# How Much Ought Music to Change with Time?



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I think the vast majority on TC accept music changing with time. Without any change we'd be forever stuck in one era. For that matter without _any_ change ever, none of the music ever recorded would exist. So we accept change, but how fast _ought_ music to change? I know that depends on many things including, or perhaps solely, on individual tastes.

Awhile ago I started a thread called, Modern Music: Novelty at almost any cost. The title came from a music history professor describing modern music as changing _at a faster rate_ then previous music. Music can and does change more rapidly during some periods than others. Individual composers can change their style significantly during their career or remain much the same.

Haydn wrote many symphonies over a long time period, and for the most part, his symphonies sound rather similar. Is that bad (not morally, of course, but in a music sense)? How important is "perfecting" a form rather than creating new ones?

So, how much _ought_ music to change with time?


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

With bounded derivative!.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

mmsbls said:


> So, how much _ought_ music to change with time?


It's plain to me that it shouldn't. To be more specific, it should have been developmentally frozen about 1803, before what's-his-name wrote that big noisy symphony. How happy we'd all be with our civilized ways! Our modernists would be raging on about the Op. 18 quartets, and others of us would be stoutly defending Boccherini and thinking, "You call that music?" Yes, much to be preferred. :lol:


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

1) Haydn's symphonies sound more different than pretty much anyone else's before 1900, if you took an appropriate sample: i.e., they only appear similar because you have the smooth continuity between them, which often several being written in one year.

Ok, with the Haydn over, :

Obviously music changes with time, however I think you bring up an important point when you talk about differing _rates of change_.

However, I also think that there is another important point: changing _conceptions_ about music.

Radical changes in style are characterised, in my opinion, less by the music simply altering its language than by a differing conception of what music can be. This often challenges listeners to alter their notions to accommodate the new facts of what is possible in music.

It strikes me that this time we are living in is more characterised by this latter than the former, but that is just my opinion.

These radical changes in style, I would say, are therefore more to do with changing the _direction_ of change. Musical styles are usually in flux. However, simply speaking, the periods that we usually set on music (Classical, Romantic, Modern etc.) usually show a fairly continuous direction in the changes of style (seen retrospectively of course); the points between genres are when the musical style changes the direction of change (i.e. the derivative significantly changes ). These changes in direction are what challenges musicians and listeners alike to change their notions about what music is. Composers are, necessarily, ahead of the game.

So I would say that music changes, and the way it changes changes: what's more there is no particular reason to expect the future of it to look like the past. That would make music history, in the sense of what we are living through, extremely boring


----------



## Kleinzeit (May 15, 2013)

It was an aesthetic death that made me start listening to 'classical' music exhaustively.

The pop etc. that I had been consuming went into reruns for a different set of generations, so I had to shed that skin. Didn't want to kiss the past's *** listening to the stuff from my green years. Got tired of books on tape. Enjoyed the small-z zen of silence but felt that without music there was also no colour. So I entered the forest of Sibelius with gun & camera and never returned. From there it spread to an engagement with the whole millennium's worth of well built sound.

At some point in our lives, we stick around long enough, we'll experience aesthetic or cultural death. The world will have changed around us, and our tastes are no longer a house around us but a suitcase on the road.

Long story short, change in music follows tech, and there's a lot of tech about. The 'Jumping Jesus' theory defines the measurement of known scientific facts in the year 1 A.D. as "one jesus," using the name of the celebrated philosopher born that year.

"One way of estimating how long it took to arrive at one jesus is to take the estimated age of homo sapiens, in which case it took 40,000 to 100,000 years.
How long did it take to double this accumulation of knowledge, to achieve two jesuses? It required 1500 years - until 1500 A.D. How long did it take to double again and obtain four jesuses? It required 250 years, and we had four jesuses in our larder by 1750.
The next doubling took 150 years, and by 1900 A.D. humanity had eight jesuses in our information account. The next doubling took 50 years, and by 1950 we had 16 jesuses. The next, ten years, and by 1960 we had 32 jesuses. The next doubling took seven years, and by 1967 we had 64 jesuses. And the next doubling took 6 years; by 1973 we have 128 jesuses.
There is no reason to imagine that the acceleration has stopped. Thus, we almost certainly reached 256 j around 1978-79 and 512 j in 1982.
In short, we are living in a mental transformation space; that is, an omnidimensional halo expanding toward infinity in all directions. And the electronic center of this halo of mentation is possibly everywhere. It is all available to you right where you are sitting now. Just plug in a terminal. The machine doesn't care who or what you are."


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Ramako said:


> Radical changes in style are characterised, in my opinion, less by the music simply altering its language than by a differing conception of what music can be.


Hear hear! This can be a far more difficult thing than simply a "new language."


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

A good piece ofr music changes over its entire duration.


----------



## Guest (May 29, 2013)

I hate to follow GGluek's brilliant riposte with something mundane. But such is life. In the midst of brilliance, we are mundane.

"Ought" is an entirely alien concept to music.

The people who make music are going to come up with a lot of different things. So far as I know, there is no governing body for what people are allowed to come up with and how different each thing can be from what preceded it. (Yeah, I know. Some governments have tried.

And failed.)

I'm not sure that music is changing any faster now than it ever did. Again, we keep coming up against perspective. From the standpoint of the present, everything seems fast and multifarious and bewildering. Too much to keep up with. The past is so clear cut, so simple, so managable.

Well, yeah. Now that it's the past it is. When it was the present, it was perceived as being fast and multifarious and bewildering. Now that it's the past, it gets to be "the good, old days." It won't be too long before 2013 will be seen as the good, old days, when life was simple, and values were clear, and everyone knew their place. 

Check in with your great grandkids, if you can. You'll see!!


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

I think music is free to change as much as it wants, and if a composer can find a market for whatever he composes, all power to him. 

But it seems to me that in classical music, the main issue today is whether music is free NOT to change. I have never seen remotely the same level of scorn heaped upon avant garde composers as I have seen with composers who prefer to write in an old or existing idiom...


----------



## Guest (May 29, 2013)

brianvds said:


> I have never seen remotely the same level of scorn heaped upon avant garde composers as I have seen with composers who prefer to write in an old or existing idiom...


Another example of how perspective affects what you see.

How old are you, brian? Maybe you just haven't been around long enough (or haven't read enough) to have seen all the scorn heaped upon avant garde composers.

Or maybe it's not age at all. Maybe it's a fondness for old or existing idioms. That might account for your remark, too. If you really dig old or existing idioms, you'll really notice the scorn heaped on them. More than you notice the other heaping.

(And yes, for all the smart alecks, that goes for people with a fondness for avant garde composers as well. Of course. It's a valid observation; it's gonna be valid across the board, eh?)


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

some guy said:


> Another example of how perspective affects what you see.
> 
> How old are you, brian? Maybe you just haven't been around long enough (or haven't read enough) to have seen all the scorn heaped upon avant garde composers.
> 
> ...


I don't see any point to trying to win the Scorn Victim Olympics anyway. I suggest you do something to the haters that the mods won't let me be explicit about.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Ramako said:


> These radical changes in style, I would say, are therefore more to do with changing the _direction_ of change. Musical styles are usually in flux. However, simply speaking, the periods that we usually set on music (Classical, Romantic, Modern etc.) usually show a fairly continuous direction in the changes of style (seen retrospectively of course); the points between genres are when the musical style changes the direction of change


If I understand you correctly, I would say you are talking about paradigm shifts. Historians often talk about paradigm shifts in science leading to completely new ways to think about the world. I think there can be paradigm shifts in music as well. Gradual change can eventually give way to such a shift, and a new genre or era is "born".



