# Reverse question: How could great music of the past be so beautiful?



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Instead of always asking why contemporary music can often be ugly, to which the answer would usually be... well it's serious music, it's not sugar coated, it's advanced, it's for advanced listeners, it's uncompromising, it's forward looking, it's not commercial and whatnot...

How about asking another question: how could GREAT MUSIC (by which I mean serious, important, influential, etc) of the past be SO FREAKING BEAUTIFUL without being sugary, trite, etc...

Let's take Bach for example. He is perhaps one of the most influential composers, his music is not at all simple, it's pretty advanced stuff, yet his music IS SO BEAUTIFUL. Almost heavenly.

How was this possible?

Why it seems that it's not possible anymore?


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

the answer is: because the composers wanted to write beautiful, uplifting music. Beauty was the goal and music was the means to that goal.


----------



## LezLee (Feb 21, 2014)

That’s a matter of opinion! I’ve heard quite a lot of Bach in my lifetime and there’s very little I would call beautiful, freaking or otherwise!


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

This is an example of stuff that I find both extremely advanced and extremely beautiful:


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

ZJovicic said:


> This is an example of stuff that I find both extremely advanced and extremely beautiful:


it is a masterpiece, but I would not present this as an introduction to his music. It is one of his least accessible works, imho. The most accessible for me were some of the French suites and Chaconne and Chromatic fantasy and Italian concerto and the Brandenburgs


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Well it took me a lot of listens to actually get into it. I was lucky I bought it on CD a long ago so I listened to it a lot.
I agree that Brandenburgs are much more accessible. And Orchestral suites too. And Goldberg variations.

But this is beautiful too. Even on first listen I found it beautiful. Not really familiar or understandable, but still beautiful.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

ZJovicic said:


> Well it took me a lot of listens to actually get into it. I was lucky I bought it on CD a long ago so I listened to it a lot.
> I agree that Brandenburgs are much more accessible. And Orchestral suites too. And Goldberg variations.
> 
> But this is beautiful too. Even on first listen I found it beautiful. Not really familiar or understandable, but still beautiful.


Goldbergs took me something 5-6 listens to get. This takes 10 or more, it is just too complex.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

As Mahler said, "interesting is easy, beautiful is difficult." Of course, beauty is in the eye (or ear) of the beholder. What someone would find beautiful, another would find insipid or saccharine. For my taste, the closer a work is to folk song, the higher the beauty becomes. A skilled, tasteful composer can harmonize in such a way that is transcendent. Some composers just wrote beautifully without thinking about it.
One of the most beautiful things on earth is the Percy Grainger "Irish Tune from County Derry" in the band arrangement.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

mbhaub said:


> As Mahler said, "interesting is easy, beautiful is difficult." Of course, beauty is in the eye (or ear) of the beholder. What someone would find beautiful, another would find insipid or saccharine...


Assuming that the OP is not just about Bach, that would apply if this were a 50/50 proposition or close to it, but it isn't. By far, the majority of the music listening, buying (scores) or playing audience in the 19th century and prior were drawn to the beauty of the music. As a composer, it must have been incredibly difficult to equal or surpass the beauty of one's contempories or those before, and still sound original.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

DaveM said:


> By far, the majority of the music listening or playing audience in the 19th century and prior were drawn to the beauty of the music.


Sounds normal, logical...


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

_How could great music of the past be so beautiful?_

Perhaps because the composers of the past seemed to value it more or contain it more within themselves. I think beauty is not that hard to find or define, though there are those who suggest that it's all just a matter of taste. I'm not convinced. All that's required is to look for examples of what's it's not. It may be interesting, fascinating, challenging and a host of other things, but I would never describe certain works as beautiful because I don't think they're trying to be. Beauty has the ability to provide a sanctuary of harmonious sound, to refresh the soul and spirit, and I believe it was more in demand in previous generations, with of course always the exceptions, though it can still be found in abundance today.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Well, beauty is just one criterion. Few people would call the Grosse Fuge or much of the Eroica beautiful. Or Brahms Fourth, or the Lizst Sonata, or Petroushka. Tippett's Midsummer Marriage (ca. 1954) is exceedingly beautiful. And Poulenc's Gloria, and much of Prokofiev's Romeo and Juliet. When beauty is sought, most composers will find a way.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Who said great contemporary music can't be beautiful?

Consider Babbitt's article "Who Cares if You Listen?". Here is a link to it. 
http://www.palestrant.com/babbitt.html

He describes in his serial music as "five-dimensional musical space determined by pitch-class, register, dynamic, duration, and timbre. These five components not only together define the single event, but, in the course of a work, the successive values of each component create an individually coherent structure, frequently in parallel with the corresponding structures created by each of the other components. Inability to perceive and remember precisely the values of any of these components results in a dislocation of the event in the work's musical space, an alternation of its relation to a other events in the work, and-thus-a falsification of the composition's total structure."

In his music, "new demands are made upon the perceptual and conceptual abilities of the listener."

Take a look at the analysis of his score for his Sounds and Words or Composition for Tenor and Six Instruments. 
https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/...ca/&httpsredir=1&article=1875&context=gc_etds

The pitch classes consist of trichords which extend from Webern's units of the 12 tone row, contained by which the quantity and duration of each measure is predetermined by dividing a section's total length by a certain modulus, which are you can easily hear amidst the tuplets within and ties between measures.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Phil loves classical said:


> ...Take a look at the analysis of his score for his Sounds and Words or Composition for Tenor and Six Instruments.
> https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/...ca/&httpsredir=1&article=1875&context=gc_etds
> 
> The pitch classes consist of trichords which extend from Webern's units of the 12 tone row, contained by which the quantity and duration of each measure is predetermined by dividing a section's total length by a certain modulus, which are you can easily hear amidst the tuplets within and ties between measures.


Is any of that supposed to prove that it's beautiful?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

DaveM said:


> Is any of that supposed to prove that it's beautiful?


Beautiful conceptually. Who cares how it sounds? 

Those interested could also check out the concept behind this work, which is also conceptually beautiful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_for_Four_Instruments


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

DaveM said:


> Is any of that supposed to prove that it's beautiful?


There's no proving anything is beautiful.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Beautiful conceptually. Who cares how it sounds?
> 
> Those interested could also check out the concept behind this work, which is also conceptually beautiful.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_for_Four_Instruments





Bulldog said:


> There's no proving anything is beautiful.


There is the concept of the golden ratio. They were able to prove George Clooney was the most handsome guy with the golden ratio I heard. In that case no atonal music could be considered beautiful, since it avoids the use of the dominant which involves the golden ratio.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Bulldog said:


> There's no proving anything is beautiful.


If that were true, there wouldn't be the need for such a word.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

We're dealing with subjective philosophical constructs here, once again. "Beauty" remains a purely subjective criterion. Even though as a society we can often agree on a standard for beauty, and for other such concepts, the standard is often not universal. A "beautiful" piece of Indian, Arabic, or Japanese "classical" music (i.e., of the traditional folk variety) might not be judged so euphonious by hearers familiar only with the music of Western culture. It is probably unreasonable to expect that there is some universal standard that all societies and cultures in all eras will agree upon.

When the composers of an era (say of the Baroque, or of the Romantic period) strive to write music, they generally fit into a philosophy of the times which governs their choices. Aside from the technical limitations set by instruments of the times, composers had limitations put in place by the philosophical judgments of their eras. Which is why we can recognize something that sounds Baroque, something that sounds as from the "Classical" period, and something that sounds "modern".

The very definition of what music is is different today than it was in Bach's or Beethoven's or even Schoenberg's day. Boundaries are expanded and composers are not restricted to a narrow range of rules and expectations. The most important idea is probably this: why must art be beautiful in the first place?

I've often commented on the idea that an ugly creation can be beautiful as an artwork. My favorite example is the alien creature from the _Alien_ movies. Heck, that thing is Ugggg-lyyyyy. Yet, it was constructed to look that way by a very skilled artist who went to work with pen on paper sketches, clay modellings, computer generated imagery, and finally the operational work of art that appears in the movies. Though ugly in appearance, as a work of art it is beautiful, because it accomplishes its purpose.

If John Cage wants to toss dice to decide upon which note to select and compose an entire composition in this manner, the final result may not be pleasing to your ears, but it does have an artistic merit, an artistic beauty since it accomplishes what the creator set out to accomplish.

I sometimes wonder if Debussy's _Clair de lune_ would sound beautiful to me had I never heard any other music than that composed by Xenakis. I really don't know the answer to that, though I suspect that upon first hearing the Debussy would sound weirdly strange if not completely ugly. I suspect I could eventually learn to appreciate the "beauty" that Debussy was attempting to record in the piece, but it would involve educating my ears to further types of modes and note progressions than the music of Xenakis allows.

One might ponder languages to better understand. Many foreign tongues sound harsh to me, non-mellifluous you might say. Others sound smooth and musical. Some seem beautiful, others less so. Yet, I understand that the speakers of any language hear only meanings in the words they speak, not sound, as I, generally an English speaker, hear English less for its musicality or astringency than I do simply for communicative meaning. (And I leave my interest in poetry, and the actual "sound" of the language, aside for the present argument.) I suspect that many foreign non-English speakers hear English as musical or mellifluous, while many others hear it as harsh or ugly. One's experiences determine one's tastes to a large degree. With language appreciation, and with music appreciation.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

ZJovicic said:


> This is an example of stuff that I find both extremely advanced and extremely beautiful:





ZJovicic said:


> Not really familiar or understandable, but still beautiful.


I'm not sure what's your motive in picking this particular set. Is this sarcasm? More than Bach's most other works, this one seems to focus more on intellectualism, (for more outwardly passionate fugues by Bach, I would pick Sinfonia from Partita in C minor BWV 826, Fantasy and Fugue in A minor BWV 944, or Well Tempered Clavier) 
but there are 'catchy' moments in this set as well, for example, try the 9th.
And all the contrapuntal tricks, twists, and turns in this set inspired later generations of masters in their creativity.






