# Are we back in the middle age?



## johankillen

Hi guys,

The last few days I have thought about which age cycle we are with the music right now. Because, we as human beings have gone back and forth i cycles with the development of science. Like in the classical antiquity we did really focus on the science. Then the middle ages came and we did go back and the science did take a step backwards again and now we are back in the science age.

So by that said, are the music going in the same approx same cycles, but in another pulse. Because I think we are back at the middle age right now.. I hope you get my point. Will the music come back to its glory days, will we ever get a new Bach etc? Discuss, how and why does the music climate change by time. 
And sorry for my bad English. :tiphat:

/Johan


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Personally I believe that mankind as a whole is on a path of devolution or just about to step on it. Some day we will go back to the Middle Ages (if not all the way back to the Stone Age) as regards the degree of scientific and other knowledge we possess. And from there it will be a long slow crawl back up - and then some time along the way we will get another Bach and another Beethoven etc. But the whole process will take thousands of years, and none of us will live to see it.


----------



## Bulldog

You two are making me depressed - only kidding. I'm an avid believer in progression. The Middle Ages are long gone and won't be seen again. Of course, a pandemic or nuclear holocaust could make everything long gone. Treasure each and every day; it might be your last.


----------



## Strange Magic

We're not back in the Middle Ages. We are deep within the New Stasis in the arts, as described by Leonard Meyer mostly definitively in his book _Music, the Arts, and Ideas_. Every sort of trend, movement, school, ideology in the arts is widely available to every and all consumers and participants of and in the arts. Here is a typical Meyerian excerpt:

"...change and variety are not incompatible with stasis. For stasis, as I intend the term, is not an absence of novelty and change--a total quiescence--but rather the absence of ordered sequential change. Like molecules rushing about haphazardly in a Brownian movement, a culture bustling with activity and change may nevertheless be static. Indeed, insofar as an active, conscious search for new techniques, new forms and materials, and new modes of sensibility (such as have marked our time) precludes the gradual accumulation of changes capable of producing a trend or series of connected mutations, it tends to create a steady-state, though perhaps one that is both vigorous and variegated. In short......a multiplicity of styles in each of the arts, coexisting in a balanced, yet competitive, cultural environment is producing a fluctuating stasis in contemporary culture."

I can hear the groans from longtime TC members, but Meyer is well worth your time and attention (though often very dense reading).


----------



## Agamemnon

In all areas our postmodern times are very similar to the Middle Ages. E.g. in philosophy there is the linguistic turn and in politics the decline of democracy (and nationalism) and rise of the European Union and a renewed class society. So I guess musically there will be strong similarities between contemporary music and Middle Age music as well but I don't know Middle Age music so I can't tell the similarities. Perhaps a similarity is the decline of (typically modernist) avantgarde and the rise of music that consciously harbors old (school) music. Perhaps simply the growing interest in old music from the Renaissance and the Middle Ages shows.


----------



## hpowders

johankillen said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> The last few days I have thought about *which age cycle we are with the music right now.* Because, we as human beings have gone back and forth i cycles with the development of science. Like in the classical antiquity we did really focus on the science. Then the middle ages came and we did go back and the science did take a step backwards again and now we are back in the science age.
> 
> So by that said, are the music going in the same approx same cycles, but in another pulse. Because I think we are back at the middle age right now.. I hope you get my point. Will the music come back to its glory days, will we ever get a new Bach etc? Discuss, how and why does the music climate change by time.
> And sorry for my bad English. :tiphat:
> 
> /Johan


It all depends on Kim Jong-un.


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith

Strange Magic said:


> We're not back in the Middle Ages. We are deep within the New Stasis in the arts, as described by Leonard Meyer mostly definitively in his book _Music, the Arts, and Ideas_. Every sort of trend, movement, school, ideology in the arts is widely available to every and all consumers and participants of and in the arts. Here is a typical Meyerian excerpt:
> 
> "...change and variety are not incompatible with stasis. For stasis, as I intend the term, is not an absence of novelty and change--a total quiescence--but rather the absence of ordered sequential change. Like molecules rushing about haphazardly in a Brownian movement, a culture bustling with activity and change may nevertheless be static. Indeed, insofar as an active, conscious search for new techniques, new forms and materials, and new modes of sensibility (such as have marked our time) precludes the gradual accumulation of changes capable of producing a trend or series of connected mutations, it tends to create a steady-state, though perhaps one that is both vigorous and variegated. In short......a multiplicity of styles in each of the arts, coexisting in a balanced, yet competitive, cultural environment is producing a fluctuating stasis in contemporary culture."
> 
> I can hear the groans from longtime TC members, but Meyer is well worth your time and attention (though often very dense reading).


Reminds me of Jacques Barzun's argument that modern society is decadent.



> There is today, he acknowledges, 'no loss of energy or talent or moral sense.' On the contrary, ours 'is a very active time, full of deep concerns, but peculiarly restless, for it sees no clear lines of advance. The loss it faces is that of Possibility. The forms of art as of life seem exhausted, the stages of development have been run through... Repetition and frustration are the intolerable result. Boredom and fatigue are great historical forces.'


----------



## Mandryka

SimonTemplar said:


> Reminds me of Jacques Barzun's argument that modern society is decadent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is today, he acknowledges, 'no loss of energy or talent or moral sense.' On the contrary, ours 'is a very active time, full of deep concerns, but peculiarly restless, for it sees no clear lines of advance. The loss it faces is that of Possibility. The forms of art as of life seem exhausted, the stages of development have been run through... Repetition and frustration are the intolerable result. Boredom and fatigue are great historical forces.'
Click to expand...

This is the area that Wagner was thinking about in The Ring.


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith

Mandryka said:


> This is the area that Wagner was thinking about in The Ring.


I'm intrigued. Can you say more?


----------



## Mandryka

SimonTemplar said:


> I'm intrigued. Can you say more?


Yes. Wotan explores a form of life based on law -- it fails. Bruhnhilde explores a form of life based on love -- it fails. We're left at the end with the Niebelungen at a loss for what to do next, no clear lines of advance.


----------



## Strange Magic

One can view the New Stasis from several perspectives, some optimistic, some rather dark. Along with Barzun we have Yeats:

The Second Coming
BY WILLIAM BUTLER YEATS

Turning and turning in the widening gyre 
The falcon cannot hear the falconer; 
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; 
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, 
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere 
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; 
The best lack all conviction, while the worst 
Are full of passionate intensity. 

Surely some revelation is at hand; 
Surely the Second Coming is at hand. 
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out 
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi 
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert 
A shape with lion body and the head of a man, 
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun, 
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it 
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds. 
The darkness drops again; but now I know 
That twenty centuries of stony sleep 
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle, 
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, 
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?


----------



## Larkenfield

For recorded music, it looks more like the Golden Age rather than the Middle Age. Never has more been available at affordable prices or free. People are listening. So there is still interest in it but people don't want to pay or pay as much for it. Or maybe they can't afford to. 

On the other hand, orchestras have been disappearing, attendance is down in some areas, live performances are less frequent, more musicians are out of work, and the music seems more on the periphery of interest compared to the past. So I don't think we're in the Golden Age there and I'm not sure it'll ever come back unless there's sufficient funding to support it from government and benefactors and it's taught more in the schools. 

It would probably also help if we had more high-profile composers and conductors to peak the interest of the public. Plus the benefits of the arts seem rarely talked about anymore in contributing to the development of a well-rounded person who is not just a materialist but knows how to enjoy some measure of the Fine Arts and perhaps quality leisure. 

Getting into it now seems more of a do-it yourself procedure where one kind of lucks into it rather than necessarily being exposed to it in school, or being exposed to it by Toscanini or Bernstein on TV. 

Starting in elementary school, most of my classrooms heard a classical music radio broadcast at least once a week for everyone, and that's where I first heard a symphony orchestra and opera. I never forgot the huge impact or wouldn't be talking about it now.


----------



## Botschaft

The answer is painfully obvious: yes. There hasn't been another Bach, Mozart, Beethoven or Brahms in a century and there probably never will be; you can thank the modernists and the proto-modernists for that. Just ask yourself why the repertoire of symphony orchestras is mostly more than a hundred years old. 

Music has gone into a swamp, like art in general.


----------



## superhorn

I don't know if music is "back in the middle ages again", but some of us at Talk Classical are definitely middle aged !


----------



## Nereffid

What does "a new Bach etc" even mean? Does it just mean "a composer that most people agree is far above not only his contemporaries but also almost every composer before or since"? If we're to believe all those polls, there have only ever been three such people since the beginning of time, and what an odd coincidence that they were all born within 85 years and 200 miles of each other!


----------



## Botschaft

Nereffid said:


> What does "a new Bach etc" even mean? Does it just mean "a composer that most people agree is far above not only his contemporaries but also almost every composer before or since"? If we're to believe all those polls, there have only ever been three such people since the beginning of time, and what an odd coincidence that they were all born within 85 years and 200 miles of each other!


You seem to be missing the point: a "new Bach" implies nothing more than someone akin to him in his artistry, and for some reason the third B in music seems to be slipping your mind, who saw the decline and predicted the fall of classical music.


----------



## Nereffid

Improbus said:


> You seem to be missing the point: a "new Bach" implies nothing more than someone akin to him in his artistry, and for some reason the third B in music seems to be slipping your mind, who saw the decline and predicted the fall of classical music.


Seriously, you'll have to spell it out for me. What do you mean by "akin to him in his artistry"? Do you not mean that Bach is held in higher regard than almost every other composer?

The third B (presumably not Boulez...) didn't slip my mind. I just haven't seen quite the same consensus in reverence as is given to Bach, Mozart and Beethoven.


----------



## Zhdanov

but we've never left medieval times.


----------



## Zhdanov

Nereffid said:


> What does "a new Bach etc" even mean?


a new hope to prove we aren't degenerating but progressing.


----------



## Nereffid

Zhdanov said:


> a new hope to prove we aren't degenerating but progressing.


Hope is in the eye of the beholder.
For the hopeful, proof is all around.


----------



## Zhdanov

Nereffid said:


> For the hopeful, proof is all around.


oh yeah -


----------



## Botschaft

Nereffid said:


> Seriously, you'll have to spell it out for me. What do you mean by "akin to him in his artistry"? Do you not mean that Bach is held in higher regard than almost every other composer?


Bach is held in higher regard than almost every other composer, but not by random chance, nor are the other great composers of those times, who are significantly more revered than anyone who has lived since.



> The third B (presumably not Boulez...) didn't slip my mind. I just haven't seen quite the same consensus in reverence as is given to Bach, Mozart and Beethoven.


He is still not simply more revered than more recent composers but his mastery of composition by far exceeds theirs.


----------



## Nereffid

Improbus said:


> Bach is held in higher regard than almost every other composer, but not by random chance, nor are the other great composers of those times, who are significantly more revered than anyone who has lived since.


Ah, so I didn't miss the point at all.


----------



## Botschaft

Nereffid said:


> Ah, so I didn't miss the point at all.


If you still think it's merely a matter of popularity or of three Germans, then yes.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Zhdanov said:


> but we've never left medieval times.


Speak for yourself. However, in terms of economic behaviour I can wholeheartedly agree.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Improbus said:


> He is still not simply more revered than more recent composers but *his mastery of composition by far exceeds theirs*.


No, it does not. We're talking about Brahms I assume? If so the answer is still the same.


----------



## Botschaft

eugeneonagain said:


> No, it does not. We're talking about Brahms I assume?


Well, who else? Bruckner? :lol:



> If so the answer is still the same.


Perhaps you direct me to some respected scholar making such an argument? Or perhaps not...


----------



## Nereffid

Improbus said:


> If you still think it's merely a matter of popularity or of three Germans, then yes.


Not "merely".

But it's something of a self-fulfilling prophecy, really, isn't it? Define the best music as that which was written in the 18th and 19th centuries, and then point to anything outside that and say it's not good enough.

Another approach to the issue is to say that music has always been in a constant state of change, and that there's no particular reason for any one of us to favour one era over another (while acknowledging that many of us _do_). And suddenly the "problem" vanishes! I agree, nobody in the past 100 years was capable of composing (for example) the _St Matthew Passion_ or a Mozartean piano concerto or the _Eroica_, but on the other hand nobody in the 18th or 19th centuries was capable of composing (for example) _The Rite of Spring_ or _Music for 18 Musicians_ or _Sinfonia_.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Improbus said:


> Well, who else? Bruckner? :lol:
> 
> Perhaps you direct me to some respected scholar making such an argument? Or perhaps not...


Do you need to base your opinions on the opinions of "scholars"? I am saying it and I am doing so because the reverse is patently absurd.


----------



## Zhdanov

eugeneonagain said:


> Speak for yourself.


the world as we know it has formed during medieval period, in terms of politics and policies; it hasn't changed since then: crusades, witch hunts and malleus maleficarum kind of things are still in place.


----------



## Lenny

No, I don't think so. Human race is becoming weaker and more stupid each day, so comparing our situation to middle ages is an insult to middle ages. Winter is coming!


----------



## Botschaft

eugeneonagain said:


> Do you need to base your opinions on the opinions of "scholars"? I am saying it and I am doing so because the reverse is patently absurd.


No, I only need to hear his music, the last of such a high order, achieving effects thence unheard of, but since you made an extraordinary claim I will not be easily convinced.

Music, like the other fine arts (which seems like a contradiction in terms these days more than anything) has decayed in a vain and unbridled aspiration for novelty, and novelty for its own sake above all.


----------



## Nereffid

Improbus said:


> I only need to hear his music


But conversely, _other people_ only need to hear the music of today's composers to reject the claim that music "has gone into a swamp".


----------



## Botschaft

Nereffid said:


> But conversely, _other people_ only need to hear the music of today's composers to reject the claim that music "has gone into a swamp".


I trust in the authority and the genius of Johannes Brahms, the great bulwark of the classical tradition, the Bach and Mozart of romanticism, the rightful heir of Beethoven and the greatest hero in the history of music.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Improbus said:


> No, I only need to hear his music, the last of such a high order, achieving effects thence unheard of, but since you made an extraordinary claim I will not be easily convinced.
> 
> Music, like the other fine arts (which seems like a contradiction in terms these days more than anything) has decayed in a vain and unbridled aspiration for novelty, and novelty for its own sake above all.


I see. So you only need to listen, but I have to engage a music scholar?

I advise that _you_ engage one to try and break free from that conservative musical straitjacket.


----------



## Botschaft

eugeneonagain said:


> I see. So you only need to listen, but I have to engage a music scholar?


You don't have to do anything, but do not expect us to reach an agreement easily. Though of course there will never be any agreement and it would be foolish to expect such a thing.



> I advise that _you_ engage one to try and break free from that conservative musical straitjacket.


I guess I could just get rid of all standards and listen indiscriminately, but I don't think that would do me or anyone else any good.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Improbus said:


> You don't have to do anything, but do not expect us to reach an agreement easily. Though of course there will never be any agreement and it would be foolish to expect such a thing.


You seem to be under the impression that I am the one who was making unreasonable demands and statements. Let me remind you that it was you who suggested I (or anyone) who doesn't think Brahms is superior to anything and anyone coming after him, needs to provide evidence from musical scholars.
I'm not looking for agreement - in this field it often comes down to taste, but using this as both a shield and springboard for absurd, reactionary statements is something I am going to question,



Improbus said:


> I guess I could just get rid of all standards and listen indiscriminately, but I don't think that would do me or anyone else any good.


The idea that everything since Brahms has been a degenerative downward spiral is complete piffle.


----------



## KenOC

eugeneonagain said:


> The idea that everything since Brahms has been a degenerative downward spiral is complete piffle.


Quite so. It's actually everything since Bach.


----------



## Zhdanov

eugeneonagain said:


> try and break free from that conservative musical straitjacket.


it isn't something one desires to 'break free' from so desperately, because 'conservative musical straitjacket' in itself is not a bad thing as such, unless demonised in fashion of the above mentioned 'malleus maleficarum' etc.


----------



## Larkenfield

The Best of Mozart: 




_123 million views_. More people have heard Mozart in this lifetime than when he was on the planet. It's being used for study and relaxation and pleasure, and is in no danger of dying, whether it's taught in the schools or not. It's a permanent part of the landscape. The hit movie "Amadeus" turned him into a rockstar. Bach and Beethoven and Chopin have also received millions of views. It's being listened to by the young but they may not be interested in going to concerts and paying for it. I doubt if these are examples of the music being in the Middle Ages. And even those talking about the music being in the Middle Ages are listening to it themselves, and lo and behold, they probably aren't suffering from the Plague. This is not the Middle Ages; it's a world hypnotized by gadgets and technology, blinded by the madness of some of its ridiculous leaders and the public not standing up for itself.


----------



## Nereffid

Lenny said:


> Human race is becoming weaker and more stupid each day


Is everyone on TC doing their bit to keep the average up? :devil:


----------



## Botschaft

Larkenfield said:


> The Best of Mozart:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _123 million views_. More people have heard Mozart in this lifetime than when he was on the planet. It's being used for study and relaxation and pleasure, and is in no danger of dying, whether it's taught in the schools or not. It's a permanent part of the landscape. The hit movie "Amadeus" turned him into a rockstar. Bach and Beethoven and Chopin have also received millions of views. It's being listened to by the young but they may not be interested in going to concerts and paying for it. I doubt if these are examples of the music being in the Middle Ages. And even those talking about the music being in the Middle Ages are listening to it themselves, and lo and behold, they probably aren't suffering from the Plague. This is not the Middle Ages; it's a world hypnotized by gadgets and technology, blinded by the madness of some of its ridiculous leaders and the public not standing up for itself.


Wouldn't people here and elsewhere be more devoted to contemporary music unless it were in fact inferior? In what era has the art of the past been of so much greater interest if not one in decline?


----------



## Agamemnon

Improbus said:


> Wouldn't people here and elsewhere be more devoted to contemporary music unless it were in fact inferior? In what era has the art of the past been of so much greater interest if not one in decline?


The paradox though is that the greatest exponents of Western culture, like Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert, based their art on the presumption that the art of their times was inferior to the ancient art to which standards they tried to emulate.


----------



## Botschaft

Agamemnon said:


> The paradox though is that the greatest exponents of Western culture, like Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert, based their art on the presumption that the art of their times was inferior to the ancient art to which standards they tried to emulate.


Even if that's true at least the orchestras of their times didn't mainly perform music more than a hundred years old, which is hardly a mere accident.


----------



## Woodduck

Agamemnon said:


> The paradox though is that the greatest exponents of Western culture, like Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert, based their art on the presumption that the art of their times was inferior to the ancient art to which standards they tried to emulate.


Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert had no idea what ancient music sounded like. It's true that Haydn, hearing some of Bach's B-minor Mass, said that no one could write anything better, and he was right, but the B-minor Mass was not ancient. Brahms thought Mozart was greater than himself or, presumably, anyone in his own time, but that's hardly an idealization of ancient times either. So - no: despite the persistent Western myth of a Greek "golden age," it isn't the case that artists have always idealized the past or tried to emulate it, or that the culture of the present has always suffered by comparison.


----------



## DaveM

The golden age of classical music is over and probably ended, as far as composition is concerned, somewhere circa 1925 give or take a few years and, as far as audience is concerned (as a percent of overall world population), somewhere circa the end of the 20th century.

Classical music prior to 1925 whether of the Baroque or Late Romantic era was based on a blueprint of consonance and melody and the music with those attributes is what sustains an interest in classical music to this day. It turns out that audiences were prepared to accept a limited amount of dissonance in music of the late Romantic era, but they generally have not embraced music where dissonance is predominant. And it also turns out that modern/contemporary music that maintains some level of consonance and melody is simply not able to compete with 19th century (and prior) music with those attributes.

Pundits like to point out that audiences initially rejected changes in classical music during the 18th and 19th century, but those rejections were relatively short-lived and since, as it turned out, these changes were only new ways to present consonance and melody, the music ultimately succeeded and prevailed. But the history of modern/contemporary music starting in the early 20th century and continuing over a period of a century has not been one of wide acceptance to the extent that it can 'grow' an interest in classical music and become the primary form programmed in concerts and sold as recordings.

That's not to say that there isn't an audience for modern/contemporary music. There is and, perhaps, always will be, but, unfortunately, whether the music is highly dissonant or music that has some form of consonance and melody, it apparently doesn't attract enough people to create a new era of classical music comparable to that prior to the 20th century.


----------



## Agamemnon

Woodduck said:


> Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert had no idea what ancient music sounded like. It's true that Haydn, hearing some of Bach's B-minor Mass, said that no one could write anything better, and he was right, but the B-minor Mass was not ancient. Brahms thought Mozart was greater than himself or, presumably, anyone in his own time, but that's hardly an idealization of ancient times either. So - no: despite the persistent Western myth of a Greek "golden age," it isn't the case that artists have always idealized the past or tried to emulate it, or that the culture of the present has always suffered by comparison.


Wikipedia on classicism:

"Classicism, in the arts, refers generally to a high regard for a classical period, classical antiquity in the Western tradition, as setting standards for taste which the classicists seek to emulate." 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classicism

Now it is true that Mozart et al didn't know ancient music but the standards they applied were derived from the ancients anyway (things like clarity, emotion in control by reason, etc).


----------



## johankillen

Larkenfield said:


> The Best of Mozart:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _123 million views_. More people have heard Mozart in this lifetime than when he was on the planet. It's being used for study and relaxation and pleasure, and is in no danger of dying, whether it's taught in the schools or not. It's a permanent part of the landscape. The hit movie "Amadeus" turned him into a rockstar. Bach and Beethoven and Chopin have also received millions of views. It's being listened to by the young but they may not be interested in going to concerts and paying for it. I doubt if these are examples of the music being in the Middle Ages. And even those talking about the music being in the Middle Ages are listening to it themselves, and lo and behold, they probably aren't suffering from the Plague. This is not the Middle Ages; it's a world hypnotized by gadgets and technology, blinded by the madness of some of its ridiculous leaders and the public not standing up for itself.






3 367 596 064 views.. Warning, I do not recommend that you listen..

..Humanity.....


----------



## Woodduck

DaveM said:


> The golden age of classical music is over and probably ended, as far as composition is concerned, somewhere circa 1925 give or take a few years and, as far as audience is concerned (as a percent of overall world population), somewhere circa the end of the 20th century.
> 
> Classical music prior to 1925 whether of the Baroque or Late Romantic era was based on a blueprint of consonance and melody and the music with those attributes is what sustains an interest in classical music to this day. It turns out that audiences were prepared to accept a limited amount of dissonance in music of the late Romantic era, but they generally have not embraced music where dissonance is predominant. And it also turns out that modern/contemporary music that maintains some level of consonance and melody is simply not able to compete with 19th century (and prior) music with those attributes.
> 
> Pundits like to point out that audiences initially rejected changes in classical music during the 18th and 19th century, but those rejections were relatively short-lived and since, as it turned out, these changes were only new ways to present consonance and melody, the music ultimately succeeded and prevailed. But the history of modern/contemporary music starting in the early 20th century and continuing over a period of a century has not been one of wide acceptance to the extent that it can 'grow' an interest in classical music and become the primary form programmed in concerts and sold as recordings.
> 
> That's not to say that there isn't an audience for modern/contemporary music. There is and, perhaps, always will be, but, unfortunately, *whether the music is highly dissonant or music that has some form of consonance and melody, it apparently doesn't attract enough people to create a new era of classical music comparable to that prior to the 20th century.*


I think this is basically right (I'd quibble with details, but not now), and I would add that the very idea of "classical music" has been altered by globalism and eclecticism. "Classical music" is now whatever doesn't fit into any other established genre but is offered under the auspices of musical establishments that offer music everyone already considers "classical." No "great tradition" and "great masters" are going to arise out of that state of affairs. Middle Age, no; rather an age somewhere beyond decline, both static and busy, going everywhere and nowhere in particular.

After decades of wondering about the direction and fate of classical music, I've decided not to worry about it. The planet has far greater concerns now, and people will always find some music to play on deck while the Titanic goes down.


----------



## violadude

I dont like new music, therefore humanity is doomed 

No but seriously, what? I think we might be doomed in some areas, but I dont see it as far as music goes.


----------



## larold

In terms of classical music, the last composer that was at the level of a Brahms or Schubert was Shostakovich who died 1975. The last worldwide classical music "hit" record was the Three Tenors about 1990 and the Gorecki Symphony No. 3 in the 1980s. The last opera to enter the standard repertory occurred during World War II. There have been talented composers since Shostakovich but no one at that level -- whose output and overall excellence compared to the greatest composers ever.

So it's been about a generation, perhaps two, since classical music was a living art form worldwide. There are a lot of theories about what happened to classical music but it is now clear that, without a worldwide phenomenon composer or composers to create new fans and generate interest in the core, its following has gotten older, as has the product. I think it is this lack of effective new product that has resulted in the decline of orchestras, their following, radio stations broadcasting classical music, etc. It's true you can get it free today but you can't manufacture it new.

No art form can last over time without having new creators generating new fans around the world. I would classify today's composers as niche artists. Classical music isn't the only art form to find itself in this place in the 21st century. Literature is not exactly creating new versions of The Iliad nor is painting and sculpture what building and architecture have become. Popular art forms like film, popular music and Broadway have continued to create new artists and fans though there is an old saying in popular music that's applicable to classical: there used to be hundreds of artists selling million of albums; now there are millions or artists selling hundreds of albums.


----------



## Botschaft

violadude said:


> I dont like new music, therefore humanity is doomed
> 
> No but seriously, what? I think we might be doomed in some areas, but I dont see it as far as music goes.


Music is no more "doomed" than the Roman Empire or the dinosaurs, nor does this discussion concern the physical welfare of humanity but the state of a particular art, which was ruined before most of us were even born.


----------



## violadude

Improbus said:


> Music is no more "doomed" than the Roman Empire or the dinosaurs, nor does this discussion concern the physical welfare of humanity but the state of a particular art, which was ruined before most of us were even born.


Wasn't ruined for me.


----------



## Botschaft

violadude said:


> Wasn't ruined for me.


It's all relative.


----------



## lextune

Nereffid said:


> What does "a new Bach etc" even mean? Does it just mean "a composer that most people agree is far above not only his contemporaries but also almost every composer before or since"? If we're to believe all those polls, there have only ever been three such people since the beginning of time, and *what an odd coincidence that they were all born within 85 years and 200 miles of each other!*


...it must be something in the water. 

Seriously though, Debussy has only been dead for 99 years. Not very long at all in the grand scheme of music, (Monteverdi was born 450 years ago)...

I think the next Beethoven, or Debussy, or ____, could be alive already.


----------



## violadude

There is no "Next Bach" and there never will be because Bach was Bach and no one else is Bach. There could be plenty of composers that are "at the level of Bach" but no one would recognize it because they insist on judging everything by the same exact rigid standard.


----------



## Woodduck

violadude said:


> There is no "Next Bach" and there never will be because Bach was Bach and no one else is Bach. There could be plenty of composers that are "at the level of Bach" but no one would recognize it because they insist on judging everything by the same exact rigid standard.


What standard even exists, rigid or otherwise, by which to recognize a present or future musical giant?


----------



## Botschaft

violadude said:


> There is no "Next Bach" and there never will be because Bach was Bach and no one else is Bach. There could be plenty of composers that are "at the level of Bach" but no one would recognize it because they insist on judging everything by the same exact rigid standard.


As opposed to having no standard whatsoever, I assume? And yes, there were composers at the level of Bach-up until 1897.


----------



## violadude

Improbus said:


> As opposed to having no standard whatsoever, I assume? And yes, there were composers at the level of Bach-up until 1897.


Nope, not what I mean at all.


----------



## Botschaft

violadude said:


> Nope, not what I mean at all.


What _do_ you mean, then? What "same exact rigid standard" are you referring to and what other standard does, could or ought to exist?


----------



## violadude

Woodduck said:


> What standard even exists, rigid or otherwise, by which to recognize a present or future musical giant?


I'm not sure I know the answer to that, which is why I put the term "next Bach" in quotes, because I think the entire concept is pointless. There's really no standard that can apply to all composers from all eras though, because the eras are different. We judge Ravel, partly, based on how wonderfully magical his orchestration is, obviously that same standard can't exist for say, Deprez, whom we can only judge based on his amazing lyricism of individual melodies and their combination into a weave of masterful counterpoint.

A lot of composers in the 20th century have chosen, instead of using all elements of music to their advantage, to isolate one element and use only that to drive the narrative of the work. For those pieces, you could only judge the work based on the handling of that one element. That might not be very satisfying to people, but I find it fascinating.

For example, Penderecki's early works are driven purely by sound, its intensity, density or volume at any given moment, these are the parameters that drive the narrative of the work just as harmony or melody drives the narrative in other works.

Can you derive a standard from that? Sure. That's why I think Penderecki's Threnody is a more successful example of this type of piece than John Cage's Water Walk, because the sounds in the Penderecki piece follows a comprehensive journey of highs to lows, tension and release, in the sound, while the Water Walk does not successfully do this (though there are Cage pieces that I think do). Is the Penderecki piece as great as Bach. I don't know, because I find the idea silly. I can only judge it based on the parameters that exist within the piece and within other pieces of the same kind, just as I can only judge Deprez on based on the elements found in his own music and the music of works of the same kind. I can't judge it based on elements found in Ravel's music, because they are different, even down to their treatment of melody.


----------



## violadude

Improbus said:


> What _do_ you mean, then? What "same exact rigid standard" are you referring to and what other standard does, could or ought to exist?


I'm referring to those standards used for composers for which they cannot apply, like judging Messiaen as worse than so and so composers in the past because he doesn't use triadic harmony. The point is what they do use to make a great piece, not what they don't, or else you might as well say that humans are worse than birds because they can't fly.


----------



## DaveM

violadude said:


> Wasn't ruined for me.


If you're happy, we're happy.


----------



## eugeneonagain

The 'problem' (if there actually is one) is that the so-called golden age of classical music existed pre-mass media. Prior to the rise of radio and film and television and video games etc, the world of 'classical music' encompassed everything from lightweight dances to actual art music and even experimental leaps, all in one place. 

This has been fragmented as the pretty tunes all ended up in Hollywood films and as 'light music' - though this produced a lot of good music too. The old classical music world eventually got left with the cutting edge 'art-music'. It can be compared to what occurred in fine art after the rise of photography. In truth though, there are still 'tonal' composers at work, still writing music and still being programmed in concerts

It'll be controversial to say it here, but I think quite a lot of people just have rather conservative tastes in art-music and this coupled with a persistent idea that the world is always going to hell produces the so-called problem.


----------



## Lisztian

Improbus: didn't you just say in a different thread that you feel the same way as me in that you don't know enough about the outputs of most composers, and that therefore you can't honestly participate in the thread? Why on earth are you here then making absolute judgments and statements?


----------



## Lisztian

larold said:


> In terms of classical music, the last composer that was at the level of a Brahms or Schubert was Shostakovich who died 1975. There have been talented composers since Shostakovich but no one at that level -- whose output and overall excellence compared to the greatest composers ever.


How do you know this? I'm pretty sure the 'canon' for the mid-late 20th and early 21st century is still being formed. I know many people who would argue that Stockhausen is a far greater composer than Shostakovich. But, no, Shostakovich is more popular and so he must be better, is that right? People have different opinions. Why do we have to constantly rank things like this when so many people -people who are every bit as musically perceptive and educated as you- get more out of Elliot Carter than out of Brahms? Why must people insist on this absolutist language? It is infuriating.


----------



## violadude

DaveM said:


> If you're happy, we're happy.


I'm happy. My life is going relatively well right now. And, as we type, I'm listening to a wonderful Faure Quintet. It must be good too, because it was written before 1897 :lol:


----------



## Botschaft

Woodduck said:


> What standard even exists, rigid or otherwise, by which to recognize a present or future musical giant?


Don't you see that norms and standards are simply means by which heterosexual, white men subjugate and oppress everyone else?



violadude said:


> I'm not sure I know the answer to that, which is why I put the term "next Bach" in quotes, because I think the entire concept is pointless. There's really no standard that can apply to all composers from all eras though, because the eras are different. We judge Ravel, partly, based on how wonderfully magical his orchestration is, obviously that same standard can't exist for say, Deprez, whom we can only judge based on his amazing lyricism of individual melodies and their combination into a weave of masterful counterpoint.


Thus, if somthing is designed to be vacuous, revolting or even harmful, it should be judged solely based on how well it achieves this and nothing else.



Lisztian said:


> Improbus: didn't you just say in a different thread that you feel the same way as me in that you don't know enough about the outputs of most composers, and that therefore you can't honestly participate in the thread? Why on earth are you here then making absolute judgments and statements?


One may know little but understand well, or, conversely, one may know much but understand badly. Let's say I know enough.


----------



## Lisztian

Improbus said:


> One may know little but understand well, or, conversely, one may know much but understand badly. Let's say I know enough.


Okay, you know enough. Great. What about those who know as much or more than you but disagree with you in your rankings of composers?


----------



## eugeneonagain

Improbus said:


> One may know little but understand well, or, conversely, one may know much but understand badly. Let's say I know enough.


There may be a third option to be derived from this...


----------



## violadude

Improbus said:


> Thus, if somthing is designed to be vacuous, revolting or even harmful, it should be judged solely based on how well it achieves this and nothing else.


As far as music goes, sure? Mozart's "A Musical Joke" is designed to be vacuous and people judge it as highly effective at that. Outside parody though, few composers set out to design music that is vacuous and revolting. As far as harmful? Let's be real, no matter how much you hate some music, it's all really harmless in the end. There's no musical equivalent to Guantanamo Bay, I assure you.


----------



## Bulldog

Improbus said:


> Don't you see that norms and standards are simply means by which heterosexual, white men subjugate and oppress everyone else?


If that's what they're up to, those white guys are doing a poor job of it.


----------



## Janspe

larold said:


> In terms of classical music, the last composer that was at the level of a Brahms or Schubert was Shostakovich who died 1975


And the award of the silliest thing I've heard all day goes to...

No, but seriously: Dutilleux, Boulez, Penderecki, Schnittke, Messiaen, Ligeti, Lutosławski, Gubaidulina, Saariaho, Rautavaara, Carter... The world of music is so rich and fantastic, why take such an absolutist stance on things, like Lisztian already pointed out? I consider many of the composers I listed equally important as the composers you mentionied. Which one of us is right?


----------



## Botschaft

Lisztian said:


> Okay, you know enough. Great. What about those who know as much or more than you but disagree with you in your rankings of composers?


People will like and prefer all sorts of things: who am I ever to judge, or anyone else, for that matter? Yet things remain what they are: some thing are more potent, coherent, inspired, well-conceived and well-crafted than others.


----------



## violadude

Improbus said:


> Don't you see that norms and standards are simply means by which heterosexual, white men subjugate and oppress everyone else?


I always think it's strange when there appears an extremely random political interjection into a discussion about musical tastes. I speak honestly when I say that my musical philosophy is not entangled in any way with my political beliefs, which I think as a notion is just kind of bizarre.


----------



## Lisztian

Improbus said:


> People will like and prefer all sorts of things: who am I ever to judge, or anyone else, for that matter? Yet things remain what they are: some thing are more potent, coherent, inspired, well-conceived and well-crafted than others.


Yes, and many people disagree on what is potent, coherent, inspired, well-conceived and well-crafted. It's not completely subjective of course, but it is no where near as objective as you are making it out to be. At the very least, the question is enormously complicated and you are simply giving us simple absolute statements and expecting us to take your word for it. You are not going to be taken seriously if you go about it in that way.


----------



## larold

One theory I've entertained is that creators who would have chosen music and, in particular, classical music have moved on to other media since the middle 20th century, principally media with a visual element such as film. Had Steven Spielberg been born 1850 instead of 1950 he probably would have set Melville's Moby Dick to opera instead of making Jaws via film. Marshall McLuhan was famous for saying the medium is the massage (which most people misinterpreted as the medium is the message.) He was on the right track, I think -- artists moved away from more sterile, rules-ridden artistic formats into others than offered more freedom of expression, especially via multi-media outlets. Classical music blew away a lot of rules in the avant-garde and electronic eras but there is question whether those forms are the same as even what was written by the Second Viennese School. In my opinion is was more sound world than music via formula people had known for centuries. Film went everywhere in the postwar period and, with the arrival of a ratings system about 1970, offered freedoms for creators unknown before. I understand there is some nudity in opera now but classical music never had anything like the changes film had. Another traditional art form that continues to prosper and crank out hit after hit is musical theater -- another art form with a strong visual element.


----------



## Botschaft

violadude said:


> As far as music goes, sure? Mozart's "A Musical Joke" is designed to be vacuous and people judge it as highly effective at that. Outside parody though, few composers set out to design music that is vacuous and revolting. As far as harmful? Let's be real, no matter how much you hate some music, it's all really harmless in the end. There's no musical equivalent to Guantanamo Bay, I assure you.


Yet, however successful a musical joke it doesn't have the potential of a serious work. As for harmful: music might not be harmful, but other things, such as gas chambers, may serve their purpose very well, but that doesn't make them among the greatest and most laudible achievements of mankind.


----------



## violadude

Improbus said:


> Yet, however successful a musical joke it doesn't have the potential of a serious work. As for harmful: music might not be harmful, but other things, such as gas chambers, may serve their purpose very well, but that doesn't make them among the greatest and most laudible achievements of mankind.


Yes, good thing we aren't talking about things like gas chambers


----------



## violadude

Improbus said:


> Yet, however successful a musical joke it doesn't have the potential of a serious work. As for harmful: music might not be harmful, but other things, such as gas chambers, may serve their purpose very well, but that doesn't make them among the greatest and most laudible achievements of mankind.


Is there a way you could explain what you find vacuous or revolting about newer music? Pick a piece and explain to me what is vacuous about it.


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> We're not back in the Middle Ages. We are deep within the New Stasis in the arts, as described by Leonard Meyer mostly definitively in his book _Music, the Arts, and Ideas_. Every sort of trend, movement, school, ideology in the arts is widely available to every and all consumers and participants of and in the arts. Here is a typical Meyerian excerpt:
> 
> "...change and variety are not incompatible with stasis. For stasis, as I intend the term, is not an absence of novelty and change--a total quiescence--but rather the absence of ordered sequential change. Like molecules rushing about haphazardly in a Brownian movement, a culture bustling with activity and change may nevertheless be static. Indeed, insofar as an active, conscious search for new techniques, new forms and materials, and new modes of sensibility (such as have marked our time) precludes the gradual accumulation of changes capable of producing a trend or series of connected mutations, it tends to create a steady-state, though perhaps one that is both vigorous and variegated. In short......a multiplicity of styles in each of the arts, coexisting in a balanced, yet competitive, cultural environment is producing a fluctuating stasis in contemporary culture."
> 
> I can hear the groans from longtime TC members, but Meyer is well worth your time and attention (though often very dense reading).


I can't entirely agree with this. I think it does take a major, fundamental jolt in our society as a whole to bring about significant ordered, sequential movements in the arts. In the 20th century, the biggest jolts were technological, including air and ground motor transportation, electrical communication, radio, tv and finally the internet. Though perhaps, each succeeding breakthrough was less profound in a cultural sense than the preceding one, and I suppose the technological revolution is becoming old news in recent years. But it is always dangerous to try to evaluate the era one is living in.
One thing for sure: the Utopians, and others who express less optimistic views of the future but share the Utopian view of a fast approaching stable equilibrium for human society, have always been proved dramatically wrong in very short order.


----------



## Botschaft

Lisztian said:


> Yes, and many people disagree on what is potent, coherent, inspired, well-conceived and well-crafted. It's not completely subjective of course, but it is no where near as objective as you are making it out to be. At the very least, the question is enormously complicated and you are simply giving us simple absolute statements and expecting us to take your word for it. You are not going to be taken seriously if you go about it in that way.


We all have our convictions and shortcomings, and these will be reflected in what we say as long as we don't censor ourselves, which I won't. Still I don't consider myself to be more enlightened than everyone else, but inevitably more so than some.



violadude said:


> Yes, good thing we aren't talking about things like gas chambers


It's an analogy. My point is that things cannot simply be evaluated based upon what they are intended to be, but moreover on what they actually _are_, which should be most important.


----------



## violadude

Improbus said:


> It's an analogy. My point is that things cannot simply be evaluated based upon what they are intended to be, but moreover on what they actually _are_, which should be most important.


I understood the analogy, but I don't think you can make a direct analogy like that between an artistic endeavor and an item with a definitive utilitarian purpose.


----------



## Botschaft

violadude said:


> Is there a way you could explain what you find vacuous or revolting about newer music? Pick a piece and explain to me what is vacuous about it.


I could pick some modernist, random noise or I could pick dubstep, for instance, but what would be the point? I cannot definitively _prove_ that it's vacuous or revolting, however true it may be.


