainstream pop sucks too. In both cases, the problem is not the genre of music in itself, but the artists.


All that said, I don't get why Eminem would be a bad rapper. He's one of the few rappers that he is really able to do what you expect from a rapper.
He writes sophisticated lyrics.
He is a good performer.
Finally, when he wants, he also writes meaningul/deep lyrics.

As he got older, he declined as a performer (especially in live concerts) but he started to write more meaningful/deep lyrics.

Finally, there is a kind of rap that sucks ahestetically, like this one...







... and I think that Eminem, as a producer, has a better sense of aesthetic.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Torkelburger said:


> I see nothing great about the story telling at all. I see a lot of "telling" and not "showing" in most places. Also, as in most fiction that is written quickly or improvised, there are errors in story consistency. For example, in Lose Yourself he says that there is vomit on his sweater but then states "on the surface he looks calm and ready". It is impossible to look calm and ready with vomit all over you, no matter how much you've calmed down after vomiting on yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree about Till I Collapse, but Eminem has shown that, when he wants, he is able to write lyrics that are not only sophisticated, but also MEANINGFUL.

These song are example of Eminem at his best.






















And finally, this song and especially the climax after 3:42. Maybe we should remember that rappers are not poets, but rappers. They create music. The climax is created with the musical background, combined with the interpretation, combined with the emotional intensity and technique of the lyrics. How many persons would be able to do this so effectively as Eminem does?

I positively rate all the musicians who are able to create effective drammatic arcs (expressivity is the most important thing for me in music). The good composers are the ones who need no other thing than notes to effectively communicate an emotion. Rappers are not composers but rappers, and rap is a form of communication which uses more things combined together to create an emotional message (not only simple music). I evaluate the artists according to what they claim to be, and Eminem is credible as a "rapper": he masters the art form he choosed to embrace.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

HansZimmer said:


> I've already written that, unlike other users, I haven't listened to classical since my childhood. I started to listen to classical music in the adult age.
> In my childhood and teenhood classical music didn't exist for me.
> Now I only occasionally listen to popular music (basically, only when I have to argument about it in the forums), but I have a culture and opinions about it.


If you'll permit me, I find this to be a clue. It has the ring of the enthusiastic classical music convert. I completely agree that _most_ music classified as 'classical music' is more sophisticated in technique and construction than the average example of popular music. Although many older examples of popular music are also much more sophisticated than many current examples. However this is not a hard and fast rule, because there is good popular music still being produced, even if it isn't at the top of the charts. This will also depend upon tastes.

With regard to the thread topic though... Consider that some people here have been listening and some even creating classical music for up to maybe 60 years. They've heard a lot and are often long past the feverish adoration of very popular classics, like e.g. Mozart's, Beethoven's, Tchaikovsky's most popular works. I am long over Tchaikovsky, and I did adore his music when I was around 12-16 years-old, which doesn't mean I dislike his music now, but that I know there is much more than that. As a sixth-form student, from an aesthetic point-of-view I didn't really like 'serial music'. I liked neo-classical, but I was studying music and had the benefit of someone pulling it apart to explain it and show me great examples. 
This is important and beneficial for development. Some people can just be listeners and tune into these various approaches without having to get any explicit instruction; they have good ears and an open mind. It requires a kind of openness to new experiences and a willingness to relax familiarity for a moment. None of it means you have to 'like' everything you hear and that your tastes must conform. Though broadening of tastes can be a result as one's ears become accustomed to more things.

If I am correct you came to classical music through film music, yes? This is a route for quite a few people and perfectly respectable. Yet all starting points tend to set a standard for future tastes; at least for a while. We tend to think that if this sort of thing bowled us over and even drew us to something, this must be the best and most powerful and most sophisticated etc...



HansZimmer said:


> but the fundamental culture: hip hop is a low culture.


I don't think it is. It is popular culture and is (or was) a reflection of the social/political condition.


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

Chat Noir said:


> With regard to the thread topic though... Consider that some people here have been listening and some even creating classical music for up to maybe 60 years.


Yes, very true. I've been in this world for a while, though not for 60 years – that would be impressive, as I'm quite a lot younger than 60! However, it's safe to say I've had an obsession with this type of music for most of my life and I've been a composer for most of it now (over two decades at this point). 



Chat Noir said:


> I am long over Tchaikovsky, and I did adore his music when I was around 12-16 years-old, which doesn't mean I dislike his music now, but that I know there is much more than that. As a sixth-form student, from an aesthetic point-of-view I didn't really like 'serial music'. I liked neo-classical, but I was studying music and had the benefit of someone pulling it apart to explain it and show me great examples.


Same. As with you, I don't dislike Tchaikovsky either – the nutcracker in particular is special to me for a number of reasons, including nostalgia and I do like a lot of the colourful orchestration. There is much more out there though, especially in this day and age!



Chat Noir said:


> It requires a kind of openness to new experiences and a willingness to relax familiarity for a moment. None of it means you have to 'like' everything you hear and that your tastes must conform. Though broadening of tastes can be a result as one's ears become accustomed to more things.


Particularly agree with the last bit: the more I listen to things and learn to tune into them, the more I find interesting details in them that draw me in. I've certainly found that my tastes have broadened with time, although I've become more selective about certain aspects of music as well.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Chat Noir said:


> If you'll permit me, I find this to be a clue. It has the ring of the enthusiastic classical music convert. I completely agree that _most_ music classified as 'classical music' is more sophisticated in technique and construction than the average example of popular music. Although many older examples of popular music are also much more sophisticated than many current examples. However this is not a hard and fast rule, because there is good popular music still being produced, even if it isn't at the top of the charts. This will also depend upon tastes.


Yes, there is a genre called "neoclassical metal" for example, but it's debatable if similar music is really rooted in popular music: someone might say that te intention of these artists is to create a new form of classical music.
The most popular forms of rock music have more to do with pop music, IMO.



> If I am correct you came to classical music through film music, yes?


I started to listen to piano covers of pop songs and I realized how good is the sound of a piano: better than human voice.

After a while, I played with a videogame with a very immersive and beatiful soundtrack. In youtube I found video of pianists and string quartets who play the soundtrack and I enjoyed them a lot. So, I started to watch more and more videos of these channels and I also discovered beatiful soundtracks of videogames I didn't know.
Then I also discovered orchestral albums of videogame soundtracks produced by the Nintendo itself. As Nintendo has the money to produce music of quality, the versions of the soundtrack albums are composed and arranged by professional composers and orchestrators, and played by professional orchestras. It is videogame music at it's best.

After a while, Youtube suggested me to watch a concert of the score of The Lion King and it was the best thing I had heard until that point, so I started to listen to film music.

I noticed that a lot of orchestral film music is similar to romantic music, so I tried to search for romantic symphonies. I was discouraged at first, because I found that the length was crazy, which also means that the movement are very long and the melodies develop slowly.

After a while I tried to listen to Mozart's music. The good side of it was that the pieces were shorter and the melodies develops rapidly, but it was aesthetically different from film music. I had to struggle a bit to enter in the Mozart's aesthetic, but at some point (I don't know exactly how) I started to like it. I also realized that some slow movements in Mozart's works sound more like film music: the problem is that the pieces always start with the Allegro.
As film music is emotional, is almost always slow and lyrical, like the second movements in classical music. Maybe we should tell to people who like film music to try with the adagios of classical music, to start.

So, the story is like this:
Videogame original soundtracks (entry point for the soundtracks) ---> Piano, string quartets and violin covers of videogame soundtracks ---> Orchestral and professional videogame soundtracks ---> Score of the Lion King (entry point for the film music) ----> Orchestral film scores ---> Mozart (entry point for the classical music) ---> Classical music.

I still enjoy all the products along the way. Classical music has not replaced the rest: has been added. All the products have distinctive aesthetics, and I want them all.

I basically like all the orchestral music (or violin quartets, piano,...) from baroque to soundtracks as long as it is melodic/tonal. I can tolerate atonality in soundtracks if it works well in the context.

I'm not sure that it's atonal, but it's disturbing. I appreciate the artistic choice of John Williams for the scene inside Auschwitz: a catchy melody in a horror scene would be out of place.








> I don't think it is. It is popular culture and is (or was) a reflection of the social/political condition.


It's the street culture. A lower culture in respect to the popular culture of the adults of the middle class. This is why a lot of rap songs have stupid and vulgar lyrics.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

_‘It requires a kind of openness to new experiences and a willingness to relax familiarity for a moment. None of it means you have to 'like' everything you hear and that your tastes must conform. Though broadening of tastes can be a result as one's ears become accustomed to more things.’_

How many times have I heard something along these lines regarding the ‘new music’. After spending a number of years on the planet, most adults listening to classical music have a pretty good ear for what they find attractive and accessible and have an openness to new experiences that have the potential for pleasurability. Perhaps more attention should be given to creating music that is accessible.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

There is no relationship between classical composing today and in the times of the greatest composers, even Shostakovich. The Internet and software has made it possible for anyone to be a composer. 

And because most "name" composers have either university or conservatory jobs paying their way they don't have to worry about the thing that helped make Beethoven and Brahms among the greatest -- audience approval of their music. Now anyone can compose anything, no audience ever has to hear it or apporve of it, and it can be called music with hundreds of like-minded people nodding in agreement.

Even Vivaldi and Bach had to satisfy a court or church or king or school headmaster or someone who vouched for the quality of the music. All that has left classical composing in the late 20th and 21st centuries and the result is we have an art form most people no longer recognize or believe relevant.


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

DaveM said:


> Perhaps more attention should be given to creating music that is accessible.


There is quite a lot of music being created out there today that is accessible. But does everything need to be accessible? I think there's room for both music that is more accessible and music that isn't trying to be accessible – and I think it's important for both of these to be able to exist.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

larold said:


> There is no relationship between classical composing today and in the times of the greatest composers, even Shostakovich. The Internet and software has made it possible for anyone to be a composer.
> 
> And because most "name" composers have either university or conservatory jobs paying their way they don't have to worry about the thing that helped make Beethoven and Brahms among the greatest -- audience approval of their music. Now anyone can compose anything, no audience ever has to hear it or apporve of it, and it can be called music with hundreds of like-minded people nodding in agreement.


I sometimes wonder what the requirements are today for calling oneself a composer.


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

larold said:


> There is no relationship between classical composing today and in the times of the greatest composers, even Shostakovich. The Internet and software has made it possible for anyone to be a composer.


I really don't think it's the case that there's no link between classical composing today and composers of the past. Composers have always been, and will continue to be, influenced by the past. As for the internet and software making composition more accessible, are you saying that this is a bad thing? If anything, I think having these tools be more accessible is a good thing and encourages people to start on the journey of becoming a composer. 



larold said:


> And because most "name" composers have either university or conservatory jobs paying their way they don't have to worry about the thing that helped make Beethoven and Brahms among the greatest -- audience approval of their music.


University and conservatory jobs are incredibly competitive, and there are far more composers out there than there are conservatory and university positions. Most composers I know make their living through a number of different types of positions – for instance, commissions, playing gigs, writing trailer music, scoring films, arranging, copyist work, various types of music consultation related work, arts management... the list goes on. I don't think Beethoven and Brahms' primary aim was to please audiences, either – I think they were wanting to write the music they felt they needed to write. Some of the audience enjoyed their music, and others didn't. That's very much the case with most of the composers I know today: they're writing the music they feel they need to write. Not everyone will like their music, and that's okay. However, some people will, and that's great too. 



larold said:


> Now anyone can compose anything, no audience ever has to hear it or apporve of it, and it can be called music with hundreds of like-minded people nodding in agreement.


I honestly have no idea where you're going with this. However, I will say that getting started in the field can be incredibly tough, if you don't know other musicians and don't have a way of getting things heard. Sure, you can upload something, but that's quite different from breaking into the scene, so to speak. 



larold said:


> Even Vivaldi and Bach had to satisfy a court or church or king or school headmaster or someone who vouched for the quality of the music. All that has left classical composing in the late 20th and 21st centuries and the result is we have an art form most people no longer recognize or believe relevant.


I wouldn't say this is entirely true. If a composer wants to get their music played by people, that means someone else has to learn their music – sure, that's not the case with electronic music, or if the composer performs their own music. However, if you want to have music programmed in concerts anywhere, that means quite a few people are immediately involved.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

composingmusic said:


> There is quite a lot of music being created out there today that is accessible. But does everything need to be accessible? I think there's room for both music that is more accessible and music that isn't trying to be accessible – and I think it's important for both of these to be able to exist.


IMO perhaps the most difficult and most important challenge of composing music is accessibility while still adding the originality that is important to the composer and the listener. When a composer ignores the importance of accessibility, then the process becomes all about the composer. These days, it seems that however low the bar, there will always be an audience, however small, for almost any music, perhaps due to the internet, YouTube etc.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_University and conservatory jobs are incredibly competitive, and there are far more composers out there than there are conservatory and university positions. _

They are not competitive if you are a known composer whose work -- however good or bad -- has generated a following or a buzz. This is why, among others, William Bolcom rotated to the faculty at the University of Michigan School of Music, Theatre and Dance. He was known, famous, had many compositions and generated a lot of prestige for the U-M after winning a Pulitzer Prize 1988. Guys like him, who get commissions from famous orchestras and groups (like the Vienna Philharmonic for Bolcom) help university endowments grow by the billions.

It's the same for lesser-known geniuses like Richard Rodriguez at the Unitversity of Texas. You probably never heard of him but critics love his stuff. Just about every famous composer has one of these jobs, the reason they don't have to live or die -- eat or starve -- on the popularity of their compositions. This wasn't true when most of the greatest composers in history wrote music. Their music had to be accepted critically by audiences. That is the greatest difference between composing today and yesterday.

Today it is much easier for a creative genius to make a movie than write a symphony, concerto or book of songs. And your movie is far more likely to be aired somewhere (even at a local festival) than your run-of-the-mill piece of music. And it is multi-media and part of popular culture where classical music is mono-media and at least once considered part of high culture, limiting its potential audience.

It's my postulate this is one of the reasons classcial music has become more and more irrelevant over the past 50 years: its greatest potential creators applied their skills in other media. Had Steven Spielberg lived in the 19th century he'd have written an opera on Moby Dick. Instead he made Jaws. There's little question movies and live theater have replaced opera. Wagner helped us understand opera at its best was music-text-scene. Movies do that hundreds of time better than the opera house, cost far less, and potentially have a million-fold increase in potential paying customers.

My apologies to anyone disturbed or disgusted by my going off on a tangent.


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

DaveM said:


> IMO perhaps the most difficult and most important challenge of composing music is accessibility while still adding the originality that is important to the composer and the listener.


Accessibility as such is also a difficult metric to measure. It means different things to different people – I sometimes also find people who listen to things like experimental EDM have an easier time connecting with certain aesthetics in contemporary music than people who listen primarily to common practice period classical music. I'm not entirely sure why this is, but it's interesting. 



DaveM said:


> When a composer ignores the importance of accessibility, then the process becomes all about the composer.


When has it not been about the composer though? Hasn't it been about the composer expressing themself in some way for hundreds of years?



DaveM said:


> These days, it seems that however low the bar, there will always be an audience, however small, for almost any music, perhaps due to the internet, YouTube etc.


Yes, anyone can put their music out there, but this is a double edged sword. It means there's more people out there, writing music, and it takes effort to reach a wider audience. Actually getting your music out there and played by other people is far from a simple process.


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

larold said:


> _University and conservatory jobs are incredibly competitive, and there are far more composers out there than there are conservatory and university positions. _
> 
> They are not competitive if you are a known composer whose work -- however good or bad -- has generated a following or a buzz. This is why, among others, William Bolcom rotated to the faculty at the University of Michigan School of Music, Theatre and Dance. He was known, famous, had many compositions and generated a lot of prestige for the U-M after winning a Pulitzer Prize 1988. Guys like him, who get commissions from famous orchestras and groups (like the Vienna Philharmonic for Bolcom) enable university endowments to grow by the billions.


I'm not sure what your point is. Most composers looking to work in these positions haven't won a Pulitzer or another major award of that level (Grawemeyer, Ernst von Siemens Prize, Venice Golden Lion, etc.)


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

composingmusic said:


> I'm not sure what your point is. Most composers looking to work in these positions haven't won a Pulitzer or another major award of that level (Grawemeyer, Ernst von Siemens Prize, Venice Golden Lion, etc.)


My point is when you got the job because of your fame or awards it was not a competitive process that enabled you to get the job. You brought fame to the place and they can use it to their advantage.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

larold said:


> My point is when you got the job because of your fame or awards it was not a competitive process that enabled you to get the job. You brought fame to the place and they can use it to their advantage.


Much as we like the myth of pure meritocracy, I don't see how the system of noble patronage which subsidized the German musical world for centuries can really be described as a competitive process either. So much of it could depend on having friends in high places, or being acclaimed at the right time. Luck and connections are always going to be a factor in who becomes famous and who makes money.


----------



## Boychev (Jul 21, 2014)

It's not about tonality or atonality. There are fairly abrasive genres of popular music such as death metal, hard techno, industrial music, noise rock that enjoy some popularity. None of them are as popular as Taylor Swift, of course, but the point is those are decidedly not hummable, not melodic, not accessible styles of music that quite a few non-musicians enjoy.

The barriers to entry of classical music are, I think, the following:

1. The kind of people who are only casual music fans and just listen to some songs online and maybe the radio, if they ever listen to classical music, will put it on as background noise, probably from one of those "2 hours of classical for reading" compilations. Suffice to say that while this is an excellent way of becoming invested in Taylor Swift's current hit song, it's a terrible way to become invested in classical music.

2. Most "serious" fans of popular styles of music listen to studio albums (unless we're talking about electronic music fans but those are an exception). The studio album is taken to be a complete artistic statement of an artist or band in a given historical moment. To those people - rock listeners, pop listeners, metalheads, prog rockers, fans of experimental music, etc - classical music is confusing. The artistic statement is the score. The composer of the score either lived before the era of recorded music, or just hasn't recorded their own definitive version of the piece they composed. There is no definitive recording of Beethoven's 9th, only different interpretations. This makes the serious rock/pop/etc listener anxious because generally that fan treats their favourite albums the same way you would treat your favourite novel or film - as something complete that you can own and return to over and over again throughout your life, as something you can analyze and really become intimate with. Classical pieces are never complete.

3. Opera and Lieder aside, classical music has no lyrics. When it comes to art most people in modern society prioritize concepts over pure sensuousness - they want to know what they're paying for, if it's good, if it's socially acceptable, if they can tell their friends about it. Purely instrumental music usually isn't _about_ anything. There's no cool story to tell, or statement, or something else, there is just music. Classical music is unpopular for the same reason pure cinema and abstract painting are unpopular - what you can't define is scary and alienating.

4. Classical music has the appearance of requiring technical knowledge to "get", like it requires specialized training to appreciate. Right off the bat the listener is bombarded with terms - symphony, sonata, minor, major, opus, BWV and all those other funny numbers and acronyms. Usually the pieces don't have cool titles that you can remember, instead they give off the feeling that you're about to read a scientific article. Was it the 4th symphony or the 7th that you liked? They were on the same CD, but which one was which? Everyone sits and keeps really quiet at those weird classical concerts - nobody is drinking, nobody is dancing, nobody appears to be having fun while the music plays. And it's not quite clear what you're supposed to do while you sit there. If you drift off for a moment, is your listening experience disqualified as invalid now? Did you just _fail at listening to music_? Oh God, how embarrassing! If you didn't really enjoy the piece, is it a you problem or a problem with the piece? Well, this music is so deep and serious, surely it must be a you problem, maybe you missed something crucial there, or maybe you're just too stupid to get it. Are you sure you have the proper credentials to be listening to this in the first place?


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

larold said:


> My point is when you got the job because of your fame or awards it was not a competitive process that enabled you to get the job. You brought fame to the place and they can use it to their advantage.


For sure, connections and luck are really important. Most people who I know who are high up in the contemporary classical world got there through a combination of incredible skill, persistence, connections, and luck. Getting to that point where one would even be considered for such a thing as a Pulitzer is not a simple thing.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

larold said:


> There is no relationship between classical composing today and in the times of the greatest composers, even Shostakovich. The Internet and software has made it possible for anyone to be a composer.


Of course there are relationships.

I'll randomly pick Charles Wuorinen. Wuorinen studied composition under Jack Beeson> Jack Beeson studied under Bela Bartok> Bartok studied under István Thomán> István Thomán was a student of Liszt, Liszt studied under Antonio Salieri, Salieri studied with Gluck, etc.

Let's try a major punching bag here on TC, Brian Ferneyhough. Ferneyhough studied under Lennox Berkeley> Berkely studied under Nadia Boulanger> Boulanger studied under Gabriel Fauré (among others)> Faure studied with Saint-Saëns, etc., etc.

I can do this all day.

I guess the relationship stops at the specific point where _*you*_ personally stop liking the more modern forms of classical music.



> And because most "name" composers have either university or conservatory jobs paying their way they don't have to worry about the thing that helped make Beethoven and Brahms among the greatest -- audience approval of their music. Now anyone can compose anything, no audience ever has to hear it or apporve of it, and it can be called music with hundreds of like-minded people nodding in agreement.


They aren't just 'composing anything', they are composing music that fulfills their need and/or want as an artist.



> it can be called music with hundreds of like-minded people nodding in agreement


It is not just 'called music', it_ is _music.

Yeah, "nodding in agreement". All of us modern classical music listeners are just sheep to the music academia. Please... 



> Even Vivaldi and Bach had to satisfy a court or church or king or school headmaster or someone who vouched for the quality of the music. All that has left classical composing in the late 20th and 21st centuries and the result is we have an art form most people no longer recognize or believe relevant.


When I first got into late 20th century,, and 21st century classical music, I was not previously a classical music listener (for the most part), but I knew a lot of music by most pre-20th century composers.

But I immediately was able to discern the relationship, musically, to all those other composers and eras. It was hardly hidden, nor a chore for me to hear the common thread, from Baroque, to Classical, to Romantic, to Impressionists, to Stravinsky and Bartok, to the 2nd Viennese school, to post 1950's, to now.

Relevance? Sorry, but the classical music you listen to, has no more chance to be relevant than contemporary classical does..


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

HansZimmer said:


> I agree about Till I Collapse, but Eminem has shown that, when he wants, he is able to write lyrics that are not only sophisticated, but also MEANINGFUL.
> 
> These song are example of Eminem at his best.
> 
> ...


This is just more of the same terrible stuff, adding unnecessary phrases, weird Yoda-like syntax, telling not showing, forced rhymes, everything mentioned previously.

There is obviously no need to waste half an hour of my time going into any detail, since you don't even reply to what is said, you just completely ignore every valid point that was made and just continue to post a barrage of endless drivel that only confirms the points I make. It's as if you aren't even reading it at all. You just want the last word.


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

Simon Moon said:


> Of course there are relationships.
> 
> I'll randomly pick Charles Wuorinen. Wuorinen studied composition under Jack Beeson> Jack Beeson studied under Bela Bartok> Bartok studied under István Thomán> István Thomán was a student of Liszt, Liszt studied under Antonio Salieri, Salieri studied with Gluck, etc.
> 
> ...


I personally find tracing through these kinds of relationships fascinating – and especially in the incredibly diverse 20th and 21st century, you can see all sorts of interesting interactions between composers, where they studied, who their teachers were, what sort of approach they have to music in both a practical and more philosophical way, and more. It’s also quite interesting to spot sometimes quite unexpected parallels between composers who do quite different things, and this always reminds me how interconnected things can be in this world.


----------



## Viajero (1 mo ago)

Simplistically, we must accept that Visual Art, Literature, and Classical/Jazz Music reflect the culture in which it is reared. And, as the culture changes . . . so does an "artist's" depiction of the world he/she sees. And, how this Art reflects the Culture is the litmus test of that generation. So, if a generation of composers was deeply entrenched in Avante-Garde Music, can a reasonable person assume that the people who create this "Art" are very different from those who wrote music in the Romantic tradition? And, if so . . . how? The cacophony of an Archie Shepp improvisation/composition(20th Century) juxtaposed with Rubenstein's interpretations of Chopin(19th Century) both reflect a 20th Century mindset albeit in very different ways. Statistically, Classical Music is doing better in popularity than Jazz Music, which is in a serious decline, and one might think the reverse is true. However, as we see a decline in general education--especially here in the US, both Classical and Jazz seem destined for a bleak future as Hip Hop, [email protected], Rock, etc claim the lion's share of popularity among listeners. And, the opportunities for serious musicians to make a living in performance become increasingly difficult when record companies and music producers crunch the numbers. Every civilization has a birth, life, and death . . . and the beat goes on . . . 
Viajero


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

neoshredder said:


> For me, so much music still to discover in the past. It would be nice if there was groundbreaking music coming out now. But not a necessity.


In fact, it is a necessity. It is all the old stuff that is relentlessly consumed that is killing the genre.
Classical is starved for new material, of which there is plenty, to be promoted.

Look at any classical venues offering any season. Same old same old. How can it not die off?


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

larold said:


> There is no relationship between classical composing today and in the times of the greatest composers, even Shostakovich. The Internet and software has made it possible for anyone to be a composer.
> 
> And because most "name" composers have either university or conservatory jobs paying their way they don't have to worry about the thing that helped make Beethoven and Brahms among the greatest -- audience approval of their music. Now anyone can compose anything, no audience ever has to hear it or apporve of it, and it can be called music with hundreds of like-minded people nodding in agreement.
> 
> Even Vivaldi and Bach had to satisfy a court or church or king or school headmaster or someone who vouched for the quality of the music. All that has left classical composing in the late 20th and 21st centuries and the result is we have an art form most people no longer recognize or believe relevant.


IMHO, and said without malice or to antagonize, this post is truly awful. Epitomizes the problem with classical. It is largely stuck in the past with arrogance abounding. 

Peace brother,


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

eljr said:


> IMHO, and said without malice or to antagonize, this post is truly awful. Epitomizes the problem with classical. It is largely stuck in the past with arrogance abounding.
> 
> Peace brother,


The above is one of those, ‘_Don’t take this personally, but personally your opinion is awful and arrogant._’ I’d like to know what are the specific errors in the post that gave rise to the above.

The way I read it is:
1) The act of being a composer today is quite different than 1-3 centuries ago. In those days, a composer had to strut their stuff constantly to get acceptance and to be able to make a living. That included getting the support of other composers, academia and get positions from various benefactors that provided a steady income, not to mention achieving a position where publishers could make money off your works and pay you accordingly. You couldn’t just declare yourself to be a composer. Those who declared themselves to be a composer and didn’t find acceptance enough to make a living wage had to find a primary day job.

2) Now, apparently, the aim to have the acceptance of listeners is not a primary priority as it was back in the day. But, outside of academic positions, it isn’t clear to me how a CM composer can make a living as a composer until and unless one achieves some wider acceptance. The avenue to that would seem to be, directly or indirectly, through the internet and perhaps with the support of ‘others’ (which could mean anything I suppose) to get to the point that there are regular commissions. I would guess that given the limited options for budding composers, relatively few make it as a primary vocation. The way things are now, there is nothing to stop someone declaring themself to be a composer regardless of whether it is the primary source of income, whether it brings in any money at all or whether there are anything but the rarest commissions or a performance here and there at free local performances.


----------



## Owen David (May 15, 2020)

Hasn't the royal and aristocratic patronage been replaced by state patronage through state funded cultural institutions? 

For me music lives in people's consciousness or it does not live at all. The "problem" really is that a lot of _modern_ "classical" music has ceased to exist in people's consciousness beyond a very select and self-selecting group who control some pretty significant levers. Ironically a lot of _older _"classical" music is probably better known now through adverts and movies. I might start a thread of listing classical music compositions by decade known to a significant proportion of the general public. I am sure we would see classical music "fall off a cliff" after 1950 or thereabouts.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Owen David said:


> Hasn't the royal and aristocratic patronage been replaced by state patronage through state funded cultural institutions?
> 
> For me music lives in people's consciousness or it does not live at all. The "problem" really is that a lot of _modern_ "classical" music has ceased to exist in people's consciousness beyond a very select and self-selecting group who control some pretty significant levers. Ironically a lot of _older _"classical" music is probably better known now through adverts and movies. I might start a thread of listing classical music compositions by decade known to a significant proportion of the general public. I am sure we would see classical music "fall off a cliff" after 1950 or thereabouts.


I think by the early 1950s children were beginning to listen to rock'n roll and less to classical and the pops of the time. So a lot of kids missed out on the little bit of CM that they would've gotten, secondhand.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Simon Moon said:


> I will not yet, respond to your overall thesis, but I will make some comments and observations.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wait... the purpose of this discussion is not to say that you shouldn't like atonal music or experimental music.

I'm simply saying that this kind of music is for a niche audience. 

The old, tonal, classical music has produced many pieces that have become popular. The Swan Lake (and, in particular, the Swan Theme), The Four Seasons, Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, Le Claire de Lune, and so on...
In the comment section of the youtube videos contaning this pieces you can find casual listeners who appreciate the music: persons who know little of classical music.
Can you give examples of modern atonal classical music or experimental music that it's popular as much as the pieces listed here above?

I'm not saying that the modern composers shouldn't compose music for niche audiences, but they should also compose "popular classical music". If the modern composers will be not able to produce popular pieces like Vivaldi, Mozart, Tchaikovsky, Bethoven,... classical music will probably die in few decades.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

HansZimmer said:


> I'm not saying that the modern composers shouldn't compose music for niche audiences, but they should also compose "popular classical music". *If the modern composers will be not able to produce popular pieces like Vivaldi, Mozart, Tchaikovsky, Bethoven,... classical music will probably die in few decades.*


If they do, art music dies.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Simon Moon said:


> Seems to me, treating classical music as a "museum piece", the way most establishments do, is just as likely to lead to the death of classical music, than the avant-garde. Just how many people of your generation do you think will be attending classical concerts, whether tonal or atonal?


