# Did the Weakening of Tonality Causethe Decline of Broad Interest in Classical Music?



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> Without getting into what "common practice" means, I think it's apparent that most people would identify music of a thousand years ago as clearly "tonal." And music remained so until tonality was weakened in the late 19th century and some new directions entirely were taken around the turn of the 20th century. To the extent such directions prevailed, broad interest in "classical music" seems to have declined. I find it hard to believe that some can deny this, though they seem to do so.


I don't agree with such sweeping generalizations, because there are other factors in play. The whole social context and way we receive music has changed.


----------



## OlivierM

I wouldn't know about romantic music.
But clearly, contemporary music is not popular music. Even Schönberg was conscious of this.
I mean, it's okay to do very intellectual stuff, not appealing to most people's emotions, but it's not to wonder why the vast majority of them aren't interested in it.
Of course there are other reasons: tv, radio, pop music, and so on and so forth, lack of general culture in a world where stupidity seems to be the norm the elites want for joe sixpack.
And I like contemporary music. I have lots of cds of it. But then again, I understand 99% of the population couldn't care less about it.


----------



## Jobis

There was already too much intellectual divide; I mean what would the man on the street think of any of the early 20th century's enormous, vast symphonic works? They would be too much to truly grasp, as they still are even among many of today's intelligentsia. 

You could say Debussy and Ravel were the beginning of the end, since surely Jazz music would not have existed in the way it did, had it not been for them. Jazz had a musical language to offer that was fresh, raw and down-to-earth without abandoning the tonal centre. These days it has mostly become a parody of itself, however, and pop has taken over. Most people don't even care if the music sounds the same as long as it keeps being made and is superficially 'new'.


----------



## millionrainbows

OlivierM said:


> Of course there are other reasons: tv, radio, pop music, and so on and so forth, lack of general culture...I understand 99% of the population couldn't care less about (contemporary music).


I think Classical music declined for several reasons, but the main reason is that radio, phonographs, and sound recording developed.


----------



## Crudblud

I don't think tonality has anything to do with it. I think it's more that certain kinds of music are easier and cheaper to produce and therefore more desirable to market and popularise than others.


----------



## millionrainbows

Crudblud said:


> I don't think tonality has anything to do with it. I think it's more that certain kinds of music are easier and cheaper to produce and therefore more desirable to market and popularise than others.


I think tonality (or the lack of it) is only one factor, but it does exist, and is relevant. I think the weakening of tonality was a reaction, like cubism, to mechanization and pervasive reproduction & dissemination of tonal music in popular and folk-derived forms.

I.e., weakening of tonality was a symptom, not a cause.


----------



## brotagonist

I agree with much of what has been said so far. For the majority of music listeners today, music is a smörgåsbord of quickly and frequently devoured morsels and not a hearty repast that takes long to digest and nourishes long. I'm not sure that tonality has much to do with it. Some pop music can sound much more jarring than Schoenberg, but it tends to appeal to only a marginal segment of the audience. Turn on the radio and within seconds you know the beat to any new song. It's instantly familiar, but nearly as quickly démodé. Our time is being stretched in every which way by a plethora of entertainments and diversions, that few can or care to invest the time CM generally requires. Literature is suffering similarly. Most people would rather see a 90-minute movie synopsis than to spend a week reading the book, even though, typically, most who do so agree that the book was 'better'.


----------



## norman bates

millionrainbows said:


> I think Classical music declined for several reasons, but the main reason is that radio, phonographs, and sound recording developed.


Onestly I don't see the relation between the two things, while I agree with KenOc. And after all, in jazz music it's happened pretty much the same: after bebop and with the increasing harmonic complexity of the music, the genre lost his popularity.


----------



## hpowders

Classical music declined because humans have a strong instinct to belong to the majority culture. Humans are conformists. They do not want to be seen as "different". "Pop" music is the predominant music out there so that's what the majority of humans choose to like.

One of the predominant human drives is the urge to be like everybody else. So they dress, wear their hair, have iPads and iPhones and listen to the same music as everyone else in their world.

A few of us brave souls escape this urge, become non-conformists, hold our middle fingers defiantly and proudly high at the conformist majority. However, we individualists will always be the minority. The majority of folks simply do not want to be seen as "different". There is a tremendous urge out there to join; to conform.

I profess that tonality has nothing at all to do with it. The majority of human folk had shunned classical music when tonality was in full flower.


----------



## OlivierM

hpowders, true. But if radios and tv were bombarding people with Stockhausen night and day, he would be Nr 1 of the charts.


----------



## KenOC

norman bates said:


> Onestly I don't see the relation between the two things, while I agree with KenOc. And after all, in jazz music it's happened pretty much the same: after bebop and with the increasing harmonic complexity of the music, the genre lost his popularity.


Jazz is an interesting parallel, one I've seen before. But MR may have a point. Classical music, since the Galante period, has been an entertainment of the better classes. But recording has made it available to any clod, anywhere, any time. The bloom is off that particular rose!

Another possibility is the "ownership" of the music. It used to be owned (in a loose sense) by aristos and the wealthier burgers. Then along came Beethoven, and it was owned by the artistes and the more poetic literati. In the 20th century it has become owned by the intellectuals, and who cares anymore after that happens?


----------



## Bulldog

millionrainbows said:


> I think Classical music declined for several reasons, but the main reason is that radio, phonographs, and sound recording developed.


If it wasn't for those three innovations, I never would have started listening to classical music.


----------



## Crudblud

OlivierM said:


> hpowders, true. But if radios and tv were bombarding people with Stockhausen night and day, he would be Nr 1 of the charts.


At this point it's doubtful. Classical music suffered from a gradual decline in audience numbers, to come back into the popular view it must also have a gradual resurgence, you can't flip the BBC's Stockhausen Switch and suddenly have everyone like it. If, however, it had been and continued to be broadcasted by major networks and featured on major content delivery systems, the story may well be different.



millionrainbows said:


> I think tonality (or the lack of it) is only one factor, but it does exist, and is relevant. I think the weakening of tonality was a reaction, like cubism, to mechanization and pervasive reproduction & dissemination of tonal music in popular and folk-derived forms.
> 
> I.e., weakening of tonality was a symptom, not a cause.


I'm not sure I agree. Tonality had already been "weakened" considerably by the turn of the 20th century, the consumer culture surrounding records wasn't in full swing until the 1920s at least. If anything it seems like they were somewhat concurrent with and largely independent of each other.


----------



## hpowders

OlivierM said:


> hpowders, true. But if radios and tv were bombarding people with Stockhausen night and day, he would be Nr 1 of the charts.


TONAL classical music will never make mainstream radio. We classical music lovers are seen as socially dead: it doesn't matter how beautiful and TONAL Mozart's or Mahler's music is. Forget Stockhausen. What about the beautiful tonal classical music that nobody ever gets to hear? It's not played because people are conformists to the mainstream culture.

I watch a news program called "The Five" with 5 intellectually-bent articulate adults-lawyers, presidential press secretaries, etc; Whenever the talk is about music and what's on their iPods, NOT ONE, EVER, indicates a classical selection; always mainstream pop music. "Oh yeah!! I have that album! Isn't it great?"*

It's like "we" don't exist. Completely shunned by mainstream society and, TONALITY or lack thereof has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

When Amadeus was a hit film, was there a run on Mozart CD's due to all that great TONAL music the public was being exposed to? Of course not. What did folks take away from the film? That Mozart was a socially inept freak who had a stupid laugh and couldn't keep his thing in his pants!

*Perhaps a few of these intellectuals are actually closet classical people and are ashamed to admit it on the air. So they lie about having all the Boss's albums on their iPods? I don't know.


----------



## Xaltotun

All "broad interests" have died out, we live in a culture of fragments; find your own very special snowflake fragment, cherish it in an ivory tower, and chat about it in the internet with fellow ivory-towerists in other countries! The only broad interest is narcissism.


----------



## KenOC

Xaltotun said:


> All "broad interests" have died out, we live in a culture of fragments; find your own very special snowflake fragment, cherish it in an ivory tower, and chat about it in the internet with fellow ivory-towerists in other countries! The only broad interest is narcissism.


Profound! But...true? Gotta think abut that one some more.


----------



## Xaltotun

KenOC said:


> Profound! But...true? Gotta think abut that one some more.


I always put profundity and witticism over truth! ,)


----------



## Vaneyes

Classical music demographic has always been relatively small. If it hadn't been for clergy and rulers hundreds of years ago, it might've not got off the ground.

Be thankful for your 3%...that's not bad these days. Stable, not declined.:tiphat:


----------



## OlivierM

hpowders said:


> TONAL classical music will never make mainstream radio. We classical music lovers are seen as socially dead: it doesn't matter how beautiful and TONAL Mozart's or Mahler's music is. Forget Stockhausen. What about the beautiful tonal classical music that nobody ever gets to hear? It's not played because people are conformists to the mainstream culture.
> 
> I watch a news program called "The Five" with 5 intellectually-bent articulate adults-lawyers, presidential press secretaries, etc; Whenever the talk is about music and what's on their iPods, NOT ONE, EVER, indicates a classical selection; always mainstream pop music. "Oh yeah!! I have that album! Isn't it great?"
> 
> It's like "we" don't exist. Completely shunned by mainstream society and, TONALITY or lack thereof has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
> 
> When Amadeus was a hit film, was there a run on Mozart CD's due to all that great TONAL music the public was being exposed to? Of course not. What did folks take away from the film? That Mozart was a socially inept freak who had a stupid laugh and couldn't keep his thing in his pants!


Regarding what I meant, it was just "if you hammer it enough on the radio and tv, without giving any other choice, people will end up buying it". There's a reason why all the rubbish that one can hear on mainstream radios ends up being bought. Because most people not only are highly influenceable, but want to be influenced. And that isn't limited to music.


----------



## Blake

Tonality in this context is just a quickening of ideas. That's why the populous are so attracted to the basic pop grooves of today... it's quick, it's simple, and it doesn't require much effort to get into. In a society stapled with a sense of exhaustion in having to put out so much effort to become something, to have to be intellectually engaged in your spare time is unattractive to most. So many turn to music as a form of release from this, and that's certainly not in the realm of 'atonal' forms of modern/contemporary classicism for most.

It took me quite a bit of time to understand composers like Nono and Harvey. Time that most people don't feel like expending when they've been trying to play their part in this deluded socio-culture, and now it's as easy as popping a pill to feel a bit elevated. Who needs real art when our goals are so convoluted? We need a quick fix. A re-evaluation of our society as a whole might be of some merit.


----------



## Rhombic

Now, apart from the tonal-atonal discussion that there seems to be going on, I have something to add which uses induction to relate our current situation to other historical ones, as usual.
In central Africa, many instruments such as the mbira are used in everyday traditional music, which have been "mainstream" in that culture during many centuries. The fact that these instruments are not tuned as Western instruments and, in fact, the base frequency difference used is very different from the Western semitones. This is indeed, from a Western point of view, atonal to a great extent because of the lack of harmonic theory tuning (the mbira does not reverberate using the harmonics present in e.g. trumpet, piano, etc.). This corroborates the fact that any sort of music can be acquired as natural and fine, even if tonal music and semitonal atonal music are more approachable because of the harmonic processes.
Ergo, classical tonal music could effectively be the most popular kind among all kinds of music... and so could atonal music. In essence, a listener learns to appreciate music, with tonality being the most feasible starting point. There is no reason whatsoever, apart from random luck, for pop music to be popular instead of Sibelius, bearing in mind that the latter is perfectly coherent and causal-consequential.


----------



## Figleaf

I think it's not just an issue of tonality (assuming that even means what I think it does- 'atonal' is the out of tune stuff, right?) but of difficulty, especially in vocal music. Songs which are too difficult to be attempted by an amateur would have had little commercial success in the days- circa 1900- when people would buy sheet music of songs they had heard at concerts and have a bash at singing them at home. So once either the vocal part or the accompaniment became too hard for a moderately accomplished home singer/ pianist, art songs and popular music had to go their separate ways. I read a newspaper interview with Pol Plançon given on his retirement (circa 1908) in which he comments on the change that was happening in song composition at that time, and the difficulty of the professional singer in both moving with the times and keeping his audience (containing many amateur singers) on side at the same time. It makes fascinating reading:

"The best French songs with which to begin are undoubtedly those of Gounod. This is on account, not only of the beauty and simplicity of the melody, but also of the words. Gounod's songs you will find melodious, many of them absolutely simple, and with beautiful words. In the songs of Gounod the words are so adapted to the melody and so ready of appeal and comprehension with the public.

"Among the modern French composers' work you will find many beautiful songs. Saint-Saëns, Massenet, Benjamin Godard, Augusta Holmés, Délibes, Gabriel Faure, Paul Vidal, Bemberg, Gaston Paulin, all have written beautiful melodies.

"The music of the younger French composers is less simple. It is very difficult, indeed; and the trouble is that it is often so complex that it produces no effect upon the public. But, as I said, I am an older singer, and, therefore, I like the older songs. In the very old French songs you will find lovely examples admirably fitted for use in recital programs in the works of Gretry and of Rameau. And this brings us down to the order of arrangement to be followed in a recital program..."

You can find the full interview here:

http://petersenvoicestudio.com/2014...f-the-french-song/comment-page-0/#comment-249

Personally I can knock out an almost recognisable version of Gounod's 'Au rossignol'- Gabriel Faure's songs, not so much!


----------



## tdc

OlivierM said:


> I wouldn't know about romantic music.
> But clearly, contemporary music is not popular music. Even Schönberg was conscious of this.
> I mean, it's okay to do very intellectual stuff, not appealing to most people's emotions, but it's not to wonder why the vast majority of them aren't interested in it.
> Of course there are other reasons: tv, radio, pop music, and so on and so forth, lack of general culture in a world where *stupidity seems to be the norm the elites want for joe sixpack*.
> And I like contemporary music. I have lots of cds of it. But then again, I understand 99% of the population couldn't care less about it.


I think the quote in bold is pretty much how I see it. Most of Western society is structured in a certain way, independent thought and a blooming artistic culture, is not what is desired for the lower classes. In general I think the shallowness we can observe in our culture is a societal issue, it isn't by chance or accident and it has nothing to do with tonality or lack of tonality.


----------



## Guest

Crudblud said:


> I don't think tonality has anything to do with it. I think it's more that certain kinds of music are easier and cheaper to produce and therefore more desirable to market and popularise than others.


AND easier to digest. I don't think that the average person in this day and age is choosing their pop music over Schoenberg or Stockhausen. The average person in this day and age could barely stomach Mozart.


----------



## Guest

Vesuvius said:


> Tonality in this context is just a quickening of ideas. That's why the populous are so attracted to the basic pop grooves of today... it's quick, it's simple, and it doesn't require much effort to get into. In a society stapled with a sense of exhaustion in having to put out so much effort to become something, to have to be intellectually engaged in your spare time is unattractive to most. So many turn to music as a form of release from this, and that's certainly not in the realm of 'atonal' forms of modern/contemporary classicism for most.


You're right that people want their music to be relaxing, fun, easy, in general, but I don't know if I'd blame it on a hard-working society. The average hip-hop fan has likely done the bare minimum since birth


----------



## Figleaf

arcaneholocaust said:


> AND easier to digest. I don't think that the average person in this day and age is choosing their pop music over Schoenberg or Stockhausen. The average person in this day and age could barely stomach Mozart.


Mozart's pretty easy to stomach. My ex husband and I had Mozart's music played at our wedding because it was the only music neither of us hated. Looking back, that should have been a red flag!


----------



## Blake

arcaneholocaust said:


> You're right that people want their music to be relaxing, fun, easy, in general, but I don't know if I'd blame it on a hard-working society. The average hip-hop fan has likely done the bare minimum since birth


I'd agree if our current state was propelled by a dignified, hard-working motive. Neurotic restlessness may be more fitting.


----------



## Manxfeeder

Just to add another thought, atonal music has been present in movies since, what the '50s? So people will put up with it if it's in the right context. People flocked to see The Exorcist and weren't put off by hearing Webern's 5 Pieces for Orchestra and loved 2001 and had no problem with Ligeti's Requiem. 

What went wrong with classical in the second half of the 20th Century was, it became perceived as music for specialists. The average listener saw it as something they'd never understand anyway, so they turned away I think more from intimidation than lack of interest. Jazz has been mentioned here before, and the same thing happened there. 

I remember the old professor of modern music - was it Rondsheim? - who would always emphasize in his class on modern music, "This is very difficult music. Very difficult." Maybe so, but give us a frame of reference. Wasn't Webern continuing the song tradition of Schubert? Are his canons more difficult to hear than those of Isaac? Do I have to know the row to appreciate the piece?

When I figured out Schoenberg and Webern weren't so scary, I actually started enjoying them.


----------



## Guest

Figleaf said:


> Mozart's pretty easy to stomach. My ex husband and I had Mozart's music played at our wedding because it was the only music neither of us hated. Looking back, that should have been a red flag!


And you post on a classical music forum. You're already a deviation from the average person. And you can stomach Mozart too, you say?!

Like I said. It's not about tonal vs. atonal. It's about classical vs. popular.


----------



## Guest

Manxfeeder said:


> When I figured out Schoenberg and Webern weren't so scary, I actually started enjoying them.


You have my support, sir.


----------



## hpowders

Figleaf said:


> Mozart's pretty easy to stomach. *My ex husband* and I had Mozart's music played at our wedding because it was the only music neither of us hated. Looking back, that should have been a red flag!


AHHH! So your avatar is merely a trouser role!!!


----------



## Figleaf

hpowders said:


> AHHH! So your avatar is merely a trouser role!!!


He didn't always wear trousers:









:lol:


----------



## hpowders

Figleaf said:


> He didn't always wear trousers:
> 
> View attachment 54692
> 
> 
> :lol:


Could be a conductor at a nudist colony.

"Okay, once more, from the top!"


----------



## mmsbls

There have been many threads discussing the decline or unpopularity of classical music. I'm still not sure how much classical music has declined in popularity since say 1900. I would love to see some metric that attempts to determine the general popularity. One could look at concert tickets sold (presumably normalized to the population), but classical music is heard in many different ways compared to 1900 or earlier in this century. Today people attend concerts, buy CDs, download music, or stream music. Determining the popularity compared to earlier times may be rather difficult. I suppose surveys that capture how often people listen to classical music might work, but I doubt such surveys existed in the first half of the century.

People have mentioned the non-tonal style of classical music, the advent of TV and radio, popular music, and other changes in society as having an effect. Without really knowing when and how much classical music's popularity has changed, I think it's impossible to properly attribute the decline to a particular cause. I've occasionally searched for studies that might give information on the potential decline, but I've found relatively little that seems helpful.


----------



## Woodduck

I'm not sure at what point in time the "weakening" of tonality posited here is presumed to have begun, but whether we want to place it early with the chromatic enrichments of the Romantics, later with the functionally nontraditional harmonies of Debussy, or later still with the conscious abandonment of the tonic as a structural center of gravity, I don't think a general public interest in "classical" music has been _primarily_ dependent on the harmonic style of that music. As others have remarked, there are too many factors at play in culture for any such assumption to hold. Opera, for example, was not to my knowledge more enjoyed by the general public when Paisiello and Mozart were giving the public insistent alternations of tonic and dominant than when Wagner was delaying resolution to the tonic for hours at a time (although it undoubtedly took longer for many people to feel comfortable with the latter).

However, I would remark that older styles of "classical" music were, in their simpler harmonic vocabulary and their melodic style (which is intimately bound up with harmonic style), closer to the popular music of their day than later styles were - that, in other words, the gap between the actual sound of music written for the musically sophisticated listener and that produced for everyday consumption and enjoyment has widened with time. How much this divergence has contributed to a lack of general interest in classical music I couldn't say. But there are a lot of music listeners out there whose favorite classical composers, even now, in 2014, are Mozart and Vivaldi - listeners for whom, I dare say, these composers, and maybe some Chopin or Tchaikovsky, are practically the only classical composers in their CD collections alongside their pop or country or Andrew Lloyd Webber or whatever. Of course there's no reason why, with enough exposure, some of these folks couldn't enjoy Faure or Sibelius as well. But Webern? Nono? Stockhausen? The fact remains that tonality (in the broad sense of harmonic organization around a tonic) has insistently remained a fundamental feature of the music most people in Western society (and not only Western society) feel comfortable with and enjoy, and I find absurd any statement to the effect that the dissolution and rejection of a such a basic principle of musical thought should not repel large numbers of people from music which has veered so far from a general understanding of what music consists of and what it says to the listener.

_Pace_ Schoenberg, the postman is still not whistling tone rows, and I'll bet the farm he never will.


----------



## Mahlerian

Woodduck said:


> I'm not sure at what point in time the "weakening" of tonality posited here is presumed to have begun, but whether we want to place it early with the chromatic enrichments of the Romantics, later with the functionally nontraditional harmonies of Debussy, *or later still with the conscious abandonment of the tonic as a structural center of gravity*, I don't think a general public interest in "classical" music has been _primarily_ dependent on the harmonic style of that music.


When did this happen again?



> But there are a lot of music listeners out there whose favorite classical composers, even now, in 2014, are Mozart and Vivaldi - listeners for whom, I dare say, these composers, and maybe some Chopin or Tchaikovsky, are practically the only classical composers in their CD collections alongside their pop or country or Andrew Lloyd Webber or whatever. Of course there's no reason why, with enough exposure, some of these folks couldn't enjoy Faure or Sibelius as well. But Webern? Nono? Stockhausen?


Actually, my own experience suggests that even those without much prior exposure can enjoy at least some modernist music if they are not heavily pre-conditioned against it beforehand, and even those with very conservative tastes can eventually come to enjoy it in at least small doses.



> I find absurd any statement to the effect that the dissolution and rejection of a such a basic principle of musical thought should not repel large numbers of people from music which has veered so far from a general understanding of what music consists of and what it says to the listener.


_So do I!_

Of course, this never actually happened. So-called atonality is not a rejection of tonally-oriented thinking (if conceived broadly enough to include all types of music ever in the history of the universe before big bad Schoenberg lost his mind in 1908) so much as an extension of it.

Groves' definition of "atonality": "A term which may be used in three senses: first, to describe all music which is not tonal; second, to describe all music which is neither tonal nor serial; and third, to describe specifically the post-tonal and pre-12-note music of Berg, Webern, and Schoenberg (While serial music is, by the first definition, atonal, it differs in essential respects from other atonal music....)"

...[discussion of examples from Schoenberg, Scriabin, Bartok, Webern, and Varese]...

"Atonality thus roughly delimits a wide range of compositional practices whose only features are the absence of normative and interrelated procedures of tonality and the basic concept of serialism. It remains to be seen to what extent atonality is a useful or relevant musical category...."


----------



## Woodduck

Mahlerian said:


> When did this happen again?
> 
> Actually, my own experience suggests that even those without much prior exposure can enjoy at least some modernist music if they are not heavily pre-conditioned against it beforehand, and even those with very conservative tastes can eventually come to enjoy it in at least small doses.
> 
> _So do I!_
> 
> Of course, this never actually happened. *So-called atonality is not a rejection of tonally-oriented thinking* (if conceived broadly enough to include all types of music ever in the history of the universe before big bad Schoenberg lost his mind in 1908) *so much as an extension of it.*
> 
> Groves' definition of "atonality": "A term which may be used in three senses: first, to describe all music which is not tonal; second, to describe all music which is neither tonal nor serial; and third, to describe specifically the post-tonal and pre-12-note music of Berg, Webern, and Schoenberg (While serial music is, by the first definition, atonal, it differs in essential respects from other atonal music....)"
> 
> ...[discussion of examples from Schoenberg, Scriabin, Bartok, Webern, and Varese]...
> 
> "Atonality thus roughly delimits a wide range of compositional practices whose only features are the absence of normative and interrelated procedures of tonality and the basic concept of serialism. It remains to be seen to what extent atonality is a useful or relevant musical category...."


I don't want to say that I knew exactly who would respond to my post and what he would say, but... :lol:

I do understand that "atonality" to you, a musically educated composer, is not a useful term, i.e. not a term that should be applied to any specific kind of music. Fine. You may note that I have agreed with you to the extent of not using the word. My purpose was not to quibble over terminology or over any particular musical development but simply to speculate that the suggestion of the OP may not be entirely without point, given the historically widening disparity between the harmonic vocabularies of classical and popular music. Even if you and other sophisticated musicians claim that "atonality" is more a _development_ of what is generally called tonality than a _rejection_ of it (certainly a debatable point: at what point does a "development" become a fundamental transformation? when does something become something else?), most people, having all their lives listened to tonics, dominants, subdominants, relative minors, and modulations among these, when presented with the music of Schoenberg or Webern - or even earlier music which is merely highly chromatic and tonally ambiguous - are not going to hear any "extension" of the familiar. They are going to hear random and disorganized sounds which completely fail to provide the pleasures of expectancy and satisfaction that tonal harmonic progressions give them. And by "most people" I'm not talking only about the musically inexperienced who listen only to popular music. I know people of broad listening experience and tastes ranging from classical to jazz and world musics of various kinds who, when they hear precisely the sort of music you don't want to call atonal but most people do, simply don't like it. I can't see where it does much good to argue, outside of a theory textbook, about what is "tonal" and what is "atonal." In any event it doesn't make any difference to the point I was making.


----------



## Guest

The OP asks



> Did the Weakening of Tonality Causethe Decline of Broad Interest in Classical Music?


To which the simple answer must surely be, "No."

If there was a decline in the broad interest in classical music (in the US? In the 'West'? Worldwide?) it was surely to do with the rise of recorded popular music?


----------



## dgee

People just woke up to classical music being lame, end of.

But seriously folks, my glance at what's going on sees a vital and diverse "alternative" music scene encompassing modern and contemporary, HIP, early music, all manner of chamber and solo ventures, "forgotten" composers really thriving, while the very serious "big institutional" stuff such as the opera and symphony hall are increasingly resorting to recycling the central committee approved list of top 10 operas and Beethoven cycles every second year. It doesn't matter what's acceptable to most people, it's what they're motivated to pay for - I predict in the future we'll be getting our "classical" music in smaller venues with more niche ensembles and it's gonna be great

But seriously - atonal/modern/contemporary music has been marginalised for so long it's like you can totally be an active fan of music and never even come across it. That's fine if that's your thing, I guess. Were people really put off Mozart by having to hear Schoenberg? Whatevs

I think it's more likely that people got more alternatives and the alternatives were preferred.

Yep, people liked this:






More than this:






And it's easy to see why


----------



## ptr

I don't understand the "decline" argument, I don't even think that it is relevant, under no time of history has "classical" or call it art music been more easily accessible then it is *now*, and the accessibility has since the advent of recorded music increased and multiplied yearly. 
The fact that some conservatives voice a fear of decline about "new" forms of musical expressions are more a, what the Germans call, "Zeitungsente" (I don't know a good synonym in English), a pointless scoop for the media to sell copy on! It had nothing to do with the factual availability or quality of music!
The fact that so many "music lovers" get so incredibly hung up on the word(s) "atonal/atonality" just show a vivid lack of imagination, like many have pointed to in this and previous threads here on TC and elsewhere, forms of atonality have been used through out music history from the time when his mother started humming homo habilis to sleep and throughout, it is just a way to counteract/balance tonality, believing that atonality was invented in 1900 or thereabouts is just a typical flat-earth response from those who fear technical advances, the musical lover equivalents of the Amish...

/ptr

/ptr


----------



## Guest

Tonal "classical"/art music is capable of being just as unpopular or misunderstood. I have heard disparaging comments about the tedious repetition in the tonal music of the likes of Glass and Reich.


----------



## Guest

First of all, gaaahhhh. No, really. GAAAAHHHH.*

Second of all, GAAAAAAHHHHHHH.

Thirdly, there has been an unusually high (and unusually unquestioned) use of "people" or "the average listener" in this thread to support conclusions. But an anonymous and faceless group can hardly be a very um substantial support. Who are these average people? Have you actually talked to all of them? Do you know what they think? Is there even a "they," really, to do the thinking and listening and responding?

Fourth of all, GAAAAHHHHH.

Number five ("Three, sir!")


Manxfeeder said:


> What went wrong with classical in the second half of the 20th Century was, it became perceived as music for specialists. The average listener saw it as something they'd never understand anyway, so they turned away I think more from intimidation than lack of interest.


Was classical in the second half of the 20th century perceived at all by anyone? I would venture to guess that those who actually came into contact with classical _of_ the second half probably did so because they wanted to hear it. (All that hedging is me illustrating how feeble it is to base conclusions on the activities of people you've never met who are probably dead, anyway.) There are some anecdotes I know of individuals, like the woman at a Cage concert standing up at one point and yelling, "John, I love you dearly, but I can't take any more of this!!" (Not an accurate quote, by the way. I'm doing it from memory.) And the premiere of 4'33", which was at a new music concert, attended by devotees, was pretty rocky. But mostly, new music concerts are attended by new music fans.

Sixthly, I don't know anyone outside a couple of TC posters who has claimed to have been intimidated. For what it's worth. And I usually see intimidation referred to in online discussions as something that the members of that "average listener" group experience. So it's not the person writing who is intimidated; it's the members of that very useful group being dragged in, again, to prove a point.

As for Franklin and Andrés and Gordana and Sarah and Lina and Al and Aurora and Andreah and Georgina and Robert it is very much a matter of never having even heard of. Just as another Robert (Hilferty) found outside a Tower Records store (remember Tower Records?): 




Skip to 4:39 for the Tower bit.

[I'd also like to put a word in, for the seventh point, for the most extreme, avant-garde contemporary music being engaging and accessible and not at all difficult to enjoy or understand. It depends on who you're talking to. A real, individual "who" with a name, for preference. Ned or Joe or Diana or Emmanualle or Francisco or Simon or Natasha. Or Michael, which is some guy's real first name. I listen to modern musics because I like them. And have since the first time I ever heard any. It's good clean fun, eh? No more difficult than Ravel or Bruckner or Schumann. 'Course, those people get called difficult, too. Sigh. There's even a thread somewhere on another board where someone admits to just not getting Ravel at all.]

*This is definitely NOT in reference to gog's post, by the way. gog's and ptr's before it and a number of others have not been at all gagsome. This is a reference to the whole idea of the quote in the OP. I know that Bill was just trying to counter Ken's remark, but the practical result is simply to validate that view, again. It's a view that dominates the discussion, and I, for one, am sick of its domination. Look at what happened to me. Only three pages, and already I've been sucked in again to this same old "controversy."


----------



## quack

Did the Weakening of Shoe Leather Causethe Decline of Broad Interest in Walking?


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

Xaltotun said:


> All "broad interests" have died out, we live in a culture of fragments; find your own very special snowflake fragment, cherish it in an ivory tower, and chat about it in the internet with fellow ivory-towerists in other countries! The only broad interest is narcissism.


Haha, the ivory tower - are you quoting Flaubert here? 

Personally, I think the rise of atonal music came about because of the concept of 'having to be original' to become a great composer recognized by posterity. Since atonality was something earlier composers rarely did, newer composers went on to explore this musical area.


----------



## Manxfeeder

some guy said:


> F
> 
> Was classical in the second half of the 20th century perceived at all by anyone? I would venture to guess that those who actually came into contact with classical _of_ the second half probably did so because they wanted to hear it.


And that's the shame of it; it became specialized at best and elitist at worst. The original question was about the decline of "broad interest" in classical music.

My perspective is about America, because that's where I grew up. If you look at old Life magazines from the '40s to the '50s, classical music was being presented alongside with other forms of popular entertainment. Erik Leinsdorf would be pictured with his baton hawking someone's wares alongside other movie stars, and conductors like Toscanini and Mitropoulos would pop up regularly. At that time, Americans may have not completely understood classical music, but they did aspire to. When the new group of composers popped up like John Cage and Peter Mennnin, Life Magazine ran articles about them. TV shows had John Cage and William Schuman as guests. I think back then, Americans saw this new music and were attempting to come to terms with it.

I have a pretty thick book from the '40s on How to Understand and Enjoy Great Music or something like that. Over just about every piece in the book, the owner would handwrite in when she heard it, like "Mitropoulos, December 1947" and would pencil in not-very-insightful comments like "I love this" or "Not for this world."

At one time, Americans did aspire to appreciate classical music. In the '60s, something happened. My opinion is, as American culture changed, classical music became perceived as elitist, and composers retreated into ivory towers and reinforced that belief. The parting shot was the famous article by Milton Babbitt "Who Cares If They Listen?" (Though, to be fair, the title of the article is not his.)

You had a mixing of classical elements with rock in the '60s with the Filmore concerts and the experiments with the Beatles. But I think the turning point was when composers like Steve Reich, Philip Glass, and Terry Riley turned back to tonality. Of course, looking back, it was too much tonality. But once more, you had classical music that was connecting with a general audience.

What that did was break the dominance of the "12-tone dead end," as someone phrased it. It didn't restore classical music to the status it once had in the general American population, where it represented a higher culture that could be aspired to, but it did rescue it from falling into obscurity.


----------



## Guest

There should be an official thread for the sake of condensing all of these threads.

_The Official TC "Blame Your Problems On Schoenberg" Thread_

I, for one, have a cold. I see no reason why diversions from CPT should not take the blame for this.


----------



## Mahlerian

Woodduck said:


> I don't want to say that I knew exactly who would respond to my post and what he would say, but... :lol:
> 
> I do understand that "atonality" to you, a musically educated composer, is not a useful term, i.e. not a term that should be applied to any specific kind of music. Fine. You may note that I have agreed with you to the extent of not using the word. My purpose was not to quibble over terminology or over any particular musical development but simply to speculate that the suggestion of the OP may not be entirely without point, given the historically widening disparity between the harmonic vocabularies of classical and popular music.


Today, popular music has its own harmonic vocabulary, which is predominantly non-functional, based more on root motion in step than by fourth or fifth.



> Even if you and other sophisticated musicians claim that "atonality" is more a _development_ of what is generally called tonality than a _rejection_ of it (certainly a debatable point: at what point does a "development" become a fundamental transformation? when does something become something else?),


It can't be both a development and something different? What is called atonality is distinctly an outgrowth of the chromatic tonality of the late 19th century. So it may be something else, but it is assuredly not a "rejection" of the principles it rests upon. The idea that Mahler sounds more like Vivaldi than like Berg is incomprehensible to me.



> most people, having all their lives listened to tonics, dominants, subdominants, relative minors, and modulations among these, when presented with the music of Schoenberg or Webern - or even earlier music which is merely highly chromatic and tonally ambiguous - are not going to hear any "extension" of the familiar. They are going to hear random and disorganized sounds which completely fail to provide the pleasures of expectancy and satisfaction that tonal harmonic progressions give them.


Sure, but I hear the same said about Mahler, Bruckner, and Strauss even today, to say nothing of Wagner. And there's a good bit of Webern and especially Schoenberg which isn't all that difficult, and still sounds entirely (or mostly, in Webern's case) characteristic.

Webern Passacaglia Op. 1
Schoenberg Orchestral Songs

The fact is that functional tonality doesn't exist in much classical music post-1900, and if it does exist at all it is submerged and used completely differently from how it would have been used prior to that time. There is a good reason why some people who are accustomed entirely to the common practice period have difficulty with all or most 20th century music.

I often see people who work very hard at defending a tonal/atonal distinction treating those who have difficulty with that other 20th century music with incredulity and condescension: "Bartok's tonal, just listen to it! Why would you find Shostakovich difficult? The music is tonal!" As if it makes much of a difference!



> And by "most people" I'm not talking only about the musically inexperienced who listen only to popular music. I know people of broad listening experience and tastes ranging from classical to jazz and world musics of various kinds who, when they hear precisely the sort of music you don't want to call atonal but most people do, simply don't like it. I can't see where it does much good to argue, outside of a theory textbook, about what is "tonal" and what is "atonal." In any event it doesn't make any difference to the point I was making.


It does make a difference, because you are claiming that something that is _neither an actual distinction *nor even a perceived distinction*_ (you are assuming that various general audiences will be consistent with which pieces are and are not labeled atonal, which my experience indicates is untrue) is actually something which accounts for large trends.

If you acknowledge that this distinction is meaningless, then you may actually have to confront exactly what it is about this large swath of music that you dislike, aware that there is no simple explanation as "composers rejected everything of what music had been based on".

I am fully convinced that people find Schoenberg difficult because his music is Schoenbergian (contrapuntally dense, harmonically rich, saturated with motivic development in both melody and rhythm) more than because it's non-tonal (in the specific sense).


----------



## millionrainbows

In the past, classical music, played by educated, skilled musicians under strict control, and funded by the power-brokers, be they Church, royalty, or rich merchants, was essentially "the only game in town" if you wanted BIG entertainment, BIG instrumental forces, and plenty of grandeur & show of power.

Now, with capitalism and a rising middle class & wealthy merchants, and later, the advent of recording, other "lesser" forms of music gained power. The middle class demanded to be entertained, and now they could buy sheet music, have a piano in the house, and later, buy recordings.

The playing field was now level; one guy with a guitar (Bob Dylan, etc) could have as much clout with the public as a symphony orchestra.

Classical music was now seen as, basically, what it always was: dense music, with lots of ideas, with long traditions, played by educated, skilled musicians for the _divertissement _of an educated, "upper class" audience.

But now, the rising middle class wanted in on the fun; they wanted to see operas, musicals, symphonies, and thus the rise of the concert hall.

Then, everything started changing; the middle class had power and money, and the decline of classical music took place at the same time "popular" taste was on the rise.

As far as "atonality" and tonality (in the broad sense of harmonic organization around a tonic), I think there are reasons for this which are probably more related to artistic concerns, unaffected by the surge in popular music, or as a *reaction* to the growing ubiquitous music all around, easily available.

Just as Cubism was a reaction to cinematography and photography, artists reacted: why paint portraits when a camera can do it just as easily, if not better? What is the purpose of painting realistically, now that landscapes & portraits, even moving pictures, provide images which can be reproduced in such mass quantity, in more detail, with more realism?

So, with the advent of recording (which, incidentally, coincides with the turn of the century, just as tonality began to "weaken" with Schoenberg, Debussy, Stravinsky, and Bartok), what now is the purpose of music? Music was *forced,* by technology, to seek a new relevance and use.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

If the answer is indeed, "Yes, the shift away from traditional tonality and other more traditional aspects of classical music was indeed one element which led to the decline in popularity of classical music," where does that leave us now?

Classical music has a limited audience... but so does jazz, blues, traditional bluegrass, folk, Broadway show tunes, and just about any music that falls outside of the mainstream and is promoted on a regular basis by TV, radio, and the rest of the mass media. Schoenberg, Berg, Webern and their heirs have a limited audience within the already limited audience for classical music. But then again, the audience for lieder, choral music, Medieval and Renaissance music, and opera are equally limited within the larger classical music audience.

Taking all this into consideration, is the audience for classical music really smaller than it was in the past? I suspect far more people are able to enjoy Mozart in recordings than ever enjoyed his work during his lifetime. In fact... I suspect far more people have heard John Cage's music than ever heard Mozart's during his lifetime. Classical music may amount to but a small fraction of the total music sales... and be dwarfed by the market for the latest Pop Music... but there are still thousands upon thousands of recordings released every year. Entering the name Mozart on Amazon's search combined with the category of CD & Vinyl I came upon 36,000+ recordings available. John Cage resulted in 669. And then how many YouTube videos feature classical music?

If anything discourages or intimidates would-be classical music listeners, it it the snobbishness and pretension that often accompanies it. This includes the snobbishness of those who brush aside the taste of the newcomers (and others) who excitedly embrace Holst's _Planets_ or Ravel's _Bolero_ or Vivaldi's _Four Seasons_ or Strauss Jr.'s waltzes and are eager to explore the world of classical music further. Such pretension also exists among those who strike the pose of the cutting-edge sophisticate who can't help gushing forth upon the genius and superiority of Xenakis, Scelsi, Ligeti, and Stockhausen while dismissing the tastes of those who find far more of merit within the work of Puccini, Richard Strauss, Rachmaninoff, or Aaron Copland... after all, we all know that popularity is a sure-fire measure of artistic merit... for or against. And of course there are those who will broadly wave aside the whole of Modern/Contemporary music without having given it an honest chance.

Of course we are probably all guilty at times of confusing what we like or dislike with what is "good" or "bad".

Returning to the original question... if the answer is indeed, "Yes, the shift away from traditional tonality has resulted in a declining audience for classical music," what indeed is to be done? Does anyone honestly believe that a shift back to a more traditional approach to classical music would result in a great resurgence of interest with classical music usurping Pop? Who should the audience be for the classical composer? Should the composer consider the wants/needs of the larger classical music audience... the larger audience as a whole...? Or should the classical composer compose solely for himself/herself and those who share his/her tastes/values?

Are there any easy answers to any of these questions?


----------



## millionrainbows

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...Returning to the original question... if the answer is indeed,* "Yes, *the shift away from traditional tonality has resulted in a declining audience for classical music," what indeed is to be done?


*No,* I don't think a return to tonality would increase the CM audience; and it was more a reaction than a cause.

But if we say "yes" to the assertion that the shift away from traditional tonality was the cause for the decline, then _that cuts both ways:_ popular and folk musics are tonal; practically all music is tonal, in the broad sense of loyalty to a tonic.

Thus, tonality became "cheapened" in a way, ubiquitous and easily obtainable, asserting itself even in popular form. It lost its charms. Why did we need classical music to get tonality? It was everywhere, like hot dogs.

So, you gotta make up your mind whether tonality was a major factor in CM's decline, because it was everywhere now.


----------



## Nereffid

Does anyone have any actual data about the decline in popularity of classical music?

The figure of 3% of the current music audience gets thrown about a bit, and certainly classical sales used to be higher than that... but does anyone have historical data?

What percentage of the population constituted the classical audience 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago...?

Can anyone say with any certainty when was the peak of "broad interest in classical music"?




(to clarify: these aren't "gotcha" questions, I'm just genuinely curious if there are figures available)


----------



## Guest

I liked St's last post pretty much, really I did, but then I hit this thing.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> If anything discourages or intimidates would-be classical music listeners, it it the snobbishness and pretension that often accompanies it.


