# Obsession with harmony and superficial extended techniques



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Today harmony has overtaken melody and counterpoint in all fields of music from contemporary atonal to film scores. Not only has the focus been on extended techniques and embellishments but also on harmonic innovation that is without direction. This is indeed suitable to atonal music but not so much for tonal one.

It's understandable that for film scores the focus be on orchestration, ornamentation, and other superficial aspects, but this trend is also seen in serious contemporary music that has lost depth in the process. My own music has fallen victim to this, with it initially having no clear melodic line.

The deep melodies that have defined classical music since its beginnings have been lost, as has the intermingling of them through counterpoint.

As an example of what has been lost, here is a short piece of great melodic invention and suitable contrapuntal structure to carry it. It is honest introspection and projection of a deep feeling and thought without superficiality.






I believe the cause of the straying from genuine composition is the fact that atonal music cannot produce great melody, and this effect has transferred over to contemporary tonal music - to where composers are trying to write tonal music as they do atonal music - which has a necessity for the use of extended techniques and forced harmony to make it palatable.

With tonal music the focus must be on melody and all technique must revolve around that; including harmony, counterpoint, and the restrained use of embellishments and extended techniques; additionally with orchestration always having a purpose to the spirit and colour of the music.

If there is an intention of writing music that is not for film or atonal, melody and counterpoint must again be at the center - this I believe is what is preventing classical music from flourishing once more as the line for atonal music ends.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

1996D said:


> *Today harmony has overtaken melody and counterpoint in all fields of music from contemporary atonal to film scores*. Not only has the focus been on extended techniques and embellishments but also on harmonic innovation that is without direction. This is indeed suitable to atonal music but not so much for tonal one.


I don't think this is quite accurate, too much emphasis being placed on timbre is the problem in some cases, in film scores the problem is often related to blatant pastiche mixed with a lack of development. Remember Schoenberg's twelve tone method can be looked at as an attempt to extinguish harmony.

So in other words harmonic innovation isn't really the problem in my view as much as the degradation of harmony.

I think you have some valid points in regards to melody, but I also think it is impossible to boil good music down to exact formulas. I think if something is inspired and well crafted it is generally good regardless of what specific rules it is following.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

If something is heard, then it's too late to correct it.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

1. From my limited understanding of music theory, isn't harmony also contained in the melody? Isn't melody just a different way to express harmony?

2. I claim the following: melody represents the conscious whereas harmony represent the unconscious. It is more interesting to explore the unconscious in the 21st century.

3. 12 tone techniques do produce melody. They are harder to mentally recognize but it is possible. They are melody of different flavors.

4. From my limited understanding of contemporary music, the agenda seems to have shifted to explore rhythms, which has been the weak link in traditional classical music. It seems that harmony and rhythms and melody are tightly connected, one can't really explore rhythms freely without breaking the traditional tonal language.

5. Writing melody and counterpoint has no future in the age of Artificial Intelligence because they can be machine-learned and automated very easily, at least in principle. The world is not in shortage of great tunes.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

If something isn't heard, then it's too early to correct it.

If something is heard however, it's not too late to give it form. Form is how we choose to reply to it.

As in the form of interpretation.

...If someone can solve the problem of a strange order, that means others won't have to listen to it and solve it themselves.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

This reminds me of your criticism of Debussy, and my comment that you sounded a lot like David C F Wright in your criticism.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Classical music does not need you to save it


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Arguments revolving around "composers don't do X anymore" or "composers don't focus on X anymore" don't really make sense to me. Yes, composers used to do this, now they do this...and? what? Just that you don't like it? Okee dokee, don't listen to it then. there's hundreds of years of the kind of music that you like already written, surely enough for a lifetime. In a way I kind of envy people who don't like 20th century music because, as someone who likes both older and newer music (as well as non-classical genres) sometimes I'm overwhelmed with the amount of music I want to listen to before I die.

But speaking more candidly, these kind of arguments kind of remind me of when fans of the Beatles or Led Zepplin or something complain that music sucks today because it's just Justin Bieber and Taylore Swift. The truth is, however, the musical landscape of today, in both the classical and non-classical scenes, is so much more enormously diverse than ever before. I would guess people who say music sucks today just haven't searched far and wide enough.

So to answer your question more directly, while there may be certain trends, there are of course plenty of classical composers living today who "focus on melody and counterpoint". Of course, they won't sound exactly like old composers, but that's why we can be thankful that older composers exist so we can listen to their music too.


----------



## Guest (Jul 23, 2020)

1996D said:


> Today harmony has overtaken melody and counterpoint in all fields of music from contemporary atonal to film scores. Not only has the focus been on extended techniques and embellishments but also on harmonic innovation that is without direction. This is indeed suitable to atonal music but not so much for tonal one.
> 
> It's understandable that for film scores the focus be on orchestration, ornamentation, and other *superficial *aspects, but this trend is also seen in serious contemporary music that has lost depth in the process. My own music has fallen victim to this, with it initially having no clear melodic line.
> 
> ...


Obviously, anything that is superficial is to be disparaged. 

But what counts as 'superficial' in a world where the slightest variation in interpretation of a score can matter so much to so many?


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

I've once seen it phrased in a mid-20th century book on music as music as a collection of cool chords, not a progression.

Edit: That book was Piston's harmony actually.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

violadude said:


> ...But speaking more candidly, these kind of arguments kind of remind me of when fans of the Beatles or Led Zepplin or something complain that music sucks today because it's just Justin Bieber and Taylore Swift. The truth is, however, the musical landscape of today, in both the classical and non-classical scenes, is so much more enormously diverse than ever before. I would guess people who say music sucks today just haven't searched far and wide enough.


I have to disagree. Speaking generally, computers have changed the way songs are made, and has created a situation in which songs are merely assembled from loops. Everything gets quantized and evened-out, to the point where there is no humanity left in it.

People are even losing the ability to play guitars and keyboards. It takes too long.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> I have to disagree. Speaking generally, computers have changed the way songs are made, and has created a situation in which songs are merely assembled from loops. Everything gets quantized and evened-out, to the point where there is no humanity left in it.
> 
> *People are even losing the ability to play guitars and keyboards. It takes too long*.


yep, some people are not prepared to put in what it takes.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> I have to disagree. Speaking generally, computers have changed the way songs are made, and has created a situation in which songs are merely assembled from loops. Everything gets quantized and evened-out, to the point where there is no humanity left in it.
> 
> People are even losing the ability to play guitars and keyboards. It takes too long.


Actually I do think rock n roll peaked from about 1966-76, likewise I think classical music peaked quite a long time ago with Bach, but in both cases I still think there was and continues to be a lot of excellent music made, some of it among my favorite. Also I think musical styles tend to fracture into other things, form hybrids etc. new styles will then have their own new 'peaks'.

Your comment about the state of songs today is such an over generalization, there is everything out there today, from virtuosos on acoustic instruments, prog, metal, genres that are exploding in many different directions and the state of musicianship in much of this is very, very high.

Actually in much of the music I am describing the level of musicianship exceeds that of Zeppelin or The Beatles, however I don't think technical skill in itself was what made those two bands so great. They were as good as they needed to be to create the music they did. Their ideas and band chemistry were bigger factors for their success than just musical chops, I think.


----------



## Guest (Jul 23, 2020)

millionrainbows said:


> I have to disagree. Speaking generally, computers have changed the way songs are made, and has created a situation in which songs are merely assembled from loops. Everything gets quantized and evened-out, to the point where there is no humanity left in it.
> 
> People are even losing the ability to play guitars and keyboards. It takes too long.


Speaking generally is right. Of course, I'm sure there are examples of what you describe, but let's not imply that it's so widespread that it's the end of civilisation as we know it.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

"Schoenberg identified himself most significantly with J. S. Bach, despite his insistence that "I am no Bach." Schoenberg believed that he was ushering in a new age for German music in much the way that Bach had done 200 years before. He utilized his portrayal of Bach as a rebuttal against his critics, citing the uncompromising and ground-breaking nature of Bach's contribution to the Western music tradition.
Schoenberg claimed a number of similarities with the great master. His most radical assertion was that Bach wrote the first twelve-tone music. Bach "enlarged these rules to such an extent that they comprised all the twelve tones of the chromatic scale. . . . Bach sometimes operated with the twelve tones in such a manner that one would be inclined to call him the first twelve-tone composer. In Schoenberg's thinking it was Bach who began the expansion of the rules of tonal relations to include all twelve tones, challenging the rules and regulations of his time."
https://books.google.ca/books?id=OpefDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA160


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

"Schoenberg now proudly described himself as Mozart's pupil - and the final movement of the Suite, the 'Gigue', comes close to explicit homage to the G major Gigue, KV 574, in which Mozart at his most neo-Baroque and most harmonically chromatic seems almost to anticipate elements of Schoenberg's serial method."
( Arnold Schoenberg, By Mark Berry, Page 135 )


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Yes, yes, all the ancients prophesized the arrival of His style of music. For He was inevitable. Pure Texas sharpshooter fallacy (and marketing 101).


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> "Schoenberg identified himself most significantly with J. S. Bach, despite his insistence that "I am no Bach." Schoenberg believed that he was ushering in a new age for German music in much the way that Bach had done 200 years before. He utilized his portrayal of Bach as a rebuttal against his critics, citing the uncompromising and ground-breaking nature of Bach's contribution to the Western music tradition.
> Schoenberg claimed a number of similarities with the great master. His most radical assertion was that Bach wrote the first twelve-tone music. Bach "enlarged these rules to such an extent that they comprised all the twelve tones of the chromatic scale. . . . Bach sometimes operated with the twelve tones in such a manner that one would be inclined to call him the first twelve-tone composer. In Schoenberg's thinking it was Bach who began the expansion of the rules of tonal relations to include all twelve tones, challenging the rules and regulations of his time."


I don't presume that you are necessarily advocating the statement, but it seems to me that the extent of similarity between Bach and Schonenberg is chiefly that they both have a "B" and "C" in their last names and were both born in an area that we geographically refer to as Germany.

Edit: I see that Schoenberg was actually born in Austria, which might not quite fit unless one wishes to be very rough about the matter.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

JAS said:


> I don't presume that you are necessarily advocating the statement, but it seems to me that the extent of similarity between Bach and Schonenberg is chiefly that they both have a "B" and "C" in their last names and were both born in an area that we geographically refer to as Germany.


They both also have "H" in their last names.

_"Schoenberg gets a bad rep because of his atonal music. But if you listen to Schoenberg, sometimes when he's writing contrapuntal music, it's a revelation."_

*[ 5:15 ]*


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

I giggle at the amount of pretentiousness in this thread.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

1996D said:


> Today harmony has overtaken melody and counterpoint in all fields of music from contemporary atonal to film scores. Not only has the focus been on extended techniques and embellishments but also on harmonic innovation that is without direction. This is indeed suitable to atonal music but not so much for tonal one.
> 
> It's understandable that for film scores the focus be on orchestration, ornamentation, and other superficial aspects, but this trend is also seen in serious contemporary music that has lost depth in the process. My own music has fallen victim to this, with it initially having no clear melodic line.
> 
> ...


I would say it's the opposite. Harmony became increasingly important in western music for centuries, perhaps reaching its zenith in the late 19th century and into the beginning of the 20th. Then the tide began to turn, lead in my opinion not by Schoenberg but by Stravinsky, who for the most part didn't reject traditional harmony but gave it a slightly less dominant role, bringing other elements, notably irregular, complex and compound rhythms, leaner, starker structures and timbres, dissonance, textures and orchestrations that put more emphasis on percussion and other less lush non-string instruments, etc., all techniques that served to give harmony a less central place in the picture.

Once the concept that harmony need not always be the dominant element took hold, composers took that concept in many different directions. The music of most of these modern composers is still very much "tonal", both in the concept of organization around a central pitch and in use of the traditional western diatonic scale, triads and so forth. All that has fundamentally changed in this regard, at least for much modern and contemporary music, is that musical elements other than harmony, long relegated to the background, have been brought further forward.

I think the lesser emphasis in harmony in both modern classical and modern popular music has also been due to the influence of non-western music. Most of the best-known non-western music traditions that I know of do feature concepts of tonality and harmony that differ somewhat from western concepts, though not enormously so. But another important difference I often hear is a lesser emphasis on harmony and harmonic progressions than in pre-modern, late romantic era western music.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

"we note that K 428 in E♭ is another quartet of which the youthful Schoenberg had acquired an intimate, inside knowledge. The canonic opening of the first movement's development section (Ex. 3), which exposes the twelve notes within the narrowest space, is a mature example of strict serialism: an anti- (tri-) tonal row of three notes and its mirror forms (BS, I, R, RI) revolves both horizontally and vertically underneath the rotations of its own segmental subordinate row, which is a series in extremest miniature consisting of two notes at the interval of a minor second."
( Essays on Music , By Hans Keller , Page 172 )


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Speaking generally is right. Of course, I'm sure there are examples of what you describe, but let's not imply that it's so widespread that it's the end of civilisation as we know it.


I think it's widespread enough to have essentially "killed" rock music as we knew it.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

1996D said:


> Today harmony has overtaken melody and counterpoint in all fields of music from contemporary atonal to film scores. Not only has the focus been on extended techniques and embellishments but also on harmonic innovation that is without direction. This is indeed suitable to atonal music but not so much for tonal one.
> 
> It's understandable that for film scores the focus be on orchestration, ornamentation, and other superficial aspects, but this trend is also seen in serious contemporary music that has lost depth in the process. My own music has fallen victim to this, with it initially having no clear melodic line.
> 
> ...


I think what the OP is missing is that "harmony" is present in counterpoint, but it's not 'codified' as a procedure. Bach did harmony intuitively. He saw that his lines had harmonic implications; just listen to any of the Two-Part Inventions.

I'm losing you on the 'atonal' thing. It lends itself to linear composition. If you don't think they are "good" melodies, this seems oblivious to the fact that it's not tonal, and will use all twelve notes.

The whole argument here seems rather vague and nebulous.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

tdc said:


> I don't think this is quite accurate, too much emphasis being placed on timbre is the problem in some cases, in film scores the problem is often related to blatant pastiche mixed with a lack of development. *Remember ...So in other words harmonic innovation isn't really the problem in my view as much as the degradation of harmony. *


While it's true that 12-tone music has no _traditional_ harmony or chord function, it nonetheless can have a vertical "harmonic" dimension.
For the "victim" thinkers out there, Schoenberg's twelve tone method can be looked at as an attempt to extinguish traditional harmony; but it really is just the result of traditional harmony being absent in its method. Is this an attempt to "degrade" traditional harmony? Not really.

Although I have said that this is _possible;_ since Schoenberg was becoming increasingly aware of his "difference" in Germany, his great struggle to make a living and get recognition, and his eventual departure from Germany/Austria, perhaps his 12-tone method WAS a way of subverting the entire Germanic tradition. But that's not what you wanted to hear, was it?


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> While it's true that 12-tone music has no _traditional_ harmony or chord function, it nonetheless can have a vertical "harmonic" dimension.
> For the "victim" thinkers out there, Schoenberg's twelve tone method can be looked at as an attempt to extinguish traditional harmony; but it really is just the result of traditional harmony being absent in its method. Is this an attempt to "degrade" traditional harmony? Not really.
> 
> Although I have said that this is _possible;_ since Schoenberg was becoming increasingly aware of his "difference" in Germany, his great struggle to make a living and get recognition, and his eventual departure from Germany/Austria, perhaps his 12-tone method WAS a way of subverting the entire Germanic tradition. But that's not what you wanted to hear, was it?


Your first paragraph here makes a good point very well. It's interesting how by 1900 traditional harmony, meaning horizontal or progressing harmony to use your terms, had become so integral to music, its constructs so elaborate and extensive, its implications so broad and deep, that to suddenly pull it away seemed to leave a shocking abyss. Schoenberg's atonalism might have been less shocking to 6th century monks singing plainsong than to many of his contemporaries.

But as for your second paragraph, Schoenberg seems to me to have remained a staunch adherent to many features of the 19th century "Germanic" tradition other than "horizontal" harmony, even in California exile. Stravinsky and his successors focused on developing new concepts for those other features, and in my opinion, most modern and contemporary music owes an even greater debt to him.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> While it's true that 12-tone music has no _traditional_ harmony or chord function, it nonetheless can have a vertical "harmonic" dimension.
> For the "victim" thinkers out there, Schoenberg's twelve tone method can be looked at as an attempt to extinguish traditional harmony; but it really is just the result of traditional harmony being absent in its method. Is this an attempt to "degrade" traditional harmony? Not really.
> 
> Although I have said that this is _possible;_ since Schoenberg was becoming increasingly aware of his "difference" in Germany, his great struggle to make a living and get recognition, and his eventual departure from Germany/Austria, perhaps his 12-tone method WAS a way of subverting the entire Germanic tradition. But that's not what you wanted to hear, was it?


Yes, this is all good stuff I think. Anyone with any doubts should try, for example, Luigi Dallapiccola's Lyriche Greche.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2020)

millionrainbows said:


> I think it's widespread enough to have essentially "killed" rock music as we knew it.


"If you like"
"Whatever"

...and other such shrugs.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> They both also have "H" in their last names.


Ooops. Indeed there is that then too.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> While it's true that 12-tone music has no _traditional_ harmony or chord function, it nonetheless can have a vertical "harmonic" dimension.


I agree with this.



millionrainbows said:


> For the "victim" thinkers out there, Schoenberg's twelve tone method can be looked at as an attempt to extinguish traditional harmony; but it really is just the result of traditional harmony being absent in its method. Is this an attempt to "degrade" traditional harmony? Not really.


Maybe, maybe not. It is speculative. Inverting things is what some people like to do, white is black, black is white etc. Schoenberg's approach could be seen as a way to destroy the natural harmonic implications of tonality, creating an inversion of sorts, a musical argument suggesting the meaning of harmonic implications are no longer valid in his world. Ugly is beautiful etc. Like you I'm only speculating, I don't really know.



millionrainbows said:


> Although I have said that this is _possible;_ since Schoenberg was becoming increasingly aware of his "difference" in Germany, his great struggle to make a living and get recognition, and his eventual departure from Germany/Austria, perhaps his 12-tone method WAS a way of subverting the entire Germanic tradition. But that's not what you wanted to hear, was it?


Well, you are speculating again, but if that was his motivation it wouldn't make a lot of sense to me. Why blame a tradition that started centuries earlier, for events happening at that moment in history? That would be dumb. Identity politics are the tool of choice it seems for corrupt regimes and we have come back to it again. Just look how today we have the racist phrase 'privileged white male' as ubiquitous. White people are being told today by many that they are inherently bad because of immutable characteristics they were born with. Tell me is this much different than the way Jews were being demonized prior to WWII? But perhaps that's not what you wanted to hear was it?


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

millionrainbows said:


> I think what the OP is missing is that "harmony" is present in counterpoint, but it's not 'codified' as a procedure. Bach did harmony intuitively. He saw that his lines had harmonic implications; just listen to any of the Two-Part Inventions.
> 
> I'm losing you on the 'atonal' thing. It lends itself to linear composition. If you don't think they are "good" melodies, this seems oblivious to the fact that it's not tonal, and will use all twelve notes.
> 
> The whole argument here seems rather vague and nebulous.


Atonal music needs a lot to make up for its inherent limits, complex harmony is one of them, although the use of extended techniques and ornaments is also as important. They are things that don't matter to the story and message of the music, or to the artistry - which is clearly lacking - but instead decorate and give variation to the piece not to make it boring.

Atonality has a limited range of expression and thus needs quite a bit of help. The point I was making in the OP is that this has transferred over to tonal music as well because it has been influenced by these trends of atonal music.

This results in pieces with unnatural harmony that isn't emotionally or intuitively based and a focus on what the musicians will enjoy playing or as a challenge technique wise. Innovation with extended techniques has been a major focus yet it's useless musically and artistically.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

fluteman said:


> I would say it's the opposite. Harmony became increasingly important in western music for centuries, perhaps reaching its zenith in the late 19th century and into the beginning of the 20th. Then the tide began to turn, lead in my opinion not by Schoenberg but by Stravinsky, who for the most part didn't reject traditional harmony but gave it a slightly less dominant role, bringing other elements, notably irregular, complex and compound rhythms, leaner, starker structures and timbres, dissonance, textures and orchestrations that put more emphasis on percussion and other less lush non-string instruments, etc., all techniques that served to give harmony a less central place in the picture.
> 
> Once the concept that harmony need not always be the dominant element took hold, composers took that concept in many different directions. The music of most of these modern composers is still very much "tonal", both in the concept of organization around a central pitch and in use of the traditional western diatonic scale, triads and so forth. All that has fundamentally changed in this regard, at least for much modern and contemporary music, is that musical elements other than harmony, long relegated to the background, have been brought further forward.
> 
> I think the lesser emphasis in harmony in both modern classical and modern popular music has also been due to the influence of non-western music. Most of the best-known non-western music traditions that I know of do feature concepts of tonality and harmony that differ somewhat from western concepts, though not enormously so. But another important difference I often hear is a lesser emphasis on harmony and harmonic progressions than in pre-modern, late romantic era western music.


Melody is what makes great music and is the hardest thing to create, that's why Mozart is so highly regarded. Melody and counterpoint were the main focus in the past, not harmony.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2020)

1996D said:


> Melody is what makes great music


I'll just register that I disagree, but as this discussion has been had many times before, I'll wait and see where it goes before I say any more.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

MacLeod said:


> I'll just register that I disagree, but as this discussion has been had many times before, I'll wait and see where it goes before I say any more.


What great music doesn't have matching melody?


----------



## Kilgore Trout (Feb 26, 2014)

hammeredklavier said:


> This reminds me of your criticism of Debussy, and my comment that you sounded a lot like David C F Wright in your criticism.


Is the piece of **** in your link even serious, or is it a bad parody of something?


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

1996D said:


> Melody is what makes great music and is the hardest thing to create, that's why Mozart is so highly regarded.


There is nothing wrong or incorrect about this statement, but it is entirely subjective and informed by considerable cultural bias.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2020)

1996D said:


> What great music doesn't have matching melody?


"Melody is what makes music great" (which is what you first claimed) is not the same as "Great music has 'matching melody'"



fluteman said:


> There is nothing wrong or incorrect about this statement


Well, it's 'wrong/incorrect' if you take a different view, subjectively.

Great music is greater than the sum of _all _its parts, whether melody is prominent or not.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Kilgore Trout said:


> Is the piece of **** in your link even serious, or is it a bad parody of something?