I'm not sure if Mozart actually knew Kunst Der Fuge as this show suggests, (as far as I know there's evidence he knew WTC and MO but no evidence he knew KDF), but you can see this is the kind of 'compositional guideline' generations of masters after Bach were drawing inspirations from. In classical music, there are pieces like Paganini Caprices that help performers develop their technique. Likewise, there have been both aesthetic and practical uses with KDF that later generations of Bach found immensely helpful.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Music has always been ugly and it has always been beautiful. 

If you want to listen to David Lanz and David Arkenstone, do it.


----------



## BabyGiraffe (Feb 24, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> In that case no atonal music could be considered beautiful, since it avoids the use of the dominant which involves the golden ratio.


Dominants or anything in 12 ET have nothing to do with musical interpretation of the golden ratio (but in 13 ET we have something very close to it and logarithm of it). I find "sacred" geometry for the biggest pseudo-scientific nonsense out there; can't understand why people are spreading misinformation.



ZJovicic said:


> How about asking another question: how could GREAT MUSIC (by which I mean serious, important, influential, etc) of the past be SO FREAKING BEAUTIFUL without being sugary, trite, etc...
> 
> Let's take Bach for example. He is perhaps one of the most influential composers, his music is not at all simple, it's pretty advanced stuff, yet his music IS SO BEAUTIFUL. Almost heavenly.
> 
> ...


Most of the music composed before late 19th century is the opposite of what you think of it - it's commercial, based on stock forms/motivic cliches, cheesy (mostly in major type scales ((not "keys" - Reneissance and Medieval music were pretty modal - with mixolidian, lydian (((rarely heard, but still exists) and others))), give me a break, please), serves non-musical function, mechanical (I'm sorry, but most of Bach and similar stuff sounds like a machine gun).

Why is it beatiful - highly logical passages and forms, very consonant sounding on harmonic instruments.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

DaveM said:


> If that were true, there wouldn't be the need for such a word.


There is no arguing with taste, right?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

BabyGiraffe said:


> Dominants or anything in 12 ET have nothing to do with musical interpretation of the golden ratio (but in 13 ET we have something very close to it and logarithm of it). I find "sacred" geometry for the biggest pseudo-scientific nonsense out there; can't understand why people are spreading misinformation.
> 
> Most of the music composed before late 19th century is the opposite of what you think of it - it's commercial, based on stock forms/motivic cliches, cheesy (mostly in major type scales ((not "keys" - Reneissance and Medieval music were pretty modal - with mixolidian, lydian (((rarely heard, but still exists) and others))), give me a break, please), serves non-musical function, mechanical (I'm sorry, but most of Bach and similar stuff sounds like a machine gun).
> 
> Why is it beatiful - highly logical passages and forms, very consonant sounding on harmonic instruments.


All those big words. I'm overwhelmed.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

I have to disagree with a lot of posts here. For example, something being conceptually beautiful, yet sounding terrible and not making any sense by how it sounds, is not enough to say it has artistic merit as a piece of music. Perhaps it has some artisrtic merit as a piece of conceptual art, but as a music, it's value is in my opinion ZERO.

Why am I saying this? Well, I think it's extremely easy to produce such works and it requires no real talent, inspiration, or, as Babbitt himself admitted, care for the listener and how it affects him.

Mathematics, physics and science in general are HUGE OCEANS with infinite concepts, formulas etc. It's easy to pick one, construct an algorithm based on some of them, and just write down the output as a musical score. Who cares if it sounds good, or if it makes any sense. It has a merit, because it's based on a beautiful concept... well... NOT.

I tried it myself, and the result was, expectedly, terrible... But hey, it's conceptually beautiful! But since I am not a part of classical music establishment, if I published it, they would call it "outsider art" and I would be a candidate for asylum. But when Babbitt publishes such thing, it's the most advanced music out there.

*Here is the example:*

View attachment Fractions of single digit primes.mp3


I composed a piece called "Fractions of Single Digit Primes". It's a polyrhythmic piece with five different beats, with the time between beats equal to fractions of single digit primes in respect to main beat...
So you have the main beat and then you have beat that occurs twice as often... length of time between beats is 1/2 of the time of the main beat.... So there's others with times 1/3, 1/5 and 1/7.
This work also has other features that qualifies it as a highly innovative, radical modern work:
*The duration:* just 2 seconds (but you can loop it) - Who cares if it is too short? If you can have works lasting 639 years (AS SLOW AS POSSIBLE), why couldn't I compose a 2 second masterpiece? At least my piece is much more humble and considerate towards listeners, you know, time is money, etc...
*The instruments used:* different objects that I found at home, and my bare hands (Well, isn't this a beautiful concept, emancipation of regular objects for musical purposes?)
*The note duration:* Who says note duration can only be fractions of powers of 2, like 2,4,8,16... (why not emancipate odd and otherwise non-standard note lengths, such as 1/3, 1/5 and 1/7)

The problem with this work is that it sounds kind of terrible and makes no sense musically. Now you can be real and admit it, or you can champion it as a new musical revelation.

It COULD make sense if it was artfully used in a longer work that makes sense, but using just this bare concept is IMO not real music. Even if it lasted 30 minutes it would still not be real music unless it made some sense to listeners in some way.

Also I agree that a good art does not need to be beautiful. But if its philosophy, or aesthetics is intentionally in favor of ugliness, it needs at least to be beautifully ugly, or its ugliness needs to make sense. Instead, a lot of the most radical music is not even properly ugly, but it's just noise.

Death metal is ugly. It's properly ugly and ugliness is its intended aesthetics. It is in some way beautifully ugly. 
It requires real talent and certain musical sensibility to pull it off, to achieve this aesthetics.

Unlike some modern composers, death metal artists DO CARE how it sounds. They intentionally go for a certain type of aesthetics that happens to be generally considered as ugly.

They know how they want it to sound and they know how it will sound.

On the other hand you don't need any of that for producing a radical, innovative CCM work. You can take any crazy idea and turn it into music, who cares how it sounds? Most likely, you won't have a clue how it will turn out to sound in the end. *But who cares, it's important that the concept is beautiful.* You can, for example measure the depth of snow at your place during one winter during and turn centimeters (or inches) of depth of snow cover into some pitch value or even just a bare frequency... for example 1 inch = 100 Hz. When there's no snow, you have rests. Then you also measure maximum temperature during the day, which informs the length of your notes. The hotter it is, the shorter note duration. For example if max temperature is between -10°C and -5°C use half a note... if it's between -5°C and 0°C use 1/4 notes, if it's between 0°C and 5°C use 1/8s... etc...


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Here's beautiful:









Here's beautifully ugly (which requires real talent and inspiration):









And here's just noise (or a work that makes no sense):








Death metal is like Gollum, a lot of CCM is like 3rd picture.

Again I am not criticizing all CCM but in particular those who claim that noise can be considered real music.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

ZJovicic said:


> Instead of always asking why contemporary music can often be ugly, to which the answer would usually be... well it's serious music, it's not sugar coated, it's advanced, it's for advanced listeners, it's uncompromising, it's forward looking, it's not commercial and whatnot...
> 
> How about asking another question: how could GREAT MUSIC (by which I mean serious, important, influential, etc) of the past be SO FREAKING BEAUTIFUL without being sugary, trite, etc...
> 
> ...


You should find a good few who agree with you here - many of the most prolific posters dislike much modern music and enjoy telling us about it - but your whole post is another straw man. You tell us you will not ask why modern music is so ugly (it isn't, it really isn't) and then give us your answer for why: not my answer, not an answer you got from anyone who enjoys new music but your own straw man answer, set up so as to be knocked down.

I greatly love the greats of the past but when I hear the words "beautiful music" my mind first goes to modern music - to Bartok, to Messiaen, to Boulez etc. OK, you don't hear it. If you could accept that with an open mind and humility I would know you will one day find ways to love it, too. But you invest a lot of time and effort complaining that it doesn't reach you. I doubt it ever will. Move on, I say!


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Finally I want to add just one thought.

I think the popular music is the enabling factor that allowed the classical music to go crazy in experimentation. Because popular music satisfied population's musical needs... as there is a genre for everyone... some would go to jazz, some would listen to soul, others reggae, some would listen to metal, etc... and all were happy. If they considered all such music inferior, they would go to masters of the past such as Brahms, Mozart, Beethoven... and so, no one is musically hungry.

So the composers can, instead of musically feeding the people, they can just sit in their lab and experiment. It wouldn't be a big stretch to label certain works as "not for human consumption"... Well As Slow As Possible is certainly like that, as you can't live long enough to listen to it anyway.

If popular music stopped existing and if the music of old masters got deleted the Contemporary Classical Music composers would be forced to feed the folks with some real, nutritious music, just like they did in old times.

And I am sure with all the info they have now and all the advancements in musical theory and science, now they would be able to produce even better, more nutritious music than the likes of Mozart did.

The only problem is... they don't want to, because state subsidies and popular music spoiled them.

What I consider "nutritious music"... well for me nutritious music is music that makes sense, and actively engages your brain, your emotions, and that is also complex and advanced. A perfect example would be Mozart's Symphony No. 41. It is engaging, it takes you by storm, and both your brain and your heart are happy. This is type of music that is both mentally and emotionally stimulating. It's music that I deem "healthy"... If I was sick, such music could be my medicine.

Mozart effect is debunked. It's not true that listening to Mozart makes you smarter. But it IS true that certain pieces temporarily improve spatial and temporal cognitive abilities. And it is true that good music is good for you. Good music of any genre... it engages your neurons, it can lower your blood pressure, it can improve your mental health, alleviate anxiety and depression.

Good music is music for listening. Something that you actually want to listen.

On the other hand while some CCM is conceptually exciting, I often find myself eventually fooled, trolled by it, as if, who am I kidding? The big question is whether Emperor has clothes or not? Would you recommend such music for improving anyone's mental or any other health or quality of life?