They will attend classical music concerts when the composers will try to create music that they like. The soundtrack composers have already found the right sound for the popular audience. I think that John Williams has already a young fanbase.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

mikeh375 said:


> If they do, art music dies.


No, this is exactly the cultural problem of the modern classical music: there is the idea that the art must be snob, obscure.
The old classical music is more popular than modern music, despite the fact that is older, because Mozart, Beethoven and Tchaikovsky were not snob. They were ENTERTAINERS.
I think it's also important to underline that Beethoven was also an entepreneur, which means "you sell tickets, or you fail".

If ENTERTAINMENT and ART can not be combined together, as you put it, then should I conclude that, according to you, Mozart, Beethoven and Tchaikovsky were not artists? Or maybe were they less artists in respect to the great contemporary composers?

The contemporary composers should be all enterpreneurs like Beethoven, or alternatively they should work for an enterpreneur. Free market. No public money. You have to sell tickets.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

mbhaub said:


> For me it always comes bac k to a very simple premise: the further music gets from folksong traditions, the less popular and appreciated it becomes. The most popular music is music that people can hum the tune, tap their toes to, and remember. Everything from a Handel chorus, a Mozart aria, a Beethoven piano sonata, a Tchaikovsky waltz, a Dvorak symphony...they are all memorable and singable.


Yes, I think that you made the point. The classical music which has the potential to become popular is basically the one which sounds like a complication of the folk music. I read that Tchaikovsky, for example, was trying to put the russian folk sound inside of his works.

Now, look at the great cultural difference: in one side you have someone who tries to create nationalistic classical music, on the other side you have the modern classical music culture according to which being artist basically means "being snob" an creates works that no one understands.



> Some composer today do write good tunes and their music is popular because of it: Andrew Lloyd Weber and John Williams.


Yes, because the soundtrack composers create orchestral music with that folk touch about which we speak above. The classical music will probably lose more and more people in favour of film music.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

HansZimmer said:


> ............If ENTERTAINMENT and ART can not be combined together, as you put it,* then should I conclude that,* according to you, Mozart, Beethoven and Tchaikovsky were not artists? Or maybe were they less artists in respect to the great contemporary composers?


No.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

HansZimmer said:


> Yes, because the soundtrack composers create orchestral music with that folk touch about which we speak above. The classical music will probably lose more and more people in favour of film music.


I doubt it. 

Speaking for myself, I listen to a lot of classical music but hardly any film music outside of when I hear it in a movie I am watching. And I especially don't find much of the music of John Williams to be interesting. And extrapolating from my own behavior I doubt that the two audiences overlap much. I do find much in new classical music, as well as new jazz and other genres, interesting, and judging from your posts, most of it probably is the kind of music you claim is ruining classical music.

Go figure.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

SanAntone said:


> I doubt it.
> 
> Speaking for myself, I listen to a lot of classical music but hardly any film music outside of when I hear it in a movie I am watching. And I especially don't find much of the music of John Williams to be interesting. And extrapolating from my own behavior I doubt that the two audiences overlap much. I do find much in new classical music, as well as new jazz and other genres, interesting, and judging from your posts, most of it probably is the kind of music you claim is ruining classical music.
> 
> Go figure.


You are speaking of yourself, not about numbers. This discussion is about numbers (popularity), not about our personal preferences.

This youtube video with the live concert of the music from Schindler's List has 52 millions of views.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

HansZimmer said:


> You are speaking of yourself, not about numbers. This discussion is about numbers (popularity), not about our personal preferences.
> 
> This youtube video with the live concert of the music from Schindler's List has 52 millions of views.


Which speaks to the popularity of Shindler's List and the ability of a popular movie to promote the music it contains.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

eljr said:


> Which speaks to the popularity of Shindler's List and the ability of a popular movie to promote the music it contains.


Music needs always promotion to become really popular. Pop music is promoted by the music industry (radios), while the music of John Williams is promoted by the cinematic industry.
The problem of the classical music is that is not promoted by the market, and so it's losing popularity in the new generations.

In short, you need a product which is attractive for the great public and a lot of promotion. These are the two essential ingredients. 
Yes, the music of John Williams is promoted by the movies, but then the people watch the concerts in youtube because they LIKE the music.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

HansZimmer said:


> You are speaking of yourself, not about numbers. This discussion is about numbers (popularity), not about our personal preferences.


If you want to talk about popularity, then pop, rap, country, rock, all have greater audiences than film soundtrack albums. And why is this discussion ( in your opinion) about numbers/popularity and not intrinsic quality of the music no matter the audience size? Popularity and mass appeal are rarely indicative of artistic quality.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

SanAntone said:


> If you want to talk about popularity, then pop, rap, country, rock, all have greater audiences than film soundtrack albums. And why is this discussion ( in your opinion) about numbers/popularity and not intrinsic quality of the music no matter the audience size? Popularity and mass appeal are rarely indicative of artistic quality.


Quite so. It's not like this music has been popularised or popular for well over 100 years. It's the other way about; some things which catch on (usually because they are recognisable and more like pop/film music) are just promoted. Composers, unlike e.g. Stock, Aitken & Waterman or Bruno Mars, aren't sitting brainstorming about how the best 3-minute piece can be made to 'appeal to the market'.

The entire approach in this thread is just misguided.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> ..And why is this discussion ( in your opinion) about numbers/popularity and not intrinsic quality of the music no matter the audience size? Popularity and mass appeal are rarely indicative of artistic quality.


How often is that true in classical music? How many classical works that have mass appeal are not indicative of artistic quality? Even outside of classical music, I would question the extreme that ’_Popularity and mass appeal are *rarely* indicative of artistic quality.’ _This sounds like an attempt to remove popularity and mass appeal as having any importance in order to support music that doesn't have much or any.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

DaveM said:


> How often is that true in classical music? How many classical works that have mass appeal are not indicative of artistic quality? Even outside of classical music, I would question the extreme that ’_Popularity and mass appeal are *rarely* indicative of artistic quality.’ _This sounds like an attempt to remove popularity and mass appeal as having any importance in order to support music that doesn't have much or any.


He didn't say that. He just said the discussion should be about the quality, regardless of whether it has mass popular appeal or not.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

HansZimmer said:


> I'm not saying that the modern composers shouldn't compose music for niche audiences, but they should also compose "popular classical music".


Unlike you, I think it best that modern composers write the music they want to write. By the way, you do place a lot of priority on popularity.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

Bulldog said:


> you do place a lot of priority on popularity.


Might this not be of importance to a dying art form?


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

eljr said:


> Might this not be of importance to a dying art form?


I doubt it. If the widest group of people just don't care for it, no amount of promotion helps. And if it alters to meet the prevailing popular tastes, it will have lost its character.

The facts are these: popular music isn't classical music. Same goes for jazz, but it hasn't disappeared.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

eljr said:


> Might this not be of importance to a dying art form?


I don't consider classical music a dying art form.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Chat Noir said:


> He didn't say that. He just said the discussion should be about the quality, regardless of whether it has mass popular appeal or not.


He said exactly what I quoted. The statement that I responded to was a stand-alone sentence.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

Yes, all forms of art should be about entertaining the lowest common denominator in society so as to make the most amount of money possible for its creators so we can keep the endless cycle of drivel going until that's all we have and aspire to.

This fabulous model has already worked wonders in the film industry. I mean "movie" industry.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

If the current state of affairs is turning away "modern" film score-obsessed, pop-obsessed, ignorant, arrogant, sentimental, Marvel-loving, teenager-mentality "audience" then GOOD, they need to GO AWAY. It is best without them, we don't need them here, and it would be better as a dead horse than what they will turn it into.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Torkelburger said:


> Yes, all forms of art should be about entertaining the lowest common denominator in society so as to make the most amount of money possible for its creators so we can keep the endless cycle of drivel going until that's all we have and aspire to.
> 
> This fabulous model has already worked wonders in the film industry. I mean "movie" industry.


I don't see the point about the film industry. There are some stupid films produced just to have a laugh (like "The Hangover"), but there are also serious films like Schindler's List, Downfall, The French Revolution (series), The Legend of 1900.

There is a room for jokes, and a room for serious films.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Torkelburger said:


> If the current state of affairs is turning away "modern" film score-obsessed, pop-obsessed, ignorant, arrogant, sentimental, Marvel-loving, teenager-mentality "audience" then GOOD, they need to GO AWAY. It is best without them, we don't need them here, and it would be better as a dead horse than what they will turn it into.


With your money you can do what you want.

With MY money I prefer to buy a ticket for a concert of John Williams rather than to give even a single cent for music like this one.






If you force me to pay taxes to finance this music I have something to say, because it's basically an authoritarian violence. You want to make a living with that kind of music? Find a public and sell tickets, like all artists do. John Williams is a honest artist, he doesn't steal money to people through the state and the police.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

I never asked you to pay for a damn thing.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

HansZimmer said:


> I don't see the point about the film industry. There are some stupid films produced just to have a laugh (like "The Hangover"), but there are also serious films like Schindler's List, Downfall, The French Revolution (series), The Legend of 1900.
> 
> There is a room for jokes, and a room for serious films.


Um, those movies are quite old. I wish they made movies still that good. 1998 was indeed a good year. Not only for The Legend of 1900. But Cube, and Dark City. That was one of the last good years.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Torkelburger said:


> I never asked you to pay for a damn thing.


Really not? You are saying that doesn't matter if the folks like the music or not. Who will pay to produce music that no one likes?


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Torkelburger said:


> sentimental


It look like a flame to romantic art, but also to baroque and classical art.
The art has always been for the heart and for the brain.

The happyness of the typical Mozart's allegro is not sentimentality? The sadness/melancholy of the adagios is not sentimentality?

The Swan Theme of Tchaikovsky, or the love theme of Romeo and Juliet, is not sentimental?


You are free to think that art must not be for the heart. It's a strange opinion IMO, but you are free to think what you want. The problem arises when you think that your INNATURAL approach to art is superior to the more sentimental one. If you continue to snob the natural sentimental approach that most persons have towards art, classical music will die, while the music of the industry will survive because does not ignore human nature.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Where`s Ives when he`s needed....


----------



## PeterKC (Dec 30, 2016)

I prefer von Einem. Never goes out of style.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

DaveM said:


> He said exactly what I quoted. The statement that I responded to was a stand-alone sentence.


No, he did not. And unless someone was being difficult I think we all know popularity doesn't necessarily equal quality. With 'rarely indicates' meaning exactly that. You seem to have reversed the question and thus made a false syllogism. I'd like SanAntone to speak for himself, but I didn't see anything in his post that stated that 'all' things that are popular lack quality. 
For me personally there are works popular and unpopular which are not very accomplished.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

HansZimmer said:


> With your money you can do what you want.
> 
> With MY money I prefer to buy a ticket for a concert of John Williams rather than to give even a single cent for music like this one.
> 
> ...


I listened closely and don’t believe either performer made a mistake in this performance.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Chat Noir said:


> *No, he did not*. And unless someone was being difficult I think we all know popularity doesn't necessarily equal quality. With 'rarely indicates' meaning exactly that. You seem to have reversed the question and thus made a false syllogism. I'd like SanAntone to speak for himself, but I didn't see anything in his post that stated that 'all' things that are popular lack quality.
> For me personally there are works popular and unpopular which are not very accomplished.


What on earth is your problem? For the second time, I responded to that quoted statement. It was presented as the conclusion of his post.



SanAntone said:


> If you want to talk about popularity, then pop, rap, country, rock, all have greater audiences than film soundtrack albums. And why is this discussion ( in your opinion) about numbers/popularity and not intrinsic quality of the music no matter the audience size? _*Popularity and mass appeal are rarely indicative of artistic quality.*_


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

DaveM said:


> What on earth is your problem?:


I think I stated it in my last post. Interpretation.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

HansZimmer said:


> It look like a flame to romantic art, but also to baroque and classical art.
> The art has always been for the heart and for the brain.
> 
> The happyness of the typical Mozart's allegro is not sentimentality? The sadness/melancholy of the adagios is not sentimentality?
> ...


Correct. Those are NOT sentimental. Go read what I wrote about sentimentality in the thread I started about the Validity of Modern Music and see if you can understand why.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Chat Noir said:


> I think I stated it in my last post. Interpretation.


The sentence I referred to is unqualified, clear and leaves little or nothing open to interpretation unless you are using a version of the English language I am unfamiliar with.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

HansZimmer said:


> Really not? You are saying that doesn't matter if the folks like the music or not. Who will pay to produce music that no one likes?


If you are really saying that NO ONE likes modern, contemporary, or Avant Garde music then you are a bold faced liar.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Chat Noir said:


> No, he did not. And unless someone was being difficult I think we all know popularity doesn't necessarily equal quality. With 'rarely indicates' meaning exactly that. You seem to have reversed the question and thus made a false syllogism. I'd like SanAntone to speak for himself, but I didn't see anything in his post that stated that 'all' things that are popular lack quality.
> For me personally there are works popular and unpopular which are not very accomplished.


You summed up my point very nicely.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> You summed up my point very nicely.


Which was not the way you summed up your post.



Chat Noir said:


> ..And unless someone was being difficult *I think we all know popularity doesn't necessarily equal quality. With 'rarely indicates' meaning exactly that. *


Unless someone is playing fast and loose with the language, I think we all know that _’rarely indicates_’ does not mean exactly ‘doesn‘t necessarily_’_.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

DaveM said:


> Which was not the way you summed up your post.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless someone is playing fast and loose with the language, I think we all know that _’rarely indicates_’ does not mean exactly ‘doesn‘t necessarily_’_.


Name a classical work which is widely acknowledged as one of the greatest works written and is also as popular as The Beatles.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

DaveM said:


> Unless someone is playing fast and loose with the language, I think we all know that _’rarely indicates_’ does not mean exactly ‘doesn‘t necessarily_’_.


Now that's a little rich isn't it? After taking someone's post and putting your own spin on it with a certain interpretation? The simple statement was that popularity doesn't equal quality. Even if 'rarely' was misused (though I don't think it was), the obvious conclusion is that a) not all popular things are great so popularity is no measure, and b) not all great things are popular. Certainly not: 


DaveM said:


> How many classical works that have mass appeal are not indicative of artistic quality? [...] This sounds like an attempt to remove popularity and mass appeal as having any importance in order to support music that doesn't have much or any.


That (again boringly) rests on taste most of all. I personally find quite a few mass appeal classical pieces extremely dull and of limited technical and artistic achievement. That doesn't and shouldn't matter for the next person, but the discussion - further up - hinged on the notion that promoting and popularity was the key, when in fact things should be taken and judged on how good they are. Yet since different people, AND prevailing cultural tastes, dictates a lot of this there's not much to be done.

My question is: why are you getting into a strop and thinking everyone is trashing 'mass appeal' music? The real, slightly veiled purpose to this thread is the same as the OP's last few in the same vein. That if only we'd all listen to and promote chocolate-box music and 'tonal' music and stuff which vaguely sounds like that soundtrack to that film, 'classical' music wouldn't be going down the WC. However, this is twaddle of the highest order.


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> Name a classical work which is widely acknowledged as one of the greatest works written and is also as popular as The Beatles.


Yes. And to respond to some of the other posts here, there is certainly an audience for contemporary classical music. Is it the same audience as more "mainstream" classical music? No, but these audiences do overlap. Is it as big as the audience for popular music? Also no. However, there is certainly an audience there, and dare I say it's even a sizable one.


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

Chat Noir said:


> That (again boringly) rests on taste most of all. I personally find quite a few mass appeal classical pieces extremely dull and of limited technical and artistic achievement. That doesn't and shouldn't matter for the next person, but the discussion - further up - hinged on the notion that promoting and popularity was the key, when in fact things should be taken and judged on how good they are. Yet since different people, AND prevailing cultural tastes, dictates a lot of this there's not much to be done.
> 
> My question is: why are you getting into a strop and thinking everyone is trashing 'mass appeal' music? The real, slightly veiled purpose to this thread is the same as the OP's last few in the same vein. That if only we'd all listen to and promote chocolate-box music and 'tonal' music and stuff which vaguely sounds like that soundtrack to that film, 'classical' music wouldn't be going down the WC. However, this is twaddle of the highest order.


Indeed. There's quite a few mass appeal classical pieces that I don't particularly enjoy, although there's others I really enjoy quite a lot. We all have our own personal preferences though, don't we? And that's the beauty of having a variety of different types of music. Regarding trashing 'mass appeal' music – I don't think that's what people were trying to do either, and it certainly wasn't my aim. However, I do think it's important and fair to say that composers don't and shouldn't have to write this type of music.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

Bulldog said:


> I don't consider classical music a dying art form.


Everyone else does. 





__





is classical.music a dying art form? - Google Search






www.google.com





From music sales to performance attendance to social treads, nothing points to other than demise.

Not wanting something to not be true does not make it so. 

Peace


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

eljr said:


> Everyone else does.


That's a blatantly untrue comment.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

People were saying the same thing back in the 80s (and 90s and seemingly now as well), Then you read that someone's new work has been commissioned and is premiering. It's fearmongering stuff.

It can only ever be concluded in comparison to unreasonable situations. Imagine comparing jazz in the U.S. now to jazz in 1955, and saying 'my god! jazz is not being followed by the youth! It's dying!' Except it isn't and it's rather healthy, even if it's not the go-to music of the youth.

In comparison to _what_ is classical music 'dying'? Wagner's opening at Beyreuth? The premiere of _The Magic Flute_? (which loads of people didn't attend anyway).


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Chat Noir said:


> Now that's a little rich isn't it? After taking someone's post and putting your own spin on it with a certain interpretation? The simple statement was that popularity doesn't equal quality. Even if 'rarely' was misused (though I don't think it was), the obvious conclusion is that a) not all popular things are great so popularity is no measure, and b) not all great things are popular.


No matter how much you try to misstate it, the statement was:


SanAntone said:


> Popularity and mass appeal are rarely indicative of artistic quality.


That is what I responded to. If you don’t like the comment I made about it, then fine, but don’t think you can change the statement _as quoted above_ and make a big stink when called on the fact that you tried to change it. If one is going to make a statement about the immediate subject in question then this is the best way to state it: Popularity does not guarantee artistic quality. Saying it is ‘rarely indicative’ or ‘almost always indicative’ would be two misleading extremes. End of story.


> My question is: why are you getting into a strop and thinking everyone is trashing 'mass appeal' music? The real, slightly veiled purpose to this thread is the same as the OP's last few in the same vein.. However, this is twaddle of the highest order.


You have a way of putting words in peoples’ mouths and then commenting on them as if they were actually said. As for the ‘getting into a strop’, it has no meaning on this side of the pond. What does have meaning on both sides of the pond, which applies to your comments, is ‘the pot calling the kettle black’.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

DaveM said:


> No matter how much you try to misstate it, the statement was:
> 
> 
> That is what I responded to. If you don’t like the comment I made about it, then fine, but don’t think you can change the statement _as quoted above_ and make a big stink when called on the fact that you tried to change it. If one is going to make a statement about the immediate subject in question then this is the best way to state it: Popularity does not guarantee artistic quality. Saying it is ‘rarely indicative’ or ‘almost always indicative’ would be two misleading extremes. End of story.
> ...


I know what the statement was; I read it too. It means: things that have mass appeal and popularity are not often of great quality. And more strongly that mass appeal doesn't guarantee it. It's true. I see that it raises your hackles, though there has to be an inferred reason for it. It's like when someone says 'a lot of people from Germany are blunt' and then someone says, 'well I'm from Germany and I'm not blunt!!' It's because 'a lot of' doesn't mean 'all'. Every last example.

Do you think the majority of current chart music, which is arguably the most popular music now in the world, therefore carries the implication of quality? You jumped on the statement as applying to 'classical music with mass appeal', but it was nowhere in the original post.

I never put words in anyone's mouth. I simply highlighted the misconstrued criticism. Don't take it personally, it's not me trying to personally attack you.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Chat Noir said:


> I never put words in anyone's mouth. I simply highlighted the misconstrued criticism. Don't take it personally, it's not me trying to personally attack you.


Maybe you better take some time and review your posts before sending them off. Your credibility is suffering. While the term ‘getting into a strop’ is not familiar over here, I do know it to mean variations of having a temper tantrum which is personal. Interacting with you is simply not a pleasant experience.


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

DaveM said:


> Maybe you better take some time and review your posts before sending them off. Your credibility is suffering. While the term ‘getting into a strop’ is not familiar over here, I do know it to mean variations of having a temper tantrum which is personal. Interacting with you is simply not a pleasant experience.


Going off of this and the earlier points, I don't think any of us who are supporting our perceived artistic credibility of contemporary classical music (including that with very chromatic harmony, and/or timbral experimentation, lack of a clear pulse, etc.) are trying to put words in your mouth. It is a bit unfortunate that so many points we bring up end up becoming a discussion about semantics and whether or not people are putting words in others' mouths, rather than about the music itself.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

Bulldog said:


> That's a blatantly untrue comment.


By what method do you qualify and quantify your assertion?


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

DaveM said:


> Maybe you better take some time and review your posts before sending them off. Your credibility is suffering. While the term ‘getting into a strop’ is not familiar over here, I do know it to mean variations of having a temper tantrum which is personal. Interacting with you is simply not a pleasant experience.


My 'credibility' is out of my hands really. It's also a matter of debate. Some will say I have none, some might say I have enough. A bit like people putting out art. Once it's out other people seem to decide its fate with judgement.

You did know what 'getting into a strop' is . Did you look it up? You do seem to get annoyed, so maybe me pointing to it might feel personal, but what else am I supposed to do when it is dominating the reply? I completely believe that you chose a particular interpretation of SanAntone's words. To say so is not illegitimate. I'm sorry the experience is unpleasant. Though it might be discomfort really.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

Chat Noir said:


> People were saying the same thing back in the 80s (and 90s and seemingly now as well), Then you read that someone's new work has been commissioned and is premiering. It's fearmongering stuff.


It was true then, it is still ture. It has continued to wither. Submitting a new commission of proof an entire genre is not waning is a logical fallacy.

I am fact based. I dont mean to cause umbrage. I too wish it were not true. 

Peace


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

> If one is going to make a statement about the immediate subject in question then this is the best way to state it: Popularity does not guarantee artistic quality. Saying it is ‘rarely indicative’ or ‘almost always indicative’ would be two misleading extremes.


We just disagree about this, and you have been misquoting me. What I wrote was, "Popularity and *mass appeal *are rarely indicative of artistic quality." 

I do think that mass appeal is rarely indicative of artistic quality, unless you can tell me of a classical work about which there is a long standing consensus of its high artistic quality, and has the mass appeal on the level of The Beatles.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

eljr said:


> It was true then, it is still ture. It has continued to wither. Submitting a new commission of proof an entire genre is not waning is a logical fallacy.
> 
> I am fact based. I dont mean to cause umbrage. I too wish it were not true.
> 
> Peace


You know though there is no law that says it ought to not fade away. So much culture has faded away. Not completely faded away, but is no longer a core feature of the culture. 
Personally I don't find it to be fading as much as some think. I live near concert halls and when I attend the audience isn't all old people (as is usually stated), there are youths there. There are more orchestras now than ever before. If it is fading, how would they find personnel?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

composingmusic said:


> Going off of this and the earlier points, I don't think any of us who are supporting our perceived artistic credibility of contemporary classical music (including that with very chromatic harmony, and/or timbral experimentation, lack of a clear pulse, etc.) are trying to put words in your mouth. It is a bit unfortunate that so many points we bring up end up becoming a discussion about semantics and whether or not people are putting words in others' mouths, rather than about the music itself.


Semantics are often important on a forum. ‘rarely’ does not mean ‘sometimes’ or ‘does not guarantee’. it means ‘rarely’. When it comes to my comment on ‘putting words in my mouth’, that is directed at whoever I chose to respond to. I don’t recall responding to you on that subject. If I was addressing some group that (for some reason) you‘ve decided to speak for on that subject, I would have said so.


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

DaveM said:


> I don’t recall responding to you on that subject.


I remember you saying this, or at least something to this effect, although it might have been in the other forum. 

Regarding the future of classical music: I think there's a lot of really good contemporary music being written now, and there's a bunch of exciting young composers who are doing interesting things. While the funding situation is quite difficult in some countries, I think it's reasonably good in others. Historically, this does seem to be something that fluctuates decade to decade, year to year. A lot of orchestras want to focus on past repertoire, but there are many that are actively programming new repertoire and commissioning a variety of composers.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

DaveM said:


> Semantics are often important on a forum. ‘rarely’ does not mean ‘sometimes’ or ‘does not guarantee’. it means ‘rarely’. When it comes to my comment on ‘putting words in my mouth’, that is directed at whoever I chose to respond to. I don’t recall responding to you on that subject. If I was addressing some group that (for some reason) you‘ve decided to speak for on that subject, I would have said so.


Again though, you are focusing on completely the wrong aspect of SanAntone's post, which he just took the trouble to point out and explain. Did you ignore it? The rest of the above is rather extraordinary.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> We just disagree about this, and you have been misquoting me. What I wrote was, "Popularity and *mass appeal *are rarely indicative of artistic quality."


In three separate places I quoted you exactly and my responses were to those quotes. In any event, adding or removing ‘mass appeal’ would make no difference since the popularity you were talking about was tantamount to mass appeal.



> I do think that mass appeal is rarely indicative of artistic quality, unless you can tell me of a classical work about which there is a long standing consensus of its high artistic quality, and has the mass appeal on the level of The Beatles.


There have been several instances of posters making this irrelevant comparison. It makes absolutely no sense. The fact that the mass appeal on the level of The Beatles is greater than a given classical work is not an argument diminishing the argument that the popularity or mass appeal of a Beethoven work may well indicate artistic quality within the classification of classical music.

Besides, just for interest sake, has anyone made a comparison of the total number of people impacted by the works of Beethoven (and what that says about the artistic quality of his work) over the last 200 years around the world compared to the numbers impacted by The Beatles? Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Chat Noir said:


> Again though, you are focusing on completely the wrong aspect of SanAntone's post, which he just took the trouble to point out and explain. Did you ignore it? The rest of the above is rather extraordinary.


Thank you. I like to think all of my posts are rather extraordinary.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

DaveM said:


> In three separate places I quoted you exactly and my responses were to those quotes. In any event, adding or removing ‘mass appeal’ would make no difference since the popularity you were talking about was tantamount to mass appeal.
> 
> 
> There have been several instances of posters making this irrelevant comparison. It makes absolutely no sense. The fact that the mass appeal on the level of The Beatles is greater than a given classical work is not an argument diminishing the argument that the popularity or mass appeal of a Beethoven work may well indicate artistic quality within the classification of classical music.
> ...


The definition of "mass appeal" is what The Beatles had. Classical music doesn't come close to "mass appeal" since the audience for classical music is a fraction of what a group like The Beatles demonstrated. Within the small pond of classical music there are some works that have risen in popularity more than others, but these works have never struck me as the best classical music has to offer. Each of these composers have works of higher artistic quality thn the ones they are famous for: Pachelbel's _Canon_, Ravel's _Bolero_, "Ave Maria" by Charles Gounod, "The Blue Danube" by Johann Strauss II, _Also sprach Zarathustra_, _Eine kleine Nachtmusik_, _Moonlight Sonata_, ... etc.

So, I stand by my comment, completely: popularity and mass appeal rarely indicate highest artistic quality. Rarely, meaning not often - not "never" as you originally distorted my post. 

So Beethoven and Mozart have some works of high artistic quality which have been popular maybe even mass appeal, but they are the exceptions which prove the rule - and those two works I listed by Mozart and Beethoven are certainly not the best music they ever composed.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> *So, I stand by my comment, completely: popularity and mass appeal rarely indicate highest artistic quality.* Rarely, meaning not often - not "never" as you originally distorted my post.


I never said ‘never’ and you’ve misquoted your own post which was:



SanAntone said:


> ..Popularity and mass appeal are rarely indicative of artistic quality.


You have now added the word ‘highest’. The presence of ’artistic quality’ and ‘highest artistic quality’ are 2 different things. You have now changed the subject. Those works of Beethoven and Mozart may have not been examples of their ‘highest artistic quality’, but surely you’re not saying they don’t have ‘artistic quality’.


----------



## Owen David (May 15, 2020)

Luchesi said:


> I think by the early 1950s children were beginning to listen to rock'n roll and less to classical and the pops of the time. So a lot of kids missed out on the little bit of CM that they would've gotten, secondhand.


I'm not sure about that. A lot of children in the 50s and 60s were also receiving a proper secondary education (denied to previous generations) which included music - and back then that meant mostly classical music. The "problem" wasn't that kids listened to rock and roll it was that classical composers stopped producing memorable music for reasons of cliquist ideology and careerism. I think appreciation of classical music among the general population was probably stronger in the 1960s than in the 1930s and certainly the 1830s. But obviously by the 1960s "classical" music meant stuff created long ago.