Is there any evidence for this at all? I hear this view stated over and over again, but it's never by any would-be's; it's always by people using that anonymous group to support this point.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> This includes the snobbishness of those who brush aside the taste of the newcomers (and others) who excitedly embrace Holst's _Planets_ or Ravel's _Bolero_ or Vivaldi's _Four Seasons_ or Strauss Jr.'s waltzes and are eager to explore the world of classical music further. Such pretension also exists among those who strike the pose of the cutting-edge sophisticate who can't help gushing forth upon the genius and superiority of Xenakis, Scelsi, Ligeti, and Stockhausen while dismissing the tastes of those who find far more of merit within the work of Puccini, Richard Strauss, Rachmaninoff, or Aaron Copeland...


Copeland's first name is Darren. Aaron's last name is Copland.

But I digress. When I was first starting out, I excitedly embraced Holst's Planets and Vivaldi's Four Seasons. Not the Ravel or the Strauss so much. But OK. And my excitement over the first two faded after a bit. After all, there's a lot of music. I still like all four, however, even though I listen to Xenakis, Scelsi, Ligeti, and Stockhausen quite a lot more. And I manage to also like R. Strauss, Rachmaninoff and Copland, too. It's no thing. I doubt I'll ever like Puccini, but so what? After all, I'm not striking any pose of the cutting-edge sophisticate, I just am one. And I would never dismiss the tastes of someone who also likes Rachmaninoff. Indeed, it was quite recently that I entered into a fray about Rachmaninoff's putative thickness and just generally bad orchestration (by which the anti's mean instrumentation, of course:devil. My spirited defenses of Sergei's compositional practices were um spirited and defensive.

But tastes is, of course, a red herring, as you know perfectly well. The negative comments that most frequently occur about Rachmaninoff or Copland are from people who don't like seeing them (and the populism they supposedly illustrate) elevated over other fine composers, especially if those other fine composers are already beleaguered for the crime of writing interesting and engaging music that doesn't happen to have engaged that final arbiter of all that's good and holy THE AVERAGE LISTENER.

Gaaahhh.

And then the rest of the post was fine.:tiphat:


----------



## norman bates

millionrainbows said:


> *No,* I don't think a return to tonality would increase the CM audience; and it was more a reaction than a cause.


I'm not sure about that, considering the success of composers like Einaudi (I don't like him at all, but anyway), Eric Whitacre but also the minimalists like Glass, Jake Heggie or even composers like Copland or Barber.


----------



## Jobis

norman bates said:


> I'm not sure about that, considering the success of composers like Einaudi (I don't like him at all, but anyway), Eric Whitacre but also the minimalists like Glass, Jake Heggie or even composers like Copland or Barber.


That's true, it is a curious thing. I know plenty of people who enjoy Einaudi and Whitacre but wouldn't touch classical music with a ten foot pole normally. I guess they have the appeal of being rather like ambient and even new age music?


----------



## Cheyenne

dgee said:


> I predict in the future we'll be getting our "classical" music in smaller venues with more niche ensembles and it's gonna be great


We already have that: they're called conservatories! :tiphat:


----------



## Woodduck

Mahlerian said:


> Today, popular music has its own harmonic vocabulary, which is predominantly non-functional, based more on root motion in step than by fourth or fifth.
> 
> It can't be both a development and something different? What is called atonality is distinctly an outgrowth of the chromatic tonality of the late 19th century. So it may be something else, but it is assuredly not a "rejection" of the principles it rests upon. The idea that Mahler sounds more like Vivaldi than like Berg is incomprehensible to me.
> 
> Sure, but I hear the same said about Mahler, Bruckner, and Strauss even today, to say nothing of Wagner. And there's a good bit of Webern and especially Schoenberg which isn't all that difficult, and still sounds entirely (or mostly, in Webern's case) characteristic.
> 
> Webern Passacaglia Op. 1
> Schoenberg Orchestral Songs
> 
> The fact is that functional tonality doesn't exist in much classical music post-1900, and if it does exist at all it is submerged and used completely differently from how it would have been used prior to that time. There is a good reason why some people who are accustomed entirely to the common practice period have difficulty with all or most 20th century music.
> 
> I often see people who work very hard at defending a tonal/atonal distinction treating those who have difficulty with that other 20th century music with incredulity and condescension: "Bartok's tonal, just listen to it! Why would you find Shostakovich difficult? The music is tonal!" As if it makes much of a difference!
> 
> It does make a difference, because you are claiming that something that is _neither an actual distinction *nor even a perceived distinction*_ (you are assuming that various general audiences will be consistent with which pieces are and are not labeled atonal, which my experience indicates is untrue) is actually something which accounts for large trends.
> 
> If you acknowledge that this distinction is meaningless, then you may actually have to confront exactly what it is about this large swath of music that you dislike, aware that there is no simple explanation as "composers rejected everything of what music had been based on".
> 
> I am fully convinced that people find Schoenberg difficult because his music is Schoenbergian (contrapuntally dense, harmonically rich, saturated with motivic development in both melody and rhythm) more than because it's non-tonal (in the specific sense).


I tried to answer this point for point and ended up obliterating the whole thing by accident because I'm a computer ignoramus. So I'll just make the point that _most_ people don't think about music, talk about it, write about it, compose it, or even play it. Their musical world is not yours. And their musical world - the world of the music they listen to and love - is predominantly tonal. You can define and redefine and undefine tonality till the cows come home. But people generally listen to, and like, tonal music. Leave the house any day of the week, walk into any commercial establishment or public space, and you will be bombarded with tonal music, like it or not (and I usually don't!). With all due respect (and plenty is due your erudition and civility, which I thoroughly enjoy, btw), your perspectives on music, and on the subject of what tonality is, are not the only possible or valid perspectives. I actually took exception to practically every statement in your post, but after detailing my reasons and then losing them in cyberspace I haven't the time or patience to repeat them. It'll have to suffice to say that I think there is an actual difference between music in which there is an implied tonal center and music in which there isn't, however broadly or narrowly we want to define tonality. No amount of semantic quibbling about whether atonality is a primarily a development of tonality or a departure from it will make the difference vanish, or will prove to listeners that the difference they hear doesn't exist, or will convince them that music which doesn't afford them the satisfactions peculiar to music with a tonal center of gravity has much to say to them. Sure, some people learn to enjoy various non-tonal musics for their own peculiar qualities; it's possible that most people, with enough exposure, can expand their expectations and tastes in this way, to some extent. That is irrelevant to the existence or nonexistence of tonality, which seems to be our point of contention.

And, by the way, I didn't "claim" that the point of the OP was true. I only speculated on whether it might be a factor.


----------



## Manxfeeder

Nereffid said:


> What percentage of the population constituted the classical audience 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago...?
> 
> Can anyone say with any certainty when was the peak of "broad interest in classical music"?


I had a book that had the statistics on classical listeners in the '30s and '40s in America. I wish I could track that down. A lot of average Joes listened to classical back then, at least casually. I think the influx of Europeans fleeing the Nazis spiked the interest, and the American culture followed. I don't know if they average Joe understood the music, but they at least wanted to like it.


----------



## stevens

The reasons of decline of interest in Classical Music (according to steven)

1) The lack of tonality in "modern" classical music

2) Those ugly screaming opera divas (often out of tune)

3) The upper class vibes of classical music

4) Ridiculous bombastic music (around 1830-1890) 

5) All those nerdy sexistic acne pimpled dorks (sorry I couldnt resist, but i think its true) 

6) The polite oversocial pupil appearance of the majority of young classical musicians (and the expectation of them)

7) The culture in classical music that celebrates, adore those old elevated immortal masters 

8) The view that you cant be young and play all Beethoven sonatas (or whatever sonatas)

9) The view that you cant be young and think that you are a great and deep artist, or believe you are something


----------



## Mahlerian

Woodduck said:


> I actually took exception to practically every statement in your post, but after detailing my reasons and then losing them in cyberspace I haven't the time or patience to repeat them.


I'm sorry to hear that. I'm sure that you put a good deal of effort into it, and I sympathize with your frustration.



Woodduck said:


> With all due respect (and plenty is due your erudition and civility, which I thoroughly enjoy, btw), your perspectives on music, and on the subject of what tonality is, are not the only possible or valid perspectives.


Of course, but you're positing that I must believe in a distinction that to me everything seems against. I cannot hear atonality. Tonality I can hear, of course. Functional tonality is a very strong thing. Non-functional tonal centers I can hear as well, or tonal ambiguity, where multiple possibilities exist. I cannot hear atonality. I can hear music that has been described as atonal, I can hear music that is 12-tone, but I cannot hear this idea of music where all idea of tonal attraction has ceased to exert any influence on the way the pitches are treated.

I also have never seen any consistent description of what atonality is. Some sources say that it is music without a tonal center, broadly defined. Well, what is a tonal center? How is it established, apart from functional tonality? By emphasis? Can there not be unconscious emphasis?

Why has the term atonality been constantly fraught with controversy, why was it invented by a critic, and why do composers almost uniformly avoid it (except to disparage other composers and styles of music)? If it is such a huge break from the past and a simple matter of distinction that the untrained layman unconsciously and naturally reacts to, *why is there nothing resembling a consensus on which pieces actually are atonal?*



Woodduck said:


> It'll have to suffice to say that I think there is an actual difference between music in which there is an implied tonal center and music in which there isn't, however broadly or narrowly we want to define tonality.


I am aware that this is our main point of contention.



Woodduck said:


> No amount of semantic quibbling about whether atonality is a primarily a development of tonality or a departure from it will make the difference vanish, or will prove to listeners that the difference they hear doesn't exist, or will convince them that music which doesn't afford them the satisfactions peculiar to music with a tonal center of gravity has much to say to them.


Yes, but knowing what their difficulties are with a piece of music can help them to approach it. It might also reveal how the Stravinsky/Schoenberg split of the early 20th century was as ridiculous as the Brahms/Wagner split of the late 19th. It could also convince them that even though non-tonal music doesn't offer the same sensations as tonal music (modal music doesn't either), it can give them other ones which have plenty to offer.



> And, by the way, I didn't "claim" that the point of the OP was true. I only speculated on whether it might be a factor.


It is true that you professed ignorance as to whether or not it was the thing that caused a decline in audience share, but you said that you react with incredulity when people assert that atonality has not "repelled" large numbers of people, and claimed that atonality is the distinction between the new music and the older music. From my perspective, it is possible, though unlikely, that the relatively rarely performed (at the time) music of Schoenberg and his pupils caused some audience members to give up on classical music entirely, but the fact that I don't believe in the existence of atonality means that of course there are other explanations which are not nearly so broad-brush. It seems far clearer to me that what people dislike is the style of the music.


----------



## Mahlerian

norman bates said:


> I'm not sure about that, considering the success of composers like Einaudi (I don't like him at all, but anyway), Eric Whitacre but also the minimalists like Glass, Jake Heggie or even composers like Copland or Barber.


Of course this doesn't constitute a "return" to tonality, just a portion of the composing world that continued to write diatonically based music. I'm always surprised when people claim that there existed a time when the entire classical world was non-tonal.


----------



## hpowders

The return of the prodigal tone.


----------



## norman bates

Mahlerian said:


> Of course this doesn't constitute a "return" to tonality, just a portion of the composing world that continued to write diatonically based music.


and those are some of the most successful composers in modern music. I'm not making judgments about the value of the music of those composers (it's not the point), but maybe is not so absurd to think that tonality still attracts more public to classical music.


----------



## KenOC

norman bates said:


> and those are some of the most successful composers in modern music. I'm not making judgments about the value of the music of those composers (it's not the point), but maybe is not so absurd to think that tonality still attracts more public to classical music.


Here are the six most-performed living composers among 21 major US orchestras for the 2014-2015 season, in order:

John Adams
Mason Bates
Jennifer Higdon
Christopher Rouse
Esa-Pekka Salonen
Thomas Ades.


----------



## Guest

And symphony hall is not the place to find new music. Those six composers are all well and good for what they do, but the avant-garde moved out of symphony hall several decades ago.

If the symphony audience is who is being referred to when people say "the average classical listener," then it's no wonder that non-symphonic composers are less popular among symphony audiences. Why, those audiences don't even know who those people are! And in the last year or two, I have heard individuals from those audiences complain about Liebermann, Britten, and Janacek. The complaint about Britten was the loudest and the most vehement, though the complaint about Liebermann was pretty bitter. Ades garnered some criticism, too, when his _Asyla_ was performed in Portland, though the applause was generally pretty enthusiastic. But when I suggested that it might be fun if the symphony would play some Lachenmann, the response from both the conductor and the general manager was a vehement "No!" They had just performed Nielsen's sixth and performed it very well. I meant my suggestion partly as a compliment to the level of playing under Kalmar. But no, I was assured that Portland's audiences would never be ready for Lachenmann.

Never's a long time. There were European orchestras in the nineteenth century but never mind. No matter how often that point gets made....

Anyway, talking about new music, especially about the new music being criticized in anti-modernist threads, in the same breath as talking about symphony halls is just silly. That's not where new music is being performed. And if you never get your music in museums or libraries or cafes or coffee shops or embassies or abandoned factories, then there's a huge world of music, very enthusiastically received music, that you just simply won't run across. Sure, that stuff's on youtube, but you have to know where it is. If it weren't for me and a few other people here, you'd never find that stuff online, either. It just doesn't register for most people, even for fairly adventurous classical listeners.

Its followers are happy with it, however, and their numbers are growing. I know. I've been to hundreds of concerts a year since 2005, and I have watched the audiences grow over the past nine years.


----------



## Woodduck

Manxfeeder said:


> And that's the shame of it; it became specialized at best and elitist at worst. The original question was about the decline of "broad interest" in classical music.
> 
> My perspective is about America, because that's where I grew up. If you look at old Life magazines from the '40s to the '50s, classical music was being presented alongside with other forms of popular entertainment. Erik Leinsdorf would be pictured with his baton hawking someone's wares alongside other movie stars, and conductors like Toscanini and Mitropoulos would pop up regularly. At that time, Americans may have not completely understood classical music, but they did aspire to. When the new group of composers popped up like John Cage and Peter Mennnin, Life Magazine ran articles about them. TV shows had John Cage and William Schuman as guests. I think back then, Americans saw this new music and were attempting to come to terms with it.
> 
> I have a pretty thick book from the '40s on How to Understand and Enjoy Great Music or something like that. Over just about every piece in the book, the owner would handwrite in when she heard it, like "Mitropoulos, December 1947" and would pencil in not-very-insightful comments like "I love this" or "Not for this world."
> 
> *At one time, Americans did aspire to appreciate classical music. * In the '60s, something happened. My opinion is, as American culture changed, classical music became perceived as elitist, and composers retreated into ivory towers and reinforced that belief. The parting shot was the famous article by Milton Babbitt "Who Cares If They Listen?" (Though, to be fair, the title of the article is not his.)
> 
> You had a mixing of classical elements with rock in the '60s with the Filmore concerts and the experiments with the Beatles. But I think the turning point was when composers like Steve Reich, Philip Glass, and Terry Riley turned back to tonality. Of course, looking back, it was too much tonality. But once more, you had classical music that was connecting with a general audience.
> 
> What that did was break the dominance of the "12-tone dead end," as someone phrased it. It didn't restore classical music to the status it once had in the general American population, where it represented a higher culture that could be aspired to, but it did rescue it from falling into obscurity.


Americans once aspired to a lot of things. They had at least an inkling that there were finer things to keep up with than the Kardashians.


----------



## norman bates

some guy said:


> And symphony hall is not the place to find new music. Those six composers are all well and good for what they do, but the avant-garde moved out of symphony hall several decades ago.


maybe, but we are not reasoning about those who want to listen avantgarde music, but if there's a correlation between the disaffection of the public and atonality. Millionrainbows was saying that today the use of tonality would not ncrease the CM audience: the fact that the most popular composers of today make tonal music says something completely different.


----------



## Mahlerian

norman bates said:


> maybe, but we are not reasoning about those who want to listen avantgarde music, but if there's a correlation between the disaffection of the public and atonality. Millionrainbows was saying that today the use of tonality would not increase the CM audience: the fact that the most popular composers of today make tonal music says something completely different.


Actually, it would only say something different if orchestras were doing better than a time when they didn't play much tonal music from living composers (I'd also like to hear when that was, actually). The fact that orchestra ticket sales are still down in spite of programming "accessible" contemporary works seems to indicate that the influence is neutral (or negative).


----------



## dgee

I think that list of most programmed living composers reflects an emphasis on "the most acceptable" rather than "the most interesting". 

Also, as per St Luke's post, I'd like to hear about the time you or anyone you know was deliberately set upon by a lover of "avant garde" who belittled your love of Rachmaninov or Puccini (or Bolero or whatevs). Also, did it happen in real life or on an internet forum after you'd made disparaging remarks about the quality of "modern/atonal music"?

Seriously - I'm interested in this phenomenon and whether it actually occurs in real life or whether it's just something that crops up on internet forums/the imagination


----------



## Woodduck

Mahlerian said:


> *I cannot hear atonality.* Tonality I can hear, of course. Functional tonality is a very strong thing. Non-functional tonal centers I can hear as well, or tonal ambiguity, where multiple possibilities exist. I cannot hear atonality. I can hear music that has been described as atonal, I can hear music that is 12-tone, but *I cannot hear this idea of music where all idea of tonal attraction has ceased to exert any influence on the way the pitches are treated.*
> 
> I also have never seen any consistent description of what atonality is. Some sources say that it is music without a tonal center, broadly defined. *Well, what is a tonal center? How is it established, apart from functional tonality? By emphasis? Can there not be unconscious emphasis?*
> 
> Why has the term atonality been constantly fraught with controversy, why was it invented by a critic, and why do composers almost uniformly avoid it (except to disparage other composers and styles of music)? If it is such a huge break from the past and a simple matter of distinction that the untrained layman unconsciously and naturally reacts to, *why is there nothing resembling a consensus on which pieces actually are atonal?*
> 
> *The fact that I don't believe in the existence of atonality means that of course there are other** explanations* which are not nearly so broad-brush. *It seems far clearer to me that what people dislike is the style of the music.*




Briefly: all the statements above in boldface seem problematic to me. Are you saying you hear the functioning of tonal centers in all music? And if you do, does that mean that that function actually exists in the music, or that your brain expects it and projects it onto music which doesn't contain it?What is so difficult about the concept of a tonal center - a harmonic or melodic point of ultimate resolution to which other harmonies or melody notes relate in some functional way? What do you mean by unconscious emphasis on a tonal center? Unconscious to the composer? The listener? why would we expect consensus on what music is tonal or atonal? Where do we find consensus on anything? Whether or not you believe in atonality doesn't imply anything about why other people claim to hear it. And non-tonal music may vary in style as much as _Moses and Aron_ differs from a Webern quartet, so it seems unlikely that when people say they dislike atonal music they're just referring to style.

Sorry to be so terse! I'm expected for dinner.


----------



## Mahlerian

Woodduck said:


> Are you saying you hear the functioning of tonal centers in all music? And if you do, does that mean that that function actually exists in the music, or that your brain expects it and projects it onto music which doesn't contain it?What is so difficult about the concept of a tonal center - a harmonic or melodic point of ultimate resolution to which other harmonies or melody notes relate in some functional way? What do you mean by unconscious emphasis on a tonal center? Unconscious to the composer? The listener?


I hear melodies and harmonies as implying kinds of gravity and force. Of course I do not hear tonal function in the sense of dominant-subdominant-tonic hierarchy, which I do hear in functionally tonal music, but I do hear points of rest and stability.

When Schoenberg said the following about his first works in his "atonal" style:


Schoenberg said:


> The term _emancipation of the dissonance_ refers to its comprehensibility, which is considered equivalent to the consonance's comprehensibility. A style based on this premise treats dissonances like consonances and renounces a tonal center. By avoiding the establishment of key modulation is excluded, since modulation means leaving an established tonality and establishing _another_ tonality.


"Tonal center" here means not a note which is taken as a single point of gravity, but as a "tonality", a "key". Clearly, in a style making use of the full chromatic scale constantly without emphasis of a given diatonic collection, there can be no modulation, and it is in this sense, of traditional major-minor tonality, that "tonal centers" are renounced.

But single points of gravity, as exist in much 20th century music in lieu of tradititional diatonic function, exist as well in Schoenberg and elsewhere. Schoenberg may not use the pedal points and ostinati that other composers favor nearly as often, but yes, I hear centeredness and gravity in a work such as this, and throughout. Melodic/contrapuntal/harmonic/rhythmic factors push certain notes into prominence, and the fact that these notes tend to be pretty consistent (with particular emphasis on the tritone) is no accident, and certainly no projection of my tonally-oriented mind (which it is, and I sometimes hear modal works as if they ended on a half cadence).






When I refer to "unconscious" tonal centers, I am talking about those which exert influence on the composer who, while composing, hears something as tending this way rather than that, about harmonies needing a certain kind of resolution or having certain weight. I also mean those which are not necessarily emphasized on the surface of the music, but shape it nonetheless.



Woodduck said:


> Why would we expect consensus on what music is tonal or atonal? Where do we find consensus on anything? Whether or not you believe in atonality doesn't imply anything about why other people claim to hear it.


But people claim to hear it in tonal works as well. The word was _invented_ specifically to describe the music of Mahler, Strauss, Reger, and Debussy as well as the Second Viennese School. I have seen the word used on the internet to describe Shostakovich's Fourth (and the Fifth!), Bartok's quartets, John Adams' Short Ride, Prokofiev's Piano Sonatas, Stravinsky's Rite of Spring, and all kinds of other works which are demonstrably tonal in one form or another; the fact that the early works of the Second Viennese School are also so labeled should come as no surprise. One member of this forum made a reference to Salome "sounding atonal" just today. If tonality and atonality are polar opposites, as is claimed, how can any work so identified end up actually being the other? How are people so consistently wrong and consistently inconsistent? This isn't simply listeners, either; musicians, critics, conductors, and others frequently disagree as to what constitutes atonality.

The problem is not that there is a clear principle which is applied differently by different people, it is that no clear principles have ever been established, beyond something not adhering to functional tonality and it having a certain level of chromaticism.



> And non-tonal music may vary in style as much as _Moses and Aron_ differs from a Webern quartet, so it seems unlikely that when people say they dislike atonal music they're just referring to style.


True, of course; there are many styles, and usually people only actually dislike some of them. Sometimes claims such as that Berg was more tonal than Schoenberg, or Schoenberg was more tonal than Webern, are brought in. Some people like the Second Viennese School but dislike Darmstadt serialism, or Xenakis, or Babbitt, or Carter, or someone else. Some like Varese but can't stand Schoenberg, or like Stravinsky's late works and nothing else.

I feel that people project their dislike of a style (or group of styles) into an aesthetic critique, and often this is based on premises that are factually incorrect: "no melody", "random noise", "music for the eye and not the ear", "only for musicians/composers/intellectuals/academics" (that last in descending order of desirability).

There are some rather consistent elements to most "atonal" music:
- Emphasis on harmonies other than triads
- Melodies that do not imply traditional diatonic scales
- A texture that is varied and changing, rather than homogeneous and consistent
- Multiple layers of activity
- Use of leaps wider than an octave, sometimes in succession

Though of course one can easily find exceptions to all of these in the work of any composer thus labeled.


----------



## Guest

Mahlerian said:


> no clear principles have ever been established, beyond something not adhering to functional tonality and it having a certain level of chromaticism.


I wouldn't even go this far. I've heard people complain about the atonal elements in Ravel. And they weren't talking about chromaticism or functional tonality, either. At the very worst, "atonal" means "whatever I don't like, for whatever reason."

Not much you can do with that kind of meaning.


----------



## Woodduck

Mahlerian said:


> I hear melodies and harmonies as implying kinds of gravity and force. Of course I do not hear tonal function in the sense of dominant-subdominant-tonic hierarchy, which I do hear in functionally tonal music, but *I do hear points of rest and stability.*
> 
> When Schoenberg said the following about his first works in his "atonal" style:
> 
> "Tonal center" here means not a note which is taken as a single point of gravity, but as a "tonality", a "key". Clearly, in a style making use of the full chromatic scale constantly without emphasis of a given diatonic collection, there can be no modulation, and it is in this sense, of traditional major-minor tonality, that "tonal centers" are renounced.
> 
> But *single points of gravity, as exist in much 20th century music in lieu of tradititional diatonic function, exist as well in Schoenberg and elsewhere.* Schoenberg may not use the pedal points and ostinati that other composers favor nearly as often, but yes, I hear centeredness and gravity in a work such as this, and throughout. *Melodic/contrapuntal/harmonic/rhythmic factors push certain notes into prominence, and the fact that these notes tend to be pretty consistent (with particular emphasis on the tritone) is no accident,* and certainly no projection of my tonally-oriented mind (which it is, and I sometimes hear modal works as if they ended on a half cadence).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I refer to *"unconscious" tonal centers,* I am talking about *those which exert influence on the composer who, while composing, hears something as tending this way rather than that, about harmonies needing a certain kind of resolution or having certain weight.* I also mean those which are not necessarily emphasized on the surface of the music, but shape it nonetheless.
> 
> But people claim to hear it in tonal works as well. The word was _invented_ specifically to describe the music of Mahler, Strauss, Reger, and Debussy as well as the Second Viennese School. I have seen the word used on the internet to describe Shostakovich's Fourth (and the Fifth!), Bartok's quartets, John Adams' Short Ride, Prokofiev's Piano Sonatas, Stravinsky's Rite of Spring, and all kinds of other works which are demonstrably tonal in one form or another; the fact that the early works of the Second Viennese School are also so labeled should come as no surprise. One member of this forum made a reference to Salome "sounding atonal" just today. If tonality and atonality are polar opposites, as is claimed, how can any work so identified end up actually being the other? How are people so consistently wrong and consistently inconsistent? This isn't simply listeners, either; *musicians, critics, conductors, and others frequently disagree as to what constitutes atonality.
> *
> *The problem is not that there is a clear principle which is applied differently by different people, it is that no clear principles have ever been established, beyond something not adhering to functional tonality and it having a certain level of chromaticism.
> *
> 
> True, of course; there are many styles, and usually people only actually dislike some of them. Sometimes claims such as that Berg was more tonal than Schoenberg, or Schoenberg was more tonal than Webern, are brought in. Some people like the Second Viennese School but dislike Darmstadt serialism, or Xenakis, or Babbitt, or Carter, or someone else. Some like Varese but can't stand Schoenberg, or like Stravinsky's late works and nothing else.
> 
> I feel that people project their dislike of a style (or group of styles) into an aesthetic critique, and often this is based on premises that are factually incorrect: "no melody", "random noise", "music for the eye and not the ear", "only for musicians/composers/intellectuals/academics" (that last in descending order of desirability).
> 
> There are some rather consistent elements to most "atonal" music:
> - Emphasis on harmonies other than triads
> - Melodies that do not imply traditional diatonic scales
> - A texture that is varied and changing, rather than homogeneous and consistent
> - Multiple layers of activity
> - Use of leaps wider than an octave, sometimes in succession
> 
> Though of course one can easily find exceptions to all of these in the work of any composer thus labeled.


The concrete detail of this post is much appreciated. I'd feel guilty for making you work so hard, but it doesn't look like work for you!

I hear, as you do, tendencies and points of rest and stability in this music. I think what makes them different from those found in clearly tonal music is, first, their brevity and tentativeness, and, second, the impossibility of relating them to a larger tonal scheme with an ultimate destination. Rest and stability are relative concepts; a coffee break in the midst of an arduous workday is a point of rest, but it's nothing like going home to a good meal and stretching out on the couch! It's harder for most of us to "stretch out" and relax on a tritone than on a major or minor triad. With practice I've found it possible to refine my sense of the internal tensions of harmony as dense and unstable as this and appreciate finer degrees of them, but this necessarily involves, for me, forgetting the larger context of harmony as I know it, a context which includes the possibility of dwelling on harmonies perceived as having little or no tension or need for resolution, and allows for the widest range of dissonant/consonant relationships of which the thirteen tones of the chromatic scale are capable. This music, avoiding the suggestion of "key" by constantly dwelling on seconds, sevenths, tritones, does not allow for that full range, and so despite places of relative tension and repose the overall impression is of fairly constant instability and, ultimately, the absence of a destination where we can feel that the constant stress preceding is resolved. Of course, music doesn't have to offer resolution, final or otherwise. But some of us feel a bit unsatisfied if we've worked hard all day and don't get that meal or that couch when we arrive home. And I'd have to say that for me, listening to this piece, even the coffee breaks felt as if the boss might call me back at any moment. I love dissonance, tension, suspense and irresolution in music, but I find the greatest emotional payoff where there's greater distance between these states and their opposites, and where there's a comfortable home to come to when the workday is done.

So much for high-flown metaphors.

I would tend to agree that the designations "tonal" and "atonal" should not be defined in terms of specific musical idioms. But I think it's possible to consider them as clear _principles_. Thus people might well differ in how much tonality they can perceive in a given work, and this is quite reasonable if tonality is seen as a principle and not a sound or a style. It's perfectly valid to speak of, say, Strauss's _Elektra_ as containing "atonal" passages; there are even moments in Wagner that seem to take us outside the realm of tonal expectation. From this perspective I can understand your position that "atonality" is a _development_ of the way harmony had been moving. But the renunciation of the relationship of keys, of the hierarchy that imparts a longer-term sense of harmonic movement than moment-to-moment tensions and resolutions, along with the need to avoid dwelling on consonant triads as elements of repose, creates a characteristically close, dissonant, restless harmonic idiom which is really quite new in contrast to even the richest chromaticism which preceded it. It's the sound that's conjured up for most of us, I think, by the term "atonal." But of course music without tonality can have many different sounds, as Liszt's little bagatelle, consisting of a succession of augmented triads floating in space, illustrates. I don't see that different pieces or styles of music being called atonal by different people invalidates a definition which considers atonality as a general principle. Tonality - the gravitational pull of a harmony or tone to which other harmonies or tones have certain relationships - is a principle which assumes different forms and degrees of force in different musics worldwide. A-tonality, the absence of such a system of relationships, is not a meaningless concept just because it varies in the same way.


----------



## mmsbls

Woodduck said:


> [/B]
> Whether or not you believe in atonality doesn't imply anything about why other people claim to hear it.


I believe this concept is important. Independent of whether atonality is a useful word or whether the term properly describes certain music, some people really do find certain modern music to sound strange and different. Those people are struck by the peculiar (and often unpleasant) sounds of many modern works. They use atonal to describe this strange music because they have seen many others use the term in that manner. The important point is not the word "atonal", which I agree is often used incorrectly, but rather the fact that much modern music strikes some classical music listeners as remarkably different from everything they had heard and loved - mostly pre-20th century, tonal music.



Mahlerian said:


> How are people so consistently wrong and consistently inconsistent? This isn't simply listeners, either; musicians, critics, conductors, and others frequently disagree as to what constitutes atonality.
> 
> The problem is not that there is a clear principle which is applied differently by different people, it is that no clear principles have ever been established, beyond something not adhering to functional tonality and it having a certain level of chromaticism.


People are inconsistent in using a technical term to describe complex musical concepts because they do not have the training to properly understand the technical details of tonality and also because there is no common term to describe the music that sounds strange to them. Those people experience something very real to them - music that sounds odd, weird, unpleasant in a consistent manner. The music really does sound similar to them. It is distinctly different from all the other classical music they enjoy. They assume there is a term for this similar sounding music, but unfortunately the term most often used is simply often used incorrectly.

I feel it is more useful to focus on the phenomenon of people hearing music they feel is different as well as unpleasant. That music may well be tonal, may be highly chromatic, may lack frequent tonal centers, may be highly dissonant, or have other defining features. If they call it atonal, they be be factually incorrect, but they are certainly correct in how it affects them as listeners. Those people probably don't care that the term "atonal" is incorrect because they know how they feel about the music they call atonal.


----------



## Sloe

Nereffid said:


> Does anyone have any actual data about the decline in popularity of classical music?
> 
> The figure of 3% of the current music audience gets thrown about a bit, and certainly classical sales used to be higher than that... but does anyone have historical data?
> 
> What percentage of the population constituted the classical audience 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago...?
> 
> Can anyone say with any certainty when was the peak of "broad interest in classical music"?
> 
> (to clarify: these aren't "gotcha" questions, I'm just genuinely curious if there are figures available)


I have read somewhere that in the 1930-ies were 40 % of all records sold classical music.
The 1950-ies 20 %
The 1980-ies 6 %


----------



## mmsbls

Sloe said:


> I have read somewhere that in the 1930-ies were 40 % of all records sold classical music.
> The 1950-ies 20 %
> The 1980-ies 6 %


I think record sales per person have significantly increased as the technology has gotten less expensive so it's not clear if 40% of sales in the 30s represents a greater percentage of the population than 6% in the 80s.


----------



## Sloe

mmsbls said:


> I think record sales per person have significantly increased as the technology has gotten less expensive so it's not clear if 40% of sales in the 30s represents a greater percentage of the population than 6% in the 80s.


Yes you are right I was thinking the same.
Then what can we go after. People can still enjoy the music if they only have ten records no records at all instead of 100 records.
And concerning radio were classical music dominating as late as the 1960-ies.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> I believe this concept is important. Independent of whether atonality is a useful word or whether the term properly describes certain music, some people really do find certain modern music to sound strange and different.


And independent of any intended effect by the composer, the listener will hear what the listener will hear. What Woodduck and Mahlerian 'hear' (in the total sense of perceive and comprehend) is surely affected by a mix of influences, not least the familiarity (and unfamiliarity) with this, that or the other style over their lifetimes.

The composer can impose a construct beforehand on the effects s/he wishes to achieve ("I want to unsettle the listener, so I'll put in a string of dissonances that I'm not going to resolve until....") but there is no guarantee that the listener will hear it as intended. Conversely, we can impose a construct afterwards ("Beethoven's 3rd was a break with symphonic tradition which demanded that it stick to these rules...") but that doesn't mean to say that such traditions were well established because that is what the ear naturally hears as euphonious.

Listening to the Andante from Mahler's 6th Symphony (again!) the violins at the start are definitely, to my ears, playing some notes 'wrong' - presumably chromaticism at work? (Actually, in the Janssons/LSO version, I actually think that the strings are also playing badly - does anyone else think that?)

Is that because that is how all ears will hear it? Just my ears? Or will, over time, I get so used to it that it will no longer sound like chromaticism?


----------



## Nereffid

mmsbls said:


> I think record sales per person have significantly increased as the technology has gotten less expensive so it's not clear if 40% of sales in the 30s represents a greater percentage of the population than 6% in the 80s.


Yes, in order for record sales to be a useful figure we also need to know what percentage of the population were actually buying records. And then how do we compare it to times before the invention of records?

I have a suspicion - and in the absence of evidence that's all it can be - that economics, demographics and class have played a huge part (much bigger than anything in the music, even) in the changes in the classical audience size over time, and in the changes in what audience wants to listen to.


----------



## norman bates

Mahlerian said:


> Actually, it would only say something different if orchestras were doing better than a time when they didn't play much tonal music from living composers (I'd also like to hear when that was, actually). The fact that orchestra ticket sales are still down in spite of programming "accessible" contemporary works seems to indicate that the influence is neutral (or negative).


if their influence is negative just because the sales are low, just think how much more can be negative the influence of less popular atonal composers .


----------



## Sloe

Nereffid said:


> Yes, in order for record sales to be a useful figure we also need to know what percentage of the population were actually buying records. And then how do we compare it to times before the invention of records?
> 
> I have a suspicion - and in the absence of evidence that's all it can be - that economics, demographics and class have played a huge part (much bigger than anything in the music, even) in the changes in the classical audience size over time, and in the changes in what audience wants to listen to.


You can forget what I said before.
What I said was old distorted memories.
Here are correct numbers:

In 1965 were 40 % of all sold LP:s classical music.
1970 20 % and 1980 5 %.

I hope that is to some help.


----------



## millionrainbows

norman bates said:


> I'm not sure about that, considering the success of composers like Einaudi (I don't like him at all, but anyway), Eric Whitacre but also the minimalists like Glass, Jake Heggie or even composers like Copland or Barber.


Glass is not traditionally tonal; Copland used advanced concepts, even the 12-tone method (see CD _Copland As Modernis_t).

The argument that tonality "survived" until the present is weak at best, and at the same time contradicts the assertion that "the weakening of tonality caused CM's broad decline." Make up your mind, and present a consistent argument.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> ...So I'll just make the point that _most_ people don't think about music, talk about it, write about it, compose it, or even play it. Their musical world is not yours. And their musical world - the world of the music they listen to and love - is predominantly tonal. You can define and redefine and undefine tonality till the cows come home. But people generally listen to, and like, tonal music. Leave the house any day of the week, walk into any commercial establishment or public space, and you will be bombarded with tonal music, like it or not (and I usually don't!). With all due respect (and plenty is due your erudition and civility, which I thoroughly enjoy, btw), your perspectives on music, and on the subject of what tonality is, are not the only possible or valid perspectives. I actually took exception to practically every statement in your post... I haven't the time or patience to repeat them. It'll have to suffice to say that I think there is an actual difference between music in which there is an implied tonal center and music in which there isn't, however broadly or narrowly we want to define tonality. No amount of semantic quibbling about whether atonality is a primarily a development of tonality or a departure from it will make the difference vanish, or will prove to listeners that the difference they hear doesn't exist, or will convince them that music which doesn't afford them the satisfactions peculiar to music with a tonal center of gravity has much to say to them. Sure, some people learn to enjoy various non-tonal musics for their own peculiar qualities; it's possible that most people, with enough exposure, can expand their expectations and tastes in this way, to some extent. That is irrelevant to the existence or nonexistence of tonality, which seems to be our point of contention.


That's a refreshingly honest response! At least somebody around here is coming out and saying what they honestly feel, for a change.

To me, though, music is just sound, which represents thought. Whose thought? That remains flexible. Sometimes it's mine, sometimes it's the composer's, sometimes it's a disembodied entity, which is made out of sound. :lol:


----------



## Figleaf

Sloe said:


> You can forget what I said before.
> What I said was old distorted memories.
> Here are correct numbers:
> 
> In 1965 were 40 % of all sold LP:s classical music.
> 1970 20 % and 1980 5 %.
> 
> I hope that is to some help.


It's always helpful to have exact figures for anything, so thank you for those. I get the impression that in the early days- up to and including 1965- LPs were quite an upmarket product, aimed at an adult, moneyed demographic, whereas pop music was mostly sold on 45rpm singles. This might explain why such a large proportion of music sold was classical. I expect similar would be true of jazz and the more adult-oriented type of pop music, such as Frank Sinatra. As time went on the LP format seems to have become democratised (and presumably cheaper) so we can see a larger amount of pop records sold. I think it's helpful to bear in mind who LPs were bought by, as difficult as that is to know precisely, rather than taking LP sales as necessarily representative of the taste of the broader population.


----------



## norman bates

millionrainbows said:


> Glass is not traditionally tonal; Copland used advanced concepts, even the 12-tone method (see CD _Copland As Modernis_t).


Are you really saying that the popularity of Copland is due to this atonal works?
And what about the other mentioned? I don't think that there have been opera composers so successfull as Jake Heggie in recent times.



millionrainbows said:


> The argument that tonality "survived" until the present is weak at best, and at the same time contradicts the assertion that "the weakening of tonality caused CM's broad decline." Make up your mind, and present a consistent argument.


I can't see how the fact that the most popular composers in the world today are those who make tonal music is a contradiction of the fact that atonality was a big factor in the disaffection of the public. In fact, jazz earned a lot of popularity in the first part of the twentieth century (when composers were experimenting a lot with atonality) and it lost his popularity with the advent of bebop. Is it a mere coincidence?


----------



## millionrainbows

*Diagnostic Criteria for Atonality*

*ATONALITY*

(A) A maladaptive pattern of non-harmonic organization , leading to clinically significant impairment or weakening of tonal centers, as manifested by at least one of the following occurring within a 12-measure period:


Recurrent use of chromaticism and/or chromatic root movement, resulting in a failure to fulfill important tonal obligations and reinforcement of a tonal center (e.g., repeated chromatic roots, or lack of tonal function, related to atonality; atonally-related ambiguities, dissonances, or absence of a tonal center; neglect of harmonic function) 
Recurrent atonality in situations in which it is psychologically or aesthetically hazardous to traditions (e.g., atonal string quartets, concertos, cantatas, lieder) 
Recurrent atonal-related problems (e.g., audience alienation, walk-outs, slamming auditorium doors, old ladies hammering the stage with shoes) 
Continued atonal use despite having persistent or recurrent social or interpersonal problems caused or exacerbated by the effects of atonality (e.g., arguments with other composers or concert programmers about consequences of atonality).


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> That's a refreshingly honest response! At least somebody around here is coming out and saying what they honestly feel, for a change.


Are you suggesting that Woodduck is in a small minority...and that many/most aren't saying what they honestly feel?


----------



## millionrainbows

> Originally Posted by *Mahlerian*:
> 
> *I cannot hear atonality.* Tonality I can hear, of course. Functional tonality is a very strong thing. Non-functional tonal centers I can hear as well, or tonal ambiguity, where multiple possibilities exist. I cannot hear atonality. I can hear music that has been described as atonal, I can hear music that is 12-tone, but *I cannot hear this idea of music where all idea of tonal attraction has ceased to exert any influence on the way the pitches are treated.*





Woodduck said:


> Are you saying you hear the functioning of tonal centers in all music? And if you do, does that mean that that function actually exists in the music, or that your brain expects it and projects it onto music which doesn't contain it?


I think he means both. Our ears hear harmonically, i.e., they hear tones "from the bottom up" like a fundamental tone model, where upper partials are lesser constituents of a more prominent fundamental tone, or "tonic." Therefore, any music, even serial, will be heard by our ears as having harmonic significance in some way. This only goes so far, though, before cognitive recognition kicks in (over a cognitive, thinking time span) and we should realize whether this is simply wishful thinking, or if our tonal world has, indeed, been destroyed or degraded.



> Originally Posted by *Mahlerian*:I also have never seen any consistent description of what atonality is. Some sources say that it is music without a tonal center, broadly defined.


Don't confuse a broad definition of tonality (non-academic) with a definition of atonality. 
"Atonality" is, likewise, a general term, but it not so much defines _"what is"_ than it defines _"what it is a lack of."_ This is derived from the doctrine of *Privatio Boni*, in which *"evil" (atonality)* does not really exist except as a* lack *of the *natural good of creation (tonality).

God (tonality) is the ultimate creator, and his creation is all-encompassing; therefore nothingness (atonality) cannot exist, because that is not part of God.
*

*



Originally Posted by Mahlerian:Well, what is a tonal center? How is it established, apart from functional tonality? By emphasis? Can there not be unconscious emphasis?