It talks about his private life which I knew nothing about, and the critique of his music is overly harsh. I don't remember what I wrote about Debussy but it certainly wasn't anywhere near that harsh.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

What is a "matching melody"? Is there an animal with a "matching skeleton"?


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Fabulin said:


> What is a "matching melody"? Is there an animal with a "matching skeleton"?


That the melody matches the greatness of the other aspects of the piece.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

1996D said:


> That the melody matches the greatness of the other aspects of the piece.


What a weird way to phrase that. I would rather say that in some (most) music one can hear the attempts at making up for melodic weakness by means that would have otherwise merely served the reinforcing of its effect (be it mono- or polyphonic).


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Here's Jonathan Harvey's thoughts on melody in his music -- he calls it thematic writing. He's talking about his _Madonna of Winter and Spring_ for orchestra, synthesizer and electronics (1986), but the thinking is general and his ideas about the importance of theme pervaded his music after the mid 1980s



> The first large section of the piece is concerned very much with thematic working. To say this immediately labels one as a reactionary, of course. Starting with Schoenberg's Erwartung or Farben or Webern's Symphony working with memorable themes has come under serious attack. The Darmstadt generation, John Cage, the minimalist school, the new maximalists - all have rejected it as sham rhetoric belonging to a world in which such a pretence at certainty is highly suspect.
> 
> I agreed, until recently. I changed because I found structural depth was not perceptible without memorability. Having for years created an infra-structure of considerable (often serial) density, I noticed that works did not necessari ly get 'deeper' the more"I heard them - my attention was struck by other things about the sound, rather than the too unmemorable low-level intervallic working, which was intended to provide a rich labyrinth for extended exploring, but which failed.
> 
> ...


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Mandryka said:


> Here's Jonathan Harvey's thoughts on melody in his music -- he calls it thematic writing. He's talking about his _Madonna of Winter and Spring_ for orchestra, synthesizer and electronics (1986), but the thinking is general and his ideas about the importance of theme pervaded his music after the mid 1980s


Sounds like mental gymnastics for his lack of clear melodic thought.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

MacLeod said:


> "Melody is what makes music great" (which is what you first claimed) is not the same as "Great music has 'matching melody'"
> 
> Well, it's 'wrong/incorrect' if you take a different view, subjectively.
> 
> Great music is greater than the sum of _all _its parts, whether melody is prominent or not.


Yes, as I said, the statement wasn't wrong (or right), merely an entirely subjective one. There is more debate in this forum on issues of subjective taste that have no right answer than anywhere else I have seen on the internet. And that is saying a lot.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Fabulin said:


> What a weird way to phrase that. I would rather say that in some (most) music one can hear the attempts at making up for melodic weakness by means that would have otherwise merely served the reinforcing of its effect (be it mono- or polyphonic).


In highly inspired music everything flows and is where it should be, and great melody is seldom seen without the proper structure. It takes great creativity to invent a melody; if a composer can master that then he is capable of mastering all other aspects as well for they are simpler.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

1996D said:


> Sounds like mental gymnastics for his lack of clear melodic thought.


Too dismissive.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> 1. From my limited understanding of music theory, isn't harmony also contained in the melody? Isn't melody just a different way to express harmony?
> 
> 2. I claim the following: melody represents the conscious whereas harmony represent the unconscious. It is more interesting to explore the unconscious in the 21st century.
> 
> ...


I'd swear this reply was written by a computer. (Is that passing or failing the Turing test?  )


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> "we note that K 428 in E♭ is another quartet of which the youthful Schoenberg had acquired an intimate, inside knowledge. The canonic opening of the first movement's development section (Ex. 3), which exposes the twelve notes within the narrowest space, is a mature example of strict serialism: an anti- (tri-) tonal row of three notes and its mirror forms (BS, I, R, RI) revolves both horizontally and vertically underneath the rotations of its own segmental subordinate row, which is a series in extremest miniature consisting of two notes at the interval of a minor second."
> ( Essays on Music , By Hans Keller , Page 172 )










"This is purest Schoenberg. In a forthcoming Mozart symposium, I am in fact trying to demonstrate that the passacaglia from the chamber-musical _Pierrot lunaire_ is actually if unconsciously modelled on this development. At the same time, the latter's technique looks far into Schoenberg's own future, down to the (pan)tonal serial technique of the _Ode to Napoleon_. Beside unifying the anti-harmonic passage as such, that is to say, Mozart's strict serial method has to conduct it back into its wider, harmonic context, whence the series continue to rotate down to the perfect C minor cadence, every note of which remains serially determined."


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> Here's Jonathan Harvey's thoughts on melody in his music -- he calls it thematic writing. He's talking about his _Madonna of Winter and Spring_ for orchestra, synthesizer and electronics (1986), but the thinking is general and his ideas about the importance of theme pervaded his music after the mid 1980s


Basically, the more memorable a composition, the easier it is to explore its structure more deeply. Therefore, a stronger melody is essential, as it's necessary for memorability.

Is that what he's saying?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> Basically, the more memorable a composition, the easier it is to explore its structure more deeply. Therefore, a stronger melody is essential, as it's necessary for memorability.
> 
> Is that what he's saying?


The more memorable the building blocks are, the easier it is to see how the composer is exploring ideas in the music. And melody is his preferred way of making memorable building blocks. Here's a short and simple example (maybe) for solo viola, his piece called _chant_,






And a more substantial, better, example, his second string quartet


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Mandryka said:


> Here's a short and simple example (maybe) for solo viola, his piece called _chant_,
> 
> And a more substantial, better, example, his second string quartet


Are these supposed to be the ones with melody, or without?


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

1996D said:


> Atonal music needs a lot to make up for its inherent limits, complex harmony is one of them, although the use of extended techniques and ornaments is also as important. They are things that don't matter to the story and message of the music, or to the artistry - which is clearly lacking - but instead decorate and give variation to the piece not to make it boring.
> 
> Atonality has a limited range of expression and thus needs quite a bit of help. The point I was making in the OP is that this has transferred over to tonal music as well because it has been influenced by these trends of atonal music.
> 
> This results in pieces with unnatural harmony that isn't emotionally or intuitively based and a focus on what the musicians will enjoy playing or as a challenge technique wise. Innovation with extended techniques has been a major focus yet it's useless musically and artistically.


just because you don't get it, it doesn't mean that it doesn't have artistic value. 
And while atonality has its expressive limits, so does tonality. Having more expressive tools is a good thing.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

1996D said:


> Melody is what makes great music and is the hardest thing to create, that's why Mozart is so highly regarded. Melody and counterpoint were the main focus in the past, not harmony.


a lot of things can make music great. Melody, harmony, rhyhtm, sound. Personally I have a absolute love for harmony (by the way, counterpoint is a form of harmony... actually even single melodies are a form of harmony), and I think the idea that you think it's a "superficial" aspect is just ridiculous.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Fabulin said:


> Are these supposed to be the ones with melody, or without?


They're the ones with memorable thematic components, memorable due to their melody. If you listen attentively you can recognise when they reoccur in a new context or in a modified form. Is that the same as a memorable melodic themes? He's not talking about creating tunes for window cleaners to whistle.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

1996D said:


> if a composer can master that then he is capable of mastering all other aspects as well for they are simpler.


what does this even means. How is it even possible to make sweeping generalizations like these, putting melodies agains complex polyrithms or sophisticated harmonies or complex researches on sound and just say "melody is more difficult" like it's a obvious and always true thing, and without even realizing that those aspects are more closely related that it seems.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

The word "melody" gets used in too many different ways to have a clear meaning without explanation.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

1996D said:


> Melody is what makes great music and is the hardest thing to create, that's why Mozart is so highly regarded. Melody and counterpoint were the main focus in the past, not harmony.


Are you suggesting that those that elevate the importance of harmony above the level you have determined appropriate are in error?


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> They're the ones with memorable thematic components, memorable due to their melody. If you listen attentively you can recognise when they reoccur in a new context or in a modified form. Is that the same as a memorable melodic themes? He's not talking about creating tunes for window cleaners to whistle.


Fair enough, though it'll still take more than one listen (for this amateur at least) to spot the recurrences.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

The question of whether or not something is catchy can be subjective. I once discussed how stuff like Feldman's piano quartet, or Stockhausen's song of the youths (which may sound gibberish to some people) can still be used as soundtrack or background music of certain media content to a great effect. 
But I still think that in order for something to be considered "classical music", there has to be some sort of definitive proof that it follows the classical music tradition and practices.
I still think that Cage, (who disowned the practice himself by saying "If you listen to Mozart and Beethoven, it's always the same, but if you listen to the traffic here on Sixth Avenue, it's always different") for example, does not count as a composer of "classical music". I don't hate avant-garde music (I think it has its uses and purposes). I would not claim that classical music is superior to other genres, but I still think there has to be a strict line drawn between classical music and other genres. Avant-garde music is just about as far removed as classical music as jazz is in terms of musical philosophy and methods.
It would be wrong to accept them as being part of classical music while not accepting "classical" film music composers or new age composers, who actually try their best to follow the classical music practice. It can be argued film music still counts as a genre of classical music, "incidental music".



hammeredklavier said:


> Regardless of whether you like it or not, a lot of contemporary music also has its uses in modern culture. Listen to the soundtrack at 18:00, 18:30 of this documentary. I think it fits the scenes very appropriately. -It does a very good job at creating an atmosphere of grotesque feelings appropriate for the scenes.
> *[ 18:00 ]*
> *[ 18:30 ]*


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> Fair enough, though it'll still take more than one listen (for this amateur at least) to spot the recurrences.


Partly because of this, which in a way is the most interesting part of what he has to say I think.



> Yet the method chosen differed significantly from the traditions stretching from Haydn to Britten. The themes are not prepared for like heroes, they do not make a grand entrance in full spotlight, they are not quitted on bended knee with bridge passages and cadential formulae. . . .


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

There's an important distinction to be made in "melody" as opposed to lines being used as thematic elements.

A melody is tonal, and will have tonal and harmonic implications.

A theme derived from a 12-tone set will not have this feature 'built in.'

Therefore, it's safe to assume that 12-tone themes are going to be more difficult to grasp and remember, since they have no _intrinsic_ harmonic meaning.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Mandryka said:


> They're the ones with memorable thematic components, memorable due to their melody. If you listen attentively you can recognise when they reoccur in a new context or in a modified form. Is that the same as a memorable melodic themes? He's not talking about creating tunes for window cleaners to whistle.


How about tunes for professors and doctors to whistle?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

hammeredklavier said:


> ...I still think that in order for something to be considered "classical music", there has to be some sort of definitive proof that it follows the classical music tradition and practices...I still think that Cage...does not count as a composer of "classical music"...I still think there has to be a strict line drawn between classical music and other genres. Avant-garde music is just about as far removed as classical music as jazz is in terms of musical philosophy and methods.


Ahh, but the Devil is in the details, regarding such sweeping declarations. It depends upon what your criteria are, and what importance each one has.

Since John Cage studied with Schoenberg, and came out of the classical tradition (writing for dance troupes, piano, orchestral groups, the same concert circuit), then these facts alone are enough to ensure his place in the classical echelon. This is further evidenced by any cursory glance at a music history text or dictionary, or index of composers, and published works.



> It would be wrong to accept them as being part of classical music while not accepting "classical" film music composers or new age composers, who actually try their best to follow the classical music practice. It can be argued film music still counts as a genre of classical music, "incidental music".


Again, it depends on your criteria and how much weight you give them. But if Danny Elfman is part of "classical" music, then John Cage obviously is, too. I think you are exhibiting your own subjective bias, while ignoring the obvious.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2020)

millionrainbows said:


> A melody is tonal


Why can't a melody be atonal?


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> Why can't a melody be atonal?


In theory, it could, but that would probably not be the most common meaning of the word, nor immediately convey what was intended.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2020)

JAS said:


> In theory, it could,


I thought so.

But in practice too? Schoenberg refers to melody in the foreword to the score of Pierrot Lunaire.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Fabulin said:


> How about tunes for professors and doctors to whistle?


Like this


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> I thought so.
> 
> But in practice too? Schoenberg refers to melody in the foreword to the score of Pierrot Lunaire.


In theory and in practice, but most people will not make that association, and it won't make them like what they hear any more. (In theory and in practice, you can call cats fighting a melody, but most people are likely to think that you are crazy.) One of the consequences of stretching meaning is that it can make communication less successful, and sometimes ruins the utility of perfectly good words with established meanings (connotation and broadly shared denotation).


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2020)

JAS said:


> One of the consequences of stretching meaning is that it can make communication less successful, and sometimes ruins the utility of perfectly good words with established meanings (connotation and broadly shared denotation).


Well I certainly agree with that. I'm not convinced that the meaning of 'melody' is being stretched to include what people don't like, or what is 'atonal'.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Mandryka said:


> Like this


Third rate. Not bad, but you missed the point anyway. I pointed out that you imply frugality or "unculturedness" of people with high melodic standards.


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

Fabulin said:


> Third rate. Not bad, but you missed the point anyway. I pointed out that you imply frugality or "unculturedness" of people with high melodic standards.


A whistleable tune is paramount only to a relative philistine; there is much more to music than that.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2020)

Waldesnacht said:


> A whistleable tune is paramount only to a relative philistine; there is much more to music than that.


Nah! A whistleable _melody _is of paramount importance, apparently. If you can write one of those (whether memorable for a window cleaner, postman, doctor, philosopher, politician, musician, housewife...) you're one of the greats. Unless, of course, it's a _tune_, then it is to be disparaged.

Let's not get stuck on whether it's patronising to window cleaners, or to tunes. Melodies of all kinds are an important component in much of the music we all enjoy (I'm referring to classical music here), but without harmony, rhythm, texture, dynamics etc, melody is diminished.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

What about the utter lack of an appealing and memorable tune? It may be true that a house is more than an exterior door, but a house without one is basically useless.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Fabulin said:


> I pointed out that you imply frugality or "unculturedness" of people with high melodic standards.


Quite right. What I think is that people who value memorable melody highly are infantile. The sort of music which you learn in junior school has memorable tunes. Some people, poor souls, never make any progress from that. I don't despise them, I'm not a snob. I think they suffer from a sort of mental retardation, and should be treated nicely, encouraged to make progress, though sadly, many of them don't have it in them to appreciate more sophisticated music.

The ones who I do despise are people who _pretend _to value melody but really don't -- they just say it, maybe deceiving themselves, to make themselves appear more bourgeois, to reinforce their status -- they want to look like the sort of person who goes to symphony concerts etc. These people are contemptible, and I think there are many of them, maybe even here on Talk Classical.

Similarly, by the way, for people who value stories in literature, realism in art.


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> Nah! A whistleable _melody _is of paramount importance, apparently. If you can write one of those (whether memorable for a window cleaner, postman, doctor, philosopher, politician, musician, housewife...) you're one of the greats. Unless, of course, it's a _tune_, then it is to be disparaged.
> 
> Let's not get stuck on whether it's patronising to window cleaners, or to tunes. Melodies of all kinds are an important component in much of the music we all enjoy (I'm referring to classical music here), but without harmony, rhythm, texture, dynamics etc, melody is diminished.


Not nearly all whistleable music is considered great nor is nearly all music considered great whistleable.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2020)

JAS said:


> What about the utter lack of an appealing and memorable tune? It may be true that a house is more than an exterior door, but an house without one is basically useless.


But one with an unappealing exterior door will still do the job


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> Melodies of all kinds are an important component in much of the music we all enjoy (I'm referring to classical music here), but without harmony, rhythm, texture, dynamics etc, melody is diminished.


Exactly.
Maybe it's a thing that is less apparent to those who listen only to classical music, but something that everybody who is into jazz (and has listened to a lot of different versions of the same standards arranged in the most different ways) has experienced is how much the same melody can have a completely different effect when the harmony, the rhyhtm and the instruments change.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> But one with an unappealing exterior door will still do the job


Perhaps not if you are trying to sell the house. My point was really that you need the right mix of elements to make worthwhile music. Over-emphasizing one or two elements, and neglecting others may not work, nor should one expect that it would.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2020)

Waldesnacht said:


> Not nearly all whistleable music is considered great nor is nearly all music considered great whistleable.


I agree. But you can't have read some of the grand pronouncements on the matter that are regularly posted here on TC.


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> I agree. But you can't have read some of the grand pronouncements on the matter that are regularly posted here on TC.


I think strict melody or melodiousness is but _one_ asset to music for any reasonably serious and advanced listener.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Waldesnacht said:


> I think strict melody or melodiousness is but _one_ asset to music for any reasonably serious and advanced listener.


which by the way, wasn't always the point even before the twentieth century. 
Since OP talked of counterpoint, how much catchy and melodic is the Art of the fugue? I think that it's not melodious at all, and Bach wasn't even interested there in making music that was hummable or easily memorable. And still it's considered by many as one of his definitive works.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

norman bates said:


> how much catchy and melodic is the Art of the fugue? I think that it's not melodious at all, and Bach wasn't even interested there in making music that was hummable or easily memorable. And still it's considered by many as one of his definitive works.


I love the "catchiness" of these





0:30




^my favorite part of the movement is played in this video


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Mandryka said:


> Quite right. What I think is that people who value memorable melody highly are infantile. The sort of music which you learn in junior school has memorable tunes. Some people, poor souls, never make any progress from that. I don't despise them, I'm not a snob. I think they suffer from a sort of mental retardation, and should be treated nicely, encouraged to make progress, though sadly, many of them don't have it in them to appreciate more sophisticated music.
> 
> The ones who I do despise are people who _pretend _to value melody but really don't -- they just say it, maybe deceiving themselves, to make themselves appear more bourgeois, to reinforce their status -- they want to look like the sort of person who goes to symphony concerts etc. These people are contemptible, and I think there are many of them, maybe even here on Talk Classical.
> 
> Similarly, by the way, for people who value stories in literature, realism in art.


Superb parody, thank you.


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

The excellent example of great melody from the OP accompanied by an animated graphical score:


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

janxharris said:


> Are you suggesting that those that elevate the importance of harmony above the level you have determined appropriate are in error?


Yes, harmony is not that important. Making it a focus is a mistake, but I think with melody being so valuable money-wise to film composers harmony is all they can focus on along with orchestration and effects - being frugal with how they use their creative reserves.

We still live in a very money oriented society and the production company ends up owning every theme the composer writes for a movie. This is undoubtedly what leads to the low creative efforts in terms of melody, and composers who don't write for motion pictures simply don't bother with it at all, perhaps being scared of having it stolen. Atonal music then makes quite a bit of sense to produce.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

norman bates said:


> which by the way, wasn't always the point even before the twentieth century.
> Since OP talked of counterpoint, how much catchy and melodic is the Art of the fugue? I think that it's not melodious at all, and Bach wasn't even interested there in making music that was hummable or easily memorable. And still it's considered by many as one of his definitive works.


The main subjects of Art of the fugue are more ear-wormy for me than a lot of great tunes. For a period of time, I couldn't get it out of my head.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> The main subjects of Art of the fugue are more ear-wormy for me than a lot of great tunes. For a period of time, I couldn't get it out of my head.


but the art of the fugue is not that brief subject which is, to me at least, taken in itself, not exactly beautiful... I think anti-gracious could be a good definition. 
And while I've listened to the work a lot (because I really like it), I don't think the rest is particularly ear-wormy. I'm not Helmut Walcha. Or it's ear-wormy, as a lot of 20th century music (unsurprisingly, probably one of the musical works with the deepest effects on the second viennese school).


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> Ahh, but the Devil is in the details, regarding such sweeping declarations. It depends upon what your criteria are, and what importance each one has.
> 
> Since John Cage studied with Schoenberg, and came out of the classical tradition (writing for dance troupes, piano, orchestral groups, the same concert circuit), then these facts alone are enough to ensure his place in the classical echelon. This is further evidenced by any cursory glance at a music history text or dictionary, or index of composers, and published works.
> 
> Again, it depends on your criteria and how much weight you give them. But if Danny Elfman is part of "classical" music, then John Cage obviously is, too. I think you are exhibiting your own subjective bias, while ignoring the obvious.


Of course you are entirely right about all of this, but what I find delightfully ironic is that the main goal, in my opinion, of most if not all of Cage's later "conceptual art" work was to provoke precisely the reaction expressed by hammeredklavier and so many others here: This isn't music! or, This isn't classical music! or even, The boundaries between classical and avant-garde must be strictly delineated! In his Norton lectures at Harvard, Cage read randomly arranged snippets from the New York Times. One could respond: This isn't a lecture! Cage was nothing if not consistent.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

It can be a matter of getting familiar with the idiomatic language. While the Art of the fugue is not as diverse as the Well-tempered clavier in terms of melodic material or uplifting as the Goldberg variations, (and there is a bit of a "look ma, no hands" attitude), - the "catchiness" in the form of "passionate feelings" is still there, especially in contrapunti 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11, etc. 
I often listen to mid-18th century vocal and instrumental music and come across several idiomatically-similar contrapuntal works. For example, there's a lot of variations on the phrase 'D-C#-D-E-F' (which are also used by other 18th century composers), which makes me feel like I'm "at home". 
Probably because it's very well-crafted and jam-packed with interesting material as I mentioned earlier, it's "less boring" than, for example, this: 




I think AOTF sounds best when played by the string quartet (ensemble). And the wedge fugue sounds best when played on keyboard instruments other than the organ.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Personally I see the early 20th century as the apotheosis of the progression of tonal melody and harmony. There was just nowhere else for it to go. I don't care much for extended techniques in themselves, but contemporary music is not all about timbre, even if it is the most noticeable.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

1996D said:


> Yes, harmony is not that important.


I can only hope that that's sarcasm.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Phil loves classical said:


> Personally I see the early 20th century as the apotheosis of the progression of tonal melody and harmony. There was just nowhere else for it to go. I don't care much for extended techniques in themselves, but contemporary music is not all about timbre, even if it is the most noticeable.





consuono said:


> I can only hope that that's sarcasm.


I think focusing on harmony is very much like focusing on timbre with the use of extended techniques. It gives a superficial effect that gives variation but doesn't add substance.

It's fine to use for the purpose of variation but to say it's important is a joke; what makes a piece deep is melody, counterpoint, and most importantly form.

There is a discussion ongoing about Beethoven's op.111 and how important the performer is, but I'd say that's a piece with majestic form, a true masterclass in form.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

1996D said:


> It's fine to use for the purpose of variation but to say it's important is a joke; what makes a piece deep is melody,


Can you say a bit more about this please? What sort of depth does melody bring, and how? Someone posted a lovely bit of Brahms op 117 above as an example of depth through melody. Why, exactly, is it a "deep" piece of music?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

1996D said:


> I think focusing on harmony is very much like focusing on timbre with the use of extended techniques. It gives a superficial effect that gives variation but doesn't add substance.