All that being said, I embarked on a mission of exploring CCM... I really do hope I'll find some gems that will prove me wrong!
More about that you can find here: ljtcc.music.blog


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

This gets tiresome. Why can't you accept that many people do enjoy the contemporary? You seem to want to say that we are all fools for doing so. that we have fallen prey to a con trick. Thanks for the insult. 

Yours, 

an idiot who would fall for anything.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Well, I am not saying that all CCM is like that. Recently I enjoyed Messiaen's Turangalila symphony and Babbitt's "None but the Lonely Flute".

But I do think that a large portion of CCM is very interesting as conceptual art, but kind of empty musically. And small part of it is kind of outright trolling.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I have no problem with conceptual art - or with those who _enjoy _it - but it is not for me. But there is just so much contemporary music that really transports me (in joy, in awe, in amusement, in rapture ...) and, after decades of listening to so much classical music, I have been finding (over the last five years but especially the last 18 months) myself able to enjoy it and to revel in it. Some of it took time, not that I ever _worked _at it (I would listen and reject and return, listen, reject until one day I wanted to listen to one of the pieces and would find it filled with new meaning) but I never closed my ears. As for enjoying Babbitt - that one still eludes me - and Messiaen ... you are on the threshold. Why spend post after post rubbishing a whole period's work of music (in all its huge variety) and those who gain pleasure from it?


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> I have no problem with conceptual art - or with those who _enjoy _it - but it is not for me. But there is just so much contemporary music that really transports me (in joy, in awe, in amusement, in rapture ...) and, after decades of listening to so much classical music, I have been finding (over the last five years but especially the last 18 months) myself able to enjoy it and to revel in it. Some of it took time, not that I ever _worked _at it (I would listen and reject and return, listen, reject until one day I wanted to listen to one of the pieces and would find it filled with new meaning) but I never closed my ears. As for enjoying Babbitt - that one still eludes me - and Messiaen ... you are on the threshold. Why spend post after post rubbishing a whole period's work of music (in all its huge variety) and those who gain pleasure from it?


Because while I do support CCM and wish it all the best and believe that it has more POTENTIAL than any other genre today, at the same time I think it kind of didn't live up to much of its potential in truly fruitful ways. If you employ a political analogy and types of music are like political parties, I am not a member of the rival party trying to undermine CCM, I am more like an internal critic who is still a part of the party but who wants to expose its shortcomings, hoping that it would be a constructive criticism.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

ZJovicic said:


> Because while I do support CCM and wish it all the best and believe that it has more POTENTIAL than any other genre today, at the same time I think it kind of didn't live up to much of its potential in truly fruitful ways. If you employ a political analogy and types of music are like political parties, I am not a member of the rival party trying to undermine CCM, I am more like an internal critic who is still a part of the party but who wants to expose its shortcomings, hoping that it would be a constructive criticism.


If people only composed music that you like, I'm sure that would not be "CCM living up to much of its potential in truly fruitful ways."

The only constructive criticism is creating or listening to music you like. Everything else is just insulting people who create or listen to music that you don't like.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

science said:


> If people only composed music that you like, I'm sure that would not be "CCM living up to much of its potential in truly fruitful ways."
> 
> The only constructive criticism is creating or listening to music you like. Everything else is just insulting people who create or listen to music that you don't like.


should we create safe spaces for people listening to modern music, so that they do not accidentaly get exposed to views and tastes opposite their own?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^^^The safe spaces are more needed by those who are determined to avoid contemporary music - for fear that they, like the dinosaurs, become extinct.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Jacck said:


> should we create safe spaces for people listening to modern music, so that they do not accidentaly get exposed to views and tastes opposite their own?


If you didn't feel insulted, would you be so insulting?

Relax. It's ok if you don't like classical music. If anyone looks down on you for it, just ignore them.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

I'm not afraid of contemporary music. In fact I was in particular attracted to those more notorious specimens of it. I just wanted to see what all that hype is about. I do admit being a bit lazy for not exploring sufficiently those less crazy contemporary pieces. In time I hope it will change. It's not that I avoided it completely either. I listened to some Philip Glass, Jennifer Higdon, some more accessible pieces as well.

I find Philip Glass kind of good, but a bit too simple and New-Agey. I find his symphonies enjoyable, beautiful, but a little bit dull.
Perhaps my favorite contemporary pieces (though already a bit oldish now) are Shostakovich symphonies n.10 and n.15.

My observations in this thread are more about those more radical composers and if you ask me why, I'll tell you. It is not that I have some particular problem with their output. I find it cool, like an interesting experiment. *But I do have a problem with them being usually considered the greatest or most important contemporary composers.* I have a problem with that because I find it easy and kind of trivial to make a piece intentionally as difficult and as impenetrable as possible, it's easy to make music sound random... So I think they don't deserve that reputation of being most important contemporary composers.

I am certain that there's huge amount of talent among contemporary composers and also that there are some masterpieces hiding in corners. But I have a problem with these masterpieces *hiding in corners.* They don't enjoy the spotlight. Instead, those radical guys are often hailed as true representatives of modern sound. And for a layman like myself it's easy to be fooled and to be initially attracted to them, because, even if their music sounds terrible, there's an attractive narrative surrounding this music, emancipation of dissonance, who cares if you listen etc... ? These narratives are kind of way more interesting and attractive than the music itself. So I properly feel trolled when I fall a victim to such a narrative and try to find some deeper meaning by listening Ferneyhough's string quartet 8 times in a row, trying to find some deeper sense in them... while there's probably none and the emperor is naked.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

ZJovicic said:


> I'm not afraid of contemporary music. In fact I was in particular attracted to those more notorious specimens of it. I just wanted to see what all that hype is about. I do admit being a bit lazy for not exploring sufficiently those less crazy contemporary pieces. In time I hope it will change. It's not that I avoided it completely either. I listened to some Philip Glass, Jennifer Higdon, some more accessible pieces as well.
> 
> I find Philip Glass kind of good, but a bit too simple and New-Agey. I find his symphonies enjoyable, beautiful, but a little bit dull.
> Perhaps my favorite contemporary pieces (though already a bit oldish now) are Shostakovich symphonies n.10 and n.15.
> ...


Some of the modern composers can be very rewarding, but you need to sink in dozens, or possibly hundreds of hours into modern music before you can appreciate it. An example is Schoenberg. I found him really strange, bizarre, ugly in my first encounter. But now I can derive intense pleasure from his music and see his as one of the greatest geniuses of the 20th century music. The "ugly" string quartet 4 is very beautiful for me now. For me the best composers of th 20th century are Janáček, Scriabin, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Messiaen, Schoenberg, Boulez, Rachmaninov, Martinů, Britten (from what little I have heard), Braga-Santos (his symphonies are underrated masterpieces), Sibelius, Strauss, Berg, Lutoslawski, Penderecki and other that I forgot for sure.

but the creme de la creme among the modernists are imho Bartok, Messiaen, Schoenberg and Boulez. There are other great ones, but these 4 stand for me out as giants.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

It's fascinating how many posters feel compelled to conclude from the fact that they personally do not like a work or composer, that those who do like it must be victims of the naked emperor syndrome. Because simply acknowledging that tastes differ and moving on would be too simple, right?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

ZJovicic said:


> *But I do have a problem with them being usually considered the greatest or most important contemporary composers.*


Why? Why does anyone's opinion about something like that bother you?



ZJovicic said:


> I am certain that there's huge amount of talent among contemporary composers and also that there are some masterpieces hiding in corners.


Who are they? Which works? Make threads about them. Celebrate them. That's how they get to be considered "the greatest or most important."

There's room here for everybody - including both you and people who love Ferneyhough's string quartets.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

In defense of Milton Babbitt, the first work I heard was "Ensembles for Synthesizer," a completely electronic work. I thought it was beautiful. Then, I heard "Philomel." I thought it was beautiful.
Babbitt is interested in certain types of tone rows which exhibit certain characteristics: ones that retain their intervallic identity under inversion, "all-interval rows" and other forms of symmetries and consistencies. George Perle calls this "12-tone tonality" and wrote a book on this. Although these concepts may be inaudible to most ears, I do feel that this kind of symmetry somehow asserts itself on an intuitive level.






Also, another observation: Zjovicic repeatedly reminds us that he is a "layman" composer. He seems to feel as if "he has a horse in the game," and that his survival or acceptance by a larger public somehow depends on his creation of "beautiful" music which has appeal to a "normal" audience.

SELLOUT! Never underestimate the intelligence of your audience!


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> In defense of Milton Babbitt, the first work I heard was "Ensembles for Synthesizer," a completely electronic work. I thought it was beautiful. Then, I heard "Philomel." I thought it was beautiful.
> Babbitt is interested in certain types of tone rows which exhibit certain characteristics: ones that retain their intervallic identity under inversion, "all-interval rows" and other forms of symmetries and consistencies. George Perle calls this "12-tone tonality" and wrote a book on this. Although these concepts may be inaudible to most ears, I do feel that this kind of symmetry somehow asserts itself on an intuitive level.
> 
> 
> ...


I am not any kind of composer yet, layman or otherwise. The fact that I put a couple of notes together on couple of occasions, does not make me a composer.

I would call myself composer if I had anything published by some relatively accepted venue. Before that I'm just a grown up kid playing around


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

> SELLOUT! Never underestimate the intelligence of your audience!


It's not about intelligence of the audience. If a piece is noise, you can be Einstein it will still be noise.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

ZJovicic said:


> It's not about intelligence of the audience. If a piece is noise, you can be Einstein it will still be noise.


If a piece is truly "noise," then it could be "noise music," and such a genre exists; the composers of this music admit that it is noise, and make no plea or pretense that it is "music."

Noise can be objectively defined as sound which has "harmonic content which is not coherently perceived as pitch," but this would include non-pitched percussion, which is present in "normal" classical music (cymbals, snare drums, etc.).