----------



## violadude

Improbus said:


> I could pick some modernist, random noise or I could pick dubstep, for instance, but what would be the point? I cannot definitely _prove_ that it's vacuous or revolting, however true it may be.


How convenient.

You can't even explain what you find vacuous about it?


----------



## Becca

Improbus said:


> I could pick some modernist, random noise or I could pick dubstep, for instance, but what would be the point? I cannot definitively _prove_ that it's vacuous or revolting, however true it may be.


However vacuous or revolting you may find something, whether provable or not, that does not cause it to rise to the level of truth ... it is just an opinion which is not shared by many others.


----------



## Becca

To the extent that many of the issues in this thread are little different from the apocryphal question of how many angels can stand on a needless point [sic], then perhaps we have never left the middle ages.


----------



## Der Titan

Becca said:


> However vacuous or revolting you may find something, whether provable or not, that does not cause it to rise to the level of truth ... it is just an opinion which is not shared by many others.


I think whether a music is good or bad, nobody can prove. What I don't like then, is, that somebody should prove, that a music is bad, because for the same reason you could say, that somebody who thinks that a music is good should prove that the music is good. And how many people share a certain opinion is also a question difficult to answer. Regarding modern music it's obvious that most people don't like it. And I don't like it too. But whether it's bad or good I don't care, I don't fight for opinions.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Der Titan said:


> I think whether a music is good or bad, nobody can prove. What I don't like then, is, that somebody should prove, that a music is bad, because for the same reason you could say, that somebody who thinks that a music is good should prove that the music is good. And how many people share a certain opinion is also a question difficult to answer. Regarding modern music it's obvious that most people don't like it. And I don't like it too. But whether it's bad or good I don't care, I don't fight for opinions.


I didn't think it was possible to fit that many contradictions into such a small space.


----------



## Botschaft

violadude said:


> How convenient.
> 
> You can't even explain what you find vacuous about it?


It is rather convenient, admittedly, much like how it's convenient that you can't disprove the existence of God or faries for that matter.



Becca said:


> However vacuous or revolting you may find something, whether provable or not, that does not cause it to rise to the level of truth ... it is just an opinion which is not shared by many others.


Perhaps it is not true so much because I think it is as I think it is because it's true, and I doubt my opinion is that rarely held.

:tiphat:


----------



## Bulldog

Improbus said:


> It is rather convenient, admittedly, much like how it's convenient that you can't disprove the existence of God or faries for that matter.


Your razzle-dazzle doesn't cut it. You were not asked to prove that a piece of music was vacuous, only why you considered it vacuous. That's a simple question to answer, since you're the one throwing the word around.


----------



## Botschaft

Bulldog said:


> Your razzle-dazzle doesn't cut it. You were not asked to prove that a piece of music was vacuous, only why you considered it vacuous. That's a simple question to answer, since you're the one throwing the word around.


By vacuous I mean that it expresses little or nothing aesthetically and emotionally, ranting and raving formlessly and nonsensically.


----------



## Lisztian

Improbus said:


> By vacuous I mean that it expresses little or nothing aesthetically and emotionally, ranting and raving formlessly and nonsensically.


I'm all for convictions, but surely you realise how illogical a view this is to hold, considering there are many very perceptive listeners/musicians who think a great deal of modern classical music expresses a lot aesthetically and emotionally in forms that are pleasing and coherent.


----------



## Strange Magic

fluteman said:


> I can't entirely agree with this. *I think it does take a major, fundamental jolt in our society as a whole to bring about significant ordered, sequential movements in the arts.*. In the 20th century, the biggest jolts were technological, including air and ground motor transportation, electrical communication, radio, tv and finally the internet. Though perhaps, each succeeding breakthrough was less profound in a cultural sense than the preceding one, and I suppose the technological revolution is becoming old news in recent years. But it is always dangerous to try to evaluate the era one is living in.
> One thing for sure: the Utopians, and others who express less optimistic views of the future but share the Utopian view of a fast approaching stable equilibrium for human society, have always been proved dramatically wrong in very short order.


This is at the heart of Meyer's thesis. The technological changes you mention, by dramatically speeding communication to all points of the planet, are a vital part of establishing and maintaining the New Stasis. The real change back to "progress" (will it be progress, or will it be retrogression?) in significant, ordered sequential movements will come (be very afraid!) with the imposition of a New Global Order. There are very few of such that I can imagine that any of us would like. A Universal Church? An all-encompassing ideology? I'll stick with the Brownian motion of the New Stasis, thank you very much!


----------



## Der Titan

Lisztian said:


> I'm all for convictions, but surely you realise how illogical a view this is to hold, considering there are many very perceptive listeners/musicians who think a great deal of modern classical music expresses a lot aesthetically and emotionally in forms that are pleasing and coherent.


Well, I am German and I don't know exactly the musical taste of other nations. But to say the truth, I simply don't believe that there are "many" people who like modern music. It's not my experience. But don't get me wrong, everybody shall listen to exactly that music he likes to listen to. So if somebody likes Stockhausen, he may listen to Stockhausen, nothing against it.

But what I don't like, if somebody defends the music he likes with that kind of "intellectual" or better said would be intellectual attitude. I don't think it's "illogical" to say that classical music has developed into a very unhealthy way. I don't like this kind of would be intellectual behaviour. This behaviour reminds me to marxists who attack everybody who don't like Marx as "bourgeois".


----------



## violadude

Der Titan said:


> Well, I am German and I don't know exactly the musical taste of other nations. But to say the truth, I simply don't believe that there are "many" people who like modern music. It's not my experience. But don't get me wrong, everybody shall listen to exactly that music he likes to listen to. So if somebody likes Stockhausen, he may listen to Stockhausen, nothing against it.
> 
> But what I don't like, if somebody defends the music he likes with that kind of "intellectual" or better said would be intellectual attitude. I don't think it's "illogical" to say that classical music has developed into a very unhealthy way. I don't like this kind of would be intellectual behaviour. This behaviour reminds me to marxists who attack everybody who don't like Marx as "bourgeois".


Personally, the reason I like modern classical music has nothing to do with intellect.


----------



## Lisztian

Der Titan said:


> But what I don't like, if somebody defends the music he likes with that kind of "intellectual" or better said would be intellectual attitude. I don't think it's "illogical" to say that classical music has developed into a very unhealthy way. I don't like this kind of would be intellectual behaviour. This behaviour reminds me to marxists who attack everybody who don't like Marx as "bourgeois".


But no one in this thread claimed the things you are condemning. You can like or dislike whatever you want and I won't look down on you (I'm definitely very far from being an intellectual myself: I fall near the other end of the spectrum), but don't claim that something is objectively bad just because you don't like it.


----------



## Der Titan

Lisztian said:


> But no one in this thread claimed the things you are condemning. You can like or dislike whatever you want and I won't look down on you (I'm definitely very far from being an intellectual myself: I fall near the other end of the spectrum), but don't claim that something is objectively bad just because you don't like it.


Well, I think, it's pretty normal, that somebody says, something is bad, because I don't like it. For me this is normal, for every judgement roots in this. We do this all the time. For example, I am somebody who is interested in composers who are not that well known. That means: It would be completely nonsensical that all classical music is good. There are of course certain "giants" like Beethoven for example who produced excellent music. But classical music is not only Beethoven. It's as a matter of fact much more. There are probably ten thausands or even hundred thousands of composers of classical music, Most of it is simply rubbish. For example I have a thick 5 volume composer encyclopedia, but even the composers in this encyclopedia - thousands of names - are the better ones.

And there should be a discussion about the quality of music. And this discussion should be a discussion of ordinary listeners of classical music or "art music". But this discussion has been somehow denounced. And this is something I don't like. And you must also have the right to evaluate a certain kind of music. You may say: The methods of a certain music doesn't lead to good results. That must be possible.


----------



## Zhdanov

eugeneonagain said:


> The 'problem' (if there actually is one) is that the so-called golden age of classical music existed pre-mass media. Prior to the rise of radio and film and television and video games etc, the world of 'classical music' encompassed everything from lightweight dances to actual art music and even experimental leaps, all in one place.


if we talking not only Rossini and Donizetti, classical for most part has remained as elitist as it was back in 19th century. Wagner is impenetrable for most people, even among classical fans, like was centuries ago.



eugeneonagain said:


> It'll be controversial to say it here, but I think quite a lot of people just have rather conservative tastes in art-music and this coupled with a persistent idea that the world is always going to hell produces the so-called problem.


the fallacy lies in the very counter positioning of 'conservative' vs 'progressive' which in fact belongs to the world of politics, ideology and advertising; meanwhile the question of quality gets not only bypassed but also hushed up.


----------



## Der Titan

I don't think, it's a "problem" when people have differant opinions, it's just normal. And I don't think, that it's neccessary to somehow have a "psychoanalytical" discussion, why people don't like certain music. They are conservatives who think the world is going to hell, and therefore they don't like modern music. Very funny, yes. And by the way, what exactly is "modern music"? I like Charles Ives, Hindemith, Bartok, Schostakowitsch, Karl Amades Hartmann, Messiaen, John Adams, Schnittke, Malcolm Arnold. I don't think I am that conservative. I don't like Henze. Because he is not conservative enough? No, for me his music lacks inspiration. But what I don't like are these super duper avantgardists, whom I shouldn't dare to critisize, because if I critisize them, I am conservative, who thinks that the world goes to hell, because not every music sounds like Mozart.


----------



## ST4

Der Titan said:


> But what I don't like, if somebody defends the music he likes with that kind of "intellectual" or better said would be intellectual attitude. I don't think it's "illogical" to say that classical music has developed into a very unhealthy way


And who exactly does/says this?

Ironically people claim Mozart and Beethoven are the "greatest composers" and all that rubbish, yet the only way they can try and make a case for this is resorting to intellectual or academic resources to explain anything.

All music is emotional and expresses things, that is a default feature of music.


----------



## Der Titan

ST4 said:


> Ironically people claim Mozart and Beethoven are the "greatest composers" and all that rubbish, yet the only way they can try and make a case for this is resorting to intellectual or academic resources to explain anything.


I am not very interested who is "the greatest composer" although this forum has developed a special passion to find out these things. On the other hand, if somebody says "Mozart is the greatest composer" I wouldn't think that he or she claims something because he or she knows this from "academic" resources. If somebody says "Mozart is the greatest composer." and if this person says it in a classcical music forum, this is 100 % a sign, that she has a special love for a certain composer.


----------



## Zhdanov

ST4 said:


> Ironically people claim Mozart and Beethoven are the "greatest composers" and all that rubbish, yet the only way they can try and make a case for this is resorting to intellectual or academic resources to explain anything.


but where else they should go? these are what education is about? right?



ST4 said:


> All music is emotional and expresses things, that is a default feature of music.


however, man wants to control things, emotional or not, man still wants operate them. Mozart and Beethoven show best how we do it.


----------



## Botschaft

ST4 said:


> And who exactly does/says this?
> 
> Ironically people claim Mozart and Beethoven are the "greatest composers" and all that rubbish, yet the only way they can try and make a case for this is resorting to intellectual or academic resources to explain anything.


That case can be made in any number of ways; the fundamental point is that not all art is equal, whether this can be easily and convincingly proven or not.



> All music is emotional and expresses things, that is a default feature of music.


Even if this is true there is still a difference of degree by which we may determine its merit.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Zhdanov said:


> if we talking not only Rossini and Donizetti, classical for most part has remained as elitist as it was back in 19th century. Wagner is impenetrable for most people, even among classical fans, like was centuries ago.


So what exactly is your point here? If it was elitist then and is elitist now what has changed? Wagner is not impenetrable, he's just not widely listened to by casual listeners. The style of Wagner's music most certainly was adopted by Hollywood film music.



Zhdanov said:


> the fallacy lies in the very counter positioning of 'conservative' vs 'progressive' which in fact belongs to the world of politics, ideology and advertising; meanwhile the question of quality gets not only bypassed but also hushed up.


No, there is no fallacy, it belongs to cultural behaviour as a whole and music is part of that. Don't misunderstand me on this, I am as resistant to change as the next man and I don't think all forward momentum is necessarily progressive. However, the insistence that quality has all collapsed is merely another expression of this 'golden era' view. It runs thus: a person names their favourite parts of culture and dismisses everything else as either degenerate or trivial.


----------



## Botschaft

eugeneonagain said:


> No, there is no fallacy, it belongs to cultural behaviour as a whole and music is part of that. Don't misunderstand me on this, I am as resistant to change as the next man and I don't think all forward momentum is necessarily progressive. However, the insistence that quality has all collapsed is merely another expression of this 'golden era' view. It runs thus: a person names their favourite parts of culture and dismisses everything else as either degenerate or trivial.


Admitting that some change is bad is to imply that quality can deteriorate and thus be better at one point than another, constituting a "golden era".

:tiphat:


----------



## Der Titan

I don't believe in "golden eras". But what I think is that it's very questionable to judge contemporary music. The same thing goes for contemporary literature. The works of Luise Rinser ( 1911 - 2002) you get for some Cents 2nd hand in Germany in the spare box. She tends to become forgotten. Elfriede Jelinek on the other hand is a world famous nobel price winner. But let's wait some decades who of these two ladies will be forgotten. I still read the Rinser. Shakespeare is today regarded as one of the greatest dramatist, if not the greatest dramatist. He wasn't seen that way in the 18th century. 

So, don't tell me that I am not open for contemporary music. I am very open. But I will not listen to composers who are simply adored by a certain zeitgeist. But when there are persons whose judgment I trust and who show a genuine enthusiasm for a contemporary work, I would certainly love to listen to it.


----------



## haydnfan

johankillen said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> The last few days I have thought about which age cycle we are with the music right now. Because, we as human beings have gone back and forth i cycles with the development of science. Like in the classical antiquity we did really focus on the science. Then the middle ages came and we did go back and the science did take a step backwards again and now we are back in the science age.
> 
> So by that said, are the music going in the same approx same cycles, but in another pulse. Because I think we are back at the middle age right now.. I hope you get my point. Will the music come back to its glory days, will we ever get a new Bach etc? Discuss, how and why does the music climate change by time.
> And sorry for my bad English. :tiphat:
> 
> /Johan


I think that we've allowed ourselves to be distracted from an interesting topic by the usual conservatives vs. modern listeners debate.

How much do you think lack of financial assistance, risk adverse orchestras and record labels have hurt contemporary composers? Why do you think live concerts are booming in pop music but in the decline in classical? How much do you think streaming and inexpensive downloads and cds have helped those composers find an audience?

Do the former factors win out leading us into a dark age? Do the latter factors win out leading us into a golden age? Or is the truth somewhere in the middle?

Would you like to discuss this instead of rehashing tired arguments about greatness and standards?


----------



## Botschaft

haydnfan said:


> I think that we've allowed ourselves to be distracted from an interesting topic by the usual conservatives vs. modern listeners debate.
> 
> How much do you think lack of financial assistance, risk adverse orchestras and record labels have hurt contemporary composers?


About as much as they have hurt classical composers.



> Why do you think live concerts are booming in pop music but in the decline in classical?


Because of the classical era becoming increasingly more distant.



> How much do you think streaming and inexpensive downloads and cds have helped those composers find an audience?


About equally.



> Do the former factors win out leading us into a dark age?


No.



> Do the latter factors win out leading us into a golden age?


No.



> Or is the truth somewhere in the middle?


No.



> Would you like to discuss this instead of rehashing tired arguments about greatness and standards?


No.


----------



## Zhdanov

eugeneonagain said:


> Wagner is not impenetrable, he's just not widely listened to by casual listeners.


'casual listeners'? opera fans - casual listeners?



eugeneonagain said:


> The style of Wagner's music most certainly was adopted by Hollywood film music.


and that is not Wagner any more but Hollywood music from then on.



eugeneonagain said:


> it belongs to cultural behaviour as a whole and music is part of that.


you just cited the ideological mantra the pushers of new products mumble every time they have problems with sales.



eugeneonagain said:


> the insistence that quality has all collapsed is merely another expression of this 'golden era' view. It runs thus: a person names their favourite parts of culture and dismisses everything else as either degenerate or trivial.


it is not about culture divided into parts, we talk academic music here, as of 1700 - 2017.


----------



## Der Titan

OK, back to the topic of the thread then. What's my opinion? For me the future is first of all something completely open. I don't believe in cycles. Medieval times were very religious times - that's true, but why? The reason is very simple. In the medieval times Christianity ultimately conquered paganism. That has nothing to do with so called "cycles". Medieval times have not become "especially religious" because of a cycle but for the simple reason that this was the ultimate fight between paganism and Christianity Christianity wanted to become the ultimate winner. Don't forget, in the Baltic states Christianity came as late as the 14th century when in Italy the Renaissance had already started. 

And by the way Islam fought brutally paganism but a more brutal fight against paganism happened also in Christianity - and about at the same time. So if you think in cycles what kind of cycles shall come? My personal view is: I am an absolutely convinced Christian and believe in the future of Christianity. Paganism has been conquered and that was the main reason why the medieval times were as "dark" as they are. But medieval times will not come back, as I don't believe in a new religion who conquer Christianity ( or Islam or the Jewish religion)

And what is a "dark age" by the way? If you speak of darkness, you should exactly say what "light" really is. Do you know that? I don't know that, I don't know exactly what light is. 

So to answer then the question. We will not go back to medieval times, that's nonsense, for the medieval times were a special historical situation which simply cannot come back. Science will go on, but religion will also go on. And music? I think music will go on too. A decline of music? A rise of music? Well, I don't think that music can be planned. It's always up to a certain kind of genius. He or she may come or will not come, we don't know. And even if this genius comes it may last hundred years that he or she is seen as that kind of genius. 

But I am not fearful for the future. And I am not fearful for music.


----------



## Nereffid

haydnfan said:


> Do the former factors win out leading us into a dark age? Do the latter factors win out leading us into a golden age? Or is the truth somewhere in the middle?


Well, to get back on topic I don't think there are either dark or golden ages. Nor do I view the historical process as a cycle (especially if it's merely a 3-stage "dark-golden-dark" - that's an inverted U at best, not a circle!).

In terms of what today's general audience wants from art music, clearly the 18th and 19th centuries are significant. But is this down to the music simply being "better"? I don't think so. For centuries, all music could do was gradually evolve, but (simplifying here) in the 19th century audiences expanded because of both social and technological change, the latter accelerating with the development of recording. So the conditions were ripe for the music that was then popular/considered great (whichever phrasing you wish to use) to remain firmly in the public consciousness in a way in which it hadn't in times past. So your Mozarts and Beethovens became fixed points in a way that (say) Josquin or Monteverdi never could. Meanwhile, though, music was still gradually evolving. But a significant chunk of the audience has kept its eye on those fixed points, and whenever it glances away it finds contemporary music to be ever more remote.

If you keep focused on those fixed points, then yes, they must seem very golden when compared with the outer darkness. But to my eye the history of music is more like the Hubble Deep Field.


----------



## Agamemnon

The reason that we speak pejoratively about the Middle Ages or the Dark Ages has to do with the pathos of originality and the 'Renaissance' (=rebirth) of the 15th/16th century. In these new times intellectuals thought they were on a new path of truth and glory (e.g. the Scientific Revolution) and they held the ancients (humanism) in higher esteem than what came after that. The Middle Ages became an intermezzo in which nothing important had happened and which was characterized by a perceived perversion of the Church.

Nowadays we don't think negatively about the Middle Ages anymore; indeed, in many ways we go back to the Middle Ages again (so the right answer to the OP is 'yes'). And in the same way we think less positively about the Modern Era with it's witch hunts and Holocaust...

I consider the Middle Ages as a great transition period in which christianity finally triumphed paganism in every way, resulting in a truly christian society in modern times. So e.g. the great intellectual question of the Middle Ages was how to reconcile Aristotle (philosophy) and Bible (faith).


----------



## Der Titan

Nereffid said:


> But a significant chunk of the audience has kept its eye on those fixed points, and whenever it glances away it finds contemporary music to be ever more remote.


I think all that has certainly also a lot to do with socialization. People are socialized in a certain way. I mean Mozart is wonderful, that's true, but if you are musically socialized with Mozart you will remember always Mozart as THE god. Composers who come later, always have it more difficult. And the point is: People are still socialized with Mozart or Beethoven. Or for example Orffs Carmina Burana. This is their first piece of classical music. And then they come to the forum and ask "Is there something similar to Orffs Carmina Burana?" And I respond "No, there isn't, but there is a lot of music not at all like the Carmina Burana, but also brilliant." Or once there was a very young man. He loved Beethovens 5th. He said "Everything is rubbish with the exception of Beethovens 5th". All this is part of musical socialisation.

And then one should distinguish two things. The one is a normal conservativism and the other is a reactionary stance. To think that at some time "a new Bach" will come is reactionary. That doesn't mean that Bach can't be an inspiration for later composers. Villa Loboz Bachianas Brasilieras is such a case. It's inspirited by Bach, and it's wonderful music by this, but it's still music of the 20th century. And that's something, which the ancient philosopher Heraklit means with the sentence "We can''t step twice in the same river". To create a pastiche of Johann Sebastian Bach is the work of a talented musicologist, but not of a great composer.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Der Titan said:


> Shakespeare is today regarded as one of the greatest dramatist, if not the greatest dramatist. He wasn't seen that way in the 18th century.


Completely false. His reputation was already made in the 18th century. By the 1650s he was already the most popular playwright England had ever produced.

Let's stick to the facts.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Improbus said:


> Admitting that some change is bad is to imply that quality can deteriorate and thus be better at one point than another, constituting a "golden era".
> 
> :tiphat:


Who did that? I never said it was bad, just not necessarily 'progressive'. This must mean that by sheer contrast you accept that progressive change must be good? Right?

Let's not put words in each other's mouths.


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> This is at the heart of Meyer's thesis. The technological changes you mention, by dramatically speeding communication to all points of the planet, are a vital part of establishing and maintaining the New Stasis. The real change back to "progress" (will it be progress, or will it be retrogression?) in significant, ordered sequential movements will come (be very afraid!) with the imposition of a New Global Order. There are very few of such that I can imagine that any of us would like. A Universal Church? An all-encompassing ideology? I'll stick with the Brownian motion of the New Stasis, thank you very much!


Yes, I see your point, and his. Thanks for summarizing a long and I suspect boring book so skillfully. But as I mentioned, philosophers and social scientists over the centuries who have predicted human society was on the verge of a "new stasis" have never proved entirely correct. Sir Thomas More, T.R. Malthus, John Stuart Mill, Karl Marx, John Maynard Keynes, even Plato if you want to go back that far, all had visions of human society reaching a lasting stable equilibrium, for better or worse. Meyer seems to be in that tradition. But over and over it turns out human society is built on an unstable foundation of ever-shifting sands, and any universal global order doesn't remain universal, or global, or well ordered, for long.


----------



## Der Titan

eugeneonagain said:


> Completely false. His reputation was already made in the 18th century. By the 1650s he was already the most popular playwright England had ever produced.
> 
> Let's stick to the facts.


Well, I read it in the book of Egon Friedell which is a book about the history of modern times. Maybe he meant the German situation not the English one. Maybe Friedell exegerated things. I don't know. Fact is obviosly that Shakespeare became one of the most played playwrights in Germany what he was not before. But it may be interesting for you that the first complete translation of Shakespeare works into German was not earlier than 1780 ( you can read this in the German Wikipedia).

Another one followed some decades later. And I think Friedell will be right that Shakespeare got the position he has today in the late 18th or early 19th century. The situation in the United Kingdom may be completely differant.


----------



## Botschaft

eugeneonagain said:


> Who did that? I never said it was bad, just not necessarily 'progressive'. This must mean that by sheer contrast you accept that progressive change must be good? Right?
> 
> Let's not put words in each other's mouths.


Then what does it mean for change to be something other than progressive? Regressive, decadent, or simply less than positive or desirable?


----------



## fluteman

eugeneonagain said:


> Completely false. His reputation was already made in the 18th century. By the 1650s he was already the most popular playwright England had ever produced.
> 
> Let's stick to the facts.


You've made some very good points here, but Der Titan's general point, that some historical perspective is usually needed to gauge an artist's cultural impact and significance, is a good one. And Shakespeare isn't such a bad example. Very little of his work was published during his lifetime. The publication of the famous "First Folio" of his collected works several years after his death in 1616 set his work on its path to the exalted place it now occupies in our culture. In fact, he was so little celebrated and famous during his lifetime that almost nothing exists in his own hand other than a couple of legal documents, and some scholars seriously argue he was a stand-in for the true author. Of course he was popular in his own time, but as Somerset Maugham observes in Cakes and Ale, only those artists who achieve a certain level of popularity during their careers are even candidates for immortality.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Zhdanov said:


> 'casual listeners'? opera fans - casual listeners?


Honestly, I have no idea what you're trying to say here. The suggestion that 'even opera fans don't understand Wagner' is just some flee-floating opinion, not factual.[/QUOTE]



Zhdanov said:


> and that is not Wagner any more but Hollywood music from then on.


Actually, it's Wagner's exact style transplanted wholesale, with the boring bits excised. In short an extended life-span after the crash of late romanticism within "classical music".



Zhdanov said:


> you just cited the ideological mantra the pushers of new products mumble every time they have problems with sales.


Really? I don't quite see the connection (because there isn't one). Then again why not have an ideological mantra to counter the ideological mantra you are pushing and trying to disguise as 'plain old common sense regarding good art'? Regardless of that 'no nonsense' pose, I remain unconvinced.



Zhdanov said:


> it is not about culture divided into parts, we talk academic music here, as of 1700 - 2017.


To see it as isolated in that way may well be the best sign yet of a chronic short-sighted conservatism.


----------



## Strange Magic

fluteman said:


> Yes, I see your point, and his. Thanks for summarizing a long and I suspect boring book so skillfully. But as I mentioned, philosophers and social scientists over the centuries who have predicted human society was on the verge of a "new stasis" have never proved entirely correct. Sir Thomas More, T.R. Malthus, John Stuart Mill, Karl Marx, John Maynard Keynes, even Plato if you want to go back that far, all had visions of human society reaching a lasting stable equilibrium, for better or worse. Meyer seems to be in that tradition. But over and over it turns out human society is built on an unstable foundation of ever-shifting sands, and any universal global order doesn't remain universal, or global, or well ordered, for long.


Two points: First, Meyer is difficult going. He needs a sympathetic simplifier, a Lyell or Huxley to his Darwin, a Playfair to his Hutton, to gain a wider audience. But there is so much valuable material in _Music, the Arts, and Ideas_ that is strictly about music and that has nothing to do with his views on the New Stasis, that the effort spent in perusing the book will be richly rewarded.

Second, the New Stasis will last until either that global New Order is imposed or until your correctly-intuited and hinted-at global collapse (which may be rather slow in its unfolding) overwhelms other issues. Of the people you mention, Malthus chillingly is the most prophetic, as has been so accurately and rigorously enlarged upon by his successor, Garrett Hardin, in _The Tragedy of the Commons_. Hardin's haunting, daunting treatise was written before anthropogenic global warming was even postulated, just as Meyer's thesis was formulated before the truly explosive expansion of virtually instantaneous global communication.


----------



## helenora

Thanks for the new topic. I've been a bit too busy these days, haven't even read this thread completely, but it looks quite interesting. I'll come back here again to read it completely.


----------



## Zhdanov

eugeneonagain said:


> I have no idea what you're trying to say here.


read thoroughly - http://www.talkclassical.com/50932-we-back-middle-age-7.html#post1302775



eugeneonagain said:


> The suggestion that 'even opera fans don't understand Wagner' is just some flee-floating opinion


i did not say anything of the sort, don't misquote my posts.



eugeneonagain said:


> Actually, it's Wagner's exact style transplanted wholesale, with the boring bits excised.


actually there's no "boring bits" in Wagner scores; and you just proven my point. Wagner is impenetrable for many, including yourself.



eugeneonagain said:


> why not have an ideological mantra to counter the ideological mantra you are pushing and trying to disguise as 'plain old common sense regarding good art'? Regardless of that 'no nonsense' pose, I remain unconvinced.


isn't common sense good? isn't nonsense bad? do you call white black?



eugeneonagain said:


> To see it as isolated in that way may well be the best sign yet of a chronic short-sighted conservatism.


nothing to do with that, i only demand quality products instead of propaganda and advertising.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Zhdanov said:


> read thoroughly


I read it the first timeand it was muddled then too.



Zhdanov said:


> i did not say anything of the sort, don't misquote my posts.


I didn't misquote, as can be clearly seen from the same implication stated below.



Zhdanov said:


> actually there's no "boring bits" in Wagner scores; and you just proven my point. Wagner is impenetrable for many, including yourself.


Worst logic ever. That's just your opinion and it basically states: if one finds something boring, it must be impenetrable.



Zhdanov said:


> isn't common sense good? isn't nonsense bad? do you call white black?


Actually "common sense" isn't always good and 'nonsense' is often a matter of opinion. It's nothing like confusing two clearly defined things like black/white.



Zhdanov said:


> nothing to do with that, i only demand quality products instead of propaganda and advertising.


You demand it? If what is there doesn't please you maybe you should provide something better. Plenty other people are more satisfied, but no doubt you will put that down to them having less discerning taste?


----------



## Zhdanov

eugeneonagain said:


> I read it the first timeand it was muddled then too.


your problem, not mine.



eugeneonagain said:


> I didn't misquote, as can be clearly seen from the same implication stated below.


i did not say "even opera fans don't understand Wagner" but you put the words in my mouth, for some reason, most likely to distort the discussion.



eugeneonagain said:


> That's just your opinion and it basically states: if one finds something boring, it must be impenetrable.


incidentally, this is Wagner, not just "some thing", he certainly wasn't into writing boring stuff... if someone finds him boring, that means they are unable to penetrate his music.



eugeneonagain said:


> "common sense" isn't always good


common sense is always good because it says a child is not born of a man married to a man, but of a man married to a woman.



eugeneonagain said:


> You demand it? If what is there doesn't please you maybe you should provide something better.


i am not a composer.



eugeneonagain said:


> Plenty other people are more satisfied


oh, yeah.



eugeneonagain said:


> no doubt you will put that down to them having less discerning taste?


i blame the authorities.


----------



## wolkaaa

My two cents:
I wouldn't call it "Middle Ages", since there was no global popular culture in mediaeval times. Like Gustave Le Bon predicted over 100 years ago, we entered the "age of crowds". During the WWII, the European intelligentsia died and along with her the high culture. Today's left-wing cultural liberalism and relativism hampers any recovery of high culture. As long as degenerate idiots are considered to be "progressive", nothing will change. People who don't understand that, are a part of the problem.

"Civilisations as yet have only been created and directed by a small intellectual aristocracy, never by crowds. Crowds are only powerful for destruction." - Gustave Le Bon


----------



## Nereffid

Let's bring back absolute monarchy so we can have better music!


----------



## wolkaaa

Nereffid said:


> Let's bring back absolute monarchy so we can have better music!


Irony?  There are surely other options, only our Western establishment has no interest in change.


----------



## Botschaft

Nereffid said:


> Let's bring back absolute monarchy so we can have better music!


Tyranny has its upsides.


----------



## Der Titan

Well, if I could compose a symphony much better than those of Beethoven, a play much better than that of Shakespeare, is there anybody who could stop me? No, not really. But there is all this politics, cultural establisment and all that who simply hamper me. Otherwise I could do that, of course I could do that.


----------



## wolkaaa

Der Titan said:


> Well, if I could compose a symphony much better than those of Beethoven, a play much better than that of Shakespeare, is there anybody who could stop me? No, not really. But there is all this politics, cultural establisment and all that who simply hamper me. Otherwise I could do that, of course I could do that.


Without the right environment it seems to be nearly impossibly.


----------



## Larkenfield

_When there's financial prosperity and time for leisure, the arts flourish. Projects, recordings and concerts get funded. Musicians are hired, and composers both traditional and modern have a greater opportunity to be heard.

Even in less prosperous times the creative urge still goes on but there may be fewer opportunities to be heard, or new ways of self-expression are being developed behind the scenes that could be the start of a new cycle that eventually grabs the attention of the public.

All things great and small have their cycle of development, the ebb and flow, just like individual lives do. The great artists are able to catch the upsweep of the wave when it's happening._


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> Two points: First, Meyer is difficult going. He needs a sympathetic simplifier, a Lyell or Huxley to his Darwin, a Playfair to his Hutton, to gain a wider audience. But there is so much valuable material in _Music, the Arts, and Ideas_ that is strictly about music and that has nothing to do with his views on the New Stasis, that the effort spent in perusing the book will be richly rewarded.
> 
> Second, the New Stasis will last until either that global New Order is imposed or until your correctly-intuited and hinted-at global collapse (which may be rather slow in its unfolding) overwhelms other issues. Of the people you mention, Malthus chillingly is the most prophetic, as has been so accurately and rigorously enlarged upon by his successor, Garrett Hardin, in _The Tragedy of the Commons_. Hardin's haunting, daunting treatise was written before anthropogenic global warming was even postulated, just as Meyer's thesis was formulated before the truly explosive expansion of virtually instantaneous global communication.


I'm impressed with your familiarity with Hardin's The Tragedy of the Commons. Equally important are the ideas of British economist Ronald Coase, especially his article, The Problem of Social Cost. Too many people today, and not just in the US, have been convinced that government regulation of economic activity is inherently bad without understanding the fundamental rationale behind it. I'm not sure what this has to do with music, but thanks for that excellent point.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Zhdanov said:


> your problem, not mine.


It's actually your problem for having an inability to make clear statements.



Zhdanov said:


> i did not say "even opera fans don't understand Wagner" but you put the words in my mouth, for some reason, most likely to distort the discussion.


That's right you wrote: "classical fans", whatever that is supposed to mean.



Zhdanov said:


> incidentally, this is Wagner, not just "some thing", he certainly wasn't into writing boring stuff... if someone finds him boring, that means they are unable to penetrate his music.


Wait a minute have you said anything new here? No, it's just the same opinion with the same meaningless conclusion.



Zhdanov said:


> common sense is always good because it says a child is not born of a man married to a man, but of a man married to a woman.


Listen pal I'm not interested in your hyper-conservative bent, but when it's used to set up fake logical conclusions I have an issue with it.



Zhdanov said:


> oh, yeah.


Yeah, get used to it.



Zhdanov said:


> i am not a composer.


Wherof one cannot speak, one must remain silent.



Zhdanov said:


> i blame the authorities.


Add them to your list of whipping boys.


----------



## eugeneonagain

I really should have said 'yes sir you're right' or something else along the lines of betrayal of principles. Challenging noisome demagoguery seems to keep getting me infraction notices.


----------



## DaveM

eugeneonagain said:


> Actually "common sense" isn't always good and 'nonsense' is often a matter of opinion.


Well, what is 'common sense' is often a matter of opinion and 'nonsense' is never good.


----------



## Botschaft

I will now make the first argument of any merit in this thread _against_ the notion of our time being the new Middle Ages for music: there is no hope of any recovery.


----------



## Blancrocher

I worry that before we have a new Bach, we might have to have a new Vivaldi.


----------



## Botschaft

Blancrocher said:


> I worry that before we have a new Bach, we might have to have a new Vivaldi.


Can't be worse than what we have now.


----------



## eugeneonagain

DaveM said:


> Well, what is 'common sense' is often a matter of opinion and 'nonsense' is never good.


I know, but the problem is deciding whether something is nonsense. For example Donald Trump talks nonsense, but those voters can't all be crazy or poor judges of what is nonsense...can they?


----------



## Woodduck

Blancrocher said:


> I worry that before we have a new Bach, we might have to have a new Vivaldi.


What's most frightening is that Sibelius software enables one write a concerto in half the time.


----------



## Woodduck

eugeneonagain said:


> I know, but the problem is deciding whether something is nonsense. For example Donald Trump talks nonsense, but those voters can't all be crazy or poor judges of what is nonsense...can they?


I'd say those two options are sufficient.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Woodduck said:


> I'd say those two options are sufficient.


You may be right. I'm walking on eggshells as it is.


----------



## Botschaft

eugeneonagain said:


> I know, but the problem is deciding whether something is nonsense. For example Donald Trump talks nonsense, but those voters can't all be crazy or poor judges of what is nonsense...can they?


Not _all_ Trump voters are insane.


----------



## mmsbls

Though it may be fun, let's cease the purely political statements.


----------



## Woodduck

Improbus said:


> Not _all_ Trump voters are insane.


No, that was only one of the suggested options. But do let's not wade too deeply into the muck.

Fun over.


----------



## EdwardBast

No we aren't back in the Middle Ages and no, Brahms wasn't the last great master. In fact, the bar for great composers of the 20thc was, arguably, considerably higher than in any previous era. Brahms was working at a time when the same basic harmonic and melodic vocabulary and many structural principles were part of a common language. Everyone had the same set of given elements to borrow from and to inflect in their own individual ways. By contrast, many of the great composers of the 20thc forged new and highly individual vocabularies, producing an unprecedented diversity of style and expression. Composers like Bartok, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Strauss, Debussy, Shostakovich, Britten, Sibelius, Schnittke — to mention only the relatively conservative composers — were each masters of harmony, form and counterpoint in thoroughly new and different idioms. The creative demands of this environment were far more daunting than anything Brahms faced and the astounding diversity of unique and successful dialects cultivated by these composers mark this era as, arguably, the greatest in the history of western art music.


----------



## Botschaft

EdwardBast said:


> No we aren't back in the Middle Ages and no, Brahms wasn't the last great master. In fact, the bar for great composers of the 20thc was, arguably, considerably higher than in any previous era. Brahms was working at a time when the same basic harmonic and melodic vocabulary and many structural principles were part of a common language. Everyone had the same set of given elements to borrow from and to inflect in their own individual ways. By contrast, many of the great composers of the 20thc forged new and highly individual vocabularies, producing an unprecedented diversity of style and expression. Composers like Bartok, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Strauss, Debussy, Shostakovich, Britten, Sibelius, Schnittke - to mention only the relatively conservative composers - were each masters of harmony, form and counterpoint in thoroughly new and different idioms. The creative demands of this environment were far more daunting than anything Brahms faced and the astounding diversity of unique and successful dialects cultivated by these composers mark this era as, arguably, the greatest in the history of western art music.


On the contrary being an artist is easier without any aesthetic standards to adhere to and when you can dress up in non-existent clothing and yet not be considered naked. I for one do not view Pollock as superior to Michelangelo.


----------



## fluteman

Improbus said:


> On the contrary being an artist is easier without any aesthetic standards to adhere to and when you can dress up in non-existent clothing and yet not be considered naked. I for one do not view Pollock as superior to Michelangelo.


Finally, we've reached Jackson Pollock. Time for about 700 John Cage and 4'33" posts.


----------



## DaveM

EdwardBast said:


> ... By contrast, many of the great composers of the 20thc forged new and highly individual vocabularies, producing an unprecedented diversity of style and expression. Composers like Bartok, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Strauss, Debussy, Shostakovich, Britten, Sibelius, Schnittke - to mention only the relatively conservative composers - were each masters of harmony, form and counterpoint in thoroughly new and different idioms. The creative demands of this environment were far more daunting than anything Brahms faced and the astounding diversity of unique and successful dialects cultivated by these composers mark this era as, arguably, the greatest in the history of western art music.


'_new and highly individual vocabularies_' and '_harmony, form and counterpoint in thoroughly new and different idioms_' presumably creating '_daunting creative demands_'

Sounds like a needless self-inflicted insurmountable challenge. There are no obvious guidelines for these 'new and highly individual vocabularies' and so instead of their evolving into something that results in reasonably rewarding music, they have degenerated into one big disorganized mess. Anything goes and the audience be damned! While I have respect for composers such as Bartok, Prokofiev, Strauss, Debussy, Shostakovich and Sibelius, they were pretty much the end of the line of quality classical music.


----------



## Botschaft

fluteman said:


> Finally, we've reached Jackson Pollock. Time for about 700 John Cage and 4'33" posts.


Don't forget H. C. Andersen!


----------



## Chronochromie

The Middle Ages didn't lack learning or scientific and artistic advances. Petrarch started that myth and the "Enlightenment" ran with it. It's still around in the popular consciousness.


----------



## Chronochromie

DaveM said:


> The golden age of classical music is over and probably ended, as far as composition is concerned, somewhere circa 1925 give or take a few years and, as far as audience is concerned (as a percent of overall world population), somewhere circa the end of the 20th century.


I can't stop laughing over the Ligeti Requiem, please DaveM, this is no place for such jokes! :lol:


----------



## Botschaft

Chronochromie said:


> The Middle Ages didn't lack learning or scientific and artistic advances. Petrarch started that myth and the "Enlightenment" ran with it. It's still around in the popular consciousness.


The early Middle Ages (also referred to as the Dark Ages) did basically just that, and the late were kind of a bridge between those times and the modern era, with relatively slow and gradual change.