I wonder if we could focus on a piece of music to try and make sense of this - just to focus things in. My suggestions would be Salvatore Sciarrino's _Quaderno do strada_ or Trevor Wishart's _Red Bird_. You see, I think that the extended techniques in both those pieces of music bring something special and interesting, is that what you mean by "adding substance?"


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

1996D said:


> ...
> It's fine to use for the purpose of variation but to say it's important is a joke; what makes a piece deep is melody, counterpoint, and most importantly form.
> ...


But harmony and counterpoint are intertwined. Counterpoint in a sense creates harmony. "Harmony" is not just chords used as an accompaniment.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

MacLeod said:


> Why can't a melody be atonal?


Know a good one?


----------



## Guest (Jul 26, 2020)

DaveM said:


> Know a good one?


'Good' or 'bad' isn't relevant here.

Besides, my question was already answered by one poster. No one else chose to challenge millionrainbows on his assertion that 'a melody is tonal' (he said nothing about a good or bad melody!)


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> 'Good' or 'bad' isn't relevant here.
> 
> Besides, my question was already answered by one poster. No one else chose to challenge millionrainbows on his assertion that 'a melody is tonal' (he said nothing about a good or bad melody!)


...but if Schoenberg wrote it in Pierot Lunaire and called it a melody, then it's a melody.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

DaveM said:


> Know a good one?


I do









Smmc EMN s dc ce


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

MacLeod said:


> 'Good' or 'bad' isn't relevant here.


Somehow that seems to fit in a thread where just above we have: _Harmony is not that important._


----------



## Guest (Jul 26, 2020)

DaveM said:


> Somehow *that *seems to fit in a thread where just above we have: _Harmony is not that important._


That fits into the specific point being argued about whether a melody can only be tonal. It isn't a general point applicable to anything else in this discussion.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Here's another atonal melody, which reminds me of late Beethoven (op 132 adagio)


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

1996D said:


> I think focusing on harmony is very much like focusing on timbre with the use of extended techniques. It gives a superficial effect that gives variation but doesn't add substance.
> 
> It's fine to use for the purpose of variation but to say it's important is a joke; what makes a piece deep is melody, counterpoint, and most importantly form.


so you value counterpoint which is harmony, but harmony is superficial. I'm not sure if you're just trolling for a laugh or you really don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

consuono said:


> But harmony and counterpoint are intertwined. Counterpoint in a sense creates harmony. "Harmony" is not just chords used as an accompaniment.


Counterpoint is harmony in every possible way. And single melodies too are harmony. There's a reason if for every chord there's a scale.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

norman bates said:


> Counterpoint is harmony in every possible way. And single melodies too are harmony. There's a reason if for every chord there's a scale.


Harmony and counterpoint though aren't the exact same thing. A single melody isn't "harmony". Harmony has to do with the relationship between separate tones or melodic lines sounding simultaneously. I'd say you can have harmony without counterpoint, but you can't have counterpoint without at least implied harmony.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

consuono said:


> Harmony and counterpoint though aren't the exact same thing.


if you play more melodies one against the other you have multiple notes. That means chords and harmony.



consuono said:


> A single melody isn't "harmony". Harmony has to do with the relationship between separate tones or melodic lines sounding simultaneously. I'd say you can have harmony without counterpoint, but you can't have counterpoint without at least implied harmony.


as I think George Russell said, for every scale there's a chord. That means that even having a single melody without any harmonic background the melody itself implies a harmony.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

norman bates said:


> if you play more melodies one against the other you have multiple notes. That means chords and harmony.


But then it's not a single line of melody anymore.



> as I think George Russell said, for every scale there's a chord. That means that even having a single melody without any harmonic background the melody itself implies a harmony.


If you sing "Mary Had a Little Lamb" by yourself, a capella, that isn't harmonic, implied or otherwise.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Mandryka said:


> Here's another atonal melody, which reminds me of late Beethoven (op 132 adagio)


the Beethoven quartet movement is in modal F


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

consuono said:


> But then it's not a single line of melody anymore.
> 
> If you sing "Mary Had a Little Lamb" by yourself, a capella, that isn't harmonic, implied or otherwise.


my knowledge of harmony is extremely basic, but if you start singing Mary on a E, I think the chord implied is a C major and the song can be harmonized in that key.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

The idea of thinking "counterpoint = harmony" was a pre-19th century concept. I believe the idea that "you can still write harmonically interesting music without dealing with counterpoint" came about in the beginning of the 19th century. 
So the net result is that, the 18th century masters had "contrapuntal depth and fluidity" in their harmony, but their progressions tend to be logically "strict" or "predictable" (not in a bad way).










Debussy, on the other hand, for example, deals with very little counterpoint. Rules of counterpoint would have been hindrance to his way of composing. Look at the copious amount of parallel chords in this, for example:






"Throughout most of the eighteenth century, only counterpoint was taught to young composers, and any knowledge of harmony was informally picked up by experience or by reading the few theorists who tried to deal innovatively with the subject. Counterpoint was absolutely fundamental. Beginning with harmony was an early nineteenth-century novelty, introduced, I think, by the Paris Conservatoire. Chopin attributes what he thinks of as Berlioz's clumsiness to the newfangled system of music instruction. He himself, having grown up in a backwater like Warsaw, had studied the old-fashioned way. He insists that counterpoint must precede the study of harmony, or else the harmonic movement will have no inner life-it will be laid on from the outside, as he says, like a veneer. 
As we see from Chopin's remarks, the idea of putting part writing (counterpoint) before chords (harmony) is not a surprisingly modern idea-it is the old traditional way, and Chopin deplored its disappearance. It was the late eighteenth-century development of large harmonic areas, of modulation, in fact, that made the teaching of harmony independent of counterpoint. The same stylistic development also gave Rameau's theory of classifying chords by their roots an importance it did not have when it appeared in the early eighteenth century: his theory became of central importance to musical education in early nineteenth-century France. Berlioz seemed to think naturally in Rameau's terms. He chose the harmonies often because of the roots and then employed the inversion which sounded most expressive. 
It seems to me that Chopin's claim of a failure on Berlioz's part is partly true-and nevertheless that this failure accounts for much that is powerful and original in Berlioz's music. Until the nineteenth century, music education began with what is called species counterpoint. In this exercise the student is given a simple phrase of long, even notes like part of a Gregorian chant, called a cantus firmus, and is asked to write another phrase of long, even notes that could be played or sung with it. The first species is one note of the countermelody for one note of the cantus firmus; the different species then advance in rhythmic complexity, the last being a free rhythm against the original cantus firmus. The student advances from two voices to three-, four-, and five-part counterpoint." 
<The Romantic Generation, By Charles Rosen, Pages 552~553>

"He said the problem with the way they teach nowadays is that they teach the chords before they teach the movement of voices that creates the chords. That's the problem, he said, with Berlioz. He applies the chords as a kind of veneer and fills in the gaps the best way he can. Chopin then said that you can get a sense of pure logic in music with fugue and he cited not Bach-though we know that he worshiped Bach-but Mozart. He said, in every one of Mozart's pieces, you feel the counterpoint."
<The Art of Tonal Analysis: Twelve Lessons in Schenkerian Theory, By Carl Schachter, Page 57>


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

norman bates said:


> my knowledge of harmony is extremely basic, but if you start singing Mary on a E, I think the chord implied is a C major and the song can be harmonized in that key.


It can be harmonized in that key, if you are playing an instrument or if another singer joins in to fill out the harmony. Otherwise it's just the note E followed by a D etc etc. Now Bach in his cello suites composed single lines that give the illusion of harmony, but it still isn't actually harmony. But it takes someone like Bach to pull that off.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> It can be harmonized in that key, if you are playing an instrument or if another singer joins in to fill out the harmony. Otherwise it's just the note E followed by a D etc etc. Now Bach in his cello suites composed single lines that give the illusion of harmony, but it still isn't actually harmony. But it takes someone like Bach to pull that off.


That sure is an impressive feat by Bach, but also Telemann's work in the genre can be interesting:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

The distinction between counterpoint and harmony is largely illusory. Bach thought about his harmony, but it was always after his linear aspects were taken care of. That makes a sound structure.
It's not that hard to suggest harmony with lines; it's called an arpeggio.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

consuono said:


> Harmony and counterpoint though aren't the exact same thing. A single melody isn't "harmony". Harmony has to do with the relationship between separate tones or melodic lines sounding simultaneously.


Let's be more precise and less literal: a melody line can "imply" harmony. An arpeggio, which melodically outlines a chord, does this all the time.

To say "Harmony and counterpoint aren't the same thing" is misleading, because harmony is present in counterpoint, it's just not codified, accounted for, defined, or treated as an independent thing, but is done "off the books" in a more intuitive way. For example, just because there is no "chord function" in counterpoint doesn't mean a V-I cadence doesn't function as it always has, and always will.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

millionrainbows said:


> ...
> To say "Harmony and counterpoint aren't the same thing" is misleading, because harmony is present in counterpoint...


No, it isn't misleading. Harmony and counterpoint are not synonymous.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> That sure is an impressive feat by Bach, but also Telemann's work in the genre can be interesting:


I agree. Telemann is an underappreciated composer.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

hammeredklavier said:


> The idea of thinking "counterpoint = harmony" was a pre-19th century concept. I believe the idea that "you can still write harmonically interesting music without dealing with counterpoint" came about in the beginning of the 19th century.


I'm not sure if you're saying this to me but I've never said that harmony means ONLY counterpoint. Counterpoint is one of the ways to create harmony, that's what I think.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

consuono said:


> It can be harmonized in that key, if you are playing an instrument or if another singer joins in to fill out the harmony. Otherwise it's just the note E followed by a D etc etc. Now Bach in his cello suites composed single lines that give the illusion of harmony, but it still isn't actually harmony. But it takes someone like Bach to pull that off.


no, it does not have anything with magic, it does not have anything to do with superior skill. A melody implies harmony.
Because to make a very basic example, a simple harmonization for thirds means that we take all the notes of a scale and we stack the same notes a third and a fifth above (and a seventh and ninths if we want to have extended chords).
So if we have a melody without flats or sharps we know we are in the tonality of c major. That means again to me that a melody without other harmonic implications creates already melodic functions, and we can also modulate to other keys. This if my very poor knowledge of harmony is correct.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

norman bates said:


> no, it does not have anything with magic, it does not have anything to do with superior skill. A melody implies harmony.
> ...


That's like saying a whistling tea kettle or a knock on the door implies melody. Yeah, but...it isn't there.


> Because to make a very basic example, a simple harmonization for thirds means that we take all the notes of a scale and we stack the same notes a third and a fifth above (and a seventh and ninths if we want to have extended chords).


But then you're no longer dealing with a single melodic line. You're dealing with *chords*.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Harmony and counterpoint are not synonymous, but neither are they mutually exclusive.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

consuono said:


> That's like saying a whistling tea kettle or a knock on the door implies melody. Yeah, but...it isn't there.


 Look, to make a easy example, since Millionrainbows has mentioned arpeggios: you can play the notes C, E and G at the same time or one after the other like in a melody. In both cases, it's a C major.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

norman bates said:


> Look, to make a easy example, since Millionrainbows has mentioned arpeggios: you can play the notes C, E and G at the same time or one after the other like in a melody. In both cases, it's a C major.


An arpeggio is a broken chord. So it isn't strictly a melody. An example would be the first prelude in WTC I, or the prelude to the first Bach cello suite. There, in my view, the *melody* is implied.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> Personally I see the early 20th century as the apotheosis of the progression of tonal melody and harmony. There was just nowhere else for it to go. I don't care much for extended techniques in themselves, but contemporary music is not all about timbre, even if it is the most noticeable.


Tonal music did not go anywhere (we still have the centuries of examples), nor did it need to. The urge to move on is not always constructive. Turning up the volume does not make the music evolve, it just makes it louder, and eventually much too loud. (An old friend, who had been in the Navy, often often said that when he was a sailor, there were only two good ships, the one you had left and the one you were going to next. No one ever seemed to appreciate the one he was actually on, at least not while he was on it.)


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

consuono said:


> An arpeggio is a broken chord. So it isn't strictly a melody.


Of course is a broken chord. But in what way that should not make it a melody? According to wiki, a melody " is a linear succession of musical tones that the listener perceives as a single entity".

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


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

norman bates said:


> Of course is a broken chord. But in what way that should not make it a melody? According to wiki, a melody " is a *linear succession* of musical tones that the listener perceives as a single entity".
> ...


And a chord (and harmony) is vertical. There ya go.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

consuono said:


> And a chord (and harmony) is vertical. There ya go.


It certainly doesn't confute what I'm saying, that a melody implies a harmony and that a melody of C, E and G is also a chord of C major. Think of a piano: if I play those three notes in a rapid succession with my left hand you would say it's a chord, but if I play the same three notes like, three octaves above with my right hand you would consider it a melody?


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

norman bates said:


> It certainly doesn't confute what I'm saying, that a melody implies a harmony and that a melody of C, E and G is also a chord of C major. Think of a piano: if I play those three notes in a rapid succession with my left hand you would say it's a chord, but if I play the same three notes like, three octaves above with my right hand you would consider it a melody?


C, E and G is simply a triad, not a melodic line in itself. If you play it anywhere on the keyboard it's still only a triad. It can be a part of a melodic line, as in the Blue Danube waltz (though in another key). Can you think of any piece of music in which the *melody* consists only of broken chords? And no, not the Moonlight Sonata.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> I do
> 
> View attachment 140323
> 
> ...


If that is your best example, then no, you don't. I don't think it would be an exaggeration to say that 99% of the world would not call any of that a melody let alone a good one. (They probably _would_ call it "atonal," perhaps with a little assistance, so maybe one out of two isn't all that bad.)


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

millionrainbows said:


> Harmony and counterpoint are not synonymous, but neither are they mutually exclusive.


The only who apparently implied that they are was the one who dismissed harmony while praising counterpoint. Keep up.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

consuono said:


> C, E and G is simply a triad, not a melodic line in itself. If you play it anywhere on the keyboard it's still only a triad. It can be a part of a melodic line, as in the Blue Danube waltz (though in another key). Can you think of any piece of music in which the *melody* consists only of broken chords? And no, not the Moonlight Sonata.


not at the moment, but that's just an example. I already said that for George Russell every scale is related to a chord. 
Harmonic implications aren't certainly limited to simple triads.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> Here's another atonal melody, which reminds me of late Beethoven (op 132 adagio)


The statement of the melody in the first 1 1/4 minutes sounds like a hybrid of tonal/atonal to me. The first 30 seconds or so sounded like almost purely tonal. It is a rather brooding melody which I had thought would lead to some interesting brooding tonal development, but...


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

hammeredklavier said:


> It can be a matter of getting familiar with the idiomatic language. While the Art of the fugue is not as diverse as the Well-tempered clavier in terms of melodic material or uplifting as the Goldberg variations, (and there is a bit of a "look ma, no hands" attitude), - the "catchiness" in the form of "passionate feelings" is still there, especially in contrapunti 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11, etc.
> I often listen to mid-18th century vocal and instrumental music and come across several idiomatically-similar contrapuntal works. For example, there's a lot of variations on the phrase 'D-C#-D-E-F' (which are also used by other 18th century composers), which makes me feel like I'm "at home".
> Probably because it's very well-crafted and jam-packed with interesting material as I mentioned earlier, it's "less boring" than, for example, this:
> 
> ...


An imo excellent classic AOTF is by Neville Marriner/ASMF on Philips.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Oops, sorry, need to read before commenting.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

consuono said:


> I don't really hear anything "atonal" in that. Beethoven himself labeled it as being in the Lydian mode. If anything it sounds a little medieval.


I'm referring to the Krenek melody (which was the subject of Mandryka's post), not the Beethoven.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

DaveM said:


> I'm referring to the Krenek melody (which was the subject of the post), not the Beethoven.


Yes, I know. Sorry, see above. I need to keep up too I guess


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

norman bates said:


> not at the moment, but that's just an example. I already said that for George Russell every scale is related to a chord. ...


Or chords are built from notes in a scale. I don't see the point.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

How the brain registers harmony and counterpoint couldn't be more different. Harmony decorates, counterpoint adds complexity and massages the brain.

Maybe for people with not such good ears it takes effort to decipher harmony but if you're a musician and it's automatic, there is nothing in it but decoration. Complex counterpoint actually requires you to listen.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

1996D said:


> How the brain registers harmony and counterpoint couldn't be more different. Harmony decorates, counterpoint adds complexity and massages the brain.
> 
> Maybe for people with not such good ears it takes effort to decipher harmony but if you're a musician and it's automatic, there is nothing in it but decoration. Complex counterpoint actually requires you to listen.


But I would still have my original objection: you're setting up a harmony-counterpoint dichotomy that isn't there, or at least isn't defined.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Form of course is what keeps you engaged and guessing, melody what brings depth and beauty. Then you can add variation with ornaments and extended techniques and embellish further with orchestration and harmony.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> But I would still have my original objection: you're setting up a harmony-counterpoint dichotomy that isn't there, or at least isn't defined.


I don't think so, harmony is closer to orchestration than to counterpoint in what it brings to the music.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

consuono said:


> Or chords are built from notes in a scale. I don't see the point.


the point is exactly what I was saying, that in a melody without any harmonic background (like a instrument playing chords) the harmony is still already implied, and we are able to perceive its harmonic center (or lack of it) and the key. It's not like that if one plays a melody using notes from a c major scale without a chord under we are not able to detect it's tonality. And we are able to detect also modulations to other keys.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

norman bates said:


> the point is exactly what I was saying, that in a melody without any harmonic background (like a instrument playing chords) the harmony is still already implied, and we are able to perceive its harmonic center (or lack of it) and the key. It's not like that if one plays a melody using notes from a c major scale without a chord under we are not able to detect it's tonality. And we are able to detect also modulations to other keys.


So if you play only the middle C on a piano, is there an implied harmony?


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

1996D said:


> How the brain registers harmony and counterpoint couldn't be more different. Harmony decorates, counterpoint adds complexity and massages the brain.
> 
> Maybe for people with not such good ears it takes effort to decipher harmony but if you're a musician and it's automatic, there is nothing in it but decoration. Complex counterpoint actually requires you to listen.


it doesn't look like a solid scientific theory. "counterpoints massages the brain" "harmony is decoration"... these are super vague sentences that at best describe your sensations and nothing else.

Melody is decoration too. Decoration of the time you're listening to it. What about it. See? I'm able too to write vague sentences that seem to point to something without actually explaining anything.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

consuono said:


> So if you play only the middle C on a piano, is there an implied harmony?


no, because there are no relations with other notes.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

DaveM said:


> The statement of the melody in the first 1 1/4 minutes sounds like a hybrid of tonal/atonal to me. The first 30 seconds or so sounded like almost purely tonal. It is a rather brooding melody which I had thought would lead to some interesting brooding tonal development, but...


I just can't tell whether somethings tonal or atonal! I don't know if it's a strength or a weakness. Actually I do know - it's a strength. Whatever distinction you guys are talking about on this thread is just a technical nerdy thing, irrelevant to anything important poetically, aesthetically.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

norman bates said:


> it doesn't look like a solid scientific theory. "counterpoints massages the brain" "harmony is decoration"... these are super vague sentences that at best describe your sensations and nothing else.
> 
> Melody is decoration too. Decoration of the time you're listening to it. What about it. See? I'm able too to write vague sentences that seem to point to something without actually explaining anything.


I'm not talking about normal harmony, I'm talking about focusing on it while composing and giving it center stage like many composers today do. You can do that with counterpoint because it's something very complex and Bach and Brahms certainly did that, but harmony simply isn't, I know there are attempts to make it so, but the ear will simply perceive it as atmospheric and decoration, and adding complexity will change the feeling instead of adding intelligence, and make the piece emotionally incongruent.

There are things like form and counterpoint that require intelligence, then there are things like harmony and orchestration that require taste - if you over-intellectualize harmony you're missing the point.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

1996D said:


> I'm not talking about normal harmony, I'm talking about focusing on it while composing and giving it center stage like many composers today do.


what does it mean "normal harmony"? 
By the way I think that the center stage in the best part of the twentieth century is mostly occupied by sound, and timbre, much more than harmony. 
Harmony has been a preoccupation mostly for all the composers from the baroque era to the impressionists and some composer influenced by the impressionists (like Messiaen).
But with Russolo, Varese, Cage, Xenakis, Stockhausen, the spectralists, the research on granular synthesis etc I don't see harmony that prominent.



1996D said:


> You can do that with counterpoint because it's something very complex and Bach and Brahms certainly did that, but harmony simply isn't, I know there are attempts to make it it so, but the ear will simply perceive it as atmospheric and decoration, and adding complexity will change the feeling instead of adding intelligence, and make the piece emotionally incongruent.


the ability to create atmosphere is a super great quality in my world. The ability to create atmosphere is a one of the things that make art great, why are you treating atmosphere like it's not a desirable quality? 
I would be proud to compose something like this:






Besides this, I don't think it's true at all that harmony without counterpoint is just "simple". I'm not able to throw whatever weird chords together and sound like Koechlin or Messiaen or Wagner, Ravel or Delius. 
And on the other hand, counterpoint has also it's expressive limitations, and expression is the important aspect with art. Harmony without counterpoint can do things that counterpoint isn't able to achieve.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

norman bates said:


> Besides this, I don't think it's true at all that harmony without counterpoint is just "simple". I'm not able to throw whatever weird chords together and sound like Koechlin or Messiaen or Wagner, Ravel or Delius.
> And on the other hand, counterpoint has also it's expressive limitations, and expression is the important aspect with art. Harmony without counterpoint can do things that counterpoint isn't able to achieve.


I agree that harmony is expression and that's related to taste. Harmony is something that expresses a raw feeling, while counterpoint is both intellectual and deep in what it's able to portray. It requires order and discipline, and can portray intelligence like nothing else can other than form.

The mistake is taking this approach to harmony because then you're trying to intellectualize feelings and those worlds are like oil and water. Harmony should come naturally and intuitively to what the composer can imagine of a feeling - It's not intellectual.

Messiaen does a good job because he's honest, his contemporaries not so much. They approach harmony like they do timbre and the music loses all genuine feeling.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

1996D said:


> I agree that harmony is expression and that's related to taste. Harmony is something that expresses a raw feeling, while counterpoint is both intellectual and deep in what it's able to portray. It requires order and discipline, and can portray intelligence like nothing else can other than form.
> 
> The mistake is taking this approach to harmony because then you're trying to intellectualize feelings and those worlds are like oil and water. Harmony should come naturally and intuitively to what the composer can imagine of a feeling - It's not intellectual.
> 
> Messiaen does a good job because he's honest, his contemporaries not so much. They approach harmony like they do timbre and the music loses all genuine feeling.