----------



## Owen David (May 15, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> The definition of "mass appeal" is what The Beatles had. Classical music doesn't come close to "mass appeal" since the audience for classical music is a fraction of what a group like The Beatles demonstrated. Within the small pond of classical music there are some works that have risen in popularity more than others, but these works have never struck me as the best classical music has to offer. Each of these composers have works of higher artistic quality thn the ones they are famous for: Pachelbel's _Canon_, Ravel's _Bolero_, "Ave Maria" by Charles Gounod, "The Blue Danube" by Johann Strauss II, _Also sprach Zarathustra_, _Eine kleine Nachtmusik_, _Moonlight Sonata_, ... etc.
> 
> So, I stand by my comment, completely: popularity and mass appeal rarely indicate highest artistic quality. Rarely, meaning not often - not "never" as you originally distorted my post.
> 
> So Beethoven and Mozart have some works of high artistic quality which have been popular maybe even mass appeal, but they are the exceptions which prove the rule - and those two works I listed by Mozart and Beethoven are certainly not the best music they ever composed.


If you can't hum it, bin it.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

DaveM said:


> I never said ‘never’ and you’ve misquoted your own post which was


No, you're doing it again. You actually did interpret it as 'never' even if not using the word. I don't even need to argue this point because it's up there in b/w for everyone to peruse. Stop shifting the goalposts for yourself and then admonishing SA for expanding upon a shorter post about what he's trying to say.



DaveM said:


> You have now added the word ‘highest’. The presence of ’artistic quality’ and ‘highest artistic quality’ are 2 different things. You have now changed the subject. Those works of Beethoven and Mozart may have not been examples of their ‘highest artistic quality’, but surely you’re not saying they don’t have ‘artistic quality’.


This discussion hardly matters. Mozart & Beethoven have already proven their worth and have their place. I think the works listed have artistic merit, but the POINT is that these recycled over and over again in concert programmes and feeding an idea of what classical music is or 'should' be, is more closer to moribund.

The real meat of this discussion is something else entirely. The implication that for classical music to 'survive' it must eschew all forays into music that will be deemed 'unpopular' (so for you and the other few, the infamous 'music with no melody and harmony') and instead stick to certain 'correct' approaches. That is what this thread was created to argue.

You're now pursuing a dead cat argument instead of the real point. You will say 'you're misquoting me!!'. I'm not doing that. Refrain from this


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Kreisler jr said:


> I think anyone who denies that classical music and opera are about 100 years past their prime (not wrt quality but general relevance and societal status) is kidding themselves. It has only become less relevant for decades and I don't think there is anything anyone can do about that now.
> This decline was "masked" by its slowness and by the spread of middle class habits to broader sections of the populace in the affluent 1950s-70s. This does not mean that classical music will completely vanish, of course it will not, but it will become more niche and not regain the societal status it had until the early 20th century (and to some extent until the 1960s or so). We also might have our perception skewed by the (late) 19th century when classical music had probably its highest status in history and there was also a fringe of semi-classical-popular music (like operetta, waltzes etc.) that was continuous with "serious CM". Remnants of the latter still existed until a few decades ago but with the Webber-style musicals (that are often more reliant on varieté-like show and stagecraft than music) having replaced operetta (that were basically light comic operas) this continuum is basically disrupted.


I think its obvious that social changes made an impact, but that was unavoidable after two cataclysmic world wars. I think that the big game changer of the last century was how music became disseminated, by radio and especially records. People no longer had to go to concerts to hear the core repertoire, and its a this time that the performance canon starts to go into a sort of deep freeze.

I have a theory that the rise of popular music thanks to these new media not only eclipsed but also served to support classical. The record companies, for example, earned the most amount from popular music but the profits inevitably trickled down to classical. Even within classical, the lighter fare (e.g. Mantovani, Boston Pops) sold the most records, as did musicals.

It sounds a bit like a modern spin on noblesse oblige. I'm not sure if its exactly that, but with regards to the postwar decades, classical did pretty well within its new circumstances. There's also the point that even though the performance repertoire became resistant to expansion, a new (or parallel) repertoire developed through recordings.

And what exactly does repertoire mean after humanity was at the brink of annihilation? Is it just something we preserve, like some heritage building, to remember what civilisation was like in the past? Is it still alive? Does it have to be? I'm not asking a rhetorical question. We had the Holocaust and Hiroshima, and after that a sort of nihilism, zero hour, tabula rasa which is understandable.

The modernist version of civilisation just doesn't work when you look at what's happened since WWII. Classical no longer had a monopoly on highbrow status, either. Out of these circumstances what eventually emerged came to resemble what we have now, classical being extremely diverse and in turn being a broad category amongst a universe of genres and subgenres. Perhaps its less a case of something dying and more a case of it shedding its skin and changing into something very different. In some ways, that's normal in terms of what's happened during the thousand year history of classical music.


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

Chat Noir said:


> Mozart & Beethoven have already proven their worth and have their place. I think the works listed have artistic merit


I think this makes an extremely important point: over time, people have self-selected particular works. For all the works we do hear today from the classical canon, there's many times that amount of music that doesn't get played, or is rarely heard. This process has yet to happen for contemporary classical music, although we are starting to see some works entering the repertoire from the 20th and 21st centuries. Point being, what we see from the past is only a small portion of the music that was being heard and played at the time.


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

Sid James said:


> I think its obvious that social changes made an impact, but that was unavoidable after two cataclysmic world wars. I think that the big game changer of the last century was how music became disseminated, by radio and especially records. People no longer had to go to concerts to hear the core repertoire, and its a this time that the performance canon starts to go into a sort of deep freeze.


Yes, I agree – the world wars had an enormous impact on music in the following decades, and on the attitude towards music. There were reactionary movements that arose as a result, and then countermovements that grew out of these. 

Regarding recording, this had a huge impact as well, beyond the question of how people attended concerts. It impacted how people thought about sound in general, and this idea of freezing sound in time became possible. People also began to experiment with electronic music, and that was a big game-changer as well in many ways – the ramifications of this also impact acoustic forms of contemporary and modernist classical music.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Speaking of recordings, It's possible that in the near future, the best orchestras will survive more from online subscriptions than bums on seats. Recording and filming live performance makes perfect sense and can then be uploaded to a bespoke channel as we are seeing happen already. Orchestras then make money from ticket sales and from online access. Creating content doesn't have to have a live audience neither and once uploaded, is available for posterity.
It's not a stretch to see how this can benefit today's composers, especially as live performances are going to be rare for certain styles of writing. And it's not a stretch to see how online libraries of digital recordings for a virtual world audience, apart from being an important archive, will help to keep the flame of art music alive and possibly even extend the appeal of the more esoteric genres.


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

mikeh375 said:


> Speaking of recordings, It's possible that in the near future, the best orchestras will survive more from online subscriptions than bums on seats. Recording and filming live performance makes perfect sense and can then be uploaded to a bespoke channel as we are seeing happen already. Orchestras then make money from ticket sales and from online access. Creating content doesn't have to have a live audience neither and once uploaded, is available for posterity.
> It's not a stretch to see how this can benefit today's composers, especially as live performances are going to be rare for certain styles of writing. And it's not a stretch to see how online libraries of digital recordings for a virtual world audience, apart from being an important archive, will help to keep the flame of art music alive and possibly even extend the appeal of the more esoteric genres.


Yes, I also think there will be more variety in experimenting with different types of recording and filming – this will also be applicable to certain more hybrid types of performance, where it's not possible for everything to be live. At the school where I did my masters, there were some projects that involved working with other remote institutions through low latency video and sound connections (LoLa), which allowed for real-time interaction... extremely cool, and will probably be more applicable in future projects!

I do also think there's a future for live performance of purely acoustic music, and don't see this going away anytime soon. There is a certain magic that happens when you're in the same space as a bunch of great musicians.


----------



## Viajero (1 mo ago)

Mike's post #189 actually details/parallels the rise and prominence of Hip Hop music in which unknown recording studios turned unknown Hip Hop "artists" into overnight millionaires.. . almost solely without the concert venue until they became popular to a wider audience. Man is on a laser path to experiencing life vicariously and ,ultimately, live music will become a rarity. We see it clearly today in the paucity of paid opportunities for musicians to play live in clubs(Jazz) or concert venues(Classical) versus in the 50's-70's where it was much easier to find work for the average musician. Today, many talented musicians have resorted to weddings, bistros, upscale restaurants, wine tastings for paid performance opportunities but the overwhelming popularity of Youtube points clearly towards this new and growing reality. We are a world in transition . . . for better or worse.
Viajero


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

In any case the major reason (or one of) classical music has persisted over time is because it was written down and able to be reproduced. How much popular music since the advent of recording has slipped into total obscurity, perhaps never to be rediscovered? I think history is actually on the side of music written down, rather than stuff that was recorded as a single artefact. Yesterday I passed a poster announcing a Christmas concert from an early 80s band. Once these people are gone, their legacy is whatever recordings survive. This is less so for the likes of e.g. Mahler. You can just assemble an orchestra and play it, there is no single performance artefact.


----------



## Viajero (1 mo ago)

However, from a musician's perspective . . . there will always be a place for the "Phenom" in the future since society needs its fix of instant gratification. But, for the rest of us, who represent the lion's share of performing musicians, we must seriously consider the real possibilities that await us down the road. I have a bleak view of the future for the Arts as our combined cultures tailspin into sameness, mediocrity, and the tastes of the Common Man. Quality music is esoteric . . . so, when does the well run dry?
Viajero


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

...don't lose hope @Viajero, the contemporary scene is vibrant and the internet will hopefully get even better for performers with remote recording, live streams etc. However If I where a music publisher I'd be worried as composers might be doing it for themselves in the future. The future is looking increasingly digital and virtual imo and there is a big audience out there.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

mikeh375 said:


> ...don't lose hope @Viajero, the contemporary scene is vibrant and the internet will hopefully get even better for performers with remote recording, live streams etc. However If I where a music publisher I'd be worried as composers might be doing it for themselves in the future. The future is looking increasingly digital and virtual imo and there is a big audience out there.


On that point I'd have one single concern. Similar to the fracture of television broadcasting into 'narrowcasting'. That there is no, for want of a better word, 'curator'. In the past very good TV resulted from experts and professionals coming together to deliver things people would never have discovered or perhaps understood alone. This is now dismissed as 'paternalism' and the concept of viewer choice vaunted as the great media democracy. We know all too well that the modern version can trap a viewer in a bubble of the familiar. Where they can just exclude stuff in which they consider themselves to have no interest.

In the past TV used methodologies like 'hammocking' to present something new or less understood between two proven mass successes. So that a viewer would catch either the beginning or the end before the following programme. To present new content. This is now eliminated in TV-on-demand. Modern internet radio is also divided up. E.g. Radio France (and many others: Swiss Radio, German Radio) has separate channels for: Opera, 'easy classics', baroque, contemporary, 'film music'. To me, this itself is a death knell with content ordered and categorised in that way. It means you can completely avoid something like opera or contemporary. Never have the discomfort of unfamiliarity. It feeds the attitude that demands fixed notions of what something is supposed to be.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Owen David said:


> I'm not sure about that. A lot of children in the 50s and 60s were also receiving a proper secondary education (denied to previous generations) which included music - and back then that meant mostly classical music. The "problem" wasn't that kids listened to rock and roll it was that classical composers stopped producing memorable music for reasons of cliquist ideology and careerism. I think appreciation of classical music among the general population was probably stronger in the 1960s than in the 1930s and certainly the 1830s. But obviously by the 1960s "classical" music meant stuff created long ago.


I think it has mostly to do with what the kids are developing in those critical years, 14 for boys and 13 for girls. 
They're developing a wider emotional world, and the separate idea that - they deeply feel that their peers need to be part of the process. It's so new to them and it's oh so natural (whether we’re considering music or other pursuits).. 

We shouldn't forget the tactile experiences which will become a part of a young musician. Playing Moonlight Sonata as an adolescent is quite a heady experience. These are memorable and foundational. Without any of that exposure and developing interests those crucial years will be lost.

Later on in young adulthood many people tell me that they picked up CM on their own. How they did it and how probable the sequence was, is different in every case that I've come across. So it's extremely hit or miss.. sadly..


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Viajero said:


> Mike's post #189 actually details/parallels the rise and prominence of Hip Hop music in which unknown recording studios turned unknown Hip Hop "artists" into overnight millionaires.. . almost solely without the concert venue until they became popular to a wider audience. Man is on a laser path to experiencing life vicariously and ,ultimately, live music will become a rarity. We see it clearly today in the paucity of paid opportunities for musicians to play live in clubs(Jazz) or concert venues(Classical) versus in the 50's-70's where it was much easier to find work for the average musician. Today, many talented musicians have resorted to weddings, bistros, upscale restaurants, wine tastings for paid performance opportunities but the overwhelming popularity of Youtube points clearly towards this new and growing reality. We are a world in transition . . . for better or worse.
> Viajero


Welcome to the forum, you'll fit right in here. We have wonderful posters.

For me the teenage love songs of the early 60s and novelty songs and the influence of early rock groups lead me to try to search for the melodies in CM. So I started with Chopin and then Mozart/Schubert. Later the powerful works of Beethoven and, slowly, the rest of CM.

Will hip-hop do this for kids today, as those attractive early songs and those musical presentations did it for me? I hope so.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Owen David said:


> I'm not sure about that. A lot of children in the 50s and 60s were also receiving a proper secondary education (denied to previous generations) which included music - and back then that meant mostly classical music. The "problem" wasn't that kids listened to rock and roll it was that classical composers stopped producing memorable music for reasons of cliquist ideology and careerism. I think appreciation of classical music among the general population was probably stronger in the 1960s than in the 1930s and certainly the 1830s. But obviously by the 1960s "classical" music meant stuff created long ago.





DaveM said:


> I never said ‘never’ and you’ve misquoted your own post which was:
> 
> 
> 
> You have now added the word ‘highest’. The presence of ’artistic quality’ and ‘highest artistic quality’ are 2 different things. You have now changed the subject. Those works of Beethoven and Mozart may have not been examples of their ‘highest artistic quality’, but surely you’re not saying they don’t have ‘artistic quality’.



This could be a brief, entertaining introduction to the harmony of new music. He actually gets around to lo-fi hip-hop in the very end. I’ve thought about hip-hop in this way, but I had never seen anybody do a video of such a development from the many decades of jazz thinking.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Chat Noir said:


> No, you're doing it again. You actually did interpret it as 'never' even if not using the word. I don't even need to argue this point because it's up there in b/w for everyone to peruse. Stop shifting the goalposts for yourself and then admonishing SA for expanding upon a shorter post about what he's trying to say.


This is getting bizarre. Anyone who didn’t read recent posts closely would think that the posts of mine you quote were addressed to you. Or maybe Chat Noir and SanAntone are the same person. Come to think of it, I haven’t seen the two of you in the same room at the same time. As for ‘shifting the goalposts’, SA didn’t expand a shorter post, he said ‘I stand by my comment’ and then not only misquoted what it was, but made a new one with example.



> This discussion hardly matters...


Then why bother with it which, of course, you go on to do.



> The real meat of this discussion is something else entirely. The implication that for classical music to 'survive' it must eschew all forays into music that will be deemed 'unpopular' (*so for you* and the other few, the infamous 'music with no melody and harmony') and instead stick to certain 'correct' approaches. That is what this thread was created to argue. You're now pursuing a dead cat argument instead of the real point. _You will say 'you're misquoting me!!'. I'm not doing that. Refrain from this_


You’re misquoting me.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

DaveM said:


> This is getting bizarre. Anyone who didn’t read recent posts closely would think that the posts of mine you quote were addressed to you. Or maybe Chat Noir and SanAntone are the same person. Come to think of it, I haven’t seen the two of you in the same room at the same time. As for ‘shifting the goalposts’, SA didn’t expand a shorter post, he said ‘I stand by my comment and then not only misquoted what it was and made a new one with example.
> 
> 
> Then why bother with it which, of course, you go on to do.
> ...


Hi Dave.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Chat Noir said:


> In any case the major reason (or one of) classical music has persisted over time is because it was written down and able to be reproduced. How much popular music since the advent of recording has slipped into total obscurity, perhaps never to be rediscovered? I think history is actually on the side of music written down, rather than stuff that was recorded as a single artefact. Yesterday I passed a poster announcing a Christmas concert from an early 80s band. Once these people are gone, their legacy is whatever recordings survive. This is less so for the likes of e.g. Mahler. You can just assemble an orchestra and play it, there is no single performance artefact.


Well, Mahler is "recorded", his music survives as a score - classical music is a form of music which is focused on the composer-as-artist, rather than forms which are focused on performer-as-artist, such as jazz, or even vocalist-as-artist (most capital-p Pop). That's why the score of Mahler 8 surviving is more consequential than if say, we somehow lost the original recording of "I Want to Hold Your Hand" but still had the lyrics and guitar tabs. It's pop music, the auteur is the performer(s). 

One of the consequences of the skepticism between the distinction between "high" and "low" art is that we have become a society of archivists. When it was difficult to record things, because writing things on expensive parchment was a difficult process, we kept the things which were important to our societies- namely religious music. Now that we don't have to make those choices, _everything_ is important to us these days, and the permanent loss of any art fills many of us with a sense of loss.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

fbjim said:


> Well, Mahler is "recorded", his music survives as a score - classical music is a form of music which is focused on the composer-as-artist, rather than forms which are focused on performer-as-artist, such as jazz, or even vocalist-as-artist (most capital-p Pop). That's why the score of Mahler 8 surviving is more consequential than if say, we somehow lost the original recording of "I Want to Hold Your Hand" but still had the lyrics and guitar tabs. It's pop music, the auteur is the performer(s).


Yes, I said that.


----------



## Viajero (1 mo ago)

"We shouldn't forget the tactile experiences which will become a part of a young musician. Playing Moonlight Sonata as an adolescent is quite a heady experience. These are memorable and foundational. Without any of that exposure and developing interests those crucial years will be lost. " Luchesi

Yes, this is a foundational point in musical development. However, the music, for most young people, can only be played on only a very visceral level since it is the maturation/experience/seasoning of the performer that is necessary for a successful mature performance. We musicians must bumble through the technique/pedagogy and hope, one day, that we may allow the composer to speak through our voices and as our friend Willie said through Hamlet . . . "there's the rub."
Viajero


----------



## PeterKC (Dec 30, 2016)

1812 Overture
The beginning of Bethoven's 5th.
Ode to Joy (9th)
Fur Elise
Minute Waltz
Beginning of Also Sprach Zarathustra
William Tell Overture
Dvorak's Minuet


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Viajero said:


> "We shouldn't forget the tactile experiences which will become a part of a young musician. Playing Moonlight Sonata as an adolescent is quite a heady experience. These are memorable and foundational. Without any of that exposure and developing interests those crucial years will be lost. " Luchesi
> 
> Yes, this is a foundational point in musical development. However, the music, for most young people, can only be played on only a very visceral level since it is the maturation/experience/seasoning of the performer that is necessary for a successful mature performance. We musicians must bumble through the technique/pedagogy and hope, one day, that we may allow the composer to speak through our voices and as our friend Willie said through Hamlet . . . "there's the rub."
> Viajero


Yes, but you made me think. I remember at that age having the ‘ideal’ in my mind that I thought about. Beethoven was great and I was playing Beethoven! Whether it was showing off for friends by being effective with the score, or playing in an accelerated tempo, kids love that.. Or overly emphasizing the clever and catchy parts that everyone liked. Of course we still revered the original recordings that we had! I think that scarcity aspect has been lost.

I remember I also had Moonlight Sonata in D minor a simple transcription and I gave it to my girlfriend's younger brother. He developed his own piece of pathos out of the first movement. We were all entertained by this young kid no more than 10 or 11. His energy and his drive to create something personal! We did things like that - because we had so much time on our hands and we weren’t distracted by technology and gossip.

I'm well over 70 now and I can report back that friends and many activities and sexual routines and making a lot of money, they all seem to be on the back burner now, but music continues to blossom in interest upon the decades of my playing and teaching music.

I want this kind of long life for all the children of the world, but it seems to be so rare among children these days. Of course, maybe they have satisfactory substitutes. I mean I assume they surely do for their young lives, but what about the future?


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Chat Noir said:


> On that point I'd have one single concern. Similar to the fracture of television broadcasting into 'narrowcasting'. That there is no, for want of a better word, 'curator'. In the past very good TV resulted from experts and professionals coming together to deliver things people would never have discovered or perhaps understood alone. This is now dismissed as 'paternalism' and the concept of viewer choice vaunted as the great media democracy. We know all too well that the modern version can trap a viewer in a bubble of the familiar. Where they can just exclude stuff in which they consider themselves to have no interest...............


Wise words Chat. The partitioning of choice into simplified categories can be unhelpful in an art choc full of sub-genres and doing so has the potential to undermine or dull any desire to broaden and enhance experience. Curation of future and in particular, niche art music in the light of this requires a bulwark that publishers can provide. In fact, discerning and expert based curation for new music could well be the single most important role for a respected music publisher in the future, assuming the established routes, connections and procedures for publication remain intact.

Talking further about publishing, online trends and opportunity, I know that you'll be aware that traditional musical outlets for a publishers income such as arrangements, transcriptions and out of copyright older scores are slowly being eroded and/or being undermined by the internet. One can now purchase direct from musicians themselves, arrangements and transcriptions and it's possible to even commission almost any type of bespoke score work - all of which is an ongoing and burgeoning trend. Even the business of film score publishing is being siezed from more traditional outlets. I have a few scores by John Williams, published by Hal Leonard and whilst Williams is old skool and his work is unlikely to become available elsewhere, newer online companies are transcribing and publishing film scores and also offering much more in the way of content as you can see here...
Omni Music Publishing provides quality published music books

Publishers are undoubtedly aware of potential future challenges and have adapted well to the concept of downloading by digitising their catalogues and engaging customers with online content. Practically speaking, the established and traditional publisher's name, reputation and archives are their real competitive and curational strength and that alone should guarantee survival, irrespective of any future directions, trends and competition.
That said, is it far fetched to venture that because publishing software is so readily available to anyone, in the future all Conservatoires and Academies will simply and as a matter of course, do the publishing for themselves (like the O.U.P. for example, or even the ABRSM) and bypass established publication routes for new scores, especially as they are perfectly positioned to do so and given that they often call the shots anyway in a curating/publishing capacity?
Whatever the future for the biz, at least nobody underestimates the web these days in the way that EMI did in the early 90's when downloading started to become a thing. They told their lawyers somewhat arrogantly and naively to put a stop to the nonsense because they failed to see the dramatic implications for music and the business thereof online.

Here are a few excellent musicians online who are making a go of it with self publishing.

Gondola Music

Jeffrey Biegel, Pianist

HOME | Jacob Koller Official Website


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

composingmusic said:


> Yes, I agree – the world wars had an enormous impact on music in the following decades, and on the attitude towards music. There were reactionary movements that arose as a result, and then countermovements that grew out of these.


After WWII I think that humanity stared into the abyss, and then it stared back at us. It wasn't just a big moment for music. Modernism, with its imperative of progress, eventually gave way to a variety of narratives, viewpoints and values.



> Regarding recording, this had a huge impact as well, beyond the question of how people attended concerts. It impacted how people thought about sound in general, and this idea of freezing sound in time became possible. People also began to experiment with electronic music, and that was a big game-changer as well in many ways – the ramifications of this also impact acoustic forms of contemporary and modernist classical music.


I think it's also interesting how electronic music spreads across genres. In popular music, there isn't so much a tendency to resist or compartmentalise it as in classical. It's well suited to multidisciplinary approaches.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I think that the wash up of this and other similar discussions here simply reflects the reality that classical music isn't the main game in town anymore, and like everything else it's broken up into bits and pieces. I think that to agonise over this here, in effect to argue what is more or less essential in this big salad bowl, is as lame as Daffyd saying he's the only gay in the village.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

SanAntone said:


> If you want to talk about popularity, then pop, rap, country, rock, all have greater audiences than film soundtrack albums. And why is this discussion ( in your opinion) about numbers/popularity and not intrinsic quality of the music no matter the audience size? Popularity and mass appeal are rarely indicative of artistic quality.


I think that we have to make a distinction between popularity as a measure of "how many people know the piece?" and popularity as a measure of "out of 1000 people who know the piece, how many people give a good rating to the piece?".

The first measure of course doesn't say nothing about the quality: it basically only says how much the piece has been promoted.
We should discouss about the second measure.

I think that many persons make confusion between the two measures: they think that if something is popular according to the first measure, then it's also popular according to the second measure.
It's wrong!

Take for example the song "Despacito": it's the most viewed song in youtube (8 billions of views), but in the website "rateyourmusic" the album has a score of 1.74/5: Despacito by Luis Fonsi (Single, Reggaetón): Reviews, Ratings, Credits, Song list - Rate Your Music

We have to take in account that a lot of music that it's popular according to the first measure is "infamously popular". The top-selling artists and songs have a lot of haters.


When it comes to John Williams, it's the other kind of popularity. 60 millions of views are nothing compared to the 8 billions of Despacito, this is sure, but the OST album of Schindler's List in rateyourmusic has a score of 3.87/5: Schindler's List by John Williams (Album, Film Score): Reviews, Ratings, Credits, Song list - Rate Your Music

Now, what does it mean when a product get a good score in a website?
Look at the demographichs of the voters of the film Schindler's List (9/10) in IMDB: Schindler's List (1993) - User ratings - IMDb

Only 4% of the voters hate the film (vote under 6).

As the people are always ready to hate something, the fact that only a few people hate Schindler's List might be indicative of an artistic quality? It means that it's difficult to find reasons to hate the film.


You wrote that popularity is rarely indicative of artistic quality and I don't know exactly what you meant with popularity. If you were speaking about the measure of "out of 1'000 persons who know the piece, how many of them think that the piece is good?" I have to say that I usually agree with the "wisdom of the crowd" inside the genres of music I like.
I think it's quite safe to say that if many persons like a melody, then the melody is probably good.

For example, for my competition in the Movie Corner (Best Dramatic Film Score - 1996) I am creating videos with the best parts of the suite for each film nominated for "Best original score" from 1990 to today.
As we are arrived to the year 1996, I have listened very closely to all the the film scores nominated between 1990 and 1996.

Now, in that period Alan Menken was dominating the scene and a few persons might not understand why, but I get the reasons: very nice and creative melodies, colorful/powerful orchestration and stunning climaxes.
There isn't any single case, for now, in which I think that the Oscar winning score has not artistic merit.

I think that the your judgement that what people like has rarely artistic merits is very personal: it might simply mean that your brain processes melodies in a different way in respect to most people.

Look at this image.










For me, the shoe is PINK and WHITE. There are persons who see other colors in this image (I don't remember which ones). When I showed the image to my friends and I told them that the shoe is pink and white they thought I was crazy.
I think that I belong to a minority of persons whose brain process colors in this way.

What if the melodies/sounds are processed in different ways by the brain of the persons? Maybe while Alan Menken was doing excellent works for the people whose brain process the sounds/melodies in the way A, he was creating disturbing sounds for a minority of persons whose brain process sounds/melodies in the way B.

So, what does "artistic quality" mean? Everyone speak about it, but then we are not able to agree about where is the quality. We should have the same brain to agree about it, but we have not the same brain.
So, for me the scores of Alan Menken are excellent, for other persons are not.

Instead of argue about which melodies are good and which ones are not (and therefore argue about which are the good composers and which ones are not) couldn't we simply agree about the fact that orchestral music is basically "serious music" and that the quality of the melodies is subjective? Why has one view have to prevail and win, if everyone can simply peacefully select the melodies and composers he prefers?


----------



## Viajero (1 mo ago)

"but music continues to blossom in interest upon the decades of my playing and teaching music. . . " Luchesi

Well said, Luchesi! And, I think that this is the reason we are so addicted to this process of the birth, life, and resurrection of musical ideas/performance and the infinite search for the Holy Grail. We spend a lifetime traveling this bumpy road with untold manuscripts, notebooks filled with ideas, exercises, and wandering musical thoughts that never materialized. However, the road is also filled with past successes that have detailed our infinite journey. And, I wonder, will future generations choose to travel this road or be sidetracked by the newest form of electronic wizardry or social nihilism? Grandma used to say "The proof is in the pudding . . . "
Viajero


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

HansZimmer said:


> What if the melodies/sounds are processed in different ways by the brain of the persons? Maybe while Alan Menken was doing excellent works for the people whose brain process the sounds/melodies in the way A, he was creating disturbing sounds for a minority of persons whose brain process sounds/melodies in the way B.


What do you propose for people who hear and like melodies you like and also hear and like melodies you don't like? You'll find this is very large group. Even on this single website.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Neo Romanza said:


> The fact that you're elevating "rap" as some kind of lofty musical genre tells me everything I need to know about you as a listener. Rap has been a cultural boon since its existence and has done nothing for music except give the masses their daily dosage of ear garbage. People only listen to it because it makes them look hip or cool. It certainly isn't because "rap" has anything meaningful or compelling to say musically, but most people have low musical standards anyway.
> 
> P.S. It takes zero talent to be a "rapper". Anyone can be a "rapper".


Wow, what an ignorant post. I was late coming to rap, and I can say it is definitely not garbage. Listen to Nas, Eric B. & Rakim, and Tribe Called Quest. It’s definitely more elevated than the largely soulless recordings the classical music industry has been churning out the past couple of decades.

If I can grow up steeped in Beethoven and Brahms, and also like rap music, so can anyone else.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Wow, what an ignorant post. I was late coming to rap, and I can say it is definitely not garbage. Listen to Nas, Eric B. & Rakim, and Tribe Called Quest. It’s definitely more elevated than the largely soulless recordings the classical music industry has been churning out the past couple of decades.
> 
> If I can grow up steeped in Beethoven and Brahms, and also like rap music, so can anyone else.