Kleinzeit said:


> In short, we are living in a mental transformation space; that is, an omnidimensional halo expanding toward infinity in all directions. And the electronic center of this halo of mentation is possibly everywhere. It is all available to you right where you are sitting now. Just plug in a terminal. The machine doesn't care who or what you are."


I agree that technology has played a significant role in catalyzing change in music. Two hundred years ago composers had relatively little access to new musical ideas compared to today (or even the whole of the 20th century). The ability to hear what others are thinking and doing in essentially real time can have transformative effects, and I think we have seen the outcome.



some guy said:


> "Ought" is an entirely alien concept to music.


Yes, I wanted to ask, "How much change would you like to see?" or "How much change keeps music vibrant?" "Ought" was for fun.



some guy said:


> I'm not sure that music is changing any faster now than it ever did. Again, we keep coming up against perspective. From the standpoint of the present, everything seems fast and multifarious and bewildering. Too much to keep up with. The past is so clear cut, so simple, so managable.


I don't have a good sense of the rate of change of music as a function of time. I have come to believe that modern music did significantly increase this rate. I think technical advances have allowed composers to become exposed to vastly more ideas than ever before. Technology has vastly increased the available sounds a composer can use. I would be quite surprised if this technological change did not increase the rate of change in musical ideas. My question would be, "Is there a limit to this rate of change based on people's ability to adjust?"


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

mmsbls said:


> My question would be, "Is there a limit to this rate of change based on people's ability to adjust?"


But why?. That would be boring, everybody happy with their bourgeois lives!. Who are these people, for whose ability we have to adjust?.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Lets see. 
Death dates:
J.S. Bach 1750
Mozart 
Beethoven 1827
... only a few years past a century since Bach's death, Wagner draws the final double bar on the score of Tristan und Isolde in 1859, completely busting apart common practice harmony -- "Completely Undoing" common practice harmony according to some -- and paves the way, about forty-five years later, for Schoenberg, Webern, Stravinsky, Berg, Mahler, and all the rest.

Seems to me that is as fast as music has changed, and from 1890, with Debussy to the present, there has not been any greater degree of change in what is called "classical music."

So I guess that is about as fast as it is supposed to, or can, change.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> ...My question would be, "Is there a limit to this rate of change based on people's ability to adjust?"


Given that modern "music videos" and other technological changes appear to have reduced many people's attention span to something below that of a gnat, the question should be "would anybody notice?". 

Seriously, if we wish to pay attention to music and to understand it then we have to spend time considering examples of the genre and studying what the composer(s) are trying to do. We also (probably) need to have some general understanding of music to put the whole thing in a historical context. Given that we need time to eat, sleep, earn money (or whatever) then our time is limited. This means that there is a very definite limit on the rate of progress otherwise composers will simply sprint too far ahead of the listeners which in turn means that nobody except the faddy will bother to listen to them because they are too far ahead of informed popular taste.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

the world is changing a lot faster now than before in the history of human society. Think about the world in 1913.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

I think music should be frozen and limited to btween 1913 and 1939 period.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> I think music should be frozen and limited to btween 1913 and 1939 period.


why do you hate 1912? ^ I imagine all these works hanging down in a giant freezer, with yellow labels. Tag: frozen music with frozen dinners! Only £9.99.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Things lasts longer frozen...... and I had a head ache in 1912!


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Things lasts longer frozen


ha, that could be a blessing or a curse. Some works are long enough as it is.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Like ASLSP (As SLow aS Possible)


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

^ freezing it could change the laws of physics  kidding. Anyway, maybe the OP would enjoy that.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

That could be called Cage Fusion and save us from Global Warming...........


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

that and 14'33 making the world a quieter place and he'd be worthy of the Nobel Prize to cap all Nobel prizes.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

mmsbls said:


> I think the vast majority on TC accept music changing with time. Without any change we'd be forever stuck in one era. For that matter without _any_ change ever, none of the music ever recorded would exist. So we accept change, but how fast _ought_ music to change? I know that depends on many things including, or perhaps solely, on individual tastes...


I think music changes at different rates. Some composers are high octane type innovators. Others innovate but not at such a fast rate, or they depart from tradition but don't completely throw it out. Some just overhaul what's there, others jettison the whole thing (turn things on their head). So its like a spectrum. There's also those that don't innovate but absorb the innovations of others and modify them to their own ends. There's also that 'everything old is new again' type of thing, going way back and garnering unexpected things from things that where previously thought of as obsolete.



> ....
> Awhile ago I started a thread called, Modern Music: Novelty at almost any cost. The title came from a music history professor describing modern music as changing _at a faster rate_ then previous music. Music can and does change more rapidly during some periods than others. Individual composers can change their style significantly during their career or remain much the same.


Well I'd say that the 20th century, esp. after 1945, it had the most changes in all musical history. Look at say when Stravinsky was born. Around the late 19th century you had recording technology emerge, the earliest forms of it. You also had transportation systems develop rapidly at that time (the railways, and early 20th century the motor car and airplane). How many changes like this had taken place by the time Igor died in the 1970's. Heaps, a whole lot.

What about music during Igor's lifetime? I don't need to recite that here. But if I even in a cursory way cover trends/techniques from around 1880's to 1970's, well its a huge amount. Something like this:

Romanticism
Impressionism
Folk
Jazz
Neo-Classicism
Atonality and serialism
Musique Concrete 
Innovations in sonority (eg. microtonality)
Electronic Music
Minimalism
Neo-Romanticism
Holy Minimalism
Non-Western/World music

These are a fair few of the biggies. & of course they overlapped, a lot of them did. But can you name as many as these in the 19th century? Or in centuries before that? I'm just curious. But even looking at what resources where available to composers from late 19th century on, its grown and grown. The orchestras Strauss, Wagner, Mahler, Bruckner employed would have been unimaginable to Beethoven, let alone Mozart, Haydn or Bach, Handel. The electronic technology used by Stockhausen and Xenakis for example would not have been even contemplated by say Brahms (and even Varese in the 1950's had primitive tape technology compared to what emerged in the 1970s - and now tape itself is obsolete!).

Elliott Carter said in an interview that with his music, he aimed to update the speed and sounds of music to the age of the airplane, not have it be stuck in the age of the horse and the cart. Maybe someone can do a sort of rough timeline of all the changes during Elliott's long life: 1908 - 2012. Are we still living in 1908? In grimy, Dickensian cities or primitive backwaters where you had to go for an hour to get water from a well? Of course, in poorer countries today, this is still sadly a reality for many people. But things have change a lot since 1908 in terms of technology and this impinges heavily on music.

Then again, Beethoven would most likely have thought Wagner and Debussy to be noise. Even Haydn didn't have anything positive to say about his own pupil's first symphony - but being a gentleman he kept his opinions to himself. At the same time, older generation of composers can support the younger generation, even if they're radicals. Dvorak for example encouraged Janacek and Shostakovich encouraged Gubaidulina. I'm rambling here but I don't want to give the impression of creating some sort of dichotomy with my opinion. Who really knows what Beethoven would have thought of Debussy, let along Bartok or Stravinsky? & maybe, who cares?



> ...
> Haydn wrote many symphonies over a long time period, and for the most part, his symphonies sound rather similar. Is that bad (not morally, of course, but in a music sense)? How important is "perfecting" a form rather than creating new ones?


Well I think that change for the sake of change, or composers jumping on bandwagons, it can work or it can't. If the composer has a strong and unique style already, the trend can enhance that distinct style, that voice. But if he's just rehashing something, I don't know what's the use of that.