Are you a composer? I would be surprised if you composed this way. Most composers don't just write down whatever they are feeling in the moment for harmony. Most I know are meticulously sitting at their keyboard like: "hmm I wonder how this sounds here, hmm not quite, what about this..." so on and so forth. I would bet a good amount of money that Brahms composed in a similar way given how well crafted his music tends to be.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

violadude said:


> Are you a composer? I would be surprised if you composed this way. Most composers don't just write down whatever they are feeling in the moment for harmony. Most I know are meticulously sitting at their keyboard like: "hmm I wonder how this sounds here, hmm not quite, what about this..." so on and so forth. I would bet a good amount of money that Brahms composed in a similar way given how well crafted his music tends to be.


You use artistic imagination to portray a feeling, much like empathy; you imagine yourself in that experience, from that point of view. All artists do this, it's the very basis of art.

What you're describing is how they can get what's in their head into the world; some labour more than others at it. Brahms didn't he was a genius.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

1996D said:


> I agree that harmony is expression and that's related to taste. Harmony is something that expresses a raw feeling, while counterpoint is both intellectual and deep in what it's able to portray. It requires order and discipline, and can portray intelligence like nothing else can other than form.


that's again a meaningless generalization. It's not like Mozart and Beethoven and Brahms were always using counterpoint. And I don't even know what do you mean with "raw feeling". 
Also, the idea that counterpoint portrays "intelligence like nothing else can"... I don't even know what it means. I want to tell you one thing: years ago (now probably more decades ago) there was a scientist who started to use artificial intelligence to emulate the style of composers. And than the music produced by the computer was brought to an audience. BY FAR, the artificial intelligence was more successful replicating the music of Bach, to the point that the audience actually believed that those pieces were created by Bach. With other composers it was way less successful.
That's probably because counterpoint implies a restrictive set of rules (and that's why one of the criticism I've heard the most against Bach even on this forum is that his music sounds mechanic).
And while I love Bach I can perfectly understand that point.



1996D said:


> The mistake is taking this approach to harmony because then you're trying to intellectualize feelings and those worlds are like oil and water. Harmony should come naturally and intuitively to what the composer can imagine of a feeling - It's not intellectual.
> 
> Messiaen does a good job because he's honest, his contemporaries not so much. They approach harmony like they do timbre and the music loses all genuine feeling.


Messiaen did a good job not because he was "honest" but because he did a huge research about harmony and modes. He was extremely skilled. Harmony, especially advanced harmony is not simple at all, like counterpoint it requires a lot of skills and artistic sensitivity.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

norman bates said:


> Messiaen did a good job not because he was "honest" but because he did a huge research about harmony and modes. He was extremely skilled. Harmony, especially advanced harmony is not simple at all, like counterpoint it requires a lot of skills and artistic sensitivity.


Yes, sensitivity, but it's not intellectual like counterpoint is, you can't toil at it until you become proficient. Messiaen sought to express very particular feelings and embodied them successfully, and that's his accomplishment as an artist not a craftsman.

I don't generally enjoy his point of view, but he was a very successful artist. Others that are purely intellectual, meticulous composers aren't artists, they're craftsmen. Bach had both sides as did all the greats.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

norman bates said:


> no, because there are no relations with other notes.


Sure there are. There is an implied C major triad, for one. Or A flat major. Or C minor. Or F major/minor.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

consuono said:


> But I would still have my original objection: you're setting up a harmony-counterpoint dichotomy that isn't there, or at least isn't defined.


Jazz is more interested in what notes of a scale sound the most harmonically congruent with a chord.

So jazz has more of a _harmonic_ priority than classical.

The most obvious example is the C major scale in the key of C. Russell prefers the Lydian scale, because it is more harmonically congruent with the key, and creates a stronger key sense. I already talked about this elsewhere.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

1996D said:


> You use artistic imagination to portray a feeling, much like empathy; you imagine yourself in that experience, from that point of view. All artists do this, it's the very basis of art.
> 
> What you're describing is how they can get what's in their head into the world; some labour more than others at it. Brahms didn't he was a genius.


Sorry, but as someone who has spent time in the world of composition, this is just simply not how most professional composers operate. They don't imagine pieces fully formed within themselves and then just need to figure out how to transcribe it. There's usually just some initial inspiration, be it a theme, or a feeling or whatever and after that is endless amounts of tinkering, chasing that initial inspiration until it starts forming into an actual piece of music. It's a much more meticulous, "craftmanship-like" process than you make it sound. I mean, everyone composes differently I suppose. Maybe Mozart wrote down compositions fully formed from his head like the records say, but for the majority of us mortal composers this is basically how it happens with some variation from person to person.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

1996D said:


> Yes, sensitivity, but it's not intellectual like counterpoint is, you can't toil at it until you become proficient. Messiaen sought to express very particular feelings and embodied them successfully, and that's his accomplishment as an artist not a craftsman.
> 
> I don't generally enjoy his point of view, but he was a very successful artist. Others that are purely intellectual, meticulous composers aren't artists, they're craftsmen. Bach had both sides as did all the greats.


I don't know if you can so easily separate counterpoint and harmony as concepts. Back in the early classical/late Baroque when systems of harmony as we know it were being developed, harmony was thought of as a by-product of counterpoint. In fact, when we learn counterpoint and harmony in school, they lead directly into each other since the way you develop good harmonic voice leading is by having an understanding of counterpoint.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

violadude said:


> Sorry, but as someone who has spent time in the world of composition, this is just simply not how most professional composers operate. They don't imagine pieces fully formed within themselves and then just need to figure out how to transcribe it. There's usually just some initial inspiration, be it a theme, or a feeling or whatever and after that is endless amounts of tinkering, chasing that initial inspiration until it starts forming into an actual piece of music. It's a much more meticulous, "craftmanship-like" process than you make it sound. I mean, everyone composes differently I suppose. Maybe Mozart wrote down compositions fully formed from his head like the records say, but for the majority of us mortal composers this is basically how it happens with some variation from person to person.


They are craftsmen not artists, just as film composers are closer to artisans than to painters or poets. They are tailoring what they write to precise specifications, that's not art. Schoenberg and Messiaen actually felt the depth of their horror, it might be ugly, but it's true, it's art.

Today you have the timbre/experimental composers on one side and the mercenary composers on the other, but no artists.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

1996D said:


> They are craftsmen not artists, just as film composers are closer to artisans than to painters or poets. They are tailoring what they write to precise specifications, that's not art. Schoenberg and Messiaen actually felt the depth of their horror, it might be ugly, but it's true, it's art. . . .


This may apply to some film composers, but certainly not all, and certainly not historically. If what Schoenberg and Messiaen are doing is art, then I want nothing of that kind.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

1996D said:


> *They are craftsmen not artists,* just as film composers are closer to artisans than to painters or poets. They are tailoring what they write to precise specifications, that's not art. Schoenberg and Messiaen actually felt the depth of their horror, it might be ugly, but it's true, it's art.
> 
> Today you have the timbre/experimental composers on one side and the mercenary composers on the other, but no artists.


Those are two parts of the same thing. Artistry itself is like, 10% inspiration, 90% craft. The same was true back then as it is now. Why do you think Beethoven kept so many sketchbooks? Not enough true honest inspiration from the heart?


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

violadude said:


> Those are two parts of the same thing. Artistry itself is like, 10% inspiration, 90% craft. The same was true back then as it is now. Why do you think Beethoven kept so many sketchbooks? Not enough true honest inspiration from the heart?


Beethoven had a lot of creativity, so much he had to work endlessly to tame it; that's why he focused on form so much. You know what an artisan is right? You commission a wood sculpture to specification and he hand engraves it; you want a bespoke suit? He builds it for you exactly how you want it. This is what film composers do, the director rejects the score until he gets exactly what he want for his movie - to his exact specifications. They are artisans.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

1996D said:


> Yes, sensitivity, but it's not intellectual like counterpoint is, you can't toil at it until you become proficient.


I think you're just wrong about this, at least if I think of many of my favorite musicians. I said few days ago how I don't find anything wrong with cerebrality and that some of my favorite music is indeed very cerebral. And I wasn't thinking of musicians who use counterpoint. Or better, not just them. 
And for one, some serialist music is very intellectual: Webern's music is a perfect example.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

1996D said:


> Today you have the timbre/experimental composers on one side and the mercenary composers on the other, but no artists.


What does that make the composer of that music to Plato's texts?

Tchaikovsky said that inspiration is a guest that does not willingly come to the lazy, Williams that it comes in the 8th hour of labour, and Shostakovich that waiting for inspiration is stupid. What is your take?


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

consuono said:


> Sure there are. There is an implied C major triad, for one. Or A flat major. Or C minor. Or F major/minor.


In what way? I think harmony and melody are based on how notes interact with other notes. Is the relationship with the other frequencies that creates what we call harmonies and melodies and rhythms.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

JAS said:


> This may apply to some film composers, but certainly not all, and certainly not historically. If what Schoenberg and Messiaen are doing is art, then I want nothing of that kind.


I don't like them either but they were inspired artists with a message. It's better if art has an uplifting, inspiring message, but the last century wasn't that.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

1996D said:


> Beethoven had a lot of creativity, so much he had to work endlessly to tame it; that's why he focused on form so much. You know what an artisan is right? You commission a wood sculpture to specification and he hand engraves it; you want a bespoke suit? He builds it for you exactly how you want it. This is what film composers do, the director rejects the score until he gets exactly what he want for his movie - to his exact specifications. They are artisans.


that's actually what a lot of composers of the past, included some of the most celebrated ones did too: work on commissions made by kings and aristocrats to meet their desires.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Fabulin said:


> What does that make the composer of that music to Plato's texts?
> 
> Tchaikovsky said that inspiration is a guest that does not willingly come to the lazy, Williams that it comes in the 8th hour of labour, and Shostakovich that waiting for inspiration is stupid. What is your take?


I agree with them, but at the same time it's a gift and you have no control over it, and there is hard work because even if it's intuitive it's exhausting to compose; it leaves you drained creatively and emotionally. All art is like that, you have to be quite strong to withstand the ups and downs. Inspiration is a high and the emotions are taxing because what comes up must come down.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

norman bates said:


> that's actually what a lot of composers of the past, included some of the most celebrated ones did too: work on commissions made by kings and aristocrats to meet their desires.


Of course not, even in opera Mozart and the like were free. I don't think you understand that a director has control and can reject a score at will - Mozart had no director, only a mandate, an authorization. Wagner and the Italians were also free to compose at their whim.

Comparing film to opera is foolish, there would have to be a Charlie Chaplin today that does everything for there to be a comparison.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

norman bates said:


> that's actually what a lot of composers of the past, included some of the most celebrated ones did too: work on commissions made by kings and aristocrats to meet their desires.


And in many cases, the meager abilities of the nobles who were to play them. Even when that was not the case, the commission might be very specific in terms of the instruments, the tone and something of the length.



1996D said:


> Of course not, even in opera Mozart and the like were free. I don't think you understand that a director has control and can reject a score at will - Mozart had no director, only a mandate, an authorization. Wagner and the Italians were also free to compose at their whim.


I believe that Wikipedia is correct when it notes that "The libretto was approved by the Emperor before any music was written by Mozart." A libretto by definition would impose restrictions on Mozart's freedom.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

1996D said:


> Of course not, even in opera Mozart and the like were free. I don't think you understand that a director has control and can reject a score at will - Mozart had no director, only a mandate, an authorization. Wagner and the Italians were also free to compose at their whim..


and how do you know that Mozart was not limiting himself in some ways? He had to first please kings and aristocrats. That's why the figure of the artist as we consider them now began in the 19th century, probably with Beethoven. The thing is, you're talking of artisans like they are not free so their work is inferior, but actually composers like Bach and Mozart had the same limitations: they had to please others first of all. While a lot of musicians in this century (including a lot of mediocre and awful musicians) make music only to please themselves. While artistic freedom is a desirable thing, the fact that a work is made on commission doesn't makes it necessarily bad or inferior, and at the same time music done without any restriction is not necessarily better.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

JAS said:


> I believe that Wikipedia is correct when it notes that "The libretto was approved by the Emperor before any music was written by Mozart." A libretto by definition would impose restrictions on Mozart's freedom.


But by no means was the emperor ready to direct Mozart in his composing or had anything to do with the art, he simply ensured everything was to taste. Are Mozart's operas of inferior quality and limited when compared to his concertos and sonatas where he would've had complete freedom? There is no limitation in any of Mozart's works, on the contrary they are extremely rich in creative content. Film scores today are very limited, they are artisanal works in every sense of the word.

Perhaps it's the fact that the kings were concerned with art while producers today are concerned with making money.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

1996D said:


> But by no means was the emperor ready to direct Mozart in his composing or had anything to do with the art, he simply ensured everything was to taste. Are Mozart's operas of inferior quality and limited when compared to his concertos and sonatas where he would've had complete freedom? There is no limitation in any of Mozart's works, on the contrary they are extremely rich in creative content. Film scores today are very limited, they are artisanal works in every sense of the word.
> 
> Perhaps it's the fact that the kings were concerned with art while producers today are concerned with making money.


But a director isn't really doing much more than that in most cases. I think the idea that composers of the past were entirely free agents, without restriction or concerns about what they created, is a fantasy. There are composers today who perhaps enjoy much more freedom in what they compose, but most of them aren't relying on composition for their basic income.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

1996D said:


> But by no means was the emperor ready to direct Mozart in his composing or had anything to do with the art, he simply ensured everything was to taste. Are Mozart's operas of inferior quality and limited when compared to his concertos and sonatas where he would've had complete freedom? There is no limitation in any of Mozart's works, on the contrary they are extremely rich in creative content. Film scores today are very limited, they are artisanal works in every sense of the word.
> 
> Perhaps it's the fact that the kings were concerned with art while producers today are concerned with making money.


Or maybe Kings were concerned with their own taste.
As said, freedom is desirable thing but does not equate superior quality.
Frank Lloyd Wright was probably the greatest architect of all times, he was innovative, he produced an endless list of amazing works that can be defined without question as art, and he basically worked on commission during all his long life.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

(although it must be admitted that Lloyd was not such a great architect that his buildings were able to survive their context or design. Falling Water is lovely mostly due to the setting, and it had serious problems from the beginning. I might even put Christopher Wren or Alexander Jackson Davis over Wright.)


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

JAS said:


> But a director isn't really doing much more than that in most cases. I think the idea that composers of the past were entirely free agents, without restriction or concerns about what they created, is a fantasy. There are composers today who perhaps enjoy much more freedom in what they compose, but most of them aren't relying on composition for their basic income.


The thing is today every theme a composer writes for a movie is no longer his to use, or any variation, there are very strict terms surrounding that, so it makes sense to be economical with thematic material. It's all very money oriented, perhaps extremely so.

Composers who don't write for film are almost all writing atonal of non melody driven music.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

1996D said:


> The thing is today every theme a composer writes for a movie is no longer his to use, or any variation, there are very strict terms surrounding that, so it makes sense to be economical with thematic material. It's all very money oriented, perhaps extremely so.


I don't think that this is true. I also think that a big driver for the very generic scores that we mostly get today is that films are still being tested and edited right down to the release date, which is a problem for a score that is finely connected to a particular cut.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

JAS said:


> I don't think that this is true. I also think that a big driver for the very generic scores that we mostly get today is that films are still being tested and edited right down to the release date, which is a problem for a score that is finely connected to a particular cut.


It's true, the studio owns everything. Now that we're getting richer and that more rights are being given to people perhaps it'll change. Movies are fast food though, it's to be expected that the music matches the product.

Brando said it best: "There are no artists, there are only people like you and me who make money."


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

1996D said:


> It's true, the studio owns everything. Now that we're getting richer and that more rights are being given to people perhaps it'll change. Movie are fast food though, it's to be expected that the music matches the product.
> 
> Brando said it best: "there is no art in this country, all we do is make money."


Uh, you know movies aren't the only classical music being made, and there are certainly record companies that are sympathetic toward artistic freedom. They may not be mainstream but they exist. I just don't understand why people just point to the mainstream and act like that's all that exists.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

1996D said:


> The thing is today *every* theme a composer writes for a movie is no longer his to use, or any variation, there are very strict terms surrounding that, so it makes sense to be economical with thematic material...


That simply isn't true. You have a way of making some very broad statements that can easily be fact-checked. Some film composers, particularly less established, may not own some or all of their music. For instance, there is a current issue over Netflix demanding ownership of all music composed for their productions.

On the other hand, many if not all established composers such as Morricone, Silverstri, Horner, Edelman and Zimmer will own some or maybe even all -though the latter is less likely- of their music.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

JAS said:


> (although it must be admitted that Lloyd was not such a great architect that his buildings were able to survive their context or design.


Personally I can't think of an architect who have built things that have aged as gracefully as a huge amount of his buldings.



JAS said:


> Falling Water is lovely mostly due to the setting, and it had serious problems from the beginning. I might even put Christopher Wren or Alexander Jackson Davis over Wright.)


Falling water had serious problems from the beginning (like the cantilevered terraces that needed a serious intervention, and water dropping from the ceiling), but 1. setting is a big part of all architecture, altough it's generally a untold secret 2. Wright had tons of merits nonetheless (and a lot of architects would had ruined the landscape, instead of enhancing it, and Fallingwater is a gorgeous building) 3. a lot of architecture has problems of some kind.

And in any case it was an example: all architects work on commission. Michelangelo and Raphael worked on commission. My point was just to say that it's perfectly possible to be someone who is hired to please someone else and produce amazing art at the same time.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

DaveM said:


> That simply isn't true. You have a way of making some very broad statements that can easily be fact-checked. Some film composers, particularly less established, may not own some or all of their music. For instance, there is a current issue over Netflix demanding ownership of all music composed for their productions.
> 
> On the other hand, many if not all established composers such as Morricone, Silverstri, Horner, Edelman and Zimmer will own some or maybe even all -though the latter is less likely- of their music.


The music they own is the music they don't write for movies, the studio owns every theme otherwise and only they can sell it under the movie's brand.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

violadude said:


> Uh, you know movies aren't the only classical music being made, and there are certainly record companies that are sympathetic toward artistic freedom. They may not be mainstream but they exist. I just don't understand why people just point to the mainstream and act like that's all that exists.


Because that's what people have access to. It won't be forever but right now it's not wise to release music in any way; if you write for a movie it'll be crap and if you write independently it'll be buried.

Things change though, we're heading for a couple of decades of big change in every facet.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

1996D said:


> The music they own is the music they don't write for movies, the studio owns every theme otherwise and only they can sell it under the movie's brand.


Headline: '_Hans Zimmer has received more than just a win in a copyright infringement case - he also received an apology from a fellow composer who now says he mistakenly sued the Oscar-winner over the music for 12 Years a Slave._

Note that it was Zimmer and not the studio that won the suit.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

DaveM said:


> Headline: '_Hans Zimmer has received more than just a win in a copyright infringement case - he also received an apology from a fellow composer who now says he mistakenly sued the Oscar-winner over the music for 12 Years a Slave._
> 
> Note that it was Zimmer and not the studio that won the suit.


This only proves my point, composers will use thematic material economically, it's a business.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

1996D said:


> This only proves my point, composers will use thematic material economically, it's a business.


No, your point that I responded to was: '_every theme a composer writes for a movie is no longer his to use_'


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

DaveM said:


> No, your point that I responded to was: '_every theme a composer writes for a movie is no longer his to use_'


That's true, Zimmer simply proved he didn't use the same theme, of course his millions helped. Anyway, it's a business and that's why it's stuck in the mud artistically.

To say that there isn't any more tonal music to write to explain the state of music is a pathetic excuse, there are infinite melodies and infinite possibilities. Mathematically there are so many unexplored melodies.

The reason there isn't good new music may be completely because of film and the business that it is. Every talented composer becomes a mercenary and a merchant instead of an artist. Atonal music has no use so they're happy to keep navel gazing for the tens of people that listen to them.

The point is music has so much more potential and it only needs a change in society for it to flourish again, and that seems to be happening right now.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

1996D said:


> Because that's what people have access to. It won't be forever but right now it's not wise to release music in any way; if you write for a movie it'll be crap and if you write independently it'll be buried.
> 
> Things change though, we're heading for a couple of decades of big change in every facet.


What do you mean "have access to"? Last I checked, Spotify and apple music have plenty of new classical "not made for movies" albums. Amazon carries even more, especially for those still willing to buy physical CDs or records.

The problem isn't access, just exposure.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

1996D said:


> Today you have the timbre/experimental composers on one side and the mercenary composers on the other, but no artists.


Statements like "today there are no artists" are problematic since many would disagree with you. Many would point to composers producing wonderful, moving works that you would simply say are no good. That gets us nowhere. You don't like the music because it doesn't fit with what you find enjoyable, interesting, moving, etc., but others would say they do find it all of those things. I don't need a good melody to find a work exceptional, but I think, maybe, you do. Fine, you don't like contemporary or modern music. Some don't like Renaissance or Baroque or Classical or Romantic music, but that doesn't mean artists didn't compose then.



1996D said:


> The point is music has so much more potential and it only needs a change in society for it to flourish again, and that seems to be happening right now.


Could you be more explicit about how it's happening now or give examples?


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

violadude said:


> What do you mean "have access to"? Last I checked, Spotify and apple music have plenty of new classical "not made for movies" albums. Amazon carries even more, especially for those still willing to buy physical CDs or records.
> 
> The problem isn't access, just exposure.


Are they writing at the classical level? Of course not there has to be a stage and a purpose for such music to be written - there is nothing saying that it can't be surpassed either. If there was a coup and a dictator emerged that likes music, and commissions a work to glorify his regime, now that would be a stage. Just an example in the vein of Shostakovich.

High art needs patronage, it doesn't just appear, and if it does it still needs national promotion.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

1996D said:


> Are they writing at the classical level? Of course not there has to be a stage and a purpose for such music to be written - there is nothing saying that it can't be surpassed either. If there was a coup and a dictator emerged that likes music, and commissions a work to glorify his regime, now that would be a stage. Just an example in the vein of Shostakovich.
> 
> High art needs patronage, it doesn't just appear, and if it does it still needs national promotion.


I don't know what you mean "on a classical level". Public performances don't count as stage and purpose? I don't even really know what you're saying anymore.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

violadude said:


> I don't know what you mean "on a classical level". Public performances don't count as stage and purpose? I don't even really know what you're saying anymore.