Click to expand...

*It always existed. It is the center from which all things are related.



> Originally Posted by *Mahlerian*:Why has the term atonality been constantly fraught with controversy, why was it invented by a critic, and why do composers almost uniformly avoid it (except to disparage other composers and styles of music)?


Because atonality is a* lack *of tonality, in whatever way it is manifest. It is what some listeners describe as "evil." But "evil" is simply a *privation of good*: Privatio boni.



> Originally Posted by *Mahlerian*: If it is such a huge break from the past and a simple matter of distinction that the untrained layman unconsciously and naturally reacts to, *why is there nothing resembling a consensus on which pieces actually are atonal?*


Because, like evil, atonality is simply a "lack of tonality" which occurs in many forms.



> Originally Posted by Mahlerian:The fact that I don't believe in the existence of atonality means that of course there are other explanations which are not nearly so broad-brush. It seems far clearer to me that what people dislike is the style of the music.


You are correct in your initial assertion: Atonality does not really "exist." Atonality is a privation, an aberration of a normally healthy organism called "the body tonal." Look at atonality as a disease model, if you will.


----------



## Jobis

Composers stopped using tonality because they personally felt that it no longer worked as a tool of expression or an outlet for their creative ambitions. Partly, they must have felt little ownership over tonality; rather that it belonged to the composers of the past. 

Art in general has very very different applications these days than it did in say... Bach's time. Music is passing more into the realm of entertainment, as entertainment and art overlap to a greater degree, like a venn diagram. that being said it would be absurd to say great, 'high' art is not entertaining, but there you go.

I think this is not such a bad thing at all; the two can coexist quite happily. I think there is a big problem with music education; schools mostly focus on the baroque, classical and romantic periods, occasionally looking at 'pop music' to appease the youth. At my own school atonal music was only ever discussed dismissively, purely because it was on the syllabus and not out of any real desire on the teachers' part to divert our attention towards it.

We need good teachers, and outspoken CCM fans, let the composers do their thing!


----------



## Sloe

Figleaf said:


> It's always helpful to have exact figures for anything, so thank you for those. I get the impression that in the early days- up to and including 1965- LPs were quite an upmarket product, aimed at an adult, moneyed demographic, whereas pop music was mostly sold on 45rpm singles. This might explain why such a large proportion of music sold was classical. I expect similar would be true of jazz and the more adult-oriented type of pop music, such as Frank Sinatra. As time went on the LP format seems to have become democratised (and presumably cheaper) so we can see a larger amount of pop records sold. I think it's helpful to bear in mind who LPs were bought by, as difficult as that is to know precisely, rather than taking LP sales as necessarily representative of the taste of the broader population.


In 1965 were pop and rock musicians albums sold in similar numbers as in the 90-ies and higher numbers than today.
Worth to say is that 7 inches 45 rpm records or 78 rpm records are really lousy for most classical music.

And in 1965 had Arnold Schönberg been dead for 14 years so I doubt that the rise of atonality is the reason for decline in interest in classical music.


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> And independent of any intended effect by the composer, the listener will hear what the listener will hear. What Woodduck and Mahlerian 'hear' (in the total sense of perceive and comprehend) is surely affected by a mix of influences, not least the familiarity (and unfamiliarity) with this, that or the other style over their lifetimes.
> 
> The composer can impose a construct beforehand on the effects s/he wishes to achieve ("I want to unsettle the listener, so I'll put in a string of dissonances that I'm not going to resolve until....") but there is no guarantee that the listener will hear it as intended. Conversely, we can impose a construct afterwards ("Beethoven's 3rd was a break with symphonic tradition which demanded that it stick to these rules...") but that doesn't mean to say that such traditions were well established because that is what the ear naturally hears as euphonious.
> 
> Listening to the Andante from Mahler's 6th Symphony (again!) the violins at the start are definitely, to my ears, playing some notes 'wrong' - presumably chromaticism at work? (Actually, in the Janssons/LSO version, I actually think that the strings are also playing badly - does anyone else think that?)
> 
> *Is that because that is how all ears will hear it? Just my ears? Or will, over time, I get so used to it that it will no longer sound like chromaticism?*




The way we hear things definitely changes over time, both because we get used to them (they no longer seem "strange") and because we acquire knowledge about what we're hearing. Take that Mahler, for example: in the first phrase, the second note of the scale is flatted, and in the second phrase he flats the third of the chord, creating a minor feeling before passing on back to the major. If he didn't confound our 'normal expectations in this way, the melody would sound much more commonplace - sentimental in a simple-minded way rather than in that ambivalent, poignant "Mahlerian" way. These are indeed chromatically altered tones; the notes may sound "wrong" in a sense, but if you changed them to the "right" ones you would find the music deprived of its peculiar quality and power, and that would be really, really wrong!

Maybe that's more than you wanted to know.


----------



## Mahlerian

Thank you for a lengthy response. I'm sorry to have put a dent in an evening that was probably otherwise quite enjoyable!

I think we're getting to about the point we'll reach in terms of agreement, though I still have problems with some of what you say.



Woodduck said:


> But the renunciation of the relationship of keys, of the hierarchy that imparts a longer-term sense of harmonic movement than moment-to-moment tensions and resolutions, along with the need to avoid dwelling on consonant triads as elements of repose, creates a characteristically close, dissonant, restless harmonic idiom which is really quite new in contrast to even the richest chromaticism which preceded it.


Getting into my personal experience for a moment here, I hear Strauss's Salome as if it were a perpetual motion machine - dominant chord after dominant chord in succession without end, always harmonic tension left unresolved. Of course, the points of tonal attraction are always obvious, though they are changing constantly.

Schoenberg's music strikes me very differently. I am struck by how, in the finale of the Second String Quartet, the music suddenly attains a kind of repose at the very moment when we go from the chromatic tonality of the third movement to the non-tonality of the last. I _don't_ hear it as constant tension without end. Although the music cannot be abstracted to a series of chords progressing towards a clear tonal goal, I don't see that this is something that inhibits understanding.

The finale of Salome has always sounded incredibly arbitrary to me. After C# minor (the primary key of the opera, insofar as it has one) turns into a radiant C# major for the kiss (with that exceedingly garish and ugly IV with lots of extra notes), Herod steps in and the music ends in C minor, the only real purpose of which is to sound abrupt; it certainly doesn't sound like a resolution of all or any of the preceding tension.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFbRTLlpOnw#t=5403


----------



## Woodduck

Mahlerian said:


> Thank you for a lengthy response. I'm sorry to have put a dent in an evening that was probably otherwise quite enjoyable!
> 
> I think we're getting to about the point we'll reach in terms of agreement, though I still have problems with some of what you say.
> 
> Getting into my personal experience for a moment here, I hear Strauss's Salome as if it were a perpetual motion machine - dominant chord after dominant chord in succession without end, always harmonic tension left unresolved. Of course, the points of tonal attraction are always obvious, though they are changing constantly.
> 
> Schoenberg's music strikes me very differently. I am struck by how, in the finale of the Second String Quartet, the music suddenly attains a kind of repose at the very moment when we go from the chromatic tonality of the third movement to the non-tonality of the last. I _don't_ hear it as constant tension without end. Although the music cannot be abstracted to a series of chords progressing towards a clear tonal goal, I don't see that this is something that inhibits understanding.
> 
> The finale of Salome has always sounded incredibly arbitrary to me. After C# minor (the primary key of the opera, insofar as it has one) turns into a radiant C# major for the kiss (with *that exceedingly garish and ugly IV with lots of extra notes*), Herod steps in and the music ends in C minor, *the only real purpose of which is to sound abrupt*; it certainly doesn't sound like a resolution of all or any of the preceding tension.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFbRTLlpOnw#t=5403


I have to laugh at your description of _Salome_. I agree with it completely! Strauss was a showman, and his purpose here was to shock. I think we have to admit he succeeds. "Good" composing? Irrelevant, sir!

I don't find anything in _Elektra_ as vulgar as this, except, in a certain higher sense, the whole of it. (But that's my cross to bear... )


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> I have to laugh at your description of _Salome_. I agree with it completely! Strauss was a showman, and his purpose here was to shock. I think we have to admit he succeeds. "Good" composing? Irrelevant, sir!
> 
> I don't find anything in _Elektra_ as vulgar as this, except, in a certain higher sense, the whole of it. (But that's my cross to bear... )


Strauss was a consummate showman, who, just like Shakespeare in Titus Andronicus, pours on the dramatic murder-and-mayhem hyperbole for the intended effect. . . but then that's the privilege of génie oblige.


----------



## shangoyal

I think that tonality does have a central significance for us humans. Tonal music makes us feel that we are on familiar ground. Even though we like to be enthralled by exotic and transpersonal emotions and events once in a while, we can't live on them. In simpler words, atonal music, at least for now, is a novelty and certainly revolutionary, but who knows, it might be completely forgotten in a few decades. Even though the music of today (the popular music, not the obscure symphony composed by a starving classical composer) is not anything like the music of 100 years ago, it is still bound by our need to feel secure and bound up in a predictable world. It may be tonal or atonal - it is not that important. What I mean is that within the development of classical music, the emergence of revolutionary composers who moved ahead of tonality coincides with the diminishing popularity of classical music and jazz being taken up by the public. Almost all popular music of the 20th century is tonal - that is not a coincidence, definitely. Even with timbre and rhythm changes, I think the backbone of popular music has always been tonality.

Another theory I have is that every time you hear a piece of music which is atonal, it has other elements of "homewardness" or "stability" in it - like repetition. If it has no "hooks" as such, it is difficult to enjoy it for long. It cannot give a person the kind of enjoyment that an average person is looking for. Stockhausen will never be household music. And Mozart will always be.


----------



## Mahlerian

Woodduck said:


> I have to laugh at your description of _Salome_. I agree with it completely! Strauss was a showman, and his purpose here was to shock. I think we have to admit he succeeds. "Good" composing? Irrelevant, sir!
> 
> I don't find anything in _Elektra_ as vulgar as this, except, in a certain higher sense, the whole of it. (But that's my cross to bear... )


Oh, of course Strauss knows what he's doing! As much as he is not usually my cup of tea, he is definitely and assuredly a master of his craft, especially when it came to opera.

My point, though (beyond a little lightening of the mood), was that coherent tonal organization is neither necessary nor sufficient for a sense of tonality and centeredness, and that the most flagrant violations of traditional balance and resolution can be accepted on their own terms (the ending of Also Sprach Zarathustra could also be cited here).


----------



## Cheyenne

millionrainbows said:


> Copland used advanced concepts, even the 12-tone method (see CD _Copland As Modernis_t).


Inscape is a strange serialist piece by Copland that I've always liked..


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> [/B]
> 
> The way we hear things definitely changes over time, both because we get used to them (they no longer seem "strange") and because we acquire knowledge about what we're hearing. Take that Mahler, for example: in the first phrase, the second note of the scale is flatted, and in the second phrase he flats the third of the chord, creating a minor feeling before passing on back to the major. If he didn't confound our 'normal expectations in this way, the melody would sound much more commonplace - sentimental in a simple-minded way rather than in that ambivalent, poignant "Mahlerian" way. These are indeed chromatically altered tones; the notes may sound "wrong" in a sense, but if you changed them to the "right" ones you would find the music deprived of its peculiar quality and power, and that would be really, really wrong!
> 
> Maybe that's more than you wanted to know.


No, you've gone far enough to confirm what I thought I already understood about that particular piece, and, by extension, what I know I hear (and can now name) in other pieces.

However, you don't go far enough to answer the question, "At what point will familiarity lead me to 'not hear' something as chromatic?" or, by extension, not hear a piece as 'atonal'?


----------



## Mahlerian

MacLeod said:


> However, you don't go far enough to answer the question, "At what point will familiarity lead me to 'not hear' something as chromatic?" or, by extension, not hear a piece as 'atonal'?


It's more likely that instead of no longer hearing "chromatic" or "atonal", you would come to no longer hear "chromatic" or "atonal" as a "wrong" deviation from the norm.


----------



## millionrainbows

> Originally Posted by *MacLeod*
> 
> However, you don't go far enough to answer the question, "At what point will familiarity lead me to 'not hear'  something as chromatic?" or, by extension, not hear a piece as 'atonal'?





Mahlerian said:


> It's more likely that instead of no longer hearing "chromatic" or "atonal", you would come to no longer hear "chromatic" or "atonal" as a "wrong" deviation from the norm.


It's called "developing a tolerance," or becoming "desensitized." Just as someone who is exposed to evil, or becomes immersed in sin, soon they develop a tolerance, and evil no longer seems "evil" anymore.

It's the same thing with chromaticism and atonality; soon, the "darkness" becomes comfortable, and before you know it, you become comfortable with it. Schoenberg's String Trio Op. 45 starts sounding normal, and Boulez' spider-web of notes becomes a beautiful, shimmering aura of sound. Darkness becomes light, floating freely with no center becomes less dizzying.

It's like a person raised as a strict Catholic, and most of their natural desires, thoughts, and urges have been suppressed. Sooner or later, they might realize that "a kiss is not deadly" and that what was once forbidden fruit is actually quite satisfying.


----------



## Andreas

Not sure, but if there has been a decline of interest in classical music, I'd think it's partly because young people and teenagers increasingly listened to "their own" music. Maybe it started with jazz, I don't know. It seems to me, though, that roughly between 1920-1950, a new kind of musical youth culture began, which resulted in the now common phenomenon of teenagers listening to completely different music than their parents.

Sure, many well-off parents drag their kids to piano or violin lessons, so a good deal of kids are involved with classical music. Still, my guess is that it's getting less and less. Even teenage kids from families of higher social status will often rather listen to the pop music that marketed to them. I could be wrong, but I think that didn't quite exist this way before the early 20th century.

My point is (I guess) that new, industrialized, mass-produced jazz/pop/rock music in the 20th century prevented, so to speak, a lot of kids from ever developing an interest in classical music.


----------



## fjf

In answering the original question, IMO yes, it played at least a part. If you take a look at what is played at concert halls, XXth century music is not absent, but it is not the most frequently played. That's because they need to sell tickets, and to do that, they play what (most) people enjoy. Atonal music may be an interesting experiment, but it is not enjoyable. Not to me, and not to most of mankind. And people do not buy tickets to suffer.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

fjf said:


> In answering the original question, IMO yes, it played at least a part. If you take a look at what is played at concert halls, XXth century music is not absent, but it is not the most frequently played. That's because they need to sell tickets, and to do that, they play what (most) people enjoy. Atonal music may be an interesting experiment, but it is not enjoyable. Not to me, and not to most of mankind. And people do not buy tickets to suffer.


I see you're new here. 

Well, you should have perhaps said that it's not enjoyable to *you* and kept it at that. Because you followed that up with "the most of mankind" which is just a silly silly statement because most of mankind doesn't like *any* classical music (be it Mozart or Schoenberg). This fact, of course, would render your statement rather powerless with regards to the enjoyability of XXth century music, would it not?

Please, let's keep the blatantly false information strictly about Beethoven. (I'm a kidder, we know this!) :devil:


----------



## Mahlerian

fjf said:


> In answering the original question, IMO yes, it played at least a part. If you take a look at what is played at concert halls, XXth century music is not absent, but it is not the most frequently played. That's because they need to sell tickets, and to do that, they play what (most) people enjoy. Atonal music may be an interesting experiment, but it is not enjoyable. Not to me, and not to most of mankind. And people do not buy tickets to suffer.


Most of mankind listens to music that I would quickly tire of and don't find particularly beautiful. Most of mankind does not attend classical music concerts.

You also failed to answer the question. Whether or not 20th/21st century classical music draws audiences does not necessarily correlate to the decline in the ticket sales to concerts that do not include it (or rather, you've inserted extra hidden premises in your argument).

And Schoenberg wrote some of the most beautiful music of the 20th century, which is enjoyed today by far more people than ever even heard it during his lifetime. It is not an experiment, it is music. Just approach it as music, listen to it as music, and forget all about atonality, which is an unhelpful concept at best and absolutely meaningless at worst.


----------



## KenOC

Mahlerian said:


> Most of mankind listens to music that I would quickly tire of and don't find particularly beautiful.


That's why I prefer classical music. Because, when I listen to it...


----------



## Sid James

millionrainbows said:


> I don't agree with such sweeping generalizations, because there are other factors in play. The whole social context and way we receive music has changed.


I think that while music of the past may have caught on slowly (eg. entered the repertoire), by the end of many composers' lives it did. The pattern is that the younger generation somehow challenges the establishment, but by the end of their lives they get recoginition. In other words, they become establishment, and will inevitably be challenged.

In the 20th century, I get the impression that composers often get respect rather than broad acceptance. By the end of their lives, Bartok and Schoenberg gained this sort of respect (and Bartok had a big hit with his Concerto for Orchestra). Stravinsky lived longer, and had the three early ballets as massive hits early on, so he got broad acceptance. That's the big three of Modernism there, or three of the biggest, but I could talk about others but won't now.

The post-war era is complicated by increased factionalisation and turf wars. I don't know what to make of it exactly, but I think that a lot of the hoopla around certain technical or aesthetic approaches - eg. some being more 'Modern' than others - left a big stink after, and continues to as Post-Modernist theory challenges the foundations of Modernism without finding some sort of closure about it.

Now we know that music does have connections to the past, that it is okay if it is emotional or autobiographical (or aims to be), it is okay to talk of an audience. John Cage's statements like "I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones" are things that many people now wouldn't buy, or not at face value. On the surface, Cage and others appeared to be liberators, but all they where doing is just imposing their own constraints and biases on music.

Music became dogma, even moreso than it had been the 19th century. In order to like the "new," you have to reject the "old." What else is this but a dichotomy?

So instead of unity or lessening sectarianism after 1945, we got more of it. In my opinion it weakened the chances of new/newer music to gain a foothold, as did the music of before. Ironically, it was mainly a case of composers arguing with other composers. At that time classical music wasn't as fossilised as it is (or almost is) now. We missed a golden opportunity, but perhaps its not yet worth giving up on reviving it. Maybe I am being too negative?

But I don't know if there is an answer to this, because the history of 20th century music is still controversial. We're still arguing about what happened, and the significance of it now. I would like to turn a page on the divisions fraught by Cage and others, but its unlikely to happen soon. There are too many vested interests, and debates about these issues tend to polarise and leave the middle ground views out (even negate the existence of middle ground or mainstream, and create a void or vacuum to be able to caricature or stereotype listeners, and in the process alienate people who might not be anti-new/newer music).

There's also too many taboos (I've broken one on this post - don't question someone like Cage, especially if you are a listener of new/newer music, it's like a kind of heresy, and you risk becoming an outcast). In light of that, maybe the less said about all this sort of thing, the better. And will we ever put Modernist debates to bed for a while on TC? Its becoming like a never ending merry go round.

That's the long answer, short answer is that although I care about these things, listening to the music and reading about it often, dunno the answer. I just listen to music I like, I try to take the historical interpretations and attendant ideologies with a grain of salt.


----------



## Blake

fjf said:


> And people do not buy tickets to suffer.


Oh, indeed hahaha.

I really enjoyed that bit, fjf. I wouldn't call it suffering, although it did make me laugh... Everyone has their take, my friend. You're free to suffer as much as possible, or as little. You don't even have to call it music if you don't want. But make sure that you're speaking just for you, or you'll get bitten around here.


----------



## KenOC

fjf said:


> And people do not buy tickets to suffer.


Not correct, I think. I see these people at concerts all the time. They wear black hoods over their heads and each is normally accompanied by a curvaceous Nazi dominatrix holding the chains to their manacles.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> It's called "developing a tolerance," or becoming "desensitized." Just as someone who is exposed to evil, or becomes immersed in sin, soon they develop a tolerance, and evil no longer seems "evil" anymore.
> 
> It's the same thing with chromaticism and atonality; soon, the "darkness" becomes comfortable, and before you know it, you become comfortable with it. Schoenberg's String Trio Op. 45 starts sounding normal, and Boulez' spider-web of notes becomes a beautiful, shimmering aura of sound. Darkness becomes light, floating freely with no center becomes less dizzying.
> 
> It's like a person raised as a strict Catholic, and most of their natural desires, thoughts, and urges have been suppressed. Sooner or later, they might realize that "a kiss is not deadly" and that what was once forbidden fruit is actually quite satisfying.


We may develop "tolerance" for music that initially displeases us, but I think the important fact is that we actually learn to _hear_ in it what we couldn't hear before. Highly chromatic music may initially make us feel disoriented in the way it obscures for us familiar tonal reference points or frustrates our accustomed expectations. But as we listen more to it we begin to feel it not as amorphous and unsettling but as hinting at possibilities and pointing in multiple directions in a way that seems rich, fascinating, and moving. We don't need to check in at those reference points as often or as decisively, because now we're really hearing how the music works and discovering that we actually like it. At least that's how it was for me, discovering the Prelude and Liebestod from _Tristan_: first hearing, bafflement; second hearing (after some bits from the _Ring_), _revelation_. No "tolerance" about it!

I don't think this contradicts anything you said. I just don't think "tolerance" best describes these changes in our perception of music.


----------



## Guest

Mahlerian said:


> It's more likely that instead of no longer hearing "chromatic" or "atonal", you would come to no longer hear "chromatic" or "atonal" as a "wrong" deviation from the norm.


So, it's not 'in' the music, it's just the way I've been brought up? Had I been accustomed from birth to listening only to "chromatic" or "atonal", it is "tonal" that would have sounded like a deviation from the norm?


----------



## Mahlerian

MacLeod said:


> So, it's not 'in' the music, it's just the way I've been brought up? Had I been accustomed from birth to listening only to "chromatic" or "atonal", it is "tonal" that would have sounded like a deviation from the norm?


Of course. If one listens to the music of other cultures, it is clear that what is accepted as normal in one is abnormal or even aberrant in another. The more distant one gets from European culture, the less our ideas of what constitutes normal rhythm, harmony, or melody apply.










Classical music likewise has changed significantly over time, and the tonality of Corelli is very different from the tonality of Prokofiev, to say nothing of the pre-tonal music of the Renaissance.

That's not to say the differences aren't "in" the music, because they are, but our brain doesn't process music in a vacuum, it relates it to and understands it on the basis of previous experiences.


----------



## Sloe

DiesIraeVIX said:


> because most of mankind doesn't like *any* classical music (be it Mozart or Schoenberg).
> :


How do you know most of mankind don´t any classical music at all? I think most of mankind actually like at least some classical music they just don´t listen to it daily.


----------



## Guest

Mahlerian said:


> Of course. If one listens to the music of other cultures, it is clear that what is accepted as normal in one is abnormal or even aberrant in another. The more distant one gets from European culture, the less our ideas of what constitutes normal rhythm, harmony, or melody apply.
> 
> Classical music likewise has changed significantly over time, and the tonality of Corelli is very different from the tonality of Prokofiev, to say nothing of the pre-tonal music of the Renaissance.
> 
> That's not to say the differences aren't "in" the music, because they are, but our brain doesn't process music in a vacuum, it relates it to and understands it on the basis of previous experiences.


Playing devil's advocate - you say 'of course' and I can see that cultural conditioning has a significant impact. It doesn't stop some from insisting that 'tonal is natural', and it's difficult not to believe that history itself shows that man's instinct is towards the more obviously tonal.

Has there been any research to show that man's physiological responses to music, once cultural differences are removed, are more 'egalitarian'?


----------



## fjf

I started by saying IMO, which means "in my opinion". I remember going to a concert where they played the beautiful Dvorak cello concerto, followed by a violin concerto from a living composer. The violin solo sounded like a cat being skinned alive. Nasty stuff. Many people (politely) applauded afterwards. 

Most mankind like tonality. That is a fact. That's why Bach is still played MUCH more than Schoenberg. That's another fact.

However, tastes a very diverse, and I am not trying to insult the few people that like Schoenberg. Lucky them!.

All this is my opinion alone. Not trying to hit any nerves. Just responding to the topic. I'm just an ignorant. I'll shut up now.

And yes!, I just got here and I am enjoying it a lot!.


----------



## Mahlerian

MacLeod said:


> Playing devil's advocate - you say 'of course' and I can see that cultural conditioning has a significant impact. It doesn't stop some from insisting that 'tonal is natural',


Yes, and usually based on a very wide view of what constitutes tonality, one that I believe is so loosely defined that, unless an exception is explicitly stated, it actually includes all of the music called "atonal", or at the very least makes the distinction between the two subjective and/or partially arbitrary.



> and it's difficult not to believe that history itself shows that man's instinct is towards the more obviously tonal.


I think that history shows that human musical instincts lead first to the pentatonic scale. Its treatment seems to be the defining difference here, just as chromatic music can be treated functionally or non-functionally. I do not believe that history shows the immediate primacy of the V-I cadence. We also have to confront the idea of whether a natural or instinctual music is necessarily better/more rewarding/more easily grasped than one which is at a further remove (there is no such thing as a completely artificial music, and as long as it is created by humans to extend existing musical traditions, there cannot be).



> Has there been any research to show that man's physiological responses to music, once cultural differences are removed, are more 'egalitarian'?


With tonality here used in the stricter sense of "common practice functional harmony" rather than the looser sense of "any music in the history of the world outside of Schoenberg and a few others who may or may not sound a single thing like him":

"In contrast to their competence in their native language, three-year-old children cannot understand and generate an indefinitely large number of well-formed pieces of tonal music. Tests carried out by Serafine, for example, suggest that even an ability as basic as the identification of straightforward tonal closure develops gradually, becoming reliable only by the age of 10, yet continuing to improve after that age.25 This is in marked contrast to the sophistication of language use even by the age of 3 or 4 years, younger even than the youngest of Serafine's subjects. Another test, in which subjects were called upon to identify the underlying structure of a passage, suggests that this ability develops even later than the identification of closure.26 Dowling and Harwood27 point out that children develop the ability to use the fact that a melody is tonal in order to discern interval alterations by about age 8, and remark that '[t]onal scale schemata are among the last to form in development; among the earliest are schemata for melodic contours.'"

http://johncroft.eu/Memory_complexity.pdf


----------



## Sid James

fjf said:


> ...
> 
> All this is my opinion alone. Not trying to hit any nerves. Just responding to the topic. I'm just an ignorant. I'll shut up now.
> 
> ...


Don't worry, I am an old timer of this forum, and I have been censured for far less than what you where saying. The fact is that someone like John Cage can diss another composer whose music he says he hasn't heard, but that's okay because he's a sacred cow of Modernist ideology. Somehow, there is this collective amnesia about how statements like this in another thread are contradictory (and he wasn't the only one, of course).

http://www.talkclassical.com/33479-cage-stravinsky-schoenberg-schoenberg-7.html#post703884

That was the last post I made, and the whole interview (which I quoted and paraphrased parts of in that thread) is riddled with contradiction. A lot of ideology is, its just a cover for other things. Nobody went there and said Cage's opinions where illogical as they obviously are. If someone else had said something like that, they'd get attacked (especially if Corigliano had said the same thing about Cage). This is just an example of many such threads I have wasted my time on. I am telling you it is futile.

So you shouldn't have to apologise, if ideologues like Cage shouldn't. Yes it's all opinion, but some opinions are deemed more acceptable than others.

And I'm in no camp here, I equally question what you're saying (or generalising) about atonal/serial/Modern whatever music. Its not however strictly about music, its more about these entrenched battles that have been going on here for years, since I joined. They are the threads I stay away from, and if you are interested in things other to do with music than bunfights, I'd advise the same.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

My response to fjf had _nothing_ to do with personal taste in music. I questioned the logic in his statement and not his taste in music. I never have and never will do that to anyone. Clearly, there was no intention of censorship.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Sid James said:


> Don't worry, I am an old timer of this forum, and I have been censured for far less than what you where saying. The fact is that someone like John Cage can diss another composer whose music he says he hasn't heard, but that's okay because he's a sacred cow of Modernist ideology. Somehow, there is this collective amnesia about how statements like this in another thread are contradictory (and he wasn't the only one, of course).
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/33479-cage-stravinsky-schoenberg-schoenberg-7.html#post703884
> 
> That was the last post I made, and the whole interview (which I quoted and paraphrased parts of in that thread) is riddled with contradiction. A lot of ideology is, its just a cover for other things. Nobody went there and said Cage's opinions where illogical as they obviously are. If someone else had said something like that, they'd get attacked (especially if Corigliano had said the same thing about Cage). This is just an example of many such threads I have wasted my time on. I am telling you it is futile.
> 
> So you shouldn't have to apologise, if ideologues like Cage shouldn't. Yes it's all opinion, but some opinions are deemed more acceptable than others.
> 
> And I'm in no camp here, I equally question what you're saying (or generalising) about atonal/serial/Modern whatever music. Its not however strictly about music, its more about these entrenched battles that have been going on here for years, since I joined. They are the threads I stay away from, and if you are interested in things other to do with music than bunfights, I'd advise the same.


Tonality and its Discontents.

Yes, we should listen with an open mind to the boundless messianic egoism of those who'd save us from beauty and taste-- because their structured noise is lovely in all its insolent ugliness.

Newsflash!

Beauty is its own reason for existence.

Its the ugliness that has to do the explaining--- not that I'm listening.


----------



## PetrB

MacLeod said:


> So, it's not 'in' the music, it's just the way I've been brought up? Had I been accustomed from birth to listening only to "chromatic" or "atonal", it is "tonal" that would have sounded like a deviation from the norm?


You got it in one!


----------



## Sid James

DiesIraeVIX said:


> My response to fjf had _nothing_ to do with personal taste in music. I questioned the logic in his statement and not his taste in music. I never have and never will do that to anyone. Clearly, there was no intention of censorship.


It was the pleading of ignorance, a kind of recant that people do, that got me with his response. It has happened many times, and continues to happen. I think we all have our limitations, that's my big point. Modernism claims there should be no such limitations, yet clearly falls on its own sword because like any type of approach, it will have its own limitations. Its a simple enough point to make, and I latched on to fjf's response, and I am not happy aobut how it goes on all the time here without much or any questioning. Nobody goes there, which proves its not safe to do so, for fear of getting attacked. Why?



Marschallin Blair said:


> Tonality and its Discontents.
> 
> Yes, we should listen with an open mind to the boundless messianic egoism of those who'd save us from beauty and taste-- because their structured noise is lovely in all its insolent ugliness.
> 
> Newsflash!
> 
> Beauty is its own reason for existence.
> 
> Its the ugliness that has to do the explaining--- not that I'm listening.


This isn't to single out Cage, I could - and in the past, have to no avail - given other quotes with similar contradictions from other figureheads like him (and I am not commenting on his music, more on that aspect of ideology which has so many inherent and entrenched fallacies yet criticizes others for their own limitations). This issue will never be brought to finality on this forum, or not likely to.


----------



## Guest

Mahlerian said:


> "In contrast to their competence in their native language, three-year-old children cannot understand and generate an indefinitely large number of well-formed pieces of tonal music. Tests carried out by Serafine, for example, suggest that even an ability as basic as the identification of straightforward tonal closure develops gradually, becoming reliable only by the age of 10, yet continuing to improve after that age.25 This is in marked contrast to the sophistication of language use even by the age of 3 or 4 years, younger even than the youngest of Serafine's subjects. Another test, in which subjects were called upon to identify the underlying structure of a passage, suggests that this ability develops even later than the identification of closure.26 Dowling and Harwood27 point out that children develop the ability to use the fact that a melody is tonal in order to discern interval alterations by about age 8, and remark that '[t]onal scale schemata are among the last to form in development; among the earliest are schemata for melodic contours.'"
> 
> http://johncroft.eu/Memory_complexity.pdf


Excellent post, and I'm working my way through John Croft's paper. I'll get back to you (I'm sure the tonal/atonal debate won't have reached a resolution in the meantime!)


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Sid James said:


> It was the pleading of ignorance, a kind of recant that people do, that got me with his response. It has happened many times, and continues to happen. I think we all have our limitations, that's my big point. Modernism claims there should be no such limitations, yet clearly falls on its own sword because like any type of approach, it will have its own limitations. Its a simple enough point to make, and I latched on to fjf's response, and I am not happy aobut how it goes on all the time here without much or any questioning. Nobody goes there, which proves its not safe to do so, for fear of getting attacked. Why?


I do see what you're saying, but do you see what _*else*_ has happened? I made a post questioning someone's logic/argumentation and *not a single thing* regarding personal taste in modern or old music (I urge you to read my reply again), yet I'm now being accused as part of this group that has members scared with fear of being attacked. All because the post that I replied to just happened to be about modern music. This isn't fair and it isn't rational. I would have hoped that you would be able to distinguish this instead of simply lumping me into some group that I clearly am not a part of.


----------



## aleazk

Marschallin Blair said:


> Yes, we should listen with an open mind to the boundless messianic egoism of those who'd save us from beauty and taste-- because their structured noise is lovely in all its insolent ugliness.


But to whom is that strawman directed, Marsch?

John Cage? the zen buddhist who wanted to eradicate ego from his own music? the guy who composed these insolently beautiful and insolently simple pieces just for the sake of it? In A Landscape, Dream

Ah, what a beautiful and simple fresh air breeze these pieces are! thank you, John.


----------



## Guest

fjf said:


> IMO [...] it is not enjoyable. Not to me, and *not to most of mankind*.


You later claim that your 'IMO' justifies your generalisation, your innuendo about music that causes suffering and your further explicit rejection of music by a living composer. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion and to express it here. As has often been discussed here, there is sometimes a nice judgement to be made about the manner of the expression.

Worse, as *DiesIraeVIX *points out, is the contradiction between 'just' a personal opinion and an unverified (and unverifiable?) claim (about mankind's taste in music).


----------



## PetrB

Mahlerian said:


> Yes, and usually based on a very wide view of what constitutes tonality, one that I believe is so loosely defined that, unless an exception is explicitly stated, it actually includes all of the music called "atonal", or at the very least makes the distinction between the two subjective and/or partially arbitrary.
> 
> I think that history shows that human musical instincts lead first to the pentatonic scale. Its treatment seems to be the defining difference here, just as chromatic music can be treated functionally or non-functionally. I do not believe that history shows the immediate primacy of the V-I cadence. We also have to confront the idea of whether a natural or instinctual music is necessarily better/more rewarding/more easily grasped than one which is at a further remove (there is no such thing as a completely artificial music, and as long as it is created by humans to extend existing musical traditions, there cannot be).
> 
> With tonality here used in the stricter sense of "common practice functional harmony" rather than the looser sense of "any music in the history of the world outside of Schoenberg and a few others who may or may not sound a single thing like him":
> 
> "In contrast to their competence in their native language, three-year-old children cannot understand and generate an indefinitely large number of well-formed pieces of tonal music. Tests carried out by Serafine, for example, suggest that even an ability as basic as the identification of straightforward tonal closure develops gradually, becoming reliable only by the age of 10, yet continuing to improve after that age.25 This is in marked contrast to the sophistication of language use even by the age of 3 or 4 years, younger even than the youngest of Serafine's subjects. Another test, in which subjects were called upon to identify the underlying structure of a passage, suggests that this ability develops even later than the identification of closure.26 Dowling and Harwood27 point out that children develop the ability to use the fact that a melody is tonal in order to discern interval alterations by about age 8, and remark that '[t]onal scale schemata are among the last to form in development; among the earliest are schemata for melodic contours.'"
> http://johncroft.eu/Memory_complexity.pdf


What boggles my mind is that anyone could think any of the music systems are 'innate,' that people are not instead conditioned to them. I guess it takes another confirming study to disabuse people of this notion that the music they were conditioned to and grew up with is far from organic or natural, etc.

Prior the now near unimaginable era of global media saturation, many Asians had never heard western music in a western scale. The combination of the scale, the instruments and 'tonality' would, to those completely unfamiliar with it, elicit a similar reaction as that many a westerner has when first hearing ethnic music in some other scale and on unfamiliar instruments -- i.e. "dissonant noise."

If you grow up conditioned to Bach and Brahms, to imagine music of either composer being thought of as jangly discordant stuff is near impossible -- yet that is one reaction it elicits to those who are culturally conditioned in another music using another scale.

So... we have quite a similar reaction within western cultures where the listener has just not gotten around to modern / contemporary music... though for some reason they readily accept what is heard in that vernacular in film scores (usually associated, sadly for the state of music, in context of horror or suspense) but are instead 'horrified' when they hear it in concert, or at the least have to make a large "time out" adjustment to their listening habit.

As to the Q of the OP, I think it a mere (though somewhat thoughtlessly near egregious) potboiler -- there has _never_ been "a weakening of tonality'" unless one is still mourning common practice tonality of the 18th century type. It was already blown apart by the romantics, its gradual undoing from Vivaldi and Bach near immediate thereafter, and no one seems to be much moaning or making a big deal about that


----------



## ArtMusic

In my opinion, tonality by and large is the inherently natural form of music. It's what people today identify most naturally as music.


----------



## Guest

PetrB said:


> many Asians had never heard western music in a western scale. The combination of the scale, the instruments and 'tonality' would, to those completely unfamiliar with it, elicit a similar reaction as that many a westerner has when first hearing ethnic music in some other scale and on unfamiliar instruments -- i.e. "dissonant noise."
> 
> If you grow up conditioned to Bach and Brahms, to imagine music of either composer being thought of as jangly discordant stuff is near impossible -- yet that is one reaction it elicits to those who are culturally conditioned in another music using another scale.


It's this that doesn't seem to me to be well explored - not here at any rate. With so many folk being so 'western-centric', the idea that Bach and Mozart might seem 'atonal' to Eastern ears long familiar with Gamelan and Gagaku (thanks again to Mahlerian for the links) is not considered. However, what is also not considered is the reason behind what seems a much quicker acceptance of 'pop' in Japan than 'Gagaku' in Tennessee or Tottenham!


----------



## Guest

ArtMusic said:


> In my opinion, tonality by and large is the inherently natural form of music. It's what people today identify most naturally as music.


Read the paper referenced in Mahlerian's post...here's the link for your convenience.

http://johncroft.eu/Memory_complexity.pdf


----------



## PetrB

DiesIraeVIX said:


> I do see what you're saying, but do you see what _*else*_ has happened? I made a post questioning someone's logic/argumentation and *not a single thing* regarding personal taste in modern or old music (I urge you to read my reply again), yet I'm now being accused as part of this group that has members scared with fear of being attacked. All because the post that I replied to just happened to be about modern music. This isn't fair and it isn't rational. I would have hoped that you would be able to distinguish this instead of simply lumping me into some group that I clearly am not a part of.


Bugbears -- everywhere -- even lurking in mere shadows which are not even real shadows.

I've learned to pay no attention to these sort of projected issues, regardless of where they crop up, or posted by whomever.

Recognize what they are, that they are pretty much unaddressable, and go about your normal TC business. If you do respond in any way at all then you are buying in to a sort of highjacking of a subject to 'the subject' with which another is obsessed.


----------



## PetrB

aleazk said:


> But to whom is that strawman directed, Marsch?
> 
> John Cage? the zen buddhist who wanted to eradicate ego from his own music? the guy who composed these insolently beautiful and insolently simple pieces just for the sake of it? In A Landscape, Dream
> 
> Ah, what a beautiful and simple fresh air breeze these pieces are! thank you, John.


And anyway, I'm waiting for the certified copy of the title of ownership on 'beauty, and what is beautiful.' before I give _that_ particular post, which is the obverse side of the same coin of the pinnacle of elitist snobbery the sort for which 'the other side'' is oft accused, the time of day.


----------



## dgee

I hope you're all flocking over to the Bach choral work thread to smackdown the member who has called others "philistines" because they don't like surtitles and won't read a translation of the text! Show your zero tolerance for this sort of behaviour!


----------



## PetrB

dgee said:


> I hope you're all flocking over to the Bach choral work thread to smackdown the member who has called others "philistines" because they don't like surtitles and won't read a translation of the text! Show your zero tolerance for this sort of behaviour!


I actually enjoyed that putting the other member to the wall post -- while I 'should not,' because this is TC and it was pretty rude.

But I will admit, nonetheless, to getting more than a little enjoyment in seeing someone so pointedly 'clocked,' as it were. :lol:

I mean, it doesn't take much time on TC before anyone should quickly realize that 'casual listening of classical for relaxation,' and 'editing out all but the more exciting bits,' _is_ considered irretrievably.... Philistine. :tiphat:


----------



## dgee

I can't argue with that...


----------



## Guest

PetrB said:


> 'casual listening of classical for relaxation,'


Ah, but if it's not for 'relaxation' then it must surely be for 'work'...?

Define both!


----------



## aleazk

PetrB said:


> And anyway, I'm waiting for the certified copy of the title of ownership on 'beauty, and what is beautiful.' before I give _that_ particular post, which is the obverse side of the same coin of the pinnacle of elitist snobbery the sort for which 'the other side'' is oft accused, the time of day.


haha, we could wait for the blonde's answer... but I'm afraid we would end like this guy!










Meanwhile... I'm going to listen to Xenakis' beautiful and tightly structured Peaux.


----------



## Petwhac

MacLeod said:


> It's this that doesn't seem to me to be well explored - not here at any rate. With so many folk being so 'western-centric', the idea that Bach and Mozart might seem 'atonal' to Eastern ears long familiar with Gamelan and Gagaku (thanks again to Mahlerian for the links) is not considered. However, what is also not considered is the reason behind what seems a much quicker acceptance of 'pop' in Japan than 'Gagaku' in Tennessee or Tottenham!


Tonality in the broad sense of music based on major and minor chords, is an artificial construct. So is counting in a base of 10, that is, counting in decimal. Decimal serves most people most of the time although in the realm of computer programming, hexadecimal and binary are found to be useful. When earthlings either discover something good and useful or someone invents it, it is not surprising that it becomes widely adopted. And so it is, I believe with the way of organising pitch to create pieces of music that can be called tonal. Or perhaps we should call it 'major/minor harmonic' to keep the academic pedants at bay.
I have tired of the endless bickering about definitions.

This is not to say that other ways of making music are less valid or inferior. But the evidence seems to show that once major/minor harmonic music (which can encompass music from Renaissance to Jazz, bluegrass to Broadway) is 'discovered' it is widely adopted.

As for the OP. I would put it simply, music which is not rooted in major/minor harmony, has a narrower appeal. Actually, music which doesn't contain words and vocals is already rather a minority interest. Hence instrumental classical or jazz will always have a small audience compared to song.