In terms of perfecting things, there are composers who just did what they did, kind of unified these strands in music they saw as important. I think a great many of the Brits where like this - Tippett, Britten, Walton for example. Dunno if they innovated but they sure produced music that speaks with a unique voice, with a fingerprint that's theirs.

I am not aware of a composer who changes kind of willy nilly, or goes from one thing to another with little focus overall. The reason is that I don't listen to composers of this sort. But you look at musical chameleons like Stravinsky, or say Holst, or even Bartok who started off later Romantic and was totally different at the end of his career (same can be said of Schoenberg), composers who did go through a lot of changes - and they are none the worst for it. They retained their individuality.

So what I'm saying is trends and innovations may come and go, but composers as individual creative artists, they will always be around. They absorb things like a sponge. They build on things and innovate. & they can get less or more innovative as they go along, and do about faces. So what? Is life one long unchangeable continuum of 'progress.' I don't think its as simple as that.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

some guy said:


> How old are you, brian? Maybe you just haven't been around long enough (or haven't read enough) to have seen all the scorn heaped upon avant garde composers.


Well, with the avant garde they usually complain that they can't make sense of it or that it all just sounds like noise. I'm not sure that counts as scorn as such. It seems to me most people at least respect the avant garde, even if they don't necessarily like it.



> Or maybe it's not age at all. Maybe it's a fondness for old or existing idioms. That might account for your remark, too. If you really dig old or existing idioms, you'll really notice the scorn heaped on them. More than you notice the other heaping.


Well, I happen to like both old idioms and at least some new (or, well, newer) ones. What I'm thinking of here is contemporary composers who write in old ways. That thread about Robert Bruce seems to me like an example. I'm not arguing that he is a genius, or even that I personally particularly like his work, but his music is pleasant enough and he seems to be good at inventing melodies. Yet he elicited a veritable firestorm of vehement criticism, much of it based in particular theories about what music should supposedly be.

Some of it seemed to me pretty much like personal taste masquerading as fact.

Now perhaps Bruce is a mediocrity; what if a contemporary composer composes in 18th century classical style, and does it so well that his music cannot be distinguished in quality from that of Mozart or Haydn? My guess is he'll still be shot down in flames. Hence my comment about whether music is free to stay the same.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

brianvds said:


> Well, with the avant garde they usually complain that they can't make sense of it or that it all just sounds like noise. I'm not sure that counts as scorn as such. It seems to me most people at least respect the avant garde, even if they don't necessarily like it.


You'll find plenty of people willing to argue that serialism isn't even music or even, in one memorable case, that it has been "proven to be harmful to living organisms". But again, Scorn Victim Olympics



> Now perhaps Bruce is a mediocrity; what if a contemporary composer composes in 18th century classical style, and does it so well that his music cannot be distinguished in quality from that of Mozart or Haydn? My guess is he'll still be shot down in flames. Hence my comment about whether music is free to stay the same.


Well, no such person exists, but if they did they'd probably find a market (Bruce has). I'm not sure it's even possible to make a pure pastiche equal in quality to the original, though. Part of writing music of genius seems to be having something of your own to say.


----------



## Guest (May 29, 2013)

Not sure where this Scorn Olympics thing started. My point was simply about perspective. Things look different depending on where you're standing. (Which is also my point about how the past and present look to people in the present as opposed to how the past looked when it was the present.)

Any point beyond that would have been something along the lines of "It is also possible to pull out of your own perspective and see other perspectives."

But anyway, whatever.

I concur entirely with this, however:



ahammel said:


> I'm not sure it's even possible to make a pure pastiche equal in quality to the original, though. Part of writing music of genius seems to be having something of your own to say.


I can't count the number of times I've seen this scenario: "what if a contemporary composer composes in 18th century classical style, and does it so well that his music cannot be distinguished in quality from that of Mozart or Haydn?" There's a real fascination with imagining that, apparently. In spite of the obvious reality that that would be impossible.

It's possible to mimic, of course. Anything that's been done can be copied. Easy. But the thing you're imitating was not produced like that. It was made out of the impulse to do something new, something different from what had been done before. That's what makes it distinctive and durable, both. Plus, it was done in the crucible of its own time, too, in the context of its time and perhaps, at best, an attempt to break out of that context. Either way, that context is there and is a powerful force. Our contexts are different. We cannot, even with an enormous effort of imagination, will ourselves back into the past until the past is truly present, and we know exactly what people then would have known, feel exactly what people then would have felt, _and nothing else._

And then, after achieving the impossible, you wanna create a masterpiece of that time? You have got to be kidding me! You're in a context already. The ideas, assumptions, philosophies, debates, and memories of 2013 are all around you, part of your reality. And cannot really be escaped except by going forward into the future, by making something that no one has thought of before. That's difficult enough in all conscience. And you wanna do the impossible? And for why? To make a piece like Mozart or Haydn? That's crazy sauce!


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

aleazk said:


> But why?. That would be boring, everybody happy with their bourgeois lives!. Who are these people, for whose ability we have to adjust?.


I think you are perhaps misunderstanding my question. The limit I ask about is a physiological one based on neural anatomy and processing. The people are all humans. My question is not about whether such a potential limit is good or bad but would certain rates of change be beyond the capability of people to process?

I know listeners are generally behind the curve. I guess my question becomes - Are there rates at which the number of listeners falling behind the curve (i.e. unable to enjoy new music) becomes so large that music suffers? I won't define "suffers" but hopefully people understand what that could mean. The question is very likely too difficult to answer now, but hey, I'm a scientist so I ask.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

ahammel said:


> You'll find plenty of people willing to argue that serialism isn't even music or even, in one memorable case, that it has been "proven to be harmful to living organisms". But again, Scorn Victim Olympics


I have not seen much of that extreme myself. Perhaps I don't get out enough. 



> Well, no such person exists, but if they did they'd probably find a market (Bruce has). I'm not sure it's even possible to make a pure pastiche equal in quality to the original, though. Part of writing music of genius seems to be having something of your own to say.


It could perhaps be argued that if a person cannot create a masterpiece in contemporary idiom, he would also not be able to create a masterful pastiche. And if he could create a masterpiece in contemporary idiom, he would have no desire to do anything else.

I don't know if this is so. Perhaps contemporary composers are reluctant to revive old styles because they worry about being accused of creating mere pastiche, no matter how good their work is.

I would guess that lots of Mozartian work does get composed by music students as exercises?


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

some guy said:


> I can't count the number of times I've seen this scenario: "what if a contemporary composer composes in 18th century classical style, and does it so well that his music cannot be distinguished in quality from that of Mozart or Haydn?" There's a real fascination with imagining that, apparently. In spite of the obvious reality that that would be impossible.


How can we tell whether it is impossible or not? It is not all that unusual for works once ascribed to one composer to turn out to be by another. In the 1930s Manuel Ponce wrote Scarlatti and Weiss pastiches for Andres Segovia that were apparently so successful that they fooled everyone (and while no one is fooled anymore, the works are good enough to now be part of the standard classical guitar repertoire.) Richard Addinsell's Rachmaninov pastiche also turned out quite successful. I don't think anyone is arguing that it can match Rachmaninov's own work, but it too has entered the standard repertoire, and has achieved more popularity, I think, than some of Rach's own concertos.

In summary, it is not at all clear to me that it is a grievous sin to imitate someone else's style, or that such music is automatically worthless.