----------



## Chronochromie

DaveM said:


> '_new and highly individual vocabularies_' and '_harmony, form and counterpoint in thoroughly new and different idioms_' presumably creating '_daunting creative demands_'
> 
> Sounds like a needless self-inflicted insurmountable challenge. There are no obvious guidelines for these 'new and highly individual vocabularies' and so instead of their evolving into something that results in reasonably rewarding music...


Which is what happened. You don't like it. End of.


----------



## Chronochromie

Improbus said:


> The early Middle Ages (also referred to as the *Dark Ages*) did basically just that, and the late were kind of a bridge between those times and the modern era, with relatively slow and gradual change.


A term that no serious historian uses anymore.


----------



## Botschaft

Chronochromie said:


> A term that no serious historian uses anymore.


That's besides the point; they have been called that for a reason (chiefly the lack of historical documentation, rendering them "dark" from our point of view, the lack of education and significant progress in those times).


----------



## Chronochromie

Improbus said:


> That's besides the point; they have been called that for a reason (chiefly the lack of historical documentation, rendering them "dark" from our point of view, the lack of education and significant progress in those times).


Yeah, except that the period witnessed the rise of the University, the Carolingian Renaissance, and the Byzantines were probably at their peak.


----------



## DaveM

Chronochromie said:


> I can't stop laughing over the Ligeti Requiem, please DaveM, this is no place for such jokes! :lol:


I am here to put joy in your life.


----------



## Botschaft

Chronochromie said:


> Yeah, except that the period witnessed the rise of the University, the Carolingian Renaissance,


That was from the 9th century and onwards.



> and the Byzantines were probably at their peak.


Yes, by definition, but how significant was the Byzantine Empire except in warding of Muslims?


----------



## ST4

We have always been cavemen and we always will be, just look at the "Top ten" and "Vs" phenomenon


----------



## Becca

ST4 said:


> *We have always been cavemen and we always will be*, just look at the "Top ten" and "Vs" phenomenon


I hope that was intended to be the 'royal' we.


----------



## Zhdanov

eugeneonagain said:


> It's actually your problem for having an inability to make clear statements.


do not go in denial, the statement was clear as daylight - http://www.talkclassical.com/50932-we-back-middle-age-7.html#post1302775



eugeneonagain said:


> That's right you wrote: "classical fans", whatever that is supposed to mean.


hope your not having sight problems - http://www.talkclassical.com/50932-we-back-middle-age-7.html#post1302775 - _'Wagner is impenetrable for most people, *even among* classical fans'_



eugeneonagain said:


> it's just the same opinion with the same meaningless conclusion.


don't you even try to save face after clearly proven yourself unable to penetrate and thus enjoy Wagner's music.



eugeneonagain said:


> Listen pal I'm not interested in your hyper-conservative bent,


listen buddy, that's just your opinion, and i am not conservative.



eugeneonagain said:


> when it's used to set up fake logical conclusions I have an issue with it.


prone to calling white 'black' are you?



eugeneonagain said:


> Wherof one cannot speak, one must remain silent.


i am a listener, don't have to be a composer in order to speak out on the subject.



eugeneonagain said:


> Add them to your list of whipping boys.


already did, as you might see.


----------



## Chronochromie

Improbus said:


> That was from the 9th century and onwards.
> 
> Yes, by definition, but how significant was the Byzantine Empire except in warding of Muslims?


I admit the Universities might come a bit later, but since when is the 9th century not in the Early Middle Ages?

Although the Muslims usually get all of the credit, the Byzantines also saved a ton of Greek and Roman knowledge. Also the Justinian law Codex, the Cyrillic Alphabet, significant innovations in administration, war, art (including music), etc.

They were far from insignificant, an Empire doesn't last as long as theirs did if it is perpetually stagnant. Especially when everyone wants to sack your rich capital.


----------



## ST4

Becca said:


> I hope that was intended to be the 'royal' we.


I am one of the many, so are you. We are all the "we"


----------



## mmsbls

I'm unclear whether those arguing that classical music is "in the middle ages" (i.e. music is not as good as in prior eras) believe:

1) Composers are not as good as earlier ones. There are no modern/contemporary composers comparable in ability to the "greats" of the past.

2) Modern/contemporary composers, though of similar ability, somehow do not create music as good as that created by composers in past eras.

It's hard for me to believe the former given the increase in population, the expansion of regions that can produce classical composers, and the greater access to good education, music, and scores. Many in this thread have argued that the latter statement is rather difficult to adjudicate (i.e. what metrics should be used).


----------



## Becca

ST4 said:


> I am one of the many, so are you. We are all the "we"


I assure you that I am not a caveman, not even a cavewoman.


----------



## Zhdanov

mmsbls said:


> I'm unclear whether those arguing that classical music is "in the middle ages" (i.e. music is not as good as in prior eras) believe:
> 
> 1) Composers are not as good as earlier ones. There are no modern/contemporary composers comparable in ability to the "greats" of the past.
> 
> 2) Modern/contemporary composers, though of similar ability, somehow do not create music as good as that created by composers in past eras.


the former, today composers just can't deliver.


----------



## ST4

Zhdanov said:


> the former, today composers just can't deliver.


Actually, yesterdays composers couldn't deliver if their lives depended on it


----------



## ST4

Becca said:


> I assure you that I am not a caveman, not even a cavewoman.


But that's not the way the human race works, you don't just get to decide that you are a more advanced lifeform than the rest of the species in the universe because you say so. Technology will never negate our primitive minds


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Yeah they ran out of puff right at the critical points and died like fly's


----------



## Zhdanov

Becca said:


> I assure you that I am not a caveman, not even a cavewoman.


people rate themselves highly, yes, because they are forced to, but you shouldn't fool yourself.


----------



## mmsbls

Zhdanov said:


> the former, today composers just can't deliver.


What would make composers today (or recently) worse than earlier composers? There is a much greater pool to draw from, education is widespread, and access to great music is vastly greater than earlier. It's very hard for me to believe that their ability could be worse in general. In fact, one could argue that their ability ought to be greater.

Or are you saying, "Today's composers don't write music I like as much"?


----------



## Chronochromie

mmsbls said:


> Or are you saying, "Today's composers don't write music I like as much"?


*ding ding ding*

We have a winner!


----------



## Zhdanov

mmsbls said:


> What would make composers today (or recently) worse than earlier composers? There is a much greater pool to draw from, education is widespread,


that's the point, education widespread and thus inferior to previous years' - a profanation occurred.


----------



## mmsbls

Chronochromie said:


> *ding ding ding*
> 
> We have a winner!


Actually, I was not completely fair since people could believe both that they don't enjoy today's music as much and that today's music is inferior in various ways (causing them to not like it as much as earlier music).

The problem is that (as EdwardBast said) "many of the great composers of the 20thc forged new and highly individual vocabularies, producing an unprecedented diversity of style and expression." Those highly individual vocabularies are, in general, more difficult to enjoy and understand causing fewer people to view those composers in high regard. People don't like them; therefore, they must not be as good.

Personally, I couldn't make a good argument for modern music being "as good" as older music because I don't understand music well enough. When I read or listen to those who do seem to know music well, they speak or write of modern composers in roughly the same light as they do earlier ones.


----------



## mmsbls

Zhdanov said:


> that's the point, education widespread and thus inferior to previous years' - a profanation occurred.


Do you mean to say that somehow recent composer education _caused_ composers' music to be inferior?

How does one determine that a profanation occurred? (That's a rhetorical question)


----------



## Zhdanov

mmsbls said:


> Do you mean to say that somehow recent composer education _caused_ composers' music to be inferior?


yes, precisely.



mmsbls said:


> How does one determine that a profanation occurred?


when teachers authority begins to be questioned.


----------



## mmsbls

Zhdanov said:


> yes, precisely.
> 
> when teachers authority begins to be questioned.


I think those two answers don't really work together. Your first answer suggests that it is the teaching that causes modern music to be inferior, but the second answer suggests that is is when students don't accept the teaching that the music suffers.

Anyway, I always thought that questioning authority is the only way to make advances in society (with science, art, morals, etc.).


----------



## Zhdanov

mmsbls said:


> I think those two answers don't really work together.


ah, let's not be hypocrites... education is a policy, the teacher is a institution; sure these don't go well together.



mmsbls said:


> Your first answer suggests that it is the teaching that causes modern music to be inferior


not at all, i actually meant education and politics behind it.



mmsbls said:


> I always thought that questioning authority is the only way to make advances in society (with science, art, morals, etc.).


you are mistaken, that only serves degeneration of society... authorities are not to be questioned but collaborated with.


----------



## ST4

Music is not war, this isn't WW2 Zhdanov


----------



## mmsbls

Zhdanov said:


> ah, let's not be hypocrites... education is a policy, the teacher is a institution; sure these don't go well together.
> 
> not at all, i actually meant education and politics behind it.


I'm not sure I understand, but I guess you mean the policies behind modern education have caused inferior music.



Zhdanov said:


> you are mistaken, that only serves degeneration of society... authorities are not to be questioned but collaborated with.


Maybe I am wrong, but I was under the impression that without questioning authority we would not have quantum theory or General Relativity, we would still live with slavery, and Mozart, Beethoven, and Wagner would all sound Baroque or earlier.


----------



## Lisztian

DaveM said:


> '_new and highly individual vocabularies_' and '_harmony, form and counterpoint in thoroughly new and different idioms_' presumably creating '_daunting creative demands_'
> 
> Sounds like a needless self-inflicted insurmountable challenge. There are no obvious guidelines for these 'new and highly individual vocabularies' and so instead of their evolving into something that results in reasonably rewarding music, they have degenerated into one big disorganized mess. Anything goes and the audience be damned! While I have respect for composers such as Bartok, Prokofiev, Strauss, Debussy, Shostakovich and Sibelius, they were pretty much the end of the line of quality classical music.


I respect you DaveM, but I can't let this fly. I'll stand by my previous arguments: you simply can't logically make claims like this when many people love the music that you are condemning. It is simply pointless and harmful. Really, it's bigotry in that you are implying that in order to feel as if you like this music you must either have worse taste OR not be able to think for yourself and see that the emperor has no clothes. It's insulting.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Zhdanov said:


> do not go in denial, the statement was clear as daylight - http://www.talkclassical.com/50932-we-back-middle-age-7.html#post1302775


No, sorry, it wasn't.



Zhdanov said:


> hope your not having sight problems _'Wagner is impenetrable for most people, *even among* classical fans'_


It's called a paraphrase. Do I have to teach you everything?



Zhdanov said:


> don't you even try to save face after clearly proven yourself unable to penetrate and thus enjoy Wagner's music.


Why would I have to save face? You seem to be unable to understand that not liking something is not the same as not understanding it. Or perhaps you are right and are just unable to penetrate new music, which is causing you to say you dislike it and it is degenerative. Think about that one for a while.



Zhdanov said:


> listen buddy, that's just your opinion, and i am not conservative.


You certainly are being conservative. And reactionary.



Zhdanov said:


> prone to calling white 'black' are you?


Well no, as I clearly explained. Calling black white (or vice-versa) is not the same as aesthetic judgements. You need a firmer grasp of the materials under discussion here.



Zhdanov said:


> i am a listener, don't have to be a composer in order to speak out on the subject.


Well, as an educated listener, if you feel this strongly, you need to inform contemporary composers what they are doing wrong before it's too late. I'm sure your guidance will help them see the error of their ways.



Zhdanov said:


> already did, as you might see.


Who could miss it?

_absit iniuria verbis_


----------



## eugeneonagain

Zhdanov said:


> people rate themselves highly, yes, because they are forced to, but you shouldn't fool yourself.


Best ironic statement of the thread.


----------



## Botschaft

Chronochromie said:


> I admit the Universities might come a bit later, but since when is the 9th century not in the Early Middle Ages?


Does it really matter what you call it? That hardly changes the facts of history.



> Although the Muslims usually get all of the credit, the Byzantines also saved a ton of Greek and Roman knowledge. Also the Justinian law Codex, the Cyrillic Alphabet, significant innovations in administration, war, art (including music), etc.


Apart from preserving some past innovations how much has that meant to us compared to the work of the ancients and moderns?



mmsbls said:


> I'm unclear whether those arguing that classical music is "in the middle ages" (i.e. music is not as good as in prior eras) believe:
> 
> 1) Composers are not as good as earlier ones. There are no modern/contemporary composers comparable in ability to the "greats" of the past.
> 
> 2) Modern/contemporary composers, though of similar ability, somehow do not create music as good as that created by composers in past eras.
> 
> It's hard for me to believe the former given the increase in population, the expansion of regions that can produce classical composers, and the greater access to good education, music, and scores. Many in this thread have argued that the latter statement is rather difficult to adjudicate (i.e. what metrics should be used).


Of course it's a matter of culture (which can't be boiled down to mere demographics), unless we are to blame genetic degeneration or pollution, rather than the nature of individuals.



Becca said:


> I assure you that I am not a caveman, not even a cavewoman.


I remain unconvinced.



Lisztian said:


> I respect you DaveM, but I can't let this fly. I'll stand by my previous arguments: you simply can't logically make claims like this when many people love the music that you are condemning. It is simply pointless and harmful. Really, it's bigotry in that you are implying that in order to feel as if you like this music you must either have worse taste OR not be able to think for yourself and see that the emperor has no clothes. It's insulting.


Sometimes the truth hurts, but that's no reason to shy away from it.


----------



## EdwardBast

Improbus said:


> On the contrary being an artist is easier without any aesthetic standards to adhere to and when you can dress up in non-existent clothing and yet not be considered naked. I for one do not view Pollock as superior to Michelangelo.


In what way is any of the composers I listed analogous to Pollock in painting? Do you know the music of Bartok, Debussy, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, et alia? I ask because as yet nothing you have written in this thread demonstrates familiarity. Do you have any specific observations to support the free-floating invective I've quoted above?


----------



## Botschaft

EdwardBast said:


> In what way is any of the composers I listed analogous to Pollock in painting? Do you know the music of Bartok, Debussy, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, et alia? I ask because as yet nothing you have written in this thread demonstrates familiarity. Do you have any specific observations to support the free-floating invective I've quoted above?


I see no reason to delve into specifics, but these are well known not to be bound by the formal requirements which defined the art of their predecessors. Do you really struggle to get my point or are you merely being obstinate?


----------



## Lisztian

Improbus said:


> Sometimes the truth hurts, but that's no reason to shy away from it.


So the people who love the composers that you do have good taste and can think for themselves, but those who love, say, Xenakis have poor taste and can't? Or the people that love composers that you do as well as Xenakis have good taste to an extent, but also perceptual shortcomings? Is that what you're saying?


----------



## Botschaft

Lisztian said:


> So the people who love the composers that you do have good taste and can think for themselves, but those who love, say, Xenakis have poor taste and can't? Or the people that love composers that you do as well as Xenakis have good taste to an extent, but also perceptual shortcomings? Is that what you're saying?


I don't like to needlessly insult or judge the capacity of others, but would you be happier if I said that those who prefer dubstep over Bach have inferior taste? I think exposure and conditioning are more important than intellect, however.


----------



## Lisztian

Improbus said:


> I don't like to needlessly insult or judge the capacity of others, but would you be happier if I said that those who prefer dubstep over Bach have inferior taste? I think exposure and conditioning are more important than intellect, however.


But a judgement on the capacity of others is exactly what you implied. Now you are backing away from saying it outright. At least that's how it seems to me.


----------



## Botschaft

Lisztian said:


> But a judgement on the capacity of others is exactly what you implied. Now you are backing away from saying it outright. At least that's how it seems to me.


To some extent it's impossible not to judge others' capacity, but I'm not here to hurt anyone's feelings unless by accident; that's all.


----------



## ST4

Lisztian said:


> So the people who love the composers that you do have good taste and can think for themselves, but those who love, say, Xenakis have poor taste and can't? Or the people that love composers that you do as well as Xenakis have good taste to an extent, but also perceptual shortcomings? Is that what you're saying?


People who like Beethoven have poor taste. Beethoven's music ruined the many centuries of lovely and nice music from Tallis, Vivaldi and Mozart, only to be ruined by a man who couldn't hold a tune if his life depended on it. Do people that like Beethoven really deserve a place on talk classical?


----------



## EdwardBast

Improbus said:


> I see no reason to delve into specifics, but these are well known not to be bound by the formal requirements which defined the art of their predecessors. Do you really struggle to get my point or are you merely being obstinate?


Everyone gets "your point." Some of us are just wondering if you can support it in any way, by, for example, demonstrating some familiarity with the music you are attacking. What formal requirements are you referring to? Most of these composers used the same forms as their predecessors, as anyone who has a passing familiarity with their music knows. What you vaguely claim to be "well known" is accepted by no one with knowledge of the music of the 20thc.


----------



## Botschaft

ST4 said:


> People who like Beethoven have poor taste. Beethoven's music ruined the many centuries of lovely and nice music from Tallis, Vivaldi and Mozart, only to be ruined by a man who couldn't hold a tune if his life depended on it. Do people that like Beethoven really deserve a place on talk classical?


There is more to Beethoven's music than to perhaps that of any other, so your attempt at sarcasm, while amusing, falls rather flat.


----------



## Lisztian

Improbus said:


> To some extent it's impossible not to judge others' capacity, but I'm not here to hurt anyone's feelings unless by accident; that's all.


I get that, and respect it. I also prefer to criticise the view rather than the person, as I realise we are all extremely complicated and it's unclear just how much control we have over our lives/what we think. It does seem to me, however, that this view you have come across, when expressed, cannot do anything but be 'accidentally insulting.' You will, of course, reply to this in your belief that this is because the truth can hurt. But I don't see it as simply being a harmful view but also an illogical one. You disagree, however...Oh well, as long as we always attempt to keep our minds open when we are challenged.


----------



## ST4

Improbus said:


> I don't like to needlessly insult or judge the capacity of others, but would you be happier if I said that those who prefer dubstep over Bach have inferior taste? I think exposure and conditioning are more important than intellect, however.


No, it's that a large majority of classical fans tend to have limited musical knowledge outside of classical and adhere to a strong superiority complex.


----------



## Botschaft

EdwardBast said:


> Everyone gets "your point." Some of us are just wondering if you can support it in any way, by, for example, demonstrating some familiarity with the music you are attacking. What formal requirements are you referring to? Most of these composers used the same forms as their predecessors, as anyone who has a passing familiarity with their music knows. What you vaguely claim to be "well known" is accepted by no one with knowledge of the music of the 20thc.


I'm quite frankly neither able nor willing to elaborate any further than you could, and no, those composers in general didn't adhere very strictly to the traditional forms of Mozart, Beethoven and Brahms.


----------



## ST4

Improbus said:


> There is more to Beethoven's music than to perhaps that of any other, so your attempt at sarcasm, while amusing, falls rather flat.


Not much of a fan of the innovative, boundary pushing, badass Beethoven I see?

All of the Beethoven I've listened to over the years and praised should speak for itself. Your reply strongly suggests you skim read my comment and Pugg's like indicates that you think I was bashing Beethoven :lol:


----------



## Art Rock




----------



## Mal

No we are back before the Lascaux caves, a time before avatars (on my chrome box at least...)


----------



## Botschaft

ST4 said:


> No, it's that a large majority of classical fans tend to have limited musical knowledge outside of classical and adhere to a strong superiority complex.


But you surely don't consider yourself superior to those in any way?

Granted: I am more intelligent than most people, but I have my share of shortcomings. For instance I don't easily appreciate music, especially if it's not of the very highest order.


----------



## ST4

Improbus said:


> Granted: I am more intelligent than most people, but I have my share of shortcomings. For instance I don't easily appreciate music, especially if it's not of the very highest order.


But you surely don't consider yourself superior to those in any way?

Dude, I poop, I fart, I eat, I sleep, I drink, I get sick and I die. I am just a human, so is everyone else.

Music is a diverse field throughout history, it is sad to see classical fans being so closed minded towards anything else. This is outside of any musical tastes, this is just plain old acceptance of things that aren't your home turf. There is a lot of discrimination in classical music, it's a real shame.


----------



## Nereffid

Improbus said:


> I don't like to needlessly insult or judge the capacity of others, but would you be happier if I said that those who prefer dubstep over Bach have inferior taste?


Well, _I_ sure as hell wouldn't be happier.

The word you're looking for is "different", not "inferior".


----------



## Botschaft

ST4 said:


> Not much of a fan of the innovative, boundary pushing, badass Beethoven I see?
> 
> All of the Beethoven I've listened to over the years and praised should speak for itself. Your reply strongly suggests you skim read my comment and Pugg's like indicates that you think I was bashing Beethoven :lol:


I, if anyone, know sarcasm when I see it, and yes, accusing Beethoven of ruining music and implying that those who like his music have bad taste constitutes bashing him.


----------



## ST4

Improbus said:


> I, if anyone, know sarcasm when I see it, and yes, accusing Beethoven of ruining music and implying that those who like his music have bad taste constitutes bashing him.


No, I'm putting a mirror to your face


----------



## EdwardBast

Improbus said:


> I'm quite frankly neither able nor willing to elaborate any further than you could, and no, those composers in general didn't adhere very strictly to the traditional forms of Mozart, Beethoven and Brahms.


You are wrong on all counts. I can detail exactly how the treatment of sonata form in Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Bartok et alia relates to the traditional forms of earlier composers. The answer in most cases is quite closely. The first movements of Shostakovich's Fifth Quartet, Tenth Symphony, Eighth Symphony, Prokofiev's Seventh Sonata, the second movement of his First Violin Sonata, the first movement of his Fifth Symphony, the opening movements of several of his concertos, the first movement of Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra, to cite just a few examples, all are pretty traditional sonata forms that Brahms would easily comprehend in this light. But one does not need specialized knowledge to hear this. Amateurs with no special training can hear these things, which is why these composers are among the most popular whose works are currently performed by the world's best musicians.


----------



## Botschaft

Nereffid said:


> Well, _I_ sure as hell wouldn't be happier.
> 
> The word you're looking for is "different", not "inferior".


Let's just say different in a less than optimal way.



ST4 said:


> No, I'm putting a mirror to your face


I'm all for progress, which is not to be confused with decadence, decay or death.


----------



## Botschaft

EdwardBast said:


> You are wrong on all counts. I can detail exactly how the treatment of sonata form in Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Bartok et alia relates to the traditional forms of earlier composers. The answer in most cases is quite closely. The first movements of Shostakovich's Fifth Quartet, Tenth Symphony, Eighth Symphony, Prokofiev's Seventh Sonata, the second movement of his First Violin Sonata, the first movement of his Fifth Symphony, the opening movements of several of his concertos, the first movement of Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra, to cite just a few examples, all are pretty traditional sonata forms that Brahms would easily comprehend in this light. But one does not need specialized knowledge to hear this. Amateurs with no special training can hear these things, which is why these composers are among the most popular whose works are currently performed by the world's best musicians.


All very impressive, but to occasionally employ sonata form is just one piece of the puzzle, and these you refer to are quite conveniently late romantics and among the more conservative of modernists, which is also why people more easily tolerate them.


----------



## EdwardBast

Improbus said:


> All very impressive, but to occasionally employ sonata form is just one piece of the puzzle, and these you refer to are quite conveniently late romantics and among the more conservative of modernists, which is also why people more easily tolerate them.


Wrong on all counts. Pick any piece of the puzzle you want. No one regards these composers as late romantics. People don't tolerate them, they love them. You were the one who picked Brahms as the last great genius. So you are acknowledging that you were wrong then? After all, Shostakovich was producing well-loved works until 1975.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> '_new and highly individual vocabularies_' and '_harmony, form and counterpoint in thoroughly new and different idioms_' presumably creating '_daunting creative demands_'
> 
> Sounds like a needless self-inflicted insurmountable challenge. There are no obvious guidelines for these 'new and highly individual vocabularies' and so instead of their evolving into something that results in reasonably rewarding music, they have degenerated into one big disorganized mess. Anything goes and the audience be damned! While I have respect for composers such as Bartok, Prokofiev, Strauss, Debussy, Shostakovich and Sibelius, they were pretty much the end of the line of quality classical music.


"A high culture must, historically speaking, originate with an aristocratic class, because this alone has the time and energy to create it. If it remains too long the preserve of the aristocrat, it becomes first elaborate and then silly..."

H.D.F. Kitto: The Greeks

I would amplify Kitto's remarks to include both the creators of the art of the "high culture" but also its audience; its consumers. Should these two groups become too detached from the tastes of the mass, the danger of what Kitto calls silliness (what he intends is irrelevance) becomes more certain. Most "people's" or folk, or popular, music is highly melodic, and the earlier composers often included large and small bits of it into their work, reworking it, augmenting it, etc. We read in our notes on Haydn symphonies that thus and such was inspired by some rural Croatian dance tune or whatever. Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev, so many other composers spring to mind with musics permeated by folkish or popular melodies, inspired by such, or written using similar materials, treatments, styles. The important thing is that the linkage between CM and popular taste, though often attenuated, remained discernible.

I have no way of knowing whether musics are good or bad; all I know is whether I like them. And the only objective measure we have is any given music's or composer's relative popularity, as measured by polls, sales, numbers of recordings, etc. As we move further into the New Stasis, there is more and more opportunity for tiny "classical music" cul de sacs, cults, blind alleys to form wherein those of "aristocratic"--meaning highly-specialized, narrowly-focused--leanings as either composers or their small followings, can become, as Kitto suggests, first elaborate and then silly.

Regarding the dialogue of EdwardBast, DaveM and some others, I think that a case can be made that Sibelius, Prokofiev, Strauss, Bartok, Shostakovich, Debussy etc. do in fact mark the now-receding edge of CM that can, does, and will enjoy a relatively larger audience. There are certainly more to add to that list: Martinů certainly; others will suggest their candidates. But the movement into irrelevance--silliness, if you will--typified by tiny audiences of True Believer adherents, seems to be the hallmark of much post-1950s CM. None of this has any bearing on whether this is good, bad, whatever as a trend, or whether any such music is good or bad. If you like it, it's good!


----------



## Chronochromie

Improbus said:


> Does it really matter what you call it? That hardly changes the facts of history.
> 
> Apart from preserving some past innovations how much has that meant to us compared to the work of the ancients and moderns?


So you admit you're wrong, then? 'Cause the Carolingian Renaissance is definitely in the Early Middle Ages.

I'm not about to engage in an absurd "achievement olympics". But saying "besides this important thing, what have they done for us?" is maybe not the best argument.


----------



## Nereffid

Improbus said:


> Let's just say different in a less than optimal way.


But then I have to ask, _optimal for whom?_


----------



## wolkaaa

Nereffid said:


> Well, _I_ sure as hell wouldn't be happier.
> 
> The word you're looking for is "different", not "inferior".


I'm sorry for you if you really don't see any quality difference between Bach and dubstep. :lol::lol:


----------



## Nereffid

wolkaaa said:


> I'm sorry for you if you really don't see any quality difference between Bach and dubstep. :lol::lol:


I see musical differences between them, obviously. And I vastly prefer Bach to dubstep. So I guess in that sense your pretend pity is neither necessary nor welcome.

But whether people value one kind of music over another is their own business and no sign of any personal superiority or inferiority.

Meanwhile, on a dubstep forum someone is saying exactly what you just said, and laughing at the poor sap who doesn't think dubstep is better than Bach. And neither of you will ever convince me that they have the right answer.


----------



## Botschaft

EdwardBast said:


> Wrong on all counts. Pick any piece of the puzzle you want. No one regards these composers as late romantics. People don't tolerate them, they love them. You were the one who picked Brahms as the last great genius. So you are acknowledging that you were wrong then? After all, Shostakovich was producing well-loved works until 1975.


You did mention some late romantics previously, so forgive me for mixing things up; yet your sample is skewed to your advantage, and let's not appeal to popularity.



Chronochromie said:


> So you admit you're wrong, then?


Not exactly, since I happened to refer to something else, if improperly, when I mentioned the early Middle Ages.



> I'm not about to engage in an absurd "achievement olympics". But saying "besides this important thing, what have they done for us?" is maybe not the best argument.


But let's consider the quantity as well as the quality of contribution.



Nereffid said:


> But then I have to ask, _optimal for whom?_


For whomever understands the two.


----------



## Nereffid

Just once, I'd love to see someone sincerely rhapsodise about how great a particular composer is, describe the many facets of his genius, point to all the magnificent things in his music, the technical brilliance and the philosophical and emotional profundity, insist that there can be no doubt that this is a composer for the ages, and then conclude by saying "and I really can't stand his music".

Maybe then I'd believe there was something to this other than personal preference.


----------



## Botschaft

Nereffid said:


> Just once, I'd love to see someone sincerely rhapsodise about how great a particular composer is, describe the many facets of his genius, point to all the magnificent things in his music, the technical brilliance and the philosophical and emotional profundity, insist that there can be no doubt that this is a composer for the ages, and then conclude by saying "and I really can't stand his music".
> 
> Maybe then I'd believe there was something to this other than personal preference.


Sounds like what has been said about Brahms on occasion, though I can't provide any quotations, and I think Britten had similar opinions about Beethoven.


----------



## wolkaaa

Nereffid said:


> I see musical differences between them, obviously. And I vastly prefer Bach to dubstep. So I guess in that sense your pretend pity is neither necessary nor welcome.
> 
> But whether people value one kind of music over another is their own business and no sign of any personal superiority or inferiority.
> 
> Meanwhile, on a dubstep forum someone is saying exactly what you just said, and laughing at the poor sap who doesn't think dubstep is better than Bach. And neither of you will ever convince me that they have the right answer.


That's the relativism I mentioned. First, you are right, some people think dubstep is better, but why should we take such people seriously? They are like people who know nothing about evolution theory but say it's bullsh*t. Should scientists take them seriously? No, and we shouldn't take seriously people without any aesthetic sense. Or do you think that distinguished tastes are a myth and all people have equal good tastes? You should know that people are different, some are intelligent, some are dumb, some are musical, others NOT. And it SHOULD be obvious that the masses of people are neither intelligent nor have distinguished tastes... If you want a proof that CM has more quality than dubstep: Nearly everybody can learn to create (good) dubstep music in a very short period of time (I have some experience in creating beats), while it takes many years of work, plus huge talent, to create some fairly CM. Exactly like everybody can rap, but only a few can sing operas. CM has the highest requirements for musicians and is way more complex, sophisticated and abstract than every other kind of music. 
You should question the left-liberal ideology (everbody is equal, everything is equal) - my advice.


----------



## Strange Magic

The conflation of aesthetics, politics, and science in some of the posts of this thread betrays an astonishing ignorance of all three.


----------



## Botschaft

Strange Magic said:


> The conflation of aesthetics, politics, and science in some of the posts of this thread betrays an astonishing ignorance of all three.


At least I never brought either politics or science.


----------



## wolkaaa

Strange Magic said:


> The conflation of aesthetics, politics, and science in some of the posts of this thread betrays an astonishing ignorance of all three.


How about arguments?


----------



## Strange Magic

wolkaaa said:


> That's the relativism I mentioned. First, you are right, some people think dubstep is better, but why should we take such people seriously? They are like people who know nothing about evolution theory but say it's bullsh*t. Should scientists take them seriously? No, and we shouldn't take seriously people without any aesthetic sense. Or do you think that distinguished tastes are a myth and all people have equal good tastes? You should know that people are different, some are intelligent, some are dumb, some are musical, others NOT. And it SHOULD be obvious that the masses of people are neither intelligent nor have distinguished tastes... If you want a proof that CM has more quality than dubstep: Nearly everybody can learn to create (good) dubstep music in a very short period of time (I have some experience in creating beats), while it takes many years of work, plus huge talent, to create some fairly CM. Exactly like everybody can rap, but only a few can sing operas. CM has the highest requirements for musicians and is way more complex, sophisticated and abstract than every other kind of music.
> You should question the left-liberal ideology (everbody is equal, everything is equal) - my advice.


All the argument I need is right here .


----------



## wolkaaa

Strange Magic said:


> All the argument I need is right here .


OK. If you can't see connections between those things I mentioned, I wonder who of us is ignorant.


----------



## Strange Magic

wolkaaa said:


> OK. If you can't see connections between those things I mentioned, I wonder who of us is ignorant.


Must be me....... :tiphat:


----------



## Botschaft

Strange Magic said:


> All the argument I need is right here .


Maybe not all but some of it certainly.


----------



## Nereffid

wolkaaa said:


> That's the relativism I mentioned. First, you are right, some people think dubstep is better, but why should we take such people seriously? They are like people who know nothing about evolution theory but say it's bullsh*t. Should scientists take them seriously? No, and we shouldn't take seriously people without any aesthetic sense.


Except that science and the arts are very different from each other.



wolkaaa said:


> Or do you think that distinguished tastes are a myth and all people have equal good tastes? You should know that people are different, some are intelligent, some are dumb, some are musical, others NOT. And it SHOULD be obvious that the masses of people are neither intelligent nor have distinguished tastes...


Taste is an expression of personality, I don't agree that it has "good" or "bad" qualities. As for the masses not being intelligent, I agree, about half of them are below average. 



wolkaaa said:


> If you want a proof that CM has more quality than dubstep: Nearly everybody can learn to create (good) dubstep music in a very short period of time (I have some experience in creating beats), while it takes many years of work, plus huge talent, to create some fairly CM. Exactly like everybody can rap, but only a few can sing operas. CM has the highest requirements for musicians and is way more complex, sophisticated and abstract than every other kind of music.


But does that automatically make classical music _better_? This reminds me of the old joke about the guy who claimed he was smarter than Einstein. "They say only 5 people in the world truly understand Einstein's theories. Well, _nobody_ understands mine!"
Surely an argument can be made that, music being a social activity, a highly complex and abstract music will be too esoteric and therefore not fit for purpose. I don't agree with this argument either, by the way - I'm in favour of all kinds of music for all kinds of audiences. But my point is that some of the ideas being used here aren't as axiomatic as you seem to insist.



wolkaaa said:


> You should question the left-liberal ideology (everbody is equal, everything is equal) - my advice.


But why should I take this advice? At present I have a benevolent view of the musical tastes of all of humankind, and I've got tons of music to listen to that I really love. If I come round to your way of thinking, what will I gain?


----------



## eugeneonagain

Improbus said:


> Granted: I am more intelligent than most people, but I have my share of shortcomings. For instance I don't easily appreciate music, especially if it's not of the very highest order.


Dunning-Kruger in action?


----------



## Botschaft

eugeneonagain said:


> Dunning-Kruger in action?


In regard to you, I suppose?


----------



## wolkaaa

Nereffid said:


> Except that science and the arts are very different from each other.
> 
> Taste is an expression of personality, I don't agree that it has "good" or "bad" qualities. As for the masses not being intelligent, I agree, about half of them are below average.
> 
> But does that automatically make classical music _better_? This reminds me of the old joke about the guy who claimed he was smarter than Einstein. "They say only 5 people in the world truly understand Einstein's theories. Well, _nobody_ understands mine!"
> Surely an argument can be made that, music being a social activity, a highly complex and abstract music will be too esoteric and therefore not fit for purpose. I don't agree with this argument either, by the way - I'm in favour of all kinds of music for all kinds of audiences. But my point is that some of the ideas being used here aren't as axiomatic as you seem to insist.
> 
> But why should I take this advice? At present I have a benevolent view of the musical tastes of all of humankind, and I've got tons of music to listen to that I really love. If I come round to your way of thinking, what will I gain?


Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with other music genres. I myself listen to deep house, latin pop, hip hop and other stuff, I just think CM has more value (for the reasons I explained). "Better" is a vague word, let's say it's more demanding, more ambitious. I hope you agree.


----------



## Nereffid

wolkaaa said:


> Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with other music genres. I myself listen to deep house, latin pop, hip hop and other stuff, I just think CM has more value (for the reasons I explained). "Better" is a vague word, let's say it's more demanding, more ambitious. I hope you agree.


I agree, it's more demanding and more ambitious. It has more value to me too. But I don't believe any kind of music has an _inherent_ value so that one can be more inherently valuable than another.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Improbus said:


> In regard to you, I suppose?


Well no, because the ones exhibiting it never diagnose themselves. That's how it works. If you're going to attempt a comeback at least make it good. This one is not of the calibre of Elvis's 1968 comeback special, by any means.


----------



## Botschaft

eugeneonagain said:


> Well no, because the ones exhibiting it never diagnose themselves. That's how it works. If you're going attempt a comeback at least make it good. This one is not of the calibre of Elvis's 1968 comeback special, by any means.


I think the glove fits nonetheless (in regard to you, not me, just to be clear).


----------



## Strange Magic

wolkaaa said:


> Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with other music genres. I myself listen to deep house, latin pop, hip hop and other stuff, I just think CM has more value (for the reasons I explained). "Better" is a vague word, let's say it's more demanding, more ambitious. I hope you agree.


Why would someone of your taste and refinement waste valuable listening time (and neuron vitality) on music of less value--deep house, Latin pop, hip hop, "other stuff"? You clearly can distinguish better and worse (I never can) in music and the other arts, and yet you choose the lesser rather than the greater (CM) now and again. Do your principles and arguments stand for something, or for nothing?


----------



## eugeneonagain

wolkaaa said:


> Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with other music genres. I myself listen to deep house, latin pop, hip hop and other stuff, I just think CM has more value (for the reasons I explained). "Better" is a vague word, let's say it's more demanding, more ambitious. I hope you agree.


I see where you're coming from. As much as anyone I have my tastes too and would probably be guilty of damning some things and lauding others, but wouldn't want to make a judgement. Let's say that you compare 'classical' to, for example, Jean-Michel Jarre's Oxygene, which I happen to think is a great album and sits somewhere in the middle of art music and popular music. It would be easy to just say it's closer to classical of you like it, or say it's just popular mood music if you don't like it.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Improbus said:


> I think the glove fits nonetheless (in regard to you, not me, just to be clear).


I guess that confirms it then.


----------



## wolkaaa

Nereffid said:


> I agree, it's more demanding and more ambitious. It has more value to me too. But I don't believe any kind of music has an _inherent_ value so that one can be more inherently valuable than another.


I agree with that. Existence precedes essence.


----------



## JJF

With the shift in music from the harmonious, consonance to dissonance it seems that a decline in beauty followed. Reading an old Manly P. Hall book where he states that harmony is a prerequisite for beauty. Hard to not see the decline in all forms of beauty in our world, from art to architecture to even simple things like people hold themselves while in public. Hard to pin down which is the chicken or the egg, but as a newcomer to this form, and a relative newcomer to classical music, I greatly appreciate finding this forum and this thread!


----------



## wolkaaa

Strange Magic said:


> Why would someone of your taste and refinement waste valuable listening time (and neuron vitality) on music of less value--deep house, Latin pop, hip hop, "other stuff"? You clearly can distinguish better and worse (I never can) in music and the other arts, and yet you choose the lesser rather than the greater (CM) now and again. Do your principles and arguments stand for something, or for nothing?


Unlike others, I'm able to like something, understanding it's not great art.


----------



## Botschaft

eugeneonagain said:


> I guess that confirms it then.


My intelligence is already confirmed to be above averge, and to think that I'm stupid one must be stupid oneself (bear in mind that English is my second language, if you find any flaws with my use of it).


----------



## Strange Magic

wolkaaa said:


> Unlike others, I'm able to like something, understanding it's not great art.


I like things also, lots of things, but never worry or even consider whether they are great art (or not); not an issue; not a consideration.


----------



## hpowders

JJF said:


> With the shift in music from the harmonious, consonance to dissonance it seems that a decline in beauty followed. Reading an old Manly P. Hall book where he states that harmony is a prerequisite for beauty. Hard to not see the decline in all forms of beauty in our world, from art to architecture to even simple things like people hold themselves while in public. Hard to pin down which is the chicken or the egg, but as a newcomer to this form, and a relative newcomer to classical music, I greatly appreciate finding this forum and this thread!


Not only a decline in beauty. A decline in "humanity". With the rise of the secular humanists, where fetuses are aborted without any conscience, where religion and God are now being ridiculed, where statues that have been standing for 50-100 years and are all of a sudden offensive, so they must be torn down and history, sanitized, where the individual is the valued center of the universe....where making tons of money is everything....how could today's music NOT be an ugly reflection of all this societal "progress"?


----------



## Strange Magic

We're in a period of high conflation again.


----------



## wolkaaa

Strange Magic said:


> I like things also, lots of things, but never worry or even consider whether they are great art (or not); not an issue; not a consideration.


Me too! If I would worry about "greatness", I wouldn't listen to all that non-classical stuff.


----------



## Nereffid

Strange Magic said:


> I like things also, lots of things, but never worry or even consider whether they are great art (or not); not an issue; not a consideration.


That's where I'm at, too.

Perhaps we could have a new definition of "great art": any aspect of culture that is highly valued by those people who insist that what they value highly is important.