----------



## PetrB

MacLeod said:


> Ah, but if it's not for 'relaxation' then it must surely be for 'work'...?
> 
> Define both!


Damn man, misplace that home dictionary of yours again?

...uhhhh, as in the antonym of relaxation :: stimulation? 
(Is being stimulated -- 'work?'


----------



## Petwhac

PetrB said:


> Damn man, misplace that home dictionary of yours again?
> 
> ...uhhhh, as in the antonym of relaxation :: stimulation?
> (Is being stimulated -- 'work?'


or tension........


----------



## Marschallin Blair

aleazk said:


> But to whom is that strawman directed, Marsch?
> John Cage? the zen buddhist who wanted to eradicate ego from his own music? the guy who composed these insolently beautiful and insolently simple pieces just for the sake of it? In A Landscape, Dream
> 
> Ah, what a beautiful and simple fresh air breeze these pieces are! thank you, John.


Actually, I was reading Sid's posts-- as I have been for about ten months now. I know how polite to a fault he is with every person he engages in the forum. I just get tired of seeing a man of his stamp play by Marquis of Queensbury type rules, only to see others-- in this case, Cage and some of his defenders-- have _carte blanche _to attack any person _they_ don't like _ad libitum_.

I'm not generally a fan of Cage's music, so I don't listen to it. What I find objectionable are people trying to force their tastes on to others in a nasty way.

So, with pardonable immodesty, and to answer your question: my post was directed at what I consider to be the bad manners of some people; and more importantly, their bad _style_.

_;D_


----------



## aleazk

Marschallin Blair said:


> Actually, I was reading Sid's posts-- as I have been for about ten months now. I know how polite to a fault he is with every person he engages in the forum. I just get tired of seeing a man of his stamp play by Marquis of Queensbury type rules, only to see others-- in this case, Cage and some of his defenders-- have _carte blanche _to attack any person _they_ don't like _ad libitum_.
> 
> I'm not generally a fan of Cage's music, so I don't listen to it. What I find objectionable are people trying to force their tastes on to others in a nasty way.
> 
> So, with pardonable immodesty, and to answer your question: my post was directed at what I consider to be the bad manners of some people; and more importantly, their bad _style_.
> 
> _;D_


Pretty good. If only the Cage haters could understand that.

As for Sid, I find his 'the modernist ideology' agenda an oversold idea, his moral preaching about past events to be anachronic and useless. But we already discussed this in that thread, and I don't think I have been impolite there. Bold and sincere in my way of expression, certainly. But that's how I am.


----------



## Badinerie

I'm bi-tonal, I listen both ways! 
Its the natural thing to be...Mozart, Haydn, Respighi and Debussy are Beautiful so are Strauss, Schoenberg, Bartok, Berg and Webern. 

As far as I know they are all being performed on a regular basis. Even John Cage's 4'33.. (Or *** break as its known in some lesser UK Orchestras) Tonal music that we could call Classical and Romantic is still being composed and performed albeit mostly for Movie and Xbox theme soundtracks but hey...it's in the mainstream. 

We have never been at so great a moment in music history for the acceptance of so many differing music forms. No need to pick a single field. Remember the old joke about the Old Bull the young Bull and the field of Cows?


----------



## Blake

I think many of us swing both ways on this forum. Even people whom I originally thought were straight as an arrow are coming out of the closet and admitting that they quite enjoy some modern/contemporary suggestions.


----------



## aleazk

Vesuvius said:


> I think many of us swing both ways on this forum. Even people whom I originally thought were straight as an arrow are coming out of the closet and admitting that they quite enjoy some modern/contemporary suggestions.


:lol:


----------



## Marschallin Blair

aleazk said:


> Pretty good. If only the Cage haters could understand that.
> As for Sid, I find his 'the modernist ideology' agenda an oversold idea, his moral preaching about past events to be anachronic and useless. But we already discussed this in that thread, and I don't think I have been impolite there. Bold and sincere in my way of expression, certainly. But that's how I am.


_Pretty good_?

More like "close-thy-moribund-Modernist-Bible-and-open-thy-Book-of-Blair Fabulous."

-- I like vivid self-expression too; so cheers to that.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Vesuvius said:


> I think many of us swing both ways on this forum. Even people whom I originally thought were straight as an arrow are coming out of the closet and admitting that they quite enjoy some modern/contemporary suggestions.


I'm certainly bi-curious even though these things get touchy.


----------



## Guest

Petwhac said:


> When earthlings either discover something good and useful or someone invents it, it is not surprising that it becomes widely adopted.


Though that can be as much an outcome of the means and scope of the transmission of the idea, as that the idea itself is useful. It's a less favourable idea these days, but there is an argument that transmission of cultural habits has, in the past, been an inevitable consequence of empire and colonisation. We don't all eat McDonalds because its the best food in the world, but because there are now shops all over the world where we can buy it. The millions of people who enjoy Justin Bieber do so partly because the companies that own the means of recording, production, distribution, retail etc have global reach.

Had Japan had the imperial success it once sought, we might all have been downloading Gagaku to our iPods. (As it is, we all buy Toyota/Nissan/Honda instead!)

[add] I'm intrigued by the idea of music as being 'something useful' - music is not a utilitarian artefact like the plough or the car, or even like a computer language or a counting system, since it is entirely an optional activity.


----------



## Badinerie

To stop 'youths' hanging around outside malls ect, the owners often play classical music on a loop through some external speakers. Works suprisingly well I hear...


----------



## Woodduck

PetrB said:


> *What boggles my mind is that anyone could think any of the music systems are 'innate,' that people are not instead conditioned to them. *I guess it takes another confirming study to disabuse people of this notion that the music they were conditioned to and grew up with is far from organic or natural, etc.
> 
> *Prior the now near unimaginable era of global media saturation, many Asians had never heard western music in a western scale. The combination of the scale, the instruments and 'tonality' would, to those completely unfamiliar with it, elicit a similar reaction as that many a westerner has when first hearing ethnic music in some other scale and on unfamiliar instruments -- i.e. "dissonant noise." *
> 
> *If you grow up conditioned to Bach and Brahms, to imagine music of either composer being thought of as jangly discordant stuff is near impossible -- yet that is one reaction it elicits to those who are culturally conditioned in another music using another scale.*
> 
> *So... we have quite a similar reaction within western cultures where the listener has just not gotten around to modern / contemporary music... though for some reason they readily accept what is heard in that vernacular in film scores (usually associated, sadly for the state of music, in context of horror or suspense) but are instead 'horrified' when they hear it in concert*, or at the least have to make a large "time out" adjustment to their listening habit.
> 
> As to the Q of the OP, I think it a mere (though somewhat thoughtlessly near egregious) potboiler -- *there has never been "a weakening of tonality'" unless one is still mourning common practice tonality of the 18th century type*. It was already blown apart by the romantics, its gradual undoing from Vivaldi and Bach near immediate thereafter, and no one seems to be much moaning or making a big deal about that


I think most people who have thought much about it can see that the way people respond to types of music employing various highly developed systems of musical organization, such as the Western system of tonal key relations or the ragas of India, involves a substantial amount of exposure and learning. But even if we accept this as true, interesting questions, questions about possible correspondences between certain qualities of sound and aural patterns and possible innate forms of perception and affect, remain. Discussions touching on this subject, at least here on TC, tend to get left at the starting gate, squashed by suppositions of absolute relativity - assumptions that there are no universal or near-universal responses to sensory-perceptual stimuli originating in the mental and physical constitution of humans qua humans - assumptions which are far from proven and, to me, counterintuitive.

I wonder at the confidence with which people assert that music of other cultures is likely to strike people everywhere as unpleasant and incomprehensible. We can certainly observe this to be true in many cases and to varying extents. But are you implying that all types of music must be largely unintelligible to people unfamiliar with the sound of them? How would you know this? The question occurs: "unintelligible" in what sense? Unintelligible to the mind? To the emotions? To the body? I can't agree that experience bears out such an extreme position. I know that I have heard quite a lot of non-Western music of various origins and styles and enjoyed it immediately, and many other people have had the same experience. I have also, since a fairly early age, adjusted my perceptions rather quickly to find pleasing, and even moving, music which did not strike me as immediately agreeable - and that applies to unfamiliar styles within Western music as well as non-Western music. Do I hear, say, North Indian music for surbahar and tabla precisely as do people who have heard those sounds since birth? Undoubtedly not. But that is just common sense. Music in unfamiliar styles can sound strange to us at first, yet we can often get used to the strange sounds and the ways they are organized rather readily and not find them to be "dissonant noise."

To anyone who holds to the position that all human aesthetic responses are purely conditioned, I ask: Is the human organism so amorphous and indeterminate in its mental, emotional and physical constitution that any sensory-perceptual stimulus impinging on it can with equal likelihood provoke any response whatsoever? Could we all, theoretically, be so "conditioned" that, in the realm of film music you refer to, works of Cage for prepared piano, or Stockhausen's _Kontakte_, or Penderecki's _Polymorphy_, or Schoenberg's _Survivor from Warsaw _, could effectively and movingly accompany a love scene, a scene of reconciliation between parent and child, a picnic in the park, a political victory, a veteran's homecoming? Or that Bach's "Air on the G-string" could serve, with any but ironic effect, as accompaniment for a slasher movie or urban car-chase? Would anyone, from any culture or musical background, find such juxtapositions convincing? Speaking only for myself - but suspecting that I speak on the basis of more than my own "conditioned" responses - I think not.

The human mind is quite a flexible, adaptable organ. Human perceptions and feelings are capable of constant and radical reprogramming. But unless we subscribe to a position of absolute solipsism, in which we are each creating the world we perceive out of nothing and by indeterminate whim, we will need to be figuring out what limits the given realities of the world and of our human nature place upon what we can perceive and feel. It seems reasonable that there should be limits to the variability of aesthetic perception, and that the question of why certain musical sounds strike us in certain ways is not purely a matter of accidental circumstance.


----------



## Mahlerian

I don't believe in absolute relativity at all.

You have conflated a few different questions into a single post, implying a relationship that you have not justified overtly.

_1) Are humans' responses to music conditioned by their culture and training?_

On this of course we both agree the answer is yes, though we may differ as to the degree and particular examples.

_2) Is discomfort with a non-Western style of music the same as discomfort with a given style of Western music?_

I believe it is, if not the same, at least analogous. In both cases there are expectations in place that are not being fulfilled.



Woodduck said:


> I know that I have heard quite a lot of non-Western music of various origins and styles and enjoyed it immediately, and many other people have had the same experience.


I know that the first time I heard Schoenberg's music, I enjoyed it immediately, though I did not fully understand it, and many other people have had the same experience. What's your point?



Woodduck said:


> Music in unfamiliar styles can sound strange to us at first, yet we can often get used to the strange sounds and the ways they are organized rather readily and not find them to be "dissonant noise."


That's in part because you don't have similar cultural baggage. The expectation that Schoenberg will sound like incomprehensible noise seems to make a lot of people miss the melodies and lyricism that are everywhere in his music.

_3) Will responses to different styles of music be equal and due merely to cultural conditioning?_

No. Here you and I agree, though not absolutely, and I think your examples are chosen very selectively. It is possible to connect Bach's Air and scenes of terror and find some correlation between them.

However, I do find your suggestion of Schoenberg's Survivor not only perverse, given the subject matter, but also misleading. Schoenberg did in fact write a very beautiful 12-tone movement capturing the ecstasy of love in the last of his Four Pieces for Mixed Chorus, though most performances don't quite get it right.

The truth is that there is much music that is not emotionally inclined in general, or, simply because of associations of chromaticism=turmoil, comes out as negatively inclined if at all; can one imagine using this as the background to a love scene?


----------



## norman bates

Woodduck said:


> Could we all, theoretically, be so "conditioned" that, in the realm of film music you refer to, works of Cage for prepared piano, or Stockhausen's _Kontakte_, or Penderecki's _Polymorphy_, or Schoenberg's _Survivor from Warsaw _, could effectively and movingly accompany a love scene, a scene of reconciliation between parent and child, a picnic in the park, a political victory, a veteran's homecoming? Or that Bach's "Air on the G-string" could serve, with any but ironic effect, as accompaniment for a slasher movie or urban car-chase? Would anyone, from any culture or musical background, find such juxtapositions convincing? Speaking only for myself - but suspecting that I speak on the basis of more than my own "conditioned" responses - I think not.


I not only agree with you, but I opened a thread asking exactly for any example of that with no success.


----------



## Petwhac

MacLeod said:


> Though that can be as much an outcome of the means and scope of the transmission of the idea, as that the idea itself is useful. It's a less favourable idea these days, but there is an argument that transmission of cultural habits has, in the past, been an inevitable consequence of empire and colonisation. We don't all eat McDonalds because its the best food in the world, but because there are now shops all over the world where we can buy it. The millions of people who enjoy Justin Bieber do so partly because the companies that own the means of recording, production, distribution, retail etc have global reach.
> 
> Had Japan had the imperial success it once sought, we might all have been downloading Gagaku to our iPods. (As it is, we all buy Toyota/Nissan/Honda instead!)
> 
> [add] I'm intrigued by the idea of music as being 'something useful' - music is not a utilitarian artefact like the plough or the car, or even like a computer language or a counting system, since it is entirely an optional activity.


I think 'cultural imperialism' can no longer suffice as an explanation though it may have played and continue to play a minor roll.

Perhaps we can draw an analogy with cricket. A game that is fanatically followed by many Indians, Pakistanis and Sri Lankans. It is many years since the game was introduced by means of imperialism and colonisation. The British were rightly kicked out and many former colonies have their own national identities and culture of which they are no doubt proud and patriotic. The game, however, remains because it is found to be a good game.
The world has adopted the Hindu/Arabic numeric system because it is better for advanced mathematics than other systems. It was developed when India had the most advanced mathematicians.
As for McDs, they don't have a monopoly. There are plenty of cheap and fast ways to eat all over the world. Although that fast food chain might produce what many people consider 'crap', billions of people actually like it too. Or they would be out of business.

You don't need to be a big company to make broadcast-ready professional recordings. A few thousand £ or $ or € will do it (with know-how). Production and distribution are not a problem either in the download/internet age. What makes a global superstar is very much to do with marketing which of course costs a lot. But companies have often tried and failed to 'manufacture' a hit act with aggressive hype and marketing. All the marketing in the world can't save something that has no appeal in the first place.

Music has always been 'used'. Especially in ancient times, as part of ritual. If it wasn't useful (if it didn't serve a purpose) it wouldn't be a part of weddings, coronations, funerals, church services and more recently, films, television or video games.
Music which is solely for personal contemplation (art-for-art's sake) is a relatively recent occurrence (MillionRainbows has raised that notion before). Even on this very forum, many people state that they 'use' music as a tool for relaxation. Whether the composer intended it for that is neither here nor there as we are debating popularity.
When it comes to music which is useful for enhancing the emotional impact of a film sequence or setting the mood for a nature programme, we'll find perhaps in 95% of examples it is major/minor harmonic music. It is simply because, rightly or wrongly, like it or not, that's what works for the majority here and now and I suspect, for a very long time ahead.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

> Mahlerian contra Woodduck: I think *your examples are chosen very selectively*. It is possible to connect Bach's Air and scenes of terror and find some correlation between them.


Respectfully, and_ speaking of _'selectively,' I think that the Bach's a straw-man example.

I imagine what Woodduck had in mind (don't worry, Duckie, I'm not presuming to speak for you; well, not 'much') was something more akin to this:






Which I don't think would work very effectively for the main title music of Hitchcock's _Vertigo_, for instance.

So contrast Schoenberg's "Main Title Music" with that of Bernard Herrmann's--- and honestly tell me what has a greater psychological impact within the context of the film:


----------



## Mahlerian

The fact that a specific work would work more poorly as background for a movie (and one by a composer whose style could not have formed the way it did without Schoenberg!) than a work specifically written for that purpose hardly seems like much of a mark against it. Bruckner's Fourth Symphony wouldn't work for Vertigo any better, and I would think, actually worse. Schoenberg's romantic modernism (especially in this piece full of waltz-like and cantabile gestures) is closer to Hermann's neo-Wagner/Strauss than most other music out there. Schoenberg's Five Orchestral Pieces would make a pretty good substitute, especially No. 2, with its emphasis on the "Viennese Trichord", just like Vertigo, I believe.*






I feel that Gould does a good job with that recording, but the violin part is better served by others, such as Kolisch, who knew Schoenberg personally and gave the premiere of the Violin Concerto.






As for the Bach example, I chose it merely as an example out of many. I could happily provide countless pieces by Bach and other composers which are more dependent on their immediate musical aspects than on the expression of a single, easily identifiable emotion.

*Pedantic and useless theory comment: (Looked up the score for the suite and found that indeed, the upper three notes of the harmony in question do form a Viennese trichord, though in its less common form of a tritone plus a fourth rather than a fourth plus a tritone...pedantry over...)


----------



## Sid James

DiesIraeVIX said:


> I do see what you're saying, but do you see what _*else*_ has happened? I made a post questioning someone's logic/argumentation and *not a single thing* regarding personal taste in modern or old music (I urge you to read my reply again), yet I'm now being accused as part of this group that has members scared with fear of being attacked. All because the post that I replied to just happened to be about modern music. This isn't fair and it isn't rational. I would have hoped that you would be able to distinguish this instead of simply lumping me into some group that I clearly am not a part of.


I usually don't get involved in this kind of debate here, because its akin to going to a civil war zone. I was initially replying to fjf's response, where he/she didn't quote you. It was a response by fjf to not only yours but others replies to him/her. In my response to you, I was attempting to reinforce my original point.

I am sorry to have caused you offence, as I said the reason I quoted fjf was to highlight contradictions inherent in all these sorts of topics.



Marschallin Blair said:


> Actually, I was reading Sid's posts-- as I have been for about ten months now. I know how polite to a fault he is with every person he engages in the forum. I just get tired of seeing a man of his stamp play by Marquis of Queensbury type rules, only to see others-- in this case, Cage and some of his defenders-- have _carte blanche _to attack any person _they_ don't like _ad libitum_.
> 
> I'm not generally a fan of Cage's music, so I don't listen to it. What I find objectionable are people trying to force their tastes on to others in a nasty way.
> 
> So, with pardonable immodesty, and to answer your question: my post was directed at what I consider to be the bad manners of some people; and more importantly, their bad _style_.
> 
> _;D_


Thanks for your compliments, I do try - but not always suceed - in being polite on the forum, and its why I tend to avoid these topics where its harder to do that.

My original post was, as usual, where I summed up my response. But I have said the same sorts of things many times over, as well as related history of how Mendelssohn started mixing old and new music in his concert programs at the Gewandhaus (early-mid 19th century). How we interpret why things have gone in certain directions since will differ, I am fine with that. But I don't take Cage's line in that interview, for example, that the solution is to have this tabla rasa situation, break all recordings, not own a sound system, enjoy the noise of burglar alarms, and go back to basically being in an almost primitive state. But that's what Modernism was, we forget history and just do these wars between old and new music.

I can add to the Cage quotes, there are quotes of that sort from many major composers of the period, similarly fallacies. I have done this, as well as quotes and interviews from others who had more reasonable things to say. I am surprised that Cage said it as late as 1990, when those sorts of opinions where way out of date.

There is definitely a tension between anarchism and order in Modernist ideology, the need to at the same time liberate and also control. The reason for lack of response to Modernist dichotomies on this forum is that they are basically embarrassing. ITs easier to pick on a 'nobody' on an internet forum than to take on a Goliath like Cage or Boulez. As I said, we don't go there. But I've seen people here get stuck into composers like Eric Whitacre, John Corigliano or Jennifer Higdon.

I can even accept it to a degree, but I still have the right to point these contradictions out. I want to do it here, not create yet another counter thread where we go and all say similar things again for the hundredth time this year.

I am for none of the extremes, that's why I don't do this often, and as you can see whenever I do I get drawn in further and further. I am dismayed about it but what can I do, other than to point out what are basic contradictions.

I'll conclude yet another worthelss essay with words from J. H. Newman (whose poem Elgar set to music in his _Dream of Gerontius_) - "Men will die upon dogma but will not fall victim to a conclusion."


----------



## Woodduck

Mahlerian said:


> I don't believe in absolute relativity at all.
> 
> You have conflated a few different questions into a single post, implying a relationship that you have not justified overtly.
> 
> _1) Are humans' responses to music conditioned by their culture and training?_
> 
> On this of course we both agree the answer is yes, though we may differ as to the degree and particular examples.
> 
> _2) Is discomfort with a non-Western style of music the same as discomfort with a given style of Western music?_
> 
> I believe it is, if not the same, at least analogous. In both cases there are expectations in place that are not being fulfilled.
> 
> I know that the first time I heard Schoenberg's music, I enjoyed it immediately, though I did not fully understand it, and many other people have had the same experience. What's your point?
> 
> That's in part because you don't have similar cultural baggage. The expectation that Schoenberg will sound like incomprehensible noise seems to make a lot of people miss the melodies and lyricism that are everywhere in his music.
> 
> _3) Will responses to different styles of music be equal and due merely to cultural conditioning?_
> 
> No. Here you and I agree, though not absolutely, and I think your examples are chosen very selectively. It is possible to connect Bach's Air and scenes of terror and find some correlation between them.
> 
> However, I do find your suggestion of Schoenberg's Survivor not only perverse, given the subject matter, but also misleading. Schoenberg did in fact write a very beautiful 12-tone movement capturing the ecstasy of love in the last of his Four Pieces for Mixed Chorus, though most performances don't quite get it right.
> 
> The truth is that there is much music that is not emotionally inclined in general, or, simply because of associations of chromaticism=turmoil, comes out as negatively inclined if at all; can one imagine using this as the background to a love scene?


The central question I was posing in my response to PetrB's post is: To what extent are particular human responses to music and particular assessments of its meaning and value determined by cultural conditioning, and to what extent are they determined by processes and patterns of perceptions rooted in the physiology, neural and otherwise, of the human organism as such?

I've noticed, here on TC, that whenever anyone offers a remotely negative characterization of certain types of music, particularly Western music written after the early twentieth century which doesn't feature what some here call "common-practice tonality," certain people are quick to descend upon that individual with assertions about (among other things) the relativity of his musical responses to his prior conditioning. Well, that's certainly fine and reasonable as far as it goes. I always wonder, though, just how far it actually does go. Everything in my post is relevant to that question, so I wonder how you think I'm "conflating" different issues.

I used my own experience of hearing for the first time, yet enjoying, unfamiliar types of music simply to suggest that people can have a very sympathetic response to music which they have not been "conditioned" to understand or enjoy. Isn't it likely in such cases that the music is appealing to something "unconditioned" in them? And if that can be the case, why should it be assumed that _dislike_ for alien styles of music is simply a matter of conditioning? Seems a reasonable question to me.

PetrB commented that "modern/contemporary" music is accepted by people when they hear it in film scores depicting horror or suspense but not when it's played outside that context. I used some rather varied examples of music in order to suggest that there may actually be some reason for this - i.e., that some music may actually be innately better-suited to expressing certain things and that it's use in certain contexts may not be arbitrary. People who enjoy the music cited may not approve of the associations attached to the music they like and have their own feelings about, and they might well invoke the "it's just conditioning" idea. But that doesn't remove the question I'm asking.

If Schoenberg wrote some 12-tone music that would work for a love scene or a Sunday school picnic, I congratulate him. I would never presume to say it couldn't be done (though I'll confess to doubts). That doesn't change the issue either.

Talk of the relativity of human responses to music is salutary if it helps us overcome our conventional associations and open our ears to other possibilities. But it really doesn't tell us anything else of interest. It doesn't even begin to tell us how and why music can have such powerful - and at times amazingly specific - meaning for people, not only for individuals but for great numbers of people who, coming from different backgrounds and having been differently "conditioned," agree with striking frequency about what musical works "mean" or "express."

That people often disagree about music seems unremarkable; people disagree about virtually everything. I'm much more interested in the question of how music arises from, and speaks to, the things we have in common. It isn't a question that makes much headway on TC, and that's understandable partly in light of its complexity and the range of knowledge that needs to be brought to bear on it. I know I'm not especially competent to offer answers. But there it is nonetheless, for anyone who's interested.


----------



## Mahlerian

Woodduck said:


> what some here call "common-practice tonality,"


Which is actually a quite easily defined concept, in contrast to all of the other "broad tonalities" and "atonalities" out there: a system based on the primacy of a hierarchical diatonic scale with specific functionality.



Woodduck said:


> I've noticed, here on TC, that whenever anyone offers a remotely negative characterization of certain types of music, particularly Western music written after the early twentieth century which doesn't feature what some here call "common-practice tonality," certain people are quick to descend upon that individual with assertions about (among other things) the relativity of his musical responses to his prior conditioning.


When people say "Schoenberg is infuriating academic elitist noise for pseudo-intellectuals from a composer who threw out melody and harmony to satisfy his own sick ego", this is not merely a negative characterization of a certain type of music, but also a bundle of entirely false statements.

Criticism of these kinds of statements is often confused with disagreeing with the person's taste; in reality, I am only disagreeing with the basis they gave for it. If they cannot hear the melodies and their development in Schoenberg, then no, they are completely unable to assess whether or not they would enjoy the music if they could.



Woodduck said:


> And if that can be the case, why should it be assumed that dislike for alien styles of music is simply a matter of conditioning?


Because Schoenberg's music is _not_ wholly alien, but rather a mixture of the familiar and the unfamiliar, and if one tries to judge the unfamiliar elements of something on the basis of what is familiar about it, one is more likely to be disturbed about the ways in which it differs. Have you ever noticed that early critics of music have not infrequently attacked the very elements for which it is later praised? Debussy's melody and harmony, Stravinsky's rhythm, Bruckner's form, Mahler's originality, and so forth? I think this is because there is an immediate and intuitive sense that something is different, but this difference is sensed as hostile, rather than positive.

Children who listen to non-tonal music from an early age can take to it just as well as tonal music. People who did not grow up with non-tonal music can overcome their unfamiliarity with exposure and time, especially since the basics of the idiom are often familiar today.



Woodduck said:


> Everything in my post is relevant to that question, so I wonder how you think I'm "conflating" different issues.


Because, as I tried to separate out, you are bringing together several different kinds of conditioning (familiarization, non-Western musics, and cultural conditioning), and I agree with some of your views, but not all of them.



Woodduck said:


> I used some rather varied examples of music in order to suggest that there may actually be some reason for this - i.e., that some music may actually be innately better-suited to expressing certain things and that it's use in certain contexts may not be arbitrary. People who enjoy the music cited may not approve of the associations attached to the music they like and have their own feelings about, and they might well invoke the "it's just conditioning" idea. But that doesn't remove the question I'm asking.


The reason for this is that, like the _Baroque organ music=evil/creepy religious stuff_ trend and the _classical era music=high class party stuff_ trend, the _modernist music=horrifying/suspensful stuff_ trend is an oversimplification based only on a few contingent surface elements that fails to engage the music on any artistic level, even the most basic. That's why it's offensive.

Schoenberg's Survivor from Warsaw is not primarily about horror, but defiance.



Woodduck said:


> If Schoenberg wrote some 12-tone music that would work for a love scene or a Sunday school picnic, I congratulate him. I would never presume to say it couldn't be done (though I'll confess to doubts). That doesn't change the issue either.


Based on my experiences in these threads, questions like this are asked without any answer that will ever satisfy the one who asks, simply because there is no standard. I already gave a piece that I feel expresses love (though I doubt it would work well in a movie in any role), and doubts are immediately cast on it.



Woodduck said:


> Talk of the relativity of human responses to music is salutary if it helps us overcome our conventional associations and open our ears to other possibilities. But it really doesn't tell us anything else of interest. It doesn't even begin to tell us how and why music can have such powerful - and at times amazingly specific - meaning for people, not only for individuals but for great numbers of people who, coming from different backgrounds and having been differently "conditioned," agree with striking frequency about what musical works "mean" or "express."


I don't believe that signification is arbitrary or completely culturally determined, but _*it is contingent on the norms of a given style*_. The "agitated style" of Monteverdi, with its tremolos, may not strike us today as being particularly turbulent, but if we take it from the perspective of his own time, coming out of the polyphonic style of the late Renaissance, this correlation makes more sense. The last chord of Mozart's Musical Joke would sound not entirely out of place in the music of Debussy, even using the same voicing.

Individual styles have their own norms and departures from them, and it is based more on this than on any one-to-one correlation between a given musical element and an emotion or kind of expression.


----------



## ArtMusic

Petwhac said:


> Tonality in the broad sense of music based on major and minor chords, is an artificial construct. So is counting in a base of 10, that is, counting in decimal. Decimal serves most people most of the time although in the realm of computer programming, hexadecimal and binary are found to be useful. When earthlings either discover something good and useful or someone invents it, it is not surprising that it becomes widely adopted. And so it is, I believe with the way of organising pitch to create pieces of music that can be called tonal. Or perhaps we should call it 'major/minor harmonic' to keep the academic pedants at bay.
> I have tired of the endless bickering about definitions.
> 
> This is not to say that other ways of making music are less valid or inferior. But the evidence seems to show that once major/minor harmonic music (which can encompass music from Renaissance to Jazz, bluegrass to Broadway) is 'discovered' it is widely adopted.
> 
> As for the OP. I would put it simply, music which is not rooted in major/minor harmony, has a narrower appeal. Actually, music which doesn't contain words and vocals is already rather a minority interest. Hence instrumental classical or jazz will always have a small audience compared to song.


Agree. Definitions are useful but I'm for the music, and tonality by and large draws more listeners in. It speaks for itself, pure and simple.


----------



## Woodduck

Mahlerian said:


> *When people say "Schoenberg is infuriating academic elitist noise for pseudo-intellectuals from a composer who threw out melody and harmony to satisfy his own sick ego", this is not merely a negative characterization of a certain type of music, but also a bundle of entirely false statements.*
> Criticism of these kinds of statements is often confused with disagreeing with the person's taste; in reality, I am only disagreeing with the basis they gave for it. If they cannot hear the melodies and their development in Schoenberg, then no, they are completely unable to assess whether or not they would enjoy the music if they could.
> 
> Because Schoenberg's music is _not_ wholly alien, but rather a mixture of the familiar and the unfamiliar, and if one tries to judge the unfamiliar elements of something on the basis of what is familiar about it, one is more likely to be disturbed about the ways in which it differs. Have you ever noticed that early critics of music have not infrequently attacked the very elements for which it is later praised? Debussy's melody and harmony, Stravinsky's rhythm, Bruckner's form, Mahler's originality, and so forth? I think this is because there is an immediate and intuitive sense that something is different, but this difference is sensed as hostile, rather than positive.
> 
> Children who listen to non-tonal music from an early age can take to it just as well as tonal music. People who did not grow up with non-tonal music can overcome their unfamiliarity with exposure and time, especially since the basics of the idiom are often familiar today.
> 
> Because, as I tried to separate out, you are bringing together several different kinds of conditioning (familiarization, non-Western musics, and cultural conditioning), and I agree with some of your views, but not all of them.
> 
> The reason for this is that, like the _Baroque organ music=evil/creepy religious stuff_ trend and the _classical era music=high class party stuff_ trend, the _modernist music=horrifying/suspensful stuff_ trend is an oversimplification based only on a few contingent surface elements that fails to engage the music on any artistic level, even the most basic. That's why it's offensive.
> 
> Schoenberg's Survivor from Warsaw is not primarily about horror, but defiance.
> 
> Based on my experiences in these threads, questions like this are asked without any answer that will ever satisfy the one who asks, simply because there is no standard. I already gave a piece that I feel expresses love (though I doubt it would work well in a movie in any role), and doubts are immediately cast on it.
> 
> I don't believe that signification is arbitrary or completely culturally determined, but _*it is contingent on the norms of a given style*_. _The "agitated style" of Monteverdi, with its tremolos, may not strike us today as being particularly turbulent, but if we take it from the perspective of his own time, coming out of the polyphonic style of the late Renaissance, this correlation makes more sense. _The last chord of Mozart's Musical Joke would sound not entirely out of place in the music of Debussy, even using the same voicing.
> 
> *Individual styles have their own norms and departures from them, and it is based more on this than on any one-to-one correlation between a given musical element and an emotion or kind of expression.*


:lol: Love your Schoenberg sick ego thing! People do occasionally say such things, but do we really have such wretched philistines here on TC? (No, I don't want to know who they are...)

I really wasn't attacking Schoenberg anywhere in my posts. Honest! (Arnold's a good chap and a genius besides. I sang _Survivor_ once and enjoyed the experience. I even have a photo of him smiling, which proves that he could.) I wasn't even attacking "modern music," whatever that is. I may have been attacking a few "modernists, " whoever and whatever they are. They may wear whatever shoe seems to fit.

I like your point about context, though I don't think it gets very close to my question, which I agree will not lead to pat answers. Obviously we can't take such a simplistic approach as to say, for example, "a string tremolo means anxiety," and I hope you didn't think I was actually suggesting such a thing. What constitutes a unit of perception, and a unit of signification, is completely a matter of focus and boundaries, and whenever the boundaries change, so must the significance. But the contextual nature of meaning need not imply, as some have asserted, that all meaning is subjective and arbitrary (and I'm _not_ saying that you're implying that).

I can probably shut up now and fold my hands demurely in my lap.


----------



## Guest

Petwhac said:


> I think 'cultural imperialism' can no longer suffice as an explanation though it may have played and continue to play a minor roll.


Quite right, and the democratisation of music in the recent past has done much to counter imperialism. But my examples were intended to show that there are a number of factors at play, and it seems difficult to me to separate them out and determine that only one is dominant. The fact that we can't turn the clock back gets in the way of trying to decide which factors did dominate.

As for whether music is 'useful', I used the term 'utilitarian', and gave everyday examples to move it away from the more vague 'useful' because of course, music has many purposes, but not, I would suggest, as functional as systems of counting. I think that your example of the use of music for religious ritual is a brilliant point - that music can be used for authoritarian control, irrespective of any inherent quality of the music itself.

As for 'bickering' about definitions, debating (rather than bickering) is an essential part of this type of debate, and I enjoy it. I know that if I were to say - crossing into the exchange between Woodduck and Mahlerian - that Messiaen's _Turangalila _is as good a piece of music to represent 'love' as you could find, it would provoke disbelief in at least one TCer (I have no one in particular in mind, I assure you) who would demand what kind of love I had in mind!



Woodduck said:


> I think most people who have thought much about it can see that the way people respond to types of music employing various highly developed systems of musical organization, such as the Western system of tonal key relations or the ragas of India, involves a substantial amount of exposure and learning. But even if we accept this as true, interesting questions, questions about possible correspondences between certain qualities of sound and aural patterns and possible innate forms of perception and affect, remain. Discussions touching on this subject, at least here on TC, tend to get left at the starting gate, squashed by suppositions of absolute relativity - assumptions that there are no universal or near-universal responses to sensory-perceptual stimuli originating in the mental and physical constitution of humans qua humans - assumptions which are far from proven and, to me, counterintuitive.


I hope that you see that like Mahlerian, I am not _asserting _an absolute position in any of this, but I am entertaining the possibilities. "Counterintuitive" is, however, an insufficient condition for negation - scepticism, yes.



Woodduck said:


> But the contextual nature of meaning need not imply, as some have asserted, that all meaning is subjective and arbitrary (and I'm _not_ saying that you're implying that).


And I'm not saying that either.

So, who is? Just PetrB?


----------



## fjf

After impressionism in the late 19th century, all artists seem to have felt that traditional art was finished, and that originality was impossible within the traditional forms of art. That became the start point for abstract art, totally free from any previous rules. That led to extreme forms, like the silent music: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_silent_musical_compositions. Originality became the main goal, and everything else was secondary.

This had an unwanted consequence: The "serious" art became a minority thing, while the masses embraced other "popular" forms of art. This was not a fundamental change, because before that the masses were just too poor to enjoy ANY kind of music. What we call today "classical" music has always been the enjoyment of a minority. "Abstract" music (IMHO) was only a lost opportunity for classical to become a popular form of art when art and culture were available to the middle class and even the more humble working people.

As a consequence, now wikipedia says that "Art is a diverse range of human activities and the products of those activities", a definition that can be applied to anything. Of course, it is related to "Aesthetics (/ɛsˈθɛtɪks/; also spelled æsthetics and esthetics) is a branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of art, beauty, and taste, with the creation and appreciation of beauty". Here we get to the key point: beauty and enjoyment.

Now, if you want me to speculate about the reason explaining why most people enjoy tonal music, I would say that this has to do with the way we evolved, as big african apes. We have an special predilection for pattern recognition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_recognition_(psychology)), because this helped us survive. Where the food and water are, were the danger is to be avoided. We create mental maps of the world, and see constellations in the night sky (where there are only dots of light). We (as an species) like structure and symmetry. We dislike caos. Our mind sometimes gets stuck on a melody and I can sometimes be humming and silently singing it for a while.

Of course, among 10 billion humans there is great variety, and some of us are not like that.


----------



## Mahlerian

fjf said:


> After impressionism in the late 19th century, all artists seem to have felt that traditional art was finished, and that originality was impossible within the traditional forms of art. That became the start point for abstract art, totally free from any previous rules. That led to extreme forms, like the silent music. Originality became the main goal, and everything else was secondary.


No, actually every bit of this is completely untrue.

Impressionist music is considered to be a part of the modernist movement, specifically because it broke with rules of traditional tonality.
The expressionism of Schoenberg and his school was always based on tradition, although at times the newness of the surface may make this difficult to hear.
I've never understood why people think the very existence of "silent music" is a sort of _reductio ad absudum_ for modernism, even composers who never thought of doing such a thing and never would have...
Pieces that are original simply in that they do something new are actually quite worthless, and get forgotten as soon as the novelty wears off. The masterpieces of modernism are memorable for quite other reasons: they are great music, just like that of other eras.



fjf said:


> Here we get to the key point: beauty and enjoyment.


Which are the reasons for the creation of much 20th century music as well.



fjf said:


> Now, if you want me to speculate about the reason explaining why most people enjoy tonal music, I would say that this has to do with the way we evolved, as big african apes.


Okay...



fjf said:


> We have an special predilection for pattern recognition, because this helped us survive. Where the food and water are, were the danger is to be avoided. We create mental maps of the world, and see constellations in the night sky (where there are only dots of light). We (as an species) like structure and symmetry.


Sure.



fjf said:


> We dislike chaos. Our mind sometimes gets stuck on a melody and I can sometimes be humming and silently singing it for a while.


Of course. What's that have to do with tonality, though? Atonal music is not inherently chaotic by any means. I get bits of Schoenberg, Boulez, late Stravinsky going through my head once in a while. Hummability is hardly a good measure of memorability, either, as there are many things that are not easy to hum in instrumental music simply because of a wide range.


----------



## fjf

Mahlerian said:


> I get bits of Schoenberg, Boulez, late Stravinsky going through my head once in a while.


That's why I pointed out that in 10 billion humans there is great variability. Nothing wrong with diversity.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

> Mahlerian on Bernard Hermann's alleged Schoenbergian influences: The fact that a specific work would work more poorly as background for a movie (and one by a composer whose style could not have formed the way it did without Schoenberg!)












So what_ film scores _of Herrmann have this alleged "Schoenbergian" influence?

Herrmann always gushed over _Debussy_ (who he thought was the greatest composer of the twentieth century) and not Schoenberg, whose chromatic atonalism left him cold.

Debussy's influence is palpable. Herrmann's extensive use of Debussy's half-diminished seventh has been extensively documented in a lot of his film scores:

http://www.filmscorerundowns.net/herrmann/herrmannchord.pdf

http://www.bernardherrmann.org/articles/misc-nature/

However, I've never heard anywhere in Herrmann's music, nor could I find online, any evidence that Schoenberg had any influence on Herrmann whatsoever.

Schoenberg taught at USC. So what? So did Miklos Rozsa-- but Herrmann's music doesn't sound like his either.

Then there's Herrmann's thoughts on the_ avant-gardism _of his time: "My feelings and yearnings are those of a composer of the 19th century. I am completely out of step with the present."

- Steven C. Smith, _A Heart At Fire's Center_, p. 137

_Quod Erat Demonstrandum_

<Kiss.>

_;D_


----------



## Guest

Marschallin Blair said:


> So what_ film scores _of Herrmann have this alleged "Schoenbergian" influence?


I'm not sure that is what Mahlerian claimed. What he said was,



> _a composer whose style could not have formed the way it did without Schoenberg_


What you point out is that his style could not have formed the way it did without Debussy, whose style could not have formed the way it did without Chopin, whose style could not have formed the way it did without Beethoven whose style...etc...


----------



## Marschallin Blair

MacLeod said:


> I'm not sure that is what Mahlerian claimed. What he said was,
> 
> What you point out is that his style could not have formed the way it did without Debussy, whose style could not have formed the way it did without Chopin, whose style could not have formed the way it did without Beethoven whose style...etc...


_Words. Words. Words._

I gave the hard forensics.

Where's Schoenberg to be found?


----------



## Guest

Marschallin Blair said:


> _Words. Words. Words._
> 
> I gave the hard forensics.
> 
> Where's Schoenberg to be found?


You gave words too...



> "_Although I am in sympathy with modern idioms, I abhor music which attempts nothing more than the illustration of a stylistic fad. And in using modern techniques, __I have tried at all times to subjugate them to a larger idea or a grander human feeling."_


I'm no expert on what specific modern techniques or modern idioms he was referring to, but my guess is that he could hardly have composed what he did in the way that he did without being influenced by the _whole _development of music that preceded him.

But perhaps I should let Mahlerian speak for himself.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

> Macleod: You [meaning me] gave words too:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Although I am in sympathy with modern idioms, I abhor music which attempts nothing more than the illustration of a stylistic fad. And in using modern techniques, I have tried at all times to subjugate them to a larger idea or a grander human feeling."
Click to expand...

Nope.

Never said it.

Try again.