But the whole thing creates some interesting philosophical conundrums. For one thing, if it is impossible or virtually impossible to recreate Mozart to perfection, then it means a composer who can manage to do that has achieved something that even the great names never could. In a sense, he would be a greater composer than Beethoven. The implication is that originality is in fact easier than perfect pastiche.

And in some respects, it might indeed be. It is after all easier to write in one's own handwriting than to make a perfect forgery of someone else's.

Not that I want to delve too deeply in this. It seems I stand chastised on my notion that avant gardists get off relatively easily. In the end, I am actually perfectly happy to let everyone compose as they see fit, and to let posterity sort out the mess. If Robert Bruce still has significant numbers of listeners a hundred years from now, then he will have become a classical master, by definition, whether we like it or not.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

brianvds said:


> How can we tell whether it is impossible or not?


It is considered impossible because it has never been done before.

But doing things that have never been done before is what progress and change is all about.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Ramako said:


> It is considered impossible because it has never been done before.
> 
> But doing things that have never been done before is what progress and change is all about.


Behind every great woman is a little man telling her to stop, it can't be done.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Ramako said:


> It is considered impossible because it has never been done before.
> 
> But doing things that have never been done before is what progress and change is all about.


I really should start studying theory and get working on Mozart's 42nd symphony...


----------



## Kleinzeit (May 15, 2013)

Jorge Luis Borges' short story "Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote".

Pierre Menard, a fictional 20th-century French writer, and his efforts to go beyond a mere "translation" of Don Quixote by immersing himself so thoroughly in the work as to be able to actually "re-create" it, line for line, in the original 17th-century Spanish.

Required reading in art school in the po-mo 90s.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Music _ought_ not do anything you control freak Nazi.

lol


----------



## Guest (May 29, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> My question is not about whether such a potential limit is good or bad but would certain rates of change be beyond the capability of people to process?


And that's where your question is gonna fail. "People" is an abstraction. Have any individuals been able to keep up with the rates of change? Yes. Well, OK then.



mmsbls said:


> I know listeners are generally behind the curve.


Well, yeah, some. Not by any means all. (As you can see, I'm having the most trouble with your generalities, your categories. Not all people are alike. Not all listeners are alike.)

Listening comes after the music. First the music, then the listening. So there will always be a gap of some sort. Stands to reason.

Plus, the activities are different. Composing is one kind of activity. At its best, it involves a fair degree of newness--so it will be unfamiliar. Difficult to figure out at first. Listening is another kind of activity. At its best, it involves a fair degree of openness, willingness--even eagerness--to understand and even embrace the unfamiliar. But how often do you find it at its best?

There will always be creators. There will always be people who can appreciate and understand what's being created.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

violadude said:


> Music _ought_ not do anything you control freak Nazi.
> 
> lol


Yes, my mistake in wording. As I replied to some guy:



mmsbls said:


> Yes, I wanted to ask, "How much change would you like to see?" or "How much change keeps music vibrant?" "Ought" was for fun.


But speaking of control freak Nazis, if I were the god of classical music, I think the only mandate I would have is that music must change at least somewhat over time. Oh, and everyone must bow down daily in abject servitude worshiping my total superiority.


----------



## Guest (May 29, 2013)

Ramako said:


> It is considered impossible because it has never been done before.


No, it is conceptually and philosophically impossible.

The past is over. It only exists as isolated artifacts. Pleasant as those artifacts are, they are not the past itself. The past itself was something quite different. Full of all sorts of activity, most of which has been lost or forgotten. Full of all sorts of ideas and preconceptions, which were and have continued to be in constant flux.

And it was the present when it was going on.

Most importantly, the creations of the past, when the past was present, were original. Were, at worst, imitations of contemporaneous art. To look back into the past, several hundred years, even, to try to make Mozart's 42nd, for instance, would be to do something completely alien to how Mozart's first 41 were made. Plus, it wouldn't be _Mozart_ doing it, now, would it?

Even Haydn and Gluck didn't "do" Mozart. They did Haydn and Gluck.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

mmsbls said:


> Yes, my mistake in wording. As I replied to some guy:
> 
> But speaking of control freak Nazis, if I were the god of classical music, I think the only mandate I would have is that music must change at least somewhat over time. Oh, and everyone must bow down daily in abject servitude worshiping my total superiority.


Oh, well my mistake too for not reading through the whole thread first


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

Ramako said:


> 1) Haydn's symphonies sound more different than pretty much anyone else's before 1900, if you took an appropriate sample: i.e., they only appear similar because you have the smooth continuity between them, which often several being written in one year.
> 
> Ok, with the Haydn over, :


Ramako, you need never finish gushing over Haydn.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

some guy said:


> And that's where your question is gonna fail. "People" is an abstraction. Have any individuals been able to keep up with the rates of change? Yes. Well, OK then.


Well, yeah, some. Not by any means all. (As you can see, I'm having the most trouble with your generalities, your categories. Not all people are alike. Not all listeners are alike.)
[/QUOTE]

I generally feel that questions, like music, do not fail. Asking questions is one of the most important things I do in life. It's true that people are different, and you and I are extremely different in certain ways. I'm a scientist, and to scientists generalities and abstractions are supremely important. We would not be having this conversation without them (the development of the internet and all electronics depended critically on such abstractions and generalities). Not everyone died during the flu pandemic, and not everyone is given immunity by vaccines, but thankfully scientists weren't so concerned with people being different. They concentrated more on the generalities of human physiology to save millions. You will never convince me that asking general or abstract questions is anything but a great, necessary endeavor. To scientists, general abstract questions are usually close to infinitely more fascinating and important than details of individual people or objects. And yes, some people are completely disinterested in the questions others ask. Just like some people don't like the music others like.

My comment that "listeners are generally behind the curve" was meant to be similar to your quote of Varese.



some guy said:


> "An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs." --Edgard Varese


Do you have the same problem with Varese's generality that you quoted?


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Our thoughts of change and music have probably been radically altered by the rapid developments in popular music over the last 100 years, which have slowed up in recent years anyway. Classical music with its longer history has given us a larger perspective, change did accelerate somewhat after the medieval period but it perhaps happens naturally once a style has been relatively exhausted and a new style helps reinvigorate the art.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

some guy said:


> No, it is conceptually and philosophically impossible.
> 
> The past is over. It only exists as isolated artifacts. Pleasant as those artifacts are, they are not the past itself. The past itself was something quite different. Full of all sorts of activity, most of which has been lost or forgotten. Full of all sorts of ideas and preconceptions, which were and have continued to be in *constant flux*.
> 
> ...


It is very possible. I could set a computer to generate random sounds. If I did it an infinite number of times, then a masterpiece in the style of Mozart would be there somewhere. I would just have to have an infinite amount of time to sort through the music - but still it would have been written.

This simple fact somewhat disproves a whole series of notions about what music is or isn't, or can or can't be from a philosophical point of view. But this is more than a little arbitrary. In fact there are better ways to argue this. But you have presented an ideological position, reliant on assumptions (in the sense that all positions must be). To merely question these with philosophical quibbles and meaningless thought experiments would be somewhat cowardly and pointless. This is the way I see it:

(I'll issue a monster tl;dr warning here too: [edit] see post 46 for a somewhat abbreviated version)

------

I highlight your phrase 'constant flux' because it seems to me to be at the root of the issue. _Flux_ is a word about change - you say things always change. But the word _constant_ means things stay the same - i.e. you suggest that things change, but not in particularly startling ways. Within certain constraining barriers. Why must this be so? It isn't so, but it suits the notion of progress as it has been conceived in music between at least 1800 and 1950.