Actually, it's more ignorant of you to make the assumption that just because you can enjoy rap that everyone else should be able to do the same. Sorry, but you're wrong.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

Neo Romanza said:


> Actually, it's more ignorant of you to make the assumption that just because you can enjoy rap that everyone else should be able to do the same. Sorry, but you're wrong.


Well I listened to it a fair bit, still do now and again. I liked KRS1 a lot. By no means were his music and lyrics empty. That sort of rap/hip-hop was always socially aware.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Neo Romanza said:


> Actually, it's more ignorant of you to make the assumption that just because you can enjoy rap that everyone else should be able to do the same. Sorry, but you're wrong.


You’re right. Some people are closed off to any expansion of their horizons. But for those who are not:


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Neo Romanza said:


> Actually, it's more ignorant of you to make the assumption that just because you can enjoy rap that everyone else should be able to do the same. Sorry, but you're wrong.


... but you are the one who wrote an aggresive post towards other listeners and songwriters. After you played the attack card, are you now trying to play the victim card?


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

HansZimmer said:


> ... but you are the one who wrote an aggresive post towards other listeners and songwriters. After you played the attack card, are you now trying to play the victim card?


No, I'm simply giving an honest opinion, which is I don't like rap and think it's crap. Sorry, but not sorry. My point to @Brahmsianhorn was spot-on, he just didn't want to acknowledge that it's presumptuous to say that just because someone who likes Beethoven or Brahms would have no such difficulty liking rap. Also, to say that I'm "closed-off" musically when this member knows absolutely nothing about me or what I've heard is, again, presumptuous. Anyway, I made my point and you can either accept that I don't like rap or not, I don't really care at this juncture. We like what like and I'm not going to make any kind of argument in regard to my own taste. This isn't up for debate.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

Neo Romanza said:


> Anyway, I made my point and you can either accept that I don't like rap or not, I don't really care at this juncture. We like what like and I'm not going to make any kind of argument in regard to my own taste. This isn't up for debate.


If you post it on an open forum it's always up for debate. People who 'don't care' never engage.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Chat Noir said:


> If you post it on an open forum it's always up for debate. People who 'don't care' never engage.


I said I don't care, because at this juncture, it's futile to argue with people who can't accept what I wrote and who have failed to acknowledge that just because I have a different opinion, it doesn't make me narrow-minded or wrong. It just makes me a person with a different opinion. That's all. @Brahmsianhorn and @HansZimmer are the ones who cannot deal with someone who doesn't like something that they like. As I said, we all have our likes/dislikes and there's nothing wrong with posting on this thread (or any thread) that you dislike something. So, again, these two members can accept that I'm not "hip" as they are and move on.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Neo Romanza said:


> I said I don't care, because at this juncture, it's futile to argue with people who can't accept what I wrote and who have failed to acknowledge that just because I have a different opinion, it doesn't make me narrow-minded or wrong. It just makes me a person with a different opinion. That's all. @Brahmsianhorn and @HansZimmer are the ones who cannot deal with someone who doesn't like something that they like. As I said, we all have our likes/dislikes and there's nothing wrong with posting on this thread (or any thread) that you dislike something. So, again, these two members can accept that I'm not "hip" as they are and move on.


It's the same thing from the Hurwitz thread:

1) Make strongly opinionated judgments on music as well as other posters
2) Declare the discussion closed and anyone responding to your points as people who just can't stop arguing

If you are going to make a point, just expect a response. It is that simple. 

Everyone can freely talk. Openness to other ways of thinking seems to be the overall issue here, both in the views expressed and the manner of responding to others.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

Neo Romanza said:


> I said I don't care, because at this juncture, it's futile to argue with people who can't accept what I wrote and who have failed to acknowledge that just because I have a different opinion, it doesn't make me narrow-minded or wrong. It just makes me a person with a different opinion. That's all.


The problem is, no-one is interested in flat, personal declarations about whether something is just considered 'garbage'. You can make an argument (I can't see you finding one outside of personal taste/snobbery), but there's little point in just declaring something 'garbage', then trying to shut it down with a 'I said so'. It's better to just say nothing if it's just a personal preference. Otherwise we end up at this sort of juncture.
I'm afraid you did exactly the same thing in DaveM's thread about that neck listening device. My advice is: before diving in to make a judgement, know the subject or say nothing.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

mbhaub said:


> For me it always comes bac k to a very simple premise: the further music gets from folksong traditions, the less popular and appreciated it becomes. The most popular music is music that people can hum the tune, tap their toes to, and remember. Everything from a Handel chorus, a Mozart aria, a Beethoven piano sonata, a Tchaikovsky waltz, a Dvorak symphony...they are all memorable and singable. But bring in thornier composers whose music the average person cannot sing or remember and it's going to the garbage bin of history. There will be specialists who study it and perform it. But not enough to keep it vital. Too many modern composers still can't write a good tune, and when they do they seem to have to harmonize it most unmusically just to be "out there" and different. Some composer today do write good tunes and their music is popular because of it: Andrew Lloyd Weber and John Williams. This largely explains why orchestra keep repeating the same repertoire. It's why Messiah and Nutcracker are popular every year. I look at Pop music today and can't believe anyone thinks any of it is good. The writers today are childish infants compared to the great song writers of yesterday, and I'm not just talking Jerome Kern, Irving Berlin, Harold Arlen, Richard Rodgers, Cole Porter and that group. I include people like Paul McCartney, Bob Crewe and a whole bunch of others at work from the '50s through '70s who knew how to write beautiful music that people liked - it meant something. I've gotta stop...getting too serious and blood pressure up. Read Robert Bork's book Slouching Towards Gomorrah. He nails it.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

I just quoted you, but because you wrote nothing it's empty. I read the quote, but aren't you going to comment on it?I think it needs it because it misses a lot.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Neo Romanza said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that you're elevating "rap" as some kind of lofty musical genre tells me everything I need to know about you as a listener. Rap has been a cultural boon since its existence and has done nothing for music except give the masses their daily dosage of ear garbage. People only listen to it because it makes them look hip or cool. It certainly isn't because "rap" has anything meaningful or compelling to say musically, but most people have low musical standards anyway.
> ...


Rap is primarily about affected behavior, scondarily about lyrics and tertiarily about music. The musically aspect tends to be full garbage even if it is not always garbabe. It is true for most listeners that they only listen to it because it makes them look hip or cool.

While talented individuals like Eminem can create something special even in a bad genre, this doesn't make the genre better. In fact rap got worse and worse with time.

It is alarming to see that enthusiasts of classical music lose any instinctive distance to this genre.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

With regard to this notion of 'being able to whistle' and 'closer to folksong music' (what is 'folk music anyway? If not the music of the people) etcetera. There's just too much music in the ordinary canon which contradicts this. 'Classical music' isn't folksong music. Even during the period when they all went about gathering folksongs. It has always been a different kind of thing, larger, more complicated.

We have nice little stories, like that one about the cleaning ladies dancing to _Jupiter_ at the rehearsals of Holst's _Planets. _History hasn't recorded it for us, but they probably thought _Mars_ was an awful racket and Neptune the work of the devil. We have people like composer Edgar Bainton (who?) who denied Schoenberg's application to teach harmony at the Sydney Conservatory because of: "modernist views and dangerous tendencies." Yet have you heard things like Bainton's last works? His 3rd symphony, there's nothing in that you'll find yourself walking away whistling. It's still a great listen imo.
So no, I don't buy the 'further you get from folksong' thesis. It's untrue.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Aries said:


> It is true for most listeners that they only listen to it because it makes them look hip or cool.


This is the most common rationalization I see on this forum to explain away people whose tastes differ from one’s own. It’s the very definition of ignorance. Why is it so hard to accept when people like something you don’t?

Hurwitz does this all the time. In his video where he explains how he doesn’t like Bach all that much, he declares that “99% of people claiming they like Bach have never heard his music.”

You would think music enthusiasts would be the last people who feel the need to reside in an echo chamber.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> This is the most common rationalization I see on this forum to explain away people whose tastes differ from one’s own. It’s the very definition of ignorance. Why is it so hard to accept when people like something you don’t?
> 
> Hurwitz does this all the time. In his video where he explains how he doesn’t like Bach all that much, he declares that “99% of people claiming they like Bach have never heard his music.”
> 
> You would think music enthusiasts would be the last people who feel the need to reside in an echo chamber.


For someone who dislikes Hurwitz as much as you do, you spend a lot of time talking about him. The interesting thing is you're actually starting to sound like him, too, which is quite spooky.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> This is the most common rationalization I see on this forum to explain away people whose tastes differ from one’s own.


I don't see that this applies much to other kinds of music, but in the case of rap it is rather obvious, because the rappers show so much affected behaviour.



Brahmsianhorn said:


> It’s the very definition of ignorance. Why is it so hard to accept when people like something you don’t?


I acknowledge that other people like other music than I. And I have thoughts about the reasons. Often a different taste is the reason, but in other cases other reasons play a big role.



Brahmsianhorn said:


> Hurwitz does this all the time. In his video where he explains how he doesn’t like Bach all that much, he declares that “99% of people claiming they like Bach have never heard his music.”


Maybe he meant "all of his music" or "a representative compilation for all of his music". But I agree Hurwitz talks too sloppy and sometimes pretentious, that is not good. Many people who get much attention over time become too self-righteous. It is a common negative apperance.



Brahmsianhorn said:


> You would think music enthusiasts would be the last people who feel the need to reside in an echo chamber.


Rap is not really about music. Music is a tertiary aspect of rap.

In general people should have an instinctive distance to ghettos, that is just normal and healthy.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Aries said:


> In general people should have an instinctive distance to ghettos, that is just normal and healthy.


Wow, just wow. I think echo chamber was too kind a description for this.


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Wow, just wow. I think echo chamber was too kind a description for this.


Agreed, I'm a bit lost for words... comparing rap to ghettos, and then being incredibly condescending about both of these things? Wow, just wow.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Wow, just wow. I think echo chamber was too kind a description for this.


Giving a big LIKE for this, despite the ridiculously overused and outdated "wow, just wow".

But I guess, some people's ignorance just shocks one's brain all the way back to 2010.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Neo Romanza said:


> No, I'm simply giving an honest opinion, which is I don't like rap and think it's crap. Sorry, but not sorry. My point to @Brahmsianhorn was spot-on, he just didn't want to acknowledge that it's presumptuous to say that just because someone who likes Beethoven or Brahms would have no such difficulty liking rap. Also, to say that I'm "closed-off" musically when this member knows absolutely nothing about me or what I've heard is, again, presumptuous. Anyway, I made my point and you can either accept that I don't like rap or not, I don't really care at this juncture. We like what like and I'm not going to make any kind of argument in regard to my own taste. This isn't up for debate.


Bebop, Rock-a-Billy, Rock and Roll, Heavy Metal, Punk, Grunge and Rap were/are 'designed' to annoy outsiders (maybe we could add Ragtime/Tin Pan Alley and Disco?). It's a somewhat necessary function in art. You would need to get past the alienation aspects. I think it's helpful to try anyway..


----------



## Ulalume!Ulalume! (6 mo ago)

Even the most acclaimed works within rap music, fawned upon by those who primarily listen to actual music but tragically feel the need to appear "open-minded" and "eclectic," usually the same sort that are terrified of appearing "elitist" or "out-of-touch" is utterly puerile.
Here's a sample of the stunning lyricism on display on the album Illmatic, often considered the absolute artistic apex of the genre
_Not bisexual, I'm an intellectual—of rap
I'm a professional and that's no question, yo_
Bravo!
Even the most unfortunate trends within modern classical music are nowhere near as musically wretched as the type of rap music that's actually popular with listeners of the genre. As an example, check out Kay Flock on YouTube. Enjoy!
[postscript: I'm especially harsh on hip hop because I hold long grudges. I'm still bitter about the pocket money wasted as a child on CDs reviewers informed me were amazing masterpieces. I chuckled at the mention of KRS One on the previous page because one of my biggest regrets (and CDs, especially imports were really expensive at the time!) was buying his album Return of the Boom Bap. I distinctly recall listening to this track and realising I had make a terrible, terrible mistake.]


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

Ulalume!Ulalume! said:


> Even the most acclaimed works within rap music, fawned upon by those who primarily listen to actual music but tragically feel the need to appear "open-minded" and "eclectic," usually the same sort that are terrified of appearing "elitist" or "out-of-touch" is utterly puerile.
> Here's a sample of the stunning lyricism on display on the album Illmatic, often considered the absolute artistic apex of the genre
> _Not bisexual, I'm an intellectual—of rap
> I'm a professional and that's no question, yo_
> ...


Do you feel better now?

Yes, your culture is far superior to that of those who identify with and understand Rap.

OK?


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

Ulalume!Ulalume! said:


> I chuckled at the mention of KRS One on the previous page because one of my biggest regrets (and CDs, especially imports were really expensive at the time!) was buying his album Return of the Boom Bap. I distinctly recall listening to this track and realising I had make a terrible, terrible mistake.]


'Chuckled' did you. You don't half fit your own description of your 'elitists'. Just imagine that silly old me, following a traditional-style musical education, and one day listening to bebop another poring over orchestral scores, could also be foolish enough to be reeled-in by low-end rap!

I'm sure you think you're in with the cultural cream of humanity now you arrived at 'classical'. I'm chuckling now.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Luchesi said:


> Bebop, Rock-a-Billy, Rock and Roll, Heavy Metal, Punk, Grunge and Rap were/are 'designed' to annoy outsiders (maybe we could add Ragtime/Tin Pan Alley and Disco?).


Not sure about Disco music, but it seems very true overall. This makes it even more weird, to like something that was designed to annoy the very self. Probably even many rappers would agree, that it is weird when dignified fine spirits savor their rap within the audience. This is not how it is supposed to be.



Luchesi said:


> It's a somewhat necessary function in art.


Classical music wasn't designed to annoy outsiders. Maybe some avantgarde classical music.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

Aries said:


> This makes it even more weird, to like something that was designed to annoy


Wait a minute... you guys are serious?

You think these genres were designed to annoy "outsiders?"

If so, I am glad you two came along, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Aries said:


> Not sure about Disco music, but it seems very true overall. This makes it even more weird, to like something that was designed to annoy the very self. Probably even many rappers would agree, that it is weird when dignified fine spirits savor their rap within the audience. This is not how it is supposed to be.
> 
> Classical music wasn't designed to annoy outsiders. Maybe some avantgarde classical music.


"Probably even many rappers would agree, that it is weird when dignified fine spirits savor their rap within the audience." I don't understand "their rap within the audience". I'm interested in these translations (it's the future).

As popular fare is merchandized and marketed it additionally benefits by appealing to an in-crowd. Members of an in-crowd will open their purse strings and will actually buy - and even collect the products. It's very human.


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

Aries said:


> Maybe some avantgarde classical music.


I can confidently say that the purpose of what you're calling avant-garde music is not to annoy.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

eljr said:


> Wait a minute... you guys are serious?
> 
> You think these genres were designed to annoy "outsiders?"


Think about punk. They choose pink hair colors and crazy hair styles of course to annoy normal people, parents, teachers, authorities in general, the society and what not? Rap and Metal seem similar in this regard. I am not so sure about the other mentioned genres, but it probably plays often some kind of role.



Luchesi said:


> "Probably even many rappers would agree, that it is weird when dignified fine spirits savor their rap within the audience." I don't understand "their rap within the audience". I'm interested in these translations (it's the future).


Sorry for my somewhat awkward formulations. "Within the audience" is a bit redundant in the sentence, it doesn't really matter where they listen to it. What I wanted to say is, that I think, that even many rappers would likely agree, that listeners with a dapper look and nature (like they are typical for classcial concerts) would be an odd apperance within their audience (for which it is more standard to cultivate a gangster-style).


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

All this talk about hip-hop, amusing as it is, is a bit of a pointless diversion really. It has nothing to do with the future of classical music. Interestingly though, classical music has been quite widely sampled for rap/hip-hop hits and they tend to be a mainstream bunch, Going for Beethoven, Mozart, Bach...er Henry Mancini...

Can't think why the cultural lords don't love them for promoting it to the far reaches of the 'ghetto'.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^ That's what I was thinking. Of course, hip hop doesn't need validation from the classical world, but it's not totally separate either. Phantom and the Illharmonic, with its blend of hip hop and classical, has played Carnegie Hall:


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

That was great.

I hope the conservatives now have a greater respect for Schoenberg and Stockhausen and beyond, cunningly making their music too difficult to be sampled by hip-hop artists.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

eljr said:


> Wait a minute... you guys are serious?
> 
> You think these genres were designed to annoy "outsiders?"
> 
> If so, I am glad you two came along, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.





Chat Noir said:


> All this talk about hip-hop, amusing as it is, is a bit of a pointless diversion really. It has nothing to do with the future of classical music. Interestingly though, classical music has been quite widely sampled for rap/hip-hop hits and they tend to be a mainstream bunch, Going for Beethoven, Mozart, Bach...er Henry Mancini...
> 
> Can't think why the cultural lords don't love them for promoting it to the far reaches of the 'ghetto'.


Around here, I'm thinking of shop owners playing CM to 'rebuff' teenagers from loitering at entrances. It's uncool to even be seen in the vicinity. lol


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Aries said:


> Think about punk. They choose pink hair colors and crazy hair styles of course to annoy normal people, parents, teachers, authorities in general, the society and what not? Rap and Metal seem similar in this regard. I am not so sure about the other mentioned genres, but it probably plays often some kind of role.
> 
> Sorry for my somewhat awkward formulations. "Within the audience" is a bit redundant in the sentence, it doesn't really matter where they listen to it. What I wanted to say is, that I think, that even many rappers would likely agree, that listeners with a dapper look and nature (like they are typical for classcial concerts) would be an odd apperance within their audience (for which it is more standard to cultivate a gangster-style).


Yes, I would stand out as an oddity in the audience.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Luchesi said:


> Bebop, Rock-a-Billy, Rock and Roll, Heavy Metal, Punk, Grunge and Rap were/are 'designed' to annoy outsiders (maybe we could add Ragtime/Tin Pan Alley and Disco?). It's a somewhat necessary function in art. You would need to get past the alienation aspects. I think it's helpful to try anyway..


Besides classical, I enjoy jazz and rock. This is about it, though. I guess I'm just too much of a snob to enjoy rap, country, etc. Oh well, I better not say anything further as the thread police (@HansZimmer and @Brahmsianhorn) are going to tell me how narrow-minded I am and for being ignorant for not liking what they like. God forbid someone mentions they dislike rap on a *classical music forum*!!!


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Chat Noir said:


> Interestingly though, classical music has been quite widely sampled for rap/hip-hop hits and they tend to be a mainstream bunch, Going for Beethoven, Mozart, Bach...er Henry Mancini...


This is because rap has nothing to say or offer musically, so it uses melodies from other genres and we, the listeners, are supposed to just sit there and marvel at these amazingly innovative rap geniuses as they playback a Mozart or Beethoven melody on a turntable with 40 ft. speakers while this melody is played against a monotonous drum rhythm that a 3 year old could play. Yeah...bravo! Take a bow. Here's your millions of dollars for doing about nothing beautiful, creative or forward-thinking. LMAO!!!


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

You showed 'em.


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

Neo Romanza said:


> Besides classical, I enjoy jazz and rock. This is about it, though. I guess I'm just too much of a snob to enjoy rap, country, etc. Oh well, I better not say anything further as the thread police (@HansZimmer and @Brahmsianhorn) are going to tell me how narrow-minded I am and for being ignorant for not liking what they like. God forbid someone mentions they dislike rap on a *classical music forum*!!!


You can dislike rap of course, but saying it has nothing to say or offer musically is I think a generalisation of the genre and there is a lot of good rap out there. To be honest currently the balance between good and bad rap isn’t very good and you have to really look for the good stuff but still. Unfortunately rap isn’t 200 years old so the bad stuff hasn’t been forgotten yet


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Neo Romanza said:


> Oh well, I better not say anything further as the thread police (@HansZimmer and @Brahmsianhorn) are going to tell me how narrow-minded I am and for being ignorant for not liking what they like. God forbid someone mentions they dislike rap on a *classical music forum*!!!


Let me repost what you wrote that I responded to, and you tell me if you simply “mentioned you dislike rap:”



> The fact that you're elevating "rap" as some kind of lofty musical genre tells me everything I need to know about you as a listener. Rap has been a cultural boon since its existence and has done nothing for music except give the masses their daily dosage of ear garbage. People only listen to it because it makes them look hip or cool. It certainly isn't because "rap" has anything meaningful or compelling to say musically, but most people have low musical standards anyway.
> 
> P.S. It takes zero talent to be a "rapper". Anyone can be a "rapper".


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I do wish we could become a bit more nuanced in discussions of rap. There is a huge variety in the genre and some of it, particularly in its early days, has been enormously inventive and rewarding and has shown how to make music that tells of all sorts of experiences and cultural phenomena that had previously had no voice. For me, some of it represents the very best of non-classical/non-jazz music of the last 20 years. Of course, there has been a lot of rap that I would call rubbish, as well. But the way we talk you would think that you can sample a bit at random as it were and decide what we think of the whole genre.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Neo Romanza said:


> Besides classical, I enjoy jazz and rock. This is about it, though. I guess I'm just too much of a snob to enjoy rap, country, etc. Oh well, I better not say anything further as the thread police (@HansZimmer and @Brahmsianhorn) are going to tell me how narrow-minded I am and for being ignorant for not liking what they like. God forbid someone mentions they dislike rap on a *classical music forum*!!!


In your post you didn't write that you don't like rap. You wrote a series of offensive statements, one of which was very personal, an attack towards me ("what kind of listener are you?").
A fundamental rule of a forum like this one should be that if you don't like something you explain why you don't like it in a polite and rational way. You don't pull out an automatic weapon and shoot into crowds.
If you write a post like that one you can't complain if someone replies with an unpolite statement ("what an ignorant post!").

After the unpolite statements, you finally wrote a statement that is objectively wrong: that everyone would be able to write rap songs like Eminem. You are entitled to your own opinions but not to your own facts.


That said, you keep misrepresenting my thinking. I have never written that I like rap or that hip-hop is a noble culture which is producing seas and rivers of art. In my post #41 I simply wrote that although in the rap music there is not so much to understand from a compositional perspective (because in that regard is probably on of the most "lazy" genres of music), the rap songs of the highest class require analytical ears to understand the construction of the lyrics: My views about the future of classical music | Page 3
In short, the rap songs of the highest class compensate the "compositional lazyness" with the hard work on lyrics (and even if it's not as hard as the work of Dante in the Divine Comedy, there is is still more work than what you find in the lyrics of the typical pop songs... @Torkelburger missed the point).

You don't have to be a fan of rap music to say things that are objectively true.

To clarify my point of view about rap in general, it's quite close to what @Aries wrote in his post #224.



> While talented individuals like Eminem can create something special even in a bad genre, this doesn't make the genre better. In fact rap got worse and worse with time.


Very true! Just because there have been some artistic achievements in popular music here and there doesn't mean that popular music in general (including rap) is elevating humanity.

It's a different thing in respect to classical music. Artists like Mozart in classical music are not "incidents" or "random events": they are the logical consequence of a fertile and smart culture.

A musical genius like Mozart in the music industry of today would be like Einstein in the monkey cage.


I would like to go back to the subject of this discussion. If classical music will die, I think that the 50% of the guilt will be of the music industry, which has vulgarized the folks, especially the youngest persons, who are now not able to appreciate serious music. However, the remaining 50% is caused by the world of classical music itself, and in particular the type of thinking expressed by Tolkerburger in the post #142.



> If the current state of affairs is turning away "modern" film score-obsessed, pop-obsessed, ignorant, arrogant, sentimental, Marvel-loving, teenager-mentality "audience" then GOOD, they need to GO AWAY. It is best without them, we don't need them here, and it would be better as a dead horse than what they will turn it into.


I read somewhere that Mozart sometimes used words like "musical idiots" in reference to the public. This is exactly the good part of the classical period: while the modern music industry establish a connection with the musical idiots and treats them like idiots, Mozart established a connection with the musical idiots but he didn't treat them like idiots.

The classical music will die for the simple fact that that it's leaving the musical idiots in the hands of the music industry. It's a simple as that.


Finally, I don't think that inserting melodies of classical music inside rap beats will be useful: this won't push the persons towards the classical music. Infact I have a friend who says that classical music sucks, despite the fact that he likes this song of Nas.






The music industry did nothing but push away people from classical music after the 1950.

The videogame industry and the cinematic industry are doing what the music industry should do but doesn't do: creating lighter versions of classical music, like this miniopera (Finaly Fantasy, Mario & Draco) to get people used to determined aesthetics, so that they will maybe try to listen to the purest forms of classical music (and IMO they are doing a good job, because the music is pleasant, so it captures the folks).


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

Aries said:


> Think about punk. They choose pink hair colors and crazy hair styles of course to annoy normal people, parents, teachers, authorities in general, the society and what not? Rap and Metal seem similar in this regard. I am not so sure about the other mentioned genres, but it probably plays often some kind of role.


It's simply tribal bonding. what is important is identifying with one another not annoy others. 
This is really not debatable, honestly. 

You do the same think when you buy your clothes for example. Why do you think designer names appeal to people so? And not at all to others. 

I can say without reproach, music you find aggressive is not designed to annoy any group.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

Enthusiast said:


> I do wish we could become a bit more nuanced in discussions of rap. There is a huge variety in the genre and some of it, particularly in its early days, has been enormously inventive and rewarding and has shown how to make music that tells of all sorts of experiences and cultural phenomena that had previously had no voice. For me, some of it represents the very best of non-classical/non-jazz music of the last 20 years. Of course, there has been a lot of rap that I would call rubbish, as well. But the way we talk you would think that you can sample a bit at random as it were and decide what we think of the whole genre.


anyone who does not understand the genius of Marshall Mathers, for example, well, that is on them

They have severely limited themselves intellectually

a very sad thing to do to oneself


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ Yes. But also (and this may be a tougher nut for some to crack) the Wu Tang Clan. There's an austere purity about their music that demands to be taken seriously. IMO, of course.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

HansZimmer said:


> The music industry did nothing but push away people from classical music after the 1950.
> 
> The videogame industry and the cinematic industry are doing what the music industry should do but doesn't do: creating lighter versions of classical music, like this miniopera (Finaly Fantasy, Mario & Draco) to get people used to determined aesthetics, so that they will maybe try to listen to the purest forms of classical music (and IMO they are doing a good job, because the music is pleasant, so it captures the folks).


Opera was wildly popular at the turn of the century, in 1900. What happened?
Mainly, the cinema. 
Opera was tried in movies in the 30's but basically flopped. 
Now, it's all but dead. 
A big problem, the same old same old. Few new operas are staged.

I looked at the MET season and only The Hours is not centuries old, in foreign languages. 

How could it not die? 

Cinema it seems to me is all that continues to buoy classical.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

eljr said:


> It's simply tribal bonding. what is important is identifying with one another not annoy others.
> This is really not debatable, honestly.


The stronger the contrast to the style to the mainstream the stronger the tribal bounding. Before a style like punk was created, what was the reason it was exactly designed in this way? The sharp contrast to the mainstream is intentional not coincidential. It serves the purpose to be more attractive for people who have problems with the mainstream and want to express some kind of rebellion.

It is common for subcultures to contain a firmly imprinted message to the main culture. And in some cases it is even wanted, that people who don't like the message get annoyed. It is part of the attractiveness.



eljr said:


> You do the same think when you buy your clothes for example. Why do you think designer names appeal to people so? And not at all to others.


I think designer clothes are more a status icon. Compared to musical subcultures it is more about just a high status and much less about a specific message.


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

eljr said:


> A big problem, the same old same old. Few new operas are staged.
> 
> I looked at the MET season and only The Hours is not centuries old, in foreign languages.


This is not true of the opera houses in Europe – there's a lot of new opera being staged in various opera houses there!


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

The entire wrongness of this thread (and ones like it) is the notion that somehow something is being taken away from people. With pop music, as we've talked about at length, the sub-genres just co-exist. If you don't like e.g. country music and rap, you just limit your exposure to them and there's sack-loads of other music to enjoy; probably for the rest of your days.
Even the fact that modern mainstream pop music seems to rile up a lot of people, doesn't mean that your listening choices are limited or impinged upon. I barely listen to it, except that now and again a song comes through which catches my attention and which I find somewhat enjoyable (Jeanne Added, Izia, Adele). That all this music is the current forefront creates absolutely NO impediment for me to enjoy the music I would otherwise enjoy. If anyone sits down for a think and then looks on the internet, they'll see that the concerts occurring are so wide-ranging that there is something for everyone, with space for it, and equally many audiences, some eclectic.

So this common claim that 'classical music' has been hijacked and some conspiracy is on to eliminate the pre-1900 stuff (and some post-1900 music which sounds like it) and they're only promoting crackpot music made up of people hitting violins with objects and incorporating Yoko Ono type singing, starts to look manufactured to me. I say that because I've been to a lot of concerts in different places and the fact of the matter is that more than 3/4 of the programmed music on the bill on major concert venues is...old!

If you decide you want to take someone to a concert and catch some 18th/19th century music. You'll be spoiled for choice. And not only that, you'll find an evening bill with something like: Saint-Saëns _Danse Macabre_, Stravinsky _Petrushka_ suite and the main work e.g. Prokofiev PC3. This is almost standard!

Then you have other places, likely known for programming some newer music alongside 20th century work. It's a no-brainer, if a person doesn't care for that music, they should book at the other place. All of this is possible. Same as not liking country or guitar rock and instead booking a concert for rap or synth-pop.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Chat Noir said:


> That was great.
> 
> I hope the conservatives now have a greater respect for Schoenberg and Stockhausen and beyond, cunningly making their music too difficult to be sampled by hip-hop artists.