(Note: This is tongue-in-cheek and not worth anyone's time arguing with!)


----------



## eugeneonagain

Improbus said:


> My intelligence is already confirmed to be above averge, and to think that I'm stupid one must be stupid oneself (bear in mind that English is my second language, if you find any flaws with my use of it).


I repeat...Dunning-Kruger in action?


----------



## Botschaft

eugeneonagain said:


> I repeat...Dunning-Kruger in action?


Perhaps-if it weren't scientifically proven not to be.


----------



## Strange Magic

Nereffid said:


> That's where I'm at, too.
> 
> Perhaps we could have a new definition of "great art": any aspect of culture that is highly valued by those people who insist that what they value highly is important.
> 
> (Note: This is tongue-in-cheek and not worth anyone's time arguing with!)


I may be repeating myself, but super-aesthete and brilliant physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer advised his younger brother Frank in one of his letters that great art was that art that the best people enjoyed. And I just know that we can identify the best people because they are the ones who enjoy great art! Flawless tautology.


----------



## DaveM

Here is one example of where we find ourselves, when it comes to the current state of classical music. In the Thursday edition of the Los Angeles Times, the music reporter, Mark Swed, reported on a LA Philharmonic concert at the Hollywood Bowl where the program was the Holst The Planets (obviously programmed with the recent solar eclipse in mind) and the premiere of the Daniel Bjarnason Violin Concerto, commissioned by the LA Phil.

Here is a description of the concerto by Mark Swed:

_'Bjarnason had originally called the concerto "Scoratura", the Italian term for mistuning... Still, it is a concerto all about tuning and what happens to sound when you mess with the acoustical properties of instruments.

While the concerto was hardly made for video, that too proved a major plus, with a soloist as charismatic as Kuusisto. I can't imagine a more musically dangerous way to start a Bowl concert than with a solo playing a drone on the lowest string unnervingly tuned down a fourth. And eerily whistling along at the same time.

Kuusisto is an extravagant player whose party tricks include singing along as he plays... He does that in the concerto and he also does a lot more, including sawing away on the strings in such a way that it got the whole Bowl vibrating.'_

So, here you have a violin concerto where the premise is 'tuning' and '[messing] with the acoustical properties of [the violin]' with a self-indulgent whistling artist to add insult on injury. Nowhere is there a mention of melody or something that stirs the emotions or soothes the soul. And this is not some aberration or outlier. On the contrary, this is more in the category of works that the LA Phil commissions these days. Dissonance and IMO general flakiness. Who is being served by this music? Does this, in any way, promote listening to classical music? Would practically anybody be leaving this concert with the intention of finding a recording of this concerto for the purpose of uplifting listening at home or in the car?


----------



## Chronochromie

DaveM said:


> Here is one example of where we find ourselves, when it comes to the current state of classical music. In the Thursday edition of the Los Angeles Times, the music reporter, Mark Swed, reported on a LA Philharmonic concert at the Hollywood Bowl where the program was the Holst The Planets (obviously programmed with the recent solar eclipse in mind) and the premiere of the Daniel Bjarnason Violin Concerto, commissioned by the LA Phil.
> 
> Here is a description of the concerto by Mark Swed:
> 
> _'Bjarnason had originally called the concerto "Scoratura", the Italian term for mistuning... Still, it is a concerto all about tuning and what happens to sound when you mess with the acoustical properties of instruments.
> 
> While the concerto was hardly made for video, that too proved a major plus, with a soloist as charismatic as Kuusisto. I can't imagine a more musically dangerous way to start a Bowl concert than with a solo playing a drone on the lowest string unnervingly tuned down a fourth. And eerily whistling along at the same time.
> 
> Kuusisto is an extravagant player whose party tricks include singing along as he plays... He does that in the concerto and he also does a lot more, including sawing away on the strings in such a way that it got the whole Bowl vibrating.'_
> 
> So, here you have a violin concerto where the premise is 'tuning' and '[messing] with the acoustical properties of [the violin]' with a self-indulgent whistling artist to add insult on injury. Nowhere is there a mention of melody or something that stirs the emotions or soothes the soul. And this is not some aberration or outlier. On the contrary, this is more in the category of works that the LA Phil commissions these days. Dissonance and IMO general flakiness. Who is being served by this music? Does this, in any way, promote listening to classical music? Would practically anybody be leaving this concert with the intention of finding a recording of this concerto for the purpose of uplifting listening at home or in the car?


Emotions can be stirred and the soul soothed by Ligeti's Lux aeterna, Pärt's Cantus in Memoriam Benjamin Britten or Saariaho's L'amour de loin. I seriously don't get what you don't get about this: there's a wide variety of contemporary classical music, not all of it or most of it is excruciatingly dissonant, and the pieces that _are_ may have a point to them and want to evoke something that _you personally_ aren't interested in. I managed to turn a metalhead who thought Classical was boring with Stravinsky and Xenakis, people listen to different music for different reasons.

What's premiered today may well not be talked about tomorrow, but that's true for every period, I've found some of the most superficially pleasant yet mind-numbingly boring music by minor, now-forgotten Baroque, Classical and Romantic composers. The difference with the "bad dissonant Contemporary music", and there's quite a bit of it, is that no one would complain if you put the former composers as background music in a store. I don't mean that positively for the record (haha).


----------



## JJF

Where might we be at in this downward part of the cycle? Or is there such a chasm that a societal split is in the offing? 

I love that there are now nearly an infinite amount of ways to experience great music and to take it anywhere! So perhaps it is the duality at work again. Great progress is mirrored by great horror. The dance continues.


----------



## JJF

Was waiting for a "Dude, the place rocked". How we have fallen.


----------



## Botschaft

DaveM said:


> So, here you have a violin concerto where the premise is 'tuning' and '[messing] with the acoustical properties of [the violin]' with a self-indulgent whistling artist to add insult on injury. Nowhere is there a mention of melody or something that stirs the emotions or soothes the soul. And this is not some aberration or outlier. On the contrary, this is more in the category of works that the LA Phil commissions these days. Dissonance and IMO general flakiness. Who is being served by this music? Does this, in any way, promote listening to classical music? Would practically anybody be leaving this concert with the intention of finding a recording of this concerto for the purpose of uplifting listening at home or in the car?


I'm sure Beethoven would've been proud. :lol:



Chronochromie said:


> Emotions can be stirred and the soul soothed by Ligeti's Lux aeterna, Pärt's Cantus in Memoriam Benjamin Britten or Saariaho's L'amour de loin. I seriously don't get what you don't get about this: there's a wide variety of contemporary classical music, not all of it or most of it is excruciatingly dissonant, and the pieces that _are_ may have a point to them and want to evoke something that _you personally_ aren't interested in. I managed to turn on a metalhead who thought Classical was boring with Stravinsky and Xenakis, people listen to different music for different reasons.


Feelings may be aroused by all sorts of noise, but that doesn't make any noise music, if the word should have any meaning; much less _good_ music, if there is such a thing. Or could the great composers just as well have scribbled down whatever entered their minds, thereby saving a great deal of time and effort, quality being completely arbitrary?


----------



## fluteman

Improbus said:


> Don't forget H. C. Andersen!


I'm a fan of Andersen, but I don't consider him post modern at all. Unless you're talking about another Andersen. Is he the downfall of western civilization too?



Improbus said:


> Feelings may be aroused by all sorts of noise, but that doesn't make any noise music, if the word should have any meaning; much less _good_ music, if there is such a thing. Or could the great composers just as well have scribbled down whatever entered their minds, thereby saving a great deal of time and effort, quality being completely arbitrary?


My opinion is exactly the opposite. Arousing feelings does make noise music. My definition of music would more or less be: Nonlinguistic sound organized for the purpose of human communication (or arousing feelings, if you like).
You seem to want to insert some sort of "quality" requirement into your definition of music, or maybe a required level of "time and effort" on the part of the artist. I've seen that argument before. Good luck with it.


----------



## Woodduck

hpowders said:


> Not only a decline in beauty. A decline in "humanity". With the rise of the secular humanists, where fetuses are aborted without any conscience, where religion and God are now being ridiculed, where statues that have been standing for 50-100 years and are all of a sudden offensive, so they must be torn down and history, sanitized, where the individual is the valued center of the universe....where making tons of money is everything....how could today's music NOT be an ugly reflection of all this societal "progress"?


I don't think I've ever seen on this forum such a heterogeneous mash of notions. "Secular humanism" is a contrived category and a jargonistic buzzword, used by a certain subculture who think they know what's wrong with everyone else and will lump together unlimited numbers of unrelated ideas because they aren't explained or sanctioned in the "sacred texts."

A person who asserts her right not to carry a pregnancy to term, one who who finds theological claims outlandish and "faith-based" institutions oppressive and dangerous, one who doesn't want to pass every morning, in her American town square, monuments glorifying the heroes of an anti-American regime dedicated to enslaving and killing her grandparents - these are quite likely to be three different people with little in common, and not necessarily contemporary people. As for making tons of money, most of the "secular humanists" I know can hardly afford to retire - but I'm sure that Pat Robertson, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Louis Farrakhan, Franklin Graham, Deepak Chopra, the Pope, and innumerable other highly successful "spiritual leaders" who rant about "secular humanists" will be quite comfortable until the rapture comes to take them to their (next) reward.

Did someone mention the "Middle Ages," by the way? No problem with "secular humanism" during that glorious age of enlightenment, peace, health and prosperity.

(P.S. This has _what_ to do with music?)


----------



## hpowders

Woodduck said:


> I don't think I've ever seen on this forum such a heterogeneous mash of notions. "Secular humanism" is a contrived category and a jargonistic buzzword, used by a certain subculture who think they know what's wrong with everyone else and will lump together unlimited numbers of unrelated ideas because they aren't explained or sanctioned in the "sacred texts."
> 
> A person who asserts her right not to carry a pregnancy to term, one who who finds theological claims outlandish and "faith-based" institutions oppressive and dangerous, one who doesn't want to pass every morning, in her American town square, monuments glorifying the heroes of an anti-American regime dedicated to enslaving and killing her grandparents - these are quite likely to be three different people with little in common, and not necessarily contemporary people. As for making tons of money, most of the "secular humanists" I know can hardly afford to retire - but I'm sure that Pat Robertson, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Louis Farrakhan, Franklin Graham, Deepak Chopra, the Pope, and innumerable other highly successful "spiritual leaders" who rant about "secular humanists" will be quite comfortable until the rapture comes to take them to their (next) reward.
> 
> Did someone mention the "Middle Ages," by the way? No problem with "secular humanism" during that glorious age of enlightenment, peace, health and prosperity.
> 
> (P.S. This has _what_ to do with music?)


Well if you say so, it absolutely must be true!

I beg to differ....only I ain't begging.


----------



## DaveM

Chronochromie said:


> Emotions can be stirred and the soul soothed by Ligeti's Lux aeterna, Pärt's Cantus in Memoriam Benjamin Britten or Saariaho's L'amour de loin. I seriously don't get what you don't get about this: there's a wide variety of contemporary classical music, not all of it or most of it is excruciatingly dissonant, and the pieces that _are_ may have a point to them and want to evoke something that _you personally_ aren't interested in. I managed to turn on a metalhead who thought Classical was boring with Stravinsky and Xenakis, people listen to different music for different reasons.


I seriously don't get why you don't get that the topic of the OP has to do with questioning what the present state of affairs is in classical music (i.e. are we back in the middle ages or what?) The subject is not about the variety of contemporary classical music. (Heaven knows, there is variety and there seems to be endless names given to the variations.) And the subject isn't which contemporary works move you or even that they exist.

In keeping with the OP, I am presenting an example of an experience of concert-goers to a major symphony orchestra wherein the commissioned work programmed is not accessible to the common man/woman and is unlikely to contribute, in any way, shape or form to an interest in classical music. I am also suggesting that this is not an aberration, but a recurrent occurrence in the programming of this orchestra. It is a support, among other factors, for the fact that classical music is not only generally stuck in the mud, but is regressing in sales of recordings, attendance at concerts, financial support for orchestras, the number of dedicated radio stations and the number of people listening to it. This isn't just my opinion; there are statistics to support it.



> What's premiered today may well not be talked about tomorrow, but that's true for every period, I've found some of the most superficially pleasant yet mind-numbingly boring music by minor, now-forgotten Baroque, Classical and Romantic composers. The difference with the "bad dissonant Contemporay music", and there's quite a bit of it, is that no one would complain if you put the former composers as background music in a store. I don't mean that positively for the record (haha).


Apples and oranges. Yes, there were many now-forgotten composers in the 3 main prior eras, but given that these periods produced the iconic composers that, to this day, form the backbone of what is left of classical music, the effect of the forgotten element is largely irrelevant.


----------



## Chronochromie

DaveM said:


> I seriously don't get why you don't get that the topic of the OP has to do with questioning what the present state of affairs is in classical music (i.e. are we back in the middle ages or what?) The subject is not about the variety of contemporary classical music. (Heaven knows, there is variety and there seems to be endless names given the the variations.) And the subject isn't which contemporary works move you or even that they exist.
> 
> In keeping with the OP, I am presenting an example of an experience of concert-goers to a major symphony orchestra wherein the commissioned work programmed is not accessible to the common man/woman and is unlikely to contribute, in any way, shape or form to an interest in classical music. I am also suggesting that this is not an aberration, but a recurrent occurrence in the programming of this orchestra. It is a support, among other factors, for the fact that classical music is not only generally stuck in the mud, but is regressing in sales of recordings, attendance at concerts, financial support for orchestras, the number of dedicated radio stations and the number of people listening to it. This isn't just my opinion; there are statistics to support it.
> 
> Apples and oranges. Yes, there were many now-forgotten composers in the 3 main prior eras, but given that these periods produce the iconic composers that, to this day, form the backbone of what is left of classical music, the effect of the forgotten element is largely irrelevant.


I was replying to you only, not the OP. Sorry about any confusion.


----------



## Botschaft

fluteman said:


> I'm a fan of Andersen, but I don't consider him post modern at all. Unless you're talking about another Andersen. Is he the downfall of western civilization too?


I was just referring to the Emperor's New Clothes trope.



> My opinion is exactly the opposite. Arousing feelings does make noise music. My definition of music would more or less be: Nonlinguistic sound organized for the purpose of human communication (or arousing feelings, if you like).


That definition seems too loose to be very meaningful on the one hand, not excluding sound signals, on the other one could easily imagine music being created by and for non-humans.



> You seem to want to insert some sort of "quality" requirement into your definition of music, or maybe a required level of "time and effort" on the part of the artist. I've seen that argument before. Good luck with it.


Not as an essential trait but simply a meaningful one, and by quality I mean potential.


----------



## Chronochromie

DaveM said:


> I seriously don't get why you don't get that the topic of the OP has to do with questioning what the present state of affairs is in classical music (i.e. are we back in the middle ages or what?) The subject is not about the variety of contemporary classical music. (Heaven knows, there is variety and there seems to be endless names given to the variations.) And the subject isn't which contemporary works move you or even that they exist.
> 
> In keeping with the OP, I am presenting an example of an experience of concert-goers to a major symphony orchestra wherein the commissioned work programmed is not accessible to the common man/woman and is unlikely to contribute, in any way, shape or form to an interest in classical music. I am also suggesting that this is not an aberration, but a recurrent occurrence in the programming of this orchestra. It is a support, among other factors, for the fact that classical music is not only generally stuck in the mud, but is regressing in sales of recordings, attendance at concerts, financial support for orchestras, the number of dedicated radio stations and the number of people listening to it. This isn't just my opinion; there are statistics to support it.
> 
> Apples and oranges. Yes, there were many now-forgotten composers in the 3 main prior eras, but given that these periods produced the iconic composers that, to this day, form the backbone of what is left of classical music, the effect of the forgotten element is largely irrelevant.


I think you underestimate the popularity of Contemporary composers. The hip kids might not know much about Bach and Brahms, but in my experience most have heard something (or heard of) by Philip Glass, Arvo Pärt, Steve Reich, Ligeti, Penderecki, Terry Riley or John Adams (both). You'll find Music for 18 Musicians or Glassworks in their top lists not uncommonly.

If they aren't found more in concert halls something to note is that many of their most popular works aren't orchestral. Also programming is not the best way to find out what is popular I don' think.

You're also overestimating the importance of recording sales, most people stream or pirate nowadays.


----------



## DaveM

Chronochromie said:


> I think you underestimate the popularity of Contemporary composers. The hip kids might not know much about Bach and Brahms, but in my experience most have heard something (or heard of) by Philip Glass, Arvo Pärt, Steve Reich, Ligeti, Penderecki, Terry Riley or John Adams (both). You'll find Music for 18 Musicians or Glassworks in their top lists not uncommonly.
> 
> If they aren't found more in concert halls something to note is that many of their most popular works aren't orchestral. Also programming is not the best way to find out what is popular I don' think.
> 
> You're also overestimating the importance of recording sales, most people stream or pirate nowadays.


Let's say that what you're saying is true: That the demographic supporting contemporary classical music -and hence, presumably, the future of classical music- depends more on hip kids who don't know much about Bach and Beethoven, but who listen primarily to non-orchestral works, not in concert halls, but primarily by streaming and pirated works (and not recordings). That doesn't bode well for orchestra musicians and contemporary composers who don't make much from streaming and absolutely nothing from piracy of their works. Sounds like a bright future for classical music to me.


----------



## Chronochromie

DaveM said:


> Let's say that what you're saying is true: That the demographic supporting contemporary classical music -and hence, presumably, the future of classical music- depends more on hip kids who don't know much about Bach and Beethoven, but who listen primarily to non-orchestral works, not in concert halls, but primarily by streaming and pirated works (and not recordings). That doesn't bode well for orchestra musicians and contemporary composers who don't make much from streaming and absolutely nothing from piracy of their works. Sounds like a bright future for classical music to me.


Concert halls will adapt or die, at least in the US. Somehow composers survive, if the state doesn't support them patrons do and will. I don't expect to see Unsuk Chin or Georg Friedrich Haas dying of hunger any time soon. But hey isn't the "suffering, starving artist" a catalyst for fine Romantic music?


----------



## ST4

Woodduck said:


> I don't think I've ever seen on this forum such a heterogeneous mash of notions. "Secular humanism" is a contrived category and a jargonistic buzzword, used by a certain subculture who think they know what's wrong with everyone else and will lump together unlimited numbers of unrelated ideas because they aren't explained or sanctioned in the "sacred texts."
> 
> A person who asserts her right not to carry a pregnancy to term, one who who finds theological claims outlandish and "faith-based" institutions oppressive and dangerous, one who doesn't want to pass every morning, in her American town square, monuments glorifying the heroes of an anti-American regime dedicated to enslaving and killing her grandparents - these are quite likely to be three different people with little in common, and not necessarily contemporary people. As for making tons of money, most of the "secular humanists" I know can hardly afford to retire - but I'm sure that Pat Robertson, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Louis Farrakhan, Franklin Graham, Deepak Chopra, the Pope, and innumerable other highly successful "spiritual leaders" who rant about "secular humanists" will be quite comfortable until the rapture comes to take them to their (next) reward.
> 
> Did someone mention the "Middle Ages," by the way? No problem with "secular humanism" during that glorious age of enlightenment, peace, health and prosperity.
> 
> (P.S. This has _what_ to do with music?)


Can you write 5 pretentious paragraphs about the teletubbies now?


----------



## Botschaft

Chronochromie said:


> I think you underestimate the popularity of Contemporary composers. The hip kids might not know much about Bach and Brahms, but in my experience most have heard something (or heard of) by Philip Glass, Arvo Pärt, Steve Reich, Ligeti, Penderecki, Terry Riley or John Adams (both). You'll find Music for 18 Musicians or Glassworks in their top lists not uncommonly.


I think both Bach and Brahms are still more popular among all age groups than those others you listed, but if you have any sources suggesting otherwise I would gladly take a look at them, albeit not entirely without disgust.


----------



## Botschaft

ST4 said:


> Can you write 5 pretentious paragraphs about the teletubbies now?


What makes you think he would do such a thing?


----------



## fluteman

Improbus said:


> I was just referring to the Emperor's New Clothes trope.
> 
> That definition seems too loose to be very meaningful on the one hand, not excluding sound signals, on the other one could easily imagine music being created by and for non-humans.
> 
> Not as an essential trait but simply a meaningful one, and by quality I mean potential.


Well, I'd consider sound signals, like Morse Code, a language, and so not within my definition. Non-human music is a charming idea. I just don't like the presumptuous way humans often have of ascribing human characteristics to animals. So I steer clear of it. 
Ironically, Miriam-Webster has an even broader definition: The science or art of ordering tones or sounds in succession, in combination, and in temporal relationships to produce a composition having unity and continuity. (I wouldn't call music a science.) But most definitions of music, and certainly definitions of art, include the aspect of purpose: to express ideas and feelings, or to be aesthetically appealing or appreciated. I put that under the heading of communication.


----------



## Botschaft

fluteman said:


> Well, I'd consider sound signals, like Morse Code, a language, and so not within my definition.


What about an alarm? If we are to call that language we might just call any communication language, music included.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Woodduck said:


> I don't think I've ever seen on this forum such a heterogeneous mash of notions. (the rest)...


My word, I loved that post. What the hell have I been doing arguing against you?


----------



## fluteman

Improbus said:


> What about an alarm? If we are to call that language we might just call any communication language, music included.


George Gershwin famously included the sound of a honking French taxi horn in An American In Paris. He even had a device made, but subsequently lost, that was realistically out of tune. Edgard Varese included sirens in Ameriques. We expect art to communicate in an aesthetic rather than purely utilitarian way, which is the distinction I'm trying to make when I say "nonlinguistic". As my examples and many others show, even the most ordinary utilitarian sounds (and objects, for the visual artist) have their aesthetic aspect. So the purpose the sound is put to is as important as the sound itself.


----------



## Woodduck

eugeneonagain said:


> My word, I loved that post. What the hell have I been doing arguing against you?


I don't know, but maybe ST4's oblique accusation of pretentiousness will clarify the matter for both of us.


----------



## EdwardBast

wolkaaa said:


> Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with other music genres. I myself listen to deep house, latin pop, hip hop and other stuff, I just think CM has more value (for the reasons I explained). "Better" is a vague word, let's say it's more demanding, more ambitious. I hope you agree.


In this discussion no one has asked the essential question: Better for what purpose? Do you really think the listed popular styles are written with the same goal as classical music? Saying classical is better than pop is like saying hammers are better than saws. It's just a silly, incoherent question.


----------



## wolkaaa

EdwardBast said:


> In this discussion no one has asked the essential question: Better for what purpose? Do you really think the listed popular styles are written with the same goal as classical music? Saying classical is better than pop is like saying hammers are better than saws. It's just a silly, incoherent question.


Straw man argument? I didn't say CM is better. Of course different music has different goals but it doesn't change my point.


----------



## Botschaft

EdwardBast said:


> In this discussion no one has asked the essential question: Better for what purpose? Do you really think the listed popular styles are written with the same goal as classical music? Saying classical is better than pop is like saying hammers are better than saws. It's just a silly, incoherent question.


It would more be like saying that a toolshed with all the highest quality tools is better than some measly screwdriver, which makes perfect sense. One might still _prefer_ the latter, as it is less cumbersome and easier to approach, but that doesn't make it less potent.


----------



## JosefinaHW

Nereffid said:


> Just once, I'd love to see someone sincerely rhapsodise about how great a particular composer is, describe the many facets of his genius, point to all the magnificent things in his music, the technical brilliance and the philosophical and emotional profundity, insist that there can be no doubt that this is a composer for the ages, and then conclude by saying "and I really can't stand his music".
> 
> Maybe then I'd believe there was something to this other than personal preference.


:Becca: and :StrangeMagic: Aren't you both people who don't like Bach's sacred music, but appreciate the greatness of at least some of his "other" works, such as the Brandenburg Cti?


----------



## JosefinaHW

hpowders said:


> Not only a decline in beauty. A decline in "humanity". With the rise of the secular humanists, where fetuses are aborted without any conscience, where religion and God are now being ridiculed, where statues that have been standing for 50-100 years and are all of a sudden offensive, so they must be torn down and history, sanitized, where the individual is the valued center of the universe....where making tons of money is everything....how could today's music NOT be an ugly reflection of all this societal "progress"?


:EddieRUKiddingVarese: and :Bettina: I am extremely interested to read why you each "liked" this post--PM works for me.


----------



## hpowders

JosefinaHW said:


> :EddieRUKiddingVarese: and :Bettina: I am extremely interested to read why you each "liked" this post--PM works for me.


I find your post embarrassing and humiliating, as the implication is that my post is not "like" worthy.

If you have a problem with my post, why not direct your critique directly at me, the author of the post?

I don't take well to public humiliation.

Posters are free to "like" what they like.

Not everybody on TC shares your particular views.


----------



## JosefinaHW

hpowders said:


> I find your post embarrassing and humiliating, as the implication is that my post is not "like" worthy.
> 
> If yopu have a problem with my post, why not direct your critique directly at me, the author of the post?


Hpowders, my intention VERY HONESTLY was not to offend, embarrass or humiliate you with my request.

I am really struggling to get my mind around everything that is being said in this thread: it is important enough to me that it kept waking me up last night. I am having difficulty even sketching out on paper how several members' seem to be contradicting themselves when I know they have brilliant minds.....

I was very tempted to click "Like" to your post, but I have been struggling with a way to defend what I agree with without going on at great length... because I am struggling with myself at the moment via the statue issue....

I was just going to edit my post to request that Ed and Bettina explain themselves in public because they are both thoughtful people and I think they might give all of us some clarity.


----------



## JosefinaHW

^^^^ HPowders, I also feel like I am in an extremely difficult position because I don't want to have to complicate my confusion and defense with another defense of of the positive qualities of theology, faith and belief in God. (I would have liked to have left that rest for at least a little while!!!)


----------



## hpowders

JosefinaHW said:


> Hpowders, my intention VERY HONESTLY was not to offend, embarrass or humiliate you with my request.
> 
> I am really struggling to get my mind around everything that is being said in this thread: it is important enough to me that it kept waking me up last night. I am having difficulty even sketching out on paper how several members' seem to be contradicting themselves when I know they have brilliant minds.....
> 
> I was very tempted to click "Like" to your post, but I have been struggling with a way to defend what I agree with without going on at great length... because I am struggling with myself at the moment via the statue issue....
> 
> I was just going to edit my post to request that Ed and Bettina explain themselves in public because they are both thoughtful people and I think they might give all of us some clarity.


Then you should have initially PM'd each of those posters with your request, instead of carrying down my post and humiliating me in public....as in "why did you "like" his post?"

*It's called TACT!!!*

By the way, I am proud of that post; stand by that post and will always maintain that with the rotting of the culture, the music of the time will reflect that. You want passionate musical masterpieces written in 2017, then the composers need some inspiration and in today's world, they aren't getting it.

If you posted to me directly about what I wrote, I would have been delighted to discuss it with you.


----------



## JosefinaHW

Two posts that have really held me back from even posting my questions this morning, much less an explanation of why I think everything you stated does relate to music are the following:

"The conflation of aesthetics, politics, and science in some of the posts of this thread betrays an astonishing ignorance of all three."

and StrangeMagic's post in response to yours:

something close to the effect that "We are in a period of high conflation again."

......


----------



## Becca

JosefinaHW said:


> :Becca: and :StrangeMagic: Aren't you both people who don't like Bach's sacred music, but appreciate the greatness of at least some of his "other" works, such as the Brandenburg Cti?


I wouldn't go so far as to say "don't like" or "greatness" but you are generally correct.


----------



## Bettina

JosefinaHW said:


> :EddieRUKiddingVarese: and :Bettina: I am extremely interested to read why you each "liked" this post--PM works for me.


I liked it because I agree with many of his points, particularly the idea that our society has moved toward an increasingly superficial view of artists and their work. In Beethoven's time, it was considered acceptable for an genius to be eccentric, absent-minded, and sloppily dressed. Nowadays, in order to achieve success, people are expected to be socially smooth, polished and cheerful. The eccentric, socially awkward types usually get passed over for jobs nowadays. This means that a lot of geniuses are falling through the cracks because they aren't good at making small talk while standing around the water cooler.

As you can see, my opinion on the decline of art isn't exactly the same as hpowders', but it's similar enough to justify my liking his post. Not that it needs to be justified; we're all free to like anything that we want!


----------



## JosefinaHW

hpowders said:


> Then you should have initially PM'd each of those posters with your request instead of carrying down my post and humiliating me in public.
> 
> *It's called TACT!!!*


I know that I am unintentionally tactless at times; many times, very sadly.... but I don't think that this applies here.

Please give me a little more time to try and state why I agreed with a great deal of your post..... please. I think that you have great insight into our world right now and why each day I pray harder and harder that Bach's lost cantatas and passions be found.


----------



## JosefinaHW

Becca said:


> I wouldn't go so far as to say "don't like" or "greatness" but you are generally correct.


I thought, so, and I thought that you would be able (and willing ???) to respond to Nerefid's post in the manner he suggested. 
I think that many people besides those of us who "Clicked a Like" to his post would benefit from reading your responses.









Originally Posted by *Nereffid* 
_Just once, I'd love to see someone sincerely rhapsodise about how great a particular composer is, describe the many facets of his genius, point to all the magnificent things in his music, the technical brilliance and the philosophical and emotional profundity, insist that there can be no doubt that this is a composer for the ages, and then conclude by saying "and I really can't stand his music".

Maybe then I'd believe there was something to this other than personal preference._


----------



## JosefinaHW

HPowders, I cannot reply to your PM because you haven't given permission for me to send it to you.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Bettina said:


> I liked it because I agree with many of his points, particularly the idea that our society has moved toward an increasingly superficial view of artists and their work. In Beethoven's time, it was considered acceptable for an genius to be eccentric, absent-minded, and sloppily dressed. Nowadays, in order to achieve success, people are expected to be socially smooth, polished and cheerful. The eccentric, socially awkward types usually get passed over for jobs nowadays. This means that a lot of geniuses are falling through the cracks because they aren't good at making small talk while standing around the water cooler.


Throughout history it has always been the more pig-headed, pushy, self-assured people who have ascended, for good or ill. Was Beethoven a shrinking violet? Even if someone like him hasn't got the social polish or is an awkward personality there have always been people around them who smooth their way when they know it's worth it. Van Gogh's brother did this for him throughout his life. I don't think this has changed all that much.
Even though there is now a more marketised approach to everything this is also not a new phenomenon. It has just picked up pace. Younger people coming into any performance profession have come of age in a highly image-conscious world and are perhaps more willing to accept the blather of celebrity image, a pretence of being a perpetual 'entrepreneur', the fake optimism.


----------



## JosefinaHW

hpowders said:


> I find your post embarrassing and humiliating, as the implication is that my post is not "like" worthy.
> 
> If you have a problem with my post, why not direct your critique directly at me, the author of the post?
> 
> I don't take well to public humiliation.
> 
> Posters are free to "like" what they like.
> 
> *Not everybody on TC shares your particular views*.


I am going to just let this thread sit for a while so that I can read posts before i respond to a previous one.... and avoid further confusion on MY PART. Before I write my response of why i agree with the insight in your post, please explain what you mean by the bolded sentence above.... I don't mean DEFEND; I am just not clear about what views of mine you are talking about? The fact that I do ask people to explain why they "clicked like"--I do this sometimes when someone "Clicks a like" for one of my posts. Are you talking about my theological beliefs? What?


----------



## Bettina

eugeneonagain said:


> Throughout history it has always been the more pig-headed, pushy, self-assured people who have ascended, for good or ill. Was Beethoven a shrinking violet? Even if someone like him hasn't got the social polish or is an awkward personality there have always been people around them who smooth their way when they know it's worth it. Van Gogh's brother did this for him throughout his life. I don't think this has changed all that much.
> Even though there is now a more marketised approach to everything this is also not a new phenomenon. It has just picked up pace. *Younger people coming into any performance profession have come of age in a highly image-conscious world and are perhaps more willing to accept the bather of celebrity image, a pretence of being a perpetual 'entrepreneur', the fake optimism.*


Yes, there certainly are many people who are willing (and able) to put on a gleaming fake smile and deliver a slick elevator pitch. But what about those who can't? Perhaps some of those people are just as brilliant, but their gifts are overlooked because they can't play the superficial game.


----------



## Tallisman

hpowders said:


> Not only a decline in beauty. A decline in "humanity". With the rise of the secular humanists, where fetuses are aborted without any conscience, where religion and God are now being ridiculed, where statues that have been standing for 50-100 years and are all of a sudden offensive, so they must be torn down and history, sanitized, where the individual is the valued center of the universe....where making tons of money is everything....how could today's music NOT be an ugly reflection of all this societal "progress"?


I'm somewhat agnostic and still that strikes me as totally true. Whether divine presence or inspiration is real or a psychological construct, it is still potent and powerful and aids beauty. The decadence and moral/social decline of a society is inexorably manifested in its art.


----------



## Agamemnon

Maybe a little off-topic, but in some fields sloppy dressing is a (consciously) chosen way of presenting themselves to the world. E.g. in my country The Netherlands we make fun out of some leftish politicians because they expressly dress sloppy to show the people that are not living around or for the succesful but around and for unsuccesful people (the bottom of society). And because they want to express their opinion that not the ouside - nice cloths - but the inner personality counts... And of course, al lot of academics also dress sloppy because they are so absorbed by their work that they absent-minded lay their cloths in bed and throw themselves on the chair when they go to sleep and don't mind walking around in an old T-shirt with coffee stains on it... BTW, this is actually why Trump could win: the ordinary people do want to look good and they hate the leftwinged politicians and academics who paradoxally show their superiority to the ordinary people by dressing sloppy... In that sense they have a connection to the Romantic idea that the genius is a bohemian, non-bourgeois and doesn't care for social conventions like in Beethoven's case.


----------



## Tallisman

Improbus said:


> My intelligence is already confirmed to be above averge, and to think that I'm stupid one must be stupid oneself (bear in mind that English is my second language, if you find any flaws with my use of it).


It's not that your IQ is low, which I'm sure it isn't, but rather that your ego seems to soar above it into the stratosphere. Jumping from the latter down to the former is a sure way to reach terminal velocity.

Edit: infraction, here I come. :angel:


----------



## eugeneonagain

Agamemnon said:


> Maybe a little off-topic, but in some fields sloppy dressing is a (consciously) chosen way of presenting themselves to the world. E.g. in my country The Netherlands we make fun out of some leftish politicians because they expressly dress sloppy to show the people that are not living in or for the succesful but in and for unsuccesful people (the bottom of society). And because they want to express their opinion that not the ouside - nice cloths - but the inner personality counts... And of course, al lot of academics also dress sloppy because they are so absorbed by their work that they absent-minded lay their cloths in bed and throw themselves on the chair when they go to sleep and don't mind walking around in an old T-shirt with coffee stains on it... BTW, this is actually why Trump could win: the ordinary people do want to look good and they hate the leftwinged politicians and academics who paradoxally show their superiority to the ordinary people by dressing sloppy... In that sense they have a connection to the Romantic idea that the genius is a bohemian, non-bourgeois and doesn't care for social conventions like in Beethoven's case.


All they ever do is not wear a tie and that fad is already rampant throughout the middle classes in NL. This is the particular forte of PvdA and their middle-class supporters who feel too self conscious and ashamed about betraying their origins by supporting Rutte's gang. PvdA is their easiest option. Emile Roemer always wears a tie.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Bettina said:


> Yes, there certainly are many people who are willing (and able) to put on a gleaming fake smile and deliver a slick elevator pitch. But what about those who can't? Perhaps some of those people are just as brilliant, but their gifts are overlooked because they can't play the superficial game.


Yes of course, but as I argued in the preceding bit, 'twas surely ever thus.


----------



## Botschaft

Tallisman said:


> It's not that your IQ is low, which I'm sure it isn't, but rather that your ego seems to soar above it into the stratosphere. Jumping from the latter down to the former is a sure way to reach terminal velocity.
> 
> Edit: infraction, here I come. :angel:


To reach terminal velocity I think my ego would have reach far beyond just the stratosphere.


----------



## Nereffid

JosefinaHW said:


> :Becca: and :StrangeMagic: Aren't you both people who don't like Bach's sacred music, but appreciate the greatness of at least some of his "other" works, such as the Brandenburg Cti?


To clarify: loving some of a composer's work and hating the rest of it isn't what I was talking about. Anyone can do that. I'm talking about a situation where someone is genuinely (as opposed to grudgingly) convinced that a composer is a brilliant genius, and can cite many examples of just how brilliant a genius he is, but also dislikes all those examples.


----------



## Tallisman

Improbus said:


> To reach terminal velocity I think my ego would have reach far beyond just the stratosphere.


I'm tracking it's progress: it's just breached the mesosphere and shows no signs of slowing:tiphat:


----------



## JosefinaHW

Nereffid said:


> To clarify: loving some of a composer's work and hating the rest of it isn't what I was talking about. Anyone can do that. I'm talking about a situation where someone is genuinely (as opposed to grudgingly) convinced that a composer is a brilliant genius, and can cite many examples of just how brilliant a genius he is, but also dislikes all those examples.


I know that you were not talking about loving some of a composer's work and hating others (I'm not sure that Becca or StrangeMagic "hate" any of Bach's music--let's leave the St. John Passion out of this for the sake of clarity).

They are the only TC members that I could think of that would most closely be able to give us an example of appreciating the genius of a body of music and why they still do not like it.


----------



## Tallisman

JosefinaHW said:


> They are the only TC members that I could think of that would most closely be able to give us an example of appreciating the genius of a body of music and why they still do not like it.


I think serialism is an extraordinary and fascinating invention, and a result of some kind of genius. I still hate to listen to it, though.


----------



## Botschaft

The fact that some even dare to admit to not adoring Bach is just further proof of our collective decline. Keep it coming!


----------



## Strange Magic

in the New Stasis, there is room at the table, and big portions, for everybody. I love Bach's music, in case anybody is interested.


----------



## Botschaft

Strange Magic said:


> in the New Stasis, there is room at the table, and big portions, for everybody.


I'm full, thanks.



> I love Bach's music, in case anybody is interested.


Good for you!


----------



## eugeneonagain

Improbus said:


> I'm full, thanks.


But of what? That, to quote Hamlet, is the question.


----------



## DaveM

This thread has taken a strange turn...


----------



## Botschaft

eugeneonagain said:


> But of what? That, to quote Hamlet, is the question.


Of myself, for one thing. :lol:


----------



## fluteman

eugeneonagain said:


> Throughout history it has always been the more pig-headed, pushy, self-assured people who have ascended, for good or ill. Was Beethoven a shrinking violet? Even if someone like him hasn't got the social polish or is an awkward personality there have always been people around them who smooth their way when they know it's worth it. Van Gogh's brother did this for him throughout his life. I don't think this has changed all that much.
> Even though there is now a more marketised approach to everything this is also not a new phenomenon. It has just picked up pace. Younger people coming into any performance profession have come of age in a highly image-conscious world and are perhaps more willing to accept the bather of celebrity image, a pretence of being a perpetual 'entrepreneur', the fake optimism.


Yes. What is sometimes neglected here is that the creative artist always has to swim against the tide to some extent. Even those that don't openly rebel against the most fundamental traditions of their day still have to find a new angle -- an at least subtly new way to communicate, a break from the daily routine, if you will. it's interesting how so many composers we now consider the standard bearers of western music considered themselves daring extremist revolutionaries, as did some of the critics of their own day.


----------



## Chronochromie

DaveM said:


> This thread had taken a strange turn...


Implying it wasn't strange since its OP?


----------



## JJF

Agamemnon said:


> Maybe a little off-topic, but in some fields sloppy dressing is a (consciously) chosen way of presenting themselves to the world. E.g. in my country The Netherlands we make fun out of some leftish politicians because they expressly dress sloppy to show the people that are not living around or for the succesful but around and for unsuccesful people (the bottom of society). And because they want to express their opinion that not the ouside - nice cloths - but the inner personality counts... And of course, al lot of academics also dress sloppy because they are so absorbed by their work that they absent-minded lay their cloths in bed and throw themselves on the chair when they go to sleep and don't mind walking around in an old T-shirt with coffee stains on it... BTW, this is actually why Trump could win: the ordinary people do want to look good and they hate the leftwinged politicians and academics who paradoxally show their superiority to the ordinary people by dressing sloppy... In that sense they have a connection to the Romantic idea that the genius is a bohemian, non-bourgeois and doesn't care for social conventions like in Beethoven's case.


Does the tattoo phenomenon fit into this societal degradation? Is it as crazed in Europe as in America?


----------



## Tallisman

JJF said:


> Does the tattoo phenomenon fit into this societal degradation? Is it as crazed in Europe as in America?