What is the present era about? The positivistic idealism of the twentieth century comes under continually increasing strain in every area of human endeavour except science. People used to believe that in the future there would be some kind of idyllic society in which human nature would be overcome and there would be an 'eternal brotherhood of man'. Though some people still believe this, I would argue that it is not part of today's _zeitgeist_ (you certainly seem to be holding to the idea some sort of _zeitgeist_ in your position, and it is a concept with which I have some sympathy). The notion of music progressing similarly is part of this humanistic idealism as it has been conceived since the Enlightenment.

Today's is an age in which all (or at least the vast majority) of the assumptions of previous ages have come under intense scrutiny. This much is very obvious. There is nothing today's scholars like to do better thna challenge assumptions: it becomes rather tiring in fact. The literature from the age of Modernism is not actually filled with rhetoric particularly different from the 19th century in terms of a outlook which believed in a progress of music (the famed phrase 'the inevitable _march_ of progress' - notice once again the somewhat pedestrian manner in which progress is conceived), although it rejected Romanticism fiercely. Of course there is a difference between the two - enough literature drones on about it - why do I not see it? Because the difference between them is no longer relevant to the ideals of the present age. This is what history is all about.

To necessarily continue to represent this 'slow and steady' march of progress in today's music would be a betrayal of today's _zeitgeist_. These currents of thought not only validate great pastiche composition as an expression of the _zeitgeist_, but in fact cause it to be necessary. Without pastiche, without turning back on ourselves musically, the history of today's music would continue to represent the pedestrian ideas of progress as it has been conceived since the late 18th century if not before, ideas of progress which do _not_ continue to dominate our thinking. Pastiche is not only valid, but necessary, if music is to present a cohesive portrayal of our _zeitgeist_.

------

The idea of certain types of music _belonging_ to certain times is self-evidently problematic from a genuinely modern perspective. To justify it as absolute one must fall upon the ideals of the 19th and first two thirds of the twentieth century. In music, the writing of great pastiche is the perfect expression of the epoch today: it would shatter the problematic notions of style actually _belonging_ to an era in some kind of irrevocable and almost metaphysical way. It would do what today's thinkers like to do best - challenge our assumptions. No other kind of music around today does this in the same way.

To put it another way, if music is to continue being representative of its age it cannot continue to be so in the same manner of previous ages. *In order to be in the spirit of this age, current music cannot just be in the spirit of its age*. It is a paradox we must live with.

I have phrased this as if it were 'the' way of today. I do mean that is the only way for a certain strand of musical and intellectual thought in today's world, and that is necessary for a musically coherent representation of today's world. It also cannot be representative as a whole: the 'march of progress' is extremely suitable for electroacoustic music, for example, which in its development can be considered more analogous to the progress of technology on which it capitalises. But I argue that it must be a part.

-----

I do not conceive of pastiche as conservatism - quite the contrary. I believe that genuine pastiche is far more radical than any musical movement since at least 1750. If someone came to me and said "I know a composer X, he has a totally new style of composition" I would sigh somewhat internally and think "big deal". Everyone has a new style of composition today - some have several. Newness is no longer very new or interesting to some of us - there is simply too much of it around. It has been this way demonstrably more since about 1900, but the same can be said back to again at least 1750. Some of us looking for something new and challenging find that we have to look beyond what is new and challenging.

The breaking of this stigma against using techniques of the past will open the horizons of today's composers far more than any new style is likely to. There is a lot of ground we have already conquered, why leave it behind?

------

A lot of what I have written above relies on a set of assumptions which are no longer really valid, and indeed are not valid from the position I was attempting to elucidate, causing some discomfort in the writing. This is because the idealistic rhetoric does not belong to this age. But without some kind of a _zeitgeist_ theory, probably avoiding the 19th century terminology if not meaning, there remains no objection to pastiche. Pastiche is a movement of deep and underlying pessimism. But it is a pessimism written into the fabric of our society - indeed it is a pessimism fundamental to the human condition. Pastiche rejects the association of music and zeitgeist, and music as the expression of the composer in his temporal situation (which it shares with Modernism), although it can be reconciled. It is this intellectual agnosticism in which it may find it's expression, but which it itself rejects. Pastiche rejects the connection of music to a zeitgeist or to the human condition, but fits into any such theory regardless. It is a beautiful yet utterly self-destructive position.

In any case, argument from 'conceptual and intellectual' grounds is in the end meaningless when the future will show us what will happen. Music needs no justification. I am confident that pastiche is a central musical movement today - but since confidence means nothing time will tell at any rate. Ironically, none of this particularly new any longer: pastiche has been around and valid for some time. It is significantly more new than Modernism, however, and the ideas of 'newness' which derive from it. But great pastiche must first be written before we can move on.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Everything is by its nature surely of its time, it arises from its time and place. Even if retro it can't simply be exactly like an earlier composer and be that good, a composer has to find their own voice. And nobody can predict what music in the more distant future will be like so composers cannot be ahead of their time.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

(Imagine quote of my previous long post)

Because I realise that clarity of thought and perhaps especially expression are not my strong point, I thought I'd post a quick summary of my above post, particularly since some of the language might make it misleading. I'll leave it though anyway.

1) The primary objection to pastiche as a valid form of composition is due to some formulation of the notion that composition must be 'authentic' to its age (or to a person)
2) Our current age (or individuals therein) questions this assumption and the notion of authenticity.

Therefore

3) Pastiche, which violates these notions of authenticity, in the very fact it violates them, is in fact 'authentic' to this age (or certain individuals living therein).

It is effectively a refutation of what I see as the most valid form of criticism against pastiche, by arguing an internal contradiction. It does not lay out the foundations for the position: it cannot do so - only the music can do that.


----------



## Guest (May 30, 2013)

Ramako said:


> 1) The primary objection to pastiche as a valid form of composition is due to some formulation of the notion that composition must be 'authentic' to its age (or to a person)


I would say that the primary objection to pastiche as a valid form of composition is that it reproduces (or attempts to reproduce) something that has already been done and done under circumstances quite different from the current ones and for reasons quite different from the impulse to create a pastiche.



Ramako said:


> 2) Our current age (or individuals therein) questions this assumption and the notion of authenticity.


If I've dealt with premise one adequately, we don't even need to consider premise two.



Ramako said:


> 3) Pastiche, which violates these notions of authenticity, in the very fact it violates them, is in fact 'authentic' to this age (or certain individuals living therein).


Violating a notion of authenticity is not necessarily itself authentic. (Though it is fun to play with words like this.)



Ramako said:


> It is effectively a refutation of what I see as the most valid form of criticism against pastiche, by arguing an internal contradiction. It does not lay out the foundations for the position: it cannot do so - only the music can do that.


Well, since we disagree about what constitutes the most valid form of criticism against pastiche, I don't know that there's anything left to say.

I am attracted to the idea of a zeitgeist, but it's a tricky concept, and I wouldn't want to argue for or against anything on that basis. Easier to see that a past time had some characteristic ideas. Calling that a zeitgeist, however, is just to put a name to the ideas that have survived the passage of time and the operation of forgetting.

What is dead easy is to be familiar with the artifacts from the past that have survived and to recognize when someone is trying to imitate those. Anyone can do that. (I just wish more people did.) Anyway, if someone loves artifacts from the past in a way that excludes enjoying the creations of the present, then they will very likely welcome any and all attempts to make more things like that. That's regrettable but understandable.