It would be difficult but who knows? They can sample whatever they like, ultimately it becomes a backdrop to the rhyming, wordplay and storytelling. This sort of dates me but I like some Acid Jazz, which blends hip hop with jazz, from the '90's. _Jazzmatazz_ by Guru was one of the big sellers of the decade, and among those who collaborated with him where Brandford Marsalis and Donald Byrd.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Chat Noir said:


> So this common claim that 'classical music' has been hijacked and some conspiracy is on to eliminate the pre-1900 stuff (and some post-1900 music which sounds like it)


It would be an overstatement that classical music has been hijacked. But there is a problematic attitude towards newly composed classical music with conventional aesthetics in the classical music environment. For example look at this thread where Torkelburger is basically argueing that only avantgarde classical music is "valid" for our time, and more conventional classical music is "not valid" (sic): The Validity of Modern and Contemporary Music

But new music is necessary. The old classical music does actually fine. The fame and popularity of Bach, Beethoven and Mozart for example is probably more than one might have expected 100 years ago. But what is missing are young composers who write music which connects to a wider audience. Popular music has 18 year old girls screaming when they see their 25 year old superstar. But nobody gets wet when they think about Beethoven who died 195 years ago. We need new composers and new compositions that feel more relavant to the people than the old music, and that can create an HYPE. But this music must not be in an obscure avantgarde tone of voice, because it just does not work for a wider audience and not even for the majority of classical listeners.


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

Aries said:


> It would be an overstatement that classical music has been hijacked. But there is a problematic attitude towards newly composed classical music with conventional aesthetics in the classical music environment. For example look at this thread where Torkelburger is basically argueing that only avantgarde classical music is "valid" for our time, and more conventional classical music is "not valid" (sic): The Validity of Modern and Contemporary Music


That's not how I read Torkelburger's argument at all. They're pointing out the issues with sentimentality and beauty, and then discussing the role of a composer (or at least the issues a composer would face today). It's not so much about writing in a particular style, as it is about finding one's own mode of expression and really thinking that through. There is an important distinction that I want to make here: writing in a neoclassical style and imitating other people without having something of your own to say is very different from having a personal artistic vision that happens to be neoclassical. 



Aries said:


> But new music is necessary. The old classical music does actually fine. The fame and popularity of Bach, Beethoven and Mozart for example is probably more than one might have expected 100 years ago.


Yes – and there is a lot of really good contemporary music out there. 



Aries said:


> But what is missing are young composers who write music which connects to a wider audience. Popular music has 18 year old girls screaming when they see their 25 year old superstar. But nobody gets wet when they think about Beethoven who died 195 years ago.


This last sentence is really quite strange. And I don't think this is a fair comparison. I don't think contemporary classical music should aspire to the popularity of pop music. That's not the point.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

Aries said:


> It would be an overstatement that classical music has been hijacked. But there is a problematic attitude towards newly composed classical music with conventional aesthetics in the classical music environment. For example look at this thread where Torkelburger is basically argueing that only avantgarde classical music is "valid" for our time, and more conventional classical music is "not valid" (sic): The Validity of Modern and Contemporary Music
> 
> But new music is necessary. The old classical music does actually fine. The fame and popularity of Bach, Beethoven and Mozart for example is probably more than one might have expected 100 years ago. But what is missing are young composers who write music which connects to a wider audience. Popular music has 18 year old girls screaming when they see their 25 year old superstar. But nobody gets wet when they think about Beethoven who died 195 years ago. We need new composers and new compositions that feel more relavant to the people than the old music, and that can create an HYPE. But this music must not be in an obscure avantgarde tone of voice, because it just does not work for a wider audience and not even for the majority of classical listeners.


We've been here before, dozens of times now. It collapses each time you say this:



Aries said:


> But there is a problematic attitude towards newly composed classical music with conventional aesthetics in the classical music environment.


It's just false advertising. I know it first-hand, so you'll never convince me of it. Still it hinges on the notion of "with conventional aesthetics". Whose 'conventional aesthetics'? Yours? If we reformulate this it just ends up as: 'music doesn't sound like the music I like and know best and think the most worthy, therefore it is unworthy'. It's very tiresome.

I agree with Torkelburger's core thesis that every epoch has its own musical expression and also the idea (mainly proposed by Sid James) that our epoch especially is characterised by a particular eclecticism. I don't get why you don't understand that the modern youth populace isn't clamouring for 'classical music' of _any_ kind. And that they weren't all doing so even when Beethoven was supposed to have been a rock star. 

Had your view been applied to pop music we might not have got past the Beatles (or whichever you think has the correct 'conventional aesthetics') because the Beatles just 'worked'. Though they also had 12-18 year-olds screaming for 25 year-olds. so maybe they're out.

It's all made-up nonsense.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

composingmusic said:


> That's not how I read Torkelburger's argument at all. They're pointing out the issues with sentimentality and beauty, and then discussing the role of a composer (or at least the issues a composer would face today). It's not so much about writing in a particular style


What he says is of course complicated overall, but he litterally said that Alma Deutschers music "is not valid music for today". Similar comments already existed in the 1950s about rather conventional composers. Do you really want to deny that this attitude exists at all?



composingmusic said:


> This last sentence is really quite strange. And I don't think this is a fair comparison. I don't think contemporary classical music should aspire to the popularity of pop music. That's not the point.


Classical music should do it in its own way and does not have to do it to the same extend as popular music. But a little bit more hype for classical would be very conducive. 5% or 10% of the hype of popular music would already be really great. Atm we have like 0.01%-1%.



Chat Noir said:


> It's just false advertising. I know it first-hand, so you'll never convince me of it. Still it hinges on the notion of "with conventional aesthetics". Whose 'conventional aesthetics'? Yours?


Aesthetics which were applied in the common practise period over a span of various eras. You seem to look at it like that the difference between modernism and romanticism is of the same kind as between romanticism and classicism for example. But imo quite extreme changes happend in modernism, that result in random sounding melodies and rhythms for many, while earlier music does not sound as random and has a understandable structure. Maybe we have just different perceptions, but I personally assume that for less specialized or experienced listeners avantgarde music will sound even more strange compared to eralier eras. That is the impression I got when I talked with other about it.



Chat Noir said:


> If we reformulate this


Lets not.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

composingmusic said:


> ..It's not so much about writing in a particular style, as it is about finding one's own mode of expression and really thinking that through. There is an important distinction that I want to make here: writing in a neoclassical style and imitating other people without having something of your own to say is very different from having a personal artistic vision that happens to be neoclassical.


So many of your posts regarding what you want to compose come across as all about you. There’s nothing wrong with having ‘something of your own to say’; the question is whether it’s of any use if few or no one is listening. Is there any point where you are asking yourself, is the style I’ve chosen to write in accessible to a broad audience or are you happy to just aim it at the same narrow audience and if the broader audience doesn’t like it then too bad so sad.?



> This last sentence is really quite strange. And I don't think this is a fair comparison. I don't think contemporary classical music should aspire to the popularity of pop music. That's not the point.


Tell that to your buddies who bring up The Beatles vs. classical music when the general subject of popularity comes up.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

Aries said:


> Aesthetics which were applied in the common practise period over a span of various eras. You seem to look at it like that the difference between modernism and romanticism is of the same kind as between romanticism and classicism for example. But imo quite extreme changes happend in modernism, that result in random sounding melodies and rhythms for many, while earlier music does not sound as random and has a understandable structure. Maybe we have just different perceptions, but I personally assume that for less specialized or experienced listeners avantgarde music will sound even more strange compared to eralier eras. That is the impression I got when I talked with other about it.


The difference is I can appreciate both - to a point, and quite a lot of people can and I think those who can't (or just won't) are actually in the minority. Keep in mind, since I don't want to keep reiterating it, that the bulk of music on offer is exactly what you want it to be. Beyond that you will just have to get used to the fact that music changes and belongs to its epoch. Anyone who has not made it past 1900 or 1950 has no business blaming the music.

This idea that all that there is on offer, even in newly composed music, is 'avant-garde' is false. Note well though that above I said I appreciate it 'to a point'. I like jazz mostly 'to a point'. I never liked some later developments, but them some I did. It's even moved on again now. If I was going about saying: 'jazz should have stopped at King Oliver when it was good...' or 'Jazz should have maintained its bebop/cool peak from the '50s...' I think others are entitled to tell me to put a sock in it.



Aries said:


> Lets not.


This has to happen or dodgy notions sneak in surreptitiously.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

DaveM said:


> So many of your posts regarding what you want to compose come across as all about you. There’s nothing wrong with having ‘something of your own to say’; the question is whether it’s of any use if few or no one is listening. Is there any point where you are asking yourself, is the style I’ve chosen to write in accessible to a broad audience or are you happy to just aim it at the same narrow audience and if the broader audience doesn’t like it then too bad so sad.?


Self expression is a major and a totally valid reason to write music irrespective of who does or doesn't listen (besides there _is_ a market for whatever music you and others are railing against). Learning the language to the extent that a composer can freely negotiate its sound and imaginatively create with it, inevitably takes the composer's ear into fields of sound that the some listeners will not venture into. Call that whatever you want, but the fact is that a composer's ear will develop a more acute and keen appreciation for what music can do beyond the basic concepts of immediacy and it is that quality which will entice and excite them creatively.
I might add that what I've just outlined has given the art some of its greatest moments, go figure.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Chat Noir said:


> Anyone who has not made it past 1900 or 1950 has no business blaming the music..


Given that the hoards are not rushing to post-1950 music, my guess is that they, much like myself, are for the most part, simply sticking to pre-1950 CM until something in post-1950 music at least equals it. Well, it’s not happening now and, just a wild guess, it’s not going to. The thing is that, although there is some post-1950 works worth listening to, no composer that I know of has a repertoire of consistently attractive music. The situation is at its most extreme with avant-garde composers. The works are redundant and practically nothing stands out from the composers other works.

i don’t have an issue with people liking whatever they like, but when it comes to what are the extremes in contemporary music what I wonder is why those who make statements like yours above assume that the problem is with listeners and not the music.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

mikeh375 said:


> Self expression is a major and a totally valid reason to write music irrespective of who does or doesn't listen (besides there _is_ a market for whatever music you and others are railing against).


What kind of market? How large a market? How significant a market? Sure, there may be a market for a few, but I’m willing to bet that it’s a bare fraction of those calling themselves composers and it’s going to remain that way until some attention is given to who ’does or doesn‘t listen’. My bet is that you had to.



> I might add that what I've just outlined has given the art some of its greatest moments, go figure.


Well, I did (go figure) and I’ve missed those greatest moments. Where are they?


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

DaveM said:


> Given that the hoards are not rushing to post-1950 music, my guess is that they, much like myself, are for the most part, simply sticking to pre-1950 CM until something in post-1950 music at least equals it. Well, it’s not happening now and, just a wild guess, it’s not going to. The thing is that, although there is some post-1950 works worth listening to, no composer that I know of has a repertoire of consistently attractive music. The situation is at its most extreme with avant-garde composers. The works are redundant and practically nothing stands out from the composers other works.
> 
> i don’t have an issue with people liking whatever they like, but when it comes to what are the extremes in contemporary music what I wonder is why those who make statements like yours above assume that the problem is with listeners and not the music.


The problem is with the listeners. Or specifically, those listeners who are not content to just privately note that they dislike or don't understand something and just keep on enjoying what they do like; instead must dream up scenarios to explain their failure/inability/unwillingness to connect.

Who are 'the hoards'? I got the impression that classical music was on its last legs? That really it was just Bill, Jack and his dog and everyone else is listening to rap and chart pop music. In the classical music world - which from a purely listener POV is arguably one of static culture, a fixed thing - people point to and say 'that is classical music', the newbies idolise Tchaikovsky, Mozart and film music; the middle listeners investigate more from several epochs; the long-term listeners will either be devoted to what they know they like, or open to many things even if they don't like it all. Normal I'd say.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

DaveM said:


> Well, I did (go figure) and I’ve missed those greatest moments. Where are they?


Seriously Dave?


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

I think trying to generalize the public as hoards is quite difficult in the first place – so many listeners have moved to niche subgenres: subgenres of larger ones like rap, EDM, house music, trap music, film music, more "popular" classical music (such as Einaudi or Yiruma), various types of classical, various types of contemporary classical, and others. I've run into many people who listen to a variety of subgenres and listen across these, although yes, there are people who also listen to the main top charts. You can see what the problem is here in terms of mass appeal. On the other hand, working in a subgenre can be incredibly rewarding, and I do run into listeners who become interested in contemporary classical music from other subgenres.


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

mikeh375 said:


> Self expression is a major and a totally valid reason to write music irrespective of who does or doesn't listen (besides there _is_ a market for whatever music you and others are railing against). Learning the language to the extent that a composer can freely negotiate its sound and imaginatively create with it, inevitably takes the composer's ear into fields of sound that the some listeners will not venture into.


Yes, and if a composer is trying to be someone and something they are not, that can often lead to music that isn't as personal and meaningful than if they write the music they are best at, and the music they want to create.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

In reference to my use of ‘the hoards’. It is a figure of speech. My use of it is in reference to, given the OP, general listeners of classical music and not those of music in general much as too many here keep making comparisons to popular, jazz and rap music when it comes to popularity etc.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

DaveM said:


> In reference to my use of ‘the hoards’. It is a figure of speech. My use of it is in reference to, given the OP, classical music and not music in general much as too many here keep making comparisons to popular, jazz and rap music when it comes to popularity etc.


Haven't you also done this numerous times though? When complaining about how classical music is now hated and ignored by everyone under 50 because it has gone to the dogs via 'avant garde' music? So that pop music has taken over that empty spot?

I'm willing to be corrected. Maybe it was someone else.


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

Chat Noir said:


> Haven't you also done this numerous times though? When complaining about how classical music is now hated and ignored by everyone under 50 because it has gone to the dogs via 'avant garde' music? So that pop music has taken over that empty spot?
> 
> I'm willing to be corrected. Maybe it was someone else.


I think you may be referring to Aries' post here: 


Aries said:


> It would be an overstatement that classical music has been hijacked. But there is a problematic attitude towards newly composed classical music with conventional aesthetics in the classical music environment. For example look at this thread where Torkelburger is basically argueing that only avantgarde classical music is "valid" for our time, and more conventional classical music is "not valid" (sic): The Validity of Modern and Contemporary Music
> 
> But new music is necessary. The old classical music does actually fine. The fame and popularity of Bach, Beethoven and Mozart for example is probably more than one might have expected 100 years ago. But what is missing are young composers who write music which connects to a wider audience. Popular music has 18 year old girls screaming when they see their 25 year old superstar. But nobody gets wet when they think about Beethoven who died 195 years ago. We need new composers and new compositions that feel more relavant to the people than the old music, and that can create an HYPE. But this music must not be in an obscure avantgarde tone of voice, because it just does not work for a wider audience and not even for the majority of classical listeners.


From my personal experience though, young people are often happier to listen to contemporary and/or modern(ist) classical music than people from the older generation, who often feel more comfortable listening to the older classical repertoire they're more familiar with. I do think this is worth taking into consideration here.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Chat Noir said:


> Haven't you also done this numerous times though? When complaining about how classical music is now hated and ignored by everyone under 50 because it has gone to the dogs via 'avant garde' music? So that pop music has taken over that empty spot?
> 
> I'm willing to be corrected. Maybe it was someone else.


Why not make sure before posting, especially since you are saying ‘numerous times‘? I have complained about avant-garde, but I don’t used that terminology. In fact, I recently stated to the effect that the current state of CM is not due to modern/contemporary music. You are just so ready to fire back that you post a mere seconds after I do. This is not the first time you‘ve done this. It was someone else.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

DaveM said:


> Why not make sure before posting, especially since you are saying ‘numerous times‘? You are just so ready to fire back that you post a mere seconds after I do. This is not the first time you‘ve done this. It was someone else.


Who was it? And how do you know it wasn't you? If I waste 30 minutes now and turn up examples of you saying it, I'm going to need explanations!


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

composingmusic said:


> Yes, and if a composer is trying to be someone and something they are not, that can often lead to music that isn't as personal and meaningful than if they write the music they are best at, and the music they want to create.


...been there and done it in a round about way whilst writing for money , it sucked in so many ways but paid well... I guesstimate I consistetly used a small fraction of my technique to write for immediate appeal which was frustrating. There is sooo much more to discover as you know..


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

DaveM said:


> In reference to my use of ‘the hoards’. It is a figure of speech. My use of it is in reference to, given the OP, general listeners of classical music and not those of music in general much as too many here keep making comparisons to popular, jazz and rap music when it comes to popularity etc.


I don't think contemporary classical music should aim to please the crowd of classical music listeners who want to listen to pre-1900s music at large. Just as there are some listeners who prefer to listen to Renaissance music, Classical era music, Baroque era music, Romantic period music, or other music from specific eras... everyone has their own preferences. As others here have pointed out, the era since 1900 has been incredibly stylistically diverse, so there's a huge variety of music out there. Some composers do write more audience friendly music, but I don't think all composers need to do that. There is room for both.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

ooops duplicate....my bad


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

mikeh375 said:


> ...been there and done it in a round about way whilst writing for money , it sucked in so many ways but paid well... I guesstimate I consistetly used a small fraction of my technique to write for immediate appeal. There is sooo much more to discover as you know.


Indeed, there is! I've been on a journey where I've figured out quite a lot about what I want to do over the last few years, and that's been quite exciting... and it's such a journey, as you know!


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Chat Noir said:


> Who was it? And how do you know it wasn't you? If I waste 30 minutes now and turn up examples of you saying it, I'm going to need explanations!


Your honor, the prosecuting attorney is trying to intimidate the witness.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

Chat Noir said:


> Who was it? And how do you know it wasn't you? If I waste 30 minutes now and turn up examples of you saying it, I'm going to need explanations!


I got bored


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

I've just had a quick think, and something did come to mind, which is a conversation I had with one of my teachers (who's also a composer). I'm not going to go over that conversation word for word, but we did talk about the feeling of engagement and tension within the context of a concert hall, among other things. 

It's not quite fair to say that I don't think of my audience, because I do consider them. However, this is more on the level of setting up expectations and then working with whether I'm adhering to these expectations or not, or altering expectations as the piece goes on, rather than working with specific material that I'm specifically using because an audience might like it. Hopefully that makes sense.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

composingmusic said:


> It's not quite fair to say that I don't think of my audience, because I do consider them. However, this is more on the level of setting up expectations and then working with whether I'm adhering to these expectations or not, or altering expectations as the piece goes on, rather than working with specific material that I'm specifically using because an audience might like it. Hopefully that makes sense.


Yes of course. Unless it's something the audience expects it's always going to be like leading some party into the jungle, which you know and they're going to see/hear for te first time. Along the way there'll be some unexpected things and different reactions. The notion that a composer will please an audience or should only be focused on that is absurd really. I'd expect it if the performance was well-known with certain expectations, otherwise no.


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

Chat Noir said:


> Yes of course. Unless it's something the audience expects it's always going to be like leading some party into the jungle, which you know and they're going to see/hear for te first time. Along the way there'll be some unexpected things and different reactions. The notion that a composer will please an audience or should only be focused on that is absurd really. I'd expect it if the performance was well-known with certain expectations, otherwise no.


Exactly – going off of this, I do aim for a sense of coherence in my work (and I'd say this is also something a number of my colleagues do). How this is achieved varies, and this also has varying rates of success depending on what they composer is trying to do and what sort of strategies they're using. Quite an interesting topic in of itself.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

composingmusic said:


> ..Some composers do write more audience friendly music, but I don't think all composers need to do that. There is room for both.


There may be room for both whatever that means, but those who don’t attempt to compose ‘audience friendly‘ music are taking the easy way out. It is much harder to attract a diverse audience than an audience of one: yourself. That is my issue with avant-garde works which may be what you are referring to. Considered as a different genre entirely, then perhaps one of the characteristics of that genre can be that the composers says, ‘Look, I’m doing my own thing, like it or not.’.


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

DaveM said:


> There may be room for both whatever that means, but those who don’t attempt to compose ‘audience friendly‘ music are taking the easy way out. It is much harder to attract a diverse audience than an audience of one: yourself. That is my issue with avant-garde works which may be what you are referring to. Considered as a different genre entirely, then perhaps one of the characteristics of that genre can be that the composers says, ‘Look, I’m doing my own thing, like it or not.’.


Did you read my post of setting up expectations and using those to shape an audience member's experience by either following through or not? There is certainly an element of audience interaction there. However, there are other things to unpack here. Again, this is being overly simplistic and grouping together disparate types of music into a single genre that you're implying shouldn't be grouped together with the rest of classical music.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

DaveM said:


> There may be room for both whatever that means, but those who don’t attempt to compose ‘audience friendly‘ music are taking the easy way out. It is much harder to attract a diverse audience than an audience of one: yourself. That is my issue with avant-garde works which may be what you are referring to. Considered as a different genre entirely, then perhaps one of the characteristics of that genre can be that the composers says, ‘Look, I’m doing my own thing, like it or not.’.


Unbelievable stuff. You won't get your desire to 'make it a separate genre'. It's classical music and you'll just have to live with this. 



DaveM said:


> but those who don’t attempt to compose ‘audience friendly‘ music are taking the easy way out.


I'd say it was the hard rather than the easy way. Turning up with all the cliches is child's play. I've been doing it for nearly 30 years for people who want that. I even recycle scores with changes. It's ridiculous, but I get paid so I don't care. As such I have less respect for the 'audience'.


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

Chat Noir said:


> I'd say it was the hard rather than the easy way. Turning up with all the cliches is child's play. I've been doing it for nearly 30 years for people who want that. I even recycle scores with changes. It's ridiculous, but I get paid so I don't care. As such I have less respect for the 'audience'.


This is consistent with what Mike said earlier, and is also consistent with what I've heard from other colleagues:



mikeh375 said:


> ...been there and done it in a round about way whilst writing for money , it sucked in so many ways but paid well... I guesstimate I consistetly used a small fraction of my technique to write for immediate appeal which was frustrating. There is sooo much more to discover as you know..


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

composingmusic said:


> This is consistent with what Mike said earlier, and is also consistent with what I've heard from other colleagues:


I missed that!


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

Chat Noir said:


> I missed that!


It sounds like you both have experience writing with this type of aim though!


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

A virtual mutual admiration society. Enjoy yourselves.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

composingmusic said:


> This is consistent with what Mike said earlier, and is also consistent with what I've heard from other colleagues:


A difference between the taste of the audience and the taste of the composers. - It may be an unsolvable problem forever.

One thing which all these kind of threads show is that modernist music is a divisive topic. Some people like it, others don't like it. And the pattern is so distinct that it must have systematical reasons. It is not just a coincidence of random personal tastes.

There must be room for both and there is probably room for both, but on the other hand some kind of fight for influence is probably unavoidable and natural. There is maybe the feeling on both sides that the existence of the other alone undermines the own entitlement. And both sides make probably statements that give cause for it.

Well, I have to disagree when modernism claims some kind of legal succession to non-modernist classical music.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Chat Noir said:


> I'd say it was the hard rather than the easy way. Turning up with all the cliches is child's play. I've been doing it for nearly 30 years for people who want that. I even recycle scores with changes. It's ridiculous, but I get paid so I don't care. As such I have less respect for the 'audience'.


I could've written the exact same thing.......


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

DaveM said:


> A virtual mutual admiration society. Enjoy yourselves.


Naaah Dave, just professionals chatting.


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

Aries said:


> but on the other hand some kind of fight for influence is probably unavoidable and natural.


I recommend taking a closer look at 20th and 21st century music – there are all kinds of aesthetic disagreements that happen within the circles of post-1900s music. This is partially why there's such a variety of different types of music in this era.


----------



## Ulalume!Ulalume! (6 mo ago)

Classical music might not necessarily have a future. That would be perfectly natural. All beauty is fleeting and transitory. Empire's fall, a woman's beauty fades, a soprano's voice soon declines. Epic poetry seems to have peaked with Homer, theatre with Shakespeare. England produces no more Keats or Shelley's. The Amelie director acknowledges a sequel can't be done because Paris is now too ugly. Perhaps it's done and we ought be thankful the technology exists that allows us to preserve and share the beauty of what once was. But even that appreciation may not last forever. I don't believe in the innate universality of Bach and Mozart's music, it may very well occur that future generations are simply unmoved, or even repelled, by what they hear. Think of the Peking opera lovers that think that Mei Lanfang's voice was the apex of beauty, while to you it may sound like the screeching of a cat. Everything is a product of the soil it grew out of. The wealthy in the days when classical music was at its peak privileged grandeur and appearing beautiful over comfort and ease, they spent their lives in draughty, cavernous rooms, wearing stiff, uncomfortable clothes. Now people wear pyjamas outside and billionaires wear food-stained t-shirts that show off their manboobs. The elevation of comfort and ease may impact taste, perhaps people genuinely cringe at the grand, it longer speaks to them, perhaps they prefer the comfy... music as "vibe," a background soundtrack to browsing instagram, a gentle opiate. Even within popular music the trend is away from big cheesy choruses and toward sound that lulls and numbs rather than arouses, listen to recent Taylor Swift singles. People may outgrow the romantic nostalgia and affection they have for the cultural products of Old Europe, they may even grow to loathe it. Ecoloonies, always in the news for desecrating old paintings, are going after classical music too. That's not a coincidence. Tennyson once wrote: _Beauty passes like a breath and love is lost in loathing._ We may _as a society_ have simply fallen out of love with what past generations worshipped. Or maybe a composer that will blow Bach out of the water was born as I typed this, who knows! The future is unknowable.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

Ulalume!Ulalume! said:


> Classical music might not necessarily have a future. That would be perfectly natural. All beauty is fleeting and transitory. Empire's fall, a woman's beauty fades, a soprano's voice soon declines. Epic poetry seems to have peaked with Homer, theatre with Shakespeare. England produces no more Keats or Shelley's. The Amelie director acknowledges a sequel can't be done because Paris is now too ugly.


I actually share some of this sentiment, though there are parts I can't fall into line with. Jean-Pierre Jeunet made Amélie with the idea of a Paris already gone (or actually not gone, just idealised) in the city as it is now. Films don't need reality. Every period drama should tell us this. And really, Montmartre isn't greatly different, it is itself a sort of living museum to its reputation.
Even in the times of Keats and Shelley the view was that these upstarts were just pale imitations of great classical poets. Almost every epoch thinks it is one of decline.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Chat Noir said:


> I'd say it was the hard rather than the easy way. Turning up with all the cliches is child's play. I've been doing it for nearly 30 years for people who want that. I even recycle scores with changes. It's ridiculous, but I get paid so I don't care. As such I have less respect for the 'audience'.


You are presenting a False dilemma.
The hardest thing, infact, is the third option, the one which is not considered in your post: to create your own succesful style for composing music.
You are basically implying that if you write melodic music, then you are creating pastiches. False! You can create your own, recognizable style inside the domain of melodic music.

I don't agree that you have to write pastiches of succesful music to please the audience. By doing so, you might have a discrete success, but you will never be well regarded as the original composer.
If you really want to emerge, you must be the original.

Today I was mounting the video for the score of the film "American President".







The main theme has a beatiful melody IMO, but everytime I listen to it I can't help thinking about the main theme of Shawshank Redemption.







The melody is different, but the first piece sounds very much like a pastiche of the second.

To create a pastiche of a succesful soundtrack was not a bad idea, since the score was nominated for "Best original musical or comedy score", but Mark Isham didn't win the Oscar.

The scene of the nineties, instead, was dominated by Alan Menken, who had his own personal and effective style. He didn't sound like Thomas Newman. He didn't sound like John Williams. He didn't sound like Hans Zimmer.
It sounded like Alan Menken, and his personal style was working.

He was not revolutionary, but the point is that you don't have to be revolutionary.
The music theory has anthropological roots and you can't think that you can throw it away without losing the 95% of the persons.
I think that the point of view of @Aries is correct: if you don't copy shamelessly from the scores of other composers, but you only try to take a generic inspiration, you will create music which has common elements with the rest of the music, but also your own fingerprint.

I think that evolution of music should follow a natural line and not be based on the obsession that you have to do a revolution to be a valid composer. If you follow the second path, it's difficult to produce successful experiments.


I have nothing against the composers who want to try their personal revolution, but as a listener I don't have any interest for such strange music and most persons don't have it.

I don't want to discuss about monetary theory because it is OT, but I am in favour of public expenditure (I'm essentially a socialdemocrat).
However there are models of public expenditure that are more liberal in respect to the models which many people propose, namely to give vouchers to citzens instead of directly financing private or public institutions.
So, is art so important for society? Ok, then give to each citizen a voucher of 100 dollars that he can spend in every theatre. Then, the theatres will give the vouchers to the public administration and they will get real money in exchange.

This evening there is a concert of avant-garde music, an other one of Mozart's music and an other one with the music of John Williams. Use your voucher for the first concert, if you like it. I prefer to spend mine for the second one or for the third one.

In this way, the single individuals will decide which forms of art are socially useful and which ones are socially useless.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

HansZimmer said:


> You are presenting a False dilemma.
> The hardest thing, infact, is the third option, the one which is not considered in your post: to create your own succesful style for composing music.
> You are basically implying that if you write melodic music, then you are creating pastiches. False! You can create your own, recognizable style inside the domain of melodic music.
> 
> ...