I don't know how bad it is in America but it's pretty bad here, I'd say. People complain about not being able to get employment... Well guess what: here's the first step: don't get face piercings and don't get stupid tattoos.


----------



## Botschaft

JJF said:


> Does the tattoo phenomenon fit into this societal degradation? Is it as crazed in Europe as in America?


Even more so: Stockholm is the most tattooed city in the world.


----------



## Agamemnon

In the Netherlands I get the impression (on a summer day when there is much skin to be seen) that almost all people < 35 y have (even visible) tattoos. Anyway, I am always quite amazed by the huge numbers. Yet, I don't have problems with it: in most cases I think it is actually quite beautiful, especially in young men because it makes them more ... men. 

Still it shows how the socialist goal of elevating the proletariat has been reversed: the norms and values of the lowest social stratum, especially prison culture, have become normalized, even become dominant, and are spreading upwards into even the highest strata of society. 

The link with what I wrote about sloppy dressing is not clear though: I think tattoos show a great care for the way you look and you won't see tattoos on leftwinged politicians or academics. Thinking of it, leftwinged politicians and academics are the only people left without tattoos, so actually the new elite (leftwinged politicians and academics) are marked by sloppy dressing and not having tattoos!

BTW, all men used not to care about their looks but the financial crisis/insecurity seems to have changed that dramatically: men used to achieve self-esteem from their profession and secured income but in contemporary society only the elite has guaranteed a fine job and a secured income so in these times men who do not belong to the elite look for self-esteem from their looks. Like girls need to be thin to be socially accepted, boys must have a trained body. All male movie stars nowadays have a very muscled, trained body (they didn't in past times!). Tattoos on a trained body are like the whipped cream on the cake (and thus necessary)!


----------



## JosefinaHW

Strange Magic said:


> in the New Stasis, there is room at the table, and big portions, for everybody. I love Bach's music, in case anybody is interested.


....The technological changes you mention, by dramatically speeding communication to all points of the planet, are a vital part of establishing and maintaining the New Stasis. The real change back to *"progress" (will it be progress, or will it be retrogression?) in significant, ordered sequential movements will come (be very afraid!)* with the imposition of a New Global Order. There are very few of such that I can imagine that any of us would like. A Universal Church? An all-encompassing ideology? I'll stick with the Brownian motion of the New Stasis, thank you very much!

I am not sure that I am understanding you correctly, but in the "New Stasis" there is is so much room for everybody that truly profound music, music that speaks to the heart of reality, that touches us at the core of our being as we struggle with the here and not yet of the world is not possible. It's not possible because the whole idea is based on a fear of a world view that restricts The Individual's Freedom. The ideal is to maintain the belief that the "rational" man/woman is the center of the universe, the measure and judge of all things--ultimately cancelling each other out.

It is view that does not believe in any fundamental truth, particularly the belief that a person is at his or her best--and that the world and planet functions at its best and is healthy--when s/he views their fundamental nature to be one of service to others--humans and non-humans. In my opinion Bach's sacred music (and his "other" music) touches so many of us at the core of our being because he knew he was writing as a servant to the congregation--he knew his job was to convey the truth and consolation of the faith to his congregations. He was a servant to the listener.

IMO great music touches at the core of our being. If a majority/large number of composers today do not share this view of person as servant, do not hold anything as truth, most certainly do not care what the mass of listeners think about their music, or care about the fundamental struggle of life, how can they compose music that touches the core of the rest of us?


----------



## eugeneonagain

Where's that bottle of Chivas Regal I've been saving..?


----------



## KenOC

Tallisman said:


> I don't know how bad it is in America but it's pretty bad here, I'd say. People complain about not being able to get employment... Well guess what: here's the first step: don't get face piercings and don't get stupid tattoos.


Unemployment in the US is currently 4.3%, as usually measured. That's a 16-year low.

Plenty of McJobs for everybody!


----------



## Blancrocher

It would be nice if composers would start producing illuminated manuscripts instead of the kind of cheap commercial scores that get cranked out these days.


----------



## DaveM

Speaking of tattoos: In my profession I get to see people of all ages with tattoos in all sorts of places. Take my word for it, tattoos do not look good with age. Also, did you know that tattoos, especially larger dark colored ones make it harder to diagnose melonoma? And did you know that reactions to, and infections from, tattoos can cause horrendous complications?


----------



## eugeneonagain

Indeed and one of the crazy things is that people are using tattoos to cover and disguise dysplastic nevi (irregular moles).

I'm okay with a lot of things, but I really don't get tattoos. They look bad when the skin ages and they really don't look all _that_ great when new. The artwork can be very good, but all over the body?


----------



## ST4

I've been intimate with women with tattoos before, sometimes the right tattoos on the right girl can be super sexy, this isn't often the case (for me) though


----------



## JosefinaHW

Blancrocher said:


> It would be nice if composers would start producing illuminated manuscripts instead of the kind of cheap commercial scores that get cranked out these days.


You might be interested to know that there are some contemporary composers who most certainly don't believe in God or The Fundamental Truth that I have been talking about but who *pride themselves* in transcribing their compositions with paper and pencil.


----------



## JosefinaHW

In continuation of my explanation of why I agree that a composer who has incorporated an extreme form of secular humanism can fail to produce profound music.... when a large part of society maintains that the individual person is the center of the universe and there is little to counter-balance that in his/her life it is extremely easy to slip into the value of acquisition: acquisition of wealth, physical appearance, and/or *professional reputation*. Some of the *MOST CRUEL and VICIOUS wars and attempts to utterly destroy another person's character and reputation have occurred in university classrooms and laboratories*.

Watson & Crick vs Rosalind Franklin always comes into my mind first, but music history provides example after example: Brahmsians vs. Bruckner; Schoenberg's disciples vs. Sibelius; etc., I know that many TC members are very well read in this area.

Francis of Assissi said that as soon as one strives to acquire something (wealth, but also reputation) they immediately have to acquire arms to defend it. In the act of possession (wealth or prestige) it is very easy to slip all the way into making others your enemy not a fellow traveler. If many composers today primarily value their reputation--the drive to create the next great new thing; the first to do something new with music (no matter how off the mainstream) and thereby make it into the journals and textbooks; they don't care what the majority of CM listeners think of it or if they would like it.


----------



## Woodduck

JosefinaHW said:


> ...in the "New Stasis" there is is so much room for everybody that truly profound music, music that speaks to the heart of reality, that touches us at the core of our being as we struggle with the here and not yet of the world is not possible. It's not possible because the whole idea is based on a fear of a world view that restricts The Individual's Freedom. The ideal is to maintain the belief that the "rational" man/woman is the center of the universe, the measure and judge of all things--ultimately cancelling each other out.
> 
> It is view that does not believe in any fundamental truth, particularly the belief that a person is at his or her best--and that the world and planet functions at its best and is healthy--when s/he views their fundamental nature to be one of service to others--humans and non-humans. *In my opinion Bach's sacred music (and his "other" music) touches so many of us at the core of our being because he knew he was writing as a servant to the congregation--he knew his job was to convey the truth and consolation of the faith to his congregations. He was a servant to the listener.
> *
> IMO great music touches at the core of our being. *If a majority/large number of composers today do not share this view of person as servant, do not hold anything as truth, most certainly do not care what the mass of listeners think about their music, or care about the fundamental struggle of life, how can they compose music that touches the core of the rest of us?*


I want to try to avoid some of the strictly philosophical implications of what you've said here (although I have to note that I've never met anyone, composer or otherwise, who doesn't hold anything as truth). I do however have something to say about your view of the nature of music and its creation.

Your assertion that "music that touches the core of our being" can only be produced by composers who view their function as artists and the character of their work in terms of serving mankind, or God, or at least something more worthy than their own worthless pleasure, would be a very difficult one to prove. If you could ask all the composers of human-core-touching music, over all the centuries, about their reasons for composing as they do, and what they think they're "serving" in doing so, I have no doubt that a picture would emerge of the nature of art and human creativity which is quite a bit more complex than the one you've painted. Perhaps you mean only to generalize, but even generalizations require some supporting evidence.

If your view is correct, I should think that composers of church music would most reliably touch the core of our being. Perhaps this is true for some people, and no doubt some feel that music has been in decline since the days before the Renaissance revived the Greek notion that reason actually was of primary importance in understanding the world. I grew up attending a fundamentalist Christian church, living among humble servants fervent in their commitment to not being the center of the universe and the measure of all things. As a boy alto and later a tenor, I sang a lot of music written (I'll suppose for the sake of argument) by other humble servants, to texts urging utter submission to that which is greater than oneself. But it wasn't until I discovered those reprobates Tchaikovsky and Beethoven and Wagner that I made the overpowering discovery that there are places in myself, layers of my being (how near my "core" I can't say) untouched by "The Old Rugged Cross" or "Leaning on the Everlasting Arms." Now a mass by Byrd or Josquin is something on a higher artistic level, of course, but the "servant" status of these and other great composers who worked for the church because that's where the jobs were is certainly open to question. And so is the power of their music, relative to the music of composers whose humble servitude to anyone or anything is not at all apparent, to "touch the core of our being." Perhaps each listener's core should speak for itself.

The larger question of how music reflects culture is a very large and complicated question. I think there are a number of reasons why music sounds the way it does in a given place and time.


----------



## eugeneonagain

JosefinaHW said:


> In continuation of my explanation of why I agree that a composer who has incorporated an extreme form of secular humanism can fail to produce profound music.... when a large part of society maintains that the individual person is the center of the universe and there is little to counter-balance that in his/her life it is extremely easy to slip into the value of acquisition: acquisition of wealth, physical appearance, and/or *professional reputation*. Some of the *MOST CRUEL and VICIOUS wars and attempts to utterly destroy another person's character and reputation have occurred in university classrooms and laboratories*.


I'm afraid this thesis rests on a fundamental misconception. You are confusing secular humanism and individualism, as though the one necessarily flows from the other. There is no placing of individual people at the centre of the universe, but a focus on humanity as a whole shaping its own destiny rather than imagining it to have been shaped from without.
This is causing you to jump to a second conclusion: that this (misconceived idea of) individuality, in contrast to godly brotherhood, is the root of all human misery. This can't be seriously entertained because, frankly, it's crazy.

The idea that the source of great music is somehow outside the composer, rather than the composer's application of skill is really not a discussion about music at all.


----------



## Strange Magic

JosefinaHW said:


> I am not sure that I am understanding you correctly, but in the "New Stasis" there is is so much room for everybody that truly profound music, music that speaks to the heart of reality, that touches us at the core of our being as we struggle with the here and not yet of the world is not possible. It's not possible because the whole idea is based on a fear of a world view that restricts The Individual's Freedom. The ideal is to maintain the belief that the "rational" man/woman is the center of the universe, the measure and judge of all things--ultimately cancelling each other out.
> 
> It is view that does not believe in any fundamental truth, particularly the belief that a person is at his or her best--and that the world and planet functions at its best and is healthy--when s/he views their fundamental nature to be one of service to others--humans and non-humans.


I do not think the New Stasis precludes the creation of truly profound music such as you describe; it's just that in the enormous flood and flow and churning of contemporary global culture, there is a mutual, concomitant drowning-out of almost every voice by the multiplicity of other voices. So actually finding the profound music you seek is problematic, though it's almost surely out there--everything else is. But everyone's signal is buried in the noise. And it's not so much necessarily a matter of people's individual freedoms being exalted as a matter of ideology; it's more about the ubiquity of the tools of instant, widespread transmission of ideas such as the Internet. It is what it is, today's world, like it or not. But as I suggest, we might find a Brave New World where vast majorities believe the same thing, worship in the same church, mouth the same truths, even less to our liking than what we have today.


----------



## hpowders

ST4 said:


> I've been intimate with women with tattoos before, sometimes the right tattoos on the right girl can be super sexy, this isn't often the case (for me) though


Please continue to keep me informed.

Keeps me feeling middle-aged.


----------



## JosefinaHW

Woodduck said:


> I want to try to avoid some of the strictly philosophical implications of what you've said here (although I have to note that I've never met anyone, composer or otherwise, who doesn't hold anything as truth). I do however have something to say about your view of the nature of music and its creation.
> 
> Your assertion that "music that touches the core of our being" can only be produced by composers who view their function as artists and the character of their work in terms of serving mankind, or God, or at least something more worthy than their own worthless pleasure, would be a very difficult one to prove. If you could ask all the composers of human-core-touching music, over all the centuries, about their reasons for composing as they do, and what they think they're "serving" in doing so, I have no doubt that a picture would emerge of the nature of art and human creativity which is quite a bit more complex than the one you've painted. Perhaps you mean only to generalize, but even generalizations require some supporting evidence.
> 
> If your view is correct, I should think that composers of church music would most reliably touch the core of our being. Perhaps this is true for some people, and no doubt some feel that music has been in decline since the days before the Renaissance revived the Greek notion that reason actually was of primary importance in understanding the world. I grew up attending a fundamentalist Christian church, living among humble servants fervent in their commitment to not being the center of the universe and the measure of all things. As a boy alto and later a tenor, I sang a lot of music written (I'll suppose for the sake of argument) by other humble servants, to texts urging utter submission to that which is greater than oneself. But it wasn't until I discovered those reprobates Tchaikovsky and Beethoven and Wagner that I made the overpowering discovery that there are places in myself, layers of my being (how near my "core" I can't say) untouched by "The Old Rugged Cross" or "Leaning on the Everlasting Arms." Now a mass by Byrd or Josquin is something on a higher artistic level, of course, but the "servant" status of these and other great composers who worked for the church because that's where the jobs were is certainly open to question. And so is the power of their music, relative to the music of composers whose humble servitude to anyone or anything is not at all apparent, to "touch the core of our being." Perhaps each listener's core should speak for itself.
> 
> The larger question of how music reflects culture is a very large and complicated question. I think there are a number of reasons why music sounds the way it does in a given place and time.


My post here was my first attempt to try and get some clarity about what I've read on this thread; my confusion as to why I have never found another composer's music of the profundity, sublimity, beauty of Bach's music; my concern and confusion as to why we haven't had composers of extremely beautiful CM since ??? I'm not sure when. As a first attempt I realize that there are many problems with my post and my thinking on these subjects in general.

*I am very grateful that you have taken the time to point out some of the errors and omissions in my thinking.*

I agree that a healthy sense of pride is essential to the development and well-being of the person. It has been my repeated experience that those who love what they do very often produce high quality results and that a person who loves what they do carries that happiness/joy with them out into the world and often makes the world a better place for their sharing of a smile or other demonstrations of the positive energy they get from their work.

I will reflect on all this in the days to come but I still think that we (America alone ???) live in a excessively self-centered, narcissistic world and this is hindering/preventing the creation of great art.


----------



## Bettina

JosefinaHW said:


> My post here was my first attempt to try and get some clarity about what I've read on this thread; my confusion as to why I have never found another composer's music of the profundity, sublimity, beauty of Bach's music; my concern and confusion as to why we haven't had composers of extremely beautiful CM since ??? I'm not sure when. As a first attempt I realize that there are many problems with my post and my thinking on these subjects in general.
> 
> I am very grateful that you have taken the time to point out some of the errors and omissions in my thinking.
> 
> I agree that a healthy sense of pride is essential to the development and well-being of the person. * It has been my repeated experience that those who love what they do very often produce high quality results and that a person who loves what they do carries that happiness/joy with them out into the world and often makes the world a better place for their sharing of a smile or other demonstrations of the positive energy they get from their work.*
> 
> I will reflect on all this in the days to come but I still think that we (America alone ???) live in a excessively self-centered, narcissistic world and this is hindering/preventing the creation of great art.


I'm not sure if that's true...many of the major composers (Beethoven, Schumann, Schubert, Tchaikovsky...) were often quite moody and depressed. Artists tend to be highly temperamental - they're usually not big on smiling. In fact, as I pointed out in an earlier post, I think that our culture puts too much pressure on people to be perky and optimistic. That cultural pressure might be stifling for some artists.


----------



## JosefinaHW

Originally Posted by *JosefinaHW* 
_In continuation of my explanation of why I agree that a composer who has incorporated an extreme form of secular humanism can fail to produce profound music.... when a large part of society maintains that the individual person is the center of the universe and there is little to counter-balance that in his/her life it is extremely easy to slip into the value of acquisition: acquisition of wealth, physical appearance, and/or *professional reputation*. Some of the *MOST CRUEL and VICIOUS wars and attempts to utterly destroy another person's character and reputation have occurred in university classrooms and laboratories*._



eugeneonagain said:


> I'm afraid this thesis rests on a fundamental misconception. You are confusing secular humanism and individualism, as though the one necessarily flows from the other. There is no placing of individual people at the centre of the universe, but a focus on humanity as a whole shaping its own destiny rather than imagining it to have been shaped from without.


I don't see how extreme individualism cannot but flow from a secular humanist worldview. How can one talk about humanity in general as the center of the universe; humanity as the measure of all things? When you have no reference to a fundamental order greater than ourselves and no primary recognition of the inter-relatedness (I am going to say sister and brotherhood here) of all of life? How can that not eventually rot and produce a narcisstic, self-centered collection of Individuals? I am asking an honest question.

"This is causing you to jump to a second conclusion: that this (misconceived idea of) individuality, in contrast to godly brotherhood, is the root of all human misery. This can't be seriously entertained because, frankly, it's crazy."

I don't think I said this in any of my posts, but *I know for certain that I do not believe* that the narcisstic, self-centered individual or a collection of them is the root of all human misery. I wish it were that easy.

I don't think we will know the full nature of the problem of pain and suffering in this lifetime. But I have found that one of the things that I think constitutes great art is that it touches us and wordlessly enables us to still carry on in the world despite the pain and suffering; it provides some kind of positive non-cognitive answer.

"The idea that the source of great music is somehow outside the composer, rather than the composer's application of skill is really not a discussion about music at all."

I don't think I am arguing that the source of great music comes from outside the composer. I believe that composers and musicians and other people who are good at what they do are very often good at it because of the time and effort they put into their studies. Where do you get the idea that I don't believe this?


----------



## JosefinaHW

Bettina said:


> I'm not sure if that's true...many of the major composers (Beethoven, Schumann, Schubert, Tchaikovsky...) were often quite moody and depressed. Artists tend to be highly temperamental - they're usually not big on smiling. In fact, as I pointed out in an earlier post, I think that our culture puts too much pressure on people to be perky and optimistic. That cultural pressure might be stifling for some artists.


:Bettina: Since I have told you quite a bit about my personal struggles and as I think almost all my posts in response to a member's stated depression demonstrate, it should be obvious that I would be the last person to tell another depressed person to be perky, be happy, just think of all you have to be happy about, pull yourself together. To accuse me of this is ridiculous.


----------



## Bettina

JosefinaHW said:


> :Bettina: Since I have told you quite a bit about my personal struggles and as I think almost all my posts in response to a member's stated depression demonstrate, it should be obvious that I would be the last person to tell another depressed person to be perky, be happy, just think of all you have to be happy about, pull yourself together. To accuse me of this is ridiculous.


I'm sorry if my post came across as a personal attack! I didn't mean to accuse you of putting pressure on anyone to be happy. I was just expressing disagreement with your statement about artists being full of joy. You seemed to be implying that the great composers in the past were generally happy people, and I wanted to point out that this wasn't always true. My disagreement on this one issue was not meant as a criticism of your overall position or personality.


----------



## Nereffid

JosefinaHW said:


> I am not sure that I am understanding you correctly, but in the "New Stasis" there is is so much room for everybody that truly profound music, music that speaks to the heart of reality, that touches us at the core of our being as we struggle with the here and not yet of the world is not possible.


I would say that there's so much room for everybody that it's not possible for "truly profound music" _to be universal_. There's certainly a lot of "music that touches us at the core of our being" - because different music touches different people. We're all similar in many ways, but sufficiently different that our cores can be touched in different ways. Personally I see this as a good thing: there never was a universal music anyway - just those at the top of some pyramid projecting downwards and expecting consent from those below.


----------



## Nereffid

(edit: this should probably have been combined with the above post because they address the same point)



JosefinaHW said:


> I still think that we (America alone ???) live in a excessively self-centered, narcissistic world and this is hindering/preventing the creation of great art.


But, if I may turn the narcissism argument on its head, is it not also possible that great art _is_ being created, but some people can't recognise it because it's not being created _for them_?


----------



## TxllxT

Are we back in the middle age? Just some medieval thoughts about the middle age:

Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita
mi ritrovai per una selva oscura,
ché la diritta via era smarrita. (Canto I, Inferno)

or:

Media vita in morte sumus


----------



## eugeneonagain

JosefinaHW said:


> I don't see how extreme individualism cannot but flow from a secular humanist worldview. How can one talk about humanity in general as the center of the universe; humanity as the measure of all things? When you have no reference to a fundamental order greater than ourselves and no primary recognition of the inter-relatedness (I am going to say sister and brotherhood here) of all of life? How can that not eventually rot and produce a narcisstic, self-centered collection of Individuals? I am asking an honest question.


Then I shall help you. Secular humanism is not "putting humanity at the centre of the universe" it is merely an approach to understanding humanity outside of the idea of an external creator. This does not automatically place humanity at the top of some sort of order. It is not a neat egotistical replacement for the god-centred world or universe (which incidentally _does_ place humanity in a unique position - which should put anyone on alert as to the real origin of that idea).
Civilisation is a product of artificial societies and it is from here that we learn to become more than just survivors and procreators. It's a mixture of behaviours and actions and outcomes - cooperation and altruism, egotistical and self-serving behaviour. All sorts of culture results.



JosefinaHW said:


> I don't think I am arguing that the source of great music comes from outside the composer. I believe that composers and musicians and other people who are good at what they do are very often good at it because of the time and effort they put into their studies. Where do you get the idea that I don't believe this?


Clearly you _are_ arguing that. The suggestion that Bach produced great music because it was directed toward a god figure rather than his own ego is precisely that sort of thing. If you're going to state or imply something please stick to it and stop shifting the goalposts to suit each successive reply.


----------



## Strange Magic

The creation of art that deeply moves people is mostly a function of the linking of glfted, talented, committed, and hard-working people to ideas that deeply move them. If the art conceived and produced by and from this linkage is received by those attuned potentially to the reception of such art, the cycle is complete.

What are examples of some such deeply moving ideas? Where can they come from; where found? My avatar, the poet Robinson Jeffers, was a lifelong student of the natural sciences and the humanities, yet steeped in his childhood in Christian theology. After years of wandering thought, Jeffers found that humanity was expending far too much of its attention and energy upon itself. This view was affirmed for him by his knowledge of the outlines of all of the natural sciences, but especially of astronomy. He came to the view that humankind very likely was and is a failed experiment of the universe, and that a sort of 'salvation" lay in freeing ourselves from an obsession with its (and our own) affairs--"uncentering" itself, and instead saturating itself with the beauty and grandeur of the world outside itself. Thus, Jeffers created a unique personal "theology" that most everyday religious believers would find either incomprehensible or perhaps repugnant. Catalyzed, triggered, by this idea, Robinson Jeffers went on to create some of the most profound and moving poetry of our age, or any age, if one is so inclined to be receptive to this message.

I am so inclined, having also been a lifelong observer of the natural sciences and of the checkered history of the human race and its problematic future, and so Jeffers' poetry has resonated with me now for close to 60 years, and there are others who post on TC who share my appreciation for the art, the thought, the poetry of Robinson Jeffers. I offer this example, of Jeffers and his philosophy--more hinted at than precisely defined--of Inhumanism, as showing that there are many pathways to creating deeply moving art.


----------



## EdwardBast

eugeneonagain said:


> Then I shall help you. Secular humanism is not "putting humanity at the centre of the universe" it is *merely an approach to understanding humanity outside of the idea of an external creator*. This does not automatically place humanity at the top of some sort of order. It is not a neat egotistical replacement for the god-centred world or universe (which incidentally _does_ place humanity in a unique position - which should put anyone on alert as to the real origin of that idea).


I must quibble here Eugene: It is not "_an_ approach to understanding humanity outside of the idea of an external creator," it is _any_ approach … ." The term secular humanism, when used by believers, is usually just a yoke by which to gather nonbelievers under one heading in order to denigrate them as morally and ethically inferior. I see no reason to believe so-called humanists share any qualities or characteristics at all except a failure to put a supreme being or supernatural phenomenon at the center of the universe.

As for composers: I think they compose because music is the primary medium by which they relate to the world around them. Their thoughts, those they value most and which most define them, are musical thoughts. The idea that belief in supernatural phenomena has any necessary connection to this way of being strikes me as wrong-headed and baseless.


----------



## hpowders

JosefinaHW said:


> My post here was my first attempt to try and get some clarity about what I've read on this thread; my confusion as to why I have never found another composer's music of the profundity, sublimity, beauty of Bach's music; my concern and confusion as to why we haven't had composers of extremely beautiful CM since ??? I'm not sure when. As a first attempt I realize that there are many problems with my post and my thinking on these subjects in general.
> 
> I am very grateful that you have taken the time to point out some of the errors and omissions in my thinking.
> 
> I agree that a healthy sense of pride is essential to the development and well-being of the person. It has been my repeated experience that those who love what they do very often produce high quality results and that a person who loves what they do carries that happiness/joy with them out into the world and often makes the world a better place for their sharing of a smile or other demonstrations of the positive energy they get from their work.
> 
> I will reflect on all this in the days to come but *I still think that we (America alone ???) live in a **excessively self-centered, narcissistic world and this is hindering/preventing the creation of **great art.*


I agree with this as to the lack of profound contemporary classical music creativity. It may not be the only factor, but it does contribute its share as to why there is a dearth of great, inspired classical music these days, I believe.


----------



## DaveM

eugeneonagain said:


> Then I shall help you. Secular humanism is not "putting humanity at the centre of the universe" it is merely an approach to understanding humanity outside of the idea of an external creator. This does not automatically place humanity at the top of some sort of order. It is not a neat egotistical replacement for the god-centred world or universe (which incidentally _does_ place humanity in a unique position - which should put anyone on alert as to the real origin of that idea).
> Civilisation is a product of artificial societies and it is from here that we learn to become more than just survivors and procreators. It's a mixture of behaviours and actions and outcomes - cooperation and altruism, egotistical and self-serving behaviour. All sorts of culture results.


Opening an attempt to define 'secular humanism' with the premise that one is going to school the poster and then introducing the definition with the word 'merely' followed by other alleged truisms that attempt to fit the subject in a neat little box indicates both an ignorance of the fact that 'secular humanism' is an extremely complex subject that is impossible to describe in a simple paragraph and the irony that the schooler may need schooling.



> Clearly you _are_ arguing that. The suggestion that Bach produced great music because it was directed toward a god figure rather than his own ego is precisely that sort of thing. If you're going to state or imply something please stick to it and stop shifting the goalposts to suit each successive reply.


Again, this implies that the subject is easily described. You may feel that you have the it nailed down and that's where the subject ends, but enlightened people recognize that secular humanism is not simply defined. Equating the attempt of an individual to describe their perspective with 'shifting the goalposts' suggests one's own limitations in discussing the subject.


----------



## DaveM

EdwardBast said:


> As for composers: I think they compose because music is the primary medium by which they relate to the world around them. Their thoughts, those they value most and which most define them, are musical thoughts. The idea that belief in supernatural phenomena has any necessary connection to this way of being strikes me as wrong-headed and baseless.


Wrong headed and baseless? So, given the role of the church, religion and a belief in God prior to the mid 20th century when disease was rampant and life was short and a belief in an influential higher power was sometimes all there was to give one hope, not to mention the role of the church in employing composers and requisitioning works in the past, can one dismiss the premise that a belief in God and appreciation for a talent that is perceived as a gift from God, did not inspire composers?


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> Wrong headed and baseless? So, given the role of the church, religion and a belief in God prior to the mid 20th century when disease was rampant and life was short and a belief in an influential higher power was sometimes all there was to give one hope, not to mention the role of the church in employing composers and requisitioning works in the past, can one dismiss the premise that a belief in God and appreciation for a talent that is perceived as a gift from God, did not inspire composers?


It is probably most accurate to say that some composers wrote and believed. Not so clear that they composed because they believed. I think EdwardBast's position is the more likely to be true.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> It is probably most accurate to say that some composers wrote and believed. Not so clear that they composed because they believed. I think EdwardBast's position is the more likely to be true.


I agree. My issue was with the total dismissal of any religious influence in the composition of classical works.


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> It is probably most accurate to say that some composers wrote and believed. Not so clear that they composed because they believed. I think EdwardBast's position is the more likely to be true.


I think it's safe to say that great creative artists from all eras have a profound, unshakable belief in the significance of what they are creating. That belief may be related to religious beliefs, in the context of a traditional organized religion or not, or it may be entirely apart from any religion in the conventional sense. They tend not to care if their contemporaries regard them as weirdos or crackpots, and often live solitary lives, or at least within a very small circle of family or friends. But they are true to their convictions. The example of Beethoven mentioned above is a good one.


----------



## Woodduck

DaveM said:


> I agree. My issue was with the total dismissal of any religious influence in the composition of classical works.


You misunderstood EdwardBast's statement. It was: "The idea that belief in supernatural phenomena has any necessary connection to this way of being strikes me as wrong-headed and baseless." In other words, religion or belief in God may or may not have a connection to musical inspiration and thought, but doesn't _necessarily_ have such a connection.


----------



## DaveM

Woodduck said:


> You misunderstood EdwardBast's statement. It was: "The idea that belief in supernatural phenomena has any necessary connection to this way of being strikes me as wrong-headed and baseless." In other words, religion or belief in God may or may not have a connection to musical inspiration and thought, but doesn't _necessarily_ have such a connection.


Okay, so the operative word is 'necessary'. If your last sentence is what was meant then my apologies to EdwardBlast.


----------



## EdwardBast

DaveM said:


> Okay, so the operative word is 'necessary'. If your last sentence is what was meant then my apologies to EdwardBlast.


Yes, Woodduck's reading is correct. I was countering a claim that greatness in composition depends on belief. No apology necessary.


----------



## Tallisman

Must all artistic profundity arise from 'God' or 'Fundamental truth'. While I largely agree that modern music lacks the aestheto-spiritual penetration that characterises older religious music (like Bach's) that was intended to praise God and reach for a higher form of reality that religion describes, this does not mean that _all_ secular music from our narcissistic, morally directionless and baseless modern world must _necessarily _lack any kind of transcendent beauty. The musical praise of nature (which doesn't have to be linked to God) holds in it the possibility to produce the same feeling that a St Matthew Passsion can.

Though our modern world clearly suffers from a lack of God and religion (such a statement should be evident and reasonable to both believers and atheists, I myself being in neither camp), this is not the _only_ factor that leads to the musical decadence and degradation we seem to be experiencing.


----------



## Strange Magic

Question: are you proposing that there is no God/god? And it can be postulated that humankind is suffering from a surfeit of religion, and of religions, not from any such scarcity. But these are topics best suited for close discussion in one of the several Religion threads in "Groups".


----------



## mmsbls

Strange Magic said:


> Question: are you proposing that there is no God/god? And it can be postulated that humankind is suffering from a surfeit of religion, and of religions, not from any such scarcity. But these are topics best suited for close discussion in one of the several Religion threads in "Groups".


Let me second this and perhaps give it even a bit more emphasis. So far I think the discussion has been interesting and civil. But purely religious discussions have a high probability of turning to the dark side. I know people in general don't like using the groups area, but please move purely religious discussions there.


----------



## eugeneonagain

DaveM said:


> Opening an attempt to define 'secular humanism' with the premise that one is going to school the poster and then introducing the definition with the word 'merely' followed by other alleged truisms that attempt to fit the subject in a neat little box indicates both an ignorance of the fact that 'secular humanism' is an extremely complex subject that is impossible to describe in a simple paragraph and the irony that the schooler may need schooling.


I am supposed to do what? Write a 5000 word referenced essay in posts just to ensure I have left no stone unturned and satisfy your demand for a thorough treatment?
In any case if you have as complete a grasp of the matter as you seem to be implying you do, I don't need to bother do I? However I assure you that neither you nor anyone else will be schooling me on this matter. Do, however, be my guest.



DaveM said:


> Again, this implies that the subject is easily described. You may feel that you have the it nailed down and that's where the subject ends, but enlightened people recognize that secular humanism is not simply defined. Equating the attempt of an individual to describe their perspective with 'shifting the goalposts' suggests one's own limitations in discussing the subject.


Let's not beat around the bush. You appear to have an issue with what I wrote; is it perhaps that you are religious and just don't like it and are thus making a show about it being far too complex to warrant anything other than a one of those tiring faux-philosophical forum enquiries? I don't know. What I do know is that I'm not going to be drawn into some meandering warren of a discussion filled with pseudo profundities.


----------



## eugeneonagain

mmsbls said:


> Let me second this and perhaps give it even a bit more emphasis. So far I think the discussion has been interesting and civil. But purely religious discussions have a high probability of turning to the dark side. I know people in general don't like using the groups area, but please move purely religious discussions there.


I'll make this short and sweet: you can be assured that these turns in discussions are always initiated by the religiously inclined. Clearly someone not so inclined hardly ever (likely never) mentions Bach's activity as being due to supernatural forces. However, once it's started there's no way to just sit back and read these things without answering just to avoid being thought argumentative and being accused of 'ad hominems' and threatened with infractions. Silence has a tendency to cause the assumption of agreement.


----------



## hpowders

Tallisman said:


> Must all artistic profundity arise from 'God' or 'Fundamental truth'. While I largely agree that modern music lacks the aestheto-spiritual penetration that characterises older religious music (like Bach's) that was intended to praise God and reach for a higher form of reality that religion describes, this does not mean that _all_ secular music from our narcissistic, morally directionless and baseless modern world must _necessarily _lack any kind of transcendent beauty. The musical praise of nature (which doesn't have to be linked to God) holds in it the possibility to produce the same feeling that a St Matthew Passsion can.
> 
> Though our modern world clearly suffers from a lack of God and religion (such a statement should be evident and reasonable to both believers and atheists, I myself being in neither camp), this is not the _only_ factor that leads to the musical decadence and degradation we seem to be experiencing.


 Decadence, you say? Thanks to the disturbing rise of the secular humanists throughout the world, and the rise of the radical Far Left, and their ridiculing of organized religion and promotion of atheism, there has been a deep decline in morality. Hollywood is their prime representative. Look at their award ceremonies-actresses all dressed with their boobs hanging out. Look at their movies-they think it is so cute to have 6 year olds knowing all about sex and spewing every curse word known to humankind. So cute! Right from wrong? Fodder for a different time, when ethics and decency meant something.

Looking for inspiration to compose a great choral work or monumental symphony, given these conditions? You were born a bit too late.


----------



## mmsbls

I believe all of us would say that modern/contemporary classical music is different from prior eras, but some apparently go further to say it has degenerated or is significantly less good, meaningful, or profound than it was early in the 20th century or before. Honestly, the argument seems to be that those people don't like modern/contemporary classical music or that it doesn't resonate well with them. It does not have the same melodies and harmonies that we all (or almost all of us) have come to love. It is different. But I'm not sure why people feel that it's clearly worse or that it has degenerated. 

When I read analysis or discussions about composers from various eras including modern/contemporary, the authors talk about the composers in similar ways. They comment on different aspects of the music, but they seem to hold all those composers in high regard saying that all those composers have produced wonderful and important works. The difference seems to be that fewer people enjoy their works, but by itself, that distinction does not imply that the composers are not producing important, powerful, interesting, and profound works. 

I think there are reasons that many classical music lovers do not respond positively to modern/contemporary classical music. I believe the new highly individual vocabularies (again, thank you, EdwardBast for this term) place impediments in the path of many listeners. If people are simply arguing that modern music is harder to enjoy and many fewer actually enjoy it, I have no problem with that assessment. But I'm having trouble understanding the idea that the music itself has degenerated. That would seem to be vastly more difficult to support.


----------



## eugeneonagain

hpowders said:


> Not only MUSICAL decadence. Thanks to the rise of the secular humanists and the Far Left, and the mocking of organized religion, there has been a deep decline in morality. Right from wrong? Fodder for a different time when ethics meant something.
> 
> Looking for inspiration to compose a great choral work or monumental symphony. You were born 100 years too late.


You shouldn't be allowed to get away with this nonsense. The implication is that anyone who isn't a fully paid-up god botherer is also immoral or has no moral values and represents decadence. The decline in decency is not to be found in that quarter, be assured of that.

Enough compsers with no interest in either organised religion or with no belief have produced great work. Religion has nothing to do with it and should be left out of this discussion.

'Far left' indeed.... who exactly? The Bolsheviks?


----------



## Nereffid

mmsbls said:


> But I'm having trouble understanding the idea that the music itself has degenerated. That would seem to be vastly more difficult to support.


The claim that music has _degenerated_ (as opposed to _is not as good as it used to be_) is essentially a religious/moral argument.


----------



## mmsbls

eugeneonagain said:


> I'll make this short and sweet: you can be assured that these turns in discussions are always initiated by the religiously inclined. Clearly someone not so inclined hardly ever (likely never) mentions Bach's activity as being due to supernatural forces.


I am referring to purely religious arguments not discussions of religion and music. Normally the moderators would ask people to bring those discussions to the Politics and Religion in Classical Music area, but I'm willing to let this particular discussion _focused on music_ continue here for several reasons. I hope everyone will remain civil or rather within the Terms of Service since people have differing definitions of civil behavior.



eugeneonagain said:


> However, once it's started there's no way to just sit back and read these things without answering just to avoid being thought argumentative and being accused of 'ad hominems' and threatened with infractions. Silence has a tendency to cause the assumption of agreement.


You're welcome to answer for now, but keep answers focused on music and don't talk about others unless in a positive manner. Fair enough?


----------



## mmsbls

Nereffid said:


> The claim that music has _degenerated_ (as opposed to _is not as good as it used to be_) is essentially a religious/moral argument.


But is this how people are using it here? I assume the majority of composers are religious (I could be wrong) so the potential degeneration would only potentially apply to a minority of composers.


----------



## Blancrocher

mmsbls said:


> But is this how people are using it here? I assume the majority of composers are religious (I could be wrong) so the potential degeneration would only potentially apply to a minority of composers.


Are we including classical-jazz hybrid composers here?


----------



## Nereffid

mmsbls said:


> But is this how people are using it here? I assume the majority of composers are religious (I could be wrong) so the potential degeneration would only potentially apply to a minority of composers.


The way I interpret the argument is: the world is less religious; therefore the world has degenerated; therefore music has degenerated.

Thinking about it, I don't believe I've ever seen someone on TC say that modern music is terrible except for the religious music.


----------



## mmsbls

Blancrocher said:


> Are we including classical-jazz hybrid composers here?


I'm not sure who falls into that category, but I don't know what group of composers others are including.


----------



## eugeneonagain

mmsbls said:


> You're welcome to answer for now, but keep answers focused on music and don't talk about others unless in a positive manner. Fair enough?


Well of course, but it's not going to be easy when two groups (the non-religious, the left) are being singled out as the architects of Western degeneration, and not in anything like a positive manner.


----------



## mmsbls

Nereffid said:


> The way I interpret the argument is: the world is less religious; therefore the world has degenerated; therefore music has degenerated.
> 
> Thinking about it, I don't believe I've ever seen someone on TC say that modern music is terrible except for the religious music.


I guess I'll see how others respond (if they choose to do so).


----------



## mmsbls

eugeneonagain said:


> Well of course, but it's not going to be easy when two groups (the non-religious, the left) are being singled out as the architects of Western degeneration, and not in anything like a positive manner.


I understand and *I'm planning to delete any purely religious comments from now on*.


----------



## DaveM

eugeneonagain said:


> However I assure you that neither you nor anyone else will be schooling me on this matter. Do, however, be my guest.


Heaven forbid that someone should school you. Heaven forbid that you should school someone else.



> Let's not beat around the bush. You appear to have an issue with what I wrote; is it perhaps that you are religious and just don't like it and are thus making a show about it being far too complex to warrant anything other than a one of those tiring faux-philosophical forum enquiries?


Making broad assumptions about one's belief system based on minimal evidence is a presumptuous exercise. In fact, while I am the son of a protestant minister brought up in a traditional and relatively strict religious environment, my belief system has changed more to a category that would fall under secular humanism and it is my own personal experience with the process and the difficulty in defining it that leads to my skepticism that it can be simplified down to the level of one paragraph.


----------



## Woodduck

Nereffid said:


> The claim that music has _degenerated_ (as opposed to _is not as good as it used to be_) is essentially a religious/moral argument.


Degeneration can mean simply a decline in quality - any sort of quality, not only moral quality.