----------



## Mahlerian

John Mauceri: "He was always experimenting with how you would accompany the spoken word," said Mauceri. "But also he was a conductor. He would listen to many different conductors playing the same piece, particularly when he was the head of serious music at CBS when he was in his mid 20s. It was Bernard Herrmann who was playing Charles Ives to America. *It was Bernard Herrmann who was playing Arnold Schoenberg to America in the '40s.*"
http://www.wqxr.org/#!/story/144005-bernard-herrmann-remembering-original-who-changed-film-music/

A letter from Schoenberg to Herrmann thanking him for a performance of his music:
https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/16761/lot/207/

Plus, to me hearing Herrmann's music, the Schoenberg influence is so pervasive as to be blinding.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Mahlerian said:


> John Mauceri: "He was always experimenting with how you would accompany the spoken word," said Mauceri. "But also he was a conductor. He would listen to many different conductors playing the same piece, particularly when he was the head of serious music at CBS when he was in his mid 20s. It was Bernard Herrmann who was playing Charles Ives to America. *It was Bernard Herrmann who was playing Arnold Schoenberg to America in the '40s.*"
> http://www.wqxr.org/#!/story/144005-bernard-herrmann-remembering-original-who-changed-film-music/
> 
> A letter from Schoenberg to Herrmann thanking him for a performance of his music:
> https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/16761/lot/207/
> 
> Plus, to me hearing Herrmann's music, the Schoenberg influence is so pervasive as to be blinding.


Herrmann_ conducted _Schoenberg. He also conducted Elgar-- but neither influence is palpable in his music.

Where in _Herrmann's own music _is Schoenberg to be found, Horatio?


----------



## Guest

Marschallin Blair said:


> Nope.
> 
> Never said it.
> 
> Try again.


You're quite right. You didn't. But I was quoting from the article you linked to

http://www.bernardherrmann.org/articles/misc-nature/

in your post...

http://www.talkclassical.com/34751-did-weakening-tonality-causethe-post753119.html#post753119


----------



## Mahlerian

Marschallin Blair said:


> Where in _Herrmann's own music _is Schoenberg to be found, Horatio?


Like I told you, it's all over the Vertigo score, which is pervaded with that most Schoenbergian of all harmonies, the Viennese trichord:









(In fact, transpose that up an octave, and that picture is exactly what you're hearing.)

It's also in the orchestration, which shows far more of Schoenberg's color (mostly strings, bits of celesta and harp, brass interjections) than Debussy's (more winds).


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> Not correct, I think. I see these people at concerts all the time. They wear black hoods over their heads and each is normally accompanied by a curvaceous Nazi dominatrix holding the chains to their manacles.


They'll never make it through the door in New York. :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> ...'tonal is natural', and it's difficult not to believe that history itself shows that man's instinct is towards the more obviously tonal.


Here, Fido! Go get the tonal bone!


----------



## millionrainbows

ArtMusic said:


> In my opinion, tonality by and large is the inherently natural form of music. It's what people today identify most naturally as music.


I agree, as long as "tonality" means loyalty to a tonic in the broadest sense. According to this broad definition of tonality, The Harvard Dictionary of Music states that "almost all music is tonal in this sense."

Where does that leave "atonality" and weakened versions? Somewhere in la-la land, appealing to intellectuals and specialists like me. The "broad appeal" of tonality is like white bread, so it does not bother me or prove anything about serialism to say that it is not hugely popular.

On the other hand, the appeal of Beethoven seems to be accompanied with a disillusionment with the modern world, and is escapist.


----------



## millionrainbows

As far as "natural," the only true commonality in "tonal" musics of the world is the centricity of the single sustained note. This is "tonality" in its broadest sense. All other factors such as octave division or tempering within the octave which might sound "foreign" to western ears are moot, since even our equal tempered scale deviates from natural overtones as early as the seventh harmonic (B flat, or the flatted-seventh), which in ET is way too sharp.

But, yes, even "weird" foreign systems can be heard to have a sense of tonality, even if the intervals are unfamiliar or out-of-tune to our Western ears.

On the other hand, it is obvious that in serial music, something far different is going on.


----------



## Petwhac

Woodduck said:


> The central question I was posing in my response to PetrB's post is: To what extent are particular human responses to music and particular assessments of its meaning and value determined by cultural conditioning, and to what extent are they determined by processes and patterns of perceptions rooted in the physiology, neural and otherwise, of the human organism as such?


This is a huge question to which I believe no-one has the answer. Many people assume that it is all a matter of cultural conditioning but offer no real proof. I believe one _could_ prove or disprove it but only by conducting a controlled experiment which would involve the inhumane isolation and deprivation of it's subjects. Meaning, take 100 or 1000 new- born babies from various countries and let them hear absolutely no music until adult-hood. Then play them a selection of music and get a response. This at least would provide statistical evidence. Of course it would be too cruel to deprive a child of song, TV, film or any other way of being exposed to music of any kind.
Short of this, I see no way of reaching a conclusion.



Woodduck said:


> PetrB commented that "modern/contemporary" music is accepted by people when they hear it in film scores depicting horror or suspense but not when it's played outside that context. I used some rather varied examples of music in order to suggest that there may actually be some reason for this - i.e.,* that some music may actually be innately better-suited to expressing certain things *and that it's use in certain contexts may not be arbitrary. People who enjoy the music cited may not approve of the associations attached to the music they like and have their own feelings about, and they might well invoke the "it's just conditioning" idea. But that doesn't remove the question I'm asking.
> 
> If Schoenberg wrote some 12-tone music that would work for a love scene or a Sunday school picnic, I congratulate him. I would never presume to say it couldn't be done (though I'll confess to doubts). That doesn't change the issue either.


The art-music composer is not always occupied with the precision manipulation of audience's emotions. The film composer, on the other hand, _always_ is. The film composer has no interest in form and architecture simply because those two things (amongst others) must be surrendered to the service of the scene, which may be cut to pieces in the editing. Therefore, I don't think it is fruitful to delve too deeply into film music when debating the OP.
Having said that, there is no doubt in my mind that if the precision manipulation of emotions on a moment to moment basis is what is wanted, if one wants to take an audience through emotions such as hope, homecoming, joy, laughter, tragedy, desolation or stillness, and all within a 3 minute scene, it would be impossible without using 99% major/minor harmony. To put it another way, give a film music supervisor a choice between using _only_ music by Berio, Stockhausen, Ligeti and Boulez (big names of the 20th C) to score a Hollywood blockbuster or _only_ music by Beethoven, Brahms, Berlioz and Chopin (likewise 19th C) and with one of those options s/he'll struggle.
Is it because of conditioning? Maybe. But the language of major/minor relationships is shared by so many people that it is possible to convey the most subtle shades of mood with harmony alone. Before even bringing into play dynamics, tempo and texture. If so many of the worlds inhabitants have been, or are in the process of being, so conditioned, it is not surprising that music that contains little or no major/minor harmony often finds audiences indifferent.
Of course it is a good thing if composers continue to make all sorts of musics and noises, experiment with sound and explore completely new landscapes but the day that Berio's 'Differences' regularly draws a bigger audience than practically _any_ tonal music will never come. Not without some serious cultural and social engineering!
The original post assumes there was once a 'broad interest' in classical music. There has never been a _very_ broad interest in it but interest is narrower still for music which is non major/minor harmonic. To quote Bruce Hornsby, "That's just the way it is".


----------



## Guest

Petwhac said:


> The art-music composer is not always occupied with the precision manipulation of audience's emotions. The film composer, on the other hand, _always_ is. The film composer has no interest in form and architecture simply because those two things (amongst others) must be surrendered to the service of the scene, which may be cut to pieces in the editing. Therefore, I don't think it is fruitful to delve too deeply into film music when debating the OP.


You make some good points, but these are somewhat contentious. It's true that many movies are constructed in ways that the common audience will find most accessible and acceptable, and that means dealing in the conventional, including the use of conventional music to enhance the emotion of a scene: scary action, scary music required; romantic encounter, romantic music essential. However, there are film-makers whose work is more sophisticated than that, who use music in different ways, just as they use the camera, editing, narrative structure in unconventional ways. They are less interested in the manipulation of the emotions than in the manipulation of thinking, or context for thinking. _O Brother Where Art Thou_ springs to mind as one where there is, mostly, only one 'emotion' (as it is mostly a comedy) and the music serves other purposes - to register period, offer ironic comment on what characters are saying, or thinking, or enduring. _A Clockwork Orange_ and _2001: A Space Odyssey_ both use significant pieces of CP tonality (_Ode to Joy_ and _Blue Danube_) to 'say' something, not to manipulate audience emotion in any conventional sense (though that's not to discount whatever emotions the audience might be feeling when those scenes are playing).

That's not to invalidate the idea that in an industry that has run for around 100 years, it hasn't successfully shown that, for all the arguing of the purists who say that music doesn't 'contain' emotion, many, perhaps most film makers have used it as if it does, and for the very good reason that it works well with the target audience. I'd say that film music is actually an ideal medium to explore the question of cultural conditioning's influence, and I'd also say that you could explore the question (though as you say, not necessarily arrive at a conclusion) without resorting to the kind of experiment that you rightly observe would be wholly immoral.


----------



## Sid James

Just a note that in hindsight I think I would have been wise to leave my response to this thread to my initial one here. The ones I followed it up with where largely unnecessary, and in many respects demonstrations of my hanging on to past bad memories of threads with similar topics. My best strategy is to either not respond to them, or if I do to distill what I think of the issue into one post and leave it at that.

My overall point is thought that how we view history is coloured by various aspects, including ideological. With history can be included other things, such as technical innovations.

The true testament to what I feel about atonal and other types of music, including music of the 20th century and today, can be found in my posts on current listening and also in my "contrasts and connections" thread, where I try to link music and follow a lineage.

Recently, reading a book on an aspect of 20th century history (not to do with music), an author distinguished between history and tradition. He defined history as being dates, places, people, events that occurred in the past. He defined tradition as being the various ways in which the past is carried on, how/why/what is valued, what it means over time and today. In other words, tradition is something other than history, its what individuals and societies make of it.

I see this as crucial to these often divisive topics, in others words the values underlying our thinking about aspects of history and innovation in music, that will relate to the conclusions we make about it. There is most often in controversial issues (and those that don't attract much consensus), no one right answer, but many answers.


----------



## Guest

Returning to the paper that Mahlerian posted a link to, I find it an interesting, perhaps obvious point, that unlike the acquisition and use of language (which has fairly well prescribed success criteria) music has none.



> to say that a given nonconforming language is unlearnable and unusable, one is claiming that it is impossible for a group of speakers effectively to make requests, give instructions, ask and answer questions, and so on, in the language. In the case of music, however, there do not seem to be such behavioural verification conditions for successful cognition. It will not do to say, for example, that a listener must be able to recognise when a theme returns, or to know where the cadences are, or anything of that kind, since to do so would be to exclude a priori all atonal or athematic music. One cannot define the innate music specialisation as that set of capacities which allow us to follow tonal music, and then argue that there is something amiss with atonal music because it fails to fit that specialisation.


http://johncroft.eu/Memory_complexity.pdf p14

In other words, if we are to establish whether there is any underlying mental capacity to understand music which would lead us to conclude that the brain naturally appreciates tonal rather than atonal music, we would also need to establish that, like the acquisition of language, there are clear indicators of what successful acquisition is.

I realise that the 'quote-out-of-context' I have posted is not necessarily helpful to understanding the work from which it comes, or elucidating the problem we are considering, but I just though this might be a useful or interesting 'point-along-the-way'. In short, don't shoot Croft's argument just because I've (potentially) misrepresented him.


----------



## Jobis

One of the most important things, at least for me, is that a lot of atonal music is just really, really cool and interesting to listen to. I don't know how to put it more simply than that. I think that when music listeners and composers go down the rabbit hole, opening themselves to the influence of atonal music, there is such richness and potential in it that it becomes a very popular mode of expression in CCM. Those who write tonal music in the strict sense are just missing out, or consciously appealing to a larger crowd, often sacrificing expression, integrity and cultural relevance as a result. 

Why this should be a problem I don't know, it only becomes an issue regarding liturgical/church music, which should at least be tolerable to the vast majority, though that doesn't mean 'pop' in any sense.

Messiaen must have come up against opposition to his 'radical' music, which is why he ultimately didn't compose a lot of liturgical music, and his organ improvisations are perhaps among his more tonal pieces, though not at all in the CP sense of the word. 

I understand the plight of the sacred minimalists, but I can't help feeling there ought to be an alternative that is less manipulative.


----------



## Mahlerian

MacLeod said:


> Returning to the paper that Mahlerian posted a link to, I find it an interesting, perhaps obvious point, that unlike the acquisition and use of language (which has fairly well prescribed success criteria) music has none.


Right. Croft's point here is that linguistic theories are based on a survey of all known languages, their common features, and so forth, while musical theories that posit the naturalness of tonality _begin_ by attempting to define what is natural with a subset of music, rather than the entirety of music.

To continue by arguing that any music that doesn't fit these criteria is thereby unnatural is, of course, circular reasoning.


----------



## PetrB

Woodduck said:


> PetrB commented that "modern/contemporary" music is accepted by people when they hear it in film scores depicting horror or suspense but not when it's played outside that context. I used some rather varied examples of music in order to suggest that there may actually be some reason for this - i.e., that some music may actually be innately better-suited to expressing certain things and that it's use in certain contexts may not be arbitrary. People who enjoy the music cited may not approve of the associations attached to the music they like and have their own feelings about, and they might well invoke the "it's just conditioning" idea. But that doesn't remove the question I'm asking.


Well, to that, we'll never know, as it was a done deal before you or I were born -- 'done deal,' i.e. use of modern - contemporary musical idiom in horror and suspense films -- not a 'done deal' as to "that music may better express that" because that repertoire was used _for its quality of being completely unfamiliar to its audience._ Unfamiliar, in sound and nature from what that audience is used to, is enough all on its own to be 'a new context,' and the new and unfamiliar are synonymous with most with 'unease.'

That music was used in those places specifically to throw the audience a curve, and it worked. First heard in a concert hall... who knows? First heard to heighten and with the dramatic scene, lighting, camera angle and script all already intended to _disorient_, remove from the everyday and familiar as much as possible and make the audience uneasy? DONE DEAL, currently cemented in the general semiotic lunch pail most people carry.

Try and undo that association once repeated from ca. 1930 to the present... then come up with some 'objective' proof modern / contemporary 'better expresses disorientation / creepy, etc. :lol:

I was playing Bartok in my first piano lessons at the age of six. Later, already familiar with his music, in Kubrick's _The Shining,_ the _Music for stringed instruments, percussion and celesta_ used in the film seemed out of place and was to me ineffective. Ditto for Kubrick's use of Ligeti's music in _2001._ I am one 'proof' that if heard in the straight context of 'just classical music,' that some of the contemporary so usually associated with horror, tension or suspense is 'just music,' and will _not_ have the effect of 'actually expressing that.' I've similar reactions to dozens of film moments when such music is used to that intended effect... so much so that at times, if in a theater, I have to suppress giggles at just how inappropriate the film scoring strikes me. *Ergo, I was conditioned at a very young age... to modern and contemporary music as just music. Used in these other contexts, and the usage seems just silly to me.*


----------



## tdc

Anybody ever seen this? I've only watched the first 20 minutes but realized my ears must be tainted already by 20th century music, because the music he used as examples of "unpleasant" music sounded better to me than the examples he used for "nice" music.


----------



## Sid James

aleazk said:


> ...
> 
> As for Sid, I find his 'the modernist ideology' agenda an oversold idea, his moral preaching about past events to be anachronic and useless.


Well it is anachronistic in the sense that similar debates have been going on in the arts for over 200 years now. If I am anachronistic, I am happy to be lumped in with other more pluralistic views of 20th century music, such as by Copland, Varese, Xenakis, Sculthorpe, Feldman, etc. I have quoted from these people enough on this forum, even made threads angling at less extreme views of Modernism.

So I can only go back to the 1950's, because since then things have changed, but going on a Modernist or atonal debate thread on TC is like stepping back in time to the bad old days when we had to go with dichotomies as expressed by Cage, Boulez, Stockhausen and so on. It was a missed opportunity for music, now we are haggling over these useless philosophical issues like a bunch of vultures over a carcase. How sad.

Of course, as a fan of new/newer music, I am critiquing the ideologies, not the music. Much like Wagnerites do. Doesn't seem a sin with his music, but it does with Modern music.



> But we already discussed this in that thread, and I don't think I have been impolite there. Bold and sincere in my way of expression, certainly. But that's how I am.


Yes, well this thread has taught me not to go on with unfinished business, but in I think that all of these sorts of topics are like that. They're all the same and end up with the same sorts of fights. Good luck with that, and I know I will regret my reply to you, but its because I was a fool to come here in the first place.

Early last year, I decided to largely avoid these sorts of threads, and mostly I have since. I pretty much do my own thing on this forum. I am committed to simply expressing my views without fear nor favour, but with Modernist topics it is impossible. However, there are better ways to spend my time here than this.


----------



## dgee

^^^ Hahahahaha - that video guy is full of #$^%. He can stick his pleasantness up his fundament. He also seems to assume his audience live in a hermetically sealed Victorian drawing room and are, in fact, babies


----------



## Mahlerian

tdc said:


> Anybody ever seen this? I've only watched the first 20 minutes but realized my ears must be tainted already by 20th century music, because the music he used as examples of "unpleasant" music sounded better to me than the examples he used for "nice" music.





dgee said:


> ^^^ Hahahahaha - that video guy is full of #$^%. He can stick his pleasantness up his fundament. He also seems to assume his audience live in a hermetically sealed Victorian drawing room and are, in fact, babies


I've seen it before too (why do links to it seem to show up whenever I'm listening to modernist music on Youtube???), and tdc's reaction reminds me of that BBC documentary from earlier this year. There's an announcer talking about how Schoenberg began writing "atonal" music, where "melody and harmony were not allowed", and at that exact moment, showed a pianist playing the opening bars of op. 11 no. 2, the melody of which is extremely lyrical and filled with emotion. It made me wonder what universe the people making the documentary lived in, and also whether the musicians involved (who did a fine job all around) were aware that the music they had put such effort into was being recorded simply to be put up for ridicule.


----------



## clavichorder

I have to agree that the guy in that video is a little pretentious and it seems that he has an agenda. And he said something about intelligent design in the video too...which I tend to be wary of.

But I watched further into the video, where he talks about the overtone series, and much of it wasn't new information to me, but there was one part of interest. It was talking about the ear and what intervals are "pleasant" and what aren't. I wouldn't use the adjectives pleasant and unpleasant like that guy, but rather smoother and rounder, versus rougher and crunchier for certain intervals. You can adjust and hear the structural intricacies of music that doesn't use tonal harmony or other similar systems, and you can have a natural or learned reaction of fascination and pleasure to the complexity of rougher harmonies and tonal relations, but it doesn't escape the fact that that harmony is indeed more rough and crunchy.


----------



## Blancrocher

clavichorder said:


> I have to agree that the guy in that video is a little pretentious and it seems that he has an agenda. And he said something about intelligent design in the video too...which I tend to be wary of.
> 
> But I watched further into the video, where he talks about the overtone series, and much of it wasn't new information to me, but there was one part of interest. It was talking about the ear and what intervals are "pleasant" and what aren't. I wouldn't use the adjectives pleasant and unpleasant like that guy, but rather smoother and rounder, versus rougher and crunchier for certain intervals. You can adjust and hear the structural intricacies of music that doesn't use tonal harmony or other similar systems, and you can have a natural or learned reaction of fascination and pleasure to the complexity of rougher harmonies and tonal relations, but it doesn't escape the fact that that harmony is indeed more rough and crunchy.


You might also be interested in the work of Dmitri Tymoczko, who is both a music theorist and composer.






In the video, he discusses his idea of the "constraints" that music must have in order to "sound good." He can be too doctrinaire and there's some snark about unnamed modern composers, but I think his ideas are interesting even if I disagree with most of his polemics.


----------



## Mahlerian

clavichorder said:


> I have to agree that the guy in that video is a little pretentious and it seems that he has an agenda. And he said something about intelligent design in the video too...which I tend to be wary of.
> 
> But I watched further into the video, where he talks about the overtone series, and much of it wasn't new information to me, but there was one part of interest. It was talking about the ear and what intervals are "pleasant" and what aren't. I wouldn't use the adjectives pleasant and unpleasant like that guy, but rather smoother and rounder, versus rougher and crunchier for certain intervals. You can adjust and hear the structural intricacies of music that doesn't use tonal harmony or other similar systems, and you can have a natural or learned reaction of fascination and pleasure to the complexity of rougher harmonies and tonal relations, but it doesn't escape the fact that that harmony is indeed more rough and crunchy.


Sure, but the harmony of romantic music is far rougher and crunchier than classical era music, and the introduction of thirds into renaissance harmonies made them far rougher and crunchier too. The problem people encounter is when they have a hard time relating harmonies to one another, and if the individual harmonies themselves are not familiar or are only familiar in other contexts, then there is a barrier to be overcome where at first the stimulus is perceived as mere noise.


----------



## dgee

Mahlerian said:


> Sure, but the harmony of romantic music is far rougher and crunchier than classical era music, and the introduction of thirds into renaissance harmonies made them far rougher and crunchier too. The problem people encounter is when they have a hard time relating harmonies to one another, and if the individual harmonies themselves are not familiar or are only familiar in other contexts, then there is a barrier to be overcome where at first the stimulus is perceived as mere noise.


I found that "psycho-acoustical" explanation rather incomplete and unconvincing as well. There's plenty of minor seconds and major sevenths in a jazz standard yet most people don't run to mother when they hear them. It also over-emphasises on the legibility of harmony without looking into rhythm, melody, texture or timbre


----------



## clavichorder

Mahlerian said:


> Sure, but the harmony of romantic music is far rougher and crunchier than classical era music, and the introduction of thirds into renaissance harmonies made them far rougher and crunchier too. The problem people encounter is when they have a hard time relating harmonies to one another, and if the individual harmonies themselves are not familiar or are only familiar in other contexts, then there is a barrier to be overcome where at first the stimulus is perceived as mere noise.


Maybe its because I have not quite adjusted to serialism or certain modern musics, since I find so much joy in unraveling all the possibilities present in particularly baroque, classical, and renaissance music, but also romantic and much of modernism; but I don't experience Webern's music with the same ease that I do with other music. Nor Schoenberg's or Berg's, or Elliot Carter's or even stuff that I can more readily grasp and side with, like Bartok string quartets, or Dutilleux's later works. I find it challenging, but I'm not blind to its interest. (digression) I also find it challenging in a different way, sorting out the big picture of earlier music and how each development relates to the next, being able to blindly tell a Muffat piece from a Corelli piece, ect. , so I'm not saying that I'm a person who shies away from difficulty(I have different interests. End of digression). It has been years and my experience of it has not changed that much, though I've had ups and downs, but such music still sounds "dissonant" to me, and the "roughness" of it seems less penetrable. All I can get out of it is a joy in the slightly impenetrable quality of it with flashes of illumination.


----------



## clavichorder

dgee said:


> I found that "psycho-acoustical" explanation rather incomplete and unconvincing as well. There's plenty of minor seconds and major sevenths in a jazz standard yet most people don't run to mother when they hear them. It also over-emphasises on the legibility of harmony without looking into rhythm, melody, texture or timbre


In Jazz it is organized in such a way, with the rhythm as you say, and 7ths/9ths ect. moving from one to another. The extra notes are just like color added to more basic harmony that is at work, I think.

Melody, texture, timbre, can all be boiled down to harmony ultimately, and rhythm is that independent force with can lend legitimacy to any kind of percussive banging.

But I agree, that guy's argument was unconvincing.


----------



## Jobis

Mahlerian said:


> Sure, but the harmony of romantic music is far rougher and crunchier than classical era music, and the introduction of thirds into renaissance harmonies made them far rougher and crunchier too. The problem people encounter is when they have a hard time relating harmonies to one another, and if the individual harmonies themselves are not familiar or are only familiar in other contexts, then there is a barrier to be overcome where at first the stimulus is perceived as mere noise.


This is very true, one often finds people who are initially opposed to new music view it as 'noise' or somehow lacking some undefinable quality that makes a piece of music 'music', when ironically they are lacking the innate musicality required to enjoy such work. I expect babies and people from cultures unexposed to CM would have much better appreciation for post-tonal music than a lot of TCers. 

I recall an anecdote (it may be completely untrue) about a group of 'musicologists' in America, who invited several native Americans, unexposed to western culture, to a live concert of classical music. At the end of the concert they asked the native Americans which piece they most enjoyed, and they replied 'the first one', and after some confusion and misunderstanding, the musicologists realised they were referring to the sound of the orchestra tuning up before the performance, rather than any of the Mozart, Brahms or Beethoven.


----------



## violadude

tdc said:


> Anybody ever seen this? I've only watched the first 20 minutes but realized my ears must be tainted already by 20th century music, because the music he used as examples of "unpleasant" music sounded better to me than the examples he used for "nice" music.


Oh, how idiotic. I'm sick of these no-name professors trying to discredict music that's already been accepted and has stood the test of time for years now. If enjoyment of music is about natural acoustic phenomena as found in common practice western tonality, then you should be able to take an Indonesian Gamelan player and play him classical music for the first time and he should say "Oh, so that's how music is supposed to sound". But that never happens and never will happen. The Indonesian Gamelan player will find the acoustic interval relationships in CPT Classical Music just as strange and hard to enjoy at first as many Westerners when they listen to Gamelan music for the first time.

Anyone who has previously not liked a composer like Schoenberg but now does clearly knows that enjoyment and understanding of music isn't about an objective natural acoustic phenomenon, but about acclimation and familiarity with the particular music you are listening to.


----------



## violadude

Mahlerian said:


> I've seen it before too (why do links to it seem to show up whenever I'm listening to modernist music on Youtube???), and tdc's reaction reminds me of that BBC documentary from earlier this year. There's an announcer talking about how Schoenberg began writing "atonal" music,* where "melody and harmony were not allowed"*, and at that exact moment, showed a pianist playing the opening bars of op. 11 no. 2, the melody of which is extremely lyrical and filled with emotion. It made me wonder what universe the people making the documentary lived in, and also whether the musicians involved (who did a fine job all around) were aware that the music they had put such effort into was being recorded simply to be put up for ridicule.


----------



## Petwhac

MacLeod said:


> You make some good points, but these are somewhat contentious. It's true that many movies are constructed in ways that the common audience will find most accessible and acceptable, and that means dealing in the conventional, including the use of conventional music to enhance the emotion of a scene: scary action, scary music required; romantic encounter, romantic music essential. However, there are film-makers whose work is more sophisticated than that, who use music in different ways, just as they use the camera, editing, narrative structure in unconventional ways. They are less interested in the manipulation of the emotions than in the manipulation of thinking, or context for thinking. _O Brother Where Art Thou_ springs to mind as one where there is, mostly, only one 'emotion' (as it is mostly a comedy) and the music serves other purposes - to register period, offer ironic comment on what characters are saying, or thinking, or enduring. _A Clockwork Orange_ and _2001: A Space Odyssey_ both use significant pieces of CP tonality (_Ode to Joy_ and _Blue Danube_) to 'say' something, not to manipulate audience emotion in any conventional sense (though that's not to discount whatever emotions the audience might be feeling when those scenes are playing).


I agree that the juxta-positioning of music and picture which may otherwise seem incongruous, is not uncommon as a dramatic effect. The scene in 'The Godfather' comes to mind where the Corleones systematically bump off all their rivals while we are listening to a Mass being sung. But I was addressing Woodduck's question asking if some music is more suited to certain applications.

The example of 2001: A Space Odyssey, I think supports what I was saying rather than contradicts it. The famous use of 'Also Sprach…' works so wonderfully precisely because of it's suspenseful fanfare like opening leading to a triumphant declamation with brass and timps but with a tinge of gravitas (the sharp turn from major to minor) ultimately cadencing to an affirmative major triad. This mirrors the 'dawn of a new age' that the scene presents. I believe Kubrick probably stuck with the R.Strauss, which was a temp-track, because it ended up working better than Alex North's commissioned score. The same for 'The Blue Danube' which on the face of it is as incongruous as you could get but we have to ask ourselves why it was chosen above all other pre-existing music that Kubrick could have chosen for a temp track. Grace? Sense of order? Elegance? Man has created order from the chaos of the apes?
As for 'A Clockwork Orange'. According to an interview with Anthony Burgess, the book was about Alex's (the main character) love of music, especially Beethoven. And how his later repulsion of it was an accidental by-product of his aversion therapy.

Of course any kind of music _can_ be applied to any visuals. It's up to whomever is making the choices. I'm just pointing out that if what is wanted _is_ a finely nuanced manipulation of emotions then the major/minor harmonic route is the tool of choice in 99% of cases. 
Why?
Because it is the musical 'language' that we are familiar with. Not from classical music alone but from pop, folk, jazz, Broadway, nursery rhymes, hymns and 5 centuries of 'art'-music. 
I realise that that my description of what is happening in the 'Also Sprach..' example is subjective. But I think Kubrick and most viewers 'get' it too.


----------



## Petwhac

PetrB said:


> Well, to that, we'll never know, as it was a done deal before you or I were born -- 'done deal,' i.e. use of modern - contemporary musical idiom in horror and suspense films -- not a 'done deal' as to "that music may better express that" because that repertoire was used _for its quality of being completely unfamiliar to its audience._ Unfamiliar, in sound and nature from what that audience is used to, is enough all on its own to be 'a new context,' and the new and unfamiliar are synonymous with most with 'unease.'
> 
> That music was used in those places specifically to throw the audience a curve, and it worked. First heard in a concert hall... who knows? First heard to heighten and with the dramatic scene, lighting, camera angle and script all already intended to _disorient_, remove from the everyday and familiar as much as possible and make the audience uneasy? DONE DEAL, currently cemented in the general semiotic lunch pail most people carry.


But Petr, you have to ask WHY film composers wrote dissonant music for certain scenes in the first place? Remember you are talking about some highly trained and musically educated composers, emigres from Europe, who found work as Hollywood composers. They would write music that they thought conveyed the mood. Just as Purcell, Mozart, Wagner and Britten would.

You don't really think that a concert goer who is displeased by the sound of a Ferneyhough string quartet is so because s/he heard similar music in a horror film? By association? I find that a very weak argument indeed.

This is a chicken and egg situation perhaps?


----------



## millionrainbows

Schoenberg relegated all structural functions to the ordered, linear tone row. He replaced harmonic function with an essentially contrapuntal, melodic, ordered set: the tone row. Any harmony that _appears_ to exist in a 12-tone work is arbitrary, and is not a direct result of pervasive principles of vertical organization; the verticalities in such music are purely the result of tone row juxtapositioning, not the result of any inherent structural principles which are part of the 12-tone system.

Additionally, the tone row, in forbidding repetition of any note until all 12 have occured, insures that the music will be highly chromatic, i.e., not tone-centric, and not favoring or reinforcing any particular note, which would create a reinforcment of a particular note or "tonic." The ordering and non-repetition thus insured that no "key center" or sense of tonality would be established; in fact, the method avoids establishing a key center by its very structural principles of non-repetition, and constant use of all 12 notes.

The Harvard Dictionary of Music states that "almost all music is tonal" in the broadest sense of the term, if it establishes a center of tonality.

If one's definition of music requires that it be tonal in this sense, then yes, Schoenberg did squelch the sense of a key center, and did away with harmony, except as it occurs incidentally, as juxtapositions of row element is the vertical dimension.


----------



## norman bates

Petwhac said:


> But Petr, you have to ask WHY film composers wrote dissonant music for certain scenes in the first place? Remember you are talking about some highly trained and musically educated composers, emigres from Europe, who found work as Hollywood composers. They would write music that they thought conveyed the mood. Just as Purcell, Mozart, Wagner and Britten would.


And the horror/dark association was made in the first place by those composers who used it at first like Schoenberg, Scriabin or Liszt. Erwantung is about a woman who at night finds a dead man in the woods. Liszt wrote things like La lugubre gondola. I think it would not be difficult to made a list of similar pieces.


----------



## Mahlerian

norman bates said:


> And the horror/dark association was made in the first place by those composers who used it at first like Schoenberg, Scriabin or Liszt. Erwantung is about a woman who at night finds a dead man in the woods. Liszt wrote things like La lugubre gondola. I think it would not be difficult to made a list of similar pieces.


It's not all that difficult to find a list of pieces that contradict this association, either. The first commonly cited "atonal" piece was the movement Entruckung, or "rapture", which the composer said portrays the soul leaving the body and reaching eternity. There is a parallel strain of "atonal" music that, like this movement, is analogous to ecstasy, the otherworldly, the spiritual, and so forth.


----------



## Jobis

I think there is confusion between atonality and dissonance? Atonal music can be (relatively) consonant, and tonal music can be very dissonant.

It is the perception of 'wrong notes' that atonal music can appear to have to new listeners that makes them uneasy, so its understandable it would work well in a horror film. In addition to this dissonant harmonies (minor seconds, augmented fourths etc.) are used and usually high screeching strings (think of psycho) or low ominous bass notes.

I've never heard Webern or Stockhausen's integral serialism in a horror film, and they're among the most consistently 'atonal' composers. Nor, as another said, have I heard Bach in the romantic scenes of a blockbuster.


----------



## Guest

Petwhac said:


> I agree that the juxta-positioning of music and picture which may otherwise seem incongruous, is not uncommon as a dramatic effect...[etc]...


All we're doing is trading examples of how soundtracks can be used to different effects - sometimes to manipulate emotions, sometimes to provide a comment. Essentially we agree that film music _usually _trades in what is common, so that audiences aren't left floundering, but just occasionally, whether by accident or by design, something unusual occurs for an unexpected effect.

What this doesn't prove, is that CP tonality is the _natural _choice, it just illustrates what are most commonly recognisable musical codes for emotions. This possibly reinforces the view that so much is to do with acculturation than nature.


----------



## norman bates

Mahlerian said:


> It's not all that difficult to find a list of pieces that contradict this association, either. The first commonly cited "atonal" piece was the movement Entruckung, or "rapture", which the composer said portrays the soul leaving the body and reaching eternity. There is a parallel strain of "atonal" music that, like this movement, is analogous to ecstasy, the otherworldly, the spiritual, and so forth.


Listeining the piece I can see why: because there are moments where the music is much more impressionistic than atonal. Listening for example the fragment approximately from 2:40 to 3:05 I'd say there's a similar effect in ending of the Pie Jesu of Lili Boulanger


----------



## Sid James

aleazk said:


> But to whom is that strawman directed, Marsch?
> 
> John Cage? the zen buddhist who wanted to eradicate ego from his own music? the guy who composed these insolently beautiful and insolently simple pieces just for the sake of it? In A Landscape, Dream
> 
> Ah, what a beautiful and simple fresh air breeze these pieces are! thank you, John.


As I emphasised, I wasn't criticising Cage's music, more his entirely contradictory ideas. You get him elevating Stravinsky and Satie over Beethoven, Schoenberg and Ives (and as already mentioned, says Corigliano's music shouldn't be performed, even though he hasn't heard it). He criticises listeners for judging him on 4'33" and then has the temerity to say that he doesn't like recordings or isn't even much interested in concerts. Burglar alarms are better. He ends by saying he isn't a guru, and some rehash of Zen philosophy (why go to Cage when you can go to the real thing?), but where's the consistency? He's just as bad as Boulez, Stravinsky, Stockhausen. Similarly using ideology as a cloak for his own agendas and ambitions.

Of the avant-garde of the 1960's, I have been more in line with Morton Feldman's views, which as I said where among the more pluralist and open ways of seeing Modernism. I recently came across the following quote in a book, and I found the interview online here. He mentions Cage but does some effort to distance himself from him, Feldman is clearly not a carbon copy of him. I like the bolded bit, for which anyone (if they where not Feldman) on TC, the forum dominated by one hard line view of Modernism, would be heavily censured and ridiculed. Such is the "democracy" of this forum.

_
*Interviewer*: What other composers do you admire or have an interest in?

*Morton Feldman*: Josquin ... Mozart. I like that particular type of music that does not push. I spent the weekend with Karlheinz Stockhausen, and he had a lot of my scores, and he took them to his room and said goodnight. And he came down in the morning and he said, "I know you have no system, but what is your secret?" And I said to him, "Well, Karlheinz, *I have no secret but if I could say anything to you, I advise you to leave the sounds alone; don't push them; because they're very much like human beings - if you push them, they push you back. *So if I have a secret it would be, *'don't push the sounds'." *And he leaned over me and he said, "Not even a little bit?" _


----------



## Blake

Sid James said:


> Of the avant-garde of the 1960's, I have been more in line with Morton Feldman's views, which as I said where among the more pluralist and open ways of seeing Modernism. I recently came across the following quote in a book, and I found the interview online here. He mentions Cage but does some effort to distance himself from him, Feldman is clearly not a carbon copy of him. I like the bolded bit, for which anyone (if they where not Feldman) on TC, the forum dominated by one hard line view of Modernism, would be heavily censured and ridiculed. Such is the "democracy" of this forum.
> 
> _
> *Interviewer*: What other composers do you admire or have an interest in?
> 
> *Morton Feldman*: Josquin ... Mozart. I like that particular type of music that does not push. I spent the weekend with Karlheinz Stockhausen, and he had a lot of my scores, and he took them to his room and said goodnight. And he came down in the morning and he said, "I know you have no system, but what is your secret?" And I said to him, *"Well, Karlheinz, I have no secret but if I could say anything to you, I advise you to leave the sounds alone; don't push them; because they're very much like human beings - if you push them, they push you back. *So if I have a secret it would be, 'don't push the sounds'." And he leaned over me and he said, "Not even a little bit?" _


Feldman's my man. What an insult it would be to consider him a copy of Cage... haha, not a shot.

His ideas are very much in line with mine. There can be a tendency with some modern composers to force themes or gestures, which makes things seem incredibly tense and dense. You'll never find this with Feldman. The guy was a master of sound.


----------



## tdc

Sid James said:


> I'll just deal with this, more unfinished business, but I can't let go of this even though you say my opinions and examples are useless. So why do you even take notice of me, a nobody?
> 
> As I emphasised, I wasn't criticising Cage's music, more his entirely contradictory ideas. You get him elevating Stravinsky and Satie over Beethoven, Schoenberg and Ives. He criticises listeners for judging him on 4'33" and then has the temerity to say that he doesn't like recordings or isn't even much interested in concerts. Burglar alarms are better. He ends by saying he isn't a guru, and some rehash of Zen philosophy (why go to Cage when you can go to the real thing?), but where's the consistency? He's just as bad as Boulez, Stravinsky, Stockhausen. Similarly using ideology as a cloak for his own agendas and ambitions.
> 
> Of the avant-garde of the 1960's, I have been more in line with Morton Feldman's views, which as I said where among the more pluralist and open ways of seeing Modernism. I recently came across the following quote in a book, and I found the interview online here. He mentions Cage but does some effort to distance himself from him, Feldman is clearly not a carbon copy of him. I like the bolded bit, for which anyone (if they where not Feldman) on TC, the forum dominated by one hard line view of Modernism, would be heavily censured and ridiculed. Such is the "democracy" of this forum.
> 
> _
> *Interviewer*: What other composers do you admire or have an interest in?
> 
> *Morton Feldman*: Josquin ... Mozart. I like that particular type of music that does not push. I spent the weekend with Karlheinz Stockhausen, and he had a lot of my scores, and he took them to his room and said goodnight. And he came down in the morning and he said, "I know you have no system, but what is your secret?" And I said to him, *"Well, Karlheinz, I have no secret but if I could say anything to you, I advise you to leave the sounds alone; don't push them; because they're very much like human beings - if you push them, they push you back. *So if I have a secret it would be, 'don't push the sounds'." And he leaned over me and he said, "Not even a little bit?" _


Sid you have some good points I agree with, but it is not uncommon for composers to be a little eccentric, that is why I don't worry too much about what they say or the ideologies they have, the music is important and why we are here. You don't see anybody on here arguing burglar alarms are better than recordings or concerts. I think its fair to say sometimes there is a fine line between genius and insanity and we all should take any famous composers philosophical views with a grain of salt.


----------



## Sid James

Vesuvius said:


> Feldman's my man. What an insult it would be to consider him a copy of Cage... haha, not a shot.


They where friends, and met at a concert of atonal music if my memory is correct. They had things in common, but in terms of the way they approached music (rather than their actual music), Feldman's way of thinking about it comes across as much clearer and low on the dogma and pseudo philosophy.



> His ideas are very much in line with mine. There can be a tendency with some modern composers to force themes or gestures, which makes things seem incredibly tense and dense. You'll never find this with Feldman. The guy was a master of sound.


And mine as well, has been for ages, I do believe in this third or middle way of looking at the diversity of views on music (not just Modern or contemporary music, and not just classical). Way back I did a thead on his famous quote about Sibelius, and like the way he didn't buy into the radical/conservative dichotomy of hard line Modernist ideology.

_"...The people who you think are radicals might really be conservatives. The people who you think are conservative might really be radical... "_


----------



## Blake

Sid James said:


> They where friends, and met at a concert of atonal music if my memory is correct. They had things in common, but in terms of the way they approached music (rather than their actual music), Feldman's way of thinking about it comes across as much clearer and low on the dogma and pseudo philosophy.
> [/I]


I certainly admire Cage. I was aiming at the point of how Feldman was so uniquely his own that to say he was a carbon copy of anyone is nearly comical.

But yes, his clear and concise reasoning is refreshing, and often times so obvious that I wonder how many have missed it.


----------



## Vaneyes

This thread's still going? Interstellar (2014) should hope for these legs.


----------



## hpowders

Yes and I feel tonality's hold getting weaker and weaker, slipping away...........


----------



## KenOC

hpowders said:


> Yes and I feel tonality's hold getting weaker and weaker, slipping away...........


Yes, tonality's hanging onto the edge of that cliff by its fingertips. I'll just stroll over there in my heavy boots and... (twists mustache nastily.)


----------



## Sid James

tdc said:


> Sid you have some good points I agree with, but it is not uncommon for composers to be a little eccentric, that is why I don't worry too much about what they say or the ideologies they have, the music is important and why we are here. You don't see anybody on here arguing burglar alarms are better than recordings or concerts. I think its fair to say sometimes there is a fine line between genius and insanity and we all should take any famous composers philosophical views with a grain of salt.


I do take these opinions with a grain of salt, and I do subject them to critical thinking or basic logic. Put it this way, when you buy a car its better to go to a reputable dealer, not to some backstreet dodgy used car salesman. The same with history of music, which includes innovations, what composers say can be more in line with their own agendas and cliques than providing any useful insight into what happened, why, how, etc.

But I think there is a glaring disparity between persecution of certain opinions on these sorts of threads as compared to others. I can do quotes here of many an ideological hue that is offered by posters. They aren't revered composers, and that's why they are attacked. Whereas we don't attack those who make similar statements.