What are you on about? I'm not 'presenting' anything. I responded to the remark that writing new music was supposedly the 'easy way out'. Which is, in fact, that third option of developing a personal voice. Whereas supplying cliched ideas is the easy way out. It has nothing to do with individual voices.

I'm not implying that melodic music is necessarily a pastiche. Or that no-onecould develop a modern melodic style...I said before that people do it all the time; like Lowell Liebermann to whom I referred when I made that statement ages ago in this or another like thread.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Ulalume!Ulalume! said:


> Classical music might not necessarily have a future. That would be perfectly natural. All beauty is fleeting and transitory. Empire's fall





Ulalume!Ulalume! said:


> The elevation of comfort and ease may impact taste, perhaps people genuinely cringe at the grand, it longer speaks to them, perhaps they prefer the comfy... music as "vibe," a background soundtrack to browsing instagram, a gentle opiate. Even within popular music the trend is away from big cheesy choruses and toward sound that lulls and numbs rather than arouses, listen to recent Taylor Swift singles.


I see the decay. Our culture overall might not necessarily have a future. The mental strength and greatness of the people seem to be antiproportional to the level of technical development, and there is a lot of technologic progress. But can the technologic progress safe the Empire? What if we have AIs with 200 IQ but people with 50 IQ average in the future? I think everything will rather collapse. The demography defines the history.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

The empire? Has someone reminded you yet that this isn't Rome and Marcus Aurelius is dead?


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Chat Noir said:


> The empire? Has someone reminded you yet that this isn't Rome and Marcus Aurelius is dead?


Think the word in a less strict sense. The western realm has defined the world order more than most empires of the strict sense of the past. It is interessting that the single word causes a reply post.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

Aries said:


> Think the word in a less strict sense. The western realm has defined the world order more than most empires of the strict sense of the past. It is interessting that the single word causes a reply post.


It's not tnat interesting really. It's much more odd that someone perpetually sees an 'empire' (even in a vague, unrelated grouping) and as against what? And always imagining 'decline' rather than change and development. But I'll give it to you that things do decline and fall. That's just how it is.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Chat Noir said:


> It's not tnat interesting really. It's much more odd that someone perpetually sees an 'empire' (even in a vague, unrelated grouping) and as against what?


I do not cling to the term, and I can't remember that I perpetually used it. I used it here mainly because Ulalume!Ulalume! used it and I wanted to relate more to his post.

I don't think it matters here against what it is or whether it is against something. But the term apparently stimulates such thoughts.



Chat Noir said:


> And always imagining 'decline' rather than change and development. But I'll give it to you that things do decline and fall. That's just how it is.


I don't know the future, that is why I asked the question. I am interested in realism not optimism or pessimism. I am probably relativly more pessimitic than most but I try to achieve realism.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Perhaps it's an insuperable problem with the human brain, and with one generation so quickly replacing another. 

I mean, if we deduce/speculate from the course of recent pop music that Music is at an end (in each genre), and it will be increasingly difficult to create 'music' (filling the role of past musics) that is original and attractive to masses of people, then it shouldn't surprise us about where we are in history.

IMO, it should be a very interesting subject, to be rolling up all categories of music, beginning to end, and surveying it all, knowing it's pretty much over. 'Nothing new under the sun..

I think I read a paper about this, long ago.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Chat Noir said:


> What are you on about? I'm not 'presenting' anything. I responded to the remark that writing new music was supposedly the 'easy way out'...


The actual remark was:



DaveM said:


> There may be room for both whatever that means, but those who don’t attempt to compose ‘audience friendly‘ music are taking the easy way out.


It was in response to this comment from @composingmusic: ‘: ‘_Some composers do write more audience friendly music, but I don't think all composers need to do that._ And if I was making any connection in the post that it came from, it was with regard to avant-garde music, not ‘new music’ which doesn’t refer to any specific contemporary music. Once again you misquote things off the top of your head.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

I think there is a sense in which certain art just fits better into certain times in which the artists live. Picasso was phenomenally talented and could paint unbelievably good oil paintings since an early age—most people can only dream of painting like he did as a 15-year-old. But he nevertheless decided to turn toward modernism and I think we should be glad he did.

There is a sense in which Mozart’s divertimenti just do not play the kind of role they used to play. Nor does opera, ever since the Romantics forced everyone to take it seriously as an art form, instead of just as another social occasion. The fact that classical music has become something one enjoys for its own sake, and not something that is just part of a social occasion or a religious ceremony has liberated the art form and has allowed it to become what it is today. And I think it is better for it, even if one does not like Cage, Boulez, and others like that.

For a long time I couldn’t get myself to enjoy much of the music after the late Romantics but have since then come to appreciate it greatly. It is important to remember that the kind of music that was composed during the 20th century and that is composed now serves a much different purpose than the music Mozart and Haydn were writing. If one wanted a music to listen in the background, I think one might much rather listen to Mozart’s opera than Britten’s. But if I sit down and focus, I find the latter much more moving than the former. That kind of music must be appreciated for what it is, and it never even attempted to be like its Romantic and Classical predecessors. It reflects a different world and different struggles, and I think it would be out of place to want it to be any different.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

DaveM said:


> And if I was making any connection in the post that it came from, it was with regard to avant-garde music, not ‘new music’ which doesn’t refer to any specific contemporary music. Once again you misquote things off the top of your head.


The thing is Dave, we all of us know what you mean. 'Audience friendly' doesn't mean 'stuff DaveM approves' or music in the tradition of some period or other. And we did actually discuss that the audience doesn't always lead the proceedings. After all, unless they are arriving to listen to/see something well ensconced into the repertoire it is a discovery. We also talked about how composers/artists also aimed to present ways of hearing/seeing and to offer this to an audience.

If you didn't spend so much time and energy being offended and moaning about being misjudged/misquoted and trying to correct it like some Charles Pooter, you could engage with this. Rather than griping about music having merely gone to the dogs and the dubious premise of this thread regarding this idea where ALL orchestra/string/ensemble etc music must be created in the mould of common practice. Preferably with for the most part diatonic harmony, a bit of chromaticism (but not too much), certainly none of that bitonality or melodic structure that confuses people; stuff you can whistle, 'themes', etc.

No sir. All that exists unscathed for your delectation. Plus very different tonalities from before the baroque era, which even confuses some CP folks. And the post Wagner music, and the developments throughout the 20thC to now. All of it is one long continuous history, all coming from the same spring.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Chat Noir said:


> ..If you didn't spend so much time and energy being offended and moaning about being misjudged/misquoted and trying to correct it like some Charles Pooter, you could engage with this. Rather than griping about music having merely gone to the dogs and the dubious premise of this thread regarding this idea where ALL orchestra/string/ensemble etc music must be created in the mould of common practice. Preferably with for the most part diatonic harmony, a bit of chromaticism (but not too much), certainly none of that bitonality or melodic structure that confuses people; stuff you can whistle, 'themes', etc.


Why don’t you spend some time and energy responding to what people have actual said instead of making it up and then commenting on it. Just like the other crap you’ve perpetrated about what I’ve said, either find some place where I’ve said that music has gone to the dogs and all music ‘must be created in the mould of common practice’ or just stifle yourself because you don’t have much in the way of credibility left.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

DaveM said:


> either find some place where I’ve said that music has gone to the dogs and all music ‘must be created in the mould of common practice’ or just stifle yourself because you don’t have much in the way of credibility left.


You shift the goalposts around so rapidly it's just made up on the spot. Obviously the thread is long. but anyone can read it and come to the same conclusion.

If someone says 'modern' you say 'No..! No, I mean "avant garde' music'... So then it has to go off into a tiresome side-discussion about that, which turns out merely to be: 'Music Dave says has no melody,' Yet where the composer says it does have melody. Or that it doesn't aim to have melody in that way.

If your position in this _isn't _that new classical music ought to be CP type music in order to please your posited audiences, then what is it?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Chat Noir said:


> You shift the goalposts around so rapidly it's just made up on the spot. Obviously the thread is long. but anyone can read it and come to the same conclusion.
> 
> If someone says 'modern' you say 'No..! No, I mean "avant garde' music'... So then it has to go off into a tiresome side-discussion about that, which turns out merely to be: 'Music Dave says has no melody,' Yet where the composer says it does have melody. Or that it doesn't aim to have melody in that way.
> 
> If your position in this _isn't _that new classical music ought to be CP type music in order to please your posited audiences, then what is it?


The problem is that you can’t keep straight what various people post. That‘s why you keep repeating variations of the ‘shifting of the goalposts’ because you keep forgetting where the goalposts are or even what the game is.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

DaveM said:


> The problem is that you can’t keep straight what various people post. That‘s why you keep repeating variations of the ‘shifting of the goalposts’ because you keep forgetting where the goalposts are or even what the game is.


If your position in this _isn't _that new classical music ought to be CP type music in order to please your posited audiences, then what is it?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Chat Noir said:


> If your position in this _isn't _that new classical music ought to be CP type music in order to please your posited audiences, then what is it?


Since I have made it clear, over and over, that my issue is with avant-garde music and have given examples of what I am referring to and since that leaves a wide alternative of ‘new classical music‘ that I am not referring to, then you figure it out. What you have done is not bother to keep it clear what the various opinions are of frequent posters in this thread. You just throw out various random accusations regardless of who you’re posting to. No one else is doing that here.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

DaveM said:


> Since I have made it clear, over and over, that my issue is with avant-garde music and have given examples of what I am referring to and since that leaves a wide alternative of ‘new classical music‘ that I am not referring to, then you figure it out. What you have done is not bother to keep it clear what the various opinions are of frequent posters in this thread. You just throw out various random accusations regardless of who you’re posting to. No one else is doing that here.


No, no. I, and others, reject your artificial separation of 'avant garde' into something you want to disappear. Or that this makes up the main body of classical music being produced now, edging out 'real' classical music and therefore jeopardising the 'future of classical music', which is what this thread is about.

If there is 'a wide alternative of ‘new classical music‘ to which you are not referring, and which isn't the problem, what exactly _is_ your issue?

Credibility?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Chat Noir said:


> No, no. I, and others, reject your artificial separation of 'avant garde' into something you want to disappear. Or that this makes up the main body of classical music being produced now, edging out 'real' classical music and therefore jeopardising the 'future of classical music', which is what this thread is about.
> 
> If there is 'a wide alternative of ‘new classical music‘ to which you are not referring, and which isn't the problem, what exactly _is_ your issue?
> 
> Credibility?


I don’t want avant-garde to disappear and have never said so. I have always viewed it as something that deserves to be in a separate genre where you and anyone else can enjoy it as usual. I think the future of classical music is better served maintaining some semblance of the characteristics that have defined it for centuries. And btw, the atonal music of Schoenberg et al does.

So please indicate any post of mine that says or implies that I want avant-garde to disappear. And you may think that your position is somehow strengthened by the ‘_I and others_’, under the mistaken illusion that that implies that the majority is on your side, but all it does is indicate that you are desperate for outside support. I rest on the strength of my own opinions.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

DaveM said:


> I don’t want avant-garde to disappear and have never said so. I have always viewed it as something that deserves to be in a separate genre where you and anyone else can enjoy it as usual.


What is problematic about the avantgarde are more or less present claims that the avantgarde represents the rightfully succesors of the masters of the common practise period, while it is claimed at the same time that it is necessary to write much different music to the common practise period today. Isn't it more nearby that those composers who have developed the common practise style further within its stylistic lines are successors of the masters of the common practise period, while the avantgarde has created their own new sub-genre? There are ensembles specialized for avantgarde music, so we don't have to artificial make this separation, but we can just detect that a separation is there to some extend.

The avantgarde argument seems to go as follows: The common practise period is good because the style was appropriate for the old time. The avantgarde is good because its style is appropriate for today. The avantgarde is the rightfully successor of the common practise period because it continued the tradition of writing approriate music for the time.

The problem with this is, that no style is objectively approriate or inappropriate for a time. Style is a matter of taste, and what is appropriate is a matter of taste. (On top of that the advocats of the avantgarde tend to be the same who speak out most strongly against ideas of objectivity. That raises questions.) Imo the times have an effect on music, but this effect is not controllable, not predictable and not ideologically graspable. The spirit of the avantgarde is not needed to write music appropriate for today.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Aries said:


> ...
> 
> The avantgarde argument seems to go as follows: The common practise period is good because the style was appropriate for the old time. The avantgarde is good because its style is appropriate for today. The avantgarde is the rightfully successor of the common practise period because it continued the tradition of writing approriate music for the time.
> 
> The problem with this is, that no style is objectively approriate or inappropriate for a time. Style is a matter of taste, and what is appropriate is a matter of taste. (On top of that the advocats of the avantgarde tend to be the same who speak out most strongly against ideas of objectivity. That raises questions.) Imo the times have an effect on music, but this effect is not controllable, not predictable and not ideologically graspable. The spirit of the avantgarde is not needed to write music appropriate for today.


That kind of argument would be obviously fallacious but I don't think this is what one ought to have in mind. No one is composing _for_ a period but is expressing what is appropriate _in their own lights_. Obviously, the contemporary and 20th century artists did feel it is necessary to write music exactly the way they did—why do you think they wrote it that way if they did not think that it was necessary, or most appropriate? Of course, something like the _War Requiem_ could have been written without any dissonance whatsoever, and Messiaen could have written his _Quatuor pour la fin du temps_ as a joyous short string quartet in the classical form. But that would not have been appropriate to what those composers, respectively, were trying to communicate! Such people did not become artists to please others… often quite the opposite. _War Requiem_ was possibly explicitly meant to displease some, in a way Britten thought was very much appropriate and called for. Or how can you say to someone like Messiaen that you could have used a bit less dissonance there… yes, you were a prisoner in a war camp but still… we would enjoy it more if it was a bit happier. That is not what those pieces are trying to achieve! It's an artistic expression, not a public good.

So, if a contemporary or 20th century composer says they need avantgarde or more extreme dissonance, atonality, and so on, how could you possibly say that they do not need it? For what they wish to communicate, that is exactly what they think they need to use.

PS. I'm well aware that someone like Britten does not qualify as avant garde but I used him as an example just to make a point. And he's definitely not someone who is famous for using catchy melodies (though he uses those too where appropriate).


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

annaw said:


> Of course, something like the _War Requiem_ could have been written without any dissonance whatsoever, and Messiaen could have written his _Quatuor pour la fin du temps_ as a joyous short string quartet in the classical form. But that would not have been appropriate to what those composers, respectively, were trying to communicate! Such people did not become artists to please others… often quite the opposite.


Yes, I considered that already. I got some replies denying everything though:


eljr said:


> Wait a minute... you guys are serious?
> 
> You think these genres were designed to annoy "outsiders?"
> 
> If so, I am glad you two came along, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.





composingmusic said:


> I can confidently say that the purpose of what you're calling avant-garde music is not to annoy.


_


annaw said:



War Requiem was possibly explicitly meant to displease some, in a way Britten thought was very much appropriate and called for. Or how can you say to someone like Messiaen that you could have used a bit less dissonance there… yes, you were a prisoner in a war camp but still… we would enjoy it more if it was a bit happier. That is not what those pieces are trying to achieve! It's an artistic expression, not a public good.

Click to expand...

_They can do what they want, but it is a concept that would be far from me and I don't think it is true for War Requiem. Unloading my soul clutter at the audience straight forward? It does not seem like common practise composers did that, at least not in a straight forward dull way. Their Weltschmerz enriched their work too, but was interwoven in a sophisticated artistic way that was also much more suited to attract a wide audience. Makes much more sense for me. I would not want to burden others as artist, I would want to convey my message in the most fascinating way to the biggest audience as possible.



annaw said:


> So, if a contemporary or 20th century composer says they need avantgarde or more extreme dissonance, atonality, and so on, how could you possibly say that they do not need it?


They have to know for themselves what they need. What I say is that it is not generally necessary, like for every composer.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Aries said:


> They can do what they want, but it is a concept that would be far from me and I don't think it is true for War Requiem. Unloading my soul clutter at the audience straight forward? It does not seem like common practise composers did that, at least not in a straight forward dull way. Their Weltschmerz enriched their work too, but was interwoven in a sophisticated artistic way that was also much more suited to attract a wide audience. Makes much more sense for me. I would not want to burden others as artist, I would want to convey my message in the most fascinating way to the biggest audience as possible.


You sound as though you haven't heard Britten's 'War Requiem', is that fair? The impact that it made on its first performance is summed up by the audible sobbing in the audience - Britten had requested no applause at the end of the premiere. To this day, the work remains as one of the towering achievements in Western art music, certainly in my and many, many others opinion - critics, musicians and audiences alike. It is a transcendental and undeniably powerful masterpiece that also incidentally, clearly relates to the canon in technical and musical matters, even at one point using CP's accented appogiatura technique in the deeply moving 'Lacrimosa' (I thought I'd mention that as CPT seems to be a crucial aspect of music's enjoyment for you).
Here's Britten talking about his artistic outlook which was part of his acceptance speech upon receiving an Aspen Award and which also appears to contradict the implications in your post.....

_"....You may ask perhaps: how far can a composer go in thus considering the demands of people, of humanity? At many times in history the artist has made a conscious effort to speak with the voice of the people. Beethoven certainly tried, in works as different as the Battle of Vittoria and the Ninth Symphony, to utter the sentiments of a whole community. From the beginning of Christianity there have been musicians who have wanted and tried to be the servants of the church, and to express the devotion and convictions of Christians, as such. Recently, we have had the example of Shostakovich, who set out in his Leningrad Symphony to present a monument to his fellow citizens, an explicit expression for them of their own endurance and heroism. At a very different level, one finds composers such as Johann Strauss and George Gershwin aiming at providing people—the people—with the best dance music and songs which they were capable of making. And I can find nothing wrong with the objectives—declared or implicit—of these men; *nothing wrong with offering to my fellow-men music which may inspire them or comfort them, which may touch them or entertain them, even educate them—directly and with intention. On the contrary, it is the composer’s duty, as a member of society, to speak to or for his fellow human beings."*_

(my bolded).


----------



## verandai (Dec 10, 2021)

Chat Noir said:


> You shift the goalposts around so rapidly it's just made up on the spot. Obviously the thread is long. but anyone can read it and come to the same conclusion.
> 
> If someone says 'modern' you say 'No..! No, I mean "avant garde' music'... So then it has to go off into a tiresome side-discussion about that, which turns out merely to be: 'Music Dave says has no melody,' Yet where the composer says it does have melody. Or that it doesn't aim to have melody in that way.
> 
> If your position in this _isn't _that new classical music ought to be CP type music in order to please your posited audiences, then what is it?


Could someone please explain what "*CP type*" means? I tried to deduce it somehow and google it, but was not successful


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Music that is written in the *C*ommon* P*ractice way. A style and technique of writing that roughly covers the Baroque to late 19thC. Just think Bach, Mozart or Brahms and definitely not Webern, Boulez or Fernyhough....


----------



## verandai (Dec 10, 2021)

mikeh375 said:


> Music that is written in the *C*ommon* P*ractice way. A style and technique of writing that roughly covers the Baroque to late 19thC. Just think Bach, Mozart or Mahler and definitely not Boulez....


Thanks, I never would have guessed that 

Also this term seems quite subjective to me - is this an official wording?


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

...yes it is an understood designation I think, stemming from 'common chords'. It might appear subjective because the ubiquitous use of common chords eventually developed into a more technically chromatic and more personal approach. Even Wagner's high chromaticism was, with hindsight, an implied latent quality in earlier practice that eventually manifested over time to become dominant at the end of the 19thC as composers pushed boundaries.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

verandai said:


> Thanks, I never would have guessed that
> 
> Also this term seems quite subjective to me - is this an official wording?


I had never heard or read the term "common practice" before this forum and I have (privately, never in an academic context after high school, though) read popular/introductory level music history/commentary for almost 35 years. It seems a newish term from anglophone music history/academia? Not sure what older (early-mid 20th century) or German language authors would have used. Maybe "funktionale Harmonik" or "Dur-Moll-Tonalität"? Maybe these are too precise and exclude stuff one wants to include, I'd guess, but "common practice" is very nondescript.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

mikeh375 said:


> You sound as though you haven't heard Britten's 'War Requiem', is that fair?


I was hearing it while writing the previous post but I heard it never before and I did not understand the text.



mikeh375 said:


> The impact that it made on its first performance is summed up by the audible sobbing in the audience. Britten had requested no applause at the end of thje premiere and to this day, the work remains as one of the towering achievements in Western art music, certainly in my and many, many others opinion - critics, musicians and audiences alike. A transcendental and undeniably powerful masterpiece that also incidentally, clearly relates to the canon in technical and musical matters, even CP accented appogiaturas. (I thought I'd mention that as CPT seems to be a crucial aspect for you).


Imo War Requiem is roughly within the lines of common practise and it is not an unpleasant work. Who was unpleased by the work?

I found some reviews like in The Birmingham Post and Birmingham Gazette from 31 May 1962:


















So maybe just a bit too much bitter-sweetness? This is a little thing and not suitable if you want to displease.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Kreisler jr said:


> "common practice" is very nondescript.


It is as nondescript as "modernism". The difference between the styles is hard to grasp in detail but obvious in existence and meaning, so you need terms.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

But common practice is not a style. "French high baroque" or "early 19th century Italian belcanto" are styles. "common practice" is supposed to cover >300 years of rather diverse music. I have no problem with this term, I just find it remarkable that I never encountered it before in 30 years reading about classical music in German and English.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Chat Noir said:


> If your position in this _isn't _that new classical music ought to be CP type music in order to please your posited audiences, then what is it?


I've already written in the OP what it could be. For example a symphony like this one, which infact belongs to the domain of "modern music" (1950).
Does it sound like the music of the classical period, or does it sound "modern" in a different way in respect to avant-garde? No one is saying that the composers must only create Mozart's pastiches. They should simply create music that it's not perceived as "horrble" by the average human ears, otherwise classical music will die.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

verandai said:


> Could someone please explain what "*CP type*" means? I tried to deduce it somehow and google it, but was not successful


It would be better to not use abbreviations. Not all people understand what you mean.

In the previous post I intended "CP type" as "classical period type".


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

DaveM said:


> I don’t want avant-garde to disappear and have never said so. I have always viewed it as something that deserves to be in a separate genre where you and anyone else can enjoy it as usual. I think the future of classical music is better served maintaining some semblance of the characteristics that have defined it for centuries. And btw, the atonal music of Schoenberg et al does.
> 
> So please indicate any post of mine that says or implies that I want avant-garde to disappear. And you may think that your position is somehow strengthened by the ‘_I and others_’, under the mistaken illusion that that implies that the majority is on your side, but all it does is indicate that you are desperate for outside support. I rest on the strength of my own opinions.


Not so fast. So in fact you _do_ say what I indicated you said. That you think something you decide is 'avant garde' should not be allowed into the continuum, even though it is and there's nothing you can do about it. With the "And btw, the atonal music of Schoenberg et al does." tacked onto the end to make it appear that this is 'permissible'. The 'atonal'? He only toyed with a bit of that before pursuing and developing his 12-tone/serial approach. Which is NOT 'atonal'. Which did have an effect on music up to now. Some of which you are trying to put into a new category where people can 'enjoy it' out of the way.

I very much doubt you'd even be giving Schoenberg _et al _a pass if they were the ones now designated as the future of classical music, rather than vague 'avant garde'. It's disgraceful really the slipperiness you've employed in order to try and advance what is a ridiculous personal taste view.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

HansZimmer said:


> I've already written in the OP what it could be. For example a symphony like this one, which infact belongs to the domain of "modern music" (1950).
> Does it sound like the music of the classical period, or does it sound "modern" in a different way in respect to avant-garde? No one is saying that the composers must only create Mozart's pastiches. They should simply create music that it's not perceived as "horrble" by the average human ears, otherwise classical music will die.


You may have written it, but what happened is that you're really responding to an imaginary supposition. What is being said is very, very simple. It is that neither you, nor DaveM or anyone else gets to decide the parameters of what individual composers decide to create as artists. So that just because you rake together some works from different periods and years, which you then decide fit your vision of what 'classical music' ought to sound like, the composers in question _do not care _what you think. You are not their audience. You are the audience for music of a different shade and type and film music present.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Chat Noir said:


> Not so fast. So in fact you _do_ say what I indicated you said. That you think something you decide is 'avant garde' should not be allowed into the continuum, even though it is and there's nothing you can do about it.


However it could explain why classical music is dying in the new generations, which is the subject of this discussion.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

HansZimmer said:


> However it could explain why classical music is dying in the new generations, which is the subject of this discussion.


Except that claim has already been debunked. That something isn't the main type of popular music (which again is why popular music was invoked at all) does not mean it is 'dying'. More orchestras than ever, comprised of young people; more string quartets, more recording releases. That's not dying, get a grip.

What you mean is: 'not enough new music designated as serious classical music, suits my particular tastes.' That's a different claim entirely...and also wrong.


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

Something I think we should acknowledge in this discussion: a lot of people seem to be talking about the "audience" as a sort of monolithic collective with a set of views. They're arguing for what the audience prefers based on their general own preferences and the people around them who agree with them. I think it's important to acknowledge the audience as something much more flexible than that. There's many, many different smaller groups that all have their own preferences, backgrounds, views, etc. and this is reflected in the diverse, multifaceted music that's being written today. Yes, this applies for classical music as well. Yes, there are people who prefer a certain range of "tried and true" classics, but even within that, everyone's got their own preferences... and as I've said, some people like English madrigals, others prefer Chopin and Schumann, and yet others prefer composers such as Mozart, CPE Bach, and Spohr. A lot of people like certain aspects of contemporary classical and modernist music, and don't like other aspects. That's all perfectly fine and good. 

However, I think generalizing to: 

1. There is something that can be defined as a single "audience" that we can draw generalizations on, and

2. Composers should write with the main focus being to please this singular "audience" 

is misleading. It's much more complex than this – yes, composers do write for themselves, but they're also interacting with the world around them. They don't write in a bubble, and they do influence each other. As I've said before, there is an audience for post 1900 music (and as I've said before, there's an incredibly large selection of different types of music within this time). 

Composers, musicologists, and other musicians would label the varying types of post-1900s art music as broadly belonging to the same genre of music, yes. There are many sub-labels that can be applied to different strands of this music, as I've mentioned before. These labels include terms like spectralism, minimalism, modernism, postmodernism, experimentalist, new complexity, new simplicity, and many more. But I think drawing an arbitrary line based on what some people may define as "atonal" and claiming that music that fits this one specific parameter should be an entirely different genre, is misleading for a number of reasons (including, but not limited to, historical and musicological reasons).


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

Chat Noir said:


> What you mean is: 'not enough new music designated as serious classical music, suits my particular tastes.'


I mean, that's fine – everyone is entitled to their own opinions. The issue I have is trying to use this to define what should or shouldn't be in the same genre, and what composers should or should not be writing (or how they should be writing).


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

Additionally the majority of composers, at least the ones I've known, never have this sort of strict genre separation in their minds. They tend to be listeners of all kinds of music. From indeed the madrigal all the way up to current popular music. The younger the composer the more this seems to be the case, as they live in their own world and epoch, but still carry knowledge about what came before them.

As I said further back, no one seems to be bothered that people can pick and choose which sub-genres of popular music they will enjoy, but in this discussion there's supposedly one giant thing called 'classical music' which has to be uniformly tied together with a certain aesthetic. It's crazy.


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

Chat Noir said:


> Additionally the majority of composers, at least the ones I've known, never have this sort of strict genre separation in their minds. They tend to be listeners of all kinds of music. From indeed the madrigal all the way up to current popular music. The younger the composer the more this seems to be the case, as they live in their own world and epoch, but still carry knowledge about what came before them.
> 
> As I said further back, no one seems to be bothered that people can pick and choose which sub-genres of popular music they will enjoy, but in this discussion there's supposedly one giant thing called 'classical music' which has to be uniformly tied together with a certain aesthetic. It's crazy.


Exactly, classical music is not a monolithic entity. Audiences aren’t monolithic entities either.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Aries said:


> I was hearing it while writing the previous post but I heard it never before and I did not understand the text.
> 
> 
> Imo War Requiem is roughly within the lines of common practise and it is not an unpleasant work. Who was unpleased by the work?


That doesn’t mean it wasn’t meant to displease some. _War Requiem_ is a deeply pacifist work, which Britten wrote after the First and the Second World War. And being a pacifist, still at that time, was not something that was for everybody’s liking since it also amounted to a certain kind of criticism towards the countries (including England itself) that participated in those wars. And I think that, in any case, it does not qualify as a ‘pleasant’ work from anyone’s perspective—it’s not something one is meant to unknowingly enjoy for the sake of nice tunes and melodies.

I think Messiaen was a better example in my post insofar as he is much more distant from the traditional Western tradition than Britten. But both serve to make the point—some works are not meant to be tuneful, melodic, tonal, etc.

Classical music is not going anywhere if we do not seek to establish some arbitrary boundaries for what qualifies as classical music. I live very close to Boston and Nelsons often plays contemporary repertoire, and premieres new works with BSO. There is nothing terrible about them, quite in contrary! And it is only refreshing to listen to Beethoven and then to a very different contemporary piece you have never heard before. I just don’t understand why those works wouldn’t qualify as classical music if all the professional conductors and composers think they do.


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

annaw said:


> Classical music is not going anywhere if we do not seek to establish some arbitrary boundaries for what qualifies as classical music. I live very close to Boston and Nelsons often plays contemporary repertoire, and premieres new works with BSO. There is nothing terrible about them, quite in contrary! And it is only refreshing to listen to Beethoven and then to a very different contemporary piece you have never heard before. I just don’t understand why those works wouldn’t qualify as classical music if all the professional conductors and composers think they do.