The level is very low, and there is hardly anyone hearing the performances.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

1996D said:


> The level is very low, and there is hardly anyone hearing the performances.


Right. So this just boils down to "I don't like the classical music written today". That's okay.

But listen, one time when I was in college I tried writing a minimalist style piece of music for a percussion ensemble. When I heard it performed I realized it was an absolute disaster, the pacing was all off, the textures didn't blend like I thought they would etc.

Point being, you can not like the music, but saying it doesn't take skill or isn't good because it focuses on aspects of music you're less interested in is just false.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

violadude said:


> Right. So this just boils down to "I don't like the classical music written today". That's okay.


Not at all, there are levels to this game, there is a thing called musicology. There is analysis, there are very tangible artistic accomplishments and goals.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

1996D said:


> Not at all, there are levels to this game, there is a thing called musicology. There is analysis, there are very tangible artistic accomplishments and goals.


Right. And how many musicologists in the field are in agreement with you?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

1996D said:


> Not at all, there are levels to this game, there is a thing called musicology. There is analysis, there are very tangible artistic accomplishments and goals.


Right. And how many musicologists in the field are in agreement with you? Cause all of my music professors were working professionals and I don't know any that would.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

violadude said:


> Right. And how many musicologists in the field are in agreement with you? Cause all of my music professors were working professionals and I don't know any that would.


High level musicians know that the music of the past is on a completely different level. Why do you think they still record it and tour playing it while ignoring everything contemporary? Any musicologist that has analyzed Mozart and Beethoven and their incredible complexity and creativity also knows they're on a different level.

There is no debate, teachers might cover it up or make it seem like it's just different, but they also happen to be rewriting history and encouraging taking down statues... so that's that.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

1996D said:


> High level musicians know that the music of the past is on a completely different level. Why do you think they still record it and tour playing it while ignoring everything contemporary? Any musicologist that has analyzed Mozart and Beethoven and their incredible complexity and creativity also knows they're on a different level.
> 
> There is no debate, teachers might cover it up or make it seem like it's just different, but they also happen to be rewriting history and encouraging taking down statues... so that's that.


Alright buddy, I think I get where you're coming from here. :lol:


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

1996D said:


> ...There is no debate, teachers might cover it up or make it seem like it's just different, but they also happen to be rewriting history and encouraging *taking down statues.*..


You mean those dastardly contemporary music teachers are stooping to encouraging tearing down the statues of our heroes???


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

1996D said:


> High level musicians know that the music of the past is on a completely different level. Why do you think they still record it and tour playing it while ignoring everything contemporary?


oh, the answer to this is extremely simple: money.
Classical music has become a museum, where the only way to survive is to please the audience playing the popular composers of the past.
It does not have anything to do with culture or quality (and I'm not saying that some of that music isn't indeed of very high quality), that's not the real reason.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

norman bates said:


> oh, the answer to this is extremely simple: money.
> Classical music has become a museum, where the only way to survive is to please the audience playing the popular composers of the past.
> *It does not have anything to do with culture or quality* (and I'm not saying that some of that music isn't indeed of very high quality), that's not the real reason.


"Nothing to do with culture or quality", really? You disdain the public for prefering great art of masters of the past? For prefering what it can give them?


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

DaveM said:


> You mean those dastardly contemporary music teachers are stooping to encouraging tearing down the statues of our heroes???
> 
> View attachment 140385


You get the point, professors are always at the forefront of revolutions, they're always looking to stir **** up. If Beethoven was American and owned a slave or two he'd be a goner you can bet on that lol.

Anyway change is change no matter how it comes, this money obsessed culture has to go eventually.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

1996D said:


> You get the point, professors are always at the forefront of revolutions, they're always looking to stir **** up. If Beethoven was American and owned a slave or two he'd be a goner you can bet on that lol.
> 
> Anyway change is change no matter how it comes, this money obsessed culture has to go eventually.


Oh boy...

I wanna say something, but the mods wouldn't appreciate it. So I will refrain.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

violadude said:


> Oh boy..."Owned a slave or two"?
> 
> I wanna say something, but the mods wouldn't appreciate it. So I will refrain.


It's looking like there will be a lot of renaming of places soon, and history will be rewritten, it's really happening. A little humour doesn't hurt does it..


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Fabulin said:


> "Nothing to do with culture or quality", really? You disdain the public for prefering great art of masters of the past? For prefering what it can give them?


I wonder why you bolded that part when immediately after I've specified what I meant in the brackets.
So I'm not sure if writing it again could be useful but: yes, while a lot of that music of the past is indeed of very high quality, the fact that it's played again and again is due much more to economic reasons than to its quality. If something is beautiful but nobody knows it, being it a modern piece or a old piece, there would be very little space for it. Even just looking at the past, something extremely beautiful like The stabat mater of Pergolesi isn't even remotely popular as Verdi or Puccini. Same for the music of Gesualdo. It's because that music is less beautiful? I don't think so. It's just because it doesn't sell enough.
You are free to have a different opinion, but I think that a big part of the audience prefers safe and known repertory. There's not a lot of curiosity for everything that is different, old or (even less) modern.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

1996D said:


> It's looking like there will be a lot of renaming of places soon, and history will be rewritten, it's really happening. A little humour doesn't hurt does it..


It's best to read a tad bit about history before complaining that "history" will be rewritten.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

1996D said:


> It's looking like there will be a lot of renaming of places soon, and history will be rewritten, it's really happening. A little humour doesn't hurt does it..


Statues aren't history, statues aren't where you learn history. Statues are for honoring people. And for some people, certain figures are no longer worthy of honor.

I promise the Beethoven statue will be okay.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

violadude said:


> Statues aren't history, statues aren't where you learn history. Statues are for honoring people. And for some people, certain figures are no longer worthy of honor.
> 
> I promise the Beethoven statue will be okay.


Who knows, maybe it's deemed to be elitist, maybe there will be a quota of how many white men can have a statue, maybe it's between him and Goethe. Change is happening and change is to a degree uncertain, unpredictable. I have an idea where things are going but not down to the details.

Humour does help, never take things too seriously.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

violadude said:


> Alright buddy, I think I get where you're coming from here. :lol:


You might want to look at 1996D's other threads, if you would like to know him better. :lol:



1996D said:


> Music is a language, even more rooted in the soul than any other, and it narrates very concrete and identifiable emotions which every human being can feel, and with practice and experience, learn to love within themselves. Atonality is simply not a human language.





1996D said:


> I'll return to what Bernstein said of the music of the future "Eclectic but tonal".


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> You might want to look at 1996D's other threads, if you would like to know him better. :lol:


You should've quoted Schopenhauer on how music is the underlying essence of everything "the metaphysical principle to the physical world".


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

1996D said:


> It's looking like there will be a lot of renaming of places soon, and history will be rewritten, it's really happening. A little humour doesn't hurt does it..


Your #200 post which I purposely avoided quoting is extremely distasteful, offensive and not in the least humorous. You would best edit and remove the 2nd sentence while you can. I hope that anyone who quoted that sentence or referred to it will edit their posts.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

violadude said:


> ...certain figures are no longer worthy of honor.


The thing is, who's deciding that? I never voted on such a matter.


> I promise the Beethoven statue will be okay.


The same thing was said about the Thomas Jefferson ones.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

consuono said:


> The same thing was said about the Thomas Jefferson ones.


Just a perspective from an outsider.

Hypothetically, if it turns out that Beethoven sexually abused teenage Karl for decades and own many slaves (who are born as slaves) in plantations, and promoted other races are intellectually inferior in his music, and also part-time as the King of Prussia, I would at least give people the benefit of the doubt if they are angry at Beethoven's statue which enshrines him as a demigod that everyone should look up to, you know.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Just a perspective from an outsider.
> 
> Hypothetically, if it turns out that Beethoven sexually abused teenage Karl for decades and own many slaves (who are born as slaves) in plantations, and promoted other races are intellectually inferior in his music, ...


...then let's have a community discussion and decision about it, and not the fiat of the neo-Red Guards.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

consuono said:


> ...then let's have a community discussion and decision about it, and not the fiat of the neo-Red Guards.


Who are these "neo-red guards"? In what way are they "red"? Aren't most of those statues removed by local governments?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Just a perspective from an outsider.
> Hypothetically, if it turns out that Beethoven sexually abused teenage Karl for decades and own many slaves (who are born as slaves) in plantations, and promoted other races are intellectually inferior in his music, and also part-time as the King of Prussia, I would at least give people the benefit of the doubt if they are angry at Beethoven's statue which enshrines him as a demigod that everyone should look up to, you know.


JOURNAL ARTICLE
Black Beethoven and the Racial Politics of Music History
Nicholas T. Rinehart
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/transition.112.117?seq=1
Was Beethoven black? Twitter debates German composer's true heritage
https://www.classicfm.com/composers/beethoven/was-black-twitter-debates-african-heritage/
NEW WEBSITE CLAIMS "BEETHOVEN WAS AFRICAN"
While the theory is decades old, the new site claims that Ludwig van Beethoven's Piano Sonatas contain African polyrhythms.
https://www.limelightmagazine.com.au/news/new-website-claims-beethoven-was-african/


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Who are these "neo-red guards"? In what way are they "red"?


So now we have to have exact evidence, and not just inference. They're at least as "red" and "neo-Red Guards" as their opponents are "fascists" and "Nazis".


> Aren't most of those statues removed by local governments?


Most of them have been torn down, carried off and dumped in the nearest large body of water or such, or they came down after some tussle with police guarding them. It hasn't been the result of a community vote. And it hasn't just been statues of obvious "politically incorrect" um, miscreants who should be shoved down the memory hole.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> JOURNAL ARTICLE
> Black Beethoven and the Racial Politics of Music History
> Nicholas T. Rinehart
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/transition.112.117?seq=1
> ...


It's just a fan theory that he is a descendent of Moors. What's the big deal? There are crazier theories all over the world. There are people who spent their whole life proving there is alien among us (former Canadian defense secretary). How is this a thing?

If this is far-fetched, then why "worry about it"?

If this is not far-fetched, then what difference does it make really? Does anything he wrote change all of a sudden?


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

> I would at least give people the benefit of the doubt if they are angry at Beethoven's statue which enshrines him as a demigod that everyone should look up to, you know.


But others might not be quite as angry, or might want a fuller discussion of the evidence against Beethoven before erasing him as double-plus-ungood, and then put the thing to a vote. Again the question would be, who's setting the righteousness standard? What infractions are allowed, and which ones require cancellation?


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

consuono said:


> Most of them have been torn down, carried off and dumped in the nearest large body of water or such, or they came down after some tussle with police guarding them. It hasn't been the result of a community vote. And it hasn't just been statues of obvious "politically incorrect" um, miscreants who should be shoved down the memory hole.


A quick search in Wikipedia shows that most of the removal are decisions of the local government, which means most of the removal are legitimate. For states that are illegal to do so, people are charged felonies for doing it.



consuono said:


> So now we have to have exact evidence, and not just inference. They're at least as "red" and "neo-Red Guards" as their opponents are "fascists" and "Nazis".


I happen to read quite a bit about Communism, Maoism, and Fascism. The analogy to "red guard" seems superficial to me, "culture revolution" happened in an extremely authorativative state, legitimized by a deified supreme leader, which is of a completely different nature. The radical activism in the US seems to be not that "radical" at all (because it does not target the root of the status quo power), but quite tame (but I am an outsider, what do I know). I will not talk about Fascism because I don't want to ruin someone's day here.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

consuono said:


> But others might not be quite as angry, or might want a fuller discussion of the evidence against Beethoven before erasing him as double-plus-ungood, and then put the thing to a vote. Again the question would be, who's setting the righteousness standard? What infractions are allowed, and which ones require cancellation?


Yes yes, angry people are not be reasoned with. But the evidence has always been there in the case of the founding fathers, I don't think there is even a serious debate on the history, it's just that every nation has certain myths that keep propagating generation after generation. Sometimes the bubble burst.

When I was reading some of the Federalist papers, I thought that the founding fathers of America were the greatest people that have ever lived on earth. But I was young and naive once.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Yes yes, angry people are not be reasoned with. But the evidence has always been there in the case of the founding fathers, I don't think there is even a serious debate on the history, it's just that every nation has certain myths that keep propagating generation after generation. Sometimes the bubble burst.


But then there aren't really any that are righteous anyway, so nobody should be honored. The "evidence has always been there", but the thing is that it's the totality of a person's contributions that are being honored. The new arbitrary dogma is that any positive is meaningless and totally negated in the face of transgressions that *now* are recognized as such. The question still remains as to who's setting the standard, and what the basis for action is. Community/democratic involvement, or just the diktats of The Angry?


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

> When I was reading some of the Federalist papers, I thought that the founding fathers of America were the greatest people that have ever lived on earth. But I was young and naive once.


They were brilliant thinkers. Not very many except the most blindly "patriotic" ever claimed sainthood and utmost probity for them. They were brilliant and flawed.


> I happen to read quite a bit about Communism, Maoism, and Fascism. The analogy to "red guard" seems superficial to me, "culture revolution" happened in an extremely authorativative state, legitimized by a deified supreme leader, which is of a completely different nature. The radical activism in the US seems to be not that "radical" at all (because it does not target the root of the status quo power), but quite tame (but I am an outsider, what do I know). I will not talk about Fascism because I don't want to ruin someone's day here.


The Red Guard mindset is what matters and what is a very valid basis for comparison. But if you like, substitute "Bolshevik" for it. I know, I know, "the left" is never really "the left" because they're never really "leftist enough", but yet there are always "fascists" and "Nazis" everywhere.

I'll drop the topic with that.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

consuono said:


> The Red Guard mindset is what matters and what is a very valid basis for comparison. But if you like, substitute "Bolshevik" for it. I know, I know, "the left" is never really "the left" because they're never really "leftist enough", but yet there are always "fascists" and "Nazis" everywhere.
> 
> I'll drop the topic with that.


Meh if a "red guard" mindset means no longer propping up pretty inhumane dudes that have been overly-mythologized in our culture, then okay. I'm down with the comparison.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

violadude said:


> Meh if a "red guard" mindset means no longer propping up pretty inhumane dudes that have been overly-mythologized in our culture, then okay. I'm down with the comparison.


It doesn't end like you might like, though. I'm down with that.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

consuono said:


> It doesn't end like you might like, though. I'm down with that.


Oh? How does it end?


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

violadude said:


> Oh? How does it end?


In utopia of course, duh. I'm done.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

consuono said:


> In utopia of course, duh. I'm done.


Well, I'm just hoping it ends with politicians finally taking note of the demand for police reform. But utopia is good too.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

consuono said:


> But then there aren't really any that are righteous anyway, so nobody should be honored. The "evidence has always been there", but the thing is that it's the totality of a person's contributions that are being honored. The new arbitrary dogma is that any positive is meaningless and totally negated in the face of transgressions that *now* are recognized as such. The question still remains as to who's setting the standard, and what the basis for action is. Community/democratic involvement, or just the diktats of The Angry?


I agree that such social interaction should be avoided and not the way forward. But there is no neutral reference point (standard) in this. People who lived in the USSR might hate Lenin for purges and Gulag but as long as the status quo power or the ruling ideology endorses it, his statue will stand because he was the greatest revolutionary ever. People who had suffered will hate him and staunch Leninists will applaud him for doing what was necessary.

The founding fathers were perhaps "better" people than Lenin but they were also in much better circumstances. Their flaws were very serious for some but minor for others. There is no neutral reference in this.

The US has been caught up in partisan rhetorics and a huge ideological war, the room for enlightened discussion is still here but it does not narrow the gap. The "far-left" is a reaction to the far-right which has taken the real power (even US democrats are right-wing). If the silent majority does not step up and get involved in your so-called "community/democratic" process, then it will be sh*tshow. And yes, during radicalization, it's safer to be the most radical (left and right). So we (you) are already in deep water.

If people really respect the founding fathers, people should read their best works and become better US citizens. Culture conservatism (not in the libertarian sense) is a sign of weakness or self-defense of certain traditional values, IMO. A dominant culture does not need to be protected, it naturally assimilates and reinvents itself and grows on "foreign" influences. The majority of the great empires of history (Imperial Rome, Umayyad, Tang, Ottoman, British Empire etc) had been open to different foreign cultures because they are confident and self-assured.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

consuono said:


> They were brilliant thinkers. Not very many except the most blindly "patriotic" ever claimed sainthood and utmost probity for them. They were brilliant and flawed.
> The Red Guard mindset is what matters and what is a very valid basis for comparison. But if you like, substitute "Bolshevik" for it. I know, I know, "the left" is never really "the left" because they're never really "leftist enough", but yet there are always "fascists" and "Nazis" everywhere.


We are living in a post-industrialized world, the base for "Bolshevik" is the base for the current POTUS.


----------



## Guest (Jul 27, 2020)

JAS said:


> This may apply to some film composers, but certainly not all, and certainly not historically. If what Schoenberg and Messiaen are doing is art, then I want nothing of that kind.


I find Messiaen's _Turangalila _uplifting.

The "Is it art?" debate is an irrelevance.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

MacLeod said:


> I find Messiaen's _Turangalila _uplifting.
> 
> The "Is it art?" debate is an irrelevance.


Turanglila is a wonderful symphony, but Pierre Boulez called it "vomit" and "brothel music". I find that amusing.

The innovations of Schoenberg and Messiaen were built on a solid understanding of traditional harmony. They were producing first-rate art.


----------



## Guest (Jul 27, 2020)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Turanglila is a wonderful symphony, but Pierre Boulez called it "vomit" and "brothel music".


Just goes to show that even respected artists like Boulez can be 'wrong'.

It throws into a new light, all those quotes by famous composers about each others' works, wheeled out to prop up arguments about the great and the shallow. If he can be 'wrong', need we pay any attention to Berlioz' views on Beethoven, for example?

Mind you, his eloquent point made about LvB's Pastoral has echoes of the debate here raging between the noble defenders of the true classical period, and the heretics of the 20th C and the contemporary period who are unworthy to bear the torch once held aloft, yea, into the very Heavens, by the Great Triumvirate.



> Hide your faces, poor great poets of antiquity, poor immortals. Your conventional language, so pure and harmonious, cannot compete with the art of sound. You are vanquished, no doubt with glory, but vanquished all the same! You have not experienced what nowadays we call melody, harmony, the combination of different timbres, instrumental colour, modulations, the skilful clashes of conflicting sounds which fight and then embrace, the sounds that surprise the ear, the strange tones which stir the innermost recesses of the soul. The stammering of the childish art which you referred to as music could not give you any idea of this. For cultured minds you alone were the great melodists, the masters of harmony, rhythm, and expression. But these words had a very different meaning in your vocabulary from what we give them now. The art of sound in its true meaning, independent of anything else, was only born yesterday.


http://www.hberlioz.com/Predecessors/beethsym.htm


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> I find Messiaen's _Turangalila _uplifting.
> 
> The "Is it art?" debate is an irrelevance.


If you do, that is fine for you. I did not originate the use of the term here.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

norman bates said:


> oh, the answer to this is extremely simple: money.
> Classical music has become a museum, where the only way to survive is to please the audience playing the popular composers of the past.
> It does not have anything to do with culture or quality (and I'm not saying that some of that music isn't indeed of very high quality), that's not the real reason.


Classical music, indeed pretty much any of the big art projects, has always had an element that was about money. Yes, there were artists who could work mostly on their own and didn't follow that, and most of them lived and died in poverty. (Ironic that now some of their paintings sell for millions.)

Modern classical music's problem is not that they have to please an audience, but that they don't want to, at least not on the terms of the audience. They led a revolt to rise up against the tyranny of the audience, and the audience simply said "meh" and went elsewhere. Now those who follow in the wake of the revolt just whine about not being more appreciated by the very people that they disdain.


----------



## Guest (Jul 27, 2020)

JAS said:


> I did not originate the use of the term here.


Eh? Which term? I was just saying that not only do I like the symphony, I find it a very rewarding experience...regardless of whether it is judged to be 'art'.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> Eh? Which term? I was just saying that not only do I like the symphony, I find it a very rewarding experience...regardless of whether it is judged to be 'art'.


The term "art." I was just replying in context. It isn't necessarily the word I would use for a lot of music that I enjoy.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

JAS said:


> Classical music, indeed pretty much any of the big art projects, has always had an element that was about money. Yes, there were artists who could work mostly on their own and didn't follow that, and most of them lived and died in poverty. (Ironic that now some of their paintings sell for millions.)
> 
> Modern classical music's problem is not that they have to please an audience, but that they don't want to, at least not on the terms of the audience.


I think that an artist has to please himself first of all, and then if the result please other people ... great.
Usually those who are able to do that are those who made me discover new musical worlds, new fascinating possibilities, and I'm grateful for their work.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

norman bates said:


> I think that an artist has to please himself first of all, and then if the result please other people ... great.
> Usually those who are able to do that are those who made me discover new musical worlds, new fascinating possibilities, and I'm grateful for their work.


Presumably an artist also has to eat.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

JAS said:


> Presumably an artist also has to eat.


I'm not sure what your point is: glorification of music made for the money? Look, like I've said, I think it's still possible to make wonderful works like that. But in a ideal world an artist should have the freedom to make art that first of all please himself. And in my experience the most original art has originated from artists who had that possibility.

I've always thought that Charles Ives did the right thing: he wanted to make music his way, and he did because that was his passion. And for the money, he had another work.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

norman bates said:


> I'm not sure what your point is: glorification of music made for the money? Look, like I've said, I think it's still possible to make wonderful works like that.


My point is a certain amount of pragmatism. If an artist can support himself, he can produce whatever he likes. If he cannot, he needs to accept that there is insufficient market for what he wants to do, and risk starvation in pursuit of his art.



norman bates said:


> But in a ideal world an artist should have the freedom to make art that first of all please himself. And in my experience the most original art has originated from artists who had that possibility.


Firstly, we don't live in such a world. Secondly, I don't know that it is even a reasonable idea unless one is just creating for oneself, with no intent of sharing. As soon as you start to share, the reaction of other people starts to become important. I think the idea of being purely original is grossly overrated. There is often a reason that no one has done something before. (I also think that we have lost fact of the idea that balance is often the key to many things.)



norman bates said:


> I've always thought that Charles Ives did the right thing: he wanted to make music his way, and he did because that was his passion. And for the money, he had another work.