Some of Stockhausen's electronic music consists of "noise," but this is artfully composed and performed. The "noise" analogy tends to fall apart under closer examination.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Well, there is microscopic noise... which is actual white noise in which the sound itself is noise on a very small scale. But then there is also macroscopic noise, when you have music which is on microscopic level composed of clear tones, but in a big picture turns out to be little more than just noise.


----------



## BabyGiraffe (Feb 24, 2017)

Art Rock said:


> It's fascinating how many posters feel compelled to conclude from the fact that they personally do not like a work or composer, that those who do like it must be victims of the naked emperor syndrome. Because simply acknowledging that tastes differ and moving on would be too simple, right?


The problem is that tastes don't differ that much. People that like atonal, serial or random sounding noisy works are very-very small minority.

For example: the piece posted by millionraibows sounds like a tasteless joke compared to any popular electronic piece....

It is quite interesting that critics decided that serious music should sound like a freakshow soundtrack, not something really enjoyable by the masses.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I have no idea why Bach, Mozart, etc wrote such beautiful music. Perhaps because of their staggering genius?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

BabyGiraffe said:


> The problem is that tastes don't differ that much. People that like atonal, serial or random sounding noisy works are very-very small minority.
> 
> For example: the piece posted by millionraibows sounds like a tasteless joke compared to any popular electronic piece....
> 
> It is quite interesting that critics decided that serious music should sound like a freakshow soundtrack, not something really enjoyable by the masses.


Oh, no, not a tasteless joke!

We'll have to stop listening to Babbitt, guys.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Regarding Babbitt's electronic piece I enjoy it a lot. But I don't consider it music. For me it's non-musical sound art, and the good one.






Reminds me of some science fiction movies or video games. It's nice futuristic soundscape IMO. Beautiful, but not very musical IMO. I think this is how some advanced equipment would sound, like computers, some weird devices... When I listen to it I feel as if I am in some ultra advanced factory that produces God knows what advanced products.
I also it find it sounds a bit retro-futuristic, as if how people in the past imagined future would look like (or in this case, sound like)


----------



## BabyGiraffe (Feb 24, 2017)

science said:


> Oh, no, not a tasteless joke!
> 
> We'll have to stop listening to Babbitt, guys.


This implies that someone already listens to him and this is simply not the truth, if we can trust the counts on youtube... (At least some of the jokes in the comment sections are decent:" I paid my buddy's wedding DJ $50 to play this at his wedding.﻿ " )
He is known for being a major figure in contemporary music theory, but his music... well, his popularity speaks enough.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

What do you think how it compares to ACTUAL sounds of technology, such as this:


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Commodore 64 loading sound! Now THIS was a hit in its era!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

ZJovicic said:


> Regarding Babbitt's electronic piece I enjoy it a lot. But I don't consider it music. For me it's non-musical sound art, and the good one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You're not really listening to it, or you would notice that the piece is 12-tone, and is _music_ because it deals mainly with _pitched sounds,_ and timbre. This element of pitch distinguishes it from "noise."


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Here's another great work by Milton Babbitt, _Philomel,_ based on Ovid's _Metamorphosis _tale of a woman being turned into a bird. Transcendently beautiful.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

...and who says that Babbitt's music lacks popular appeal?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

ZJovicic said:


> I have to disagree with a lot of posts here. For example, something being conceptually beautiful, yet sounding terrible and not making any sense by how it sounds, is not enough to say it has artistic merit as a piece of music. Perhaps it has some artisrtic merit as a piece of conceptual art, but as a music, it's value is in my opinion ZERO.
> 
> Why am I saying this? Well, I think it's extremely easy to produce such works and it requires no real talent, inspiration, or, as Babbitt himself admitted, care for the listener and how it affects him.
> 
> ...


I was being sarcastic actually with the Babbitt on my first post with the Sounds and Words and Composition for Tenor and Six Instruments. I couldn't find a recording or sample of the music, likely due to it being very hard to perform, and unbelievably demanding on the listener, and conceptually seems rather arbitrary (how can you hear the measures when there is a lot of assymetric use of tuplets and ties between bars? It's forcing the music to fit his concept, rather than how it is heard) I doubt anyone hearing it without a score could follow the concept.

I did find the concept of his Composition for 4 instruments quite "beautiful", but again, I don't think any listener could appreciate the concept by listening to the music without analyzing the score first. What the analysis shows, and from Babbittt's own words, is Babbitt never intended the music to sound pleasing.

With regards to the OP, I believe the use of the golden ratio in the prevalent use of the dominant in pre-20th century music was what attracted audiences. The sonata form capitalized on dominants and cadences. At an early age when tinkering with the piano I always heard something special with the dominant interval, it is something ingrained in most of us.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

BabyGiraffe said:


> The problem is that tastes don't differ that much. People that like atonal, serial or random sounding noisy works are very-very small minority.
> 
> For example: the piece posted by millionraibows sounds like a tasteless joke compared to any popular electronic piece....
> 
> It is quite interesting that critics decided that serious music should sound like a freakshow soundtrack, not something really enjoyable by the masses.


Thanks for missing the point of my post completely. It has nothing to do with popularity, perceived or not. The people who shout "emperors clothes" are saying that the people who do enjoy this music, albeit a minority, are deluded. They are not, they actually appreciate it. At least, that is for me a far more logical assumption.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

BabyGiraffe said:


> This implies that someone already listens to him and this is simply not the truth, if we can trust the counts on youtube... (At least some of the jokes in the comment sections are decent:" I paid my buddy's wedding DJ $50 to play this at his wedding.﻿ " )
> He is known for being a major figure in contemporary music theory, but his music... well, his popularity speaks enough.


Ah, because Babbitt fans are a minority, they don't count. I didn't get that before.

Since that is a valid argument, I'll talk to some people who like pop music about classical, see where we stand.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

I'm wondering if people were given C64 loading sounds without knowing it's C64 loading sounds, and being told that it's the greatest, most radical and innovative masterpiece of some cutting edge contemporary composer, would they eventually discover just how great such piece is?

I think they would, because it's scientifically proven that any sound becomes subjectively more beautiful to us, the more familiar we are with it. Indeed people love the sound of their car engine! Motorcycle engine! There's a lot of people who kind of have some sort of nostalgic attachment to dial-up sounds even though these sounds are horrible. But you learn to like it after long exposure.

There were also experiments in which the same type of wine was given to 2 groups of people, the first group was told it was just a regular wine, the second group was told it was a very expensive, important wine. Of course the second group like the wine much more.

So perhaps dial-up and C64 sounds would sound much better if they were labeled Babbitt or Stockhousen!


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

ZJovicic said:


> Instead of always asking why contemporary music can often be ugly, to which the answer would usually be... well it's serious music, it's not sugar coated, it's advanced, it's for advanced listeners, it's uncompromising, it's forward looking, it's not commercial and whatnot...
> 
> How about asking another question: how could GREAT MUSIC (by which I mean serious, important, influential, etc) of the past be SO FREAKING BEAUTIFUL without being sugary, trite, etc...
> 
> ...


Perhaps it wsn't meant to be beautiful, that its beautification is just a product of the mass marketing of music in the 20th century, part of a kitschification process to make it easy to buy, a dumbing down. Maybe the real Bach, Beethoven etc were writing music intended to disturb.

And of course it is possible to do the same thing, think of all the kitsch that, I dunno, Philip Glass produces, I'm sure there are others, I just never listen -- John Luther Adams maybe.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> Perhaps it wsn't meant to be beautiful, that its beautification is just a product of the mass marketing of music in the 20th century, part of a kitschification process to make it easy to buy, a dumbing down. Maybe the real Bach, Beethoven etc were writing music intended to disturb.
> 
> And of course it is possible to do the same thing, think of all the kitsch that, I dunno, Philip Glass produces, I'm sure there are others, I just never listen -- John Luther Adams maybe.


Philip Glass, kitsch? Hmm...maybe more like Eric Satie, but not kitsch.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

This music by Frank Zappa sounds like Milton Babbitt, yet it is from a very popular rock album.


----------



## MaxKellerman (Jun 4, 2017)

ZJovicic said:


> Instead of always asking why contemporary music can often be ugly, to which the answer would usually be... well it's serious music, it's not sugar coated, it's advanced, it's for advanced listeners, it's uncompromising, it's forward looking, it's not commercial and whatnot...
> 
> How about asking another question: how could GREAT MUSIC (by which I mean serious, important, influential, etc) of the past be SO FREAKING BEAUTIFUL without being sugary, trite, etc...
> 
> ...


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

MaxKellerman said:


>


good video, but the process of seeing beauty in the ugly began earlier - with Baudelair or possible even earlier. Or think of realism in literature - Dostojevsky etc. Their goal was not to create beauty, but to make men reflect upon society and their lives. But I agree that much modern art as shown in the video is absolute rubbish.
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-...y-art-is-a-fraud-says-top-dealer-1628929.html


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> If a piece is truly "noise," then it could be "noise music," and such a genre exists; the composers of this music admit that it is noise, and make no plea or pretense that it is "music."
> 
> Noise can be objectively defined as sound which has "harmonic content which is not coherently perceived as pitch," but this would include non-pitched percussion, which is present in "normal" classical music (cymbals, snare drums, etc.).
> 
> Some of Stockhausen's electronic music consists of "noise," but this is artfully composed and performed. The "noise" analogy tends to fall apart under closer examination.


Under closer examination, I confirmed that it was noise.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

ZJovicic said:


> This is an example of stuff that I find both extremely advanced and extremely beautiful:


It's funny that of all the possible pieces you're taking as an example of what you're saying the Art of the fugue. It's probably (with the Grosse fuge) the most foreshadowing piece of music of what arrived in the twentieth century with all its anti-gracious music. Bach here wasn't even caring for beauty of melodies or something like that.
And while I like it a lot of people simply think that the Art of the fugue is ugly, cerebral and dry.
I think it's a beautiful work, but in the same sense of a lot of music of the twentieth century, more than say, still considering Bach, his two violin concerto, that is beautiful but in a much more traditional sense with its gorgeous melodies and lyricism.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Philip Glass, kitsch? Hmm...maybe more like Eric Satie, but not kitsch.