Exactly. Going from the previous post, while the War Requiem does strongly allude to tonality, I would argue that it's not using functional tonality in the way that say, most Mozart works would. Because of this, and because of the time period, it's not common practice (and this argument is one that most professional musicians would agree with). 

As I've said before, most contemporary composers would see their work as having ties to previous decades and centuries in one way or another, and they would consider their music to be contemporary classical music. I agree that these works should be considered part of the same genre, even if the aesthetic has changed over time, and there are a number of different aesthetics in today's world.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

annaw said:


> Classical music is not going anywhere if we do not seek to establish some arbitrary boundaries for what qualifies as classical music. I live very close to Boston and Nelsons often plays contemporary repertoire, and premieres new works with BSO. There is nothing terrible about them, quite in contrary! And it is only refreshing to listen to Beethoven and then to a very different contemporary piece you have never heard before. I just don’t understand why those works wouldn’t qualify as classical music if all the professional conductors and composers think they do.


What's on top of the classical top 40 this week?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Chat Noir said:


> The 'atonal'? He only toyed with a bit of that before pursuing and developing his 12-tone/serial approach. Which is NOT 'atonal'.


The term ‘atonal’ is not used so narrowly around here. In fact, it is misleading to imply that it has not been used to include 12-tone serialism. From the Wiki:
_’*Atonality* in its broadest sense is music that lacks a tonal center, or key. Atonality, in this sense, usually describes compositions written from about the early 20th-century to the present day, where a hierarchy of harmonies focusing on a single, central triad is not used, and the notes of the chromatic scale function independently of one another.[2]More narrowly, the term atonality describes music that does not conform to the system of tonal hierarchies that characterized European classical music between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries.’_



> I very much doubt you'd even be giving Schoenberg _et al _a pass if they were the ones now designated as the future of classical music, rather than vague 'avant garde'. It's disgraceful really the slipperiness you've employed in order to try and advance what is a ridiculous personal taste view.


Yet another example of hypothesizing what might be in the head of someone else and then judging it as if it is fact. Maybe you should stick with what is known and practice responding to that. Here’s a hint to improve: avoid overuse of hyperbolic terms in the category of ‘absurd’, ‘disgraceful’, ‘slipperiness’ and ‘ridiculous’, especially with several in the same sentence, because in the rare case where they might be justified, they won’t carry any weight. It will just be, ‘Oh, he’s just bloviating again.’


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

DaveM said:


> The term ‘atonal’ is not used so narrowly around here. In fact, it is misleading to imply that it has not been used to include 12-tone serialism.


I'm using it in the second sense. Justly. However, if you want to include the wider definition, that's great and if you can make individual arguments for why something you think isn't conforming to it, that will also be great. Even though it will have no effect on what is written and performed.



DaveM said:


> Yet another example of hypothesizing what might be in the head of someone else and then judging it as if it is fact. Maybe you should stick with what is known and practice responding to that. Here’s a hint to improve: avoid overuse of hyperbolic terms in the category of ‘absurd’, ‘disgraceful’, ‘slipperiness’ and ‘ridiculous’, especially with several in the same sentence, because in the rare case where they might be justified, they won’t carry any weight. It will just be, ‘Oh, he’s just bloviating again.’


So you won't address the actual charge then? You know it's true. Everything you've written in this and like threads makes it clear. No matter how much ducking and diving is attempted.

I'm retiring your view now, because it has been roundly demolished.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Kreisler jr said:


> But common practice is not a style. "French high baroque" or "early 19th century Italian belcanto" are styles. "common practice" is supposed to cover >300 years of rather diverse music. I have no problem with this term, I just find it remarkable that I never encountered it before in 30 years reading about classical music in German and English.


It is something like a super-style, because the term is about the style but it includes multiple different styles. While the styles within the common practise are differnet, imo they are still rather closely related compard to Schönbergs music for example.



Chat Noir said:


> I very much doubt you'd even be giving Schoenberg _et al _a pass if they were the ones now designated as the future of classical music


I would not. Twelve-tone music and free atonalism is avantgarde. If he had continued his youth style I had no objection.



annaw said:


> That doesn’t mean it wasn’t meant to displease some. _War Requiem_ is a deeply pacifist work, which Britten wrote after the First and the Second World War. And being a pacifist, still at that time, was not something that was for everybody’s liking since it also amounted to a certain kind of criticism towards the countries (including England itself) that participated in those wars. And I think that, in any case, it does not qualify as a ‘pleasant’ work from anyone’s perspective—it’s not something one is meant to unknowingly enjoy for the sake of nice tunes and melodies.


The message might be intended to displease war proponents, but the artistic means aren't. The artistic means are rather meant to even capture war proponents by appeal. And that is the classical way to do it.



> I think Messiaen was a better example in my post insofar as he is much more distant from the traditional Western tradition than Britten.


I think that too.



composingmusic said:


> Exactly. Going from the previous post, while the War Requiem does strongly allude to tonality, I would argue that it's not using functional tonality in the way that say, most Mozart works would. Because of this, and because of the time period, it's not common practice (and this argument is one that most professional musicians would agree with).


Would Brittens style be enough to create the distiction between common practise and modernism? Once the distiction was there because of much more extrem modern composers, one might detect Britten just slightly on the modern side of the demarcation. But the style of Britten would not have been enough to establish the distinction. Britten is different to 19th century music, but just as 19th century music is different to 18th century music. By that scale Schönberg sound like 27th century music.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao (Nov 13, 2021)

Maybe it's dumb of me to post this reply after only having read the 1st and last page the thread, since the ground may have been covered already etc. - however in case it hasn't, just a couple comments here:



HansZimmer said:


> In the discussion The "Bubbles" experiment - What is contemporary music worth? many users are discussing about their personal views of avant-garde music, but I'd like to discuss about the subject from a social perspective.
> I have nothing to say about the fact that many users here enjoy avant-garde music, but you have to be aware that it's not music for everyone, because the average human ears enjoy tonal and melodic music.


Just like extreme metal, music that sounds like Ligeti is highly popular and acknowledged - as horror music.

I'd be very surprised if a mass poll of some kind revealed that only like 10% agree with this basic notion - that 1) chromatic clusters and whatnot sound unsettling, and 2) that horror is a popular genre of entertainment (whether it dominates the entire work, or just comprises small parts of it).





> As I'm 33 years old, I'd like to speak about my perspective about the future of classical music.
> I know no one in my age who listens to classical music. *I don't tell to my friends that I listen to it because they wouldn't understand. My sister, six years older than me, laughs at me because I have Mozart's music in my phone.*
> Instead of saying that my generation is composed mainly by musical idiots, I think that we should reflect a little bit about the reasons.


Well some might suggest that all generations have a large percentage of (not just musical) idiots in them:




> The Mozart's music is tonal, melodic and pleasant (like pop music), but the persons of my age perceive it as "obsolete music": not music of our world, our era.


These are the same people who say "lol bigband is obsolete and dated" and then go watch latenight shows and James Bond the next day (two mainstream bubbles that have been keeping the original swing era alive);

the same people who'll say "lol the Matrix is dated cause of the techno" the one second, and then go "the bad writers of modern Hollywood ruined another early '00s classic" (i.e. the recent 4th movie);

the same people who keep hearing the Requiem inserted in all kinds of media contexts to convey a sense of doom (dramatic or comical, both - the X-Men 2 opening for instance), and then forget that Mozart wrote it and say that it's "obsolete" or whatnot.

I.e. forgetful walking dementia zombies who'll just repeat whatever they just heard sb say and then won't remember any of it the next day;
contradictory notions freely bouncing around their head, without them noticing any of it.


So unless you want to sell something to them to make a bunch of cash, why bother with any of this lol - whatever notion you'll manage to plant in their brains, it's likely already been there at some point, and it won't stick around this time either.





> Therefore the classical music world can not think that it's possible to keep classical music alive in the future with Mozart's music or with pastiches of Mozart's music.
> If the musical tradition wants to survive, the composers have to produce new and updated tonal/melodic music.
> 
> When you say that modern classical music can be melodic and tonal, many users answer "so, do you want pastiches of Mozart or Brahms?".
> I didn't know that Mozart and Brahms had copyrighted tonality!


I'm a bit confused by this section - keeping what alive, precisely? Updating whose tonality (it's certainly been expanded since those 2)? Doesn't a lot of what Mozart wrote count as pastiche incl. self-pastiche - and isn't a lot of successful stuff already highly derivative of something else?

Whatever those anti-pastichists are trying to "prevent" there, is already happening on a massive scale and has always been - so they probably aren't thinking clearly either.





> I wouldn't neither say that it's a pastiche of romantic music. If anything, it might be seen as a pastiche of film music... and film music is modern!


Idk some of the top elite successful film scores are done in the Romantic/post-Romantic styles - so how does it make sense to say that the only way of succeeding with an instrumental is by ripping off "film music and not romantic/post-romantic"?

If it's because you've once heard someone's sister's roommate once say "lol x is outdated", well see above - that person likely doesn't hold that view with any particular consistency.






> I'm not saying that it's an excellent symphony, but it's quite good and it's an example of a style that the young persons of today might like.


Whoever finds themselves uttering cliched phrases like "what the young people / kids today like" (hint: it's whatever they're marketed to, at the moment they're marketed it to) might wanna hit pause, and check whether it's their inner NPC zombie talking there or not;



> The cinematic industry has worked to find out what is the right sound for the persons of today, so you just have to create symphonies and other concert works with the style of film music to relaunch classical music.


well a lot of that hard-found sound is in the style of cm from 100 years ago, so yeah.

?


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao (Nov 13, 2021)

Monsalvat said:


> Schoenberg once predicted that people would one day whistle twelve-tone melodies in the streets; why has that not happened?


Off the top of my head, the main Alien theme and Ligeti's "Desordre" are quite whistle-able, so that kind of thing is certainly possible.





mbhaub said:


> Some composer today do write good tunes and their music is popular because of it: Andrew Lloyd Weber and John Williams. This largely explains why orchestra keep repeating the same repertoire. It's why Messiah and Nutcracker are popular every year.* I look at Pop music today and can't believe anyone thinks any of it is good. The writers today are childish infants *compared to the great song writers of yesterday, and I'm not just talking Jerome Kern, Irving Berlin, Harold Arlen, Richard Rodgers, Cole Porter and that group. I include people like Paul McCartney, Bob Crewe and a whole bunch of others at work from the '50s through '70s who knew how to write beautiful music that people liked - it meant something. I've gotta stop...getting too serious and blood pressure up. Read Robert Bork's book Slouching Towards Gomorrah. He nails it.


Just curious if there's some concrete examples of those?





mikeh375 said:


> @DaveM talks about education and I think he has a point. I also think the internet is one of several suspects responsible for the decline and attitude to CM, but the internet's reach is also an opportunity for the future of music imo.
> Institutions will no doubt continue to pump out composers (and performers for that matter) and at a high rate and standard. Sadly, the option to break into film music is probably much harder than getting tenure for a composer. The film industry is frankly saturated and has been for many years with wannabee composers who are not up to the task and good to excellent composers who will be lucky to get a break. Besides, a composer schooled enough to have their own musical wits sharpened for the concert hall may not want to write in such a popular or utilitarian way as they may feel as though they have a more personal expression that needs to be vented. If art music becomes entirely a priori utilitarian and/or simply cowtowing to popular tonal taste, then classical music as a continuing art form will lose out imo.


A lot of what we call "CM" now was commissioned and/or written as a job working for the church / nobility - and in the 19th century composers needed commercial success from audiences and/or continued to collaborate with librettists instead of Wagner'ing it all by themselves.

In the Lully film "Le Roi Danse" (forgot to what extent that part is accurate), he has a falling out with Moliere cause he's tired of being constrained by this collaboration and wants to grab full artistic control himself - a luxury he can only afford due to his (barely but still so far continuing) special standing with the King.

"Art music" done for "expression uninhibited by cowtowing to any employers or crowds" has always been a particular ideal far from being synonymous with "CM" - however I've seen some users here argue that film/incidental can't be true CM for exactly those reasons, completely forgetting about opera (the through-composed / interwoven number-recitative types, that is) and seemingly needing reminders of its existence?


I always find this kind of stuff a bit confusing.











> Atonality/modernity/ expanded tonality etc. are niche compared to the canon, but they are also culturally important and should not be ousted to make way for entertainment and immediacy. There is more promise for the future of CM in the variety of newer ways to compose (to include new attitudes to tonality btw), than the stagnating effect we would witness if composers where all somehow coerced into writing alberti basses, perfect cadences and pretty tunes. Composers are not only writing for the end user, there is much more to consider.


For being "niche", they're quite a universally accepted style of conveying horror and dread (and not just in el33t arthouse productions) - while cadences and tunes convey other types of things.

Certain devices like alberti or BC or 80s drums seem to be very closely associated with their respective eras / period settings more than abstract mental states (though dissociations might be possible, at least in theory).


Pretty sure that's how people generally see these things.





Kreisler jr said:


> I think DaveM mentioned several salient points. One might add that we always take things for granted or "normal" that often are not. E.g. for a very general point, most of the 20th century was totally extraordinary. Many of our (grand)grandparents lived to see two of the most atrocious wars in history whereas we and our parents usually grew up in a half century without wars in our lives (or only at the margin in some exotic place) and commonly accessible high standard of living, including unprecedented mass media entertainment.
> 
> Mass media completely changed reception (and thus eventually production) of music within the last 120 years. So our time, or even the mid-20th century (when mass media and eventually their popular music really began to dominate everything) is very different from the centuries before when the still most popular so called classical music was composed. Similarly, both the relatively broad popularity of classical music until the late 20th century and the dominant status of popular mass media culture since the 1960s, were "normal" at that time but very different to former historical epochs. *This is why the people who claim that "Mozart was the Michael Jackson of 1785" are as wrong as *those who point out that the hermetic, elite status of a lot of 20/21st century avantgarde music was similar in the past with the reactions to Late Beethoven etc.


"The ALW of 1785" seems like a fairly accurate description, going by what I've read;
not sure why people say "Michael Jackson", given how he was a singer and dancer while Mozart wasn't (to my knowledge) and guys like Webber are a much more apt comparison.

Wasn't aware of late Beethoven meeting rejection, but Liszt did talk about hiding his late stuff from the public since they "weren't ready for it" or something.



> In any case, I don't think there is any demand for quasi-romantic music in 2022. Braga Santos was 70 years ago and old-fashioned then. There is more than enough classical and romantic music from the 18th through the 20th century to easily cover the demand. I think classical music will mostly remain this "museum of sound" and contemporary music will remain a small niche. Both might shrink more as the general demand for "high culture" is reduced (as it has been for about half a century but it might remain stable at a lower level). But like with other museums and monuments most countries/societies will keep paying for at least some amount of it.


It's hard to imagine there being a demand for brand-new Romantic film music but not autonomous works in that style;

on the other hand of course, the ones who're enthusiastic about "something new" couldn't possibly have gone through every last bit of the old stuff - so there may be a point there.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> ............"Art music" done for "expression uninhibited by cowtowing to any employers or crowds" has always been a particular ideal far from being synonymous with "CM" - however I've seen some users here argue that film/incidental can't be true CM for exactly those reasons, completely forgetting about opera (the through-composed / interwoven number-recitative types, that is) and seemingly needing reminders of its existence?


Not wishing to divert the OP but re Opera and any differences between writing one as opposed to a film score, I've posted my take on this in another thread. I'll refer you to that if I may by way of a response to your post...see post no53 here.
Imo, the composers mindset and creative/aesthetic freedom varies greatly and in a consequentially significant way between the 2 genres of opera and film score.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

mikeh375 said:


> Not wishing to divert the OP but re Opera and any differences between writing one as opposed to a film score, I've posted my take on this in another thread. I'll refer you to that if I may by way of a response to your post...see post no53 here.
> Imo, the composers mindset and creative/aesthetic freedom varies greatly and in a consequentially significant way between the 2 genres of opera and film score.


The exact link to the post is this one: Why do many people think that classical music composed for film scores is not classical music?


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

HansZimmer said:


> In short, the rap songs of the highest class compensate the "compositional lazyness" with the hard work on lyrics (and even if it's not as hard as the work of Dante in the Divine Comedy, there is is still more work than what you find in the lyrics of the typical pop songs... @Torkelburger missed the point).


No, actually it is you who have seemed to have missed the point (again) that it is not near as hard or as well-written as you think and are making it out to be.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> "The ALW of 1785" seems like a fairly accurate description, going by what I've read;
> not sure why people say "Michael Jackson", given how he was a singer and dancer while Mozart wasn't (to my knowledge) and guys like Webber are a much more apt comparison.


One can compare them but it turns out that both the historical situation and the composers were very different, Mozart was also an "avantgarde" composer of the 1780s whose music was considered difficult, the opera scores overloaded with too much orchestral detail etc.
Webber might be a less gifted Lehar of the 1970s-80s compared to the 1900-20s.
But such comparisons are usually more misleading than helping because the 1780s were very different from the 1900s and both from an age dominated by mass media that changed everything in the mid-20th century.



> It's hard to imagine there being a demand for brand-new Romantic film music but not autonomous works in that style;


There is not need for imagination. It is undoubtly the case that there is no such demand. Film music is needed for films but only a small percentage of film music becomes broadly popular outside of these films, this is a side effect of popular films, not a demand for more pseudo-romantic music instead of or in addition to Bruckner or Sibelius.
Very few of the "forgotten too late romantic" pieces from the 1920s-60s managed to enter the standard repertoire (Braga Santos clearly did not, the last real "rediscovery" might have been Zemlinsky in the 1980s/90s). There is clearly a saturation reached for this style. The larger repertoire changes in the last ~40 years are from baroque music, like the re-establishment of some opera seria (Handel, Rameau) that was considered hopelessly un-theatrical and boring even in the 1950 and 60s.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Kreisler jr said:


> There is not need for imagination. It is undoubtly the case that there is no such demand. Film music is needed for films but only a small percentage of film music becomes broadly popular outside of these films, this is a side effect of popular films, not a demand for more pseudo-romantic music instead of or in addition to Bruckner or Sibelius.


It's not a question of popularity, but a question of how well is received the suite from the persons who have listened to it.

If you look at the scores of the OST albums of John Williams in rateyourmusic.com, you will see that they are well receved by the public: John Williams Albums: songs, discography, biography, and listening guide - Rate Your Music

The scores of Star Wars have a 4/5.

So, I'd say that to create NEW symphonies with the aesthetic of film music would help to relaunch classical music.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

No, you are missing the point. I don't doubt at all that some of these Williams suites are liked by some people. 
But I doubt that many people would want to listen to a 45 min. Williams-style symphony INSTEAD of Brahms 4th or Heldenleben or La Mer or Bartok's concerto for orchestra. And almost the same is true for a Braga Santos symphony, that's why the latter can have limited exposure on records but will not become a repertoire piece like the other ones mentioned.
The repertoire is mostly settled and changes will be very slow with CM becoming ever less important. And one cannot forcibly change this by using film music style. The demand for late romantic music is more than well covered by the repertoire we have, so there is as little demand for revivals of von Hausegger or Braga Santos as for more recent pseudo-romantic music.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

"_At the beginning of the nineteenth century, before Berlioz's time, some influential critics - for instance, Julien-Louis Geoffroy - rejected Mozart as a foreigner, considering his music 'scholastic', stressing his use of harmony over melody, and the dominance of the orchestra over singing in the operas - all these were considered negative features of 'Germanic' music."_ -Benjamin Perl.



Kreisler jr said:


> Mozart was also an "avantgarde" composer of the 1780s whose music was considered difficult, the opera scores overloaded with too much orchestral detail etc.


It appears that Mozart wasn't avant-garde to be exact; he simply had strongly characteristic "Germanic" traits (I think Haydn and Beethoven were more "Viennese" in this regard). The harmony and orchestration in stuff like Beecke chamber music, or Reichardt opera, or
www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-5Px9cHGcU&t=5m28s
(+ Anton Sweitzer, Georg von Pasterwitz, etc) would have been considered "Germanic" at the time.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

I think there's a bit too much effort to elevate "classical music" as "high art" all the time. There's a debate on the forum whether stuff like Cosi fan tutte should be considered "high art", (and I can understand their point of view). Apparently, some things written in the Enlightenment practices, the fugue, sonata, rondo, variation form are to be absolutely considered "art", but not really "entertainment"; cause they're "intellectual", supposed to be "artistically ideal" or whatever. The discrimination against guys like John Williams is illogical. In the end, _it's all about popularity.

"How much happier am I supposed to get? The capstone of these is the Quodlibet, with its good humor and generosity of spirit, reenacting (so they say) Bach family parties where they would mash up various tunes, dazzle each other with contrapuntal mastery. Now, the words of the tunes are perhaps jokes, references that we can probably no longer get;"_ -Jeremy Denk


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Aries said:


> A difference between the taste of the audience and the taste of the composers. - It may be an unsolvable problem forever.
> 
> One thing which all these kind of threads show is that modernist music is a divisive topic. Some people like it, others don't like it. And the pattern is so distinct that it must have systematical reasons. It is not just a coincidence of random personal tastes.
> 
> ...


I think that the debates on this forum about modernism have little connection to the real world. One aspect of this is that modernism is an artefact. It's been absorbed into wider culture, to the point that for most people it's probably not much more than a lifestyle choice or commodity. It's also about self definition and image. What does this music, t-shirt or piece of furniture say about me?

Perhaps I'm being too cynical, but I see this in the light of now, not in terms of ideological debates which where more relevant during the decline of modernism. We're all pretty much like the unnamed main character of_ Fight Club_ played by Ed Norton, who invests meaning into deciding what item of furniture to buy from IKEA:






That sort of furniture was cutting edge one hundred years ago (e.g. Russian Constructivists, Bauhaus) but now it's mass produced. He feels like he's curating bits and pieces in a unique way, but maybe its just his way of filling a void, an excuse to buy a tonne of junk.

Same thing goes with music - is anything really revolutionary now, since most things have been absorbed in one way or another into the wider culture? Even if something is considered revolutionary, how long does it stay like that? Before long, everyone starts copying it and it becomes old hat in no time. Trends come and go with the blink of an eye. Everything's fragmented, ephemeral. Welcome to postmodernism, where modernism actually looks stable.

C.S. Lewis put this position well back in the 1950's, questioning the linear view of progress associated with modernism way before postmodernism became a thing:

_"We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning, then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man."_

This is why I think this concept of a battle over modernism is redundant. Longing for stability is one thing, reviving old battles is another.

Quote source: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Progress


----------



## cybernaut (Feb 6, 2021)

eljr said:


> *Cinema it seems to me is all that continues to buoy classical.*


Cinema and minimalism. And Alma Deutscher. 

Apparently minimalist composer Ludovico Einaudi was streamed over 1 million times a day in 2019:








LUDOVICO EINAUDI, THE MOST STREAMED CLASSICAL ARTIST OF ALL TIME, SIGNS NEW WORLDWIDE DEAL WITH DECCA AND UNVEILS HIS BIGGEST MUSIC PROJECT YET - Umusic


SEVEN DAYS WALKING – SEVEN ALBUMS IN SEVEN MONTHS FIRST SINGLE, “COLD WIND”, AND ALBUM PRE-ORDER IS AVAILABLE NOW WATCH THE TRAILER...




www.umusic.ca


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Chat Noir said:


> So this common claim that 'classical music' has been hijacked and some conspiracy is on to eliminate the pre-1900 stuff (and some post-1900 music which sounds like it) and they're only promoting crackpot music made up of people hitting violins with objects and incorporating Yoko Ono type singing, starts to look manufactured to me.





annaw said:


> Aries said:
> 
> 
> > The avantgarde argument seems to go as follows: The common practise period is good because the style was appropriate for the old time. The avantgarde is good because its style is appropriate for today. The avantgarde is the rightfully successor of the common practise period because it continued the tradition of writing approriate music for the time.
> ...


Here another example out of the thread "How can people not see the foolhardiness of their...":


PaulFranz said:


> EDIT: and the fact that you brought up Wagner is a huge problem. Wagner died a half-century before Williams was born. Why, in his films, is he writing Wagnerian music? What happened to the tradition of classical music? What happened to Saint-Saëns and Ravel and Strauss and Schönberg and Berg and Floyd and Rautavaara? This is why I speak of pastiche. Film scorers write as if classical music had died in 1890. It didn't. That's why what they write isn't classical.


This is an obvious attempt to hijack classical music. It is not manufractured.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Sid James said:


> I think that the debates on this forum about modernism have little connection to the real world. One aspect of this is that modernism is an artefact. It's been absorbed into wider culture, to the point that for most people it's probably not much more than a lifestyle choice or commodity. It's also about self definition and image. What does this music, t-shirt or piece of furniture say about me?
> 
> Perhaps I'm being too cynical, but I see this in the light of now, not in terms of ideological debates which where more relevant during the decline of modernism. We're all pretty much like the unnamed main character of_ Fight Club_ played by Ed Norton, who invests meaning into deciding what item of furniture to buy from IKEA:
> 
> ...


There seems to be a hidden, human need for artifice. It's bottomless.
So that Modernism was stretching the rules of the composer's musical toolbox from that of the old-fashioned, commonly appreciated Romanticism. 
Post-modernism would then be going past and staying separate from the commonly appreciated, breaking most every rule as an artistic statement. Is it the end, or dare we go back? Dare to eat a peach, according to TS Eliot..


----------



## cybernaut (Feb 6, 2021)

HansZimmer said:


> No one is saying that the composers must only create Mozart's pastiches. They should simply create music that it's not perceived as "horrible" by the average human ears, otherwise classical music will die.


For what it's worth, I agree with you.

I grew up listening to and performing tonal, melodic music and I really don't like atonal, discordant music. I can deal with harshness (I love punk rock for example), but atonal. dissonant music? No thanks.

If someone else likes that kind of music, good for them. But it doesn't mean they have better or more sophisticated taste than me. We just have different tastes. If someone likes extremely spicy food (which I don't), it doesn't mean they have better taste buds than me.

Classical music was definitely in danger of dying out as a viable life-form in the 20th Century because of the atonal dissonance...but thankfully the minimalists made it ok to be tonal and beautiful again.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Aries said:


> Here another example out of the thread "How can people not see the foolhardiness of their...":
> 
> This is an obvious attempt to hijack classical music. It is not manufractured.


I don't think the issue about classical music and film music is one that should be considered directly relevant to the topic of this thread. It is the kind of question that philosophers of art deal with (as well as with the nature of artworks in general) but I hardly see why considering film music classical would save classical music in the sense the issue has been discussed in this thread—the worry has never been that _film_ music is going to die out but rather that the thing that _some consider to be _THE classical music is going to die out. (I am not saying this distinction is justified since I think plenty of film music is classical music. But the worry has never been about that part of classical repertoire, nor do I take that your worry was about film music.)

The conceptual question of what is classical music is, is not what presently needs fixing—I take it that you think the issue is more substantive; that what is wrong is not that we are all conceptually confused about the concept 'classical music' but rather that what the concept currently denotes is not satisfactory.

That is to say, the solution for the problem this thread is concerned with, if one is to consider it an interesting question, cannot be solved by just extending the notion of classical music to film music and then claiming that, "see, classical music is not dying anymore."


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

annaw said:


> I don't think the issue about classical music and film music is one that should be considered directly relevant to the topic of this thread. It is the kind of question that philosophers of art deal with (as well as with the nature of artworks in general) but I hardly see why considering film music classical would save classical music in the sense the issue has been discussed in this thread—the worry has never been that _film_ music is going to die out but rather that the thing that _some consider to be _THE classical music is going to die out. (I am not saying this distinction is justified since I think plenty of film music is classical music. But the worry has never been about that part of classical repertoire, nor do I take that your worry was about film music.)
> 
> The conceptual question of what is classical music is, is not what presently needs fixing—I take it that you think the issue is more substantive; that what is wrong is not that we are all conceptually confused about the concept 'classical music' but rather that what the concept currently denotes is not satisfactory.
> 
> That is to say, the solution for the problem this thread is concerned with, if one is to consider it an interesting question, cannot be solved by just extending the notion of classical music to film music and then claiming that, "see, classical music is not dying anymore."


It is not my view, that classical music is dying. It already survived so long, I think it will survive longer than most cultural aspects we see today.

A question is, how will the classical music of the future look like? The avangarde want to put its stamp on it, and some even want to exclude much classical music from the classical music definition.

PaulFranz does not say that film music isn't classical because of the film aspect. He says it is not classical because it is like classical music before 1890 and not influenced by Schönberg etc. It is not classical because it is classical basically. Avantgardists will apply this logic to non-film music as well.

And they disregard that composers like Williams have developed the music of Wagner and the romantics too, just in an other direction, a direction they don't like.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Aries said:


> It is not my view, that classical music is dying. It already survived so long, I think it will survive longer than most cultural aspects we see today.
> 
> A question is, how will the classical music of the future look like? The avangarde want to put its stamp on it, and some even want to exclude much classical music from the classical music definition.
> 
> ...


But this whole business about what qualifies as classical music and what doesn’t should not be of much concern to the topic of this thread as long as the music (the thing itself) remains. Lots of concepts are vague (in a philosophical sense), meaning that, in some cases, it is not clear whether something (for example) is classical music or not. The same occurs with lots of other concepts as well. But despite that, we do have a pretty good sense of what qualifies as classical music and what doesn’t, even if we disagree or aren’t sure about some cases. If we want to discuss the future of classical music, it’s better to assume that we all have a decently good understanding of it, although there are some cases where we might disagree.