That's why these thread keep on appearing. There's a lot of historical baggage there. There's inevitably a clash of ideologies. If we don't unmask those ideologies, we've got a situation of arguing not about technique, theory or history, but about ideology, but we don't mention it. It's the elephant in the room. Many aspects of it are taboo. So those of us who do raise certain opinions get ignored or silenced in one way or another.

It's a loaded debate, tipped towards both extremes.


----------



## ArtMusic

Sid James said:


> ... So those of us who do raise certain opinions get ignored or silenced in one way or another.


I agree with that 101%, SJ.


----------



## hpowders

KenOC said:


> Yes, tonality's hanging onto the edge of that cliff by its fingertips. I'll just stroll over there in my heavy boots and... (twists mustache nastily.)


A la Twilight Zone "Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder", there must be a planet out there where atonality is the norm and folks just can't get tonality, no matter how they try. On their web forum CT, there must be one actively posting mod (a multi-tasker, who not only keeps the inmates in line, but writes extremely challenging posts too) who is constantly championing tonality as if it really is terrific, as the rest of that doomed planet's Classical Talk populace look on in puzzlement, bewilderment and amazement.


----------



## Sid James

As I said in my initial post, atonality or serialism is just one part of 20th century music. The other parts such as music taking in influences of folk/world, jazz, and more recently rock have also happened. There where other innovations, not mutually exclusive, such as in rhythm and sonority. A good deal of composers bypassed atonal or serial music and went their own way, still innovated.

Ultimately I think that classical music is in a fossilised state, or semi-fossilised. The fountain went dry some time ago. Even if folk inspired music like Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra was a big hit in its day, he drew upon folk to add to and revitalise classical. So did Debussy before him, taking in gamelan, from Asia. A lot of composers took in jazz in the 1920's and '30's. Serialism's one big hit is Berg's Violin Concerto. Its just part of the mix of classical.

I would argue that in the mid 20th century, diversity could have been given as the answer to keeping classical music alive, to further develop it. What we got was this bogged down debate of one ideology over another, many of them ivory tower. Things started changing and becoming more pluralist in the 1960's and '70's, but as I said there where missed opportunities. The damage had been done. 

Now on TC we are still arguing what is 'real' and 'nor real' Modern/contemporary classical music. And who cares anyway? In areas outside of classical, things have kept on moving, with much less angst about these sorts of issues. Why can't we move on?

I'm a fan of Hilary Hahn's recording of the Schoenberg concerto, and it was smart to couple it with the Sibelius concerto. Remembering how Adorno praised one and dissed the other. These things mean little now, but why the long wait to move things on from the divisions? The recording sold well. I wonder if we had had people like Hahn promoting Schoenberg's music (and not theorising over it with agendas, like Adorno, Cage, Boulez, etc.). Would that sort of music be in a better state now? We needed to heal and reconcile the rifts in music, but we didn't get it from many of the major players at a crucial point in history.

Speaking to this, the other day was the anniversary of the Berlin Wall coming down. 25 years. There is no more iron curtain across Europe, but we've got a similar "Mauer im Kopf" (a wall in the head) regarding the Modernist split in music which occured decades ago, maybe even 200 years ago. Can this ever be resolved without clearing ideological deadwood and admitting past wrongs? Honestly, I don't think so!


----------



## dgee

Sid James said:


> I do take these opinions with a grain of salt, and I do subject them to critical thinking or basic logic. Put it this way, when you buy a car its better to go to a reputable dealer, not to some backstreet dodgy used car salesman. The same with history of music, which includes innovations, what composers say can be more in line with their own agendas and cliques than providing any useful insight into what happened, why, how, etc.
> 
> But I think there is a glaring disparity between persecution of certain opinions on these sorts of threads as compared to others. I can do quotes here of many an ideological hue that is offered by posters. They aren't revered composers, and that's why they are attacked. Whereas we don't attack those who make similar statements.
> 
> That's why these thread keep on appearing. There's a lot of historical baggage there. There's inevitably a clash of ideologies. If we don't unmask those ideologies, we've got a situation of arguing not about technique, theory or history, but about ideology, but we don't mention it. It's the elephant in the room. Many aspects of it are taboo. So those of us who do raise certain opinions get ignored or silenced in one way or another.
> 
> It's a loaded debate, tipped towards both extremes.


Is it about time you brought your ideology-exposing skills to other ideologies? Or is modernism the only ideology relevant to a discussion of music? Surely you can find some examples of where progressive musical efforts have been silenced? You could even look at the threads where posters saying they don't like Shostakovich are accused of agendas or the numerous examples of thread-bombing where a poster drops by on a discussion of contemporary music just to say it's awful.

Contrasts and connections, Sid. Go broad!


----------



## Petwhac

MacLeod said:


> All we're doing is trading examples of how soundtracks can be used to different effects - sometimes to manipulate emotions, sometimes to provide a comment. Essentially we agree that film music _usually _trades in what is common, so that audiences aren't left floundering, but just occasionally, whether by accident or by design, something unusual occurs for an unexpected effect.
> 
> What this doesn't prove, is that CP tonality is the _natural _choice, it just illustrates what are most commonly recognisable musical codes for emotions. This possibly reinforces the view that so much is to do with acculturation than nature.


Yes, this thread has become about all sorts of things that are not to do with the original question. And no proof is offered by me that one kind of music is more _natural_ than another. The "commonly recognisable musical codes for emotion" which triadic harmony (not necessarily CP tonality) has acquired over centuries is not diminishing. Quite the opposite, Western tonal practices are becoming global as did decimal counting. And like ways of counting such as binary and hexadecimal have a place, non-tonal and non Western musical practices add more to the palette of possibilities for listeners and composers alike.

Simply, in answer to the OP. I am not aware of any decline in 'broad interest' in classical music. The interest has always been relatively narrow. And narrower still is the interest in non-tonal music.


----------



## Vaneyes

hpowders said:


> A la Twilight Zone "Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder", there must be a planet out there where atonality is the norm and folks just can't get tonality, no matter how they try. On their web forum CT, there must be one actively posting mod (a multi-tasker, who not only keeps the inmates in line, but writes extremely challenging posts too) who is constantly championing tonality as if it really is terrific, as the rest of that doomed planet's populace look on in puzzlement, bewilderment and amazement.


That was a lot to consider and manage, hp. But with one strained gulp, I swallowed it whole.


----------



## Vaneyes

Petwhac said:


> Yes, this thread has become about all sorts of things that are not to do with the original question. And no proof is offered by me that one kind of music is more _natural_ than another. The "commonly recognisable musical codes for emotion" which triadic harmony (not necessarily CP tonality) has acquired over centuries is not diminishing. Quite the opposite, Western tonal practices are becoming global as did decimal counting. And like ways of counting such as binary and hexadecimal have a place, non-tonal and non Western musical practices add more to the palette of possibilities for listeners and composers alike.
> 
> *Simply, in answer to the OP. I am not aware of any decline in 'broad interest' in classical music. The interest has always been relatively narrow. And narrower still is the interest in non-tonal music.*


Couldn't have said it better myself, er wait, I did...a 3% market-share is better today, than it was forty years ago.:lol:


----------



## KenOC

Vaneyes said:


> Couldn't have said it better myself, er wait, I did...a 3% market-share is better today, than it was forty years ago.:lol:


An interesting comment. Is there any support for it?


----------



## Guest

I liked twentieth century music instantly. Not ever single piece, of course. I don't like every single piece of any era. But generally, I liked what I heard. It always amuses me to be called a hard line Modernist ideologue when all that happened was that I really, really liked (and like) what I heard:

Bartok
Stravinsky
Varese
Ives
Carter
Prokofiev
Cage
Mumma
Oliveros
Xenakis
Ferrari
Shields
Dlugoszewski
Lachenmann
Karkowski
Amacher

Of course, Sid does not call me by name, nor even respond to my posts directly, not any more. But I know that I am one of the prime members of his imaginary group of ideologues.

Funny. I thought I listened to that stuff because I liked it. But that's too hard to accept, it appears. Nope. Can't be simply pleasure. Must be something else. Insanity, maybe. Ideology, perhaps. Self-deception, that's always good for a laugh.

Cripes. The music is fine. It's not difficult or inaccessible or ugly. Quite the contrary.

I also, just as a reminder, like Monteverdi and Vivaldi and Bach and Schubert and Dvorak and Tchaikovsky, among others.

Here's a nice old piece from 1960. Enjoy it if you can. Dislike it if you must. And if you dismiss it with scorn and derision, please do not whinge when you're criticized for being dismissive.


----------



## Sid James

dgee said:


> Is it about time you brought your ideology-exposing skills to other ideologies? Or is modernism the only ideology relevant to a discussion of music? Surely you can find some examples of where progressive musical efforts have been silenced? You could even look at the threads where posters saying they don't like Shostakovich are accused of agendas or the numerous examples of thread-bombing where a poster drops by on a discussion of contemporary music just to say it's awful.
> 
> Contrasts and connections, Sid. Go broad!


I did say, and continue to say, that I'm not for either extreme. For example, even though my own overall view has become more traditionalist over the years, I always talked about many types of music on this forum (eg. on current listening) and more often than not, favourably. Also, giving information, historical background or quotes which I find interesting, that sort of thing. I've done this with many composers, whether or not I agree with their views on music.

You know I can say to you the same thing. Sort your own side out. Its easy to tell me to deal with certain ideologies, and not others.

I'm pretty much a traditionalist now. I believe that music is a continuous and evolving tradition. I think the reason why I am against certain views is that they didn't do any good service to new/newer music. I have already given specific examples and quotes, and its not the first time I gave them.

If we can't sort the big picture of these issues out, its worthless in my opinion to debate on thread after thread on some specific topic to do with Modernism, its meaning, its techniques, its audience, its aesthetic, history, whatever.

The other issue is that although I could do threads on topics to do with Modernist and Post-Modernist theory and views on history, I am wary of doing so given my past experience here, particularly since being repeatedly attacked by a number of regular contributors to these threads in early 2013.

I've generated some good debates here, but overall its an area I'm wary of. When I do, I always welcome all opinions, even extreme ones, but not to the exclusion of others. I'm okay with views not that same as mine, but not in an effort to impose some draconian uniformity of ideas.


----------



## Bulldog

some guy said:


> Here's a nice old piece from 1960. Enjoy it if you can. Dislike it if you must. And if you dismiss it with scorn and derision, please do not whinge when you're criticized for being dismissive.


I think it might have helped if the performers displayed some level of emotion or enthusiasm.


----------



## tdc

Bulldog said:


> I think it might have helped if the performers displayed some level of emotion or enthusiasm.


Cage's music can have a kind of a zen quality to it, I don't think this particular piece is the kind that is really about an outward display of emotion or enthusiasm. That doesn't mean it is not profound. For example when you look at a person who is meditating, they may not show any outward excitement or enthusiasm but that doesn't mean their experience is not a profound one.


----------



## hpowders

Vaneyes said:


> That was a lot to consider and manage, hp. But with one strained gulp, I swallowed it whole.


Uncharacteristically unpithy of me, but the emotion of the moment got the better of me.

Also, I revised that post since then. Why not go back and read the "new and improved" version. :tiphat:


----------



## BurningDesire

tdc said:


> Anybody ever seen this? I've only watched the first 20 minutes but realized my ears must be tainted already by 20th century music, because the music he used as examples of "unpleasant" music sounded better to me than the examples he used for "nice" music.


Okay, this lecture is literally the dumbest thing I've ever heard on the subject of music, and by a pseudo-expert no less! One thing that baffles me, is how one can get soooo educated on music, and actually spend the time with some of these pieces to learn them, and still have this absurd notion of "ugly" or "bad" intervals and chords, and the stupid opinion that Schoenberg wasn't a great composer. That man is a &%#$ing idiot.


----------



## Sid James

I think this thread has proven that I find it hard to let go of things that happened on the forum (up to 18 months ago). I am sorry to you millionrainbows for about half of my posts here not being on topic, or more strictly on topic. My responses to fjf, DiesIraeVIX, Aleazk and tdc where not without bringing up sour grapes of the past on my part either, and _unfinished business_.

It was not in the appropriate place or way to raise some of the issues I raised. I should have done a thread on it or just avoided saying those things. I will now take a sabbatical from the forum, a few months offline should do me good.


----------



## tdc

BurningDesire said:


> Okay, this lecture is literally the dumbest thing I've ever heard on the subject of music, and by a pseudo-expert no less! One thing that baffles me, is how one can get soooo educated on music, *and actually spend the time with some of these pieces to learn them, and still have this absurd notion of "ugly" or "bad" intervals and chords, and the stupid opinion that Schoenberg wasn't a great composer.* That man is a &%#$ing idiot.


That was the part I was quite baffled on myself, he played Schoenberg beautifully, the audience seemed to enjoy it and applauded him, and then he continued to suggest the music was not "nice". I think Chopin was brilliant but that section he played of that prelude followed by those little V-I phrases sounded to my ears very dull compared to the Schoenberg (and later Debussy, Stravinsky etc) he performed.

He just didn't seem to play very convincing examples of what he thought was "nice" tonal music, then proceeded to play a bunch of excellent non-tonal works. It just seemed to me a bizarre lecture.


----------



## Guest

He did play the Copland very badly, though. Brutally, as if to prove what a hideous piece it is. But the music shone through, regardless. Even his heavy-handed performances were not enough to destroy some really fine music.

And as he's describing how chaotic the harmonies are, of all the "modern" pieces, he's playing things that are clearly organized according to other principles and which give a clear and easy sense of form by using simple patterns that are repeated, either literally or in retrograde.

Such old battles he chose to fight. In 2013, no less. Sure, TC can muster plenty of people willing and eager to tilt at Schoenberg and company, but come on. 1911? 1913? 1930? And a text on acoustics from 1863*? Really? An academic who is not current? The academy is a natural place for a lot of the newest stuff to happen--staffed by living composers (and artists) and attended by people in their late teens and early twenties. A safe place, as it were, to explore and experiment. Should be a hotbed of innovation and exploration. Not with these academics, though. They seem determined to fit the age-old cliche about academia being a place consisting entirely of hidebound Luddites, upholders of tradition and suspicious of any innovation, even if it's from over one hundred years ago! Wow.

I went to some pretty regressive colleges and universities myself (in the 1970s), none of them known particularly for any significant contributions to the arts. And even their most traditionalist professors would have blenched at this awful video presentation.

That was truly one of the more painful hours I have ever spent.

*At the height of nineteenth century rejection of "new" music, too, just by the way.


----------



## Badinerie

Tell you what! I glad I'm too dim and/or musically naive to notice the divisions and sub divisions in the classical music field.
I was going to change my signature to 'Ignorance is Bliss', in latin, but there are too many divisions regarding the exact translation.


----------



## Guest

Look more closely; I think you'll be pleased to see that there are really only two sections, people who love music and people who love only old music.


----------



## Blake

some guy said:


> Look more closely; I think you'll be pleased to see that there are really only two sections, people who love music and people who love only old music.


... and thirdly, people who only love confrontation.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

some guy said:


> Look more closely; I think you'll be pleased to see that there are really only two sections, people who love music and people who love only old music.


I'd characterize it a bit differently, myself: There are those who love good music and then whose who will love just anything.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Sid James said:


> I think this thread has proven that I find it hard to let go of things that happened on the forum (up to 18 months ago). I am sorry to you millionrainbows for about half of my posts here not being on topic, or more strictly on topic. My responses to fjf, DiesIraeVIX, Aleazk and tdc where not without bringing up sour grapes of the past on my part either, and _unfinished business_.
> 
> It was not in the appropriate place or way to raise some of the issues I raised. I should have done a thread on it or just avoided saying those things. I will now take a sabbatical from the forum, a few months offline should do me good.


I would never apologize for politely expressing an honest opinion, but I would apologize (to myself) if ever I tried to justify myself to others.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Sid James said:


> I did say, and continue to say, that I'm not for either extreme. For example, even though my own overall view has become more traditionalist over the years, I always talked about many types of music on this forum (eg. on current listening) and more often than not, favourably. Also, giving information, historical background or quotes which I find interesting, that sort of thing. I've done this with many composers, whether or not I agree with their views on music.
> 
> You know I can say to you the same thing. Sort your own side out. Its easy to tell me to deal with certain ideologies, and not others.
> 
> I'm pretty much a traditionalist now. I believe that music is a continuous and evolving tradition. I think the reason why I am against certain views is that they didn't do any good service to new/newer music. I have already given specific examples and quotes, and its not the first time I gave them.
> 
> If we can't sort the big picture of these issues out, its worthless in my opinion to debate on thread after thread on some specific topic to do with Modernism, its meaning, its techniques, its audience, its aesthetic, history, whatever.
> 
> The other issue is that although I could do threads on topics to do with Modernist and Post-Modernist theory and views on history, I am wary of doing so given my past experience here, particularly since being repeatedly attacked by a number of regular contributors to these threads in early 2013.
> 
> I've generated some good debates here, but overall its an area I'm wary of. When I do, I always welcome all opinions, even extreme ones, but not to the exclusion of others. I'm okay with views not that same as mine, but not in an effort to impose some draconian uniformity of ideas.


Well, I abjure labels myself. I don't care what time period a piece of music is _from_, only that it meet my aesthetic criteria for what good music _is_.

That said, just because something is 'modern' doesn't necessarily _ipso facto_ make it 'good.'

This reflexively uncritical line of thinking is as fatuous as the Whig theory of history (a line of historiography which subscribes to the thesis that just because something is 'current' automatically means that it is the 'best' of all possible worlds up to that point in history.)


----------



## Badinerie

Marschallin Blair said:


> This reflexively uncritical line of thinking is as fatuous as the Whig theory of history (a line of historiography which subscribes to the thesis that just because something is 'current' automatically means that it is the 'best' of all possible worlds up to that point in history.)


What she said............^ ! And of course vice versa.


----------



## Guest

Marschallin Blair said:


> I don't care what time period a piece of music is _from_, only that it meet my aesthetic criteria for what good music _is_.


Yeah. What are those things, btw?



Marschallin Blair said:


> That said, just because something is 'modern' doesn't necessarily _ipso facto_ make it 'good.'
> 
> This reflexively uncritical line of thinking is... fatuous....


Stirring words there, Marsch. But does anyone really argue that just because something is modern it is necessarliy good? I suppose it has happened, but I can only recall seeing it in this context, that is, as a thing referred to by someone who would not so argue. People actually making this argument? Um, not so much. In fact, so rarely, that this whole business has the unmistakable air of straw to it. You know, that distinctive smell of ensilage.

And destroying men of straw has its own measure of fatuity to it, hein?


----------



## fjf

some guy said:


> I liked twentieth century music instantly. Not ever single piece, of course. I don't like every single piece of any era. But generally, I liked what I heard. It always amuses me to be called a hard line Modernist ideologue when all that happened was that I really, really liked (and like) what I heard:
> 
> Bartok
> Stravinsky
> Varese
> Ives
> Carter
> Prokofiev
> Cage
> Mumma
> Oliveros
> Xenakis
> Ferrari
> Shields
> Dlugoszewski
> Lachenmann
> Karkowski
> Amacher
> 
> Of course, Sid does not call me by name, nor even respond to my posts directly, not any more. But I know that I am one of the prime members of his imaginary group of ideologues.
> 
> Funny. I thought I listened to that stuff because I liked it. But that's too hard to accept, it appears. Nope. Can't be simply pleasure. Must be something else. Insanity, maybe. Ideology, perhaps. Self-deception, that's always good for a laugh.
> 
> Cripes. The music is fine. It's not difficult or inaccessible or ugly. Quite the contrary.
> 
> I also, just as a reminder, like Monteverdi and Vivaldi and Bach and Schubert and Dvorak and Tchaikovsky, among others.
> 
> Here's a nice old piece from 1960. Enjoy it if you can. Dislike it if you must. And if you dismiss it with scorn and derision, please do not whinge when you're criticized for being dismissive.


I am still not trying to offend anyone. Listening to this youtube brings me to the central question: did atonal music kill the concept of noise?. Because if this is music, it is noise what disappeared from existence, straight ahead to oblivion...

However, if you like it, and you wish to listen to it, I have no problems. It is just a semantic problem. What 20th century killed is semantics.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

> Originally Posted by Marschallin Blair View Post
> 
> I don't care what time period a piece of music is from, only that it meet my aesthetic criteria for what good music is.





> someguy: Yeah. What are those things, btw?





> Marschallin Blair: Isn't it self-evident?-- that 'I' like it, that it resonates with me, and that it looks good _on _or _around _me--- like these new Chanels, for instance:





> someguy: Stirring words there, Marsch. But does anyone really argue that just because something is modern it is necessarliy good? I suppose it has happened, but I can only recall seeing it in this context, that is, as a thing referred to by someone who would not so argue. People actually making this argument? Um, not so much. In fact, so rarely, that this whole business has the unmistakable air of straw to it. You know, that distinctive smell of ensilage.
> 
> And destroying men of straw has its own measure of fatuity to it, hein?


Well, perhaps not _every _time, but the thick-end of the 'defend-serialism-at-all-costs' bell curve can be ex-_straw_-dinary.


----------



## Woodduck

fjf said:


> I am still not trying to offend anyone. Listening to this youtube brings me to the central question: did atonal music kill the concept of noise?. Because if this is music, it is noise what disappeared from existence, straight ahead to oblivion...
> 
> However, if you like it, and you wish to listen to it, I have no problems. It is just a semantic problem. What 20th century killed is semantics.


Your question implies that "music" and "noise" are mutually exclusive - that a given presentation of sounds must be one or the other, but cannot be both at once, or either in different contexts.

What I hear when I walk into the average eatery is, as far as I'm concerned, noise.


----------



## fjf

What I mean is that by today's definition, any sound is music. Therefore, the word "noise" lacks any meaning, and should be deleted from the dictionary. Or perhaps the key word is "unwanted". Therefore, any unwanted music to you is noise.

Thus, what you hear when you enter the average eatery is music if you want it, and if not, then noise it is!.


----------



## Mahlerian

fjf said:


> What I mean is that by today's definition, any sound is music. Therefore, the word "noise" lacks any meaning, and should be deleted from the dictionary. Or perhaps the key word is "unwanted". Therefore, any unwanted music to you is noise.
> 
> Thus, what you hear when you enter the average eatery is music if you want it, and if not, then noise it is!.


I think the idea is much more along the lines of "any sound can be used in music". This idea is so pervasive in today's pop and rock that I am surprised anyone questions it anymore.


----------



## Woodduck

fjf said:


> What I mean is that by today's definition, any sound is music. Therefore, the word "noise" lacks any meaning, and should be deleted from the dictionary. Or perhaps the key word is "unwanted". Therefore, any unwanted music to you is noise.
> 
> Thus, what you hear when you enter the average eatery is music if you want it, and if not, then noise it is!.


I do actually think that the key word is "unwanted."

Many people have attempted to distinguish music from noise in some purely objective way, with reference to the kinds of sounds that ought to be so defined. Such attempts always come to grief. A better approach locates the distinction in the intention behind the sounds: if it's composed by someone, it's music, and if it's an accidental product, or the product of the action of non-human entities, it's noise. This may not be a pleasing distinction to those who find the singing of a thrush more musical than two guys playing around with cartridges.

Alternatively, we might locate the distinction in the receiver of the sounds. If they're heard with pleasure, they're music. If not, they're noise. This would mean that the very same sounds could be both music and noise, depending on who's listening and what they think and feel about what they're hearing. It also means that Robert Frost wasn't just being a poet when he wrote about "thrush music."

In any case, music and noise are not opposites.


----------



## violadude

This thread is a fuster cluck.


----------



## fjf

Woodduck said:


> I do actually think that the key word is "unwanted."
> 
> Many people have attempted to distinguish music from noise in some purely objective way, with reference to the kinds of sounds that ought to be so defined. Such attempts always come to grief. A better approach locates the distinction in the intention behind the sounds: if it's composed by someone, it's music, and if it's an accidental product, or the product of the action of non-human entities, it's noise. This may not be a pleasing distinction to those who find the singing of a thrush more musical than two guys playing around with cartridges.
> 
> Alternatively, we might locate the distinction in the receiver of the sounds. If they're heard with pleasure, they're music. If not, they're noise. This would mean that the very same sounds could be both music and noise, depending on who's listening and what they think and feel about what they're hearing. It also means that Robert Frost wasn't just being a poet when he wrote about "thrush music."
> 
> In any case, music and noise are not opposites.


Got it. To you this seem silly, but this always kind of bothered me. Now I can give it a rest and listen to the sound I like.


----------



## fjf

violadude said:


> This thread is a fuster cluck.


Thankyou!. Very kind of you!.


----------



## violadude

fjf said:


> Thankyou!. Very kind of you!.


Just speakin' the truth, brother!


----------



## Guest

fjf said:


> What I mean is that by today's definition, any sound is music.


Fortunately, we don't need to worry about 'today's' definition (or tomorrow's, or yesterday's) - we can just listen to what we want and decide for ourselves what its value is for us as listeners.


----------



## Guest

Marschallin,

Calling "'I' like it, ...it resonates with me" an aesthetic criterion sounds very much like "reflexively uncritical... thinking" to me.

--some guy


----------



## hpowders

Sid James said:


> I think this thread has proven that I find it hard to let go of things that happened on the forum (up to 18 months ago). I am sorry to you millionrainbows for about half of my posts here not being on topic, or more strictly on topic. My responses to fjf, DiesIraeVIX, Aleazk and tdc where not without bringing up sour grapes of the past on my part either, and _unfinished business_.
> 
> It was not in the appropriate place or way to raise some of the issues I raised. I should have done a thread on it or just avoided saying those things. I will now take a sabbatical from the forum, a few months offline should do me good.


Come back soon, Sid. You are a gentleman and a scholar.

One of the classiest people I have ever "known" on the internet.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

some guy said:


> Marschallin,
> 
> Calling "'I' like it, ...it resonates with me" an aesthetic criterion sounds very much like "reflexively uncritical... thinking" to me.
> 
> --some guy


_Ecce Mulier. . . _ well, "Behold 'The _Diva_,'" actually. _;D_


----------



## science

Marschallin Blair said:


> Well, perhaps not _every _time, but the thick-end of the 'defend-serialism-at-all-costs' bell curve can be ex-_straw_-dinary.


The Whig theory of music is definitely around, at least at a "popular" level (i.e. among the sorts of us who spend time on message boards).

But I think you expressed it only halfway. Rather than "anything new is good," the idea is, "Anything old might've been ok in its time but it would be bad now. We must have progress in music as in science!"

It depresses me even to write this. I guess we all need some kind of program to follow. I guess it's ok since the music is good anyway.

Wow. I've been back too long and it's time for me to go away again.


----------



## Guest

Hey science, I have a way out of your depression, if you're interested. It's to redefine the situation. As it stands, you've defined it as "Anything old might've been ok in its time but it would be bad now."

Try this, instead: In its time, what is old to us was new. Part of its value, in its time, was its newness. But only part. Old things continue to be valuable if they also have other, more durable, qualities.

The only thing is, "newness" is an evanescent quality, so a piece written in a particular time, say 2014, that consists of recycling things that are no longer new is not a new thing. It is a fake. The conditions that made a piece possible in 1814 are themselves no longer extant. Things have happened, for good or for ill, in those two centuries. To pretend that they haven't is to ignore change. It's change that's the thing, not "progress." Some things do improve, instrument design and performance techniques being two obvious things that do progress. But compositions? Not so much. Cage's Variations IV is no more an improvement over Berlioz' Romeo et Juliette symphony than that symphony is an improvement over Bach's B minor mass. I rather doubt that anyone would seriously argue that.

But to do a B minor mass kind of thing in 2014 would be absurd. That's certainly not how the B minor mass came to be, by looking back to Johannes Ockeghem's masses and imitating that style. Of course, there's another thing going on here, as you've noticed by now. Telescoping. The music of Ockeghem is likely to sound closer to that of Bach than Bach to eRikm. To our ears. But the point remains. You write in your own time by embracing your own time, not by pretending it never happened. You push beyond it by moving into the future, not by retreating into the past. The pieces from the past are still valuable, of course. I don't think very many people would seriously contest that. That is simply not an issue. For my own listening, Monteverdi is valuable and Gibello is valuable. Both. But since the social and ideological circumstances that resulted in the Vespers of 1610 no longer apply, anything Emmanuelle Gibello would do today to try to recapture that kind of music in her own compositions would be instantly recognized as an imitation of Monteverdi. Monteverdi did not write his Vespers by imitating some anonymous medieval composer but by being Monteverdi. 

Which is exactly how Gibello writes authentic music, not by imitating Monteverdi but by being Gibello.

Is Gibello better than Monteverdi? Has she progressed beyond him? Neither one of those questions will produce anything like a reasonable or revelatory answer.


----------



## dgee

science said:


> The Whig theory of music is definitely around, at least at a "popular" level (i.e. among the sorts of us who spend time on message boards).
> 
> But I think you expressed it only halfway. Rather than "anything new is good," the idea is, "Anything old might've been ok in its time but it would be bad now. We must have progress in music as in science!"
> 
> It depresses me even to write this. I guess we all need some kind of program to follow. I guess it's ok since the music is good anyway.
> 
> Wow. I've been back too long and it's time for me to go away again.


That sounds really depressing. But the good thing is noone is actually saying it except to posit it as what others are saying. So chin up old chap and just listen to the music! Don't be put off by the sideshows!


----------



## science

dgee said:


> That sounds really depressing. But the good thing is noone is actually saying it except to posit it as what others are saying. So chin up old chap and just listen to the music! Don't be put off by the sideshows!


It's too late of course. The sideshow has taken over the circus; the hens run the foxhouse.

Someguy's "not retreating" is handy; it is an exact synonym for "must have progress." In fact, his entire last post was perfectly synonymous with, Anything old might've been ok in its time but it would be bad now. We must have progress in music...!" Even if he avoided the buzzword "progress" the idea is fully there under phrases like "not retreating," "embracing your own time," accusing any composers of "_pretending_ it never happened" (which, if we're looking for things that aren't actually happening, is a thing that probably doesn't actually happen) or of not being "authentic," using words like "imitation" as if imitation were (a) avoidable, and (b) repulsive.



some guy said:


> But to do a B minor mass kind of thing in 2014 would be absurd.


Even if so - let's leave aside whether so or not for a moment - _so what?_ If someone wants to do it, God bless 'em and I will too. I have no idea whether I'd be interested in hearing it or not, but does that even matter? Hopefully not to any composers out there.

I mean, nothing matters. At all. As far as I'm concerned, let any composers be "absurd" who want to be "absurd."

Turning to the claim that it would be absurd - why would it be absurd? People still write epic poetry in Homeric Greek, people still go out to Stonehenge to see the sunrise on days like the solstices, people still listen to music on vinyl, people still spin their own thread and weave their own cloth and brew their own beer and butcher their own pigs, still write letters, still chant in church, still paint with oil on canvas, still build gothic churches, still decorate their homes with rugs from distant lands, still play the blues, still compose music for acoustic instruments, still do all sorts of things....

Someone probably is out there writing a mass in B minor, and if so, good for them! I hope they are satisfied with the result!

There is no more need to "push beyond" than there is to "retreat" (from what?) into the past. Provided no one is getting hurt, let free people freely do what they freely wish. If others freely enjoy it, all the freely better!

In the end, this freedom benefits you. Outside of a very small circle of people, a new mass in B minor is going to be more welcome than a groundbreaking work for noise and electronic percussion; outside of that small circle, my stance here would be defending your music. So why not share the freedom you cherish?

But obviously I'm... well, let's employ euphemism... "wrong." I really shouldn't listen to this music that is too good for me. Depressing indeed, because I do love a lot of the music. But it probably is good for me to know, to be reminded forever, that it is not for people like me. There is a "beyond" to reach, and there is some sort of superlative that I haven't expressed, some sort of something or something of something that means, that shows, that proves, self-evidently to those gnostics that know, to those elite sensitive few, that, hey, it's actually wrong (*pretending, retreating, inauthentic,* something something) to make or enjoy a certain kind of music. Hopefully they all know their place as I know mine.

I probably also fry my eggs wrong, butter my bread wrong, put on my socks wrong. It's a good thing I don't shave with a straight razor - I'd probably cut myself badly while pretending and retreating and being inauthentic.


----------



## Guest

Um, the words you just appropriated to "describe" yourself (ironically) were originally expressed to point to creative artists, not to us consumers. We, as both of us have pointed out numerous times, are free to listen to whatever we want.

And of course, artists are free to be absurd, too, but that's another matter.

As for "music that is too good for you," where did _that_ come from? Wha-wha-WHAT??


----------



## science

some guy said:


> Um, the words you just appropriated to "describe" yourself (ironically) were originally expressed to point to creative artists, not to us consumers. We, as both of us have pointed out numerous times, are free to listen to whatever we want.
> 
> And of course, artists are free to be absurd, too, but that's another matter.
> 
> As for "music that is too good for you," where did _that_ come from? Wha-wha-WHAT??


Free even to write a mass in B minor?

I don't know, man. Gives me the willies. I'm pretty sure I'd enjoy my favorite music less if that was done. If I catch anyone trying, I intend to let them know how cleverly I disapprove.


----------



## Guest

science said:


> Free even to write a mass in B minor?


Of course. Who's gonna stop 'em?


----------



## clavichorder

some guy said:


> Of course. Who's gonna stop 'em?


Nobody is going to stop them, but individuals who think as you do are certainly going to ridicule it.


----------



## Guest

That is also true, though ridicule is perhaps not quite le mot juste. But that's only because I think that this is a more important aesthetic concern than ridicule covers.


----------



## Petwhac

For a composer in 2014 to produce a Mass in B minor would, seem a futile endeavour. Especially if the Mass was written in imitation Bach style. Just as a playwright in 2014 would be ill-advised to write an historical drama in mock Shakespearian English. Or a painter to paint a a country scene in the style of Constable.

But I don't see much evidence that this goes on, at least not in the sphere of fine arts. Not by serious fine artists. A serious artist would not be satisfied with merely imitating.

It is a huge blunder, however, to invalidate work which may use any number of elements or practices from earlier styles of art.
Some poets may still rhyme. Some painters may still paint scenery and some composers may use pulse or tonality or even compose a Mass.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating and a recipe is firstly a bunch of ingredients. It is then how those ingredients are combined that makes the dish.

Real art is about taking material from wherever or whenever and making something with it. Something with a voice and some uniqueness but not necessarily something _entirely_ original.
Is Bach's B Minor Mass so loved because it was a ground-breaker?


----------



## science

Petwhac said:


> For a composer in 2014 to produce a Mass in B minor would, seem a futile endeavour. Especially if the Mass was written in imitation Bach style. Just as a playwright in 2014 would be ill-advised to write an historical drama in mock Shakespearian English. Or a painter to paint a a country scene in the style of Constable.
> 
> But I don't see much evidence that this goes on, at least not in the sphere of fine arts. Not by serious fine artists. A serious artist would not be satisfied with merely imitating.
> 
> It is a huge blunder, however, to invalidate work which may use any number of elements or practices from earlier styles of art.
> Some poets may still rhyme. Some painters may still paint scenery and some composers may use pulse or tonality or even compose a Mass.
> The proof of the pudding is in the eating and a recipe is firstly a bunch of ingredients. It is then how those ingredients are combined that makes the dish.
> 
> Real art is about taking material from wherever or whenever and making something with it. Something with a voice and some uniqueness but not necessarily something _entirely_ original.
> Is Bach's B Minor Mass so loved because it was a ground-breaker?


I could actually imagine a contemporary and even avant-garde composer deciding to take a crack at a mass in B minor, but of course it would be nothing like a Baroque work.

But that's off-topic.... What I meant to say is, there really can't be a program for what a composer (or any other sort of artist) has to do. As soon as such a program starts to establish itself, creative people will rebel against it.

But also, in every single work of human craft, there will be some combination of imitation and originality. If imitation were some sort of defilement, too bad for _everything_. Beyond that, it's basically a matter of taste. Some people like to hear more radical change, some people enjoy greater continuity.

And above all, over and over, that diversity is ok. It's ok that we live in a world with noise artists and neoclassical composers and new age musicians and people doing various sorts of crossover music. No one needs to be ridiculed over music.


----------



## norman bates

Petwhac said:


> For a composer in 2014 to produce a Mass in B minor would, seem a futile endeavour


I'm not so sure about it. Consider a piece like the famous Albinoni's Adagio. I'm not a great fan of the piece but that's not the point. If it's so futile why is it so famous?
Or another example: in italy there was a fragment of music that was used in tv called Chanson balladee, and it was attributed to Guillame de Machaut.





but this one too is fake, it was written in the late seventies by an italian composer. Who cares? A lot of people (including me) loves it.


----------



## Guest

By all means, let's make more and more music that imitates music we already like. Enough of this hideous stuff we don't like. Away with it all (in the name of diversity, of course).

Yes.

That's of course exactly how the "great music" of the past was written, right? By imitating music of hundreds of years before.

You do realize, do you not, that if this idea were to have succeeded in the past, much if not all of the older music you like, the music you like to see imitated because it's so likeable, would never have been written.

Here's how I see it. Encouraging neo-tonalism (or "neo-" anything, really) in the name of diversity is kinda like encouraging cuckoo eggs in a sparrow's nest in the name of diversity. 'Course, if you really really like cuckoos above all other kinds of birds, then you're not likely to have a problem with that.

But when the bird population consists entirely of cuckoos, what price diversity then, eh?

Fortunately, all my efforts are futile. Why fortunately? Because truly creative artists will always exist. And truly creative artists will always create truly original works. And there will always be audiences for truly original work, sometimes smaller, sometimes larger. There will probably always be hostility towards new work, too. It wasn't always so, but I don't see how that circumstance can be recaptured. But "oh well." New music will always win. No matter what. Of that much we can be sure.:clap:


----------



## EdwardBast

norman bates said:


> Or another example: in italy there was a fragment of music that was used in tv called Chanson balladee, and it was attributed to Guillame de Machaut.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but this one too is fake, it was written in the late seventies by an italian composer. Who cares? A lot of people (including me) loves it.


All well and good, but it doesn't sound anything like Machaut. That piece is written like some sort of bad imitation of a rustic 16th century peasant dance. Machaut was one of the greatest poets of his day and about as far from rustic as one can imagine.


----------



## norman bates

EdwardBast said:


> All well and good, but it doesn't sound anything like Machaut. That piece is written like some sort of bad imitation of a rustic 16th century peasant dance. Machaut was one of the greatest poets of his day and about as far from rustic as one can imagine.


I know that it doesn't sounds like Machaut, it's not important if it's a good imitation. The fact is that a lot of people really like it (and it's a very good melody for me). As a lot of people enjoys the adagio, and a lot of people liked those fake Vermeer but only until it was discovered that those works were painted by Van Megeeren: it seems that the brand was more important than the work itself.


----------



## Guest

Well Norman, do I have the perfect watch for you or what?

Send me 12,000 usd, and I'll get that right in the mail for ya. It's a fake and probably not worth any more than 120 usd, but so what? The work is more important than the brand, right?

Interesting line of argument, at least. Defending pastiche music by defending forgery (forgery will get you some serious jail time in most countries). Still. I could use that 12 grand.

But let's give Van Megeeren a glance, shall we? Famous art forger. Dodged the jail time by dying. That's one solution, anyway.:devil: So what, besides the 30 million (equivalent) that he defrauded people of, did he accomplish? Well, he sure got back at those nasty art critics who had been less than impressed with his own art, didn't he? Boy howdy. Only problem is, the people who criticized him were very unlikely any of them in the group that he fooled, art critics and art valuers being two different people. Two very different professions, anyway. 

And still, there's that nasty little heart attack waiting for him. Why, he coulda been a sterling, upright citizen and still gotten that at the end, eh? There's just no incentive to be good any more, is there?

Lovely. Just flippin' lovely.

Fortunately, my conclusion from earlier still stands. There will always be legitimate artists interested in doing good work, even if that work is not accepted at first. If I ever stop believing that, it'll be time for my own wee heart to have its own wee attack. Es verdad.


----------



## norman bates

some guy said:


> Well Norman, do I have the perfect watch for you or what?
> 
> Send me 12,000 usd, and I'll get that right in the mail for ya. It's a fake and probably not worth any more than 120 usd, but so what? The work is more important than the brand, right?
> 
> Interesting line of argument, at least. Defending pastiche music by defending forgery (forgery will get you some serious jail time in most countries). Still. I could use that 12 grand.
> 
> But let's give Van Megeeren a glance, shall we? Famous art forger. Dodged the jail time by dying. That's one solution, anyway.:devil: So what, besides the 30 million (equivalent) that he defrauded people of, did he accomplish? Well, he sure got back at those nasty art critics who had been less than impressed with his own art, didn't he? Boy howdy. Only problem is, the people who criticized him were very unlikely any of them in the group that he fooled, art critics and art valuers being two different people. Two very different professions, anyway.
> 
> And still, there's that nasty little heart attack waiting for him. Why, he coulda been a sterling, upright citizen and still gotten that at the end, eh? There's just no incentive to be good any more, is there?
> 
> Lovely. Just flippin' lovely.
> 
> Fortunately, my conclusion from earlier still stands. There will always be legitimate artists interested in doing good work, even if that work is not accepted at first. If I ever stop believing that, it'll be time for my own wee heart to have its own wee attack. Es verdad.


The Van Megereen paintings to me are not great paintings at all and frankly I have some difficult thinking that the greatest experts of Vermeer thought that those works were not just authentic but the greatest ever produced by the painter. But I'm speaking knowing already the history.
The point is that if a date and a name could change completely the perception of the value of a work of art, there's something completely wrong in that. Innovation and originality are important aspects if those aspects produce works that are great from an aesthetic point of view, but the important aspect is the work produced. If someone consider a work good or bad depending on the fact that is innovative and original, to me it means just that that work isn't good at all. 
Viceversa just to make an example, I don't care at all if Brunelleschi really built the Pazzi Chapel, I know it's a masterpiece even if it was built fifty years ago.