Actually I meant to say Reich not Glass! And what I was thinking of was an opera/ballet/film thing I once saw about Galileo.

However before you tell me off, I'll also say that this is one of my favourite pieces of music in the whole world, I once even went to a performance at The Tate (though not as good as this one on youtube)


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

In the last short while I listened to Messiaen's Quartet for the End of Time and Schoenberg's Piano Concerto. Of course, there is more these pieces that mere beauty but if anyone were to tell me that either of these works is not extremely beautiful I would suspect that their taste is so distant from mine that talking music with them may be a waste of time. I certainly wouldn't go to them for advice on the music of the last 100 years. The high I feel after listening to such music dissipates only after an hour or two: beauty has an afterglow.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

MaxKellerman said:


>


An excellent documentary - would make for an interesting debate.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

ZJovicic said:


> Here's beautiful:
> 
> View attachment 113145
> 
> ...


I'm wondering ….
Were I a graphic artist, which of these would be most difficult to duplicate? To make a copy of?


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

janxharris said:


> An excellent documentary - would make for an interesting debate.


Indeed, an excellent documentary. Scruton is brilliant. Naturally, members of the Cult of the Ugly despise him.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> Actually I meant to say Reich not Glass! And what I was thinking of was an opera/ballet/film thing I once saw about Galileo.
> 
> However before you tell me off, I'll also say that this is one of my favourite pieces of music in the whole world, I once even went to a performance at The Tate (though not as good as this one on youtube)


You could perform this piece yourself, Mandryka; all you need is a speaker, and amplifier, and a mike with a long cord.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

I said in another thread: "I feel lots of contemporary music still have good uses in spooky movies or documentaries dealing with mysteries. For example, in this documentary the music played around 20:00~ 22:00 sounds somewhat like Stockhausen and helps instill emotions and atmosphere appropriate for the visual material. I can't think of any other type of music that can do this better."


----------



## ManuelMozart95 (Sep 29, 2018)

You should watch a documentary by BBC called Why beauty Matters.
Basically their theory is that in the past we used to place much more value to beauty but since the beginnings of the 20th Century it has become more common in the arts to try to make statements and shock audiences more than pursuing beauty.

Of course it is a generalization cause there have been works of great beauty in the arts all the way until today and there were ugly things in the past also.
But I think there's some truth to it, in the past beauty was a much more pursued goal and there were many standards followed to achieve it.
Nowadays there's more work put on making an statement than trying to achieve beauty and there are less standards because "beuaty is in the eye of the beholder" mentality and "everything is art as long as I say it is"


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

The degree of subjectivity in the appreciation of given works of music as being beautiful is inversely proportional to the number of people who believe such works to be beautiful.


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> Perhaps it wsn't meant to be beautiful, that its beautification is just a product of the mass marketing of music in the 20th century, part of a kitschification process to make it easy to buy, a dumbing down. Maybe the real Bach, Beethoven etc were writing music intended to disturb.


A ridiculous statement. Thanks for the laugh.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

DaveM said:


> The degree of subjectivity in the appreciation of given works of music as being beautiful is inversely proportional to the number of people who believe such works to be beautiful.


That would seem to imply that people who believe Justin Bieber's music to be beautiful are being more objective than those who would say the same of Mozart.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

KenOC said:


> That would seem to imply that people who believe Justin Bieber's music to be beautiful are being more objective than those who would say the same of Mozart.


I may have missed it, but I don't remember Bieber's music as being described as beautiful by anybody, even young people. That's not to say they didn't find other elements of it attractive.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

ManuelMozart95 said:


> You should watch a documentary by BBC called Why beauty Matters.
> Basically their theory is that in the past we used to place much more value to beauty but since the beginnings of the 20th Century it has become more common in the arts to try to make statements and shock audiences more than pursuing beauty.
> 
> Of course it is a generalization cause there have been works of great beauty in the arts all the way until today and there were ugly things in the past also.
> ...


Despite his pretensions, Roger Scruton is really just a guy. He's good at talking and writing, but I doubt he's ever had a significant, original insight.


----------



## Iota (Jun 20, 2018)

ArsMusica said:


> ... Cult of the Ugly.


 "A man sees in the world 
What he carries in his heart."

― Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

ManuelMozart95 said:


> You should watch a documentary by BBC called Why beauty Matters.
> Basically their theory is that in the past we used to place much more value to beauty but since the beginnings of the 20th Century it has become more common in the arts to try to make statements and shock audiences more than pursuing beauty.
> 
> Of course it is a generalization cause there have been works of great beauty in the arts all the way until today and there were ugly things in the past also.
> ...


Frankly, that is a ridiculous argument. Of course, we can all think of "modern" art that was about an idea, perhaps a shocking one, but to argue that such works sum up art since the early 20th century is nonsense. It is true that we started theorising about, and analysising the meaning of, all art a lot more in the 20th century but that doesn't mean that artists on the whole abandoned the quest for beauty.


----------



## Iota (Jun 20, 2018)

Bulldog said:


> There's no proving anything is beautiful.


Quite.

If anybody argues anything other than that beauty is ultimately in the eye of the beholder, I would suggest they are putting makeup on the human condition.

I look for beauty in art and find it both in the past and present. It seems when enough beholders find the same thing beautiful for long enough, we call it an eternal beauty, as if it is outside of the field of human subjectivity. But although it can feel like that, I think it is illusory to insist that it really is.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

People who believe Justin Bieber's music to be beautiful are being more objective than those who would say the same of Mozart, because there are more of them.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> People who believe Justin Bieber's music to be beautiful are being more objective than those who would say the same of Mozart, because there are more of them.


Have you listened to Bieber's music lately? It's more about the rhythm than melodic beauty.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

It's all about submission, and letting go of your ego: surrender to the rhythm, and you shall find your being in the moment. Stop looking for narrative lines or continuity. Anyway, the processes which formed Beiber's music are invisible to us. The rhythmic symmetries are there, but only on an intuitive level, if at all.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> It's all about submission, and letting go of your ego: surrender to the rhythm, and you shall find your being in the moment. Stop looking for narrative lines or continuity. Anyway, the processes which formed Beiber's music are invisible to us. The rhythmic symmetries are there, but only on an intuitive level, if at all.


Well, that answers questions I never asked and solves problems I never had.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> It's all about submission, and letting go of your ego: surrender to the rhythm, and you shall find your being in the moment. Stop looking for narrative lines or continuity. Anyway, the processes which formed Beiber's music are invisible to us. The rhythmic symmetries are there, but only on an intuitive level, if at all.


I watched the whole BBC documentary and it was very interesting. It ended with the beautiful Stabat Mater of Pergolesi. And towards the end of the video, the author claimed that beauty is a state, where the self is absent. I agree with it, but people who have no direct experience of this will probably misunderstand it. Krishnamurti has said similar things many times
https://jkrishnamurti.org/content/chapter-8-art-beauty-and-creation


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

MaxKellerman said:


>


Good documentary. I've also read a bit of philosophy of aesthetics of Art. I agree with him that just because the artist says that something they produced is Art, doesn't make it Art (at least good Art). I liked the comments on the example of the 2 versions of the unmade bed. He is not rejecting all modern art, but art without a tight concept, or being too loose or open to interpretation (basically no aspect being presented by the artist, but more by the audience or viewer). He did acknowledge the value in shock or unusual perspective, but not when it is repeated, or real thought put into it.

Serialism, musique concrete and spectral music had in general lost the boldness/freshness and effect they had to its first audiences. It is more meaningful when put in contrast with more conservative/traditional music, not with each other within the subgenre. It's like 95% of the message was already gotten across already with the first works. In every era, there was always a lot of imitation by lesser composers. I think we are seeing just imitations now for the last 30 years.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^^^ But you are comparing thoughts about conceptual art and conceptual elements of art with music that is abstract but uses a set of rules to provide shape to the music. These are very different things. All you have done is swallow (whole) an argument about art - a don't those theorists love to treat all modern art as conceptual! - and apply it to a very different circumstance. There is no "message" in the methods of serialism or spectralism: they are just methods. There may be more of a message in the method of musique concrete but, again, the purpose is to find music rather than to shock. I really do wish more of us could manage to give the music a chance instead of coming up with more and more elaborate excuses for explaining why we can't!


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> ^^^ But you are comparing thoughts about conceptual art and conceptual elements of art with music that is abstract but uses a set of rules to provide shape to the music. These are very different things. All you have done is swallow (whole) an argument about art - a don't those theorists love to treat all modern art as conceptual! - and apply it to a very different circumstance. There is no "message" in the methods of serialism or spectralism: they are just methods. There may be more of a message in the method of musique concrete but, again, the purpose is to find music rather than to shock. I really do wish more of us could manage to give the music a chance instead of coming up with more and more elaborate excuses for explaining why we can't!


Ok, not necessarily message, but concept of serialism, etc. I don't believe recent music pushes concepts further in meaningful ways. It is a similar argument by some ultramodernists saying traditional music wasn't pushing far forward from Bach or Beethoven at the end of the 19th Century or today, except music that doesn't exemplify beauty won't go as far in worth, if one can accept that beauty is not the goal of serialism, etc.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Recent music should not push further for more meaning, and achieve greater things than Beethoven. It should simply serve its function in this age, which is not meant to glorify Man's originality, his ingenuity, or any of that. It should be a pillar which holds its own weight.