I have seen it maintained that the _St. Matthew Passion_ of Hilarion Alfeyev compares favorably to Bach's _St. Matthew Passion._ That just makes me want to puke my guts out, if I may be allowed some British understatement.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

some guy said:


> I would say that the primary objection to pastiche as a valid form of composition is that it reproduces (or attempts to reproduce) something that has already been done and done under circumstances quite different from the current ones and for reasons quite different from the impulse to create a pastiche.


Indeed. I think that this pastiche debate ends with that sentence.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

starry said:


> Everything is by its nature surely of its time, it arises from its time and place. Even if retro it can't simply be exactly like an earlier composer and be that good, a composer has to find their own voice. And nobody can predict what music in the more distant future will be like so composers cannot be ahead of their time.


In the visual arts, a similar debate flares up every now then. And if you think music lovers are obsessed with originality, you should see what goes on in the visual arts.

But it is to some extent as you say above: originality is not difficult. It is the easiest thing. You can in fact not really prevent yourself from finding your own original voice any more than you can prevent yourself from developing a unique handwriting - it basically develops by itself.

Of course writing GOOD music, in whatever style, is another matter. But I leave that to posterity to sort out. There is actually no way to tell which contemporary art will turn out to be classics.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Ramako said:


> 2) Our current age (or individuals therein) questions this assumption and the notion of authenticity.


It is perhaps worth noting that in the visual arts, pastiche of Graeco-Roman work was very much the spirit of the age in the Renaissance. It turned out quite fruitful.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

some guy said:


> I would say that the primary objection to pastiche as a valid form of composition is that it reproduces (or attempts to reproduce) something that has already been done and done under circumstances quite different from the current ones and for reasons quite different from the impulse to create a pastiche.


It s not clear to me why this is a valid objection. Or, for that matter, that there are such things as valid and invalid forms of composition.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

brianvds said:


> It is perhaps worth noting that in the visual arts, pastiche of Graeco-Roman work was very much the spirit of the age in the Renaissance. It turned out quite fruitful.


Not really. Yeah, the Renaissance dudes inspiration from Classical art, but nobody would confuse Greek sculpture with Donatello any more than they would confuse Michael Tippet with Handel.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

brianvds said:


> Of course writing GOOD music, in whatever style, is another matter. But I leave that to posterity to sort out. There is actually no way to tell which contemporary art will turn out to be classics.


I would add that "classic" should not be conflated with "good" since the latter is not measurable on any objective level and the former is used rather loosely, sort of like the value judgement equivalent of "tonality."


----------



## oogabooha (Nov 22, 2011)

I don't understand the point of this thread. If we find out how much it should change, why should we care? What are we benefitting from discussing something that shouldn't remain stagnate? Do we really want to know how often/fast it should change and why it does? We know what's behind us, but there is no reason to analyze the future. Instead, we should just be a part of it.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I think it's interesting that so much recent discussion on this thread has focused on pastiches (regressive composition) rather than on stasis, modest change, or accelerated change in music. If people are interested, of course, that's fine. I've always been interested in the idea of pastiches as a way to better understand what people value in music, but I'm hesitant to push the thread further off track. I do hope everyone realizes the OP has nothing to do with that idea.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

oogabooha said:


> I don't understand the point of this thread. If we find out how much it should change, why should we care? What are we benefitting from discussing something that shouldn't remain stagnate? Do we really want to know how often/fast it should change and why it does? We know what's behind us, but there is no reason to analyze the future. Instead, we should just be a part of it.


For a scientific discipline, that would be a suicide. 
In art, it's one its most vital characteristics!.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

oogabooha said:


> I don't understand the point of this thread. If we find out how much it should change, why should we care? What are we benefitting from discussing something that shouldn't remain stagnate? Do we really want to know how often/fast it should change and why it does? We know what's behind us, but there is no reason to analyze the future. Instead, we should just be a part of it.


There are people who are curious about many things. If you are not curious about these sort of things, fine. You ask, "Do we really want to know how often/fast it should change and why it does?" The "should" part I'm not sure about, but the "why" part is a huge *YES!*. But that's me. I am insatiably curious so I crave knowing why things are the way they are.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

mmsbls said:


> There are people who are curious about many things. If you are not curious about these sort of things, fine. You ask, "Do we really want to know how often/fast it should change and why it does?" The "should" part I'm not sure about, but the "why" part is a huge *YES!*. But that's me. I am insatiably curious so I crave knowing why things are the way they are.


The problem, to me, is not about a lack of curiosity. Instead, it's related with an understanding about the vacuity of the question.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

some guy said:


> [pastiche] *reproduces* (or attempts to reproduce) something that has already been done ... under circumstances quite different from the current ones


I'll separate your first sentence since there are two underlying points to it.

This half of the sentence comes from this sort of idea: "Music is composed in an age with a set of circumstances" etc. (essentially the idea of a _zeitgeist_ - presumably Mozart and Beethoven et al. were composing 'correctly', or 'authentically', in their own age, their music being a result of a creative impulse in turn influenced by their presuppositions).

I highlight 'reproduce' because it feeds into the second half of your sentence. Otherwise this is just a reformulation of my premise 1. If you disagree with me, do point out where I err.



some guy said:


> and for reasons quite different from the impulse to create a pastiche.


This is a different criticism based on assumptions behind the motivation and creative impulse of pastiche composers. I'll deal with it more later.



some guy said:


> If I've dealt with premise one adequately, we don't even need to consider premise two.


Since your 'dealing with premise one' is mostly just a rewording of it into late 20th as opposed to early 20th language, with the addition of another assumption, I'll leave it open whether you want to change your mind about dealing with premise 2.



some guy said:


> Violating a notion of authenticity is not necessarily itself authentic.


Of course not. But it is if you accept premise 2.



some guy said:


> (Though it is fun to play with words like this.)


Certainly. But then all this is a lot of hot air, and the music itself will prove either side correct. Only in about 100 years though probably when we'll all most likely be dead.



some guy said:


> Well, since we disagree about what constitutes the most valid form of criticism against pastiche, I don't know that there's anything left to say.


Well obviously we don't disagree that much. Basically you just add an assumption of what is the underlying impulse of pastiche: no doubt often you are correct.

However the creative impulse to compose pastiche is a strong one and _it is there_. To say that it is less valid than any other impulse will require some reasoning I dare say, which I would not like to speculate into closely, but I dare say will most probably go back into the zeitgeist theory which is premise 1, and so my original argument applies.

I should add that there are probably a number of people bored to death with Modernism and its offshoots. It's 100 years old now. The composition of pastiche in this age comes down to the fact that many people feel Modernism has grown old, and people are looking for something new. I would argue that it is very possible to create pastiche with a view of taking music into the future and that this happens. After all, successful pastiche is far more groundbreaking and (to some of us) interesting than yet another new musical style - we have those coming out of our ears.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

aleazk said:


> Indeed. I think that this pastiche debate ends with that sentence.


Well the debate is utterly pointless: the music is what matters. But then of course, if this line was always taken online forums, and a reasonable amount of more serious writing on music too, would disappear overnight.

The debate will only end when the impulse to create pastiche has passed. It seems to me that this can only be the case once it has been done successfully.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

mmsbls said:


> There are people who are curious about many things. If you are not curious about these sort of things, fine. You ask, "Do we really want to know how often/fast it should change and why it does?" The "should" part I'm not sure about, but the "why" part is a huge *YES!*. But that's me. I am insatiably curious so I crave knowing why things are the way they are.


Well these arguments (about newer or new music) are like the Bill Murray film, Groundhog Day. We all end up rehashing (or doing a pastiche of, which is apt for this thread?) what we've said before here millions of times.