I don't know offhand of a work by Ives that I care for.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

An artist, in this case, a composer, in the end, has to know their limitations. If he/she is independently wealthy or are able to live off of someone else’s dime, then they can compose what pleases them or whatever they want. But if those aren’t options then they’re going to have to pay attention to what ‘sells’. Then comes the question as to whether they have the skill to compose what ‘sells’.

(The reply above mine posted while I was creating mine. The first sentences are almost exactly the same point, but I’ll leave mine up just to reinforce the point. )


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

JAS said:


> My point is a certain amount of pragmatism. If an artist can support himself, he can produce whatever he likes. If he cannot, he needs to accept that there is insufficient market for what he wants to do, and risk starvation in pursuit of his art.


you know, I still have that romantic idea that art is about expression and discovery, something that goes above consumerism. Using your idea I should not even listen to classical music. Why make symphonies or chamber music when I can hire four girls to show their asses in front of an audience singing the most trite pop music and make millions?



JAS said:


> Firstly, we don't live in such a world. Secondly, I don't know that it is even a reasonable idea unless one is just creating for oneself, with no intent of sharing. As soon as you start to share, the reaction of other people starts to become important. I think the idea of being purely original is grossly overrated. There is often a reason that no one has done something before. (I also think that we have lost fact of the idea that balance is often the key to many things.)


I live in a world where there artists who care for their art more than for money.
About the "as soon as you start to share, the reaction of other people starts to become important": well I think it's your idea that if an artist wants to make art that please himself it's because he doesn't want to please others. I think that there are a lot of those idealists who I'm saying who are happy if their art please other people too. But they just want that to happen at their own conditions.
About the idea that originality is overrated: it depends how you consider originality. It seems that your idea is that originality means something like "let's see, how can I make something super weird for the sake of weirdness that could disgust everyone around me"? And look, I'm sure that there are also people like that. 
But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about sense of wonder and sense of discovery, I'm talking of those who see art the same way a scientist looks to the future and how it will be possible for humans to land on mars, or to the possibilities of the artificial intelligence. Those who want to explore and create new worlds.



JAS said:


> I don't know offhand of a work by Ives that I care for.


for what I've seen your tastes are quite conservatives, so I'm not very surprised. I do (altough I tend to prefer his miniatures to his larger works). There are works of him that I love. And even if I hated all his music it would not make any difference, because I'm not talking of how much you or I can appreciate his music, but his approach to art.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

norman bates said:


> you know, I still have that romantic idea that art is about expression and discovery, something that goes above consumerism. Using your idea I should not even listen to classical music. Why make symphonies or chamber music when I can hire four girls to show their asses in front of an audience singing the most trite pop music and make millions?


I don't see why you would jump to such a ridiculous extreme except for the sake of creating something so extreme that it can be dismissed easily. (Remember my comment about balance. It could certainly be useful here.)



norman bates said:


> I live in a world where there artists who care for their art more than for money.
> About the "as soon as you start to share, the reaction of other people starts to become important": well I think it's your idea that if an artist wants to make art that please himself it's because he doesn't want to please others.


That is a gross perversion of what I said.



norman bates said:


> I think that there are a lot of those idealists who I'm saying who are happy if their art please other people too. But they just want that to happen at their own conditions.


This sounds like an odd, and possibly contradictory, mix of ideas.



norman bates said:


> About the idea that originality is overrated: it depends how you consider originality. It seems that your idea is that originality means something like "let's see, how can I make something super weird for the sake of weirdness that could disgust everyone around me"? And look, I'm sure that there are also people like that.
> But that's not what I'm talking about.


That isn't my idea, but it does seem to be the idea of quite a lot of people who create stuff that is super weird.



norman bates said:


> I'm talking about sense of wonder and sense of discovery, I'm talking of those who see art the same way a scientist looks to the future and how it will be possible for humans to land on mars, or to the possibilities of the artificial intelligence. Those who want to explore and create new worlds.


If they can afford to do so, and I don't have to endure their products if they don't appeal to me, they have my blessing.



norman bates said:


> for what I've seen your tastes are quite conservatives, so I'm not very surprised. I do (altough I tend to prefer his miniatures to his larger works). There are works of him that I love. And even if I hated all his music it would not make any difference, because I'm not talking of how much you or I can appreciate his music, but his approach to art.


Yes, my musical tastes (and my artistic tastes in general) are pretty conservative (in the traditional meaning of the word). I am not ashamed of that in the least.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

DaveM said:


> An artist, in this case, a composer, in the end, has to know their limitations. If he/she is independently wealthy or are able to live off of someone else's dime, then they can compose what pleases them or whatever they want. But if those aren't options then they're going to have to pay attention to what 'sells'. Then comes the question as to whether they have the skill to compose what 'sells'.


what sells today has very little to do with quality. A good looking woman sells. The most banal pop music sells (and I'm saying this as someone who loves a great popular song). A over the top character sells. 
If as an "artist" my main concern would just be money, I would do like Lou Perlman did with all his boy bands (well, like Lou Perlman except that I would pay them), instead of writing music in the vein of Brahms, Mozart or Beethoven.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

And yet what Beethoven, Brahms and Mozart did move than a century ago still sells pretty well today. That is certainly impressive in some way. during the same time, lots of self-determined originators have come and gone with hardly a blip to mark their passing. (And I don't think that anyone is saying that you should do whatever makes the most money possible, merely that without sufficient money to live on, one must accept the need to compromise if the vision you wish to pursue doesn't happen to be widely shared.)

As a hobby, I am a literary scholar of some repute. It would be nice if I could make a living doing that, and not having to compromise what I write for department chairs and promotion committees, but that is not reality. And so, I make my living doing something else, and my literary scholarship on the side. Even there, I have to consider audience for my writings. Fortunately, it demands only slight considerations beyond my own interests.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

JAS said:


> I don't see why you would jump to such a ridiculous extreme except for the sake of creating something so extreme that it can be dismissed easily. (Remember my comment about balance. It could certainly be useful here.)


There are those who are able to make a compromise and those who don't want to. But it seems that you don't like the second ones.



JAS said:


> That is a gross perversion of what I said.


it's possible that I did understand that the wrong way.



JAS said:


> This sounds like an odd, and possibly contradictory, mix of ideas.


I don't see it this way. If I'd make a work with no compromises and at my own conditions and someone else appreciate it, why that should not be a good thing? That would mean to me that there are other people with a similar sensibility and who are able to get what I'm doing.



JAS said:


> If they can afford to do so, and I don't have to endure their products if they don't appeal to me, they have my blessing.


I don't think there's any law that will ever oblige you to listen to music of guys who in the vast majority of case will have very small popularity.



JAS said:


> Yes, my musical tastes (and my artistic tastes in general) are pretty conservative (in the traditional meaning of the word). I am not ashamed of that in the least.


and I'm totally fine with it. And at the end of the day this is just a discussion, we could disagree about things but there's nothing wrong with having conservative tastes: you're just listening the things you like. I start to have problems only when there are those who want to ban modern art (like Hitler and Stalin did).


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

JAS said:


> And yet what Beethoven, Brahms and Mozart did move than a century ago still sells pretty well today. That is certainly impressive in some way. during the same time, lots of self-determined originators have come and gone with hardly a blip to mark their passing. (And I don't think that anyone is saying that you should do whatever makes the most money possible, merely that without sufficient money to live on, one must accept the need to compromise if the vision you wish to pursue doesn't happen to be widely shared.)


or refuse compromises and make money with another work. Both are valid options to me.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

I sincerely wish you the best of luck with that.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

norman bates said:


> oh, the answer to this is extremely simple: money.
> Classical music has become a museum, where the only way to survive is to please the audience playing the popular composers of the past.
> It does not have anything to do with culture or quality (and I'm not saying that some of that music isn't indeed of very high quality), that's not the real reason.


Yes, but this is only true if you define "classical music", (in the sense of serious or art music and not just the music of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven and their contemporaries) within the paradigm of the traditional acoustic, unamplified concert hall, with musicians sitting on a stage dressed in black formal attire and playing traditional western acoustic instruments designed in the 19th century or earlier in such traditional formations as the symphony orchestra, the string quartet, the solo piano, etc.

It's amazing to me how many contemporary composers continue to work within that ancient paradigm, however innovative they may try to be in other ways. It may be because this enables them to have their music performed in concert together with what you refer to as the popular composers of the past, which in turn makes them eligible for grants funded by major orchestras and/or their patrons. But in my opinion it more often makes their work less popular and less accessible, because it is presented in an incongruous context to an audience conditioned for and expecting something more traditional.

That is why the chance to write music for movies, TV shows and now computer games is such a great boon, even though those media are not always ideal for high art. It gets the music out of the museum.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

DaveM said:


> An artist, in this case, a composer, in the end, has to know their limitations. If he/she is independently wealthy or are able to live off of someone else's dime, then they can compose what pleases them or whatever they want. But if those aren't options then they're going to have to pay attention to what 'sells'. Then comes the question as to whether they have the skill to compose what 'sells'.
> 
> (The reply above mine posted while I was creating mine. The first sentences are almost exactly the same point, but I'll leave mine up just to reinforce the point. )


That's not a good way to approach things, money never has and never will produce art. Society is changing, I'd say to all to be patient.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

1996D said:


> That's not a good way to approach things, money never has and never will produce art. Society is changing, I'd say to all to be patient.


How's it going making a living off your composing or are you otherwise employed or being supported by someone else?


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

norman bates said:


> you know, I still have that romantic idea that art is about expression and discovery, something that goes above consumerism. Using your idea I should not even listen to classical music. Why make symphonies or chamber music when I can hire four girls to show their asses in front of an audience singing the most trite pop music and make millions?
> 
> I live in a world where there artists who care for their art more than for money.
> About the "as soon as you start to share, the reaction of other people starts to become important": well I think it's your idea that if an artist wants to make art that please himself it's because he doesn't want to please others. I think that there are a lot of those idealists who I'm saying who are happy if their art please other people too. But they just want that to happen at their own conditions.
> ...


I agree with you but art needs promotion and backing. It took 100 years for Bach's violin works to become popular in Europe - 100 years because no one promoted them until Joseph Joachim.

If art is valued by the state then things are different.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

DaveM said:


> How's it going making a living off your composing or are you otherwise employed or being supported by someone else?


I think there are great advantages in patronage or public funding versus the music industry model for artistic pursuit. It's a complicated problem, there is no single best way to approach the problem top-down, IMO.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I think there is value in distinguishing music made "for higher purposes" as opposed to popular dreck created by computer programmers and Pro Tools jockies with "Auto-tune" and "Beat Detective." I think the Human element (ability to play and sing) should figure into it as well.

This criteria could elevate music from all genres, if it's good, into "art" which transcends its genre boundaries. Comparing a great cinema composer like Jerry Goldsmith to a mid-80s electronic soundtrack from a B-movie illustrates this.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

DaveM said:


> How's it going making a living off your composing or are you otherwise employed or being supported by someone else?


Well there's the virus, it really derailed the plan.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

millionrainbows said:


> I think there is value in distinguishing music made "for higher purposes" as opposed to popular dreck created by computer programmers and Pro Tools jockies with "Auto-tune" and "Beat Detective." I think the Human element (ability to play and sing) should figure into it as well.
> 
> This criteria could elevate music from all genres, if it's good, into "art" which transcends its genre boundaries. Comparing a great cinema composer like Jerry Goldsmith to a mid-80s electronic soundtrack from a B-movie illustrates this.


Art and society go hand in hand, they reflect one another; in the peak of consumerism 80s that music made sense. After seeing the extremism going on right now the best thing to do is wait, I don't think society is ready for anything right now, the talk in all Western nations is racism and white privilege.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

1996D said:


> Art and society go hand in hand, they reflect one another; in the peak of consumerism 80s that music made sense. After seeing the extremism going on right now the best thing to do is wait, I don't think society is ready for anything right now, the talk in all Western nations is racism and white privilege.


I failed to connect the dots. Are you saying that "music doesn't make sense now because of the talks of "racism and white privilege"?

I am sure there is much more to talk about than "racism and white privilege" in today's world if one is not drowned by party politics.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I failed to connect the dots. Are you saying that "music doesn't make sense now because of the talks of "racism and white privilege"?
> 
> I am sure there is much more to talk about than "racism and white privilege" in today's world if one is not drowned by party politics.


I don't think you're seeing the magnitude, this goes deep and will continue until there is change. I don't really think it's about that either, it's bigger than that, there is genuine instability. Most rioters aren't black, everyone is going at this for their own reasons, there is discontent in the system as a whole.

The virus has to end, the elections have to pass, then we'll see.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

1996D said:


> I don't think you're seeing the magnitude, this goes deep and will continue until there is change. I don't really think it's about that either, it's bigger than that, there is genuine instability. Most rioters aren't black, everyone is going at this for their own reasons, there is discontent in the system as a whole.
> 
> The virus has to end, the elections have to pass, then we'll see.


I have seen the magnitude alright, I am just surprised that people are surprised. The anti-establishment sentiment in the West has been brewing for quite some time, we are just in the middle of a big crescendo started from 08 financial crisis or even earlier. You can sense the gravity of the structural problem more than a decade ago.

It's a simple historical law that underprivileged people always/eventually fight for emancipation and power, no matter the context.

But this will not destroy or diminish music, high arts, or science in general, but only to revitalize them. The "Western culture" endured two world wars and even the Stalinist USSR has preserved most of Russian music heritage and produced great music. The cold war gave us the greatest innovations (transistors, internet, aerospace technology) of the century that we are still ripping off today.

Even if the West is entering a dark age, the cultural heritage of the "west" (of the human civilization) will be alright. Contemporary art or music are not some conspiracies to sabotage "the West". They are part of the establishment and they grow naturally from the "Western" tradition. They ARE the Western tradition for Christ's sake.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

I enjoy the constant arguments had on what is or isn't Classical music. 

I'd define it as: music for concert instruments or voice whose main objective is thematic development.

So this easily includes Cage and Reich, but doesn't include ie. progressive electronic, film music, nor arguably some short underdeveloped classical works. Hmm.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Even if the West is entering a dark age, the cultural heritage of the "west" (of the human civilization) will be alright. Contemporary art or music are not some conspiracies to sabotage "the West". They are part of the establishment and they grow naturally from the "Western" tradition. They ARE the Western tradition for Christ's sake.


They are Schoenberg's children and he broke with the tradition before him, so no, contemporary music has no lineage to Western tradition.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

1996D said:


> They are Schoenberg's children and he broke with the tradition before him, so no, contemporary music has no lineage to Western tradition.


What? Look, I am a hobbyist but I know the following: Schoenberg was not only a champion of Brahms but also wrote the best textbook on traditional harmony.

The excess of chromaticism in various forms (especially Tristan and Debussy) in the late 19th and early 20th centuries already foreshadows the disintegration of tonality. Atonal music was logically-inevitable, what Schoneberg did was to formalize the idea by taking Chromaticism to its logical extreme, so that there is no local or global sense of tonal center and consistency, everything is permitted and tonal harmony reached its boundary (completely dissolved in Schoenberg's music).

His 12 tone technique was an attempt to introduce pattern or regularity in order to build structures on this new foundation, to escape the stasis and randomness of atonality. It worked in theory but music psychology has been unfavorable to the experimental project of Serialism.

That's why there are other strands of contemporary music that embraces tonality, such as NeoClassicism, Jazz, Minimalism, Holy Minimalism, and NeoRomanticism. Even within the atonal school, composers have not abandoned the idea of melody as a series of conjunct notes and there are other ways to introduce temporary tonal centrality in atonal music. There are just more ways and flexibilities to approach music than the restrictive traditional tonal harmony and counterpoints, which was the point of chromaticism in the first place.

Not all experiments end in success. There are hard lessons to be learned from the partial failures of serialism. But it seems to me, your claim that "contemporary music has no lineage to Western tradition" is far more radical and destructive to the "Western tradition" than the contemporary music themselves.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

There is a break of reason that happened after Schoenberg - he had an actual ideological explanation for his music - if you watch Moses und Aron you'll see that the story behind the music and the message and tone fit perfectly. It also happened to be appropriate to what was to come, written just before WW2.

The movements you mentioned have no genuine connection to culture or society in any way, they are revivals and bubbles, and except for Jazz in its peak they are artificial movements. Pop/rock/rap music is what has reflected culture, and classical music lost its place. 

Atonal music lost the potency and message that Schoenberg believed in and embodied - it became completely disingenuous emotionally and instead became a type of intellectual onanism with no relation to culture or audience. It copied Schoenberg's style with none of the substance behind it because nothing was happening in the world that merited that horror. Classical music lost all connection to the real world, the public become disinterested, and musicians recorded and played almost solely non-contemporary music.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

1996D said:


> There is a break of reason that happened after Schoenberg - he had an actual ideological explanation for his music - if you watch Moses und Aron you'll see that the story behind the music and the message and tone fit perfectly. It also happened to be appropriate to what was to come, written just before WW2.
> 
> The movements you mentioned have no genuine connection to culture or society in any way, they are revivals and bubbles, and except for Jazz in its peak they are artificial movements. Pop/rock/rap music is what has reflected culture, and classical music lost its place.
> 
> Atonal music lost the potency and message that Schoenberg believed in and embodied - it became completely disingenuous emotionally and instead became a type of intellectual onanism with no relation to culture or audience. It copied Schoenberg's style with none of the substance behind it because nothing was happening in the world that merited that horror. Classical music lost all connection to the real world, the public become disinterested, and musicians recorded and played almost solely non-contemporary music.


I am sympathetic to what you are saying here (except the ideological part). The musical landscape is much more diverse than a century ago. There is also the "music industry" which is a new form of (mass) production of musical content. The context and rituals for music are different now. With streaming services music is like tap-water for the public. Classic music, even in its "traditional" style, is ill-suited for being "tap-water". It has to be out-of-touch unless there is an emergent, musically sophisticated new "middle class" (this happened in Japan during the 70-80s and China during the 00-10).

The landscape of contemporary music is also vast. You are grossly simplifying it as "copied Schoenberg's style". Stockhausen's experiments on sampling and synthesized sounds were very influential to pop music and created new genres. Yes there are central European tradition that has been overly intellectual like Berio and Boulez (they are interested in their own way) but there are other more popular schools such as American minimalism, such as Steven Reich, Philips Glass, and John Adams. The marvelous Harmonielehre is a great example. It's tonal, it's formal, it's accessible, it exciting, it's completely fresh (without melody).

You can also write counterpoint and melody without any tonal harmony. It seems to me you really should explore this vast landscape. I know that I definitely will if I am a professional composer.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I am sympathetic to what you are saying here (except the ideological part). The musical landscape is much more diverse than a century ago. There is also the "music industry" which is a new form of (mass) production of musical content. The context and rituals for music are different now. With streaming services music is like tap-water for the public. Classic music, even in its "traditional" style, is ill-suited for being "tap-water". It has to be out-of-touch unless there is an emergent, musically sophisticated new "middle class" (this happened in Japan during the 70-80s and China during the 00-10).
> 
> The landscape of contemporary music is also vast. You are grossly simplifying it as "copied Schoenberg's style". Stockhausen's experiments on sampling and synthesized sounds were very influential to pop music and created new genres. Yes there are central European tradition that has been overly intellectual like Berio and Boulez (they are interested in their own way) but there are other more popular schools such as American minimalism, such as Steven Reich, Philips Glass, and John Adams. The marvelous Harmonielehre is a great example. It's tonal, it's formal, it's accessible, it exciting, it's completely fresh (without melody).
> 
> You can also write counterpoint and melody without any tonal harmony. It seems to me you really should explore this vast landscape. I know that I definitely will if I am a professional composer.


I strongly believe music should be centred around reason, not absurdity or irony, and there should be no illogical vagueness either, it should have a clear storyline with strong reason and a message that's fitting. Melody delivers emotion very effectively but it shouldn't be simplistic, repetitive, and money oriented like film scores are.

Writing to be interesting and original is useless and has no cultural effect; writing simplistic music dumbs down the mind; absurdity undermines the seriousness of life. Music should be beautiful and engaging, yet original and culturally fitting.

Serious art hasn't been produced in a long time, the postmodern bubble is all powerful.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

1996D said:


> Melody delivers emotion very effectively but it shouldn't be simplistic, repetitive, and *money oriented like film scores are.*
> 
> Writing to be interesting and original are useless and have no cultural effect...


Your message doesn't benefit by shooting yourself in the foot time after time. You should be so lucky as to write a good film score. Beethoven was interesting and original.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

DaveM said:


> Your message doesn't benefit by shooting yourself in the foot time after time. You should be so lucky as to write a good film score. Beethoven was interesting and original.


Did Beethoven write because he was terribly self-conscious and wanted to be hip? Postmodernism causes people to produce dishonest art in the name of originality, to set themselves apart and be 'interesting' rather than deliver a real message. They are broken people with no foundations, no beliefs, no convictions.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

1996D said:


> Did Beethoven write because he was terribly self-conscious and wanted to be hip? _Postmodernism causes people to produce dishonest art in the name of originality, to set themselves apart and be 'interesting' rather than deliver a real message_. *They are broken people with no foundations, no beliefs, no convictions.*


I wouldn't be so sure about that:

https://quillette.com/2020/07/20/the-truth-according-to-social-justice-a-review-of-cynical-theories/

I agree with the first bit of what you said though. This is a perfect example:


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

1996D said:


> Did Beethoven write because he was terribly self-conscious and wanted to be hip? Postmodernism causes people to produce dishonest art in the name of originality, to set themselves apart and be 'interesting' rather than deliver a real message. They are broken people with no foundations, no beliefs, no convictions.


Your tendency to bring in "ideologies" as phantom targets is a sign of your own strong ideological alignment. I start to wonder if you here to have an "honest" discussion about the pros and cons of atonal music or you are just here to complain about the "lefties" or "those postmodernists" with uninformed and hackneyed arguments.

Your rant is so commonplace to the point of banality. If you really cherish the "Western tradition" and prize "reason", "logic", and "honesty" above all else, then I urge you to spend a minimal effort understanding what you are criticizing.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

RogerWaters said:


> I wouldn't be so sure about that:
> 
> https://quillette.com/2020/07/20/the-truth-according-to-social-justice-a-review-of-cynical-theories/
> 
> I agree with the first bit of what you said though. This is a perfect example:


I should've added that except for the beliefs that make them in-group. It's ironic that they value originality and quirkiness so much yet they're exact copies of each other, with no beliefs of their own.
_
"The book explains how we have arrived at a state in which social justice scholarship treats the principles and themes of postmodernism as The Truth, where no dissent is tolerated, and anyone who disagrees must be cancelled."_

Aka 'stay broken and self-conscious but agree with everything we say'.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Your tendency to bring in "ideologies" as phantom targets is a sign of your own strong ideological alignment. I start to wonder if you here to have an "honest" discussion about the pros and cons of atonal music or you are just here to complain about the "lefties" or "those postmodernists" with uninformed and hackneyed arguments.
> 
> Your rant is so commonplace to the point of banality. If you really cherish the "Western tradition" and prize "reason", "logic", and "honesty" above all else, then I urge you to spend a minimal effort understanding what you are criticizing.