Some here have been saying that there's been a decline in music's artistic quality - in what it communicates and the aesthetic qualities by which it communicates - and they're trying to tie it to "secularization," a loss of religious belief and religion-dependent values in the culture. This position raises a number of questions. Has (classical) music declined in quality since (pick a date)? Was music's creation and quality ever dependent, in any essential respect, on religious inspiration? In what way? Is a loss of religious inspiration therefore an unavoidable cause of music's supposed decline? Is it a sufficient cause: might there be other causes? Can the rate of imputed decline be correlated with the rate of secularization in the culture? Is music inspired by religion superior to music of non-religious inspiration, within a given era or across eras? Do religious composers write better music than nonreligious ones? Does Bach owe his preeminence to his belief in God? Is "religion," for the purposes of this discussion, identical to Christianity? Can other religious traditions generate equally great music? Can nontheistic systems of values or other beliefs about reality inspire great music?

One of the difficulties - maybe the greatest difficulty - in answering such questions is separating theory from history, the possible from the actual. I think this difficulty bedevils (pardon the expression) many of our arguments about music.


----------



## eugeneonagain

DaveM said:


> Making broad assumptions about one's belief system based on minimal evidence is a presumptuous exercise. In fact, while I am the son of a protestant minister brought up in a traditional and relatively strict religious environment, my belief system has changed more to a category that would fall under secular humanism and it is my own personal experience with the process and the difficulty in defining it that leads to my skepticism that it can be simplified down to the level of one paragraph.


I made no presumption, just a suggestion which may have fitted the situation. The question mark at the end of it was there for that reason. As I said, be my guest and do a better job of it.


----------



## DaveM

mmsbls said:


> I think there are reasons that many classical music lovers do not respond positively to modern/contemporary classical music. I believe the new highly individual vocabularies (again, thank you, EdwardBast for this term) place impediments in the path of many listeners. If people are simply arguing that modern music is harder to enjoy and many fewer actually enjoy it, I have no problem with that assessment. But I'm having trouble understanding the idea that the music itself has degenerated. That would seem to be vastly more difficult to support.


Okay, I'll bite.  If modern music is harder to enjoy and many fewer actually enjoy it, can the premise that the music itself has degenerated be totally dismissed as part of the cause? If enough people are rejecting experimental and highly dissonant music to the point that concerts of such music won't be programmed or the music recorded with the result that general interest in classical music suffers, is degeneration of the music itself not worth considering?

There are posters here who respond that I say this simply because I don't like the music. But that would ignore the fact that classical music is in the dumper and I am merely pointing to (what I believe are) obvious suspects as the cause. I acknowledge that some people like music that I consider bordering on the bizarre, but it was ever thus. I predict that if this situation continues, general interest in classical music is going to continue to diminish and the only thing that will sustain it is music composed including and prior to the early 20th century.


----------



## Blancrocher

I personally would be willing to admit that, as a result of the relative scarcity of large orchestras, music in recent decades has generally declined in loudness.


----------



## EdwardBast

hpowders said:


> Decadence, you say? Thanks to the disturbing rise of the secular humanists throughout the world, and the rise of the radical Far Left, and their ridiculing of organized religion and promotion of atheism, *there has been a deep decline in morality. Hollywood is their prime representative. Look at their award ceremonies-actresses all dressed with their boobs hanging out.* Look at their movies-they think it is so cute to have 6 year olds knowing all about sex and spewing every curse word known to humankind. So cute! Right from wrong? Fodder for a different time, when ethics and decency meant something.
> 
> Looking for inspiration to compose a great choral work or monumental symphony, given these conditions? You were born a bit too late.


I missed this general decline in morality. Not sure what you are talking about. And I would never have taken you for an antiboobist! What on earth can one have against boobs? Genocide, religious intolerance, the resurgence of fascism, sure, but boobs???


----------



## Agamemnon

Do you people know about Spengler's book The Decline of the West? It's thesis is something like: every culture gets exhausted in about 1000 years and so the Western culture has been exhausted by now. A new culture arises from a new idea which gives a religious impulse and cultural inspiration and life. If no new idea comes when a culture is exhausted a civilization (i.e. a culture in it's 'winter' phase) can still be around for another 1000 years or so but it has no life/inspiration anymore so no more great works will be produced. Like in 1919 when the book was published it is still a controversial but interesting thesis.


----------



## tdc

I have come to believe all of the religions of the world are compiled by dark occultists and are nothing but garbled astro-theology. I do believe in god personally and agree with much that is written in the scriptures, but over all I think religion has become a mechanism (one of many) to stifle consciousness.

"_The mass of people who are Bible-taught never get free from the erroneous impressions stamped on their minds in their infancy, so that their manhood or womanhood can have no intellectual fulfillment, and millions of them only attain mentally to a sort of second childhood." _- Gerald Massey

There is esoteric and exoteric spirituality and there is a big difference. Bach and Mozart understood teachings of the occult. The occult means simply hidden knowledge, this is the true knowledge of man, and the loss of this knowledge I believe is why we are living in such ignorance and a primary reason for the massive darkness and degradation of society. Knowledge is knowledge - it cannot be good or evil. There is only knowledge and what one does with it. Knowledge is not power, knowledge combined with proper action is power.

People today are taught that the occult is synonymous with evil, therefore they ignore the true knowledge of themselves and remain in perpetual darkness and are never actually awakened in the spiritual sense.

The dark occultists that run our world disguise themselves as religious and know all about astrology/the kabbalah/ tarot etc. and use these concepts to rule and dominate us. They understand the true psychology of mankind and withhold this knowledge to create a massive power differential. They dumb us down in our food, air and water and our religious and education system (oops - did I say "education"? I meant "indoctrination" system). They teach people that true self knowledge and reverence are evil things. This is why we are still in slavery and not truly awake.

_"Today, most of the good people are afraid to be good. They strive to be broadminded and tolerant! It is fashionable to be tolerant - but mostly tolerant of evil."
_-Lady Queenborough


----------



## eugeneonagain

Predicting the death of culture (particularly 'higher' culture) has been a hobby since the Greeks. Judging by the results it ranks on about the same level as Nostradamus.


----------



## mmsbls

DaveM said:


> Okay, I'll bite.  If modern music is harder to enjoy and many fewer actually enjoy it, can the premise that the music itself has degenerated be totally dismissed as part of the cause? If enough people are rejecting experimental and highly dissonant music to the point that concerts of such music won't be programmed or the music recorded with the result that general interest in classical music suffers, is degeneration of the music itself not worth considering?
> 
> There are posters here who respond that I say this simply because I don't like the music. But that would ignore the fact that classical music is in the dumper and I am merely pointing to (what I believe are) obvious suspects as the cause. I acknowledge that some people like music that I consider bordering on the bizarre, but it was ever thus. I predict that if this situation continues, general interest in classical music is going to continue to diminish and the only thing that will sustain it is music composed including and prior to the early 20th century.


I don't understand the connection between difficulty in enjoyment and quality or degeneration of the music. The music is different to the extent that it requires significantly more listening to become acquainted with the new language. I think classical music may be less popular for two main reasons, First, popular music has surged, and second, classical music is "harder" to enjoy than in earlier eras. I assume the reason most people prefer popular to classical is that classical music (even Bach. Mozart, and Beethoven) is harder to enjoy. That doesn't make it degenerate or of lesser quality.

I would agree that modern classical music is less popular than before and that it gives "average" classical music lovers less pleasure. To me that has little to do with degeneration or the reduction in quality of the music.

Maybe we're just using the terms differently.


----------



## Blancrocher

eugeneonagain said:


> Predicting the death of culture (particularly 'higher' culture) has been a hobby since the Greeks.


In fairness, one could argue that late-5th century Athenians had a bit of a point.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Blancrocher said:


> In fairness, one could argue that late-5th century Athenians had a bit of a point.


On the top of their heads some of them.


----------



## KenOC

DaveM said:


> Okay, I'll bite.  If modern music is harder to enjoy and many fewer actually enjoy it, can the premise that the music itself has degenerated be totally dismissed as part of the cause? If enough people are rejecting experimental and highly dissonant music to the point that concerts of such music won't be programmed or the music recorded with the result that general interest in classical music suffers, is degeneration of the music itself not worth considering?


Unfortunately it is we, not the music, that is degenerating. The effects of course are similar in either case! Haydn named his 64th Symphony "Tempora Mutantur" for this old adage:

"Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis;
Quo modo? fit semper tempore pejor homo."

"The Times are Chang'd, and in them Chang'd are we:
How? Man as Times grow worse, grows worse we see."
(trans. Harvey, 1677)


----------



## Larkenfield

Let's see. CM now has to compete with time spent on the following: the Internet, online movies, iPhone apps, Twitter, Facebook, Instagrams, online sports, online pop music festivals, Skype communications, pay-per-view boxing matches, MMA fights, UFC fights, more commercials on TV than Gawd, drunkenness from micro breweries, sports seasons that last a lifetime, the usual disruptive divorces and broken relationships, indigestion from fast food restaurants, and acts of God that can flood cities. It's not exactly like the heyday of music-listening during previous generations when the competition was primarily from AM and FM radio, network television, the movies, and general sports. 'Civilization' now appears to be neither in the Middle Age or the Golden Age, but the Age of Diversity. Yet even with greater choice there's never been as many opportunities to hear the music -- and oftentimes great online performances for free.


----------



## Strange Magic

Larkenfield said:


> Let's see. CM now has to compete with time spent on the following: the Internet, online movies, iPhone apps, Twitter, Facebook, Instagrams, online sports, online pop music festivals, Skype communications, pay-per-view boxing matches, MMA fights, UFC fights, more commercials on TV than Gawd, drunkenness from micro breweries, sports seasons that last a lifetime, the usual disruptive divorces and broken families, indigestion from fast food restaurants, and acts of God that can flood cities. It's not exactly likely like the heyday of music-listening during previous generations when the competition was primarily from AM and FM radio, network television, the movies, and general sports. Society now appears to be neither in the Middle Age or the Golden Age, but the Age of Diversity. Yet even with greater choices, there's never been as many opportunities to hear the music -- and oftentimes great online performances for free.


The New Stasis.


----------



## Becca

Agamemnon said:


> Do you people know about Spengler's book The Decline of the West? It's thesis is something like: every culture gets exhausted in about 1000 years and so the Western culture has been exhausted by now. A new culture arises from a new idea which gives a religious impulse and cultural inspiration and life. If no new idea comes when a culture is exhausted a civilization (i.e. a culture in it's 'winter' phase) can still be around for another 1000 years or so but it has no life/inspiration anymore so no more great works will be produced. Like in 1919 when the book was published it is still a controversial but interesting thesis.


Quite a fascinating thesis given that (a) our written history is barely more than 3000 years old and (b) there has been no single society (whatever he means by that) that has lasted as much as 1000 years, ergo there is no data from which to build such a theory ... but then who needs facts from which to build theories?


----------



## Becca

DaveM said:


> Okay, I'll bite.  If modern music is harder to enjoy and many fewer actually enjoy it, can the premise that the music itself has degenerated be totally dismissed as part of the cause? If enough people are rejecting experimental and highly dissonant music to the point that concerts of such music won't be programmed or the music recorded with the result that general interest in classical music suffers, is degeneration of the music itself not worth considering?


I keep seeing references similar to the above, i.e. as though Boulez, Birtwhistle, Xenakis et.al. are the only type of CM which is being written. Well I hate to rain on the parade, but that ain't so! There is much music which is being composed and performed and recorded (and performed and peformed...) which is being accepted and enjoyed. Now it is true that some of these composers routinely get trashed on TC for reasons that seem little better than snobbery, but don't tell that to their bank managers.

P.S. And I am not referring to the Andrew Lloyd Webers and Paul McCartneys of the music world.


----------



## Larkenfield

How can any style of music be considered in all fairness, either traditional or modern, except by one composer and one work at a time? -- as if all the works of Beethoven were the same, or all the performances were the same, or all the performances and compositions of Xenakis were the same. It may pay to stay open, because there's such a thing as serendipity where one could be completely taken by surprise and enjoy a work by one of the moderns that's unexpectedly heard on the radio or YT. 

In the meantime, certain broad generalities and conclusions about what the great diversity of modern music is could lead one to draw conclusions that may not be accurate. I very much believe that one has to go one work and one composer at a time in order to hear what's out there that might actually be acceptable or appealing. But there is a sorting out process with new music, and there may be five works that one hears as a dud before one hits the jackpot with a truly exceptional modern work. There'll always be something new on the horizon, and I believe that contemporary composers deserve their chance to be heard too, because they are writing the music of their time just like Beethoven did, whether as successfully or not.


----------



## DaveM

Larkenfield said:


> I believe that contemporary composers deserve their chance to be heard too, because they are writing the music of their time just like Beethoven did, whether as successfully or not.


Well, not really. Composers of Beethoven's time had to write music that the court or the church liked or that their publishers believed could sell. Inevitably, for the composer to be successful, the public and/or people in high places had to accept the music. Composers did innovate and sometimes the music wasn't immediately accepted, but as long as the music stayed within certain confines that made it generally accessible, quality won the listening public over. This is not the present dynamic of the composition of classical music. At all.


----------



## Becca

DaveM said:


> Well, not really. Composers of Beethoven's time had to write music that the court or the church liked or that their publishers believed could sell. Inevitably, for the composer to be successful, the public and/or people in high places had to accept the music. Composers did innovate and sometimes the music wasn't immediately accepted, but as long as the music stayed within certain confines that made it generally accessible, quality won the listening public over. *This is not the present dynamic of the composition of classical music. At all.*


Why not? Because the options for music to be heard have changed in ways that have only become possible in the last 120 years and, particularly, the last 20.


----------



## Agamemnon

Becca said:


> Quite a fascinating thesis given that (a) our written history is barely more than 3000 years old and (b) there has been no single society (whatever he means by that) that has lasted as much as 1000 years, ergo there is no data from which to build such a theory ... but then who needs facts from which to build theories?


I believe you don't quite understand the theory. It is not about societies. Spengler investigates the world history and distinguishes 8 high cultures. He stresses that he is not eurocentric: in fact for the Western World he distinguishes only 2 or 3 cultures: Classical culture, Magian culture (early Middle Ages; Eastern Orthodoxy) and Faustian culture (the modern West). Culture is highly defined by religion as religion provides a basic intuition of what reality is, a basic way how to interpret the world and our place in it. As a student of the Philosophy of Mathematics I have especially studied the first part of the book where he shows how all the different main religions have led to different mathematics: in a very convincing way he shows how mathematics is the primary scientific expression and development of religious ideas. But he also shows how all art is the expression of the core religious/cultural ideas.

The controversial thing of his book is perhaps his relativism (there are as many types of art, science, mathematics as there are religions/cultures) and his organistic view of culture: a new religion provides zeal and inspiration for a new type of mathematics, science and art, but in a couple of centuries the basic ideas are exhausted so the inspiration fades. Every culture dies (the society can survive though but it will no longer produce geniuses and new mathematics, science or art).

I am not sure but I believe Spengler hoped for a new religious impulse to the West (perhaps by the islam?). When I think of modern composers - e.g. Debussy, Stockhausen etc - inspiration from non-Western cultures seems pivotal which would be a confirmation of Spengler's theory...


----------



## eugeneonagain

As a student of the philosophy of mathematics you ought to know that the last major shift in western mathematical ideas (last decade of the 19th century to now) owes near to nothing to religious ideas or culture for inspiration. It was also a highly productive leap.
I think Nietzsche hit the nail on the head when he wrote that religions merely subsume existing culture and cultural developments to the point where people get the idea that it was always religious to begin with. 

I don't really accept Spengler's basic view that religion is the driving force, or at least he doesn't focus enough on the deep irony of such a system. The development and dissemination of knowledge is what has always ended up undermining the position of religions and faiths. They hold on by either suppressing such ideas or absorbing them as per Nietzsche above and by a position of dualism in thinking (really a form of denial) with regard to the opposing forces.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

eugeneonagain said:


> As a student of the philosophy of mathematics you ought to know that the last major shift in western mathematical ideas (last decade of the 19th century to now) owes near to nothing to religious ideas or culture for inspiration. It was also a highly productive leap.
> I think Nietzsche hit the nail on the head when he wrote that religions merely subsume existing culture and cultural developments to the point where people get the idea that it was always religious to begin with.
> 
> I don't really accept Spengler's basic view that religion is the driving force, or at least he doesn't focus enough on the deep irony of such a system. The development and dissemination of knowledge is what has always ended up undermining the position of religions and faiths. They hold on by either suppressing such ideas or absorbing them as per Nietzsche above and by a position of dualism in thinking (really a form of denial) with regard to the opposing forces.


Somebody should have told that to Martin Luther who when the Protestant revolution pushed for Germans learning to read.


----------



## JosefinaHW

eugeneonagain said:


> As a student of the philosophy of mathematics you ought to know that the last major shift in western mathematical ideas (last decade of the 19th century to now) owes near to nothing to religious ideas or culture for inspiration. It was also a highly productive leap.
> I think Nietzsche hit the nail on the head when he wrote that religions merely subsume existing culture and cultural developments to the point where people get the idea that it was always religious to begin with.
> 
> I don't really accept Spengler's basic view that religion is the driving force, or at least he doesn't focus enough on the deep irony of such a system. The development and dissemination of knowledge is what has always ended up undermining the position of religions and faiths. They hold on by either suppressing such ideas or absorbing them as per Nietzsche above and by a position of dualism in thinking (really a form of denial) with regard to the opposing forces.


:Moderators: Please don't shut down this thread because of some of the anti-religious posts.


----------



## eugeneonagain

JosefinaHW said:


> :Moderators: Please don't shut down this thread because of some of the anti-religious posts.


The plan was shutting it down because of the unnecessary appearance of religious posting. Anyway what I wrote wasn't 'anti-religious' it's just how it is.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Somebody should have told that to Martin Luther who when the Protestant revolution pushed for Germans learning to read.


Yeah, to read the bible. Massive leap forward that was.


----------



## Nereffid

JosefinaHW said:


> :Moderators: Please don't shut down this thread because of some of the anti-religious posts.


:Moderators: Please don't shut down this thread because of some of the religious posts.


----------



## JosefinaHW

Nereffid said:


> :Moderators: Please don't shut down this thread because of some of the religious posts.


 :lol:

I was tempted to say that too, Nerefid, but I couldn't remember if I posted anything that overtly religious.


----------



## Agamemnon

eugeneonagain said:


> As a student of the philosophy of mathematics you ought to know that the last major shift in western mathematical ideas (last decade of the 19th century to now) owes near to nothing to religious ideas or culture for inspiration. It was also a highly productive leap.
> I think Nietzsche hit the nail on the head when he wrote that religions merely subsume existing culture and cultural developments to the point where people get the idea that it was always religious to begin with.
> 
> I don't really accept Spengler's basic view that religion is the driving force, or at least he doesn't focus enough on the deep irony of such a system. The development and dissemination of knowledge is what has always ended up undermining the position of religions and faiths. They hold on by either suppressing such ideas or absorbing them as per Nietzsche above and by a position of dualism in thinking (really a form of denial) with regard to the opposing forces.


Well, eliminating Euclid's 5th postulate can be seen as eliminating a residue of Classical culture giving way to a more truly christian mathematics. At least Cantor's mathematics, the pinnacle of modern mathematics, is very christian as Cantor himself knew. All modern mathematics strives for the infinity (from Leibniz's/Newton's infinitesmal calculus to Cantor's work on infinity) which is exactly why Spengler calls modern culture 'Faustian culture' because it strives for infinity which originates in the christian mysticism of late Middle Ages.

I remember that Nietzsche wrote against Schopenhauer -who based morals on metaphysics - that actually there were morals first which then needed religion/metaphysics to be enforced. Even Nietzsche reckons that we people need stories (Greek: myths) because only stories bring coherence and meaning to experience and make reality understandable and managable to us. Art and even science springs from these myths or metaphysics. Spengler actually drew quite a lot on Nietzsche's work.


----------



## JJF

From Bach himself:
"of all music, the end, and final cause, should be for naught else but the glory of God, and the re-creation of the spirit. Where this is not observed, then there is no true music, only a devilish clatter and grind."

Which if one had to suffer through yesterday's `music' awards, one found plenty of `clatter and grind'.


----------



## Becca

Agamemnon said:


> I believe you don't quite understand the theory. It is not about societies. Spengler investigates the world history and distinguishes 8 high cultures. He stresses that he is not eurocentric: in fact for the Western World he distinguishes only 2 or 3 cultures: Classical culture, Magian culture (early Middle Ages; Eastern Orthodoxy) and Faustian culture (the modern West). Culture is highly defined by religion as religion provides a basic intuition of what reality is, a basic way how to interpret the world and our place in it. As a student of the Philosophy of Mathematics I have especially studied the first part of the book where he shows how all the different main religions have led to different mathematics: in a very convincing way he shows how mathematics is the primary scientific expression and development of religious ideas. But he also shows how all art is the expression of the core religious/cultural ideas.
> 
> The controversial thing of his book is perhaps his relativism (there are as many types of art, science, mathematics as there are religions/cultures) and his organistic view of culture: a new religion provides zeal and inspiration for a new type of mathematics, science and art, but in a couple of centuries the basic ideas are exhausted so the inspiration fades. Every culture dies (the society can survive though but it will no longer produce geniuses and new mathematics, science or art).
> 
> I am not sure but I believe Spengler hoped for a new religious impulse to the West (perhaps by the islam?). When I think of modern composers - e.g. Debussy, Stockhausen etc - inspiration from non-Western cultures seems pivotal which would be a confirmation of Spengler's theory...


With regard to the last paragraph, the idea that a _few_ composers had non-Western inspiration is hardly a confirmation of any theory, especially when you consider the majority of modern composers who did not. If that is what the Philosophy of Mathematics considers to be a confirmation of a theory, then it only demonstrates that Mathematical Philosophers have a very sketchy idea of what Mathematics is all about.

As to the rest, I would respond to this but (a) it would have little to do with music, (b) would involve religion and (c) wouldn't be very complimentary.


----------



## Agamemnon

BTW, I called myself a student of the Philosophy of Mathematics but don't take that too seriously: when I studied Philosophy I took a special interest in things like the philosophy of mathematics and the history of science/ideas. I learned about those things at a beginner's level so I am not an expert. Yet I think there is more to say on the subject which could interest the people on this board: e.g. to understand the 'classical' in classical music you must know a thing or two about Plato (or classical thinking)...

As I explained Spengler's idea we moderns are Faustian: we long for the infinity, striving to go beyond every horizon in sight, because for us God = infinity (e.g. Spinoza: "By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of an infinity of attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence."). But for the classical Greeks this is utter nonsense! For the Greeks God is exactly the opposite of infinity (they actually shied away from "the abyss of infinity"). For the Greeks the real is the measurable, the countable thus the understandable (Parmenides: being = thinking). "Everything is number" (Pythagoras) and number is the countable (1,2,3, etc). Plato called the highest reality, actually the 'being' beyond all beings, The One (which we call God). The soul (the understanding) is number: from The One comes the two, three etc. At the lowest stratum of reality there is infinity: actually, everything dissolves in infinity which is therefore nothingness. God (The One) is the light, infinity is the darkness (we cannot grasp infinity as we can not see in the dark). Infinity is the loss of all unity thus the loss of all being.


----------



## Larkenfield

Yes, civilizations have their rise and fall. Yet for some, spirituality is not the same as religion and not based upon any kind of an intellectual concept or doctrine, but exists as something _felt_ and _experienced_, like music can be felt and experienced on another dimension without having to pick it apart with concepts and ideas that people love to argue about... It's experienced as a force of light that exists within everyone and everything, like the light of the sun exists even if one is standing in the shadows.

Perhaps the problem is that certain philosophers can't profit from that, because it has no opposite and it's available to everyone, like the music is still available to everyone, perhaps more than ever - it's available virtually everywhere more than at any time in human history, including in many non-Western cultures such as China and Japan.

What are people arguing about? That it's been banned? That it can't be found? That orchestras aren't playing it anymore? That students don't have it in the background when they're studying for exams? That it's unconstitutional? And yet people are sidelined by ideas and ideologies, most of which may have no real significance in their lives as something real, breathing and alive.


----------



## Becca

Agamemnon said:


> e.g. to understand the 'classical' in classical music you must know a thing or two about Plato (or classical thinking)...


Do you really believe that?? It certainly doesn't describe many of the classical musicians who I know.


----------



## fluteman

mmsbls said:


> I believe all of us would say that modern/contemporary classical music is different from prior eras, but some apparently go further to say it has degenerated or is significantly less good, meaningful, or profound than it was early in the 20th century or before. Honestly, the argument seems to be that those people don't like modern/contemporary classical music or that it doesn't resonate well with them. It does not have the same melodies and harmonies that we all (or almost all of us) have come to love. It is different. But I'm not sure why people feel that it's clearly worse or that it has degenerated.
> 
> When I read analysis or discussions about composers from various eras including modern/contemporary, the authors talk about the composers in similar ways. They comment on different aspects of the music, but they seem to hold all those composers in high regard saying that all those composers have produced wonderful and important works. The difference seems to be that fewer people enjoy their works, but by itself, that distinction does not imply that the composers are not producing important, powerful, interesting, and profound works.
> 
> I think there are reasons that many classical music lovers do not respond positively to modern/contemporary classical music. I believe the new highly individual vocabularies (again, thank you, EdwardBast for this term) place impediments in the path of many listeners. If people are simply arguing that modern music is harder to enjoy and many fewer actually enjoy it, I have no problem with that assessment. But I'm having trouble understanding the idea that the music itself has degenerated. That would seem to be vastly more difficult to support.


There's no getting around that a profound change in western music began to occur in the early 20th century, i.e., the transition from music produced by acoustic instruments and voices and heard live, to music captured by electrical amplification and heard on record or radio, to music produced electronically either without traditional acoustic instruments or voices at all, or with acoustic instruments and voices but subjected to considerable and increasingly sophisticated processing and manipulation. I think it will take a few more generations for all of that to sink in. It's still new. My late grandparents had none of it when they were growing up.
For most who listen only to popular music, most or all of these changes have long since been accepted and internalized. But for those who grew up listening to traditional classical music fed to us by our parents and grandparents, it can be a difficult transition.
I think the generation that grew up in the 60s and 70s as I did was the first to begin to accept the modern aesthetic as a natural thing. As a tot, I was enthralled by Stravinsky's Rite of Spring in Disney's Fantasia, which returned to the theaters with great success in the early 60s. Every kid knew the Twilight Zone theme by French modernist composer Marius Constant. My parent's house was filled with minimalist Danish modern furniture, which was fashionable then. The NASA missions made outer space very fashionable, and that had a major cultural impact. Etc. 
I also think succeeding generations will increasingly find pre-20th century classical music alien and unpalatable (alas!) and that this trend has already begun.


----------



## Strange Magic

fluteman said:


> There's no getting around that a profound change in western music began to occur in the early 20th century, i.e., the transition from music produced by acoustic instruments and voices and heard live, to music captured by electrical amplification and heard on record or radio, to music produced electronically either without traditional acoustic instruments or voices at all, or with acoustic instruments and voices but subjected to considerable and increasingly sophisticated processing and manipulation. I think it will take a few more generations for all of that to sink in. It's still new. My late grandparents had none of it when they were growing up.
> For most who listen only to popular music, most or all of these changes have long since been accepted and internalized. But for those who grew up listening to traditional classical music fed to us by our parents and grandparents, it can be a difficult transition.
> I think the generation that grew up in the 60s and 70s as I did was the first to begin to accept the modern aesthetic as a natural thing. As a tot, I was enthralled by Stravinsky's Rite of Spring in Disney's Fantasia, which returned to the theaters with great success in the early 60s. Every kid knew the Twilight Zone theme by French modernist composer Marius Constant. My parent's house was filled with minimalist Danish modern furniture, which was fashionable then. The NASA missions made outer space very fashionable, and that had a major cultural impact. Etc.
> I also think succeeding generations will increasingly find pre-20th century classical music alien and unpalatable (alas!) and that this trend has already begun.


All of this is true, but it looks at the overall situation with one eye closed. This represents the thesis that one thing or bunch of things is successively replaced by another thing or set of things, so that things in the arts are seen (and heard) to drift into the Now, then drift beyond and behind us into the Then. All undeniably true. The full picture, however, is of an enormous widening of possibilities so that any given anything finds it has to share space with a constantly growing host of other things, all competing for space, time, attention. Given constantly growing populations, bandwidth, and storage and retrieval of information, the result in the arts is constant and increasing entropy, flux, buzz. Everything, though, is still there; it's a matter of digging a bit harder for it.


----------



## Taggart

Strange Magic said:


> The full picture, however, is of an enormous widening of possibilities so that any given anything finds it has to share space with a constantly growing host of other things, all competing for space, time, attention. .


Quite. I started as a folkie. I'm still in touch with that scene where electronics are the devil - remember Pete Seeger's cry for an axe when Dylan "went electric" ? - and dots are frowned upon. From that scene I got into early music - remember David Munrow playing along with the Young Tradition. From there I progressed to Baroque music. We have a thriving local HIP scene. Guess what, the leader of our local Baroque group is also a folkie - although not a purist - and runs an Irish music session. Yes, some young people have got into modern music - classical and non-classical - others have moved towards a more traditional approach. There's something for everybody nowadays and much more good music of all genres than ever before.


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> All of this is true, but it looks at the overall situation with one eye closed. This represents the thesis that one thing or bunch of things is successively replaced by another thing or set of things, so that things in the arts are seen (and heard) to drift into the Now, then drift beyond and behind us into the Then. All undeniably true. The full picture, however, is of an enormous widening of possibilities so that any given anything finds it has to share space with a constantly growing host of other things, all competing for space, time, attention. Given constantly growing populations, bandwidth, and storage and retrieval of information, the result in the arts is constant and increasing entropy, flux, buzz. Everything, though, is still there; it's a matter of digging a bit harder for it.


Yes, that's a reasonable point. But in fairness to me, I wasn't trying to address the "overall situation" of western culture with one modest little post. I was really only responding to mmsbls's comment that "new highly individual vocabularies ... place impediments in the path of many listeners." I'm suggesting that at least some of those new vocabularies are gradually becoming the norm, and the old vocabularies of Mozart and Verdi are inevitably becoming the impediments, or at least more distant and less familiar. But as you say there are many more things going on in our information age than that, and I wouldn't want to overstate my point, a common flaw in heated internet debates.


----------



## Becca

Taggart said:


> Quite. I started as a folkie. I'm still in touch with that scene where electronics are the devil - remember Pete Seeger's cry for an axe when Dylan "went electric" ? - and dots are frowned upon. From that scene I got into early music - remember David Munrow playing along with the Young Tradition. From there I progressed to Baroque music. We have a thriving local HIP scene. Guess what, the leader of our local Baroque group is also a folkie - although not a purist - and runs an Irish music session. Yes, some young people have got into modern music - classical and non-classical - others have moved towards a more traditional approach. There's something for everybody nowadays and much more good music of all genres than ever before.


...and at least one baroque group, Barokksolistene, has moved into the traditional 17th century 'popular' music with their Alehouse Sessions


----------



## Taggart

Becca said:


> ...and at least one baroque group, Barokksolistene, has moved into the traditional 17th century 'popular' music with their Alehouse Sessions


Or Les Witches











Although, technically, "popular" the Manuscrit Susanne van Soldt (1599) includes lot of Sweelinck much as The Fitzwilliam Virginal Book with many folk tunes includes Byrd, Bull, Phillips and Sweelinck . Purcell himself was involved with the Playfords. Shame we don't have that interaction between popular and classical today.

This is from an Australian group who do Scots Baroque






The Hornpipe is by Mr Purcell. Or this from the 18th Century based on a fine Scots tune also used by Burns






Amazing to get stuff like this which has been unplayed for many a long year.


----------



## Strange Magic

fluteman said:


> Yes, that's a reasonable point. But in fairness to me, I wasn't trying to address the "overall situation" of western culture with one modest little post. I was really only responding to mmsbls's comment that "new highly individual vocabularies ... place impediments in the path of many listeners." I'm suggesting that at least some of those new vocabularies are gradually becoming the norm, and the old vocabularies of Mozart and Verdi are inevitably becoming the impediments, or at least more distant and less familiar. But as you say there are many more things going on in our information age than that, and I wouldn't want to overstate my point, a common flaw in heated internet debates.


fluteman, I entirely concur in your view that I have rhetorically overshot the point you made quite well in your post. We can be pleased that we both are correct and not in conflict--our views are complementary (and everyone should pay attention! )


----------



## hpowders

JJF said:


> From Bach himself:
> "of *all music*, the end, and final cause, *should be for naught else but the glory of God,* and the re-creation of the spirit. Where this is not observed, then there is no true music, only a devilish clatter and grind."
> 
> Which if one had to suffer through yesterday's `music' awards, one found plenty of `clatter and grind'.


A nice post. Bach was a prophet. Look around you at the lack of shared values; where egocentrism predominates; the atheistic mentality, prevailing in a lot of Western countries. Most music being composed today is nothing but "devilish clatter and grind". A case of acute lack of inspiration.

Imagine if Bach was born into an atheistic society. You would have never heard of him.


----------



## eugeneonagain

hpowders said:


> Imagine if Bach was born into an atheistic society. You would have never heard of him.


Maybe you're right, he would never have gained a church position and might have had to convince even himself that he was just a damned excellent musical mind. Then just got on with it.

Lack of shared values is nothing to do with atheism. Lack of shared social values is a political issue and differences in cultural values is a result of widened cultural ideas in general. The capitalist concept of a 'marketplace of ideas' of 'knowledge democracy' supposedly allows people to choose their cultural/artistic tastes rather than having them dictated to them. Or perhaps you prefer a cultural dictatorship?


----------



## hpowders

eugeneonagain said:


> Maybe you're right, he would never have gained a church position and might have had to convince even himself that he was just a damned excellent musical mind. Then just got on with it.
> 
> Lack of shared values is nothing to do with atheism. Lack of shared social values is a political issue and differences in cultural values is a result of widened cultural ideas in general. The capitalist concept of a 'marketplace of ideas' of 'knowledge democracy' supposedly allows people to choose their cultural/artistic tastes rather than having them dictated to them. Or perhaps you prefer a cultural dictatorship?


My point was Bach got his inspiration from the belief in the glory of God. His secular works are just as inspired by belief in the Deity as his religious works. In an atheistic Germany, he may have never achieved greatness as a composer, because his main source of inspiration would have been removed.


----------



## eugeneonagain

hpowders said:


> My point was Bach got his inspiration from the belief in the glory of God. His secular works are just as inspired by belief in the Deity as his religious works. In an atheistic Germany, he may have never achieved greatness as a composer, because his main source of inspiration would have been removed.


I'm less convinced about this. Certainly he felt that to be his main impetus, but then so many other composers had the same inspiration, yet don't come close to the quality of his output. Bach's music is great because he was a fantastic composer.


----------



## Bulldog

hpowders said:


> My point was Bach got his inspiration from the belief in the glory of God. His secular works are just as inspired by belief in the Deity as his religious works. In an atheistic Germany, he may have never achieved greatness as a composer, because his main source of inspiration would have been removed.


Could be that Bach would have found other sources of inspiration.


----------



## Bettina

eugeneonagain said:


> I'm less convinced about this. Certainly he felt that to be his main impetus, but then so many other composers had the same inspiration, yet don't come close to the quality of his output. Bach's music is great because he was a fantastic composer.


The way I see it, Bach's religious beliefs were necessary but not sufficient to make him a great composer. His greatness depended on BOTH his religious beliefs and his compositional talent.


----------



## hpowders

Bulldog said:


> Could be that Bach would have found other sources of inspiration.


Perhaps, instead, he would have become an adept professional player of knockout polls, bringing great pride to the German nation!!! :lol:

Sorry. I couldn't resisit.


----------



## hpowders

Bettina said:


> The way I see it, Bach's religious beliefs were necessary but not sufficient to make him a great composer. His greatness depended on BOTH his religious beliefs and his compositional talent.


But those religious beliefs put him over the top, I think. Without them, he may have been stuck writing 137 different Coffee Cantatas.


----------



## mmsbls

Purely religious or political posts do not belong in this forum. I have deleted several posts that do not pertain to music. Please refrain from such posts. These purely political or religious posts can be placed in the groups.


----------



## Lisztian

We can't possibly know what the world would have been like with religion as an influence, and I feel as if any comments regarding Bach's stature without this influence are purely idle, unhelpful speculation. As eugene mentioned, most composers of the time were believers and the large majority didn't come close to having his stature as a composer. Of course, you guys against this position will probably feel as if the world would have been a far worse place, less conducive to creativity (if it existed at all), and that's fine. I lean towards disagreeing but, again, _idle speculation_. Not here to debate that. But can we please refrain from expressing these speculative ideas in such a objective manner...


----------



## Strange Magic

In the FWIW department, here is a list of composers alleged to have been atheists, gleaned from Wikipedia and another source: Bizet, Brahms, Busoni, Davies, Delius, Grainger, Janáček, Khachaturian, Ligeti, Prokofiev, Ravel, Rimsky-Korsakov, Saint-Saens, Shostakovich, Strauss, Tippett, Varése, Xenakis. Who really knows? What does it prove? I've read that Prokofiev dabbled in Christian Science at one time. Many of the above composed some reasonably decent music, though none of them was Bach, it is true.


----------



## KenOC

I can attest to Shostakovich. Asked if he believed in God, he responded, "Unfortunately, no."


----------



## Woodduck

I should think it fairly self-evident that speculation about what composer so-and-so would have been had he not been what he was is silly. _Of course_ he wouldn't have been what he was. What does that prove? If Bach had not had Christian beliefs he would have been someone other than Bach, as surely as he would have been someone else had he been born in 1785 or 1885 rather than 1685, or in Spain or Russia rather than Germany. Would whoever he would have been have written the music he actually did? Of course not. What does the music he would have written have to do with the religion he would or would not have professed? Who knows? (Answer: no one knows.)

It ought to be obvious that musical genius as such is not a product of a composer's philosophy of life and is not found exclusively in any particular era or culture. The specific way in which musical genius expresses itself, on the other hand, depends on a tangle of personal and cultural factors we don't know enough to assess. But if we're willing to abandon simplistic and prejudiced explanations we might see some patterns of relationship between particular cultures and particular musical expressions. There may be something in Bach's music, and in the music of his time and place in particular, that we can reasonably relate to Christianity and its place in the culture - but, so far, I've seen no attempts in this thread to do that. Without such specifics, suggestions that religious belief produces "better" music are unconvincing, even if it's Bach himself doing the suggesting.


----------



## Chronochromie

Strange Magic said:


> In the FWIW department, here is a list of composers alleged to have been atheists, gleaned from Wikipedia and another source: Bizet, Brahms, Busoni, Davies, Delius, Grainger, Janáček, Khachaturian, Ligeti, Prokofiev, Ravel, Rimsky-Korsakov, Saint-Saens, Shostakovich, Strauss, Tippett, Varése, Xenakis. Who really knows? What does it prove? I've read that Prokofiev dabbled in Christian Science at one time. *Many of the above composed some reasonably decent music, though none of them was Bach, it is true.*


Ughhh............


----------



## ST4

Strange Magic said:


> In the FWIW department, here is a list of composers alleged to have been atheists, gleaned from Wikipedia and another source: Bizet, Brahms, Busoni, Davies, Delius, Grainger, Janáček, Khachaturian, Ligeti, Prokofiev, Ravel, Rimsky-Korsakov, Saint-Saens, Shostakovich, Strauss, Tippett, Varése, Xenakis. Who really knows? What does it prove? I've read that Prokofiev dabbled in Christian Science at one time. *Many of the above composed some reasonably decent music, though none of them was Bach, it is true*.


Yes, cause none of them where Baroque composers :lol:


----------



## ST4

hpowders said:


> But those religious beliefs put him over the top, I think. Without them, he may have been stuck writing 137 different Coffee Cantatas.


Now you're just turning me on


----------



## hpowders

ST4 said:


> Now you're just turning me on


As long as you don't claim it to be a religious thing, you are safe here.

It's probably just the extra caffeine kicking in anyway.

If someone brought Bach a double espresso, may that have inspired Bach to write an even more lively Coffee Cantata, than his first one, beginning with an Allegro con Molto Espresso movement.


----------



## EdwardBast

hpowders said:


> But those religious beliefs put him over the top, I think. Without them, he may have been stuck writing 137 different Coffee Cantatas.


Or 100 more Brandenburg Concertos, trio sonatas, fantasies and fugues, keyboard suites, or other timeless instrumental works. I would trade one hundred cantatas for that any day.


----------



## Strange Magic

*Many of the above composed some reasonably decent music, though none of them was Bach, it is true.*

Ughhh....... (As quoted from ST4, above):

I hope my tongue was seen to be firmly in my cheek.....


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit

By 'will we ever get a new Bach'....do you mean "will we ever get a staunchly conservative composer who toils away at their craft while most people consider them too old-fashioned and too technical to pay any significant attention to and dies known as an instrumentalist and music teacher more than anything else?"