I think the questions you asked are ok to ask. But look, we're not arguing here about music. We're arguing about ideology. The two I see as separate. One is a tangible thing, the other is vague at best and a kind of tool for almost Machiavellian manipulation at worst. So you know, its a bit futile. Inevitably you get the herd mentality, us against them. You get mudslinging and the thread potentially locked.

I don't think its a cut and dried issue as some are presenting it as. Its a controversial issue. So there's going to be diversity of opinion, and if these are reasonable opinions, they're equally valid. My opinion's not better than another person's, its just different. There's no losing face on an internet forum. Your life is not on the line if you try to be honest, you don't have to go in with adversarial attitude of a dog eat dog politician or something. You shouldn't have to cover your flanks fearing a backlash all the time.

Well we shouldn't but we do, cos that's the negative side of human nature. Always prove you're top dog, you're the one who's right. Kind of depressing, but in some ways I'm over it. All I can do is opt out of these fruitless mudslingings and power games.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

Sid James said:


> I think the questions you asked are ok to ask. But look, we're not arguing here about music.
> 
> ...
> 
> I don't think its a cut and dried issue as some are presenting it as. Its a controversial issue. So there's going to be diversity of opinion, and if these are reasonable opinions, they're equally valid. My opinion's not better than another person's, its just different.


Very well said; I particularly agree with these bits.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

some guy said:


> _and done under circumstances quite different from the current ones and for reasons quite different from the impulse to create a pastiche_.





aleazk said:


> Indeed. I think that this pastiche debate ends with that sentence.


why? is there a correct impulse to create? we live in an age when fan fic is booming. I think pastiche is as zeigeisty as it gets, if that's the correct impulse...


----------



## Kleinzeit (May 15, 2013)

Same principle applied to my field: 10 yrs. ago in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC, headed for the 'new acquisitions in contemporary art' rooms. This was not the avant garde MOMA but the wig Met, so the stakes were as high as Where Egos Dare. Reputations, the market, and art history as she is did balance dangerously on what gets admitted to the canon.

Rounded a corner and was faced with a mural-scale Terry Winters canvas.









something along the lines of this.

I'd followed his work since the 80s, liked it as among the most purely painterly-yet-'figurative' around. Paint saint. He paints systems, because systems are the landscape now. This thing looked like a complex flowchart of something significant & world-embracing painted by an ape.

I'm an 'early christian' in art-- devoted to ongoing evolution though not to teleology-- very little scares me. I took in this thing and felt as angry as Daffy or Donald Duck, a visceral response. Not at the ugliness (not nearly as ugly as a lot of post WWII painting), but at the instant realization that the goalposts had been moved again. That after this new reboot, this would be the source of the river for how paintings are understood.

The anger was a reliable sign that this was serious stuff, that it went straight to the nerve. Not a whole lot of art does this, certainly not daft old painting. Wasn't really angry, just mad about the work. It demonstrated how paint application has to incorporate its physical matter-of-factness now , in this time. Winters had achieved a fresh, open dialectical synthesis of mandarin modernist purities with new vernacular meanings.

As a painter I knew I couldn't go over, under, or around it. Had to go through it. Which doesn't mean ape it. That would be totally wrong. The upshot is, Winters is now one of my invisible choir of judges, --WWWD?-- although I don't paint at all like him, not even in terms of the ham-handed, brutish surface (which seems to me now impeccable). But he has changed my mind. Not 'changed', enhanced beyond recognition.

paradigm shift. All the artists know when one of their number changes the game. There's the theory of the game to distinguish between the generic game and the specific match. "This strategic interpretation is strictly historicist: with it, the question becomes 'one of the status that ought to be assigned to the match 'painting', as one sees it being played at a given moment in particular circumstances, in its relation to the game of the same name.' " The game "painting," for instance, is open-ended; only the elementary playing techniques and the type of playing field are defined: paint applied to a more or less flat support. Further rules, such as the requirement of reduction, innovation, or authenticity belong to the match "modern painting."


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Ramako said:


> I should add that there are probably a number of people bored to death with Modernism and its offshoots. It's 100 years old now. The composition of pastiche in this age comes down to the fact that many people feel Modernism has grown old, and people are looking for something new. I would argue that it is very possible to create pastiche with a view of taking music into the future and that this happens. After all, successful pastiche is far more groundbreaking and (to some of us) interesting than yet another new musical style - we have those coming out of our ears.


But the modernists of today are easily as far from the modernists of 100 years ago as Monteverdi was from Bach. The styles have continued to evolve and change with the times.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> But the modernists of today are easily as far from the modernists of 100 years ago as Monteverdi was from Bach. The styles have continued to evolve and change with the times.


Oh I quite agree with the comparison with Monteverdi and Bach. Excellent example in fact: at the time Bach was composing, the Baroque period was reaching its end, and music was already moving in a new direction: the Classical period.

(Incidentally, in my opinion the Classical period was probably the most revolutionary change of direction music has seen, and it seems more radical than anything that's going on at the moment)

I am not saying that there is anything wrong with Modernism. I don't personally care for it much on the whole, but I'm not going to discount it as invalid simply because I don't like it, though once I would have and did. My point is that Modernism is quite old now (like the Baroque style was when Bach was writing) and that some people are searching for something new and different, and that these people are not wrong for doing so. I also argue that because of the complexities of the circumstances we are in, and especially our new self-consciousness, that Pastiche is an excellent (not the only) possibility for today's composers.

I'm not arguing against anything except an attitude.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Ramako said:


> I am not saying that there is anything wrong with Modernism. I don't personally care for it much on the whole, but I'm not going to discount it as invalid simply because I don't like it, though once I would have and did. My point is that Modernism is quite old now (like the Baroque style was when Bach was writing) and that some people are searching for something new, and that these people are not wrong for doing so.


And it should not irritate anyone that the "something new" is not a rehash of previous styles. Just as Neoclassicism was not a rehash of 18th century music, whatever develops today will be something new.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

ahammel said:


> Not really. Yeah, the Renaissance dudes inspiration from Classical art, but nobody would confuse Greek sculpture with Donatello any more than they would confuse Michael Tippet with Handel.


The Renaissance artists, as far as I know, aspired to achieve the same greatness as their Classical predecessors, and most of them would have been all too happy to produce something like the Laocoön. If I'm not mistaken, Michelangelo produced some pastiches, including even deliberate "damage", to feed the craze in the market for Classical work. At least at the time, he fooled all the experts.

Now it is perhaps so that they could never make a perfect recreation of Classical work, and indeed they soon surpassed anything the Romans or Greeks could do. But I am not convinced that their initial impulse was to be inspired by Classical antiquity and then be original. In those days, people did not have the romantic ideas about art that we do today. I think they all very much tried to make perfect imitations of Classical work, and in the process created something unique.

It is of course a good question whether a composer today, trying his level best to make a perfect pastiche of 18th century music, will achieve anything like it, or will, in the process, achieve a unique and great voice of his own. I suspect much would depend on the individual composer.


----------



## Guest (May 30, 2013)

Ramako said:


> ...there are probably a number of people bored to death with Modernism and its offshoots. It's 100 years old now.


There are definitely many people bored to death with Baroque and its offshoots as well.



Ramako said:


> The composition of pastiche in this age comes down to the fact that many people feel Modernism has grown old, and people are looking for something new. I would argue that it is very possible to create pastiche with a view of taking music into the future and that this happens.


People are looking for something familiar. Pastiche gives them that. If people were looking for something new, we would not be having this conversation. Moving forward by going backwards. We are in cloud-cuckoo land for sure!!