I do understand it and its place and purpose, but not part of it and counting the seconds until it ends.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

RogerWaters said:


> I wouldn't be so sure about that:
> 
> https://quillette.com/2020/07/20/the-truth-according-to-social-justice-a-review-of-cynical-theories/


There are obvious problems in the academia of "the left" (post-structuralism, gender studies, etc), and many of the current practices are problematic (Foucault was vocally anti Identity Politics), but post-modernism itself is incredibly complex and diverse, there is no one unified school of thought. It's a modern (or post-modern) form of Protagoras or Skepticism during the Enlightenment, which, again is an integral part of Western thought and a natural continuation of the continental philosophy.

This game of labeling and blaming "post-modernists" and claim victimhood of some "leftist plot" bears remarkable semblance to the tactics of the fervent supporters of identity politics and social justice. It's all fun and games until both sides realize that they know little about the things they are zealously espousing or defending, and their actions are in fact self-contradictory to the tenets of enlightenment values viewed from different lens.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> There are obvious problems in the academia of "the left" (post-structuralism, gender studies, etc), and many of the current practices are problematic (Foucault was vocally anti Identity Politics), but post-modernism itself is incredibly complex and diverse, there is no one unified school of thought. It's a modern (or post-modern) form of Protagoras or Skepticism during the Enlightenment, which, again is an integral part of Western thought and a natural continuation of the continental philosophy.
> 
> This game of labeling and blaming "post-modernists" and claim victimhood of some "leftist plot" bears remarkable semblance to the tactics of the fervent supporters of identity politics and social justice. It's all fun and games until both sides realize that they know little about the things they are zealously espousing or defending, and their actions are in fact self-contradictory to the tenets of enlightenment values viewed from different lens.


How old are you?


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

1996D said:


> How old are you?


Why does this have to do anything? Let me go with 20. How does that sound?


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Why does this have to do anything? Let me go with 20. How does that sound?


That's great that means we'll see the same future, certainly what you say is very different than what older members argue. They'll be dead when it's our turn to manage things so there is a definite disconnect in ideas.

I see where you're coming from, but you're going to have to come to a conclusion in the future. Postmodernism does deconstruct the negative aspects of the past but at the same time it deconstructs absolutely everything, so you can't forget to use reason, which many are. We have to start building at some point.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

1996D said:


> That's great that means we'll see the same future, certainly what you say is very different than what older members argue. They'll be dead when it's our turn to manage things so there is a definite disconnect in ideas.
> 
> I see where you're coming from, but you're going to have to come to a conclusion in the future. Postmodernism does deconstruct the negative aspects of the past but at the same time it deconstructs absolutely everything, so you can't forget to use reason, which many are. We have to start building at some point.


That's the spirit! The best antidote to the radical left is to build something that resolves the tension. You know, dissonance must resolve to consonance, or we will be lost in the atonal purgatory for eternity.

I wouldn't worry about Post-modernism for a very simple reason. Let me ask you, when is the last time you know someone who has actually read Derrida? It's like Boulez's Sonata No.2. For the 0.00001% who have read it, only 0.00001% of them can understand it. I worry if people are blaming phantoms because it means people are not even aware of the real problem that's causing the tension.


----------



## Guest (Jul 28, 2020)

1996D said:


> How old are you?





UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Why does this have to do anything? Let me go with 20. How does that sound?





1996D said:


> That's great that means we'll see the same future


It's the meek that will inherit the Earth. Not the 20 year olds.

And anyway, the over 60s have not done yet.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> That's the spirit! The best antidote to the radical left is to build something that resolves the tension. You know, dissonance must resolve to consonance, or we will be lost in the atonal purgatory for eternity.
> 
> I wouldn't worry about Post-modernism for a very simple reason. Let me ask you, when is the last time you know someone who has actually read Derrida? It's like Boulez's Sonata No.2. For the 0.00001% who have read it, only 0.00001% of them can understand it. I worry if people are blaming phantoms because it means people are not even aware of the real problem that's causing the tension.


I actually like Derrida for making Nietzsche look like a child, there is definite merit to that sort of deconstructionism, one that disempowers egoism and ideas that form it.

I'm positive for the future, it looks bright after we get over some humps, you're right that many young leftists are just trying to fit in, many are in fragile states and don't understand what they're doing other than that they feel emotionally hurt.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

MacLeod said:


> It's the meek that will inherit the Earth. Not the 20 year olds.
> 
> And anyway, the over 60s have not done yet.


The meek 20 year olds, yes.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

1996D said:


> I actually like Derrida for making Nietzsche look like a child, there is definite merit to that sort of deconstructionism, one that disempowers egoism and ideas that form it.
> 
> I'm positive for the future, it looks bright after we get over some humps, you're right that many young leftists are just trying to fit in, many are in fragile states and don't understand what they're doing other than that they feel emotionally hurt.


It's interesting whether they are "radical" or not. It's also interesting whether a classical melodist with great craftmanship is "radical" or not in today's world. I think a good antidote to the "postmodern/contemporary nonsense" (even though I am open to most of them) is rock solid craftsmanship, that's really the "radical" position. But you still need to be careful with your career because you can't out-Mozart Mozart.



1996D said:


> The meek 20 year olds, yes.


How I envy you.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> There are obvious problems in the academia of "the left" (post-structuralism, gender studies, etc), and many of the current practices are problematic (Foucault was vocally anti Identity Politics), but post-modernism itself is incredibly complex and diverse, there is no one unified school of thought. It's a modern (or post-modern) form of Protagoras or Skepticism during the Enlightenment, which, again is an integral part of Western thought and a natural continuation of the continental philosophy.
> 
> This game of labeling and blaming "post-modernists" and claim victimhood of some "leftist plot" bears remarkable semblance to the tactics of the fervent supporters of identity politics and social justice. It's all fun and games until both sides realize that they know little about the things they are zealously espousing or defending, and their actions are in fact self-contradictory to the tenets of enlightenment values viewed from different lens.


I see nothing misguided in trying to work out the unifying threads of postmodern thought, particularly if you can make a good case about their real-world effects. I don't know what strawman you are trying to knock over with the second part of your post, but it's not the article or book i linked to.

Your claim about post-moderisn being a natural outgrowth of Enlightenment skepticism couldn't be further from the truth. As that link I provided explains, pomo has contructed its own ediface of high and low, good and evil, which simply cannot be questioned. Further, what Enlightenment skepticism would test ideas against before finding them wanting ('deconstructing') was empiricsm and logic. Obviously more subjective ideology crept in sometimes. However, to nowhere the same degree as in pomo. Deconstruction is not criticism from the perspective of empiricsm and logic. As most people know, deconstruction is not receptive to those concepts, and think they mask the power-interests of the usual suspects.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> It's interesting whether they are "radical" or not. It's also interesting whether a classical melodist with great craftmanship is "radical" or not in today's world. I think a good antidote to the "postmodern/contemporary nonsense" (even though I am open to most of them) is rock solid craftsmanship, that's really the "radical" position. But you still need to be careful with your career because you can't out-Mozart Mozart.


I'm going to try, I just analyzed Mozart's Clarinet Concerto, the last movement, and his genius is something else, every ten seconds there's a new idea when he's not repeating one of the main themes or transforming them. His creativity is beyond any other composer, Bach is right there but Mozart modulates more tastefully in my opinion.

The best music I've written so far is emotionally charged, creative, and has good structure but isn't on that level. It's very accessible so it has that going for it, and it's original in both sound and form.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)




----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

RogerWaters said:


> I see nothing misguided in trying to work out the unifying threads of postmodern thought, particularly if you can make a good case about their real-world effects. I don't know what strawman you are trying to knock over with the second part of your post, but it's not the article or book i linked to.
> 
> Your claim about post-moderisn being a natural outgrowth of Enlightenment skepticism couldn't be further from the truth. As that link I provided explains, pomo has contructed its own ediface of high and low, good and evil, which simply cannot be questioned. Further, what Enlightenment skepticism would test ideas against before finding them wanting ('deconstructing') was empiricsm and logic. Obviously more subjective ideology crept in sometimes. However, to nowhere the same degree as in pomo. Deconstruction is not criticism from the perspective of empiricsm and logic. As most people know, deconstruction is not receptive to those concepts, and think they mask the power-interests of the usual suspects.


You have confused a few things about my statements (it's not your fault).

1. There is no school of post-modernist thought, which is a fact. There are different post-modernist thinkers (some do not want to be identified with such term). To unify post-modernism as a target is indeed misguided and misrepresents this concept.

2. From what I understand, post-modernism is critical of making philosophical edifice (rationalism) and making precise definitions (due to insights from structuralism and post-structuralism)

3. Post-modernism can also refer to the current historical condition.

4. Post-modernism did not grow out of Enlightenment Skepticism, it grew out of two devastating world wars, atomic bombs, the holocaust and other modern democides, Nazism, and Stalinism that are the (unintended) fruits of the Enlightenment project and industrial revolution. It is an attempt to reexamine the Enlightenment project to question what we have taken for granted. To see the blind points in our progressive thinking. It is in this way a continuation of the Western thought.

5. Post-modernism is a new form of Skepticism not in the literal sense, but in the sense that it questions the limit of reason/language (and their abuses for power) and scientific methods, in the sense that it deconstructs (not in Derrida's sense) rather than constructs. This is a recurrent theme in Western thinking dated back to the debate between Socrates and Protagoras (in Plato's dialogues).

6. Post-modernism rejects any form of ideology and metanarrative. I can't take someone seriously if one believes that Post-modernism is an ideology (and that's why there can't be dogmas and definitions about post-modernism), it's not, it's a collection of thought weapons for destroying ideological constructs.

7. The first principles (a post-modernist would stop me right here) for Post-modernism (and critical theory in general) are still about human emancipation and mankind's ability to self-reflection, which are part of the Enlightenment value.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> 7. The first principles (a post-modernist would stop me right here) for Post-modernism (and critical theory in general) are still about human emancipation and mankind's ability to self-reflection, which are part of the Enlightenment value.


One musician who expressed the ideological underpinnings of post modern music is Georg Rochberg, in "On The Third String Quartet" 1982, reprinted in W. Bolcom, _The Aesthetics of Survival _(Michigan 1984)



> I stand in a circle of time, not a line. 360 degrees of past, present and future. All around me. I can look in any direction I want. Bella Vista


He says



> Pluralism, as I understand it, does not mean a simplistic array of different things somehow stuck together in an arbitrary fashion but a way of seeing new possibilities of relationships; of discovering and uncovering hidden connections and working with them structurally; of joining antipodes without boiling out their tensions . . .





> The twentieth century has pointed to a world of new mixtures and combinations of everything we have inherited from the past . . . replete with juxtapositions of opposites (or seeming opposites) and contraries.


and he wants to find a way in his music to give us



> a momentary insight into how it is possible to resolve the chaos of existence.


(I guess the Mozart clarinet concerto helps us resolve the chaos existence . . . by closing our eyes, burying our head in the sand and pretending that the chaos has gone away!)


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

1996D said:


> I'm going to try, I just analyzed Mozart's Clarinet Concerto, the last movement, and his genius is something else, every ten seconds there's a new idea when he's not repeating one of the main themes or transforming them. His creativity is beyond any other composer, Bach is right there but Mozart modulates more tastefully in my opinion.
> 
> The best music I've written so far is emotionally charged, creative, and has good structure but isn't on that level. It's very accessible so it has that going for it, and it's original in both sound and form.


In fact, that clarinet piece is the subject of a postmodernist concerto, Accanto by Lachenmann. It's a great favourite of mine.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> In fact, that clarinet piece is the subject of a postmodernist concerto, Accanto by Lachenmann. It's a great favourite of mine.


This is truly wonderful (and hilarious) and definitely worth listening to a second time.

I am not sure that 1996D will enjoy this.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Oregon's status as a 'liberal' state is now being questioned, in light of its neglect of many issues on race. It's refreshing to see.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> ...
> I wouldn't worry about Post-modernism for a very simple reason. Let me ask you, when is the last time you know someone who has actually read Derrida? It's like Boulez's Sonata No.2. For the 0.00001% who have read it, only 0.00001% of them can understand it. I worry if people are blaming phantoms because it means people are not even aware of the real problem that's causing the tension.


You don't really have to have read Derrida to be affected by his influence; the same could be said for St. Augustine or Kant or Nietzsche.


> (Foucault was vocally anti Identity Politics)


Lol...and Dr Frankenstein became anti his monster.

I think instead of "postmodernism", the term "critical theory" might be better.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

consuono said:


> Harmony and counterpoint though aren't the exact same thing. A single melody isn't "harmony". Harmony has to do with the relationship between separate tones or melodic lines sounding simultaneously. I'd say you can have harmony without counterpoint, but you can't have counterpoint without at least implied harmony.


True.

You could have *counterpoint without* a traditional *harmonic structure*, or even poorly conceived harmonic progressions, or just plain random harmonies. But it might be unpleasant to listen to.

So you may be right that _"you can't have counterpoint without at least implied harmony"_, although that harmony may be awful, unlearned, or simply annoying.

You can also have *harmony without* any clear *counterpoint*. Perhaps something with simple block chords and limited harmonic progression, like, say, Mary Had a Little Lamb, with only I and V major triads underneath.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> You have confused a few things about my statements (it's not your fault).
> 
> 1. There is no school of post-modernist thought, which is a fact. There are different post-modernist thinkers (some do not want to be identified with such term). To unify post-modernism as a target is indeed misguided and misrepresents this concept.


Ummm... If there are common threads to their thinking, then NOT 'unifying' them seems to be a wasted opportunity for understanding. Identifying common strands (while also ackowledging differences) is incredibly enlightening. I don't know why anyone would be against this, unless they had an interest in perpetuating social forces by obscuring understanding (i'm not saying this is necessarily you - there are many that would bulk at an overall apprasal of post-modernism and its heirs (-Studies disciplines), out of an interest in maintaining hegemony. Which is ironic, given the content of much post-modernism!).



UniversalTuringMachine said:


> 2. From what I understand, post-modernism is critical of making philosophical edifice (rationalism) and making precise definitions (due to insights from structuralism and post-structuralism)


It's made it's own philosophical (probably more correct to say, moral/political) ediface. Read the article I linked to, if you are interesting in reading something that goes against your own view. Furthermore, there are many videos on YouTube that explain what post-modern thinkers have in common.



UniversalTuringMachine said:


> 4. Post-modernism did not grow out of Enlightenment Skepticism, it grew out of two devastating world wars, atomic bombs, the holocaust and other modern democides, Nazism, and Stalinism that are the (unintended) fruits of the Enlightenment project and industrial revolution. It is an attempt to reexamine the Enlightenment project to question what we have taken for granted. To see the blind points in our progressive thinking. It is in this way a continuation of the Western thought.


Calling Nazism and Stalinism fruits of the Enlightenment is a massively simplistic sweeping statement, unless you think literally everything that came after something is a 'fruit' of it. The Enlightenment happened everywhere in Europe and beyond, Nazism and Stalinism were local phenomena. So there must be many other variables: 19th-century nationalism, the great depression in Germany (and Italy); serfdom and underdevelopment in Russia... plus probably 100 more. If the Enlightenment happened without these other multifarious causal factors, there would have been no Nazism and Stalinism. So saying the enlightenment caused them is a bit like saying the presence of oxygen in the atmosphere caused them.



UniversalTuringMachine said:


> 5. Post-modernism is a new form of Skepticism not in the literal sense, but in the sense that it questions the limit of reason/language (and their abuses for power) and scientific methods, in the sense that it deconstructs (not in Derrida's sense) rather than constructs. This is a recurrent theme in Western thinking dated back to the debate between Socrates and Protagoras (in Plato's dialogues).


They are similar in that they both 'questioned' what was prior, but that's as far as it goes I reckon. Crucially, Socrates did not seek to limit reason, he sought to expand its reach. That's is a significant, and telling, difference.



UniversalTuringMachine said:


> 6. Post-modernism rejects any form of ideology and metanarrative. I can't take someone seriously if one believes that Post-modernism is an ideology (and that's why there can't be dogmas and definitions about post-modernism), it's not, it's a collection of thought weapons for destroying ideological constructs.


Like I said above, Pomo rejects ideology and metanarrative it doesn't like, and constructs ideology and metanarrative it likes. Again I strongly encourage you to read the article, as it lays down what many people have already sensibly concluded quite clearly and coherently (and fairly).



UniversalTuringMachine said:


> 7. The first principles (a post-modernist would stop me right here) for Post-modernism (and critical theory in general) are still about human emancipation and mankind's ability to self-reflection, which are part of the Enlightenment value.


I don't agree at all. Pomo's capacity for self-reflection is nearly zero. Try questioning the central tenants of queer theory, women's studies, black studies, etc in any modern institution and see how far you get professionally.

Furthermore, if pomo did self-reflect, the absolute incoherence of a school of thought that replaces 'truth' with 'power' would cause it's practitioners to self-destruct due to explosive hypocracy. Why should we not take their philosophy as being it's own imposition of power-interests, as opposed to truth, if power replaces truth?!

For all post-modernisms' hiers ranting about 'power' being the basis of all social relations, their own incapacity to reflect on their privileged positions in modern institutions is practically outrageous.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

pianozach said:


> True.
> 
> You could have *counterpoint without* a traditional *harmonic structure*, or even poorly conceived harmonic progressions, or just plain random harmonies. But it might be unpleasant to listen to.


Is this Schoenberg (minus the 'poorly conceived' bit)?


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

consuono said:


> Harmony and counterpoint though aren't the exact same thing. A single melody isn't "harmony". Harmony has to do with the relationship between separate tones or melodic lines sounding simultaneously. I'd say you can have harmony without counterpoint, but you can't have counterpoint without at least implied harmony.


Then give us a harmonic analysis of the first mvmt of Bartok's Music for String's Percussion and Celesta


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

How about some more examples of great music 'obsessed' with harmony and extended techniques?

F-- melody, who needs it?


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

A single melody has implied harmony. One can listen to Bach's partita for solo flute and still detect masterful use of harmony.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

tdc said:


> A single melody has implied harmony. One can listen to Bach's partita for solo flute and still detect masterful use of harmony.


True within the European classical tradition from, say 1500-1900, not necessarily true outside of that


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> Oregon's status as a 'liberal' state is now being questioned, in light of its neglect of many issues on race. It's refreshing to see.


Intersectionalists have shown that concepts like 'privilege', have many intersecting factors. Where one is born, how wealthy they are, how good looking they are, etc. all impact 'privilege'. The concept of white privilege is a gross simplification and it is a myth.

Another myth is the concept of diversifying jobs based on race, as being somehow helpful to race relations, it is not. Focusing on a person's race over the qualities that make them unique as an individual is the definition of racism.

The radical left today is the most racist group out there, masquerading as social justice warriors. Politically it is a divide and conquer tactic designed to get people hyper sensitive to racism.

I will also remind you that it was the democrats who fought to maintain slavery during the American civil war.

Slavery goes back before recorded history, it was rampant in ancient Greece, and continues today. The founding fathers included ideas in the constitution that led to the abolition of slavery, and led to a country (at least in concept) where more freedom and justice was possible than in any other country in history. Today Africa has the highest amount of slavery of any nation. So those going around trying to destroy America because of its racist history, are doing something very dumb and they are funded by those who despise America's freedom and want to subjugate the entire country. The left are useful idiots for the marxists, an ideology that killed more people than anything else did in the 20th century.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

tdc said:


> I will also remind you that it was the democrats who fought to maintain slavery during the American civil war.


They'd better be cancelled in that case! Can't let anything with a questionable past stand in today's climate!


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

tdc said:


> Intersectionalists have shown that concepts like 'privilege', have many intersecting factors. Where one is born, how wealthy they are, how good looking they are, etc. all impact 'privilege'. The concept of white privilege is a gross simplification and it is a myth.


Everything you said here is true, but it doesn't make white privilege a myth. It's one of the privileges included with wealth, good looks and what not.



tdc said:


> Another myth is the concept of diversifying jobs based on race, as being somehow helpful to race relations, it is not. Focusing on a person's race over the qualities that make them unique as an individual is the definition of racism.


Affirmative action policies aren't perfect, but they are an attempt to offset the very real bias that many minorities face during hiring (which have been shown by multiple studies that confirm it). I don't see how that's "racist". No one "ignores the qualities that make a person unique'. Affirmative action isn't hiring someone *just because* they're part of a minority group. It's in cases where a white person and a minority are equally qualified more or less.



tdc said:


> The radical left today is the most racist group out there, masquerading as social justice warriors. Politically it is a divide and conquer tactic designed to get people hyper sensitive to racism.


Hm, it's more like people weren't really aware of the racism other people faced before, but now that our world and different groups of people are becoming more connected were becoming more aware of the experience of others. Speaking personally, there are many times a person told me their experience with racism that I never would have considered was the case, but it made sense after thinking about it a bit.



tdc said:


> I will also remind you that it was the democrats who fought to maintain slavery during the American civil war..


Well, I'm no fan of Democrats and there are a certainly a good amount of racists in the party, but this talking point ignores the fact that the parties base switched during the civil rights era. It's called the Southern Strategy.



tdc said:


> Slavery goes back before recorded history, it was rampant in ancient Greece, and continues today. The founding fathers included ideas in the constitution that led to the abolition of slavery, and led to a country (at least in concept) where more freedom and justice was possible than in any other country in history. Today Africa has the highest amount of slavery of any nation. So those going around trying to destroy America because of its racist history, are doing something very dumb and they are funded by those who despise America's freedom and want to subjugate the entire country. The left are useful idiots for the marxists, an ideology that killed more people than anything else did in the 20th century.


Ya I'm not sure what to say about this. Destroy America? If America goes down it'll be because the governments absolute failure to provide during the Covid-19 pandemic. Well, I say that but even without the pandemic we were in pretty bad shape. I assume you're talking about the protesters? The protesters aren't destroying America, they're a result of an America that is already in shambles.

Also, "because of slavery" is super reductive. Racist issues in America go waaayy deeper than just slavery. And pointing out that other places have slaves doesn't help. Ya? Other places have slaves, that's bad, but we're not in other places. We're here and this is where we most have influence.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

> Everything you said here is true, but it doesn't make white privilege a myth. It's one of the privileges included with wealth, good looks and what not.