----------



## Woodduck

I've always found debates over how original or innovative works of art "should" be to be futile, not to say absurd (all right, I said absurd). As has been pointed out, most art that we as a society have come to agree is exceptional was in some significant respect fresh and unfamiliar when it was produced. This is obvious, but innovation has never been and cannot be a requirement for excellence; it just happens because creative people tend to think outside the box. Not all societies and cultures have put a premium on originality; some have even encouraged continuity and respect for tradition. Some have accorded highest respect to artists who have mastered the styles of their predecessors, even those of the more remote past, before moving on, in later life, to more original work. Such attitudes may seem to fit ill with our culture, in which all aspects of life undergo rapid change and there is an inherited supposition that artists must somehow keep up with "the times." But modern life is enormously diverse, culture is complex, and one artist's "times" may not be another artist's "times." Frankly, an artist - or any person - may have very valid reasons for feeling that what a majority of people think "the times" consist of is not anything he wants to embrace. And if he chooses to associate himself with some other concept of "the times" and with people who share that concept, if he wants to produce art which draws more inspiration from the past than from what fashionable people and self-appointed culture police think he ought to be producing, and if he can find a receptive audience - I say more power to him.

I should add that there have always been artists who do just this. Some of them are fine, some are successful, and most, I'll venture, are indifferent to ridicule. Good for them, and good for us.


----------



## science

some guy said:


> By all means, let's make more and more music that imitates music we already like. Enough of this hideous stuff we don't like. Away with it all (in the name of diversity, of course).
> 
> Yes.
> 
> That's of course exactly how the "great music" of the past was written, right? By imitating music of hundreds of years before.
> 
> You do realize, do you not, that if this idea were to have succeeded in the past, much if not all of the older music you like, the music you like to see imitated because it's so likeable, would never have been written.
> 
> Here's how I see it. Encouraging neo-tonalism (or "neo-" anything, really) in the name of diversity is kinda like encouraging cuckoo eggs in a sparrow's nest in the name of diversity. 'Course, if you really really like cuckoos above all other kinds of birds, then you're not likely to have a problem with that.
> 
> But when the bird population consists entirely of cuckoos, what price diversity then, eh?
> 
> Fortunately, all my efforts are futile. Why fortunately? Because truly creative artists will always exist. And truly creative artists will always create truly original works. And there will always be audiences for truly original work, sometimes smaller, sometimes larger. There will probably always be hostility towards new work, too. It wasn't always so, but I don't see how that circumstance can be recaptured. But "oh well." New music will always win. No matter what. Of that much we can be sure.:clap:


It's disturbing to read that. Insufficiently avant-garde music is equivalent to parasitism? That's some pretty serious language. Diversity is such a terrible thing?

If you actually cannot promote some kind of music without comparing other kinds to parasites, there really is a problem. There's the old thing about tolerant people not tolerating intolerance.

You've actually frightened me. Let's stay grounded here. There is room for music you like AND for music that you don't like. It's all sparrows, no cuckoos.

And so, let there be no cleansing.


----------



## DeepR

If everything has to be super original and unusual then nothing is. It becomes a random mess without any direction.


----------



## hpowders

Vaneyes said:


> *This thread's still going?* Interstellar (2014) should hope for these legs.


So is "Stupid Thread Ideas". I believe it's called "inertia"


----------



## Petwhac

norman bates said:


> The Van Megereen paintings to me are not great paintings at all and frankly I have some difficult thinking that the greatest experts of Vermeer thought that those works were not just authentic but the greatest ever produced by the painter. But I'm speaking knowing already the history.
> The point is that if a date and a name could change completely the perception of the value of a work of art, there's something completely wrong in that. Innovation and originality are important aspects if those aspects produce works that are great from an aesthetic point of view, but the important aspect is the work produced. If someone consider a work good or bad depending on the fact that is innovative and original, to me it means just that that work isn't good at all.
> Viceversa just to make an example, I don't care at all if Brunelleschi really built the Pazzi Chapel, I know it's a masterpiece even if it was built fifty years ago.


The thing is, to imitate is not that hard to do. When I was doing music at school as a 16/17 year old I was expected to be able to complete a two part invention by Bach from a few given bars of music. I'm not claiming that my efforts were on a par with Bach, far from it, but if I did it well I'm sure many casual listeners wouldn't know the difference and some may even have found mine enjoyable. Later at University we were expected to do similar exercises using fragments by Schubert, Chopin, Debussy and even Schoenberg. When you have a 'road-map', when you are forced to think "what would the composer of the original do here?" "What is stylistically appropriate?" Well then you're not really writing your _own _music. It's not a bad way to get an insight into the original music but I think most creative people would rather 'do their own thing'.

There's nothing wrong with that 'thing' being influenced by, or taking elements of, past styles. After all, Mozart's Jupiter Symphony and Stravinsky's Concerto For Piano And Wind are just two rather successful examples.

In visual art too, I would expect a well trained student to be able to make a good fist of past techniques and styles but only the forger will make a career out of it!

The Adagio is a beautiful piece whoever penned it, that's for sure. But something like that is a rarity.

I am begining to form the opinion that great music and great Art are not _always_ the same thing. Meaning, the Adagio is great music but because it is an imitation, perhaps it is not great art. Can such a distinction be made I wonder?


----------



## Blake

DeepR said:


> If everything has to be super original and unusual then nothing is. It becomes a random mess without any direction.


Very true... I think the word "original" has lost most of its mojo. Every artists picks up from where the last one left off. Some stay and some take it to the stratosphere, but no individual can be said to be truly original. Most people would fear total originality, because that would entail a complete destruction of what they know. It's all a bunch of copying with varying levels of tweaking here and there. But, that's how we evolve.

It's the artists who 'tweak' the most whom we call original.


----------



## clavichorder

Imitating is different than writing your own music in an antiquated idiom. Something that could pass as a hitherto unknown composer from the baroque era for example.


----------



## norman bates

Petwhac said:


> The thing is, to imitate is not that hard to do. When I was doing music at school as a 16/17 year old I was expected to be able to complete a two part invention by Bach from a few given bars of music. I'm not claiming that my efforts were on a par with Bach, far from it, but if I did it well I'm sure many casual listeners wouldn't know the difference and some may even have found mine enjoyable.


I don't have any difficulty believing this. I've even posted here videos of Ted Greene and Richard Grayson playing perfect improvised imitation of Bach, and many other composers. And I know also that David Cope made a program that was capable to play a good imitation of many composers (the audiences often weren't capable to tell the difference between the real Bach and the program).



Petwhac said:


> Later at University we were expected to do similar exercises using fragments by Schubert, Chopin, Debussy and even Schoenberg. When you have a 'road-map', when you are forced to think "what would the composer of the original do here?" "What is stylistically appropriate?" Well then you're not really writing your _own _music. It's not a bad way to get an insight into the original music but I think most creative people would rather 'do their own thing'.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with that 'thing' being influenced by, or taking elements of, past styles. After all, Mozart's Jupiter Symphony and Stravinsky's Concerto For Piano And Wind are just two rather successful examples.
> 
> In visual art too, I would expect a well trained student to be able to make a good fist of past techniques and styles but only the forger will make a career out of it!
> 
> The Adagio is a beautiful piece whoever penned it, that's for sure. But something like that is a rarity.
> 
> I am begining to form the opinion that great music and great Art are not _always_ the same thing. Meaning, the Adagio is great music but because it is an imitation, perhaps it is not great art. Can such a distinction be made I wonder?


Without a doubt, but that doesn't mean that the Adagio could not be a perfectly enjoyable music for many persons. We don't need only supreme or extremely original artists.
Because as somebody has said, it's possible to say something personal or at least very effective or deeply moving using old styles. And the division between progressive mentality and conservative is also shaded. What I think it's very old is the mentality that think that in order to do something modern is necessary to refuse everything has been done in the tradition.

And by the way, if a composer who uses tonality now is considered neo-tonal, composer who a century after Schoenberg or Russolo uses atonality or noise should be called neo-atonal composers or neo-noisers to emphasize the fact that they are using old ideas?


----------



## EdwardBast

some guy said:


> Here's how I see it. Encouraging neo-tonalism (or "neo-" anything, really) in the name of diversity is kinda like encouraging cuckoo eggs in a sparrow's nest in the name of diversity. 'Course, if you really really like cuckoos above all other kinds of birds, then you're not likely to have a problem with that.


So what do you think of Stravinsky's Dumbarton Oaks? Concerto for Piano and Winds? Symphony of Psalms? Or symphony in C? Or Bartok's Second Piano Concerto? I would say that 20thc neoclassicism added significant diversity to the musical culture of its time.


----------



## Piwikiwi

clavichorder said:


> Imitating is different than writing your own music in an antiquated idiom. Something that could pass as a hitherto unknown composer from the baroque era for example.


I've seen this with attitude when it comes to jazz and it always sounds like a caricature of what the music you want to write really sounds like.

The problem you have when you try to write something like that is that you have to limit yourself severely. You need to shut off the part of you that has experienced everything that has been written since then, a problem that composers who wrote in that style during that time didn't have. Another problem is that you are likely going to write music that fits "safely" in to that idiom. No sounding like CPE Bach or Scarlatti because they don't sound idiomatic.


----------



## BurningDesire

some guy said:


> Hey science, I have a way out of your depression, if you're interested. It's to redefine the situation. As it stands, you've defined it as "Anything old might've been ok in its time but it would be bad now."
> 
> Try this, instead: In its time, what is old to us was new. Part of its value, in its time, was its newness. But only part. Old things continue to be valuable if they also have other, more durable, qualities.
> 
> The only thing is, "newness" is an evanescent quality, so a piece written in a particular time, say 2014, that consists of recycling things that are no longer new is not a new thing. It is a fake. The conditions that made a piece possible in 1814 are themselves no longer extant. Things have happened, for good or for ill, in those two centuries. To pretend that they haven't is to ignore change. It's change that's the thing, not "progress." Some things do improve, instrument design and performance techniques being two obvious things that do progress. But compositions? Not so much. Cage's Variations IV is no more an improvement over Berlioz' Romeo et Juliette symphony than that symphony is an improvement over Bach's B minor mass. I rather doubt that anyone would seriously argue that.
> 
> But to do a B minor mass kind of thing in 2014 would be absurd. That's certainly not how the B minor mass came to be, by looking back to Johannes Ockeghem's masses and imitating that style. Of course, there's another thing going on here, as you've noticed by now. Telescoping. The music of Ockeghem is likely to sound closer to that of Bach than Bach to eRikm. To our ears. But the point remains. You write in your own time by embracing your own time, not by pretending it never happened. You push beyond it by moving into the future, not by retreating into the past. The pieces from the past are still valuable, of course. I don't think very many people would seriously contest that. That is simply not an issue. For my own listening, Monteverdi is valuable and Gibello is valuable. Both. But since the social and ideological circumstances that resulted in the Vespers of 1610 no longer apply, anything Emmanuelle Gibello would do today to try to recapture that kind of music in her own compositions would be instantly recognized as an imitation of Monteverdi. Monteverdi did not write his Vespers by imitating some anonymous medieval composer but by being Monteverdi.
> 
> Which is exactly how Gibello writes authentic music, not by imitating Monteverdi but by being Gibello.
> 
> Is Gibello better than Monteverdi? Has she progressed beyond him? Neither one of those questions will produce anything like a reasonable or revelatory answer.


You keep making this argument against supposed inauthenticity in music, yet I would argue that this fashion/trend-following mindset, to write in accepted current ways is equally inauthentic. If you're writing modernist music simply because some people think your work is worthless unless you follow current trends, thats way less authentic than somebody who hears older music and decides to explore that territory, because that is what they want to do as artists. There's nothing wrong with writing something using old aesthetics. As you yourself have often said, Stravinsky and Schoenberg are really old music. Therefore isn't writing using the tools and rules they popularized and invented also inauthentic imitation? Hmmm? If I compose chance music, isn't that just a cheap imitation of John Cage? Or is that okay because he's more recent? What kind of sense does that make? Are minimalism, high modernism, and neo-fluxus BS the only acceptable modes of compositional operation since those are the current trends?


----------



## Jobis

Ironically it is the mindset of constant, revolutionary progress which is out of date. Modernism has shown time and time again that celebrating the past is something very current, and perfectly in keeping with artistic integrity and sincerity.

Progress happens naturally, it doesn't make sense to force composers down a certain route or to refer to styles as 'off limits'.


----------



## clavichorder

Piwikiwi said:


> I've seen this with attitude when it comes to jazz and it always sounds like a caricature of what the music you want to write really sounds like.
> 
> The problem you have when you try to write something like that is that you have to limit yourself severely. You need to shut off the part of you that has experienced everything that has been written since then, a problem that composers who wrote in that style during that time didn't have. Another problem is that you are likely going to write music that fits "safely" in to that idiom. No sounding like CPE Bach or Scarlatti because they don't sound idiomatic.


Oddly enough, the music that I write for myself does in fact take after CPE Bach and Scarlatti(I look to William Byrd's keyboard work as well). My mind seems to think well both within and slightly out of those parameters. I don't tend to feel like I'm being extremely careful when I write either, but I still do good voice leading and when I don't, it sounds good to me. The problem I have is in adhering to sonata form or binary form. I didn't do this as an academic exercise, I discovered it on my own due to deliberate dinking around that I liken to building with blocks.

If one has a taste for music of a certain era and immerses themselves in it, makes it the bulk of what they listen to and play, there is no reason they couldn't make something that is their own, and not contrived. I think very often the 'caricatures' that you refer to are due to the fact that the composers of such works lack the skill and the propensity both environmentally and internally to build such skill. I mean, Scarlatti, Bach, Rameau, even Muffat or Corelli, these were great musical minds living in fertile musical times where there was a demand for what they could do.


----------



## millionrainbows

Some "modern" composers were content to extend tonality within recognizable limits which preserved structural functions. Thus, the concept of tonality could be broadened, but not lost. Complex sonorities could be used, and chord roots could move freely. Within these boundaries, traditional methods of organizing tonal materials were adequate.

But these boundaries were traversed, in the pursuit of relationships without tonality, not based on scales, using pitch-aggregates which were indescribable in conventional terms, and dissonance used almost to the exclusion of consonance. Under these circumstances, conventional methods of tonal organization ceased to function, and to replace them, Schoenberg devised his 12-tone procedure.


----------



## clavichorder

BurningDesire said:


> You keep making this argument against supposed inauthenticity in music, yet I would argue that this fashion/trend-following mindset, to write in accepted current ways is equally inauthentic. If you're writing modernist music simply because some people think your work is worthless unless you follow current trends, thats way less authentic than somebody who hears older music and decides to explore that territory, because that is what they want to do as artists. There's nothing wrong with writing something using old aesthetics. As you yourself have often said, Stravinsky and Schoenberg are really old music. Therefore isn't writing using the tools and rules they popularized and invented also inauthentic imitation? Hmmm? If I compose chance music, isn't that just a cheap imitation of John Cage? Or is that okay because he's more recent? What kind of sense does that make? Are minimalism, high modernism, and neo-fluxus BS the only acceptable modes of compositional operation since those are the current trends?


This is very true. Those students who write music that sounds like Bartok, Schoenberg, Ligeti, Cage, and other modernists or some synthesis of them, their music is more accepted by the establishment as being authentic, when it is really no different than writing music that sounds like Haydn, Chopin, Scarlatti, or your own synthesis of stylistic elements from a given time or combination of times.


----------



## Piwikiwi

clavichorder said:


> Oddly enough, the music that I write for myself does in fact take after CPE Bach and Scarlatti(I look to William Byrd's keyboard work as well).


 I think I didn't articulate my point good enough. I meant that you won't sound as different from the norm as CPE Bach and Scarlatti did.


----------



## hpowders

clavichorder said:


> This is very true. Those students who write music that sounds like Bartok, Schoenberg, Ligeti, Cage, and other modernists or some synthesis of them, their music is more accepted by the establishment as being authentic, when it is really no different than writing music that sounds like Haydn, Chopin, Scarlatti, or your own synthesis of stylistic elements from a given time or combination of times.


Mimicry is the sincerest form of flattery? Nope. It's what you do when you aren't blessed with musical genius.


----------



## Petwhac

clavichorder said:


> Oddly enough, the music that I write for myself does in fact take after CPE Bach and Scarlatti(I look to William Byrd's keyboard work as well). My mind seems to think well both within and slightly out of those parameters. I don't tend to feel like I'm being extremely careful when I write either, but I still do good voice leading and when I don't, it sounds good to me. The problem I have is in adhering to sonata form or binary form. I didn't do this as an academic exercise, I discovered it on my own due to deliberate dinking around that I liken to building with blocks.
> 
> *If one has a taste for music of a certain era and immerses themselves in it, makes it the bulk of what they listen to and play, there is no reason they couldn't make something that is their own, and not contrived.* I think very often the 'caricatures' that you refer to are due to the fact that the composers of such works lack the skill and the propensity both environmentally and internally to build such skill. I mean, Scarlatti, Bach, Rameau, even Muffat or Corelli, these were great musical minds living in fertile musical times where there was a demand for what they could do.


(My Bold)
If one is immersed deeply a particular era of music and also has the creative urge then it is probably natural for one to produce work in that style. But how can anyone, most of all a composer, not be influenced by all that s/he hears. Bach or Corelli would have heard only the music of their contemporaries or their immediate predecessors. Their musical 'language' was their 'mother-tongue'. They would have also heard folk melodies and dance music of the time. The relationship between the two was closer in it's fundamental constituents than it was to become between 'art' and 'folk' music in later eras, particularly from the 20C on. 
What would seem to be a contrivance would be for a composer to _deliberately_ narrow his/her field of influence. This goes for modernists as much as it does for neo-whatevers.
I think it would be just as futile for a composer today to write pieces in a strict Schoenbergian 12-tone way as in a strict Baroque or Classical style. The futility is not in the writing but in the expectation of being taken very seriously by the musical 'establishment'.

I would never discourage a composer from writing in any way that they want. It is a matter between the composers and their muse or even their audience should they have one.

What strikes me is this,
It is no more or less futile for a composer of mere pastiche to expect to be taken seriously by the musical establishment than it is for a composer of avant-garde and experimental music to expect to knock Tchaikovsky off the best seller chart. In other words write what you want to write and live with the consequences. No composer is owed a living


----------



## clavichorder

The musical establishment is overrated.

You act like it is an evil thing to 'limit' one's influences. Limiting is different than favoring. And like a true composer would always embrace all things in music. I don't think that's ever really the case. Composers can have their tastes too.

But much of what you say is right, and I am prepared to live with such consequences.


----------



## Blake

Did the weakening of french bread cause the decline of roast beef po' boys?


----------



## KenOC

Vesuvius said:


> Did the weakening of french bread cause the decline of roast beef po' boys?


There are still plenty of poor boys being made with the old-style French bread. And the market shows that people prefer them! I rest my case.


----------



## Blake

KenOC said:


> There are still plenty of poor boys being made with the old-style French bread. And the market shows that people prefer them! I rest my case.


Whew, that was a close one.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> Under these circumstances, conventional methods of tonal organization ceased to function, and to replace them, Schoenberg devised his 12-tone procedure.


He didn't just explore alternatives, he expected his procedure to *replace* them...for all time everywhere?


----------



## Mahlerian

MacLeod said:


> He didn't just explore alternatives, he expected his procedure to *replace* them...for all time everywhere?


His thoughts on the matter did change over time. The initial burst of creative activity that accompanied the development of the technique, culminating in Moses und Aron, the Variations for Orchestra, the Violin Concerto, and the Third String Quartet was curtailed by the composer's having to leave for the US. Before this there was a kind of utopian vision in his mind that he had discovered a true organizing principle for chromatic music of the kind he had already been writing, and to be sure, it worked for him.

He wrote a few traditionally tonal works after this point (Kol Nidre, Suite for Strings, Theme and Variations for band, Variations on a Recitative for Organ), as well as a number of 12-tone works (Fourth String Quartet, Piano Concerto, String Trio, A Survivor from Warsaw, the op. 50 choral works). He had never given up his interest in "the old style," as he called it. I think he thought that his method was perhaps only one way, and music would continue to develop and change after his death. He never encouraged his students to take up his methods, believing that the only way for a student to contribute to the modern era would be to have a thorough mastery of earlier styles first. Those students of his who wished to use the 12-tone technique did, but not all of them (I don't remember Lou Harrison ever writing much 12-tone music, for example).


----------



## ArtMusic

millionrainbows said:


> I don't agree with such sweeping generalizations, because there are other factors in play. The whole social context and way we receive music has changed.


Sorry to quote your first post again, but I had a thought that might support this assertion too. Think about original newly composed orchestral film music, big popular ones, these are highly tonal (Star Wars, etc. etc.) and probably the only closest to classical orchestral music composed today that the masses (i.e. folks who do not normally listen to classical music at all) would enjoy.


----------



## KenOC

millionrainbows said:


> I don't agree with such sweeping generalizations, because there are other factors in play. The whole social context and way we receive music has changed.


Just noticed this from a few days ago. Maybe it would be clearer if you defined what you mean by "we". It seems to me that the way most people "receive music", at least of the classical type, hasn't changed much from a century or two ago. Or, perhaps, you disagree?


----------



## Petwhac

clavichorder said:


> The musical establishment is overrated.
> 
> You act like it is an evil thing to 'limit' one's influences. Limiting is different than favoring. And like a true composer would always embrace all things in music. I don't think that's ever really the case. Composers can have their tastes too.
> 
> But much of what you say is right, and I am prepared to live with such consequences.


Not an evil thing, we're not talking mass murder here, just an odd thing!
And you're right, composers themselves are very biased towards that which pleases them. I'm sure no 'true' composer embraces all things. Rather, a composer keeps his/her ears open and takes ideas, concepts, procedures and anything else from wherever they are found. 
The thing is to take these things and own them. This is, I believe, what Stravinsky meant when he said, " A good composer doesn't borrow, he steals."


----------



## Guest

The strongest desire going through this thread and others like it is the desire for comfort.

It is variously concealed--by arguing for stylistic diversity, by pointing out the popularity of "tonality," by demonstrating how the Western tonal system is grounded in Nature, even by bringing up the ideological turf wars of modernism (vastly exaggerated if not simply made up), as if having disagreements with one's colleagues somehow makes your music invalid, and most definitely by bringing up the obvious "facts" that modern music is difficult and ugly, purposely so. [Edit: and even by denying that comfort is an issue.] But it all comes down to the same thing. The strongest desire in these threads is the desire for comfort. I want to be comfortable. I want composers to cater to my comfort, to support it and to encourage it. (In the name of stylistic diversity, of course.)

Never mind that there is already centuries of music that I have already acclimated to and which makes me comfortable. Never mind that if those now comfortable composers from the past had written the way we want contemporary composers to write, all that nice music that is now so comfortable for us _would never have been written._ (That's perhaps one explanation for the almost universal anti-historical bias of music students and internet posters to classical boards nowadays. History forces one to confront truths that are uncomfortable. History calls one's desire for comfort at all costs into question.)

If you all really want stylistic diversity, why, by all that's holy, do you get all of your diversity from the past? There's certainly very little evidence that any of you have any sense of the diversity of the present that's all around you. Serialism. That's it. Maybe a little so-called minimalism, but always only one kind of the different kinds of minimalism. Otherwise, it's only neo-classicism (which is a misnomer on so many levels) and neo-romanticism (which is today's imitation of yesterday's neo-romanticism (which was yesterday's stubborn refusal to acknowledge the tremendous burst of creative energy in the early twentieth century)), and neo-tonalism (which is what? bringing back writing in keys? not really. it's turning one's back on beauty (which is the beginning of terror, recall) in favor of mere prettiness. Comfort).

I know that many of you are students. That means that you take classes. You have teachers. You are exposed to quite a lot of the diversity of the present. At least I was assured of this by several professors in one, small music department many years ago. I had plaintively mentioned once in a room full of professors that the students I knew didn't seem to know anything about current musics. Then we got down to specifics. Turns out, all the things that I had thought weren't being covered in class, even the very nascent turntablism (this was 1985 or so), had indeed been covered, in class, attended by the same students I knew who didn't seem to know anything of the world around them, the living, breathing, current world.

But the default is comfort. The living, breathing, current world is a dangerous world. Various, bewildering, incomprehensible, alive. Whatever goes on in the classroom stays in the classroom. We stick our necks out briefly in order to get a grade, but then it's back to our nice, comfortable shells. In the past, which, no longer being present, is no longer dangerous.

In the name of diversity, of course.


----------



## Guest

some guy said:


> The strongest desire going through this thread and others like it is the desire for comfort.


A few posters may exhibit such a desire, but I can't agree that it's the _strongest_.


----------



## Guest

Well thanks for the curt dismissal. Nice to be able to engage in leisurely discussions about ideas, isn't it?

[I've edited the "variously concealed" section of my post to include your addition, though.]


----------



## Guest

some guy said:


> Well thanks for the curt dismissal. Nice to be able to engage in leisurely discussions about ideas, isn't it?


Your point about 'comfort' is well made. I just wanted to make a single observation: I didn't think an essay was necessary. I was not going to search through the 20 pages to check which posters line up on either side of the 'comfort of the familiar/exploration of the unfamiliar' divide to counter your impression when all I needed to do was give my own.


----------



## Petwhac

"Oh ye comfort seekers, mend your ways! Repent and be forgiven. Discard your old and bankrupt habits to join the righteous and just." (St. some guy, book of TC verse #295)


----------



## Guest

I stand corrected.

The strongest desire is to avoid any suggestion of real discussion.


----------



## Petwhac

Real = what I feel is important.


----------



## Guest

Wow, Petwhac, thanks for confirming my conclusion so quickly.


----------



## Petwhac

My pleasure entirely.


----------



## Guest

some guy said:


> I stand corrected.
> 
> The strongest desire is to avoid any suggestion of real discussion.


I think that over the 20 pages of this thread, some members have made a decent effort at 'real' discussion. You run the risk of being dismissive of those efforts, even as you say yours have been dismissed.


----------



## Guest

Guys, guys, enough!

I know my conclusion is valid already. You needn't pile on so to prove me right.


----------



## Petwhac

A conclusion can be valid without being sound. (no pun intended).


----------



## science

some guy said:


> The strongest desire going through this thread and others like it is the desire for comfort.
> 
> It is variously concealed--by arguing for stylistic diversity, by pointing out the popularity of "tonality," by demonstrating how the Western tonal system is grounded in Nature, even by bringing up the ideological turf wars of modernism (vastly exaggerated if not simply made up), as if having disagreements with one's colleagues somehow makes your music invalid, and most definitely by bringing up the obvious "facts" that modern music is difficult and ugly, purposely so. [Edit: and even by denying that comfort is an issue.] But it all comes down to the same thing. The strongest desire in these threads is the desire for comfort. I want to be comfortable. I want composers to cater to my comfort, to support it and to encourage it. (In the name of stylistic diversity, of course.)
> 
> Never mind that there is already centuries of music that I have already acclimated to and which makes me comfortable. Never mind that if those now comfortable composers from the past had written the way we want contemporary composers to write, all that nice music that is now so comfortable for us _would never have been written._ (That's perhaps one explanation for the almost universal anti-historical bias of music students and internet posters to classical boards nowadays. History forces one to confront truths that are uncomfortable. History calls one's desire for comfort at all costs into question.)
> 
> If you all really want stylistic diversity, why, by all that's holy, do you get all of your diversity from the past? There's certainly very little evidence that any of you have any sense of the diversity of the present that's all around you. Serialism. That's it. Maybe a little so-called minimalism, but always only one kind of the different kinds of minimalism. Otherwise, it's only neo-classicism (which is a misnomer on so many levels) and neo-romanticism (which is today's imitation of yesterday's neo-romanticism (which was yesterday's stubborn refusal to acknowledge the tremendous burst of creative energy in the early twentieth century)), and neo-tonalism (which is what? bringing back writing in keys? not really. it's turning one's back on beauty (which is the beginning of terror, recall) in favor of mere prettiness. Comfort).
> 
> I know that many of you are students. That means that you take classes. You have teachers. You are exposed to quite a lot of the diversity of the present. At least I was assured of this by several professors in one, small music department many years ago. I had plaintively mentioned once in a room full of professors that the students I knew didn't seem to know anything about current musics. Then we got down to specifics. Turns out, all the things that I had thought weren't being covered in class, even the very nascent turntablism (this was 1985 or so), had indeed been covered, in class, attended by the same students I knew who didn't seem to know anything of the world around them, the living, breathing, current world.
> 
> But the default is comfort. The living, breathing, current world is a dangerous world. Various, bewildering, incomprehensible, alive. Whatever goes on in the classroom stays in the classroom. We stick our necks out briefly in order to get a grade, but then it's back to our nice, comfortable shells. In the past, which, no longer being present, is no longer dangerous.
> 
> In the name of diversity, of course.


Oh, come off it.

The desire is for freedom.

Freedom, in the first place, to listen to whatever we want (and to allow composers to compose whatever they want) without suffering any ridiculous condescension.


----------



## science

MacLeod said:


> I think that over the 20 pages of this thread, some members have made a decent effort at 'real' discussion. You run the risk of being dismissive of those efforts, even as you say yours have been dismissed.


That wasn't a risk he ran; that was his _sole intention._ He did what he set out to do, as he usually does.


----------



## BurningDesire

hpowders said:


> Mimicry is the sincerest form of flattery? Nope. It's what you do when you aren't blessed with musical genius.


Actually nope, literally any composer you can name has hearable influences in their work. You can hear the elements they mimic from those they learned from, either directly or indirectly. You hear Mozart, Haydn, and Salieri in Beethoven. That doesn't mean he lacked musical genius, obviously. You can hear Rimsky-Korsakov, Tchaikovsky, Debussy and Ravel in Stravinsky. You can hear Beethoven and Berlioz in Wagner.


----------



## Guest

science said:


> That wasn't a risk he ran; that was his _sole intention._ He did what he set out to do, as he usually does.


Ad hominems are out of line. Stick with what posters say, not your guesses (and they can never be anything more than just guesses) as to what motivates them or what they intend.


----------



## mmsbls

some guy said:


> The strongest desire going through this thread and others like it is the desire for comfort.


The desire to be comfortable, to reduce stress, to eliminate cognitive dissonance, and to basically live without unpleasant stimuli is common to all living things including humans. So yes, people will prefer comfort, and they will post those preferences on forums such as these. I would actually be a bit concerned if humans started acting differently.

So we see some showing a strong preference for pre-20th century and a strong dislike for the new, "dangerous", threatening music of the 20th century. But comfort also includes not having others denigrate what we value; therefore, we see others strongly defending the new music that they love. Ideally, the discourse would be cordial and, perhaps more importantly, instructive. Alas, posts on TC do not always possess those characteristics.

The diversity of 20th century music is remarkable, and the artistic trend to explore new ideas has benefited all of us on TC by providing centuries of varying music including many styles we adore (even if some of us don't appreciate 20th century music). I agree that it would be somewhat difficult to argue for diversity by eliminating new music styles.

I do believe that those who prefer pre-20th century music might wish to see contemporary composers increase the diversity of tonal music just as Baroque, Classical, and Romantic composers of the past did. I'm not sure if these people explicitly wish for only additional tonal diversity or simply additional tonal diversity. The question then becomes whether there is much more to say tonally. I suspect the answer is yes (although, given my musical ignorance, I have no idea what that would be). Of course, composers explore where they wish, and if non-tonal diversity is or was the prominent path, that's where music should go (IMO).


----------



## mtmailey

I think they are not interested because it is to complexed for them to understand.Also there is not any great modern or new music.Some do not see any money being made in classical music.


----------



## Woodduck

*Some guy writes:*

[I*]"The strongest desire going through this thread and others like it is the desire for comfort.*

*It is variously concealed*--by arguing for stylistic diversity, by pointing out the popularity of "tonality," by demonstrating how the Western tonal system is grounded in Nature, even by bringing up the ideological turf wars of modernism (vastly exaggerated if not simply made up), as if having disagreements with one's colleagues somehow makes your music invalid, and most definitely by bringing up the obvious "facts" that modern music is difficult and ugly, purposely so. [Edit: *and even by* *denying that comfort is an issue.*] But it all comes down to the same thing. The strongest desire in these threads is the desire for comfort. I want to be comfortable. I want composers to cater to my comfort, to support it and to encourage it. (In the name of stylistic diversity, of course.)"
[/I]


some guy said:


> *Stick with what posters say, not your guesses (and they can never be anything more than just guesses) as to what motivates them or what they intend.*


.

Excellent idea. So how about not condescending to the majority of posters on this thread, sticking with what they say, and not diagnosing their participation as being motivated by the desire for "comfort"?

It's a tired old refrain of the "avant-garde," the "modernists," those who fancy themselves representatives of the "important" art of the present and the "historically necessary" way of the future: people who prefer traditional music, tonal music, familiar styles - _whatever is not sufficiently new by our standards_ - do so because they're _afraid_ of the new music which we on the cutting edge of the universe are producing. They're weaklings, cowards, willfull ignoramuses; they can't bear to be made _uncomfortable,_ to take that leap into the unknown, to open their ears and minds to the brave new worlds we, in our courage and open-mindedness and wisdom, have been vouchsafed and can reveal to them.

Ugh.

I wouldn't dream of presuming to say why anyone is posting on this thread. I know I'm here because I think the topic question is interesting and want to know what people say about it. I also know I'm not here because I want to be made "comfortable" by what I read. I know further that if I join others in defending the artistic integrity of a composer who prefers to write a quintet in C for piano and strings it isn't because I'm afraid of being made "uncomfortable" should he write a sonata for electric guitar in microtones and perform it while hanging nude from a flagpole.

Of course if we choose to define all defense of the not-new-enough-for-our-approval as a desire for "comfort," define the desire for "comfort" as somehow reprehensible, and define those who seek "comfort" as defective in some manner requiring our psychiatric skills and therapeutic recommendations, we can then live happily in our own self-defined universe, and when people tell us that we have misunderstood their motives - _especially_ if they tell us that we have misunderstood their motives - reply that they are just _rationalizing._

While we, of course, could not possibly be.


----------



## KenOC

Deleted in the interest of world peace.


----------



## violadude

KenOC said:


> As has rightly been pointed out many times in these threads, listeners who prefer "modernist music" to that old maid stuff are generally smarter, braver, more adventurous and open-minded, physically larger, and more sexually attractive. No wonder they get all the babes!


I know you're only joking, but I think this idea about people "preferring" modernist music is mostly false. From what I've seen, the most passionate advocates of 20th/21st century music, including myself, are just as passionate about older classical music.


----------



## KenOC

violadude said:


> I know you're only joking, but I think this idea about people "preferring" modernist music is mostly false. From what I've seen, the most passionate advocates of 20th/21st century music, including myself, are just as passionate about older classical music.


Well, I've deleted my post, as it was inspired by only one or two people round here! Not by you, certainly.


----------



## mmsbls

mtmailey said:


> I think they are not interested because it is to complexed for them to understand.Also there is not any great modern or new music.Some do not see any money being made in classical music.


I'm not sure the complexity is a problem. My knowledge of music theory is quite small. I certainly do not understand the theory behind a Mozart Piano Concerto, but I absolutely adore them. If, on the other hand, you mean the complexity of sounds is difficult to follow in the same way most of us can follow tonal music because we are less familiar with non-tonal music, then, yes, more listening will be required, and many are not interested.

When you say "there is not any great modern or new music", I assume you mean there is no modern music you really love or maybe even like. Obviously, if someone felt they will not ever find something enjoyable, there would be little reason to pursue it.


----------



## Guest

Here, for those who are into that kind of thing, is my intent: to simplify.

Here is my motivation: to encourage people that listening outside their comfort zone is not really all that big a deal.

There are very few "have to's." You have to stop making your tastes normative (and/or descriptive), and you have to stop distorting the arguments of those you disagree with.

My conclusion about comfort, which mmsbls very accurately glossed, is based on years of observation, on what people actually report about their experiences. My conclusion is subject to argument, as all conclusions are. But accusations about condescension and dismissive comments like "oh come off it" and just generally putting words into people's mouths that they would never say and that do not convey how they really feel ("people who prefer traditional music... [a]re weaklings, cowards, willfull ignoramuses") do not constitute argument. That's just squabbling.

I feel like I'm in the same spot of a Python sketch in every exchange on this board:*

Palin: I came here for an argument.
Cleese: No you didn't.

*If you really want to attack me in my person and not the things I say, this is where you should focus your attacks. My persistent and irrational belief that I can convince anyone to stop their persistent and inaccurate attacks of new music.

Back to simplifying: new music is new. By definition it is neither great nor wholly comprehensible. It's new. That's it. It's not the apocalypse, it's not the end of music, it's not going to replace old music, it's not mandatory to like it. Indeed, in a very real way, it is not likeable. It's new. Liking is a thing that comes later in the process, after there's some familiarity, some comfort.

People often remark that newness is no guarantee of quality. Well, of course. Newness is prior to quality, which is a judgment, only able to be conferred after some familiarity. Not all new music will have the judgment of quality conferred upon it. Of course not. But that's no argument for not doing it or for not listening to it, either one.

The simple reason that new music is so easy to attack is because the attacks all come from a premise of verticality--great, superior, high quality--which is pretty clearly inappropriate. If you have to judge new music, and there's no real reason anyone has to, not even record label executives, then at least judge it by criteria appropriate to it--newness, uniqueness, ability to bewilder, perplex, aggravate.

These are not qualities (in the sense of characteristics) that will necessarily translate into quality (in the sense of valuation). But so what? The future is a closed book. We have only the past and the present. And we can only live in the present. It's enough.


----------



## norman bates

some guy said:


> Back to simplifying: new music is new. By definition it is neither great nor wholly comprehensible. It's new. That's it. It's not the apocalypse, it's not the end of music, it's not going to replace old music, it's not mandatory to like it. Indeed, in a very real way, it is not likeable. It's new. Liking is a thing that comes later in the process, after there's some familiarity, some comfort.


Again, I've some problem with this: I've loved Ligeti from the very first I've heard his music, and I didn't know anything about the avantgarde. I knew istantly that it was something great. I still struggle with Mozart (who is outside my confort zone, using your definitions). And I should have more familiarity with Mozart. 
Music can be harder to get in certain cases, but the equation new= "more difficult to understand" is again... a simplification.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

some guy said:


> Here, for those who are into that kind of thing, is my intent: to simplify.
> 
> Here is my motivation: to encourage people that listening outside their comfort zone is not really all that big a deal.
> 
> There are very few "have to's." You have to stop making your tastes normative (and/or descriptive), and you have to stop distorting the arguments of those you disagree with.
> 
> My conclusion about comfort, which mmsbls very accurately glossed, is based on years of observation, on what people actually report about their experiences. My conclusion is subject to argument, as all conclusions are. But accusations about condescension and dismissive comments like "oh come off it" and just generally putting words into people's mouths that they would never say and that do not convey how they really feel ("people who prefer traditional music... [a]re weaklings, cowards, willfull ignoramuses") do not constitute argument. That's just squabbling.
> 
> I feel like I'm in the same spot of a Python sketch in every exchange on this board:*
> 
> Palin: I came here for an argument.
> Cleese: No you didn't.
> 
> *If you really want to attack me in my person and not the things I say, this is where you should focus your attacks. My persistent and irrational belief that I can convince anyone to stop their persistent and inaccurate attacks of new music.
> 
> Back to simplifying: new music is new. By definition it is neither great nor wholly comprehensible. It's new. That's it. It's not the apocalypse, it's not the end of music, it's not going to replace old music, it's not mandatory to like it. Indeed, in a very real way, it is not likeable. It's new. Liking is a thing that comes later in the process, after there's some familiarity, some comfort.
> 
> People often remark that newness is no guarantee of quality. Well, of course. Newness is prior to quality, which is a judgment, only able to be conferred after some familiarity. Not all new music will have the judgment of quality conferred upon it. Of course not. But that's no argument for not doing it or for not listening to it, either one.
> 
> The simple reason that new music is so easy to attack is because the attacks all come from a premise of verticality--great, superior, high quality--which is pretty clearly inappropriate. If you have to judge new music, and there's no real reason anyone has to, not even record label executives, then at least judge it by criteria appropriate to it--newness, uniqueness, ability to bewilder, perplex, aggravate.
> 
> These are not qualities (in the sense of characteristics) that will necessarily translate into quality (in the sense of valuation). But so what? The future is a closed book. We have only the past and the present. And we can only live in the present. It's enough.


Why?-- just because some person made an _ex cathedra_ pronouncement to that effect?

The meta-ethical statement, "You have to stop making your tastes normative" is _itself _a normative statement (about normative statements).

Same bullying, different pulpit.

It just sounds to me like some people are trying to shut down any type of criticism of _they _don't like.


----------



## millionrainbows

The notion that "music" is a sensual experience, and that it its structures and meaning are conveyed sensually (via the ear) is a restrictive notion that robs all "more advanced" classical music and more complex musics like advanced jazz of their reason for being.

Almost all music is "tonal" in the broadest sense, and this notion that "music" is a sensual experience which must be "tonal" to be fully considered "music" disregards all the "cerebral" elements which are derived from experiencing art "in time" over a duration, as an unfolding of events or experiences.

To give "tonality" such supreme importance in experiencing classical music as "classical" is false. Is this all we demand of music, that it be tonal? A pygmy playing a didgeridoo is tonal.


----------



## Guest

Marschallin Blair said:


> It just sounds to me like some people are trying to shut down any type of criticism of _they _don't like.


Hey! Marschallin and I agree on something.


----------



## fjf

norman bates said:


> Again, I've some problem with this: I've loved Ligeti from the very first I've heard his music, and I didn't know anything about the avantgarde. I knew istantly that it was something great. I still struggle with Mozart (who is outside my confort zone, using your definitions). And I should have more familiarity with Mozart.
> Music can be harder to get in certain cases, but the equation new= "more difficult to understand" is again... a simplification.


Does it count that you also like killing blonde girls with a big knife in the shower? :lol:


----------



## norman bates

fjf said:


> Does it count that you also like killing blonde girls with a big knife in the shower? :lol:


Don't forget that sometimes I played also bass with Dave Brubeck!


----------



## science

some guy said:


> If you really want to attack me in my person and not the things I say...


I haven't attacked you in this thread. I've only disagreed with some things you've said, particularly about music that you do not approve and the people who enjoy it.



some guy said:


> You have to stop making your tastes normative...


Good! That means not describing music that you disapprove, or the people who listen to it, as retreating from something, failing somehow, being a parasite, afraid of discomfort, etc....

Let's promote whatever music we love without insulting (however subtly or cleverly) people who don't love it.