Ramako said:


> After all, successful pastiche is far more groundbreaking and (to some of us) interesting than yet another new musical style - we have those coming out of our ears.


Wait a minute. Do "people" want something new or not? What's your point here?

As for groundbreaking, the point is that pastiche goes where the ground has already been broken. Is there a point to breaking already broken ground?

(Just as a matter of curiosity, do you have any handy examples of a "successful" pastiche?)


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

some guy said:


> There are definitely many people bored to death with Baroque and its offshoots as well.
> 
> People are looking for something familiar. Pastiche gives them that. If people were looking for something new, we would not be having this conversation. Moving forward by going backwards. We are in cloud-cuckoo land for sure!!
> 
> ...


I do have examples. You've never commented. They are very short miniatures. I can upload more, and intend to when I have the time. I am willing to hear from others that they are abominations or trifling nothings...except I did put my heart into them.

But anyway, I do believe you have life wisdom to back your viewpoints some guy. But you have never been able to explain them convincingly to me.

Both sides of this debate are full of mental gymnastics. What is the actual truth? I don't think you know. I know that I don't. I really wish I could talk with someone about this face to face some day, and not compromise my ideas until we get to the core of what its all about.

There really isn't one is there. Just a bunch of bickering about styles.(I heard that language is not important so much as what is trying to be said, so theoretically there isn't anything wrong with an antiquated language saying something new and profound)

Of course, I do sometimes, no joke, feel that I am some kind of a grave robber. There will be a special layer in hell for me probably. If there is a hell and I don't "repent."

I am willing to admit I'm totally wrong somehow. I'm still learning about how this all works.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Regarding the OP, I am still taken with an idea that I heard about through my obsession with Nikolai Medtner. I have not yet read his book yet though...but he more or less states that there is plenty to be said in the system of common practice tonal music. There is the question of whether it is worth saying or not...

Or maybe I just like that pretty music. 

The real musicians and composers aren't thinking about all this, they are just doing it, whatever it is. And if they like music theory and history, its some kind of side hobby. Or maybe its like their liberal arts education that informs their music...I don't know.

This is why I like baroque music and why I don't mind pop. There is a craft that is or was actively in action, and people weren't quibbling about golden ratio Mozartian/Bartokian perfection that emerges as the best in each style. The chaff is interesting, I say to all you wheat purists.

I do many pull ups per day in my mental gym...the biceps are probably over used and the abs need work.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

clavichorder said:


> I am willing to admit I'm totally wrong somehow. I'm still learning about how this all works.


Hehehe, as happens often with me in online debates, after a while I no longer have any idea of what it is all about. Well, as I said before, I am happy to let composers do whatever they like, and let posterity sort it out. Two thousand years from now, if any of the music known today still exists, Bach and Bartok will seem virtually contemporaneous, and no one will give two hoots about who was original, and who was guilty of mere pastiche.

"Greensleeves" is still played and sung a good five centuries after it was composed. We have no clue about who composed it, or whether he was an original or merely copying someone else. Time has a way of making nonsense of all arguments, but preserving whatever people like.



clavichorder said:


> The chaff is interesting, I say to all you wheat purists.


It is indeed, as I learned from personal experience when I took up playing guitar some years ago. Before that, I played a bit of piano, and thus got in contact with all the great names. Then, for all manner of reasons too long and boring to go into here, I was separated from the piano for some time, and I decided to take up guitar instead.

Not that I made much progress with either instrument; I never really got beyond lower intermediate level in guitar. But it did one thing: it opened up to me an entire universe of music that I was never aware of before, of mostly entirely obscure composers, who nevertheless wrote immensely attractive and pleasant music. No, none of it can begin to compare in stature to Beethoven or Wagner. But in some ways, that is precisely part of the whole attraction. It can be a great relief to enjoy the work of fellow human beings instead of constantly having to lie prostrate before demigods.


----------



## Guest (May 30, 2013)

clavichorder said:


> I really wish I could talk with someone about this face to face some day, and not compromise my ideas until we get to the core of what its all about.


Well, you'd better hurry up, then. I'm moving from Portland to Barcelona on the first of September.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

I am going to reorder your post so that mine flows more coherently. If I in any way distort the meaning of your post, then I apologise and do please point it out.



some guy said:


> (Just as a matter of curiosity, do you have any handy examples of a "successful" pastiche?)


I certainly do not. As it happens, in fact, the post which began this particular exchange, number 32, is: (SLG style of quote to cause less confusion)

It (pastiche) is considered impossible because it has never been done before.

But doing things that have never been done before is what progress and change is all about.



some guy said:


> Moving forward by going backwards. We are in cloud-cuckoo land for sure!!


I acknowledge that the claim I make is a radical one.

This point is essential. The very fact that I am arguing that pastiche can be new and exciting should be enough to end this philosophical debate. I argue that the fact that some composers can, (and most likely someone does if I do), consider it new and exciting is enough to, provided they have sufficient talent (which I don't), create a masterpiece. This is only a necessary argument if we hold to the assumption that this sense of new and exciting is necessary to great musical composition, which I don't really hold to. But that isn't the point - the point is that even if you do hold this assumption, then Pastiche still answers this need.



some guy said:


> Wait a minute. Do "people" want something new or not? What's your point here?


For some of us, conventional musical 'newness' is provided for so abundantly that we want something different from this steady march of progress which has been the same since the Enlightenment.



some guy said:


> As for groundbreaking, the point is that pastiche goes where the ground has already been broken. Is there a point to breaking already broken ground?


As we agree on, there have been no "successful" pastiches. Therefore one would be, by definition, groundbreaking. Breaking new ground is surely only worthwhile in as much as it answers a basic need felt in some humans for progress? Pastiche answers this need.



some guy said:


> People are looking for something familiar. Pastiche gives them that.


Familiarity is a notion I would be grateful if you could clarify more precisely what you mean by in this context - are you talking about familiarity to listeners or to the composers of the music itself? By what means is this familiarity relevant to the aesthetic quality of the final product?


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Ramako said:


> II certainly do not. As it happens, in fact, the post which began this particular exchange, number 32, is: (SLG style of quote to cause less confusion)
> 
> It (pastiche) is considered impossible because it has never been done before.
> 
> But doing things that have never been done before is what progress and change is all about.


Surely this is a case where the proof of the pudding is in the eating, then.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

ahammel said:


> Surely this is a case where the proof of the pudding is in the eating, then.


Exactly! Let's leave the very vague realms of conceptual and philosophical possibilities, and return to the real world of music, which is the only real proof for the former in any case.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> And it should not irritate anyone that the "something new" is not a rehash of previous styles. *Just as Neoclassicism was not a rehash of 18th century music, whatever develops today will be something new.*


I'm not irritated that something new is _not_ a "rehash" of previous styles. It does appear to irritate some people present that something new written now may sound like something which has come before, however.

I respect your opinion which I have highlighted in bold, Mahlerian, and my own opinion isn't actually that different. I would be very surprised if masterful music which is a perfect imitation of (say) Mozart, is written. However, I would also be very surprised if very good music in a tonal idiom resembling to some extent a style which has come before, motivated either in a spirit of deliberate pastiche, or by a conception of music in which the composer reaches for whatever musical tools want even if they are well-worn, is _not_ written. But hey, I could be wrong.

That is my overall point: this is just my opinion, or your opinion, or whoever's opinion. I don't think we should dismiss music based on opinions or conjectures. If someone doesn't like something, then they don't have to pay attention to it.


----------