How could great music of the past be so beautiful? Because that is the past. This is now, and music should be like a chair. You sit in it, then perhaps later, ponder its beauty. But first and foremost, it's a chair.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Don't forget, there's some good tonal contemporary classical music out there such as Richard Kastle's neo-Romantic works


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

----------------------------------------------


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> Ok, not necessarily message, but concept of serialism, etc. I don't believe recent music pushes concepts further in meaningful ways. It is a similar argument by some ultramodernists saying traditional music wasn't pushing far forward from Bach or Beethoven at the end of the 19th Century or today, except music that doesn't exemplify beauty won't go as far in worth, if one can accept that beauty is not the goal of serialism, etc.


Well, I guess changes in methods change slowly and always have done. They add up to quite a lot in the end. But I am not sure that I see the "leap" from late Romantic tonalism and serialism as being that large either. And I certainly do not think it was about shocking anyone. It was about finding a method for expressing something new. And it proved quite fertile. As for all the others "movements" or approaches, I suppose they partly reflect the massive diversification in musical styles over the last 100 years but I am not sure they add up to that much. It is just that we live in times when people (us!) like to be able to categorise and label the diversity we see. Artists were even writing manifestos for their movements in the early 20th century. It all seems a little childish to me but it doesn't stop some of the art being great and some of it seeming empty to me.

As for the beauty question ... it is line of discussion that leads to argument about what music is beautiful and what isn't. Is Mahler 6 beautiful or grim? Is Bartok? Is Messiaen? Is Boulez? Is Shostakovich? I think they all are (with the most difficult case being to support the assertion that Shostakovich is beautiful). Personally, I think that beauty in art and music has been a greater concern over the last 50 years than at any time in the last 200 years. But many will disagree and the question could not be resolved, so what's the point? I also think that any attempt to be at all decisive (even with myself) about the "absolute merit" (I'm talking posterity here) of art that is less than 75 years old is doomed.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

hammeredklavier said:


> Don't forget, there's some good tonal contemporary classical music out there such as Richard Kastle's neo-Romantic works


Well we all have different tastes! I just hear awful (really awful) pastiche! I think you are right that there is good tonal contemporary music (and it might even be called neo-romantic) but that was not it as far as I am concerned!


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Perhaps, the more one is into contemporary music the less one is interested in discussing the subject of beauty in classical music. Some above seem to think the subject is so difficult as to not worth being discussed.

Particularly starting in the latter 18th and entire 19th, the subject was not a mystery. Composers during that period had a pretty good idea what was going to be perceived as beautiful by the public.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Enthusiast said:


> Well we all have different tastes! I just hear awful (really awful) pastiche! I think you are right that there is good tonal contemporary music (and it might even be called neo-romantic) but that was not it as far as I am concerned!


I don't admire them. I just find Kastle's trolly attitude hilariously interesting and it shows in his music.


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

science said:


> Despite his pretensions, Roger Scruton is really just a guy. He's good at talking and writing, but I doubt *he's ever had a significant, original insight.*


Hey, sounds just like you.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

ZJovicic said:


> This is an example of stuff that I find both extremely advanced and extremely beautiful:


If Christoff Wolff's understanding of this work is correct ('an exploration in depth of the contrapuntal possibilities inherent in a single musical subject') then it's probably not surprising if some listeners find it otherwise than beautiful - amounting, rather, to a mere academic exercise.

One finds the same (or very similar) decorations in his other contrapuntal works.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

janxharris said:


> If Christoff Wolff's understanding of this work is correct ('an exploration in depth of the contrapuntal possibilities inherent in a single musical subject') then it's probably not surprising if some listeners find it otherwise than beautiful - amounting, rather, to a mere academic exercise.
> 
> One finds the same (or very similar) decorations in his other contrapuntal works.


Your ideas are so wrong here. Wolff considers Bach's music _perfect_, that is even beyond what I think any music can achieve. You are misrepresenting his statement. It seems like many people view music through this Romantic filter that anything that is not related to a highly personal statement, is somehow lesser, sterile or a mere academic exercise. Bach's music unites art with science, with the cosmos, spirituality, everything. A mere academic exercise? I am disgusted.

You do realize that Haydn, Beethoven, Brahms etc. music is also largely about exploring the possibilities of a musical subject? Are they just 'mere academic exercises' as well?

Pointing out that there are 'similar decorations' in his other contrapuntal works, is a vague and meaningless criticism. The _Art of Fugue_ is a highly unique work and is representative of Bach's endless invention. There are similarities in the oeuvre's of every major composer.

I don't care whether or not you find the work beautiful, just don't try to justify your subjective response with twisted logic.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

tdc said:


> Your ideas are so wrong here. Wolff considers Bach's music _perfect_, that is even beyond what I think any music can achieve. You are misrepresenting his statement. It seems like many people view music through this Romantic filter that anything that is not related to a highly personal statement, is somehow lesser, sterile or a mere academic exercise. Bach's music unites art with science, with the cosmos, spirituality, everything. A mere academic exercise? I am disgusted.


I didn't misrepresent Wolff - if the focus was as he described then it might explain _my_ reaction to it. So you are disgusted by my perception of the piece? Am i disgusted that you perceive it otherwise? No.

Yes - thus far it sounds to me like Bach is juggling notes.



> You do realize that Haydn, Beethoven, Brahms etc. music is also largely about exploring the possibilities of a musical subject? Are they just 'mere academic exercises' as well?


Without being specific it's hard to respond.



> Pointing out that there are 'similar decorations' in his other contrapuntal works, is a vague and meaningless criticism. The _Art of Fugue_ is a highly unique work and is representative of Bach's endless invention. There are similarities in the oeuvre's of every major composer.


Yes, there are such similarities and it dilutes their output.



> I don't care whether or not you find the work beautiful, just don't try to justify your subjective response with twisted logic.


You didn't establish any twisted logic.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

janxharris said:


> If Christoff Wolff's understanding of this work is correct ('an exploration in depth of the contrapuntal possibilities inherent in a single musical subject') then it's probably not surprising if some listeners find it otherwise than beautiful - amounting, rather, to a mere academic exercise.
> 
> One finds the same (or very similar) decorations in his other contrapuntal works.


I'm not familiar with Wolff but I tend to agree with him. I've long felt that Bach wrote his TAOTF to pass on the art of writing fugues-hence the obvious title-for those interested in learning how to do it. I've admired it but it has never been a favorite of mine because I consider it more instructional and less inspired as a performance work. It can be performed but I do not think that Bach wrote it to be a performance work but to be _studied_... Wolff's point of view may be upsetting to others, but his opinion is not necessarily inimical to the beauty that can be found in these teachings but that Bach may have had something more in mind than expressing beauty, such as expressing _order_, and it's probably a debate that has no ending just like this work has no ending and the music trails off, deliberately so, IMO, into the invisible realm from where all music comes. That's why I feel that he never finished it when he had years to do so. It was a subtle encouragement to others to write their own fugues and that there's such a thing as divine order that can be expressed in music. I believe that Bach felt that fugues represented the highest in divine order and that whatever beauty can be found in TAOTF is because beauty can be found order.


----------



## Anna Strobl (Mar 13, 2019)

There are contemporary composers writing in such style : Karl Jenkins is one. Hindemith was inspired by Baroque. 

Past styles have been brought forward into the present.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

janxharris said:


> You didn't establish any twisted logic.


You've taken one quote out of Wolff's book and misrepresented his view on the work, 'exploration in depth' and 'contrapuntal possibilities' can be looked at in many ways beyond a 'mere academic exercise'. How is it logical to assume that Wolff thinks Bach's music is perfect, yet simultaneously a 'mere academic exercise.' The latter is your idea and not his.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Larkenfield said:


> *I'm not familiar with Wolff* but I tend to agree with him. I've long felt that Bach wrote his TAOTF to pass on the art of writing fugues-hence the obvious title-for those interested in learning how to do it. I've admired it but it has never been a favorite of mine because I consider it more instructional and less inspired as a performance work. It can be performed but I do not think that Bach wrote it to be a performance work but to be _studied_... *Wolff's point of view may be upsetting to others,* but his opinion is not necessarily inimical to the beauty that can be found in these teachings but that Bach may have had something more in mind than expressing beauty, such as expressing _order_, and it's probably a debate that has no ending just like this work has no ending and the music trails off, deliberately so, IMO, into the invisible realm from where all music comes. That's why I feel that he never finished it when he had years to do so. It was a subtle encouragement to others to write their own fugues and that there's such a thing as divine order that can be expressed in music. I believe that Bach felt that fugues represented the highest in divine order and that whatever beauty can be found in TAOTF is because beauty can be found order.


You are talking about Wolff's ideas as though you've read them and understand them. This is not the case.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

tdc said:


> You are talking about Wolff's ideas as though you've read them and understand them. This is not the case.


Then my comments stand on their _own_ from personal experience and _other_ resources. I wouldn't change a word, and TAOTF certainly explores 'contrapuntal possibilities'. Bach's 'contrapuntal possibilities' can be seen in this way too and found in this great work. It seems clearly evident that it was meant to be instructive and studied, hence its name, or is the writing of a fugue not an art that requires study? He's teaching how to write a fugue with many numbered examples and this strongly suggests that this is not necessarily a performance piece, though of course these studies were certainly meant to be heard because that's part of the study. On the other hand, maybe fugues just grow on trees like apples and this was always intended as a performance piece from the beginning. But I strongly doubt it, Wolff or no Wolff. Woof! Nor would I change my views on why he never finished it.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> Recent music should not push further for more meaning, and achieve greater things than Beethoven. It should simply serve its function in this age, which is not meant to glorify Man's originality, his ingenuity, or any of that. It should be a pillar which holds its own weight.
> 
> How could great music of the past be so beautiful? Because that is the past. This is now, and music should be like a chair. You sit in it, then perhaps later, ponder its beauty. But first and foremost, it's a chair.


What is the 'function' of music in this age? Assuming it has one. And why _wouldn't_ it be simply demonstrating ingenuity; say for example, excellent counterpoint or great orchestration?