Because I bet there are probably some of those roaming around today.


----------



## EdwardBast

hpowders said:


> A nice post. Bach was a prophet. Look around you at the lack of shared values; where egocentrism predominates; the atheistic mentality, prevailing in a lot of Western countries. Most music being composed today is nothing but "devilish clatter and grind". A case of acute lack of inspiration.
> 
> Imagine if Bach was born into an atheistic society. You would have never heard of him.


Bach would have been just as content to write concertos and other secular music for the Margrave of Brandenburg (or other aristocrats), whether or not that man was an atheist or a Zoroastrian. Not only would we have heard of Bach, but he would likely have attained international fame as a composer in his lifetime far beyond what any cantata-a-week drudge slaving away in a religious institution in Hamburg was likely to achieve. Has it not occurred to anyone that Bach's protestations about serving God might have been in part a salve to frustrated ambitions, making a virtue of the necessity of supporting his numerous offspring?


----------



## Botschaft

Gaspard de la Nuit said:


> By 'will we ever get a new Bach'....do you mean "will we ever get a staunchly conservative composer who toils away at their craft while most people consider them too old-fashioned and too technical to pay any significant attention to and dies known as an instrumentalist and music teacher more than anything else?"


No, that's not what he meant, and you know that. What he meant was a composer with an output of such a high quality and timeless appeal that he will be remembered as one of the very greatest in 300 years, as long as the world doesn't go to ruins. He might as well have said Mozart (the composer with the highest record sales last year) or Beethoven (probably the most universally respected name in music for more than a century). 

As for the importance of religion: I don't think that the belief in a most likely non-existent entity is a prerequisite for creativity, artistic or otherwise, even though the "death of God" may have created a vacuum to be filled with other, possibly worse ideas, and caused a distrust in traditional ideas in general.


----------



## Woodduck

EdwardBast said:


> Bach would have been just as content to write concertos and other secular music for the Margrave of Brandenburg (or other aristocrats), whether or not that man was an atheist or a Zoroastrian. Not only would we have heard of Bach, but he would likely have attained international fame as a composer in his lifetime far beyond what any cantata-a-week drudge slaving away in a religious institution in Hamburg was likely to achieve. Has it not occurred to anyone that Bach's protestations about serving God might have been in part a salve to frustrated ambitions, making a virtue of the necessity of supporting his numerous offspring?


Indeed. The six years Bach spent working at the court of Cothen, where he was free from the need to crank out cantatas and deal with church officials and choirboys, were by all accounts the happiest period of his life. Prince Leopold was himself a musician of considerable accomplishment, and Bach was surrounded by excellent musicians and was very well-paid for providing music of a mostly non-religious nature. From 1717 to 1722 he composed most of his finest instrumental and orchestral works along with a few secular vocal works, including the Brandenburg Concertos, the Orchestral Suites, the Violin Concertos, secular cantatas, trio sonatas, the French Suites, the Well-tempered Klavier, and probably the Chromatic Fantasy and Fugue.

I suspect that many people would gladly give up 90% of his cantatas for more works like these.


----------



## fluteman

mmsbls said:


> Purely religious or political posts do not belong in this forum. I have deleted several posts that do not pertain to music. Please refrain from such posts. These purely political or religious posts can be placed in the groups.


No question you're an intelligent, and importantly, moderate moderator, mmsbls. But I can't resist asking: What about the original post in this thread? I suggest there is an implicit premise underlying it, and many posts like it, that ultimately has little to do with music. And that premise is that we are living in an age of social and moral degeneracy. In other words, the question, "Why is music so bad these days?" is inherently disingenuous, since the inevitable inference is that it isn't just music that is bad, but also and more fundamentally, "these days", since art is inevitably a reflection of the social climate and norms of its time and place. Some intelligent and diplomatic posters steer these conversations in a more acceptable (and interesting) direction, but others run with the original premise and eventually provoke your red ink.
So I would ask the original poster and his ilk to tell me why you like the music of Bach, rather than complain that you don't like the music of these days.


----------



## JJF

fluteman said:


> No question you're an intelligent, and importantly, moderate moderator, mmsbls. But I can't resist asking: What about the original post in this thread? I suggest there is an implicit premise underlying it, and many posts like it, that ultimately has little to do with music. And that premise is that we are living in an age of social and moral degeneracy. In other words, the question, "Why is music so bad these days?" is inherently disingenuous, since the inevitable inference is that it isn't just music that is bad, but also and more fundamentally, "these days", since art is inevitably a reflection of the social climate and norms of its time and place. Some intelligent and diplomatic posters steer these conversations in a more acceptable (and interesting) direction, but others run with the original premise and eventually provoke your red ink.
> So I would ask the original poster and his ilk to tell me why you like the music of Bach, rather than complain that you don't like the music of these days.


Might it be a chicken or the egg type of question? What drives human behaviour? The military knows what kind of music to play before they send the troops into a battle. There is music for harmony, for harmonizing one to their spirit and music that is dissonant. Is the chaotic music of the time a symptom or a cause of the chaos found in society? These are big big questions but I believe they are at the core of the issue.


----------



## Nereffid

JJF said:


> Is the chaotic music of the time a symptom or a cause of the chaos found in society? These are big big questions but I believe they are at the core of the issue.


But little of today's music is chaotic, so perhaps the question isn't so big after all.


----------



## Taggart

fluteman said:


> So I would ask the original poster and his ilk to tell me why you like the music of Bach, rather than complain that you don't like the music of these days.


I don't think the OP is saying that.

If we accept a cyclical theory of development, then we might say that we moved from simple monody - Gregorian chant - through polyphony and into the towering uplands of common practice tonality perhaps best exemplified by Bach. We have moved on through the chromaticism of Liszt and Wagner into serialism, 12 tone music, atonalism and a whole range of experiments much as the middle ages experimented with polyphony before the break through to tonal harmony.

The question is have we come through this phase of development or are we still struggling to find a breakthrough akin to common practice tonality but completely different. When will we emerge from our experiments into a new style of music and who will be its master in the same way as Bach was a master of common practice tonality?

None of this has much to do with politics, religion or society but is concerned with the development of musical understanding in the 21st century and beyond. Neither does it seek to denigrate those who are trying to develop music or to elevate old music above new.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> No question you're an intelligent, and importantly, moderate moderator, mmsbls. But I can't resist asking: What about the original post in this thread? I suggest there is an implicit premise underlying it, and many posts like it, that ultimately has little to do with music. And that premise is that we are living in an age of social and moral degeneracy. In other words, the question, "Why is music so bad these days?" is inherently disingenuous, since the inevitable inference is that it isn't just music that is bad, but also and more fundamentally, "these days", since art is inevitably a reflection of the social climate and norms of its time and place. Some intelligent and diplomatic posters steer these conversations in a more acceptable (and interesting) direction, but others run with the original premise and eventually provoke your red ink.
> So I would ask the original poster and his ilk to tell me why you like the music of Bach, rather than complain that you don't like the music of these days.


Hmmm...

Maybe some people just don't hear much in contemporary music that impresses or appeals to them and are wondering why they don't. Maybe some people, listening to the extraordinarily complex and masterly craft of Bach - which no one, essentially, denies - and feeling his music send their spirits soaring among the stars, just can't find anything comparable, or any comparable experience, in the music of our time.

Most people, I suspect, would rather be alive in the here and now, with the opportunities modern life in a relatively free society affords us, than in Bach's 17th-century world, even if this is a time when a pile of rusted metal can be placed on a pedestal in a town square and be called art, with taxpayers expected to foot the bill - or, to bring it closer to home, a time when a man can choose the notes he writes by playing a game of chance and be considered an icon of modern music. But why is questioning the nature of modern culture, and comparing it to past cultures, disingenuous? If someone feels that no one today is producing musical masterpieces comparable to Bach's - or Mozart's, or Beethoven's, or Wagner's - how is it disingenuous to ask why not?


----------



## mmsbls

fluteman said:


> ... I can't resist asking: What about the original post in this thread? I suggest there is an implicit premise underlying it, and many posts like it, that ultimately has little to do with music. And that premise is that we are living in an age of social and moral degeneracy.


I'm not sure exactly what the OP thought about the issue. It's not obvious to me that social or moral degeneracy was considered the cause of change. Although not explicitly stated, presumably the OP felt contemporary music is inferior to early periods, and the OP asked for people to "[d]iscuss, how and why does the music climate change by time."

There are two separate questions here. First, is contemporary music inferior? If not, there's no reason to discuss what would cause the inferiority. If so, presumably there is a reason or multiple reasons. And if so, it would be very interesting to explore why.

Personally I don't believe contemporary music is inferior. I believe it's different and affects people differently. There's no question that fewer people who enjoy classical music like contemporary music compared to earlier music (and possibly by a very large margin). It's certainly interesting to ask why that should be so. As best I can tell, the past 50 years (or maybe 100) is unique in music history in that listeners vastly prefer music of the past (and today, prefer music of the far past). What has changed?

I would prefer if people would discuss the issue of why fewer people enjoy contemporary music rather than why contemporary music is inferior.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> Hmmm...
> 
> Maybe some people just don't hear much in contemporary music that impresses or appeals to them and are wondering why they don't. Maybe some people, listening to the extraordinarily complex and masterly craft of Bach - which no one, essentially, denies - and feeling his music send their spirits soaring among the stars, just can't find anything comparable, or any comparable experience, in the music of our time.
> 
> Most people, I suspect, would rather be alive in the here and now, with the opportunities modern life in a relatively free society affords us, than in Bach's 17th-century world, even if this is a time when a pile of rusted metal can be placed on a pedestal in a town square and be called art, with taxpayers expected to foot the bill - or, to bring it closer to home, a time when a man can choose the notes he writes by playing a game of chance and be considered an icon of modern music. But why is questioning the nature of modern culture, and comparing it to past cultures, disingenuous? If someone feels that no one today is producing musical masterpieces comparable to Bach's - or Mozart's, or Beethoven's, or Wagner's - how is it disingenuous to ask why not?


I have to question a premise of yours that you seem to adopt without question -- that people today prefer "a relatively free society". Behind many of the posts here and many things I read about current events, I see a desire to return to a more rigidly ordered, less free society. People may want the opportunities freedom offers for themselves (though even that isn't always so obvious), but not necessarily for everyone else. To put it more simply, my point was, it isn't an accident that this kind of discussion veers away from comparing Bach to Boulez and towards disparagement of atheists, to the dismay of our poor beleaguered moderator, mmsbls.


mmsbls said:


> I would prefer if people would discuss the issue of why fewer people enjoy contemporary music rather than why contemporary music is inferior.


Yes, although I'm not so sure it's true that fewer people enjoy contemporary music. Not many listen to Bruckner or Brahms, or even Bach, these days. I guess it depends on how you define contemporary music, or classical music, or contemporary classical music. For example, many African-Americans consider the jazz of Charlie Parker, Miles Davis John Coltrane, etc. "their" classical music. And people of all ethnic backgrounds and nationalities have long since embraced jazz, so I don't think you can limit it as an African-American artform that way any longer, if you ever could.
Contemporary music is easy to dismiss if you define it narrowly enough.


----------



## Strange Magic

Taggart said:


> I don't think the OP is saying that.
> 
> If we accept a cyclical theory of development, then we might say that we moved from simple monody - Gregorian chant - through polyphony and into the towering uplands of common practice tonality perhaps best exemplified by Bach. We have moved on through the chromaticism of Liszt and Wagner into serialism, 12 tone music, atonalism and a whole range of experiments much as the middle ages experimented with polyphony before the break through to tonal harmony.
> 
> The question is have we come through this phase of development or are we still struggling to find a breakthrough akin to common practice tonality but completely different. When will we emerge from our experiments into a new style of music and who will be its master in the same way as Bach was a master of common practice tonality?
> 
> None of this has much to do with politics, religion or society but is concerned with the development of musical understanding in the 21st century and beyond. Neither does it seek to denigrate those who are trying to develop music or to elevate old music above new.


You may be correct in postulating that none of this has much to do with politics, religion or society, but it certainly has everything to do with the technology of communication. Unless there is a widescale constriction in the flow of information or unless there is a sharp reduction in the number of voices permitted to communicate (this is indeed where politics, religion and "society" could have an enormous influence again), there is virtually no chance that a new style of music will emerge that will come to dominate as Bach once dominated.


----------



## Botschaft

fluteman said:


> No question you're an intelligent, and importantly, moderate moderator, mmsbls. But I can't resist asking: What about the original post in this thread? I suggest there is an implicit premise underlying it, and many posts like it, that ultimately has little to do with music. And that premise is that we are living in an age of social and moral degeneracy. In other words, the question, "Why is music so bad these days?" is inherently disingenuous, since the inevitable inference is that it isn't just music that is bad, but also and more fundamentally, "these days", since art is inevitably a reflection of the social climate and norms of its time and place.


Why do some posters, like the one quoted above, insist on making this a political argument? The OP is concerned with the decline of music, not that of society as a whole.



> Some intelligent and diplomatic posters steer these conversations in a more acceptable (and interesting) direction,


Thanks!


----------



## fluteman

Improbus said:


> Why do some posters, like the one quoted above, insist on making this a political argument? The OP is concerned with the decline of music, not that of society as a whole.
> 
> Thanks!


I like how you dismiss my post as irrelevant, yet in the next breath interpret it as a compliment to you. Well played!


----------



## DaveM

mmsbls said:


> Honestly, the argument seems to be that those people don't like modern/contemporary classical music or that it doesn't resonate well with them. *It does not have the same melodies and harmonies that we all (or almost all of us) have come to love*. It is different. But I'm not sure why people feel that it's clearly worse or that it has degenerated.
> 
> The difference seems to be that fewer people enjoy their works, but by itself, that distinction does not imply that the composers are not producing important, powerful, interesting, and profound works.
> 
> I think there are reasons that many classical music lovers do not respond positively to modern/contemporary classical music. I believe the new highly individual vocabularies (again, thank you, EdwardBast for this term) place impediments in the path of many listeners. *If people are simply arguing that modern music is harder to enjoy and many fewer actually enjoy it, I have no problem with that assessment. But I'm having trouble understanding the idea that the music itself has degenerated. That would seem to be vastly more difficult to support.*





mmsbls said:


> There are two separate questions here. First, is contemporary music inferior? If not, there's no reason to discuss what would cause the inferiority. If so, presumably there is a reason or multiple reasons. And if so, it would be very interesting to explore why.
> 
> *Personally I don't believe contemporary music is inferior. I believe it's different and affects people differently. There's no question that fewer people who enjoy classical music like contemporary music compared to earlier music* (and possibly by a very large margin). It's certainly interesting to ask why that should be so. As best I can tell, the past 50 years (or maybe 100) is unique in music history in that listeners vastly prefer music of the past (and today, prefer music of the far past). What has changed?
> 
> I would prefer if people would discuss the issue of why fewer people enjoy contemporary music rather than why contemporary music is inferior.


Up front, I appreciate the fact that you agree that '_modern music overall is harder to enjoy and many fewer actually enjoy it'_ On my part, if in my past responses I have appeared to paint all contemporary/modern music with the broad brush that the music is overall inferior then I apologize for my inability to express my point more clearly.

I know that there are works of the last 100+ years that are quality music. Having said that, here are (IMO) two important factors in the general discussion of why fewer people enjoy contemporary music:

First of all, what is considered to be contemporary/modern classical music? It appears to be splintered into many categories and some categories include music that is bordering on or is absolutely bizarre. It would be that category of music that, if categorized as classical music, I think is an example of a degeneration. If we agree that the latter should be separated into a entirely different genre, then never mind.  Still, if someone is ferociously defending modern/contemporary music, how is one to know what category of classical music one is referring to. All of it? If so, that's a problem.

Second, the fact that the music generally requires more effort to understand and enjoy and the fact that not all (and perhaps not many) will be successful in the effort is a major impediment to growing an interest in classical music. The less accessible music is, the more sophisticated the listener has to be. Over the last several years, as classical music has receded in the public interest (coincident with the growth of popular music) it has required a more sophisticated listener to seek out and enjoy traditional classical music. Now add to that the fact that contemporary/modern music is less accessible and you have the potential for a decrease in the overall classical music audience.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> I have to question a premise of yours that you seem to adopt without question -- that people today prefer "a relatively free society". Behind many of the posts here and many things I read about current events, I see a desire to return to a more rigidly ordered, less free society. People may want the opportunities freedom offers for themselves (though even that isn't always so obvious), but not necessarily for everyone else. To put it more simply, my point was, it isn't an accident that this kind of discussion veers away from comparing Bach to Boulez and towards disparagement of atheists, to the dismay of our poor beleaguered moderator, mmsbls.


All I said was that "Most people, I suspect, would rather be alive in the here and now, with the opportunities modern life in a relatively free society affords us, than in Bach's 17th-century world." Though fully aware that there are elements in society, notably fundamentalist religious sects, which prefer enforcement of parochial moral codes to freedom of choice, I wasn't making any grand sociological statement, any more than people who wonder why contemporary classical music fails to inspire them are necessarily commenting on the decline of civilization, much less expressing a yearning for a more regimented social order.

As it happens, I don't find much of what I've heard calling itself "classical music" these days inspiring, and I do think modern civilization has its problems - as do you, apparently. The idea that connections exist between the artistic expressions of a civilization and its general values, seems to me hard to dismiss - indisputable, actually - but those connections are certainly subtle and complex and can't be neatly packaged in terms of simple equations such as "religious society = better music."


----------



## eugeneonagain

mmsbls said:


> It's certainly interesting to ask why that should be so. As best I can tell, the past 50 years (or maybe 100) is unique in music history in that listeners vastly prefer music of the past (and today, prefer music of the far past). What has changed?


As much as I enjoy music from the early-to-mid 20th century and much contemporary art-music, I have no problem accepting the fact that art-music's hey-day as a more popular form of music has already passed or that its focus has expanded beyond "common practice". I do however have a hard time understanding what it is people are desirous of.

There's that ongoing discussion about the rejection of "common practice" though all I see (and hear) is the same 12 tone equal temperament being used for the majority of new work - the number of new works with a more experimental bent, using ideas like different tuning theories, is minuscule by comparison. No-one is forcing anyone to listen to this if they don't like it. It's unreasonable to expect contemporary composers not to pursue these lines just because the listening public is nostalgic for Schubert or Dvorak.

However there is something to consider and I would compare it to jazz and the directions it took in the mid sixties; especially with musicians like Eric Dolphy and 'free jazz'. So many classic jazz fans felt alienated, but then this was the case for many trad jazz fans when bebop came along. Personally I'd be happy for jazz's trajectory to have stayed like it was in the late '40s through the '50s, but how could it? 
Look at the jazz world though, it's not like trad jazz or bop or west-coast cool disappeared. In New Orleans you have all these new, young, excellent musicians playing the best hot jazz since King Oliver, often-times right alongside the old guard. They are really good. The same is true for bebop and cool, it hasn't vanished and still draws a large public. More modern forms of jazz - electronic, experimental, also have an audience and some people listen to it all. What is the problem?

There's much talk about the listening demographic of 'classical music', that it is only 3% of music sales and what-have-you. Well look online at places like musescore and you'll find hundreds of youths with an obvious interest in art-music across a wide spectrum. The approach to 'modern', 'new', 'contemporary' music, whatever we are going to call it, is much more positive and yet so many of the same people also love Mozart and the romantics, film music, jazz, folk etc.. I find that very heartening. It makes a great change from the stereotypical 'classical fan' griping about hip-hop and Schoenberg or Cage.


----------



## Woodduck

eugeneonagain said:


> As much as I enjoy music from the early-to-mid 20th century and much contemporary art-music, I have no problem accepting the fact that art-music's hey-day as a more popular form of music has already passed or that its focus has expanded beyond "common practice". I do however have a hard time understanding what it is people are desirous of.
> 
> There's that ongoing discussion about the rejection of "common practice" though all I see (and hear) is the same 12 tone equal temperament being used for the majority of new work - the number of new works with a more experimental bent, using ideas like different tuning theories, is minuscule by comparison. No-one is forcing anyone to listen to this if they don't like it. It's unreasonable to expect contemporary composers not to pursue these lines just because the listening public is nostalgic for Schubert or Dvorak.
> 
> However there is something to consider and I would compare it to jazz and the directions it took in the mid sixties; especially with musicians like Eric Dolphy and 'free jazz'. So many classic jazz fans felt alienated, but then this was the case for many trad jazz fans when bebop came along. Personally I'd be happy for jazz's trajectory to have stayed like it was in the late '40s through the '50s, but how could it?
> Look at the jazz world though, it's not like trad jazz or bop or west-coast cool disappeared. In New Orleans you have all these new, young, excellent musicians playing the best hot jazz since King Oliver, often-times right alongside the old guard. They are really good. The same is true for bebop and cool, it hasn't vanished and still draws a large public. More modern forms of jazz - electronic, experimental, also have an audience and some people listen to it all. What is the problem?
> 
> There's much talk about the listening demographic of 'classical music', that it is only 3% of music sales and what-have-you. Well look online at places like musescore and you'll find hundreds of youths with an obvious interest in art-music across a wide spectrum. The approach to 'modern', 'new', 'contemporary' music, whatever we are going to call it, is much more positive and yet so many of the same people also love Mozart and the romantics, film music, jazz, folk etc.. I find that very heartening. It makes a great change from the stereotypical 'classical fan' griping about hip-hop and Schoenberg or Cage.


This all makes perfect sense to me. Let's begin by accepting the fact that every form of artistic expression, like everything else in the universe, has its heyday and must eventually yield to something else. The well-earned prestige of "classical music" has yielded, in our day, to the necessity of sharing the stage of public attention with a vast, in fact global, array of musical genres. If the traditional vocabulary of Western tonal music has been producing less and less to impress those who cherish that tradition, and if no comparable tradition has developed to occupy the same niche, in society or in people's consciousness, why should we be surprised or paticularly dismayed? There's never been more music to listen to, regardless of how we feel about any of it, and if we're seeing realignments in the ways music is categorized and consumed, we can still categorize and consume it according to our own tastes. Keeping traditional musical organizations such as symphony orchestras viable is definitely an issue, but as long as there's a wide enough appreciation of our musical past, and free societies don't succumb to regimes that dictate what art is officially approved, the music of the masters will be there in some form for us to hear.

An old guy like me could lament that music of the sort he loves most is no longer being written, but frankly I got tired of doing that a while ago now, and I'm basically content to hand the world, including its music, over to those who are going to have to deal with it. Nobody's forcing me to listen to Ferneyhough. What to do, however, about the unbearable bilge they pump out over the too-loud speakers in retail establishments and through my telephone between reassurances that my call is important to them... Whatever happened to the good ol' days of Muzak?


----------



## fluteman

eugeneonagain said:


> It makes a great change from the stereotypical 'classical fan' griping about hip-hop and Schoenberg or Cage.


Amen to that, and to your entire post. When I first joined here, I was surprised and puzzled at the number of posts about Schoenberg and Cage, in part since so many of those posts were written by people who weren't very interested in the work of either, but mainly because there is so much more to 20th and now 21st century music. I finally began to figure out that many of these people are looking for support for their thesis that "most people" (whatever that means) do not enjoy contemporary music (whatever that means). They seem to think that some agreement on this forum somehow proves their point about what most people do or don't like, and in turn the fact that most people do or don't like something is conclusive proof of its merit or quality (again, whatever those terms mean).
And EdwardBast is as right on the money as anyone can be in summarizing a career in a few sentences when he writes about J.S. Bach. While Bach didn't labor in total obscurity, it's fair to say he wasn't the biggest star either, and his cantatas were quickly put away as soon as he died, and then virtually forgotten for a very long time. So maybe, mmsbls and DaveM, it's fair to say that most people who were his contemporaries did not enjoy his music because he used a new musical vocabulary that was an impediment for them. So if you are saying something similar about music today, maybe we are in a golden age now similar to that of the 18th century. And maybe the 19th century was the dark "middle ages".


----------



## eugeneonagain

Woodduck said:


> What to do, however, about the unbearable bilge they pump out over the too-loud speakers in retail establishments and through my telephone between reassurances that my call is important to them... Whatever happened to the good ol' days of Muzak?


That is a great concern. I'm serious. I was in a large second-hand shop on Saturday and they had commercial radio (Sky Radio) blaring all over the different floors. I cannot remember hearing a single song during the 40-50 minutes I was in there. It seemed like wall-to-wall advertising jingles. I was looking at the CDs with my fingers in my ears and a woman looking at me like I had gone mad.
On call-waiting they seem to have gone over to that thing where a voice keeps on saying - _thank you for holding, your call is important to us_. I miss Muzak and it gave jobs to musicians.


----------



## Botschaft

Woodduck said:


> If the traditional vocabulary of Western tonal music has been producing less and less to impress those who cherish that tradition, and if no comparable tradition has developed to occupy the same niche, in society or in people's consciousness, why should we be surprised or paticularly dismayed? There's never been more music to listen to, regardless of how we feel about any of it, and if we're seeing realignments in the ways music is categorized and consumed, we can still categorize and consume it according to our own tastes.


Well, it would be a little bit late to be surprised or even dismayed by that some hundred years later, wouldn't it? But why not lament the death of a great tradition, even if dealing with its rotten corpse is none of our concern?



fluteman said:


> While Bach didn't labor in total obscurity, it's fair to say he wasn't the biggest star either, and his cantatas were quickly put away as soon as he died, and then virtually forgotten for a very long time. So maybe, mmsbls and DaveM, it's fair to say that most people who were his contemporaries did not enjoy his music because he used a new musical vocabulary that was an impediment for them.


Most people didn't enjoy Bach's music? You don't happen to have anything like supporting evidence for this? How many composers of Bach's stripe do you think have even gained moderate fame?


----------



## fluteman

I wish you and Woodduck were at least a little wrong about all of that. Hold music, even classical hold music, is tough to take. Ugh. Maybe mmsbls and DaveM are right about the evils of contemporary music. Even hpowders' devil comment begins to make sense in such an assault.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> I wish you and Woodduck were at least a little wrong about all of that. Hold music, even classical hold music, is tough to take. Ugh. Maybe mmsbls and DaveM are right about the evils of contemporary music. Even hpowders' devil comment begins to make sense in such an assault.


I did once get to listen to Mozart on the phone. It was nice, I complimented the vapid phone receptionist who obviously had nothing to do with choosing it, and she seemed somewhat bemused ("Who is this creepy old guy and what's moat's art?"). One of the problems with "hold music" (wonderful genre name) is that it generally consists of short bits repeated over and over, but the Mozart was allowed to play without interruption, so my mind actually had something to do while waiting. Unfortunately, hold music is now frequently interrupted at regular intervals by advertising for services and whatnot, which would ruin any decent music they decided to give us. It seems the phone situation is hopeless. Civilization is doomed.


----------



## mmsbls

DaveM said:


> I know that there are works of the last 100+ years that are quality music. Having said that, here are (IMO) two important factors in the general discussion of why fewer people enjoy contemporary music:


I wouldn't argue strongly with most of what you say. I would not have used the phrase "example of a degeneration", but I understand how you feel about some works.



DaveM said:


> The less accessible music is, the more sophisticated the listener has to be.


I'm not exactly sure what you mean by sophisticated, but I don't believe this is true. I'm hardly sophisticated in that I know relatively little music theory, but I was able to enjoy much modern music simply by repeated listening and understanding that the music is unfamiliar. I simply had a strong desire to learn to like this music.


----------



## Woodduck

Improbus said:


> Well, it would be a little bit late to be surprised or even dismayed by that some hundred years later, wouldn't it? But why not lament the death of a great tradition, even if dealing with its rotten corpse is none of our concern.


Well, if you aren't dismayed, why lament? Why not just accept that the "great tradition" has fulfilled most of its potential and will never again dominate our musical culture? Those of us who've spent a lifetime with classical music, as musicians or as listeners (I'm both), can be grateful for time well spent. I'll spend more time with it before I'm gone, finding a little time as well for music from other traditions; it's a big buffet out there and I'll never sample every dish (which I try to do at actual buffets). But I no longer have the time or strength to complain about things that I know are irretrievably gone. Besides, the Western tonal tradition isn't dead; it simply has a lot of competition now, in a complex world in which creative minds will fulfill themselves in ways unimaginable in the days of Bach, Beethoven and Brahms. Those men composed music of and for the civilization in which they lived, a civilization in which music employed a commonly understood vocabulary built up slowly over centuries. That is no longer our condition, and it never can be again.

I suspect that the globalism and eclecticism of the modern world, while it may offer multitudinous delights to the consumer of culture, is inimical to the creation of art possessing the conviction of the art of the past. Stravinsky emphasized the importance to the artist of accepting limits, the need for an initial assumption of a conceptual frame which would narrow, guide, and focus the artist's thinking. In an age of effectively limitless influences and options, it's arguable that the task of identifying one's artistic values, finding a specific language that expresses them, and carrying a conception to its most highly developed and meaningful realization, is more difficult than it was in simpler, more isolated, more ideologically uniform cultures. The modern artist faces a supermarket full of ideas competing for his allegiance; Mozart faced nothing remotely comparable. When we consider how many ordinary talents had to exist doing essentially the same things Mozart was doing in order for one Mozart to come along and do those things supremely well, we shouldn't be surprised that a "new Mozart" hasn't arisen in our midst. But even if that new Mozart should arise (assuming he hasn't already), he may be creating something we wouldn't recognize as "classical music."


----------



## Botschaft

Woodduck said:


> When we consider how many ordinary talents had to exist doing essentially the same things Mozart was doing in order for one Mozart to come along and do those things supremely well, we shouldn't be surprised that a "new Mozart" hasn't arisen in our midst. But even if that new Mozart should arise (assuming he hasn't already), he may be creating something we wouldn't recognize as "classical music."


Of course great artists won't arise from just any soup or simply _ex nihilo_, as if were they the offspring of gods or demons: nature and nurture are both important. But why should we think that our times could ever provide the latter, given the state of art the past century? On the contrary has there ever in the history of man been so much insipid drivel, so much nonsense masquerading as serious and worthwhile art? I guess the only real hope for music would be the collective realisation that culture has gone down the drain, and that composers pick up where the likes of Brahms and Wagner left off, much like how artists of the Renaissance emulated the plastic arts of antiquity.


----------



## fluteman

Improbus said:


> Of course great artists won't arise from just any soup or simply _ex nihilo_, as if were they the offspring of gods or demons: nature and nurture are both important. But why should we think that our times could ever provide the latter, given the state of art the past century? On the contrary has there ever in the history of man been so much insipid drivel, so much nonsense masquerading as serious and worthwhile art? I guess the only real hope for music would be the collective realisation that culture has gone down the drain, and that composers pick up where the likes of Brahms and Wagner left off, much like how artists of the Renaissance emulated the plastic arts of antiquity.


Oh, dear. Woodduck goes to all that trouble to write an elaborate post just to make you feel better, and all you can say in reply is "culture has gone down the drain"? Why not make a few jokes about 4'33"? You'll feel better. You might even listen to John Cage's String Quartet in Four Parts, written at about the same time he came up with 4'33". Modern, yes, but hauntingly beautiful, with unmistakable references to western medieval and Renaissance music traditions, and tonal as well as atonal elements. When you're finally ready to move on from John Cage to some good ol' religious inspired music, how about Leonard Bernstein's Chichester Psalms? I promise all the lyrics come straight from the Bible.


----------



## EdwardBast

Oh geez, what a bunch of whining pessimists! ^ ^ ^ The 20thc produced astoundingly great and varied music and so will this one. The aesthetic requirement to be original at all costs, much bemoaned in this thread, made the really bad music of the 20thc stand out in its excruciating, atrocious glory. In an earlier era, like the Classical, the mediocre talents who produced it and failed so ignominiously would have been writing safe, boring, craftsman like music, thoroughly forgettable and forgotten. Same result in the end. I think neo-everything music, like a more integrated polystylism where one can incorporate elements from everywhere and every time will take hold eventually and there will be a glorious new era of art music. It is the best of all possible worlds. So says Professor Pangloss.


----------



## Nereffid

Improbus said:


> On the contrary has there ever in the history of man been so much insipid drivel, so much nonsense masquerading as serious and worthwhile art?


Or possibly, has there ever in the history of humanity been so many people so out of step that they're incapable of recognising serious and worthwhile art?


----------



## Botschaft

fluteman said:


> Oh, dear. Woodduck goes to all that trouble to write an elaborate post just to make you feel better, and all you can say in reply is "culture has gone down the drain"? Why not make a few jokes about 4'33"? You'll feel better. You might even listen to John Cage's String Quartet in Four Parts, written at about the same time he came up with 4'33". Modern, yes, but hauntingly beautiful, with unmistakable references to western medieval and Renaissance music traditions, and tonal as well as atonal elements. When you're finally ready to move on from John Cage to some good ol' religious inspired music, how about Leonard Bernstein's Chichester Psalms? I promise all the lyrics come straight from the Bible.


I'm not saying that every instance of art the last hundred years has been utterly devoid of any and all value. None of us could say such a thing, lacking a familiarity let alone deep familiarity with everything produced. As for the Bible: however much I may seem to you like a caricature of a conservative I'm not even religious nor have I ever been: my views expressed here are simply based on taste, not political or religious values, even if some of my stances in regard to other things could be considered conservative.



EdwardBast said:


> Oh geez, what a bunch of whining pessimists! ^ ^ ^ The 20thc produced astoundingly great and varied music and so will this one. The aesthetic requirement to be original at all costs, much bemoaned in this thread, made the really bad music of the 20thc stand out in its excruciating, atrocious glory. In an earlier era, like the Classical, the mediocre talents who produced it and failed so ignominiously would have been writing safe, boring, craftsman like music, thoroughly forgettable and forgotten. Same result in the end.


But more importantly: where are the Bachs and the Beethovens? Are they too perhaps to be sacrificed for the sake of originality? I think much of the problem is just that: _originality at all costs_, with the implication that as long as the ugly and the meaningless are original they will be preferable.



> I think neo-everything music, like a more integrated polystylism where one can incorporate elements from everywhere and every time will take hold eventually and there will be a glorious new era of art music. It is the best of all possible worlds. So says Professor Pangloss.


Then we don't disagree entirely. 



Nereffid said:


> Or possibly, has there ever in the history of humanity been so many people so out of step that they're incapable of recognising serious and worthwhile art?


I think the only way to be capable of doing that would indeed to be "out of step". I'm quite sure that Woodduck, with whom you probably find yourself agreeing more than with me, would answer my question in the negative, or at the very least not in the positive. Just consider the literal trash posing as art these days and you'll know what I'm referring to.


----------



## DaveM

fluteman said:


> Amen to that, and to your entire post. When I first joined here, I was surprised and puzzled at the number of posts about Schoenberg and Cage, in part since so many of those posts were written by people who weren't very interested in the work of either, but mainly because there is so much more to 20th and now 21st century music. I finally began to figure out that many of these people are looking for support for their thesis that "most people" (whatever that means) do not enjoy contemporary music (whatever that means). They seem to think that some agreement on this forum somehow proves their point about what most people do or don't like, and in turn the fact that most people do or don't like something is conclusive proof of its merit or quality (again, whatever those terms mean).


Whatever that means. 



> And EdwardBast is as right on the money as anyone can be in summarizing a career in a few sentences when he writes about J.S. Bach. While Bach didn't labor in total obscurity, it's fair to say he wasn't the biggest star either, and his cantatas were quickly put away as soon as he died, and then virtually forgotten for a very long time. *So maybe, mmsbls and DaveM, it's fair to say that most people who were his contemporaries did not enjoy his music because he used a new musical vocabulary that was an impediment for them. So if you are saying something similar about music today, maybe we are in a golden age now similar to that of the 18th century. And maybe the 19th century was the dark "middle ages".*


Bach's music was reasonably popular during his composing lifetime. The period following Bach's death (1750) to the early 19th century during which interest in his music declined was not due to the need to learn new vocabularies (the language of Baroque was understood already), but rather due to the rise of 'galant music' in the mid 18th century (e.g. CPE Bach, Boccherini, Paisiello) such that Bach's music was considered 'retro'. Likewise, the 'rediscovery' of his music in the early 1800s to the degree that it was as the century progressed (afaik) is unprecedented in classical music history, but it didn't have to do with learning a new vocabulary.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Improbus said:


> But more importantly: where are the Bachs and the Beethovens? Are they too perhaps to be sacrificed for the sake of originality? I think much of the problem is just that: _originality at all costs_, with the implication that as long as the ugly and the meaningless are original they will be preferable.


Would you even be able to recognise them? What qualities/traits would they need to exhibit to pass your stringent test? Are your criteria even viable? You seem to think everything being produced currently is ugly and meaningless (or even original), but that's just a statement of taste, an utterance carried off by the next gust of wind and forgotten.



Improbus said:


> Just consider the literal trash posing as art these days and you'll know what I'm referring to.


Who and what? List them for me and I will consider them. Do you really have a firm handle on all the 'art' being produced and the artists doing it? Not just the same, few names, but all around the art world? I don't and I'm happy to admit it. It moves pretty fast and there are things going on all over the place. Sometimes I go down to the music library or the museum or the conservatory and listen to a free concert. Sometimes I like it, sometimes I don't. Sometimes I don't know much about it, other times it's more familiar.
When you talk about events in art that happened over a hundred years ago you're talking about the cream that eventually rose to the top (maybe some of it is there for other reasons too), but to think in the same way about current, ongoing art is a grave mistake. Everything: art, politics, current affairs..are all fully assessed further down the line.


----------



## Taggart

EdwardBast said:


> I think neo-everything music, like a more integrated polystylism where one can incorporate elements from everywhere and every time will take hold eventually and there will be a glorious new era of art music. It is the best of all possible worlds. So says Professor Pangloss.


OK but answer the OP - when, and how long before we get the first great genius of this new music?

By the way, I agree with you. We have moved away from an age where we knew what we are doing into an age where we are struggling to develop a new music - a middle age - before a new consensus takes hold.


----------



## fluteman

DaveM said:


> Whatever that means.
> 
> Bach's music was reasonably popular during his composing lifetime. The period following Bach's death (1750) to the early 19th century during which interest in his music declined was not due to the need to learn new vocabularies (the language of Baroque was understood already), but rather due to the rise of 'galant music' in the mid 18th century (e.g. CPE Bach, Boccherini, Paisiello) such that Bach's music was considered 'retro'. Likewise, the 'rediscovery' of his music in the early 1800s to the degree that it was as the century progressed (afaik) is unprecedented in classical music history, but it didn't have to do with learning a new vocabulary.


I can't and shouldn't speak for EdwardBast or anyone else, but my point was more modest: Bach was not as big a star or as financially successful in his lifetime as Telemann or Handel, though he was certainly respected. At least, that's what some scholars say. I wasn't there. My further comments on that topic were very much tongue-in-cheek.
However, as for my comments that the statement "Most people can't understand contemporary music" is meaningless, and its corollary, "That's why people no longer like classical music" equally meaningless, well, I stand by them.


----------



## Agamemnon

Improbus said:


> But more importantly: where are the Bachs and the Beethovens? Are they too perhaps to be sacrificed for the sake of originality? I think much of the problem is just that: _originality at all costs_, with the implication that as long as the ugly and the meaningless are original they will be preferable.


In economics there is this saying: standing still is going backwards. If you do not something new your work will be outdated. Actually, you don't have to be a revolutionary (avantgarde) but it is senseless to try to make music in the style of 17th or 18th or 19th century because those are not our century and so your work will never be more than a soulless imitation of the works from those earlier centuries. It will be kitsch. To be artistically relevant your work must have the style of the 21th century and that is most definitely not the style of Bach or Beethoven.


----------



## Botschaft

eugeneonagain said:


> Would you even be able to recognise them? What qualities/traits would they need to exhibit to pass your stringent test? Are your criteria even viable?


These are difficult questions for anyone let alone for someone like myself. I guess you could set up some arbitrary set of rules based on tradition, but I, like most people probably do, prefer to simply use my ears.



> You seem to think everything being produced currently is ugly and meaningless (or even original), but that's just a statement of taste, an utterance carried off by the next gust of wind and forgotten.


Not everything, but more than ever? Probably, and I do think much art of the past century has been deliberately ugly and meaningless (take Dadaism or Shock art, for instance).



> Who and what? List them for me and I will consider them. Do you really have a firm handle on all the 'art' being produced and the artists doing it? Not just the same, few names, but all around the art world? I don't and I'm happy to admit it. It moves pretty fast and there are things going on all over the place. Sometimes I go down to the music library or the museum or the conservatory and listen to a free concert. Sometimes I like it, sometimes I don't. Sometimes I don't know much about it, other times it's more familiar.


I presume you ask this to know where I draw the line rather than to know of what I speak, because I think you know full well; Woodduck himself gave one or two examples previously in this thread. Just the fact that anything would be counted as art speaks for itself.