Re Williams and Wagner. I am far from being a Williams scholar but, though I like his film music, I do find it a tad far-fetched to consider him to be a developer of Wagner’s style. Sure, there is the use of leitmotifs and a certain stylistic similarity, but I am not quite sure whether to take him to have genuinelt developed Wagner’s own style into something even better than it already was (and I am not sure there has been anyone who has achieved that feat). That doesn’t make Williams’ scores any worse—they are wonderful as film scores, at least the ones I’ve heard. Williams’ and Wagner’s music just serve very different purposes. (Though I am biased regarding this whole issue—I think Wagner was artistically so unique that there have been very few who have managed to genuinely _develop_ the style.)

Anyway, as I wrote in my last post, I doubt that the future of classical music is substantially affected by how we classify someone like Williams.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

"Classical" music is already dead, to the extent that, like a pupa and a chrysalis each die to make way for a butterfly, it has evolved into a different beast than it was in the 1500s, 1600s, 1700s and so on.

That evolution will continue. While historical classical may continue to be enjoyed by its aficionados, it will be used, copied, altered, transformed and, possibly become completely unrecognisable, bearing no resemblance to the symphonies of Mahler or the operas of Wagner or the songs of Schubert. But as there are now, there will likely be a number of strands of that evolution: it won't only be in the avant-garde that audiences will trace a musical evolution, but in what remains in the mainstream.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

annaw said:


> But this whole business about what qualifies as classical music and what doesn’t should not be of much concern to the topic of this thread as long as the music (the thing itself) remains.


The denial of the classical style of many film music is often connected with a devaluation of film music and classical non-film music, that is similar to film music. Some classical non-film music is attacked for being similar to film music.

How important are such symbolic fights? I'm not sure. I think such fights are overall much overrated today. Politics fights more about symbolic themes than about actual problems. I think it is appropriate to just set up a counterpoint and to deny this nonsense alltogether.



annaw said:


> Re Williams and Wagner. I am far from being a Williams scholar but, though I like his film music, I do find it a tad far-fetched to consider him to be a developer of Wagner’s style. Sure, there is the use of leitmotifs and a certain stylistic similarity, but I am not quite sure whether to take him to have genuinelt developed Wagner’s own style into something even better than it already was (and I am not sure there has been anyone who has achieved that feat).


Williams developed Wagners style in the sense of alternation not in the sense of improvement necessarily. I would not say Williams' music is better than Wagner. Wagner has probably higher highs and deeper lows.

My personal opinion is that the quality of music peaked in the 1880s and 1890s with composers like Bruckner, Tchaikovsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Mahler and Wagner.



Forster said:


> "Classical" music is already dead, to the extent that, like a pupa and a chrysalis each die to make way for a butterfly, it has evolved into a different beast than it was in the 1500s, 1600s, 1700s and so on.


A lot of traditional music is living tough. Irish traditional music for example. New styles don't necessarily mean the death of old styles.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

annaw said:


> But this whole business about what qualifies as classical music and what doesn’t should not be of much concern to the topic of this thread as long as the music (the thing itself) remains. Lots of concepts are vague (in a philosophical sense), meaning that, in some cases, it is not clear whether something (for example) is classical music or not. The same occurs with lots of other concepts as well. But despite that, we do have a pretty good sense of what qualifies as classical music and what doesn’t, even if we disagree or aren’t sure about some cases. If we want to discuss the future of classical music, it’s better to assume that we all have a decently good understanding of it, although there are some cases where we might disagree.
> 
> Re Williams and Wagner. I am far from being a Williams scholar but, though I like his film music, I do find it a tad far-fetched to consider him to be a developer of Wagner’s style. Sure, there is the use of leitmotifs and a certain stylistic similarity, but I am not quite sure whether to take him to have genuinelt developed Wagner’s own style into something even better than it already was (and I am not sure there has been anyone who has achieved that feat). That doesn’t make Williams’ scores any worse—they are wonderful as film scores, at least the ones I’ve heard. Williams’ and Wagner’s music just serve very different purposes. (Though I am biased regarding this whole issue—I think Wagner was artistically so unique that there have been very few who have managed to genuinely _develop_ the style.)
> 
> Anyway, as I wrote in my last post, I doubt that the future of classical music is substantially affected by how we classify someone like Williams.


I wonder if there's this amount of re-introspection and re-categorizing in the history of painting. 

I really doubt it. I think it's very well sorted out as it is and there would be no improvement in changing the categories, but there would be some dulling down and loss of logic. I think we should see art as unstoppable growth (by humans who are unstoppable).


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Luchesi said:


> There seems to be a hidden, human need for artifice. It's bottomless.
> So that Modernism was stretching the rules of the composer's musical toolbox from that of the old-fashioned, commonly appreciated Romanticism.
> Post-modernism would then be going past and staying separate from the commonly appreciated, breaking most every rule as an artistic statement. Is it the end, or dare we go back? Dare to eat a peach, according to TS Eliot..


Modernism had the imperative of progress at it's centre. There's a quote attributed to Paul Gauguin which goes something like "art is either plagiarism or revolution." That basically sums up this view of progress as being the most important priority of modernism.

I think that overall postmodernism doesn't really care much for rules, more for what's appropriate to achieve a specified goal. If there are rules, they're set by the artist, and the rules he sets down can vary between one work and another.

It's understandable to want to cling to certain aspects of the past, and of course there is a conversation to be had about the impacts of modernism and also about what might have been its advantages and disadvantages. In contrast to that, coming at it from a viewpoint of equating the decline of classical music as a whole with the decline of modernism is flawed. Even by its own standards of constant revolution, modernism was bound to run out of steam at some point.

Having equated the decline of classical music with that of modernism, trying to arrest that apparent decline by in effect winding back the clock to some supposed golden age before all the damage was done (whether by modernism, or postmodernism), is as logical as putting our head in the sand to avoid reality.

Same goes with trying to enforce definitions and categories which have little to do with the diversity of the music scene today.

I don't see a point in denying what's happened, and by consequence is happening, in music. It might be odd on this forum, but I don't think that's odd in reality because we're almost a quarter of the way through the 21st century.


----------



## justekaia (Jan 2, 2022)

DaveM said:


> The above is one of those, ‘_Don’t take this personally, but personally your opinion is awful and arrogant._’ I’d like to know what are the specific errors in the post that gave rise to the above.
> 
> The way I read it is:
> 1) The act of being a composer today is quite different than 1-3 centuries ago. In those days, a composer had to strut their stuff constantly to get acceptance and to be able to make a living. That included getting the support of other composers, academia and get positions from various benefactors that provided a steady income, not to mention achieving a position where publishers could make money off your works and pay you accordingly. You couldn’t just declare yourself to be a composer. Those who declared themselves to be a composer and didn’t find acceptance enough to make a living wage had to find a primary day job.
> ...


I think there are about 500 contemporary classical composers alive who can make a living from their compositions. All the others are teaching or doing other side jobs. Do you believe there was a period in history where more than 500 could live from their music?


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Sid James said:


> There's a quote attributed to Paul Gauguin which goes something like "art is either plagiarism or revolution." That basically sums up this view of progress as being the most important priority of modernism.


It shows that modernism is fundamentally flawed. "Revolution" or Anti-Plagiarism is as bad as Plagiarism because it is about what others do, and not about the own individual expression and qualities as artist.



Sid James said:


> Having equated the decline of classical music with that of modernism, trying to arrest that apparent decline by in effect winding back the clock to some supposed golden age before all the damage was done (whether by modernism, or postmodernism), is as logical as putting our head in the sand to avoid reality.


The reality is that modernism is extremely eccentric art and irrelevant for most people. "Winding back the clock"? Why even think about the time? Timeless art is not created by looking at the clock. An artist should focus on their own qualities not on others or the time.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Aries said:


> The reality is that modernism is extremely eccentric art and irrelevant for most people.


That's not really true. Lots of "modernist" music from the first half of the 20th century that was considered revolutionary or very difficult when new has become quite popular, e.g. Debussy, Ravel, early-middle Stravinsky, some Bartok etc.
And as people here love to point out, even mainstream classical like Bruckner or Mozart are "irrelevant" for most people today who'd rather listen to pop/rock. Why is it not a problem that only 10% or so care about older classical music but suddenly a problem that only 0.1% (or whatever) care about modernist/avantgarde music? Where is the threshold and why?


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Kreisler jr said:


> That's not really true. Lots of "modernist" music from the first half of the 20th century that was considered revolutionary or very difficult when new has become quite popular, e.g. Debussy, Ravel, early-middle Stravinsky, some Bartok etc.
> And as people here love to point out, even mainstream classical like Bruckner or Mozart are "irrelevant" for most people today who'd rather listen to pop/rock. Why is it not a problem that only 10% or so care about older classical music but suddenly a problem that only 0.1% (or whatever) care about modernist/avantgarde music? Where is the threshold and why?


Moderat modernism not the issue imo.

It is a problem that much less care for modernist/avantgarde music than for older classical music as long as the avantgarde claims to be the sole legitimate successor of the older classical music. The problem is that they fight other styles. Their historical-ideological views are hubris.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Aries said:


> Moderat modernism not the issue imo.
> 
> It is a problem that much less care for modernist/avantgarde music than for older classical music as long as the avantgarde claims to be the sole legitimate successor of the older classical music. The problem is that they fight other styles. Their historical-ideological views are hubris.


If you were going compose a modern work, would it sound like a pre-modern composer you admire?


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Sid James said:


> Modernism had the imperative of progress at it's centre. There's a quote attributed to Paul Gauguin which goes something like "art is either plagiarism or revolution." That basically sums up this view of progress as being the most important priority of modernism.
> 
> I think that overall postmodernism doesn't really care much for rules, more for what's appropriate to achieve a specified goal. If there are rules, they're set by the artist, and the rules he sets down can vary between one work and another.
> 
> ...


Yes, imperatives were never more important before in the history of music. Progress and reflecting the current realities from scientific investigations (and the story science tells), is how I see the arts after 1920 or so. It was all so new back then. Is it still 'new'? What will be next? More existentialism, wokeism(s), re-inventing humans with technology, the human predicament of facing ever bigger and bigger problems?


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Luchesi said:


> If you were going compose a modern work, would it sound like a pre-modern composer you admire?


I think I would try to combine good concepts applied by composers since the 19th century and try to development them further. I would have my own concept of form and instrumentation. And hopefully I would come up with completely new things while composing, that I can not imagine right now. I don't know how the result would sound like for a listener. From an avantgarde point of view it would likely be seen as conservative like everything, but that does not say anything really.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

justekaia said:


> I think there are about 500 contemporary classical composers alive who can make a living from their compositions. All the others are teaching or doing other side jobs. Do you believe there was a period in history where more than 500 could live from their music?


All you’ve offered is what you ‘think’. Where are you getting your figures?


----------



## justekaia (Jan 2, 2022)

DaveM said:


> All you’ve offered is what you ‘think’. Where are you getting your figures?


It is very simple. I have 500 contemporary classical composers in my archives with all their compositions and info about commissions . I correspond with about 200 so i believe that is a good sample and nearly all of them survive from their compositions. About 100 with whom i have no contact because they are not on social media are so famous that it is obvious that they are rich. Only a few of the 200 have admitted that they could not survive only from their compositions (Very often this is surprising because they are top-notch composers). I will never release the full list because this is my private garden. However i have released a comprehensive list very recently on the thread Best Contemporary Composers. 
I also know many performers who inform me about the situation of composers. Some of the composers choose to go and live in Poland or similar countries in order to have less expenses. 
I hope this answers your query.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

justekaia said:


> It is very simple. I have 500 contemporary classical composers in my archives with all their compositions and info about commissions . I correspond with about 200 so i believe that is a good sample and nearly all of them survive from their compositions. About 100 with whom i have no contact because they are not on social media are so famous that it is obvious that they are rich. Only a few of the 200 have admitted that they could not survive only from their compositions (Very often this is surprising because they are top-notch composers). I will never release the full list because this is my private garden. However i have released a comprehensive list very recently on the thread Best Contemporary Composers.
> I also know many performers who inform me about the situation of composers. Some of the composers choose to go and live in Poland or similar countries in order to have less expenses.
> I hope this answers your query.


Not really. That doesn’t come close to confirming that 500 can make a living from their compositions.


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

DaveM said:


> Not really. That doesn’t come close to confirming that 500 can make a living from their compositions.


I think it’s fair to say that the numbers are probably a lot higher than 500 in reality, and there are many, many more composers out there. Defining a composer as someone who _solely _makes their money from commissions is quite a narrow definition, as most composers I know do make money from commissions but will often do other things as well. Sometimes this is because it’s necessary, but other times it’s because they enjoy having several facets to their career.

In Finland alone there are over 200 members of the Finnish Composers’ Society. The criteria for membership is quite strict – they are a society for professional composers who are either Finnish or reside in Finland. Keep in mind that Finland has a population of 5.5 million people, so this number would likely be much larger for a country for a bigger population (even if the number of composers per capita seems to be quite high in Finland).


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

justekaia said:


> It is very simple. I have 500 contemporary classical composers in my archives with all their compositions and info about commissions . I correspond with about 200 so i believe that is a good sample and nearly all of them survive from their compositions. About 100 with whom i have no contact because they are not on social media are so famous that it is obvious that they are rich. Only a few of the 200 have admitted that they could not survive only from their compositions (Very often this is surprising because they are top-notch composers). I will never release the full list because this is my private garden. However i have released a comprehensive list very recently on the thread Best Contemporary Composers.
> I also know many performers who inform me about the situation of composers. Some of the composers choose to go and live in Poland or similar countries in order to have less expenses.
> I hope this answers your query.


This sounds like a fascinating archive and project in general!


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

composingmusic said:


> *I think it’s fair to say that the numbers are probably a lot higher than 500 in reality*, and there are many, many more composers out there. Defining a composer as someone who _solely _makes their money from commissions is quite a narrow definition, as most composers I know do make money from commissions but will often do other things as well. Sometimes this is because it’s necessary, but other times it’s because they enjoy having several facets to their career.


Higher than 500 are making money solely from composing? Your response is yet another ‘I think’. Still, if you read my original post (quoted below), I didn’t define a composer as one ‘who solely makes their money from commissions‘. I suggested that it isn’t clear how a budding composer, other than a few, can make it a primary vocation. I also (paraphrasing) wondered whether a number declare themselves to be a composer regardless of whether much, if any, income comes from composing.

It was poster, justekaia, who came up with the 500 figure declaring ‘it is very simple’, but then came up with figures that didn’t indicate anything more than a guess. Now you come up with the premise that I expect a composer to make all their income from commissions. It would be nice if people would read posts they are responding to carefully.



> In Finland alone there are over 200 members of the Finnish Composers’ Society. The criteria for membership is quite strict – they are a society for professional composers who are either Finnish or reside in Finland. Keep in mind that Finland has a population of 5.5 million people, so this number would likely be much larger for a country for a bigger population (even if the number of composers per capita seems to be quite high in Finland).


That doesn’t prove anything unless there are criteria to join the Finnish Composers’ Society that separate those who dabble in composing from those who actually make at least some meaningful income from it. Actually, I just checked and I can join the Finnish Composers’ Society just by sending in $88.



DaveM said:


> ..Now, apparently, the aim to have the acceptance of listeners is not a primary priority as it was back in the day. But, outside of academic positions, it isn’t clear to me how a CM composer can make a living as a composer until and unless one achieves some wider acceptance. The avenue to that would seem to be, directly or indirectly, through the internet and perhaps with the support of ‘others’ (which could mean anything I suppose) to get to the point that there are regular commissions.* I would guess that given the limited options for budding composers, relatively few make it as a primary vocation. The way things are now, there is nothing to stop someone declaring themself to be a composer regardless of whether it is the primary source of income, whether it brings in any money at all or whether there are anything but the rarest commissions or a performance here and there at free local performances.*


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

My views on the future of classical music unlike the OP, do not include film music as a template. Thankfully I don't think the profession does neither regardless of whether tonality makes the biggest Mozarteum of all comebacks or not. Music does not need film as its instigator or determinant in any sense.


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

DaveM said:


> Higher than 500 are making money solely from composing? Your response is yet another ‘I think’. Still, if you read my original post (quoted below), I didn’t define a composer as one ‘who solely makes their money from commissions‘. I suggested that it isn’t clear how a budding composer, other than a few, can make it a primary vocation. I also (paraphrasing) wondered whether a number declare themselves to be a composer regardless of whether much, if any, income comes from composing.
> 
> It was poster, justekaia, who came up with the 500 figure declaring ‘it is very simple’, but then came up with figures that didn’t indicate anything more than a guess. Now you come up with the premise that I expect a composer to make all their income from commissions. It would be nice if people would read posts they are responding to carefully.


I'm not talking about budding composers, I am talking about professional composers, and from what justekaia has said, they are talking about professional composers as well. I'm sure there are more than 500 composers out there making at least some money from composing and doing this on a professional level. Now, putting exact figures on this is hard for a number of reasons. First, people don't usually make how much money they're getting from various sources publicly available, and I can definitely understand why. Second, it's not like there's a public database listing every single composer who's making some kind of money from composition. Finally, where does one even draw the line at what is a "primary vocation"? There are people I can think of, who I know personally, who do a combination of things and probably wouldn't have one single "primary vocation" – however, they are professional composers and do what they do very well. 

As someone in the industry who is a composer, I can think of a number of composers I know personally who are composers by primary vocation. I'm not going to compile a list of them here, because I respect their privacy and I'd prefer to remain somewhat anonymous, but I can say that I personally know a good number of such people.



DaveM said:


> That doesn’t prove anything unless there are criteria to join the Finnish Composers’ Society that separate those who dabble in composing from those who actually make at least some meaningful income from it. Actually, I just checked and I can join the Finnish Composers’ Society just by sending in $88.


They do have criteria for people joining. It's not a cutoff in how much money people are making; in the words of the society, membership criteria include the artistic value, scope and diversity of the applicant’s repertoire, and the level of professionalism. They're looking for people who have significant experience in composing on a professional level.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that you can join just by sending in $88. Yes, there is a membership fee once your application has been approved, but everyone who wants to join has to go through an application process. To apply, you have to send a statement of why you want to join, a CV, and work samples. Again, these aren't going to be people who are just starting out – they're people with years of professional experience.


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

For more information about the Finnish composers' society's specific criteria for joining, see here: How to apply for membership

They do have a full list of their members. Perhaps this could be a good place to start in looking for professional composers: Composers

Actually something else that also comes to mind: do have a browse through, say, Wise Music's catalogue, or Boosey & Hawkes, Faber, Schott, Schirmer, Peters, or any major publisher really. You'll definitely find a good number of people making their primary income from composers in these catalogues.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

composingmusic said:


> *I'm not talking about budding composers, I am talking about professional composers,* and from what justekaia has said, they are talking about professional composers as well. I'm sure there are more than 500 composers out there making at least some money from composing and doing this on a professional level. *Now, putting exact figures on this is hard for a number of reasons. * *First, people don't usually make how much money they're getting from various sources publicly available,* and I can definitely understand why. Second, it's not like there's a public database listing every single composer who's making some kind of money from composition. *Finally, where does one even draw the line at what is a "primary vocation"? *There are people I can think of, who I know personally, who do a combination of things and probably wouldn't have one single "primary vocation" – however, they are professional composers and do what they do very well..


You‘re only proving my point that it isn’t clear by what criteria one calls oneself a composer. In any event, a common and recurring definition of ‘professional’ is:
‘_a person engaged in a specified activity, especially a sport or *branch of the performing arts, as a main paid occupation rather than as a pastime.’*_


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

DaveM said:


> You‘re only proving my point that it isn’t clear by what criteria one calls oneself a composer. In any event, a common and recurring definition of ‘professional’ is:
> ‘_a person engaged in a specified activity, especially a sport or *branch of the performing arts, as a main paid occupation rather than as a pastime.’*_


You're selectively taking from my quote and using that to invalidate the rest of what I've said. As you've bolded, I am talking about professional composers – people who make money from composing and who do it at an incredibly high level. Now, if you look at my discussion of the Finnish Composers' Society, they have quite a clear set of criteria for who they accept as members, and they've even got a full list of members available on their website. I think that's as clear as it gets in terms of data, apart from looking at the catalogues of major publishers or composers' societies acting as professional bodies in other countries. 

My point was that the concept of what the life of a professional composer looks like can vary a lot. Some people compose and teach, others are composers and instrumentalists, and various other things. I know someone who's a composer and also works for a music software company (yes, they're a professional composer). I know several other people who are composers and do various types of copyist work (also professional composers). Anyway, this career is far from one size fits all and it's possible for there to be a lot of variation in what this looks like. That's what I meant by "where does one even draw the line at what is a primary vocation?". 

Again, people do not usually disclose to their colleagues how much they are making financially, or how much they make from the various facets of their work. This is also not a question I usually ask them. And yes, to be clear, all of these people are doing this at a professional level.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Aries said:


> It shows that modernism is fundamentally flawed. "Revolution" or Anti-Plagiarism is as bad as Plagiarism because it is about what others do, and not about the own individual expression and qualities as artist.


Modernism was a product of it's time. It wasn't homogeneous, but those we term as modernists did tend to value progress, what's since been labelled the grand narratives view. The origins of this go back to the Enlightenment. I don't think many people see things in that way now, too much has changed in the world to boil things down to that sort of dichotomous view of development, artistic or otherwise.



> The reality is that modernism is extremely eccentric art and irrelevant for most people.


I don't think modernism is irrelevant, but I do think it's long been over as a broad direction in the arts. Everyone will have a different take on when that happened, and perhaps its more of a gradual shift than a sudden one, notwithstanding the impact of two world wars in the first half of the 20th century. Some see the changes happening in the 1950's as foreshadowing what was to come in succeeding decades.



> "Winding back the clock"? Why even think about the time? Timeless art is not created by looking at the clock. An artist should focus on their own qualities not on others or the time.


There's nothing stopping a composer from writing music that draws from the past. It's probably always been like this, since there are examples of composers who weren't seeking to be cutting edge in their day whose music is still played and recorded (Boyce, Bruch and Rodrigo are three I can think of). There are also some trends like this in the other arts, such as the Pre-Raphaelites, who did a similar thing in painting.

At the same time, there's no threat from avant-gardism as you call it, because approaches associated with things like post-serialism, aelatoric and electronic composition are, just like other approaches that draw strongly on tradition, are among the huge array of approaches to composition out there.

I know it might be hard to for you to believe, but modernism is over. There aren't any avant-gardists whiteanting music. I don't even know if there is a mainstream now, but if there is, the likes of Cage, Boulez and Stockhausen and their heirs aren't disrupting it now. Most of that sort of music is played by new music ensembles.

More traditional composers can also get exposure working with these ensembles, which can include less radical music on their programs. They can also work with other music groups (like chamber groups, choirs or orchestras) or solo artists who are seeking new music of this type. Either way, like everyone else, they're competing with others for exposure in the classical marketplace. I think the situation today boils down to competition over limited resources (this is especially relevant now with a recession looming post-covid). Basically, it's a matter of demand and supply.



Luchesi said:


> Yes, imperatives were never more important before in the history of music. Progress and reflecting the current realities from scientific investigations (and the story science tells), is how I see the arts after 1920 or so. It was all so new back then. Is it still 'new'? What will be next? More existentialism, wokeism(s), re-inventing humans with technology, the human predicament of facing ever bigger and bigger problems?


Modernism certainly left a legacy, but it's not new. One aspect of that legacy is mass production. For one thing, it changed the look of our cities, the way we furnish our homes, the way we dress, and many other things. It enabled governments to have further reach than before, which affected millions of people's lives (e.g. mass health and education programs).

Today, if anything we are likely to be at least somewhat jaded whenever someone mentions progress. We don't tend to see it in as much a positive light as people did in the past. There is much more awareness and caution around progress, a sense of trying to avoid the damage it can cause (the environment is obviously a big one here).

I think all of this, in different ways, carried over to the arts. There's no longer one direction, or even a set of them. There is constant change, and along with that, constant questioning. As I said, there might still be people who believe the modernist project is continuing, but I think most would agree it's over.


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

Sid James said:


> Modernism certainly left a legacy, but it's not new. One aspect of that legacy is mass production. For one thing, it changed the look of our cities, the way we furnish our homes, the way we dress, and many other things. It enabled government to have further reach than before, which affected millions of people's lives (e.g. policies like mass health and education programs).
> 
> Today, if anything we are likely to be at least somewhat jaded whenever someone mentions progress. We don't tend to see it in as much a positive light as people did in the past. There is much more awareness and caution around progress, a sense of trying to avoid the damage it can cause (the environment is obviously a big one here).
> 
> I think all of this, in different ways, carried over to the arts. There's no longer one direction, or even a set of them. As I said, there might still be people who believe the modernist project is continuing, but I think most people would agree it's over.


Agreed. It's certainly left a legacy, and there's plenty of really good music that came out of it. It has a big influence on a lot of music today, but it's far from the only influence. As you've said, the current contemporary classical music that composers are writing now is something that spans an incredible array of diverse stylistic idioms and there isn't a single set direction.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

DaveM said:


> Not really. That doesn’t come close to confirming that 500 can make a living from their compositions.


-film or game music that uses avant-garde techniques
-tonal concert music





In what other areas can they make some revenue?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

composingmusic said:


> As you've bolded, I am talking about professional composers – people who make money from composing and who do it at an incredibly high level. Now, if you look at my discussion of the *Finnish Composers' Society*, they have quite a clear set of criteria for who they accept as members, and they've even got a full list of members available on their website. I think that's as clear as it gets in terms of data, apart from looking at the catalogues of major publishers or composers' societies acting as professional bodies in other countries.


Isn't it rather analogous to athletes of the Olympics who in their daily lives do things other than their sports to make a living?


----------



## That Guy Mick (May 31, 2020)

HansZimmer said:


> In the discussion The "Bubbles" experiment - What is contemporary music worth? many users are discussing about their personal views of avant-garde music, but I'd like to discuss about the subject from a social perspective.
> I have nothing to say about the fact that many users here enjoy avant-garde music, but you have to be aware that it's not music for everyone, because the average human ears enjoy tonal and melodic music.
> 
> As I'm 33 years old, I'd like to speak about my perspective about the future of classical music.
> ...


The future of Classical Music? I was unaware that such a thing exists. I suppose the future outlook is better than that of the horse cavalry, pistol duels, pedal-less bicycle, and button-fly trousers, but that isn't saying much, is it? It seems to fair well enough in its value as an antiquity. It has as much marketability as an old wooden chest of drawers, a filling station sign, or auto relics perhaps, and CD's are far less expensive and easy to find for the collector. Classical music is a novelty, for sure. Europeans seem to have a deeper appreciation. I don't know what will become of my CD collection after I pass on. Will it be donated to a public library, or thrown out for trash collectors? Not my worry. Carpe diem!


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> Isn't it rather analogous to athletes of the Olympics who in their daily lives do things other than their sports to make a living?


I mean, a lot of composers do do other things alongside composing, but there are a good number of composers who solely make their living from composing. For this reason, I’m not quite sure the analogy holds up.

Also, for most Olympic athletes, there’s a narrow range of time that you can compete before you age out of competing and move to positions like coaching. This is also not the case for composing – it typically takes decades to figure out what sort of music you want to write, and this evolves over a composer’s lifespan.


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

That Guy Mick said:


> The future of Classical Music? I was unaware that such a thing exists. I suppose the future outlook is better than that of the horse cavalry, pistol duels, pedal-less bicycle, and button-fly trousers, but that isn't saying much, is it? It seems to fair well enough in its value as an antiquity. It has as much marketability as an old wooden chest of drawers, a filling station sign, or auto relics perhaps, and CD's are far less expensive and easy to find for the collector. Classical music is a novelty, for sure. Europeans seem to have a deeper appreciation. I don't know what will become of my CD collection after I pass on. Will it be donated to a public library, or thrown out for trash collectors? Not my worry. Carpe diem!


If we’re talking about classical music as a broad umbrella term, which includes contemporary classical music and modern (post-1900) music, I’d argue there very much is a future for this. There’s a large number of composers making a living from this, and there is an audience for this type of work for sure.


----------



## jojoju2000 (Jan 5, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> -film or game music that uses avant-garde techniques
> -tonal concert music
> 
> 
> ...


An interesting thing to research is the popularity of Modernist or " a tonal" music outside of the West. 





 and






A Japanese composer writing in a "tonal " style for the most part. And writing for mostly films ( although this composer has also done non film music as well ).

Hmm......... Interesting. And even some Asian Composers who have used atonality, they haven't used it to the extent that Western Composers have used here. 



 Even in this piece, I can still pinpoint some tonal parts. 

So an important question to ask is not if Film Music is classical, but is our understanding of Western Art music warped by the massive cultural changes that Western society went through in the last 100 years ?


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

That Guy Mick said:


> The future of Classical Music? I was unaware that such a thing exists. I suppose the future outlook is better than that of the horse cavalry, pistol duels, pedal-less bicycle, and button-fly trousers, but that isn't saying much, is it? It seems to fair well enough in its value as an antiquity. It has as much marketability as an old wooden chest of drawers, a filling station sign, or auto relics perhaps, and CD's are far less expensive and easy to find for the collector. Classical music is a novelty, for sure. Europeans seem to have a deeper appreciation.* I don't know what will become of my CD collection after I pass on. Will it be donated to a public library, or thrown out for trash collectors? *Not my worry. Carpe diem!


Library won't accept it, sadly. Another reason I stopped buying CD's and turned to streaming. My collection, with all the pride I take in it, will turn to ash with me.


----------