Of course the best sort of art does both that _and_ makes some kind of comment. Sometimes it's a big comment, sometimes it's tiny. A bit more than the functionality of a chair, which is later reflected upon in it's own aesthetic right.

Even then there are places to sit other than chairs which don't even need to be reflected upon as a work of art. Why not go right to that and avoid art altogether?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

janxharris said:


> I didn't misrepresent Wolff - if the focus was as he described then it might explain _my_ reaction to it. So you are disgusted by my perception of the piece? Am i disgusted that you perceive it otherwise? No.
> 
> Yes - thus far it sounds to me like Bach is juggling notes.
> 
> ...


From what I understand, Wolff isn't even completely right, cause there is a number of double and triple fugues in the set that are not monothematic in character, meaning they're not necessarily explorations on one single subject, but multiple subjects.

'an exploration in depth of the contrapuntal possibilities inherent in a single musical subject' - you can say this for just about any single fugue, (not just Bach's). That's what a single fugue is about. It explores the possibilities of a subject through development, economic use of the material, and various contrapuntal techniques such as inversion, stretto, augmentation, invertible counterpoint, just as sonatas are a musical form that explores themes through exposition, development, recapitulation and variations are a musical form that explores possibilities of themes through thematic variation. Wolff's statement doesn't say anything about his view on the aesthetic value of the work. What he said is more like the definition of 'fugue'.

I'm curious what are your thoughts on the last movement of the Hammerklavier sonata (just to give you a specific example since you ask for one and you seem to admire Beethoven so much)


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Larkenfield said:


> Then my comments stand on their _own_ from personal experience and _other_ resources. I wouldn't change a word, and TAOTF certainly explores 'contrapuntal possibilities'. Bach's teaching it and the term 'contrapuntal possibilities' can be interpreted in this way too and found in this great work. It seems clearly evident that it was meant to be instructive and studied, hence its name, or is the writing of a fugue not an art that requires study? He's teaching how to write a fugue with many numbered examples and this strongly suggests that this is not necessarily a performance piece, though of course these studies were certainly meant to be heard because that's part of the study. On the other hand, maybe fugues grow on trees like apples and this was always intended as a performance piece. But I strongly doubt it, Wolff or no Wolff. Woof!


Not necessarily a performance piece, yet certainly meant to be heard, not sure that makes a lot of sense to me.

Maybe fugues grow on trees, right because pieces that _were_ meant to be performed grow on trees?

Whatever Larkenfield, you've already made up your mind on this work (it is academic, and not inspired) and rather than learning more about it, you are now just making up nonsense.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

hammeredklavier said:


> From what I understand, Wolff isn't even completely right, cause there is a number of double and triple fugues in the set that are not monothematic in character, meaning they're not necessarily explorations on one single subject, but multiple subjects.
> 
> 'an exploration in depth of the contrapuntal possibilities inherent in a single musical subject' - you can say this for just about any single fugue, (not just Bach's). That's what a single fugue is about. It explores the possibilities of a subject through development, economic use of the material, and various contrapuntal techniques such as inversion, stretto, augmentation, invertible counterpoint, just as sonatas are a musical form that explores themes through exposition, development, recapitulation and variations are a musical form that explores possibilities of themes through thematic variation. Wolff's statement doesn't say anything about his view on the aesthetic value of the work. What he said is more like the definition of 'fugue'.
> 
> I'm curious what are your thoughts on the last movement of the Hammerklavier sonata (just to give you a specific example since you ask for one and you seem to admire Beethoven so much)


Wolff goes into a lot of detail about the different types of fugues in this work, as I said janxharris just took a small quote and used it out of context in an attempt to reinforce an ignorant belief.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

tdc said:


> Wolff goes into a lot of detail about the different types of fugues in this work, as I said janxharris just took a small quote and used it out of context in an attempt to reinforce an ignorant belief.


I appreciate knowing that. But has anyone posted Wolff's entire quote because I looked for it.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

'An exploration in depth of the contrapuntal possibilities inherent in a single musical subject' can mean a four-part fugue.


----------



## Flutter (Mar 26, 2019)

ZJovicic said:


> Instead of always asking why contemporary music can often be ugly, to which the answer would usually be... well it's serious music, it's not sugar coated, it's advanced, it's for advanced listeners, it's uncompromising, it's forward looking, it's not commercial and whatnot...
> 
> How about asking another question: how could GREAT MUSIC (by which I mean serious, important, influential, etc) of the past be SO FREAKING BEAUTIFUL without being sugary, trite, etc...
> 
> ...


Probably the role of consonance more than anything else


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Larkenfield said:


> 'An exploration in depth of the contrapuntal possibilities inherent in a single musical subject' can mean a four-part fugue.


Yes. It would be a four-part 'single' fugue in that case. A four-part fugue (or fugue with any number of voices for that matter), can be a four-part double fugue or a four-part triple fugue depending on the number of subjects they develop with. For example, the F sharp minor fugue from WTC book 2 is a three-part triple fugue, or triple fugue in three voices


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

There is nothing that makes didactic works inferior or less 'inspired' than a work composed for any other purpose.

Here are some of Wolff's thoughts on Bach's approach to composition and _The Art of Fugue_ specifically:

"Resembling the model of seventeenth-century scientific inquiry, Bach's musical inquiry demonstrates its results as it proceeds. His musical knowledge is invariably tied to his musical experience, as his compositions so amply manifest whether canon, concerto, cantata or anything else. And fully aware that Bach's music always invites one to discover "polyphony in its greatest strength" and "the most hidden secrets of harmony", Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach issued the warning that only "those that have a concept of what is possible in art and who desire original thought and its special, unusual elaboration will receive from it full satisfaction." Showing what is possible in art however, meant much more for Bach than demonstrating a mere philosophical theorem. Too full-blooded a performing musician, Bach would not have been interested in pursuing an abstract goal. Yet he definitely wanted his musical science understood as a means of gaining "insight into the depths of the wisdom of the world" (according to Birnbaum's statement on Bach's behalf), reflecting a metaphysical dimension in his musical thought."

"Bach's concentrated approach to his work, to reach what was possible in art, pertained to all aspects of music, from theory to composition and from performance to physiology and the technology of instruments. In the final analysis, this approach provides the key to understanding his never ending musical empiricism, which deliberately tied theoretical knowledge to practical experience. Most notably, Bach's compositions, as the exceedingly careful musical elaborations that they are, may epitomize nothing less than the difficult task of finding for himself an argument for the existence of God - perhaps the ultimate goal of his musical science."

"_The Art of Fugue_, though linked to earlier fugue compositions, moves to a level that is utterly novel. The entire multi sectional work is derived from the same thematic material, a musical plan that presupposes a far-reaching thought process regarding the harmonic-contrapuntal implications of the chosen theme. The result is more than a study of fugue: it is a compendium of the range offered by the utmost concentration and the highest technical demands of instrumental counterpoint."

As Wolff writes Bach's music is about "showing what is possible in art", proving "the existence of God", and acting "as a true mirror of the well-ordered universe, illustrating how counterpoint generates harmony and rhythm and how the abstract concepts of space and time coalesce in a concrete musical subject".


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

'As Wolff writes Bach's music is about "showing what is possible in art", proving "the existence of God", and acting "as a true mirror of the well-ordered universe, illustrating how counterpoint generates harmony and rhythm and how the abstract concepts of space and time coalesce in a concrete musical subject".'
===
tdc, thank you for posting the Wolff! Very illuminating, and I feel the same way about Bach's AOTF and just about anything else he wrote–that it was his fundamental expression of the Divine Order of the universe—that he had deeply penetrated into the possibilities, perhaps more than anyone before or since—and I expressed thoughts related to that in an earlier post... I believe anyone can reach that same conclusion about Bach's sense of interest in Divine Order simply by spending time with AOTF... What I haven't read is Wolff thoughts on Bach's unfinished final fugue. I believe it was deliberate left that way and was not an oversight for reasons that I've also shared... I greatly esteem Wolff's insights, at least so far, with what little that I've read because he's not a dry academic. He sees into the depths of Bach's character.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

hammeredklavier said:


> From what I understand, Wolff isn't even completely right, cause there is a number of double and triple fugues in the set that are not monothematic in character, meaning they're not necessarily explorations on one single subject, but multiple subjects.
> 
> 'an exploration in depth of the contrapuntal possibilities inherent in a single musical subject' - you can say this for just about any single fugue, (not just Bach's). That's what a single fugue is about. It explores the possibilities of a subject through development, economic use of the material, and various contrapuntal techniques such as inversion, stretto, augmentation, invertible counterpoint, just as sonatas are a musical form that explores themes through exposition, development, recapitulation and variations are a musical form that explores possibilities of themes through thematic variation. Wolff's statement doesn't say anything about his view on the aesthetic value of the work. What he said is more like the definition of 'fugue'.
> 
> I'm curious what are your thoughts on the last movement of the Hammerklavier sonata (just to give you a specific example since you ask for one and you seem to admire Beethoven so much)


Thanks. I will respond but it may take a while.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Larkenfield said:


> tdc, thank you for posting the Wolff!...What I haven't read is Wolff thoughts on Bach's unfinished final fugue. I believe it was deliberate left that way and was not an oversight for reasons that I've also shared... I greatly esteem Wolff's insights, at least so far, with what little that I've read because he's not a dry academic. He sees into the depths of Bach's character.


No problem, Wolff believes Bach was in the process of completing the AoF, and cites the evidence of an item mentioned in the obituary of a draft for a fugue that "was to contain four themes and to have been afterward inverted note for note in all four voices." So he thinks the work was more complete than what has come down to us, but not sufficiently worked out to finish the final quadruple fugue.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

tdc said:


> You've taken one quote out of Wolff's book and misrepresented his view on the work, 'exploration in depth' and 'contrapuntal possibilities' can be looked at in many ways beyond a 'mere academic exercise'. How is it logical to assume that Wolff thinks Bach's music is perfect, yet simultaneously a 'mere academic exercise.' The latter is your idea and not his.