It's much more of a myth than it was a century ago. I'm white and have much less "privilege" than the Obamas or Oprah or Kanye West.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

RogerWaters said:


> Ummm... If there are common threads to their thinking, then NOT 'unifying' them seems to be a wasted opportunity for understanding. Identifying common strands (while also ackowledging differences) is incredibly enlightening. I don't know why anyone would be against this, unless they had an interest in perpetuating social forces by obscuring understanding (i'm not saying this is necessarily you - there are many that would bulk at an overall apprasal of post-modernism and its heirs (-Studies disciplines), out of an interest in maintaining hegemony. Which is ironic, given the content of much post-modernism!).
> 
> It's made it's own philosophical (probably more correct to say, moral/political) ediface. Read the article I linked to, if you are interesting in reading something that goes against your own view. Furthermore, there are many videos on YouTube that explain what post-modern thinkers have in common.
> 
> ...


You spent quite an effort making these responses, I commend you for that. I get what you are saying. But I still think you are misrepresenting what post-modernists are about and committed "tribal thinking". Postmodernism is not a monolithic tribe, neither is American conservatism.

I don't think I am qualified to discuss this topic further because I have not delved into the readings of post-modernist thinkers to have a "real" opinion on the issue. I wouldn't trust Youtube content creators or even conservative pundits on this either because they were too careless and too irresponsible for these kinds of critiques to be taken seriously. I recognize some of the more salient problems of the academia of the left but that's not remotely enough to jump into conclusion, in the same way, I wouldn't blame Classic Libertarianism for the rise of the alt-right in the US.

However, I did have several personal relations with academic artists and multiple discussions to have an intuitive understanding of what post-modernism is about over a long period of time (and most of the discussions were apolitical and had nothing to do with the US). I personally tend to interpret Post-modernism as "Western Zen" which is a deeply self-reflective way of thinking. Your caricature of post-modernism just seems off for me and your hastiness to draw conclusions also worries me. But I understand that's who you are.



RogerWaters said:


> They are similar in that they both 'questioned' what was prior, but that's as far as it goes I reckon. Crucially, Socrates did not seek to limit reason, he sought to expand its reach. That's is a significant, and telling, difference.


You don't seem to have a basic understanding of what I was saying, in the debate of Socrates and Protagoras, Protagoras was the analogue of the "post-modernists" today who rejects "universal truth" (in much less sophisticated ways), not Socrates, obviously. You really should read a bit more (Yes I know I am impertinent suggesting this but you really should).


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

tdc said:


> A single melody has implied harmony. One can listen to Bach's partita for solo flute and still detect masterful use of harmony.


When I think of melodic craft that's very difficult to achieve for most composers, it's usually a conundrum between the harmony and the melodic line ie. it's either, if one writes a melody, then its harmonic potential is hard to achieve or fulfill, or if one seeks a harmonic progression, then it's hard to form a catchy hook or melody to support it. What's truly masterful is being able to internally hear and compose both of these as though they're one entity, while the pervasive idea of 'logical harmony within melody' tells most others it wouldn't work. That is a real craft and talent. Some of my favorite melodies are the following:

1. One Jump Reprise
2. We Three Kings
3. Greensleeves
4. Peaceful Easy Feeling
5. Moon River
6. Loss of Me
7. This tune (by Grieg? or Rimsky-Korsakov? I can't remember)
8. Saria's Song
9. Spring Song by Mendelssohn
10. Polovtsian Dances by Borodin
11. Bonds of Sea and Fire
12. Can Can by Offenbach
13. Peter and the Wolf by Prokofiev
14. Miroirs Melody by Ravel
15. O Holy Night
16. When You Wish Upon a Star
17. Take Me Home, Country Roads
18. Romeo and Juliet by Tchaikovsky
19. Journey to the Island
20. Nerevar Rising

Probably the most obvious one against your 'logic of harmony within melody' rule, is the Mendelssohn, only because the harmony and melody are very straightforward and yet most people would never have thought of composing that. Or Bonds of Sea and Fire, which hints at almost no harmonic progression.

Thus I'd argue that harmony isn't intrinsic in melody much at all, not the other way around, 'harmony is intrinsic in melody.' That form of composing is too inductive, relying on mathematical reasoning rather than the inward human taste.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

consuono said:


> It's much more of a myth than it was a century ago. I'm white and have much less "privilege" than the Obamas or Oprah or Kanye West.


This is a misunderstanding of the term white privilege. It doesn't mean that every white person is more wealthy than every black person. But there are aspects of society that are in general, much more favorable to white people, such as the justice system to name but one.


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2020)

violadude said:


> This is a misunderstanding of the term white privilege. It doesn't mean that every white person is more wealthy than every black person. But there are aspects of society that are in general, much more favorable to white people, such as the justice system to name but one.


Hey - can you two desist please? MR posted completely off-topic in error (I'm charitably thinking) - no need to follow him down the rabbit hole.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I personally tend to interpret Post-modernism as "Western Zen" which is a deeply self-reflective way of thinking. Your caricature of post-modernism just seems off for me and your hastiness to draw conclusions also worries me. But I understand that's who you are.


What a rediculous thing to say.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

RogerWaters said:


> What a rediculous thing to say.


Of course it is, especially in the eyes of someone who is ignorant of both post-modernism and East-Asian philosophy.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> Hey - can you two desist please? MR posted completely off-topic in error (I'm charitably thinking) - no need to follow him down the rabbit hole.


I was beginning to wonder if the mods are on vacation. About a year or two ago this thread would have been locked pages ago. :lol:


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

tdc said:


> A single melody has implied harmony. One can listen to Bach's partita for solo flute and still detect masterful use of harmony.


A masterful use of *implied* harmony, maybe, although I think it's less on display in the flute piece than in the cello suites. In either case the harmony is a skillful illsusion


----------



## Kilgore Trout (Feb 26, 2014)

1996D said:


> They are Schoenberg's children and he broke with the tradition before him, so no, contemporary music has no lineage to Western tradition.


In a thread full of ignorant statements, this is probably the most ignorant of them all.
I have great admiration of UniversalTuringMachine, who still attempts to discuss with someone who obvisouly has no knowledge of what he's talking about, and who's just throwing big bad words like "post-modernism" or "atonal", in the most trist conservatist fashion like there is some kind of conspirary to overthrow the achievements of that poor old Mozart. For some who says he values reason, he barely uses it.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Of course it is, especially in the eyes of someone who is ignorant of both post-modernism and East-Asian philosophy.


You say yourself you haven't read much on pomo, yet you bulk at widely accepted generalisation about it! For the cherry on top you end your rants with personal insults as if this makes your assertions any more justified.

You are a strange specimen when pressed on points. It's as though you are used to thinking of yourself as the smartest in the room or something. Anyway, good day yet again. I won't be following up on your rants here further, I can assure you.


----------



## Kilgore Trout (Feb 26, 2014)

RogerWaters said:


> You say yourself you haven't read much on pomo, yet you bulk at widely accepted generalisation about it! For the cherry on top you end your rants with personal insults as if this makes your assertions any more justified.
> You are a strange specimen when pressed on points.


He was very patient with the nonsense spilled in this thread.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Ethereality said:


> When I think of melodic craft that's very difficult to achieve for most composers, it's usually a conundrum between the harmony and the melodic line ie. it's either, if one writes a melody, then its harmonic potential is hard to achieve or fulfill, or if one seeks a harmonic progression, then it's hard to form a catchy hook or melody to support it. What's truly masterful is being able to internally hear and compose both of these as though they're one entity, while the pervasive idea of 'logical harmony within melody' tells most others it wouldn't work. That is a real craft and talent. Some of my favorite melodies are the following:
> 
> 1. One Jump Reprise
> 2. We Three Kings
> ...


Well I wish someone would spell it all out to me, I mean I have no idea whether you're saying anything more interesting than "I like these tunes." Let's take a contcrete example. Is this a good melody or not and why?


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Kilgore Trout said:


> In a thread full of ignorant statements, this is probably the most ignorant of them all.
> I have great admiration of UniversalTuringMachine, who still attempts to discuss with someone who obvisouly has no knowledge of what he's talking about, and who's just throwing big bad words like "post-modernism" or "atonal", in the most trist conservatist fashion like there is some kind of conspirary to overthrow the achievements of that poor old Mozart. For some who says he values reason, he barely uses it.


Oh, give me a break. I know what "postmodern" or rather "critical theory" thinking is, and it's no "conspiracy" (an ignorant buzzword) but rather a mindset and worldview in which, no, Mozart's music doesn't have any intrinsic value because *nothing* does. If someone wants to offer a reasonably cogent defense of such a viewpoint, that's fine, but essentially "you're a poo poo head dummy" isn't a cogent defense.


----------



## Kilgore Trout (Feb 26, 2014)

consuono said:


> Oh, give me a break. I know what "postmodern" or rather "critical theory" thinking is, and it's no "conspiracy" (an ignorant buzzword) but rather a mindset and worldview in which, no, Mozart's music doesn't have any intrinsic value because *nothing* does.


We're talking music here. Do you actually believe any so-called "postmodern" composers think that Mozart's music has no intrinsic value? 
This thread is just a bunch big words, simplifications, confusions and ideologies disguised as "reason" or whatever.
And "Critical theory" is not equal to "postmodern". Critical theory was established by the Frankfurt School, and if you think Adorno, Horkeimer, Marcuse and Benjamin thought that "Mozart's music doesn't have any intrinsic value because *nothing* does", you haven't read any of them. This is also true for all the left-wing idiots who spit their imbecility on twitter and thinks they share some "critical thinking mindset" because they are against racism. 
Words have meaning, concepts designate precise things, not everything is about America and how Americans think and act.



consuono said:


> If someone wants to offer a reasonably cogent defense of such a viewpoint, that's fine, but essentially "you're a poo poo head dummy" isn't a cogent defense.


There is no need to defend this viewpoint because no serious living composer shares it, and because anyone who have actually read Adorno, Horkeimer, Marcuse, Benjamin, Deleuze, Derrida, Barthes or Foucault knows it has very little to do with what they wrote. It is a dumb statement, like the statements from the ultra-conservatives in this thread are dumbs. 
It's not their fault some barely literate americans decided they could define their whole identity around a bad vulgarisation of their works - and anyway, most of what everyone call "postmodernism" here is a bad reading of Barthes and Foucault, the rest of them being too difficult.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

> And "Critical theory" is not equal to "postmodern".


Maybe not, in the strict Frankfurt School sense, but it's less amorphous than the term "postmodernism". There really ultimately isn't any such thing. It's an amalgam of post-structuralism, the Frankfurt School and deconstructionism and it most certainly does lead to the "valueless", whatever its origin.


> Critical theory was established by the Frankfurt School, and if you think Adorno, Horkeimer, Marcuse and Benjamin thought that "Mozart's music doesn't have any intrinsic value because *nothing* does", you haven't read any of them.


Have you? Point out some examples.


----------



## Kilgore Trout (Feb 26, 2014)

consuono said:


> Maybe not, in the strict Frankfurt School sense, but it's less amorphous than the term "postmodernism". There really ultimately isn't any such thing. It's an amalgam of post-structuralism, the Frankfurt School and deconstructionism and it most certainly does lead to the "valueless", whatever its origin.


Once again, how has it anything to do with music? What composers write, in this day and age, music that somehow embodies this "amalgam"? If you want to fight that kind of stuff, go on twitter.



consuono said:


> Have you? Point out some examples.


Some examples of what?


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Kilgore Trout said:


> We're talking music here. Do you actually believe any so-called "postmodern" composers thinkg Mozart's music has no intrinsic value?


The problem with most modern classical music is not what composers think about Mozart. And it isn't that people who may not like it are "ultra-conservative" or "dumb."


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Mandryka said:


> Is this a good melody or not and why?


What melody? You linked a 12 minute video. Most melodies I know are aren't that long, but maybe you're making a statement here.

What I do know is the first few minutes have nothing to do with the subject of melody and harmony being intertwined inseparably in one's compositional ear, because there's only one voice in that clip, until a few minutes in. And then whether this piece is of quality I suppose is an entirely different subject from mine: I personally don't recognize (a) an immediate quality or (b) one that would easily be remembered in my particular head, which is how I tend to remember what I like. But if I scrutinizingly listened to it perhaps it could become my favorite piece in the world. IDK! The voice sounds kind of pesky.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Kilgore Trout said:


> Once again, how has it anything to do with music? What composers write, in this day and age, music that somehow embodies this "amalgam"? If you want to fight that kind of stuff, go on twitter.


Because music is part of culture, just as literature and philosophy are, and it is yet another facet of culture that has been examined in a critical way as it relates to "power structures" and the like.



> Some examples of what?


Some examples of the value that (broadly speaking) "postmodernism" places on what was at least at one time revered art, using e.g. Adorno.


----------



## Kilgore Trout (Feb 26, 2014)

JAS said:


> And it isn't that people who may not like it are "ultra-conservative" or "dumb."


I've never said that. I've said that the statements made it this thread by those who don't like it were dumbs. You don't like it, fine, just stop trying to find objective and intrinsic reasons to explain to us, poor deluded fools, why it's bad/awful/whatever.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Kilgore Trout said:


> I've never that. I've said that the statements made it this thread by those who don't like it were dumbs. You don't like it, fine, just stop trying to find objective and intrinsic reasons to explain to us, poor deluded fools, why it's bad/awful/whatever.


There isn't an objective reason, but at least part of it is intrinsic in what is being offered. And there is no point in trying to convince someone that something they like is awful any more than it is to convince someone that something they have actually listened to and don't like that their reaction is wrong or the result of ignorance.


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2020)

Although some of the discussion in this thread has been very interesting, it seems destined to wind up several blind alleys simultaneously...and for what? The claims by the OP about the music of today are not supported by any evidence. The only example offered is, in fact, what "has been lost" from the music of the past.

The OP offers no insights that I can see hold any merit, and are based on a long-standing aversion to music as much of the past as anything currently composed.

How this can continue to merit a discussion of so many -isms (most of negligible importance to the OP itself or today's music) I cannot understand. Some posters have had a 'sense of proportion' bypass.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Ethereality said:


> What melody? You linked a 12 minute video. Most melodies I know are aren't that long, but maybe you're making a statement here.
> 
> What I do know is the first few minutes have nothing to do with the subject of melody and harmony being intertwined inseparably in one's compositional ear, because there's only one voice in that clip, until a few minutes in. And then whether this piece is of quality I suppose is an entirely different subject from mine: I personally don't recognize (a) an immediate quality or (b) one that would easily be remembered in my particular head, which is how I tend to remember what I like. But if I scrutinizingly listened to it perhaps it could become my favorite piece in the world. IDK! The voice sounds kind of pesky.


Sure, but when you said



> When I think of melodic craft that's very difficult to achieve for most composers, it's usually a conundrum between the harmony and the melodic line ie. it's either, if one writes a melody, then its harmonic potential is hard to achieve or fulfill, or if one seeks a harmonic progression, then it's hard to form a catchy hook or melody to support it. What's truly masterful is being able to internally hear and compose both of these as though they're one entity, while the pervasive idea of 'logical harmony within melody' tells most others it wouldn't work. That is a real craft and talent.


you sounded as though you were talking about something more interesting than whether a bit of music was for you "immediate" or "easily remembered" But no, it looks like all you have to say is what your subjective responses at a certain time were, which may matter to you but, with all due respect, not to anyone else!

By the way, are you saying that for you what makes that Cassio Greensleaves special, or One Jump Reprise, is the way the music in the accompaniment relates to the music in the voice? Forgive me if you think you've made that clear, it's just on listening to the music I wanted to check.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

The discussion has gotten off-topic, which is sometimes fine, but in this case the diversion has led to many inappropriate posts which comment negatively on other members. Please move back to music and aspects closer to "Obsession with harmony and superficial extended techniques."


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

violadude said:


> I was beginning to wonder if the mods are on vacation. About a year or two ago this thread would have been locked pages ago. :lol:


The moderators do not read every post or even every thread. I would guess we read less than 10% of the content on TC. If you see a problem that you feel the moderators should consider, please report a post or send us a PM.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

1996D said:


> That's great that means we'll see the same future, certainly what you say is very different than what older members argue. They'll be dead when it's our turn to manage things so there is a definite disconnect in ideas.


I have known you argue that women can't compose or conduct. And now you want to argue that all people above a certain age think the same things and act in the same way. Maybe you need to consider that when you find yourself generalising about a group you are almost certainly being unfair to many of them. In this case you want those of us who are above a certain age to die and you believe that we (the older members) are currently in charge of how things are. From my age it looks the other way, if anything. The young may have a difficult economic future but culturally they already have control of most of our cultural life. The strangest thing of all is that until you came out as quite young I had always thought of you as very old fashioned in your intollerance.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

consuono said:


> A masterful use of *implied* harmony, maybe, although I think it's less on display in the flute piece than in the cello suites. In either case the harmony is a skillful illsusion


Yes, of course the baroque flute was not as flexible or technically capable as the violin or cello. The modern flute has closed the gap a bit, and one can play two notes at once on the flute, though not very easily. There are orchestrations of the Bach solo violin sonatas and partitas, especially the famous Chaconne from the D minor partita. Bach's use of the concept of implied harmony is much more pronounced, elaborate and sophisticated than in most popular tunes, but it is still, as you say, implied.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

consuono said:


> A masterful use of *implied* harmony, maybe, although I think it's less on display in the flute piece than in the cello suites. In either case the harmony is a skillful illsusion


What do you think of this?


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> What do you think of this?


I love it. A great performance of a piece I've been playing regularly since I was 14 and only gradually come to know in any depth. The similarity to the solo cello sonatas, with which it has a lot more in common than it does with the solo violin sonatas, is made especially clear here. The inherent limitations of the baroque flute were well known to Bach and he compensates for them expertly. "Implied harmony" in this context mainly means implied harmonic progressions, especially around the circle of fifths, using broken arpeggios and various rhythmic devices to emphasize the root or fundamental notes. A famous flute teacher used to require his students to find and play the "skeleton" of melodies of Bach, Mozart and others to get a feel for these underlying progressions.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

fluteman said:


> Yes, of course the baroque flute was not as flexible or technically capable as the violin or cello. The modern flute has closed the gap a bit, and one can play two notes at once on the flute, though not very easily. There are orchestrations of the Bach solo violin sonatas and partitas, especially the famous Chaconne from the D minor partita. Bach's use of the concept of implied harmony is much more pronounced, elaborate and sophisticated than in most popular tunes, but it is still, as you say, implied.


I think some of the difference may be that with the cello and violin sympathetic resonances are possible which aren't available on a wind instrument. I know Bach really capitalizes on that in the fifth cello suite.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

consuono said:


> I think some of the difference may be that with the cello and violin sympathetic resonances are possible which aren't available on a wind instrument. I know Bach really capitalizes on that in the fifth cello suite.


Fair point, but I wouldn't say "not available", I'd say, less apparent or audible. The three main octaves of the flute are based on fundamental tones, then first, and finally second, harmonics. It's also possible to produce the first few notes of the fourth octave as third harmonics. Other winds are similar. The higher harmonic tones are obtained partly by "overblowing" and partly by venting, or opening holes to filter out, the fundamental and lower harmonic tones. The modern flute (and other winds have followed suit) have sophisticated scales and mechanisms that allow most of these notes to be properly or reasonably well vented with our limited number of fingers, though a few notes are inevitably less than perfectly vented. Certain holes are needed to vent multiple notes which result in some intonation issues that have to be compensated for in other ways.

All of this means there is a rich harmonic content in the wind instrument sound, though not as powerful and obvious as in the string instruments. A skilled player can even play a wide variety of multiphonics by bring out the harmonic content without fully filtering out the fundamental.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Enthusiast said:


> I have known you argue that women can't compose or conduct. And now you want to argue that all people above a certain age think the same things and act in the same way. Maybe you need to consider that when you find yourself generalising about a group you are almost certainly being unfair to many of them. In this case you want those of us who are above a certain age to die and you believe that we (the older members) are currently in charge of how things are. From my age it looks the other way, if anything. The young may have a difficult economic future but culturally they already have control of most of our cultural life. The strangest thing of all is that until you came out as quite young I had always thought of you as very old fashioned in your intollerance.


On the contrary the future is very bright.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

fluteman said:


> Fair point, but I wouldn't say "not available", I'd say, less apparent or audible. The three main octaves of the flute are based on fundamental tones, then first, and finally second, harmonics. It's also possible to produce the first few notes of the fourth octave as third harmonics. Other winds are similar. The higher harmonic tones are obtained partly by "overblowing" and partly by venting, or opening holes to filter out, the fundamental and lower harmonic tones. The modern flute (and other winds have followed suit) have sophisticated scales and mechanisms that allow most of these notes to be properly or reasonably well vented with our limited number of fingers, though a few notes are inevitably less than perfectly vented. Certain holes are needed to vent multiple notes which result in some intonation issues that have to be compensated for in other ways.
> 
> All of this means there is a rich harmonic content in the wind instrument sound, though not as powerful and obvious as in the string instruments. A skilled player can even play a wide variety of multiphonics by bring out the harmonic content without fully filtering out the fundamental.


And also a fair point. I don't mean to be derogatory toward the flute, btw. It's a beautiful instrument and darn tough to master (I've tried...and failed. )


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

consuono said:


> And also a fair point. I don't mean to be derogatory toward the flute, btw. It's a beautiful instrument and darn tough to master (I've tried...and failed. )


There are ten things you need to do to master the flute or almost any other instrument: practice, practice, practice, practice, practice, practice, practice, practice, practice and quit your day job.


----------



## vincula (Jun 23, 2020)

fluteman said:


> There are ten things you need to do to master the flute or almost any other instrument: practice, practice, practice, practice, practice, practice, practice, practice, practice and quit your day job.


And then move back to your parents house, so that you can afford to eat.

_Sell the house. Sell the car. Sell the kids. I'm never coming back_ :lol::lol:

Regards,

Vincula


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

consuono said:


> And also a fair point. I don't mean to be derogatory toward the flute, btw. It's a beautiful instrument and darn tough to master (I've tried...and failed. )


I just found this on the 'net, a book excerpt explaining (as I tried to do above) the production of fundamental and harmonic tones on the flute. As this author says (and as I said), the flute's tone has less harmonic content than many other instruments, but it is still there. Bach knew all about the harmonic content of the violin, cello and flute sound, and made extensive and sophisticated use of it in the solo sonatas, as someone suggested above.

http://www.markshep.com/flute/Acoustics.html


----------