----------



## science

Marschallin Blair said:


> Why?-- just because some person made an _ex cathedra_ pronouncement to that effect?
> 
> The meta-ethical statement, "You have to stop making your tastes normative" is _itself _a normative statement (about normative statements).
> 
> Same bullying, different pulpit.
> 
> It just sounds to me like some people are trying to shut down any type of criticism of _they _don't like.


Tolerance cannot tolerate intolerance.

If I can criticize some music in musical terms, do it! Someone might disagree, but that's the extent of it. We can get into a discussion about the music.

But if my criticism takes ethical or quasi-ethical form, so that people who don't like something are personally deficient in some way, then I should understand that those so attacked are at the least unlikely to change their mind about my music. If my goal is to chase them away, then, fine, I should carry on (although on this board of course I'll have to employ enough subtlety to make my meaning clear without giving the mods something to nail down). But it would be better if I didn't do so, because there are a lot of people who might enjoy the music and it'd be better if they do than if they don't. This doesn't just apply to some sort of classical music, but to the entirety of it. We could be welcoming; but I (in this scenario) would like to be insulting. Assuming that I am aware of the consequences of my expressions, one could only assume that I intend to drive people away from the music.

Oh well, it's tiresome. Intolerance has more determination, more persistence than I do. I give up. Let's chase people away from our music.

People who don't like classical music are stupid; people who don't like some particular sort of classical music are cowardly and narrow-minded; people who like another sort of it are pretentious and precious.

Having embraced that, I disgust myself, but I fit in better with most of the people who enjoy the same music I do.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> The notion that "music" is a sensual experience, and that it its structures and meaning are conveyed sensually (via the ear) is a restrictive notion that robs all "more advanced" classical music and more complex musics like advanced jazz of their reason for being.
> 
> Almost all music is "tonal" in the broadest sense, and this notion that "music" is a sensual experience which must be "tonal" to be fully considered "music" disregards all the "cerebral" elements which are derived from experiencing art "in time" over a duration, as an unfolding of events or experiences.
> 
> To give "tonality" such supreme importance in experiencing classical music as "classical" is false. Is this all we demand of music, that it be tonal? A pygmy playing a didgeridoo is tonal.


Via the ear? Well it isn't conveyed through any other part of the body, is it? (Except when low bass makes the whole body vibrate). And I think the defenders of pygmies (if not the pygmies themselves) might have something to say about your dismissal of their music.


----------



## science

Are there pygmies among the Australian aborigines? I really don't know about that. But the didgeridoo is Australian, and the Pygmies that I know of are African. 

More on topic, at home I have some wine, which tonight I may drink to the memory of popular classical music and tonality. I'll grieve so, weeping and listening to the music of Ned Rorem, John Tavener, Jennifer Higdon, Morten Lauridsen, and John Adams. (Edit: I will, however, strive to despise it all as I listen, so that I can be known to scorn the insufficiently avant-garde. Perhaps, for some relief from their cowardly inanities, I will throw in the music of someone sufficiently trendy, perhaps Tristan Murail, Thomas Adès, or Péter Eötvös, which I believe I'm allowed to enjoy in good conscience. After all, it is a weakness, but I have to enjoy myself a little now and then.)


----------



## dgee

science said:


> Are there pygmies among the Australian aborigines? I really don't know about that. But the didgeridoo is Australian, and the Pygmies that I know of are African.
> 
> More on topic, at home I have some wine, which tonight I may drink to the memory of popular classical music and tonality. I'll grieve so, weeping and listening to the music of Ned Rorem, John Tavener, Jennifer Higdon, Morten Lauridsen, and John Adams. (Edit: I will, however, strive to despise it all as I listen, so that I can be known to scorn the insufficiently avant-garde. Perhaps, for some relief from their cowardly inanities, I will throw in the music of someone sufficiently trendy, perhaps Tristan Murail, Thomas Adès, or Péter Eötvös, which I believe I'm allowed to enjoy in good conscience. After all, it is a weakness, but I have to enjoy myself a little now and then.)


Ades is a lightweight. Eotvos is a total romantic (as much as love his music). Murail is an utter genius, however. You must try harder to earn scorn if it is what you you truly desire! :lol:

Edit: good point about the Aboriginals tho: what sort of oblivious buffoons are we allowing on TC these days? It's almost like this forum has been opened to _Americans_

More lols :lol:


----------



## Petwhac

millionrainbows said:


> The notion that "music" is a sensual experience, and that it its structures and meaning are conveyed sensually (via the ear) is a restrictive notion that robs all "more advanced" classical music and more complex musics like advanced jazz of their reason for being.
> 
> Almost all music is "tonal" in the broadest sense, and this notion that "music" is a sensual experience which must be "tonal" to be fully considered "music" disregards all the "cerebral" elements which are derived from experiencing art "in time" over a duration, as an unfolding of events or experiences.
> 
> To give "tonality" such supreme importance in experiencing classical music as "classical" is false. Is this all we demand of music, that it be tonal? A pygmy playing a didgeridoo is tonal.


For the avoidance of doubt, please furnish us with some specific examples of advanced jazz and classical. Preferably with YouTube links.
It is hard to discuss these distinctions when speaking in generalities.

It is my suspicion that the 'advancement' of jazz may have contributed to the narrowing of the interest in it. Unless you are talking about chronology - nearer to us in time- in which case, possibly not.


----------



## Piwikiwi

Petwhac said:


> For the avoidance of doubt, please furnish us with some specific examples of advanced jazz and classical. Preferably with YouTube links.
> It is hard to discuss these distinctions when speaking in generalities.
> 
> It is my suspicion that the 'advancement' of jazz may have contributed to the narrowing of the interest in it. Unless you are talking about chronology - nearer to us in time- in which case, possibly not.







and it continues here

Check out the solo from 8:00 and it is over a Paul Simon song. He is also one of the most popular jazz musicians of the moment btw. His shows are always sold out in the Netherlands.


----------



## Blancrocher

dgee said:


> Ades is a lightweight.


oooooooohh...nasty


----------



## norman bates

Piwikiwi said:


> Check out the solo from 8:00 and it is over a Paul Simon song. He is also one of the most popular jazz musicians of the moment btw. His shows are always sold out in the Netherlands.


I guess it's undeniable that as jazz become a cerebral music passing from Louis Armstrong and Benny Goodman to Thelonious Monk and Charlie Parker it lost his popularity. Probably seen with the eyes of a young music fan it's difficult to perceive that, because Monk and Parker are two of the first mentioned names in the jazz pantheon. But reality is another thing: Armstrong, Goodman, Ellington, Shaw were rich and VERY popular, they were superstar. Tristano, Herbie Nichols and Andrew Hill (some of the most harmonically advanced and sophisticated musicians) were not. There are few exceptions, like Mehldau (who anyway is a lyrical pianist who often plays pop tunes, not an example of jazz at its most cerebral), but even his fame completely disappears if compared with the popularity of Beyonce, Miley Cyrus or One direction.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

science said:


> Tolerance cannot tolerate intolerance.
> 
> If I can criticize some music in musical terms, do it! Someone might disagree, but that's the extent of it. We can get into a discussion about the music.
> 
> But if my criticism takes ethical or quasi-ethical form, so that people who don't like something are personally deficient in some way, then I should understand that those so attacked are at the least unlikely to change their mind about my music. If my goal is to chase them away, then, fine, I should carry on (although on this board of course I'll have to employ enough subtlety to make my meaning clear without giving the mods something to nail down). But it would be better if I didn't do so, because there are a lot of people who might enjoy the music and it'd be better if they do than if they don't. This doesn't just apply to some sort of classical music, but to the entirety of it. We could be welcoming; but I (in this scenario) would like to be insulting. Assuming that I am aware of the consequences of my expressions, one could only assume that I intend to drive people away from the music.
> 
> Oh well, it's tiresome. Intolerance has more determination, more persistence than I do. I give up. Let's chase people away from our music.
> 
> People who don't like classical music are stupid; people who don't like some particular sort of classical music are cowardly and narrow-minded; people who like another sort of it are pretentious and precious.
> 
> Having embraced that, I disgust myself, but I fit in better with most of the people who enjoy the same music I do.


That's all to the good and swell.

But I would never conflate 'tolerance'-- which is a civilized virtue-- with 'respect,' which means 'to revere or to pay homage to.'

Just because one tolerates something doesn't mean that one must like what is being tolerated.

That's what discernment and taste is all about.


----------



## Petwhac

norman bates said:


> I guess it's undeniable that as jazz become a cerebral music passing from Louis Armstrong and Benny Goodman to Thelonious Monk and Charlie Parker it lost his popularity. Probably seen with the eyes of a young music fan it's difficult to perceive that, because Monk and Parker are two of the first mentioned names in the jazz pantheon. But reality is another thing: Armstrong, Goodman, Ellington, Shaw were rich and VERY popular, they were superstar. Tristano, Herbie Nichols and Andrew Hill (some of the most harmonically advanced and sophisticated musicians) were not. There are few exceptions, like Mehldau (who anyway is a lyrical pianist who often plays pop tunes, not an example of jazz at its most cerebral), but even his fame completely disappears if compared with the popularity of Beyonce, Miley Cyrus or One direction.


Yes, I think of Mehldau as rather more mainstream than avant-garde. That's why I asked million rainbows for examples of what _he_ was referring to.

Also, for a long time, Jazz was _the_ pop music. Then along came rock and roll.


----------



## science

Marschallin Blair said:


> That's all to the good and swell.
> 
> But I would never conflate 'tolerance'-- which is a civilized virtue-- with 'respect,' which means 'to revere or to pay homage to.'
> 
> Just because one tolerates something doesn't mean that one must like what is being tolerated.
> 
> That's what discernment and taste is all about.


I don't have much discernment or taste with regard to classical music, so I'd better take your word for it.

At any rate, for me, appreciation is an end in itself. But that's a personal thing, something I wish more people felt but not something I can say anyone ought to feel.

The trick is, in all of life, when you don't like something, you've got to be careful about how you talk about it.

Although I don't have enough taste or discernment with respect to classical music, I do have it with respect to literature. I'm in a book club, and pretty much every time we meet I'm the one with the lowest opinion of the novel. So I have to be careful how I present my opinions. Especially, criticisms need to be rigorously precise: not merely an expression of my attitude toward some genre as a whole (and implicitly - inevitably so - its fans) but specific, concrete examples of what displeases me.

People have strong feelings about their music too. Perhaps the literature analogy actually isn't strong enough. Here's a better one: my wife's mother's last batch of kimchi before she died was too spicy. I could barely stand to eat it. But a lot of things are going to happen before I'll be telling my wife that. I think that's a closer analogy to how people feel about music.

Behind the endless, endless, endless, endless bickering over modernist music are a lot of hurt feelings.

So I guess I've been caught up here, because tolerance is rather less than I'd like us to have; compassion and kindness are better words.

You might not like my favorite works of music, and I might not like yours, but for everyone's sake - not just yours and mine, but especially for the sake of people who are newer to the music than we are, which is almost everyone - let us be nice to each other about it.

The reality is of course that we as a community (I mean classical music fans, not this website) are not likely - perhaps actually unable - to agree to be nice about it, because there's a long and strong tradition of showing off one's "taste and discernment" by insulting music, especially music outside our tradition but also music within our tradition. It's almost, almost, as if the standard facial expression of a classical music listener were a sneer - and it actually is, I'm persuaded, for some of us. Many of us apparently believe that's the only correct way to approach music. Perhaps objectively it's a minority of us, but it's a vocal and passionate minority.

Well, primarily for this reason but also various others, I'm resigning myself to a permanent ostracism from the community of classical music fans. It's not so much something I'm choosing, but something I recognize and am trying, for my own peace, to embrace. But I can't yet bring myself to leave y'all alone because (a) I want to learn more from you, and (b) I identify too strongly with those listeners who are new to classical music and naive about the attitudes they're supposed to adopt (or affect). I've been permanently scarred by the times I've seen these people insulted and driven away, and the truth is that if I didn't already love the music so much I'd be driven away too. Well, so it has to be a fight. But I'm glad you've helped me clarify that I'm fighting for kindness and compassion rather than for mere tolerance.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

science said:


> I don't have much discernment or taste with regard to classical music, so I'd better take your word for it.
> 
> At any rate, for me, appreciation is an end in itself. But that's a personal thing, something I wish more people felt but not something I can say anyone ought to feel.
> 
> The trick is, in all of life, when you don't like something, you've got to be careful about how you talk about it.
> 
> Although I don't have enough taste or discernment with respect to classical music, I do have it with respect to literature. I'm in a book club, and pretty much every time we meet I'm the one with the lowest opinion of the novel. So I have to be careful how I present my opinions. Especially, criticisms need to be rigorously precise: not merely an expression of my attitude toward some genre as a whole (and implicitly - inevitably so - its fans) but specific, concrete examples of what displeases me.
> 
> People have strong feelings about their music too. Perhaps the literature analogy actually isn't strong enough. Here's a better one: my wife's mother's last batch of kimchi before she died was too spicy. I could barely stand to eat it. But a lot of things are going to happen before I'll be telling my wife that. I think that's a closer analogy to how people feel about music.
> 
> Behind the endless, endless, endless, endless bickering over modernist music are a lot of hurt feelings.
> 
> So I guess I've been caught up here, because tolerance is rather less than I'd like us to have; compassion and kindness are better words.
> 
> You might not like my favorite works of music, and I might not like yours, but for everyone's sake - not just yours and mine, but especially for the sake of people who are newer to the music than we are, which is almost everyone - let us be nice to each other about it.
> 
> The reality is of course that we as a community (I mean classical music fans, not this website) are not likely - perhaps actually unable - to agree to be nice about it, because there's a long and strong tradition of showing off one's "taste and discernment" by insulting music, especially music outside our tradition but also music within our tradition. It's almost, almost, as if the standard facial expression of a classical music listener were a sneer - and it actually is, I'm persuaded, for some of us. Many of us apparently believe that's the only correct way to approach music. Perhaps objectively it's a minority of us, but it's a vocal and passionate minority.
> 
> Well, primarily for this reason but also various others, I'm resigning myself to a permanent ostracism from the community of classical music fans. It's not so much something I'm choosing, but something I recognize and am trying, for my own peace, to embrace. But I can't yet bring myself to leave y'all alone because (a) I want to learn more from you, and (b) I identify too strongly with those listeners who are new to classical music and naive about the attitudes they're supposed to adopt (or affect). I've been permanently scarred by the times I've seen these people insulted and driven away, and the truth is that if I didn't already love the music so much I'd be driven away too. Well, so it has to be a fight. But I'm glad you've helped me clarify that I'm fighting for kindness and compassion rather than for mere tolerance.


Why?

Who cares what other people think about your values?

Its important to_ you_, and that's all that matters. 
_
;D_


----------



## science

Marschallin Blair said:


> Why?
> 
> Who cares what other people think about your values?
> 
> Its important to_ you_, and that's all that matters.
> _
> ;D_


I'm not sure we're understanding each other; I think the attitude you recommend is closer to the one I'm trying to acquire. But I don't flatter myself to be some individualist island unto myself. Just another human being, a lamentably social animal. So for me, perfect indifference is impossible. Instead, however, I might be able to achieve defiance.


----------



## Blake

science said:


> The reality is of course that we as a community (I mean classical music fans, not this website) are not likely - perhaps actually unable - to agree to be nice about it, because there's a long and strong tradition of showing off one's "taste and discernment" by insulting music, especially music outside our tradition but also music within our tradition. It's almost, almost, as if the standard facial expression of a classical music listener were a sneer - and it actually is, I'm persuaded, for some of us. Many of us apparently believe that's the only correct way to approach music. Perhaps objectively it's a minority of us, but it's a vocal and passionate minority.
> 
> Well, primarily for this reason but also various others, I'm resigning myself to a permanent ostracism from the community of classical music fans. It's not so much something I'm choosing, but something I recognize and am trying, for my own peace, to embrace. But I can't yet bring myself to leave y'all alone because (a) I want to learn more from you, and (b) I identify too strongly with those listeners who are new to classical music and naive about the attitudes they're supposed to adopt (or affect). I've been permanently scarred by the times I've seen these people insulted and driven away, and the truth is that if I didn't already love the music so much I'd be driven away too. Well, so it has to be a fight. But I'm glad you've helped me clarify that I'm fighting for kindness and compassion rather than for mere tolerance.


Most people here are kind. You're taking it far too personally if you let a few fiery discussions lead you to these sweeping generalizations.

Passion for anything causes certain intensities, it's not just classical music fans. I've had many of hobbies, and in every one people were arguing about what's better. That's just a silly part of our nature. You have to put it in its place.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

science said:


> I'm not sure we're understanding each other; I think the attitude you recommend is closer to the one I'm trying to acquire. But I don't flatter myself to be some individualist island unto myself. Just another human being, a lamentably social animal. So for me, perfect indifference is impossible. Instead, however, I might be able to achieve defiance.


I for one am certainly _not _advocating 'indifference' but rather for tailoring your reaction in proportion to the argument.

Just because someone likes or dislikes what you like doesn't logically mean that they like or dislike _you._

People I_ adore_, don't like Wagner-- whom I _love_ as a composer-- and they have said some critical things of the man's _oeuvre_.

They're entitled to their opinion and to their likes-- as I am to mine.

I don't feel that I have to 'force' my opinions on to others; nor would I.

I would, however, like to reason and to explore what is best in music and in opera.

I love hearing what moves people and what's important to them. I'm always willing and trying to learn.


----------



## Nereffid

The thing about *comfort zones*, though, is that people also have _dis_comfort zones, and neutral zones (DMZs, even?!) too. And they differ in the sizes of those various zones, and, more pertinently, in how they feel about those zones, because, you know, people are different.
So for some people I'd say, yeah, going outside the comfort zone can be a very big deal.
If I may make reference to science's mother-in-law's kimchi by analogy, some people just can't tolerate spicy food, and while they might be able to develop a tolerance if they put in the effort, some people just don't see the need to do that. They might agree that yes, they'd be better off if they had a greater range of food to enjoy, but they might counter by saying that the time spent in their discomfort zone before they might develop a tolerance isn't worth it, especially given that they're nice and comfortable in their comfort zone. Others might find their existing comfort zone a little smaller than they'd like and so would wish to put in the effort, risk some discomfort because the payoff would be big.
But for me, not liking spicy food is an equal concept to liking spicy food, and similarly with the kinds of music people like. Yes, it would be nice if we could all like everything (or at least everything "good" :lol but some people actually don't want to like everything, they're just not built that way. I'd put myself among those who would like to like everything but understand their own existing limits while remaining hopeful; but this is no more or less valid or sensible an attitude than any other.


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> Via the ear? Well it isn't conveyed through any other part of the body, is it? (Except when low bass makes the whole body vibrate).


Certainly not involving the brain.



MacLeod said:


> And I think the defenders of pygmies (if not the pygmies themselves) might have something to say about your dismissal of their music.


Oh, I forgot, Pygmy music is tonal, and that means it's good music.


----------



## KenOC

millionrainbows said:


> ... Is this all we demand of music, that it be tonal? A pygmy playing a didgeridoo is tonal.


It would be unusual for a pygmy to play a didgeridoo for obvious reasons. In fact the picture is not of pygmies since it was taken at Nightcliff, Northern Territory, Australia.

Fans of the instrument may enjoy Peter Sculthorpe's music. He uses the instrument to great effect in several of his pieces. And BTW, is music produced by an instrument that can produce, really, just a single note tonal or atonal?


----------



## norman bates

KenOC said:


> And BTW, is music produced by an instrument that can produce, really, just a single note tonal or atonal?


I'm not sure if it's a serious question, but considering that you have a tonic and overtones, I would say it's definitely tonal.


----------



## KenOC

norman bates said:


> I'm not sure if it's a serious question, but considering that you have a tonic and overtones, I would say it's definitely tonal.


I think that any overtones sound simultaneously with the main bass note. I've never heard a didge played like, say, a bugle (although that may be possible). Just the single tone, that can be "bent" up or down slightly, and sometimes adding mouth-articulation, like talking through the instrument.


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> And BTW, is music produced by an instrument that can produce, really, just a single note tonal or atonal?





KenOC said:


> I think that any overtones sound simultaneously with the main bass note. I've never heard a didge played like, say, a bugle (although that may be possible). Just the single tone, that can be "bent" up or down slightly, and sometimes adding mouth-articulation, like talking through the instrument.


It's tonal, since the music it produces is "tone-centric," revolving around one fundamental note and its harmonics. BTW, the didgeridoo is classified as a trumpet, because of the way the lips produce the sound. No, it is not played as a trumpet or bugle, in which different overtones are focussed on, but plays one fundamental note which is altered as you described.


----------



## KenOC

millionrainbows said:


> BTW, the didgeridoo is classified as a trumpet.


More precisely, it is sometimes *called* a natural wooden trumpet. It is classified as a class two aerophone.


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> More precisely, it is sometimes *called* a natural wooden trumpet. It is classified as an aerophone.


I mentioned the 'trumpet' analogy because you mentioned that it was not usually played as a bugle, which is correct but imprecise, since it is similar to a trumpet in the way its sound is produced by the lips.


----------



## KenOC

millionrainbows said:


> I mentioned the 'trumpet' analogy because you mentioned that it was not usually played as a bugle, which is correct but imprecise, since it is similar to a trumpet in the way its sound is produced by the lips.


Quite right. But my question remains: Is music played on a single-note instrument tonal or atonal?


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> Quite right. But my question remains: Is music played on a single-note instrument tonal or atonal?


The Harvard Dictionary of Music defines tonality in a broad sense as "loyalty to a tonic," so one note is the simplest form of that. Also, since CP tonality is based on a harmonic model, with chord functions built on scale degrees in relation to the tonic, then this harmonic function reflects the "model" of a fundamental tone and its lesser harmonic constituents.

Of course, the terms "tonal" and "atonal" imply some sort of harmonic system, and in that regard, it's a stretch to call playing a single tone a "system," although it is possible to derive systematic principles from a single tone, as in the music of La Monte Young.


----------



## KenOC

millionrainbows said:


> The Harvard Dictionary of Music defines tonality in a broad sense as "loyalty to a tonic," so one note is the simplest form of that.


What makes anyone think it's the tonic? If I'm tooting away on a pennywhistle, or repeatedly striking the same key on a xylophone, that's tonal music? Seems unlikely.


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> What makes anyone think it's the tonic? If I'm tooting away on a pennywhistle, or repeatedly striking the same key on a xylophone, that's tonal music? Seems unlikely.


You're not supposed to think, just listen, since tonality in the broadest sense is a sensual experience, relating everything else to the one fundamental note.

The implication of the thread question, based on one of your statements, is that "tonality is the most important component in the general comprehensibility of music, since its weakening caused an overall decline in interest in classical music."

That's the implication: horizontal changes, cognition through time, distant key areas, and travel away from key centers all contributed to the weakening of the sense of tonality, and gradually eroded the _monotonic purity_ of tonality.

So if you stick to your one note, maybe venturing into early Gregorian Chant or La Monte Young, you will be in the area of "true music."


----------



## science

Marschallin Blair said:


> I for one am certainly _not _advocating 'indifference' but rather for tailoring your reaction in proportion to the argument.
> 
> Just because someone likes or dislikes what you like doesn't logically mean that they like or dislike _you._
> 
> People I_ adore_, don't like Wagner-- whom I _love_ as a composer-- and they have said some critical things of the man's _oeuvre_.
> 
> They're entitled to their opinion and to their likes-- as I am to mine.
> 
> I don't feel that I have to 'force' my opinions on to others; nor would I.
> 
> I would, however, like to reason and to explore what is best in music and in opera.
> 
> I love hearing what moves people and what's important to them. I'm always willing and trying to learn.


Well, I have definitely _not_ advocated not having discussions about what we like and dislike in music. If you can have that discussion and still be kind to the people you're talking with, great. If not, however, then just in that case, I wish you wouldn't have it.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

science said:


> Well, I have definitely _not_ advocated not having discussions about what we like and dislike in music. If you can have that discussion and still be kind to the people you're talking with, great. If not, however, then just in that case, I wish you wouldn't have it.


I could scarce endure to think you wrong, but are you suggesting that I accept unearned guilt?


----------



## SeptimalTritone

science said:


> I don't have much discernment or taste with regard to classical music, so I'd better take your word for it.
> 
> At any rate, for me, appreciation is an end in itself. But that's a personal thing, something I wish more people felt but not something I can say anyone ought to feel.
> 
> The trick is, in all of life, when you don't like something, you've got to be careful about how you talk about it.
> 
> Although I don't have enough taste or discernment with respect to classical music, I do have it with respect to literature. I'm in a book club, and pretty much every time we meet I'm the one with the lowest opinion of the novel. So I have to be careful how I present my opinions. Especially, criticisms need to be rigorously precise: not merely an expression of my attitude toward some genre as a whole (and implicitly - inevitably so - its fans) but specific, concrete examples of what displeases me.
> 
> People have strong feelings about their music too. Perhaps the literature analogy actually isn't strong enough. Here's a better one: my wife's mother's last batch of kimchi before she died was too spicy. I could barely stand to eat it. But a lot of things are going to happen before I'll be telling my wife that. I think that's a closer analogy to how people feel about music.
> 
> Behind the endless, endless, endless, endless bickering over modernist music are a lot of hurt feelings.
> 
> So I guess I've been caught up here, because tolerance is rather less than I'd like us to have; compassion and kindness are better words.
> 
> You might not like my favorite works of music, and I might not like yours, but for everyone's sake - not just yours and mine, but especially for the sake of people who are newer to the music than we are, which is almost everyone - let us be nice to each other about it.
> 
> The reality is of course that we as a community (I mean classical music fans, not this website) are not likely - perhaps actually unable - to agree to be nice about it, because there's a long and strong tradition of showing off one's "taste and discernment" by insulting music, especially music outside our tradition but also music within our tradition. It's almost, almost, as if the standard facial expression of a classical music listener were a sneer - and it actually is, I'm persuaded, for some of us. Many of us apparently believe that's the only correct way to approach music. Perhaps objectively it's a minority of us, but it's a vocal and passionate minority.
> 
> Well, primarily for this reason but also various others, I'm resigning myself to a permanent ostracism from the community of classical music fans. It's not so much something I'm choosing, but something I recognize and am trying, for my own peace, to embrace. But I can't yet bring myself to leave y'all alone because (a) I want to learn more from you, and (b) I identify too strongly with those listeners who are new to classical music and naive about the attitudes they're supposed to adopt (or affect). I've been permanently scarred by the times I've seen these people insulted and driven away, and the truth is that if I didn't already love the music so much I'd be driven away too. Well, so it has to be a fight. But I'm glad you've helped me clarify that I'm fighting for kindness and compassion rather than for mere tolerance.


Science- you should write a blog with some guidelines for how to approach classical music (especially modern classical music). You are right that everybody has an opinion and deserves to be respected for it. At the same time... "everything is relative and up to opinion" is not fully correct either. So when someone says "Schoenberg totally sucks and the people who enjoy it do so because they enjoy any sick thing"... that's just wrong. Some composers are, as a matter of fact, more inaccessible and take longer to get used to. So if someone says upon uncritical listening that modern music sucks and then says "my opinion is equivalent to yours"... that not really correct. More time needs to be spent listening. Of course, if he/she has put the time, effort, and openness, and still doesn't like it, then that's okay. But... a lot of negative opinions on modern music are really uncritical/uninformed.

Perhaps we could spend less time arguing about whether atonal music sucks or not... and more time discussing what to listen for and what artistic message it tries to communicate. That would lead in general to better appreciation of the music. Questions like "did Schoenberg kill music?" aren't really helpful... instead we should be asking "what new artistic expression did Schoenberg bring?" Then beginners would be better informed! And we'd have less flame wars, negativity, personal attacks, etc.


----------



## KenOC

Marschallin Blair said:


> I could scarce endure to think you wrong, but are you suggesting that I accept unearned guilt?


If you're in the mood, you can have my guilt. All of it. And yes, there's a precedent for this sort of thing.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

KenOC said:


> If you're in the mood, you can have my guilt. All of it. And yes, there's a precedent for this sort of thing.


Thaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaks Keeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeen.

<Kiss.>


----------



## Mahlerian

SeptimalTritone said:


> You are right that everybody has an opinion and deserves to be respected for it. At the same time... "everything is relative and up to opinion" is not fully correct either.











One can like this passage/piece, or not. One can enjoy the ambiguity of the harmony and formal blurring, or not. One can say, without any contradiction, and hopefully without any reprisal, that one dislikes the work, the composer, the movement, and everything associated with it.

But one cannot say that this is not the end of the development and the beginning of the recapitulation. One cannot say that the key is not E minor. One cannot say that this moment is not something that is intimately related to everything that has preceded it. One cannot say that it is random, in other words, and expect one's position to be taken seriously.

Too many discussions take place on bad faith, where the other person is not trusted to even report their own experiences accurately.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Mahlerian said:


> View attachment 56286
> 
> 
> One can like this passage/piece, or not. One can enjoy the ambiguity of the harmony and formal blurring, or not. One can say, without any contradiction, and hopefully without any reprisal, that one dislikes the work, the composer, the movement, and everything associated with it.
> 
> But one cannot say that this is not the end of the development and the beginning of the recapitulation. One cannot say that the key is not E minor. One cannot say that this moment is not something that is intimately related to everything that has preceded it. One cannot say that it is random, in other words, and expect one's position to be taken seriously.
> 
> Too many discussions take place on bad faith, where the other person is not trusted to even report their own experiences accurately.


<Ping!>

One is, of course, entitled to one's _opinion_. One is not, however, entitled to one's own_ facts_.

Reality isn't optional.


----------



## science

Marschallin Blair said:


> I could scarce endure to think you wrong, but are you suggesting that I accept unearned guilt?


I don't care at all about guilt, or have any interest in judging whether you've earned it or not. Why does that come up now?


----------



## Marschallin Blair

science said:


> I don't care at all about guilt, or have any interest in judging whether you've earned it or not. Why does that come up now?


Well, isn't it obvious?

It comes up because of what _you_ said at post #354 above, to wit:



> Quote Originally Posted by science View Post
> 
> Well, I have definitely not advocated not having discussions about what we like and dislike in music. If you can have that discussion and still be kind to the people you're talking with, great. If not, however, then just in that case, I wish you wouldn't have it.


You know: the (false) inference that I'm unkind to the people that I talk to.

-- Or did you not say that?

-- Or were you really saying something else?


----------



## science

SeptimalTritone said:


> Science- you should write a blog with some guidelines for how to approach classical music (especially modern classical music). You are right that everybody has an opinion and deserves to be respected for it. At the same time... "everything is relative and up to opinion" is not fully correct either. So when someone says "Schoenberg totally sucks and the people who enjoy it do so because they enjoy eating their own $hit"... that's just wrong. Some composers are, as a matter of fact, more inaccessible and take longer to get used to. So if someone says upon uncritical listening that modern music sucks and then says "my opinion is equivalent to yours"... that not really correct. More time needs to be spent listening. Of course, if he/she has put the time, effort, and openness, and still doesn't like it, then that's okay. But... a lot of negative opinions on modern music are really uncritical/uninformed.
> 
> Perhaps we could spend less time arguing about whether atonal music sucks or not... and more time discussing what to listen for and what artistic message it tries to communicate. That would lead in general to better appreciation of the music. Questions like "did Schoenberg kill music?" aren't really helpful... instead we should be asking "what new artistic expression did Schoenberg bring?" Then beginners would be better informed! And we'd have less flame wars, negativity, personal attacks, etc.


I don't think I am qualified to write a blog like that because I haven't found any modern music particularly difficult.

But your second paragraph is right, and that is the genius of Alypius' "In Praise of 20th Century Music" thread, one of the best that we've had (the best that I can remember) on that topic.


----------



## science

Marschallin Blair said:


> Well, isn't it obvious?
> 
> It comes up because of what _you_ said at post #354 above, to wit:
> 
> 
> 
> You know: the (false) inference that I'm unkind to the people that I talk to.
> 
> -- Or did you not say that?
> 
> -- Or were you really saying something else?


No, I wasn't talking about you in particular. You'd asked me, though, so I was explaining. (Edit: better to say: You'd respond to my earlier comments as if I meant that we can't talk about what we like or dislike, and I was explaining that I was not saying that.)

I'm sure at some point in your life you've been unkind, since we all have. But why feel guilty? I don't see much good in guilt. I guess I just don't understand guilt. I don't feel it much anyway, and I seem to do ok without it.


----------



## Blake

science said:


> No, I wasn't talking about you in particular. You'd asked me, though, so I was explaining. (Edit: better to say: You'd respond to my earlier comments as if I meant that we can't talk about what we like or dislike, and I was explaining that I was not saying that.)
> 
> I'm sure at some point in your life you've been unkind, since we all have. But why feel guilty? I don't see much good in guilt. I guess I just don't understand guilt. I don't feel it much anyway, and I seem to do ok without it.


You a page or two back:

"The reality is of course that we as a community (I mean classical music fans, not this website) are not likely - perhaps actually unable - to agree to be nice about it, because there's a long and strong tradition of showing off one's "taste and discernment" by insulting music, especially music outside our tradition but also music within our tradition. It's almost, almost, as if the standard facial expression of a classical music listener were a sneer - and it actually is, I'm persuaded, for some of us. Many of us apparently believe that's the only correct way to approach music. Perhaps objectively it's a minority of us, but it's a vocal and passionate minority.

Well, primarily for this reason but also various others, I'm resigning myself to a permanent ostracism from the community of classical music fans. It's not so much something I'm choosing, but something I recognize and am trying, for my own peace, to embrace."

This kind of stuff sounds like a guilt-trip to me. I don't know how someone could come to these conclusions without soaking in some kind of self-pity.

P.S. - I love ya' science, but if we're talking about kindness and compassion... negatively generalizing a whole community of people doesn't seem very nice.


----------



## millionrainbows

science said:


> Behind the endless, endless, endless, endless bickering over modernist music are a lot of hurt feelings.
> 
> So I guess I've been caught up here, because tolerance is rather less than I'd like us to have; compassion and kindness are better words.
> 
> You might not like my favorite works of music, and I might not like yours, but for everyone's sake - not just yours and mine, but especially for the sake of people who are newer to the music than we are, which is almost everyone - let us be nice to each other about it.
> 
> The reality is of course that we as a community (I mean classical music fans, not this website) are not likely - perhaps actually unable - to agree to be nice about it, because there's a long and strong tradition of showing off one's "taste and discernment" by insulting music, especially music outside our tradition but also music within our tradition. It's almost, almost, as if the standard facial expression of a classical music listener were a sneer - and it actually is, I'm persuaded, for some of us. Many of us apparently believe that's the only correct way to approach music. Perhaps objectively it's a minority of us, but it's a vocal and passionate minority.
> 
> Well, primarily for this reason but also various others, I'm resigning myself to a permanent ostracism from the community of classical music fans. It's not so much something I'm choosing, but something I recognize and am trying, for my own peace, to embrace. But I can't yet bring myself to leave y'all alone because (a) I want to learn more from you, and (b) I identify too strongly with those listeners who are new to classical music and naive about the attitudes they're supposed to adopt (or affect). I've been permanently scarred by the times I've seen these people insulted and driven away, and the truth is that if I didn't already love the music so much I'd be driven away too. Well, so it has to be a fight. But I'm glad you've helped me clarify that I'm fighting for kindness and compassion rather than for mere tolerance.


I can easily identify with what you're saying, science, and I am still experiencing that toxic environment. In fact, my adamant defense of modernism resulted in my being banned from another forum. A member of _this_ forum was there when it happened, and remarked coldly, *"Banned posters are unpersons. They do not exist. They never existed. Their posts have not been deleted because there were never any posts from the beginning." *

That whole statement reminds me of the language of 1984. Doubleplus non-good. And creepy, too. 
Then, on the other hand, we have this, also from a member of this forum:
*"This is very sad. millionrainbows was around at the start of this forum in July 2007. At his best, he was a fantastic contributor: knowledgeable, erudite, and insightful. I shall miss his positive contributions and I wish him well." *

Don't worry about it, science. People who lack compassion to this degree are not worth your consideration. Know that I am with you.


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> You a page or two back:
> 
> "The reality is of course that we as a community (I mean classical music fans, not this website) are not likely - perhaps actually unable - to agree to be nice about it, because there's a long and strong tradition of showing off one's "taste and discernment" by insulting music, especially music outside our tradition but also music within our tradition. It's almost, almost, as if the standard facial expression of a classical music listener were a sneer - and it actually is, I'm persuaded, for some of us. Many of us apparently believe that's the only correct way to approach music. Perhaps objectively it's a minority of us, but it's a vocal and passionate minority.
> 
> Well, primarily for this reason but also various others, I'm resigning myself to a permanent ostracism from the community of classical music fans. It's not so much something I'm choosing, but something I recognize and am trying, for my own peace, to embrace."
> 
> This kind of stuff sounds like a guilt-trip to me. I don't know how someone could come to these conclusions without soaking in some kind of self-pity.
> 
> P.S. - I love ya' science, but if we're talking about kindness and compassion... negatively generalizing a whole community of people doesn't seem very nice.


Are you serious, or just trying to goad me?


----------



## science

millionrainbows said:


> I can easily identify with what you're saying, science, and I am still experiencing that toxic environment. In fact, my adamant defense of modernism resulted in my being banned from another forum. A member of _this_ forum was there when it happened, and remarked coldly, *"Banned posters are unpersons. They do not exist. They never existed. Their posts have not been deleted because there were never any posts from the beginning." *
> 
> That whole statement reminds me of the language of 1984. Doubleplus non-good. And creepy, too.
> Then, on the other hand, we have this, also from a member of this forum:
> *"This is very sad. millionrainbows was around at the start of this forum in July 2007. At his best, he was a fantastic contributor: knowledgeable, erudite, and insightful. I shall miss his positive contributions and I wish him well." *
> 
> Don't worry about it, science. People who lack compassion to this degree are not worth your consideration. Know that I am with you.


I suspect that you're taking too seriously a remark that looks to me like it was meant to be light and humorous, but I have no idea. I just hope everyone can get along fine on this forum without carrying too much of that old stuff with you. Beyond that, I think I'd probably better stay out of it, actually.

More important to me is getting rid of some of that Orientalism you carry around! But that'll have to be done outside of this thread.


----------



## Blake

science said:


> Are you serious, or just trying to goad me?


I'm saying this entire site is filled with classical fans who are kind, as well as outside of this site. You're magnify an ugly part of fanaticism that doesn't need anymore energy.


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> I'm saying this entire site is filled with classical fans who are kind, as well as outside of this site. You're magnify an ugly part of fanaticism that doesn't need anymore energy.


Alright, maybe so. Like I said, it may be a minority of us.

I don't intend to make anyone feel guilty. That wouldn't matter to me. I was just explaining my position.


----------



## Bulldog

Vesuvius said:


> I'm saying this entire site is filled with classical fans who are kind,


Yes, many kind members, but I feel I've also come across members who at times are very inconsiderate and arrogant.

Overall, there are all types here just as in any other discussion board.


----------



## millionrainbows

science said:


> I suspect that you're taking too seriously a remark that looks to me like it was meant to be light and humorous, but I have no idea. I just hope everyone can get along fine on this forum without carrying too much of that old stuff with you. Beyond that, I think I'd probably better stay out of it, actually.
> 
> More important to me is getting rid of some of that Orientalism you carry around! But that'll have to be done outside of this thread.


Oh, don't worry about it, science. I certainly won't.

After all, what are friends for, except to stab you in the back? BTW, you can easily see the full context by simply googling either of the quotes I posted. It's still there, looking as fresh as the day it was posted. You know, human cruelty is one thing that never grows old.


----------



## Vaneyes

KenOC said:


> An interesting comment {a 3% market-share is better today, than it was forty years ago.}. Is there any support for it?


Yes. Regarding *percentage*, Klaus Heymann, who's said at no time has classical music enjoyed more than a 4% market share, and today it sits at 3 to 3.5%.

Regarding *population growth* (US has risen more than 50% in forty years), Greg Sandow. He maintains that this is the only thing that's helping to partially offset the many declining areas of classical music.


----------



## KenOC

Vaneyes said:


> Yes. Regarding *percentage*, Klaus Heymann, who's said at no time has classical music enjoyed more than a 4% market share, and today it sits at 3 to 3.5%.


Thanks Vaneyes. KH is probably as close to an authority as we're likely to get!

Another demographic observation. I read recently that as the older Caucasian concert-goers die off, they're largely being replaced with people from (at some point) East Asia, esp. China, Japan, and Korea. In its context I remember it as being convincing, but I've never seen anything else about that.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

KenOC said:


> Thanks Vaneyes. KH is probably as close to an authority as we're likely to get!
> 
> Another demographic observation. I read recently that as the older Caucasian concert-goers die off, they're largely being replaced with people from (at some point) East Asia, esp. China, Japan, and Korea. In its context I remember it as being convincing, but I've never seen anything else about that.


Well God bless these wonderful people for keeping Verdi thriving:


----------



## Vaneyes

KenOC said:


> Thanks Vaneyes. KH is probably as close to an authority as we're likely to get!
> 
> Another demographic observation. I read recently that as the older Caucasian concert-goers die off, they're largely being replaced with people from (at some point) East Asia, esp. China, Japan, and Korea. In its context I remember it as being convincing, but I've never seen anything else about that.


Re North America, we'll probably begin to see within the next ten years, whether there's any significant purchasing growth from aging baby boomers. The oldest lot are mostly vinyl and CD people, so, not much from them. But, the rest should be more open to streaming, downloads, etc.

China, Russia, India. Almost any fraction of "honest consumers" from those massive populations would provide a much-needed boost.


----------



## Albert7

Classical music listening isn't declining! 15% of all iTunes purchases are for classical music 

Atonality didn't cause the decline of classical music.


----------



## mmsbls

albertfallickwang said:


> Classical music listening isn't declining! 15% of all iTunes purchases are for classical music


We've had several threads discussing the decline, but we've often asked is there really a decline, and if so, by how much. I feel that I don't know any reliable numbers. Do you have a source for the 15% number? To me that sounds high, but I would love to be wrong.


----------



## science

mmsbls said:


> We've had several threads discussing the decline, but we've often asked is there really a decline, and if so, by how much. I feel that I don't know any reliable numbers. Do you have a source for the 15% number? To me that sounds high, but I would love to be wrong.


One thing is for sure: as long as its popularity in China continues, and Chinese consumers' purchasing power continues to increase, it will not objectively be in decline. Everyone in North America could turn against it, and it could still be growing in absolute numbers.


----------