There was no intention to misrepresent Wolff. Obviously he considered Bach's Art of Fugue efficacious in achieving an expression of Divine order even despite the '*governing idea* of a work,' being, 'an exploration in depth of the contrapuntal possibilities inherent in a single musical subject.' All I hear is a tune being decorated and imitated. It is superbly crafted, but I am not hearing any expression that goes beyond the notes themselves.

I respect the fact that you and others disagree. The OP cited the work as an example of the 'beautiful' and 'heavenly'; I was merely disagreeing.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

hammeredklavier said:


> From what I understand, Wolff isn't even completely right, cause there is a number of double and triple fugues in the set that are not monothematic in character, meaning they're not necessarily explorations on one single subject, but multiple subjects.


Indeed and it's therefore baffling that wikipedia affirms Wolff's view and then proceeds to cite contrapunctus VIII as a triple fugue.



> 'an exploration in depth of the contrapuntal possibilities inherent in a single musical subject' - you can say this for just about any single fugue, (not just Bach's). That's what a single fugue is about. It explores the possibilities of a subject through development, economic use of the material, and various contrapuntal techniques such as inversion, stretto, augmentation, invertible counterpoint, just as sonatas are a musical form that explores themes through exposition, development, recapitulation and variations are a musical form that explores possibilities of themes through thematic variation. Wolff's statement doesn't say anything about his view on the aesthetic value of the work. What he said is more like the definition of 'fugue'.


I usually don't like fugues because they can sound quite mechanical and rather academic.



> I'm curious what are your thoughts on the last movement of the Hammerklavier sonata (just to give you a specific example since you ask for one and you seem to admire Beethoven so much)


I do like a limited number of Beethoven works. I'm not familiar with this sonata; it will take a while to digest.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

The fugue is a type of polyphonic composition or compositional technique based on a principal theme (subject) and melodic lines (counterpoint) that imitate the principal theme. In other words, a single theme can be turned into a three- or four-part fugue or canon. This work consists of 14 fugues and 4 canons, each using some variation of a single principal subject, and generally ordered in increasing complexity. If this is not a teaching method, I don't know what is. Bach had at least six years to complete the AOTF and yet it supposedly remains unfinished because of his sudden death. It's more likely he left it deliberately unfinished...


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

janxharris said:


> Indeed and it's therefore baffling that wikipedia affirms Wolff's view and then proceeds to cite contrapunctus VIII as a triple fugue.


It might be because wikipedia articles are written by several people working at various different parts of them. They probably didn't notice the absurdity in Wolff's statement, or they knew it but simply chose not to address it in the article.



Larkenfield said:


> The fugue is a type of polyphonic composition or compositional technique based on a principal theme (subject) and melodic lines (counterpoint) that imitate the principal theme. In other words, a single theme can be turned into a three- or four-part fugue or canon. This work consists of 14 fugues and 4 canons, each using some variation of a single principal subject, and generally ordered in increasing complexity. If this is not a teaching method, I don't know what is. Bach had at least six years to complete the AOTF and yet it supposedly remains unfinished because of his sudden death. It's more likely he left it deliberately unfinished...


'multi-subject' fugues are not. A double fugue has two separate subjects similarly treated, with each subject having its own exposition either developing together or, separately to combine later at certain point. A double fugue is more like exploration of contrapuntal possibilities of two independent subjects and their interaction. A single-subject fugue can be six-part fugue as in ricercar a 6 of Bach's Musical Offering. Or it can be a two, three, four, five-part any number of voices (except one). The fact that it can be four-part or three-part doesn't make Wolff's statement about AOTF valid. 




The best example of double fugue analysis I found on youtube. Why would anyone say something like this is monothematic when it's obviously not?


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

Larkenfield said:


> The fugue is a type of polyphonic composition or compositional technique based on a principal theme (subject) and melodic lines (counterpoint) that imitate the principal theme. In other words, a single theme can be turned into a three- or four-part fugue or canon. This work consists of 14 fugues and 4 canons, each using some variation of a single principal subject, and generally ordered in increasing complexity. If this is not a teaching method, I don't know what is. Bach had at least six years to complete the AOTF and yet it supposedly remains unfinished because of his sudden death. *It's more likely he left it deliberately unfinished...*


Not likely at all. Any evidence to support that statement?


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

Larkenfield said:


> *The fugue is a type of polyphonic composition or compositional technique based on a principal theme (subject) and melodic lines (counterpoint) that imitate the principal theme. *In other words, a single theme can be turned into a three- or four-part fugue or canon. This work consists of 14 fugues and 4 canons, each using some variation of a single principal subject, and generally ordered in increasing complexity. If this is not a teaching method, I don't know what is. Bach had at least six years to complete the AOTF and yet it supposedly remains unfinished because of his sudden death. It's more likely he left it deliberately unfinished...


Incorrect. Not all melodic lines in a fugue imitate the subject. Far from it. The countersubject is typically a different melodic idea entirety, constructed to contrapuntally complement, so to speak, the subject/answer. In addition many fugues contain so-called "free" melodic material related to neither the subject/answer or countersubject.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Flowers are supposed to be "beautiful," but music doesn't have to be.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Haydn70 said:


> Incorrect. Not all melodic lines in a fugue imitate the subject. Far from it. The countersubject is typically a different melodic idea entirety, constructed to contrapuntally complement, so to speak, the subject/answer. In addition many fugues contain so-called "free" melodic material related to neither the subject/answer or countersubject.


Each fugue in the Art of the Fugue has a _principal subject_ related to the opening D minor theme that is developed into a four-part fugue. "This simple theme undergoes many permutations throughout the 14 fugues and four canons (in baroque terminology, fugues also) which constitute this work." That was the idea: to demonstrate that principle and demonstrate it within the other examples. Some of you are just interested in proving Wolff wrong when you don't understand the simple point that he's making in the first place. Example! All four parts are related here based upon the prinicple theme. All anyone has to do is listen to when each line comes in and each line is related to the singularity of the principal subject. It couldn't be more clear:






The topic is not all fugues; it's the instructive fugues in this particular work of Bach's, all of which are related to _one theme_. Maybe some of you fugue experts would like to rewrite his AOTF for him? Instead, the entire subject is turned into a mess, just the opposite of what Bach intended. Further reading:

http://theconversation.com/decoding-the-music-masterpieces-bachs-the-art-of-fugue-73522

Where one can see and hear the relationships between all the Fugues... Bach's development in each one is truly magnificent... He's showing how inexhaustible the form is even based on one singular principle theme-the point of it all in the AOTF:


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Larkenfield said:


> Each fugue in the Art of the Fugue has a _principal subject_ related to the opening D minor theme that is developed into a four-part fugue. "This simple theme undergoes many permutations throughout the 14 fugues and four canons (in baroque terminology, fugues also) which constitute this work." That was the idea: to demonstrate that principle and demonstrate it within the other examples. Some of you are just interested in proving Wolff wrong when you don't understand the simple point that he's making in the first place. Example! All four parts are related here based upon the prinicple theme. All anyone has to do is listen to when each line comes in and each line is related to the singularity of the principal subject. It couldn't be more clear:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But as I said, there are multi-subject fugues in the work, Contrapuncti IX and X being double fugues, Contrapuncti VIII and XI being triple fugues, which Bach himself deliberately did not write with monothematicism in mind. I don't know what you're trying to prove. Do you not know the difference between a 5-part single fugue and a 3-part double fugue, for example?


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> But as I said, there are multi-subject fugues in the work, Contrapuncti IX and X being double fugues, Contrapuncti VIII and XI being triple fugues, which Bach himself deliberately did not write with monothematicism in mind. I don't know what you're trying to prove. Do you not know the difference between a 5-part single fugue and a 3-part double fugue, for example?


Yes, there are double and triple fugues, but they're all related to the singular opening theme, either directly or indirectly, harmonically, rhythmically, or thematically. You're confusing the issue: it's not whether it's a three or four-part fugue. (They are no five-part fugues in this study.) It was one theme that he developed in many ways, in many guises, as an example of thematic fugal development. In that sense, this work is monothematic with endless fugal variations on the theme. I don't see how Bach could have made the unified whole of this work any more apparent rather than the forest being lost for the trees:






"The entire multi-sectional work is derived from the same thematic material, a musical plan that presupposes a far-reaching thought process regarding the harmonic-contrapuntal implications of the chosen theme." -Wolff

One can hear the fugal and canonic development of the singular opening theme to the very end.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Larkenfield said:


> O
> 
> Yes, there are double and triple fugues, but they're all related to the singular opening theme, either directly or indirectly, harmonically, rhythmically, or thematically. You're confusing the issue: it's not whether it's a three or four-part fugue. (They are no five-part fugues in this study.) It was one theme that he developed in many ways, in many guises, as an example of thematic fugal development. In that sense, this work is monothematic with endless fugal variations on the theme. I don't see how Bach could have made the unified whole of this work any more apparent rather than the forest being lost for the trees:
> 
> ...


If you see this collection of works as one single continuous work, in that case, that would make this work as a whole all the more non-monothematic. Because there are sections in the work Bach focuses on developing other subjects. Exploration of possibilities of a single subject. You can say this for any of Bach's own single- subject fugues. Is the Mozart Requiem monothematic because of the 'DNA' of the work, Lutheran hymn motif " when my final hour comes" d-c#-d-e-f that permeates the entire work?


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

hammeredklavier said:


> I'm curious what are your thoughts on the last movement of the Hammerklavier sonata (just to give you a specific example since you ask for one and you seem to admire Beethoven so much)


I am struggling with the pieces as a whole and particularly with the last movement. It's making almost no impression on me.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Hey - what happened to the edit button on this thread? ^^^ 'piece' not 'pieces' 

@mmsbls


----------