> When you talk about events in art that happened over a hundred years ago you're talking about the cream that eventually rose to the top (maybe some of it is there for other reasons too), but to think in the same way about current, ongoing art is a grave mistake. Everything: art, politics, current affairs..are all fully assessed further down the line.


Then one could only hope that the more beautiful and proper art has been suppressed and will be made more widely known one day.


----------



## Nereffid

Improbus said:


> But more importantly: where are the Bachs and the Beethovens?...
> Just consider the literal trash posing as art these days and you'll know what I'm referring to.


Or alternatively, consider today's highly regarded composers, which if you're going to cite Bach and Beethoven seems only fair. If you think the likes of (say) Reich, Abrahamsen, Saariaho, Gubaidulina, Penderecki, Chin, Kurtág, Pärt, MacMillan, Adams and Glass (to take some names from the recent Six Living Composers thread) are producing _literal trash_ or even _metaphorical trash_ then I'm sorry, but that can only be regarded as your personal opinion and not anything that can be taken very seriously.


----------



## Botschaft

Agamemnon said:


> In economics there is this saying: standing still is going backwards. If you do not something new your work will be outdated. Actually, you don't have to be a revolutionary (avantgarde) but it is senseless to try to make music in the style of 17th or 18th or 19th century because those are not our century and so your work will never be more than a soulless imitation of the works from those earlier centuries. It will be kitsch. To be artistically relevant your work must have the style of the 21th century and that is most definitely not the style of Bach or Beethoven.


What I meant was something corresponding to those men, not just more of the same (even if that would've been not only impressive but more appealing, at least to most people including myself).


----------



## eugeneonagain

Improbus said:


> These are difficult questions for anyone let alone for someone like myself. I guess you could set up some arbitrary set of rules based on tradition, but I, like most people probably do, prefer to simply use my ears.


They are difficult, that's why I don't pretend to have the answer. The naysayers seem to condemn all new art in a manner suggesting that that they _do_ have the answers.



Improbus said:


> Not everything, but more than ever? Probably, and I do think much art of the past century has been deliberately ugly and meaningless (take Dadaism or Shock art, for instance).


Shock art? It's a droplet in an ocean of art. Art becoming more personal, more political, or more abstracted seems to be a blue touch paper for a certain type of person. Initially most people are bewildered by new art, but it's astonishing how much more quickly the general public warms to new ideas in comparison to the 'specialists'.



Improbus said:


> I presume you ask this to know where I draw the line rather than to know of what I speak, because I think you know full well; Woodduck himself gave one or two examples previously in this thread. Just the fact that anything would be counted as art speaks for itself.


Is 'anything' counted as art? Perhaps in the society we now inhabit, where the boundaries for so many things have been redrawn and widened, it is possible to submit a wider range of ideas. Previously you conformed to a narrow definition or you packed up and left the building. In the end not even wide public appraisal can be counted on as the 'true justification' of whether what you produce is 'art' rather than just more amenable to certain taste criteria.



Improbus said:


> Then one could only hope that the more beautiful and proper art has been suppressed and will be made more widely known one day.


That completes the circle then, you started from that premise. Whether something is beautiful or 'proper' in your consideration is a mere taste statement and one with an obvious conservatism about it.


----------



## Botschaft

Nereffid said:


> Or alternatively, consider today's highly regarded composers, which if you're going to cite Bach and Beethoven seems only fair. If you think the likes of (say) Reich, Abrahamsen, Saariaho, Gubaidulina, Penderecki, Chin, Kurtág, Pärt, MacMillan, Adams and Glass (to take some names from the recent Six Living Composers thread) are producing _literal trash_ or even _metaphorical trash_ then I'm sorry, but that can only be regarded as your personal opinion and not anything that can be taken very seriously.


I don't, and admittedly as I said I can't judge _everything_, only make a very conjectural evaluation.


----------



## DaveM

fluteman said:


> "Most people can't understand contemporary music" is meaningless, and its corollary, "That's why people no longer like classical music" equally meaningless, well, I stand by them.


'Meaningless' is just as much an overstatement as the fact that a difficulty in understanding contemporary music is _the_ reason why people no longer like classical music. There is evidence that a lot of contemporary music is less accessible to the common man/woman than traditional classical music. And I believe that contributes to the general decrease in popularity of the genre. But it's not the sole reason by any stretch.


----------



## Nereffid

DaveM said:


> 'Meaningless' is just as much an overstatement as the fact that a difficulty in understanding contemporary music is _the_ reason why people no longer like classical music. There is evidence that a lot of contemporary music is less accessible to the common man/woman than traditional classical music. And I believe that contributes to the general decrease in popularity of the genre. But it's not the sole reason by any stretch.


I'd say the main reason that contemporary music is "less accessible" is that the social and technological changes of the 19th and then 20th centuries gave the audience more say over what it could listen to, and many in the audience decided to do what audiences of the past were more-or-less unable to do: refuse to keep up with contemporary developments. _Some_ of those developments were off-putting in themselves by virtue of their difference, but _most_ were just the regular sort of musical evolution that had been going on for centuries.
So by and large, it's not that the music is "less accessible" per se, just that a chunk of the audience has turned down what is at this stage 100 years' worth of access.


----------



## DaveM

Nereffid said:


> I'd say the main reason that contemporary music is "less accessible" is that the social and technological changes of the 19th and then 20th centuries gave the audience more say over what it could listen to, and many in the audience decided to do what audiences of the past were more-or-less unable to do: refuse to keep up with contemporary developments. _Some_ of those developments were off-putting in themselves by virtue of their difference, but _most_ were just the regular sort of musical evolution that had been going on for centuries.
> So by and large, it's not that the music is "less accessible" per se, just that a chunk of the audience has turned down what is at this stage 100 years' worth of access.


So you think Schoenberg is just as accessible as Brahms?


----------



## eugeneonagain

DaveM said:


> So you think Schoenberg is just as accessible as Brahms?


I do. I ask though, among whom? I find Brahms meandering and I've lost interest when listening to some of his works. However I know that you mean: is he in a style that is sufficiently familiar to be quickly accessible? Probably yes, for people familiar with the repertoire of romantic/late romantic music.


----------



## Taggart

Nereffid said:


> I'd say the main reason that contemporary music is "less accessible" is that the social and technological changes of the 19th and then 20th centuries gave the audience more say over what it could listen to, and many in the audience decided to do what audiences of the past were more-or-less unable to do: refuse to keep up with contemporary developments. _Some_ of those developments were off-putting in themselves by virtue of their difference, but _most_ were just the regular sort of musical evolution that had been going on for centuries.
> So by and large, it's not that the music is "less accessible" per se, just that a chunk of the audience has turned down what is at this stage 100 years' worth of access.


I would agree that contemporary music is accessible. However, audiences have always been able to avoid contemporary developments.

Simple example, Carolan met Geminiani in Dublin. He was aware of contemporary developments but had to play the music his patrons wanted. Before the 20th century, if you did not have access to a concert hall, the only way to hear music was to play it. Many families would have access to a "kist of viols" but that would limit their repertoire.

In the mid 18th century, the Earl of Kelly was scolded for his interest in practising. This was felt unsuited to a gentleman. Yet he had seen what could be done at Mannheim with a disciplined orchestra. People were not prepared to put in the hours to play the music. Similarly, Avison in Newcastle had to prepare reductions of Scarlatti for those who wanted the sound but lacked the technique. By the mid 19th century, one popular way to access "new" music was the piano. Again the audience was in complete control.

As we moved into the 20th century we had the radio and the gramophone. Again people still had control of what they listened to only this time they didn't need to be able to play an instrument to access music. Obviously, we have a lot of new ideas coming in through film and TV scores but they do not impinge. People will hear music they like and explore it. There is an incredible amount of music available and so little time to listen to all of it.

I know how my tastes have been shaped. I can find more than enough "new" music to explore and play without going outside my comfort zone.

One comment that is made is that people don't whistle modern tunes. A more telling comment is that so few people whistle at all! Maybe we are becoming less musical because we listen rather than make music.


----------



## DaveM

Taggart said:


> One comment that is made is that people don't whistle modern tunes. A more telling comment is that so few people whistle at all! Maybe we are becoming less musical because we listen rather than make music.


IMO the more telling point is that people don't whistle or hum most modern tunes. Whistling and humming classical music was always a way for me to express my love for and happiness with the melodies. The lack of hummable melody in much contemporary music is one example of less accessibility by the common listener.

Btw, one of The funniest experiences I had in the long past was when I went into a public restroom in the mall whistling the opening of the Beethoven Violin Concerto and then from one of the stalls somebody continued where I left off.


----------



## eugeneonagain

DaveM said:


> IMO the more telling point is that people don't whistle or hum most modern tunes. Whistling and humming classical music was always a way for me to express my love for and happiness with the melodies. The lack of hummable melody in much contemporary music is one example of less accessibility by the common listener.


I didn't have the most sophisticated early childhood, but I don't remember most people whistling classical music melodies anyway. Our window cleaner whistled all sorts, but they were mostly old music hall songs or popular songs from the 30s and 40s. Maybe he whistled Eine Kleine Nachtmusik. Same sort of the thing for the milkman, but he was more of an 'improviser', a jazz whistler.
But I'll not be obtuse, there are indeed a few melodies from classical music that have filtered down into the humble whistling repertoire. I've heard 'I vow to thee my country' and I heard someone whistle the melody from the overture of the Nutcracker suite. Rossini's _Wilhelm Tell_ used to turn up quite a bit, as did Mendelssohn's "Spring Song", but I'd put that down to Looney Tunes cartoons more than anything. Never heard much Bruckner though, or Brahms (I mean none) or Haydn or Schumann or Liszt or... the latter list is far longer I think. Does anyone actually whistle Bruckner? Is he 'whistleable'?



DaveM said:


> Btw, one of The funniest experiences I had in the long past was when I went into a public restroom in the mall whistling the opening of the Beethoven Violin Concerto and then from one of the stalls somebody continued where I left off.


 That is funny. I was going to quip that you frequent a better class of public convenience than I do, but maybe I have just not whistled any tunes that could be completed by another person. I'm serious about that.


----------



## ST4

The whole "hummable melody" argument always makes me feel that the person talking is more of a pop music fan than a classical, afterall classical music is about the form and overarching expression than a minute little melodic ideas themselves.


----------



## Bulldog

DaveM said:


> Btw, one of The funniest experiences I had in the long past was when I went into a public restroom in the mall whistling the opening of the Beethoven Violin Concerto and then from one of the stalls somebody continued where I left off.


He might have been giving you a private signal.. Public restrooms can be dangerous.


----------



## ST4

Nereffid said:


> I'd say the main reason that contemporary music is "less accessible" is that the social and technological changes of the 19th and then 20th centuries gave the audience more say over what it could listen to, and many in the audience decided to do what audiences of the past were more-or-less unable to do: refuse to keep up with contemporary developments. _Some_ of those developments were off-putting in themselves by virtue of their difference, but _most_ were just the regular sort of musical evolution that had been going on for centuries.
> So by and large, it's not that the music is "less accessible" per se, just that a chunk of the audience has turned down what is at this stage 100 years' worth of access.


It's not "less accessible" than older classical, it's the culture itself and the general classical audience that are plainly into this music for different things that what music in the last 120 years has offered (though it still goes way further back). 
Classical is marketed as a nostalgic niche rather than the living, boundary-pushing monolith that it has always been (and personified by composers like Beethoven and Stockhausen)

The truth is, people like what they like and dislike what I like. When you have an entire millennium of music to promote and listen to, it's understandable that a chunk of the audience will lead to the music that offers the most pop sensibility (as reflective of the culture itself, which is still much like the 20s with catchy simple melodies). To me, this is neither right nor wrong but it doesn't need to be that way. Humans are inherently afraid of the unknown and unfamiliar (which is ironic to me, as contemporary is some of the most "human" music ever written IMO) but it's never a moral crisis. I am not angered that a large majority of the world appears to only listen to pop music, it's not my issue.


----------



## DaveM

ST4 said:


> The whole "hummable melody" argument always makes me feel that the person talking is more of a pop music fan than a classical, afterall classical music is about the form and overarching expression than a minute little melodic ideas themselves.


Much of traditional classical music has been about grand melodies at the core and they are perfectly hummable.


----------



## Botschaft

Nereffid said:


> I'd say the main reason that contemporary music is "less accessible" is that the social and technological changes of the 19th and then 20th centuries gave the audience more say over what it could listen to, and many in the audience decided to do what audiences of the past were more-or-less unable to do: refuse to keep up with contemporary developments. _Some_ of those developments were off-putting in themselves by virtue of their difference, but _most_ were just the regular sort of musical evolution that had been going on for centuries.
> So by and large, it's not that the music is "less accessible" per se, just that a chunk of the audience has turned down what is at this stage 100 years' worth of access.


Well, guess what: most people _do_ find contemporary less agreeable, but probably, as you've said, not because it's more inaccessible, but rather because it has less potential to please the human mind.



eugeneonagain said:


> I do. I ask though, among whom? I find Brahms meandering and I've lost interest when listening to some of his works. However I know that you mean: is he in a style that is sufficiently familiar to be quickly accessible? Probably yes, for people familiar with the repertoire of romantic/late romantic music.


The problem people tend to have with Brahms is that they expect him to sound like any other Romantic composer, while his development, although coherent, is typically more rapid and erratic than that of most, and that his muisc is often so emotionally heavy and complex as to easily confuse and overwhelm the senses of the listener. The best way to make up for these things is to simply listen to him over and over again till he sticks. I myself had to struggle a bit initially, but having heard this recording of his requiem, which appealed to me immediately, I was already convinced that he was one of the greatest composers of all time, which made it so much easier (this was allegedly also the work that got Woodduck into Brahms).



DaveM said:


> Btw, one of The funniest experiences I had in the long past was when I went into a public restroom in the mall whistling the opening of the Beethoven Violin Concerto and then from one of the stalls somebody continued where I left off.


One thing's for sure: this didn't take place in Sweden.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Improbus said:


> The best way to make up for these things is to simply listen to him over and over again till he sticks. I myself had to struggle a bit initially, but having heard this recording of his requiem, which appealed to me immediately, I was already convinced that he was one of the greatest composers of all time, which made it so much easier.


Have you tried this methodology on other music which is eluding your grasp or is it necessary that a pre-judgement has been made about whether the composer is considered any good?


----------



## ST4

Improbus said:


> Well, guess what: most people _do_ find contemporary less agreeable, but probably, as you've said, not because it's more inaccessible, but rather because it has less potential to please *MY* human mind.


Fixed . :tiphat:


----------



## ST4

DaveM said:


> Much of traditional classical music has been about grand melodies at the core and they are perfectly hummable.


But it's not. I argue that polyphony and form/development (and to a lesser extent, harmony) is at the core of what makes classical music what it is. Melody seems to have always been way more ridged and constricted in the classical tradition (generally speaking), diverting the focus to the way the melody is developed in a larger context. I fail to be able to give any examples of melodies in even the classical and romantic eras that are very good on their own.

Maybe, classical's thing (in the classical and romantic era's) was to make the most of the most dull and simplistic materials?


----------



## Bettina

ST4 said:


> But it's not. I argue that polyphony and form/development (and to a lesser extent, harmony) is at the core of what makes classical music what it is. Melody seems to have always been way more ridged and constricted in the classical tradition (generally speaking), diverting the focus to the way the melody is developed in a larger context. I fail to be able to give any examples of melodies in even the classical and romantic eras that are very good on their own.
> 
> Maybe, classical's thing (in the classical and romantic era's) was to make the most of the most dull and simplistic materials?


I agree. For example, many of Beethoven's motives are quite short and they might seem rather unpromising, yet he used them in enormously powerful ways. Who would ever think that da-da-da-DUM could serve as the basis for such a monumental edifice? His music (and much other classical music as well) proves the old adage that it's not the size of the motive, it's what you do with it!


----------



## Botschaft

eugeneonagain said:


> Have you tried this methodology on other music which is eluding your grasp or is it necessary that a pre-judgement has been made about whether the composer is considered any good?


If I sense potential, If _something_ in the music arouses sufficient interest, I will give it another go; if not, how am I to make out if there's anything at all for me to like? But if you give Brahms another chance I promise that I will do the same with a contemporary or modernist composer of your choosing.


----------



## Botschaft

ST4 said:


> Fixed . :tiphat:


Well, at least you admit that I'm human.


----------



## ST4

Bettina said:


> I agree. For example, many of Beethoven's motives are quite short and they might seem rather unpromising, yet he used them in enormously powerful ways. Who would ever think that da-da-da-DUM could serve as the basis for such a monumental edifice? His music (and much other classical music as well) proves the old adage that it's not the size of the motive, it's what you do with it!


I completely agree :tiphat:


----------



## eugeneonagain

Improbus said:


> If I sense potential, If _something_ in the music arouses sufficient interest, I will give it another go; if not, how am I to make out if there's anything at all for me to like? But if you give Brahms another chance I promise that I will do the same with a contemporary or modernist composer of your choosing.


I already have over many years. There are works of Brahms I like, some not so much. His ranking is of little interest to me, I won't allow it to sway my judgement.


----------



## Botschaft

eugeneonagain said:


> I already have over many years. There are works of Brahms I like, some not so much. His ranking is of little interest to me, I won't allow it to sway my judgement.


That's fine, but if you listen to the recording linked to (unless you have already) once, or, if necessary, twice, I will do just that with whatever work you choose. Let's be friends for once, if not in person or in opinion then at least in our shared love of music.

Please?


----------



## DaveM

ST4 said:


> I fail to be able to give any examples of melodies in even the classical and romantic eras that are very good on their own.


I'm speechless.


----------



## ST4

DaveM said:


> I'm speechless.


You're always speechless


----------



## Botschaft

DaveM said:


> I'm speechless.


They might be _good_ on their own but still _better_ in context; at least I hope this is what he meant.


----------



## DaveM

Bettina said:


> I agree. For example, many of Beethoven's motives are quite short and they might seem rather unpromising, yet he used them in enormously powerful ways. Who would ever think that da-da-da-DUM could serve as the basis for such a monumental edifice? His music (and much other classical music as well) proves the old adage that it's not the size of the motive, it's what you do with it!


But there is a lot of Beethoven's music that has more fleshed out melodies than the 5th Symphony. Still, ST4 eliminated the classical and romantic eras so that infers 'not very good' melodies in the Mozart operas and concertos, Schubert sonatas, Chopin Preludes and Nocturnes, Mendelssohn Songs Without Words, Berlioz works such as Romeo & Juliet, Brahms Concertos and on and on. It can't be taken seriously.


----------



## Botschaft

DaveM said:


> But there is a lot of Beethoven's music that has more fleshed out melodies than the 5th Symphony. Still, ST4 eliminated the classical and romantic eras so that infers 'not very good' melodies in the Mozart operas and concertos, Schubert sonatas, Chopin Preludes and Nocturnes, Mendelssohn Songs Without Words, Berlioz works such as Romeo & Juliet, Brahms Concertos and on and on. It can't be taken seriously.


Let's at least say that as long as there are any great melodies they can be found here.


----------



## Woodduck

ST4 said:


> You're always speechless


I'm speechless too, and no one around here would think that possible.


----------



## Woodduck

So I drop in here this afternoon only to discover, after fifty years of thinking I understand music, that Brahms is meandering and that it's hard to find Classical and Romantic melodies that are any good...

I think I'll be catching the next shuttle back to the planet I came from.


----------



## Becca

Woodduck said:


> So I drop in here this afternoon only to discover, after fifty years of thinking I understand music, that Brahms is meandering and that it's hard to find Classical and Romantic melodies that are any good...
> 
> I think I'll be catching the next shuttle back to the planet I came from.


You can't get there from here.


----------



## Woodduck

Becca said:


> You can't get there from here.


So how did I get here from there?


----------



## Woodduck

mmsbls said:


> Actually, I was not completely fair since people could believe both that they don't enjoy today's music as much and that today's music is inferior in various ways (causing them to not like it as much as earlier music).
> 
> *The problem is that (as EdwardBast said) "many of the great composers of the 20thc forged new and highly individual vocabularies, producing an unprecedented diversity of style and expression." Those highly individual vocabularies are, in general, more difficult to enjoy and understand causing fewer people to view those composers in high regard. People don't like them; therefore, they must not be as good.
> *
> Personally, I couldn't make a good argument for modern music being "as good" as older music because I don't understand music well enough. When I read or listen to those who do seem to know music well, they speak or write of modern composers in roughly the same light as they do earlier ones.


The problem with "highly individual vocabularies" (besides the fact that this is a metaphorical expression, music not being a true language) is that if they are "individual" enough they will tend to render valuation meaningless - and, in terms of public policy, problematic. Regardless of whether people understand what's being "said," or like what they hear, the idea that art can be totally "individual" and not comprehensible in terms of widely understood criteria of quality gives anyone license to pose as an "expert" and make claims of value which no one can test or challenge. This value vacuum gives license to anyone calling himself a composer to produce any sort of noise, possibly get it played at some contemporary music festival, and possibly, if he's well connected, clever, and aggressive, get funding for it in the name of "supporting the arts." Hence, in another area of art, the expensive piles of scrap metal on pedestals in front of public buildings, put there by people who have been assured by "experts" that this is the art "of our time" and that the letters of protest from indignant taxpayers may be safely ignored.

Not all "those who seem to know music well" will "speak or write of modern composers in roughly the same light as they do earlier ones." But they probably will if they want to keep their academic chairs.


----------



## Botschaft

Woodduck said:


> So I drop in here this afternoon only to discover, after fifty years of thinking I understand music, that Brahms is meandering and that it's hard to find Classical and Romantic melodies that are any good...
> 
> I think I'll be catching the next shuttle back to the planet I came from.


I would gladly accompany you.


----------



## Becca

Woodduck said:


> So how did I get here from there?


It must have been that bottle which said "Drink me". Now, if you will excuse me, I'm late...


----------



## Botschaft

Becca said:


> It must have been that bottle which said "Drink me". Now, if you will excuse me, I'm late...


Wherever you're going I'm coming with you.


----------



## Becca

Why is it that in reading this thread, I keep being reminded of the line... _"If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary-wise; what it is it wouldn't be, and what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?"_


----------



## Botschaft

Becca said:


> Why is it that in reading this thread, I keep being reminded of the line... _"If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary-wise; what it is it wouldn't be, and what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?"_


Surely this cannot be due to me? :lol:


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> Hence, in another area of art, the expensive piles of scrap metal on pedestals in front of public buildings, put there by people who have been assured by "experts" that this is the art "of our time" and that the letters of protest from indignant taxpayers may be safely ignored.


Here we encounter the difference between music and the static visual arts such as painting and sculpture. Music, because it exists in and is experienced through time (the Einsteinian 4th dimension) has always called for much closer scrutiny on the part of its auditors; much greater attention and commitment than the take-in-at-a-glance and move on static visual arts. It's therefore so much easier for the "patron and benefactor" class to hang something on a wall or put it upon a pedestal as an enduring public monument and then walk away, rubbing hands together, than to commission an enduring piece of music that may not survive its premier. There is a bit of sculpture down the road from my home that I have very accurately titled "Fecal Mass", because that is an exact description. No one pays any attention to it--having assessed it once or twice, the eye and mind cause it to disappear.


----------



## Botschaft

Strange Magic said:


> There is a bit of sculpture down the road from my home that I have very accurately titled "Fecal Mass", because that is an exact description. No one pays any attention to it--having assessed it once or twice, the eye and mind cause it to disappear.


Sounds like an allegory on much of contemporary music.


----------



## Strange Magic

Improbus said:


> Sounds like an allegory on much of contemporary music.


True, but then we return to the estimable Murphy, who accurately observed that 95% of everything is crap--contemporary or not.


----------



## Botschaft

Strange Magic said:


> True, but then we return to the estimable Murphy, who accurately observed that 95% of everything is crap--contemporary or not.


That sounds to me like a very conservative estimate in regard to contemporary music.


----------



## Woodduck

Improbus said:


> Wherever you're going I'm coming with you.


The last time someone said that to me I changed my phone number.


----------



## Botschaft

Woodduck said:


> The last time someone said that to me I changed my phone number.


But you're not a white rabbit, are you? I don't think they have phones (nor watches, admittedly).


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> Here we encounter the difference between music and the static visual arts such as painting and sculpture. Music, because it exists in and is experienced through time (the Einsteinian 4th dimension) has always called for much closer scrutiny on the part of its auditors; much greater attention and commitment than the take-in-at-a-glance and move on static visual arts. It's therefore so much easier for the "patron and benefactor" class to hang something on a wall or put it upon a pedestal as an enduring public monument and then walk away, rubbing hands together, than to commission an enduring piece of music that may not survive its premier. There is a bit of sculpture down the road from my home that I have very accurately titled "Fecal Mass", because that is an exact description. No one pays any attention to it--having assessed it once or twice, the eye and mind cause it to disappear.


Of course a new musical work wouldn't be subject to the same public scrutiny or public blowback as a sculpture in the courtyard of city hall, which might tend to make it _easier_ to commission.


----------



## Woodduck

Improbus said:


> But you're not a white rabbit, are you? I don't think they have phones (nor watches, admittedly).


Well, I have a phone and a watch. The rest is a secret.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> Of course a new musical work wouldn't be subject to the same public scrutiny or public blowback as a sculpture in the courtyard of city hall, which might tend to make it _easier_ to commission.


True, but such new musical works are most likely to suffer near-instant death and permanent and unending oblivion. Three days later, all will be forgotten.


----------



## Botschaft

Woodduck said:


> Of course a new musical work wouldn't be subject to the same public scrutiny or public blowback as a sculpture in the courtyard of city hall, which might tend to make it _easier_ to commission.


I don't think there's much of any real scrutiny when it comes to modern art except from the uninitiated.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> True, but such new musical works are most likely to suffer near-instant death and permanent and unending oblivion. Three days later, all will be forgotten.


Yes... Sadly, bronze fecal masses are not biodegradable.


----------



## Frei aber froh

Good question, Johan! Thanks for bringing up the inevitable and intriguing...

Have you read _The Hunchback of Notre Dame_? One of Hugo's major themes is the pain of change and the sorrow of those left behind by the passage of time. If you have read Notre-Dame, then you already know the chapters I'm talking about. If not/for forum use, here's a link to an English translation of the passage. " Thus, till Gutenberg's time, architecture is the chief, the universal form of writing; in this stone book, begun by the East, continued by Ancient Greece and Rome, the Middle Ages have written the last page. ...The eighteenth century presents the Encyclopedia, the Revolution the Moniteur."

Technological progress begets cultural change.

Walter Benjamin wrote a Marxist analysis of artistic change. I think that the "loss of aura" of which Benjamin speaks is why music conservatories are thriving, graduating more musicians than orchestras need to fill their ranks: We experience the aura of art today not so much by listening to art music but by playing the music ourselves. As to why the middle class chooses to play the music (i.e. to pay for piano lessons for their kids) as opposed to attending concerts, it is easier to drop off the kids at the teacher's house and get back to one's work for the same amount of money or more than it would cost to regularly buy concert tickets, drive into the city from the suburbs, and plus the parent gets the benefit of feeling that their children are educated and are learning skills such as attention regulation and delay of gratification.

It's sad, but fortunately we do have recordings of this old music, and we still tend to the instruments on which it was played. Most of all nowadays, we have a global instant information sharing system by which we can access as many days of audio and pages of sheet music as we could possibly want for a few short decades of life. I am a conservatory student myself right now, and I had this conversation with my mother, a high school choir director, recently. She told me, "Perhaps the illuminated screen will be the art form for which future centuries remember the 21st."


----------



## Nereffid

Nereffid said:


> I'd say the main reason that contemporary music is "less accessible" is that the social and technological changes of the 19th and then 20th centuries gave the audience more say over what it could listen to, and many in the audience decided to do what audiences of the past were more-or-less unable to do: refuse to keep up with contemporary developments. _Some_ of those developments were off-putting in themselves by virtue of their difference, but _most_ were just the regular sort of musical evolution that had been going on for centuries.
> So by and large, it's not that the music is "less accessible" per se, just that a chunk of the audience has turned down what is at this stage 100 years' worth of access.





DaveM said:


> So you think Schoenberg is just as accessible as Brahms?



If I say "by and large", why do you immediately go to a specific example?

Obviously there are differing degrees of complexity in music, and I'd lump Schoenberg in with the developments notable for their "difference" rather than an example of "the regular sort of musical evolution that had been going on for centuries". But still, I note that Schoenberg's music is 100 years old by now. My larger point was that if the audience hadn't been deliberately avoiding Schoenberg's music for so long, then it certainly would have been far more "accessible" by now.

Certainly there wouldn't be people saying that _Poulenc_ was difficult modern music, as happened on TC a few months back.


----------



## Botschaft

Frei aber froh said:


> Technological progress begets cultural change.


Technological progress _enables_ cultural change (or constitutes it, if we consider technology to be culture, which is reasonable), but how is this relevant to the matter in hand? Are you trying to say that it is technology that has driven the development of music the last century?



> It's sad, but fortunately we do have recordings of this old music, and we still tend to the instruments on which it was played.


Apart from the well-known fact that sound recording is a relatively recent invention, and that period instruments are rarely if ever used in perfomances even of many famous works.



> I am a conservatory student myself right now, and I had this conversation with my mother, a high school choir director, recently. She told me, "Perhaps the illuminated screen will be the art form for which future centuries remember the 21st."


That is a piece of technology, not an art form.



Nereffid said:


> Obviously there are differing degrees of complexity in music, and I'd lump Schoenberg in with the developments notable for their "difference" rather than an example of "the regular sort of musical evolution that had been going on for centuries".


I think you should do the same with all modernist and contemporary music.


----------



## fluteman

DaveM said:


> 'Meaningless' is just as much an overstatement as the fact that a difficulty in understanding contemporary music is _the_ reason why people no longer like classical music. There is evidence that a lot of contemporary music is less accessible to the common man/woman than traditional classical music. And I believe that contributes to the general decrease in popularity of the genre. But it's not the sole reason by any stretch.


I just received a notice that Pete Townshend's "classic" opera Quadrophenia, which features a symphony orchestra, will be performed at the Metropolitan Opera in New York (classic is the Met's description, not mine.) In case you don't know, Townshend was lead guitarist for the British rock group The Who, and is one of the most famous rock 'n' roll guitarists of all time. Is that less accessible to the common man/woman than traditional classical music? 
I'm sorry, you can keep some arbitrary rigid, narrow definition of contemporary music for your personal use, but I'd rather you not try to impose it on anyone else. Nor do you speak for the "common" man or woman, however you define that term (everyone except highfalutin' snobs who like contemporary music?)


----------



## Botschaft

fluteman said:


> I just received a notice that Pete Townshend's "classic" opera Quadrophenia, which features a symphony orchestra, will be performed at the Metropolitan Opera in New York (classic is the Met's description, not mine.) In case you don't know, Townshend was lead guitarist for the British rock group The Who, and is one of the most famous rock 'n' roll guitarists of all time. Is that less accessible to the common man/woman than traditional classical music?
> I'm sorry, you can keep some arbitrary rigid, narrow definition of contemporary music for your personal use, but I'd rather you not try to impose it on anyone else. Nor do you speak for the "common" man or woman, however you define that term (everyone except highfalutin' snobs who like contemporary music?)


What does Rock have to do with any of this? And do you really think that most people like contemporary music?


----------



## DaveM

Nereffid said:


> If I say "by and large", why do you immediately go to a specific example?


You were largely dismissing the accessibility premise. Schoenberg represented, rather than a specific example, the significant amount of twelve-tone-based music that followed.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Improbus said:


> What does Rock have to do with any of this? And do you really think that most people like contemporary music?


Did you read fluteman's post properly? It is not specifically about rock, it's that a famous rock musician wrote an 'opera' that uses a classical orchestra and arguably a great deal of ideas, form and structure from the classical repertoire.


----------



## DaveM

fluteman said:


> I just received a notice that Pete Townshend's "classic" opera Quadrophenia, which features a symphony orchestra, will be performed at the Metropolitan Opera in New York (classic is the Met's description, not mine.) In case you don't know, Townshend was lead guitarist for the British rock group The Who, and is one of the most famous rock 'n' roll guitarists of all time. Is that less accessible to the common man/woman than traditional classical music?


Well, that's a rather strange segue. Has the subject now become the accessibility of rock music vs traditional classical music? Fwiw, Quadrophenia was an apparent attempt to repeat the resounding success of Tommy that was often on the record player at parties I attended when fairly young. It never quite succeeded in displacing Tommy. But I'll say this: Quadrophenia has significant more accessible melody than a lot of contemporary music.



> I'm sorry, you can keep some arbitrary rigid, narrow definition of contemporary music for your personal use, but I'd rather you not try to impose it on anyone else. Nor do you speak for the "common" man or woman, however you define that term (everyone except highfalutin' snobs who like contemporary music?)


Imposing? I didn't know I had that sort of power. And here I thought that it is assumed that whatever one says on a forum is just an opinion or do we have to precede every sentence with IMO. That also goes for any comments about the common man/woman.


----------



## eugeneonagain

DaveM said:


> And here I thought that it is assumed that whatever one says on a forum is just an opinion or do we have to precede every sentence with IMO. That also goes for any comments about the common man/woman.


I'd say it is the assumption,yet the way in which people state things like: contemporary music is no good; not artistic and no-one listens to it, you'd be forgiven for thinking they were somehow quoting facts.


----------



## Botschaft

eugeneonagain said:


> Did you read fluteman's post properly? It is not specifically about rock, it's that a famous rock musician wrote an 'opera' that uses a classical orchestra and arguably a great deal of ideas, form and structure from the classical repertoire.


From what I understand it's basically a Rock musical featuring an orchestra, and while it might incorporate some classical elements (I have not heard it nor will I) it hardly seems like it's contemporary music by any stretch.


----------



## DaveM

eugeneonagain said:


> Did you read fluteman's post properly? It is not specifically about rock, it's that a famous rock musician wrote an 'opera' that uses a classical orchestra and arguably a great deal of ideas, form and structure from the classical repertoire.


Quadrophenia is called a rock opera. Notice that word 'rock'? Some of the albums of The Moody Blues (e.g. Days of Future Past) and the Electric Light Orchestra had elements of classical orchestration. And both groups have had their music performed by classical orchestras since. But they are rock groups and their music is classified as rock music. And fwiw, I never found their LPs in the classical music section. Introducing the fact that Quadrophenia is being performed by an orchestra as relevant to the contemporary classical music accessibility question is a major stretch.


----------



## fluteman

eugeneonagain said:


> Did you read fluteman's post properly? It is not specifically about rock, it's that a famous rock musician wrote an 'opera' that uses a classical orchestra and arguably a great deal of ideas, form and structure from the classical repertoire.


I think the uncomprehending responses of Improbus and DaveM to my post pretty much make my point. I suppose I should add one last thing: I am not making any broad presumptuous proclamations on what contemporary art is or isn't successful, or is or isn't accessible. Our society will sort that out, as some other posters here, including StrageMagic, have pointed out.


----------



## eugeneonagain

DaveM said:


> Quadrophenia is called a rock opera. Notice that word 'rock'? Some of the albums of The Moody Blues (e.g. Days of Future Past) and the Electric Light Orchestra had elements of classical orchestration. And both groups have had their music performed by classical orchestras since. But they are rock groups and their music is classified as rock music. And fwiw, I never found their LPs in the classical music section. Introducing the fact that Quadrophenia is being performed by an orchestra as relevant to the contemporary classical music accessibility question is a major stretch.


Yep, I knew it already. I did notice the word 'rock'. Did you notice the word 'opera'? Remember though I was talking about _Tommy_, not Quadrophenia, you introduced that.

ELO were always a hybrid group and their string players were always classical players - and obviously the full orchestras they used. I can speak about them because I actually saw ELO live and they played many pieces that weren't on the albums including entire string pieces with no drums or guitar (some organ work). The reason their albums were never in the classical section is because the people wanting to buy them would obviously have been looking elsewhere and rock albums sell more. I don't see the significance of the observation.


----------



## JeffD

All these different ages and epoch are assigned after the fact, sometimes long after the fact. In the moment things are confusing and nobody knows what is going to happen. Nobody knows how the culture, including music, is going to go. 

Its always been that way. Some folks predicting doom, the greatest innovations of the age go unappreciated till the next age, perceptive people get it wrong, and creative people keep pushing the envelopes presented to them, not knowing which "violations" of the norm are going to be the new norm.

So in that sense I think we are exactly like we always were, and I will let you know in 75 years if we are now entering a new middle ages.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

eugeneonagain said:


> Yep, I knew it already. I did notice the word 'rock'. Did you notice the word 'opera'? Remember though I was talking about _Tommy_, not Quadrophenia, you introduced that.
> 
> ELO were always a hybrid group and their string players were always classical players - and obviously the full orchestras they used. I can speak about them because I actually saw ELO live and they played many pieces that weren't on the albums including entire string pieces with no drums or guitar (some organ work). The reason their albums were never in the classical section is because the people wanting to buy them would obviously have been looking elsewhere and rock albums sell more. I don't see the significance of the observation.


But can you point out any legitimate music authority that called ELO music as being part of the Classical music genre?


----------



## eugeneonagain

Johnnie Burgess said:


> But can you point out any legitimate music authority that called ELO music as being part of the Classical music genre?


No. Who are the legitimate music authorities? Why should I care what they think? About 99% of the music critics referred to ELO as a failed attempt at maintaining the Beatles' style after the latter had split. They were a rock/pop band who incorporated symphonic/classical features and arrangements.

Remind me though, did I suggest that they were in the classical genre?


----------



## Nereffid

Oh, wait, I just remembered this...

Here's Pope John XXII venting in 1323:
"Certain disciples of the new school, much occupying themselves with the measured dividing of beats, display their rhythm in notes new to us, preferring to devise new methods of their own rather than to continue singing in the old way. Therefore the music of the Divine Office is disturbed with these notes of quick duration. Moreover, they hinder the melody with hockets, they deprave it with discants, and sometimes they pad out the music with upper parts made out of secular songs. The result is that they often seem to be losing sight of the fundamental sources of our melodies in the Antiphoner and Gradual, and forget what it is that they are burying under such superstructures. They may become entirely ignorant of the ecclesiastical modes, which they have already ceased to distinguish, and the limits of which they abuse in the prolixity of their notes. The modest rise and temperate descents of plainsong are entirely obscured. The voices incessantly rock to and fro, intoxicating rather than soothing the ear, while the singers themselves try to convey the emotion of the music by their gestures. The consequence of all this is that devotion, the true aim of worship, is neglected, and wantonness, which ought not be eschewed, increases. We hasten to forbid these methods, or rather to drive them more effectively out of the house of God than has been done in the past. "

So I guess some people didn't like modern music in the Middle Ages either.


----------



## Bulldog

Although I'm not thrilled with the directions that classical music has taken in the past 50 years, I consider that my personal situation and not a reflection of any degrading properties.


----------



## DaveM

eugeneonagain said:


> Yep, I knew it already. I did notice the word 'rock'. Did you notice the word 'opera'? Remember though I was talking about _Tommy_, not Quadrophenia, you introduced that.


Go back and look at your post (which didn't mention Tommy at all) that I was responding to. It was about fluteman's post which was about Quadrophenia.



> ELO were always a hybrid group and their string players were always classical players - and obviously the full orchestras they used. I can speak about them because I actually saw ELO live and they played many pieces that weren't on the albums including entire string pieces with no drums or guitar (some organ work). The reason their albums were never in the classical section is because the people wanting to buy them would obviously have been looking elsewhere and rock albums sell more. I don't see the significance of the observation.


You can try to wordsmith your way around it all you want, but ELO was in the rock section because it is rock. Jeff Lynne had his rock origins in the group The Move with the rock singer-songwriter Roy Wood. Their most successful USA song was one of my favorites, Do Ya, which was hard core rock with a driving guitar opening. In ELO, Jeff Lynne wanted to inject classical elements into rock music not rock music into classical music. (Actually, the concept was originally Roy Wood's idea.)


----------



## DaveM

eugeneonagain said:


> I'd say it is the assumption,yet the way in which people state things like: contemporary music is no good; not artistic and no-one listens to it, you'd be forgiven for thinking they were somehow quoting facts.


Perhaps if you're confusing a forum for a university lecture hall (ignoring the hyperbole of the opening sentence).


----------



## fluteman

DaveM said:


> Go back and look at your post (which didn't mention Tommy at all) that I was responding to. It was about fluteman's post which was about Quadrophenia.
> 
> You can try to wordsmith your way around it all you want, but ELO was in the rock section because it is rock. Jeff Lynne had his rock origins in the group The Move with the rock singer-songwriter Roy Wood. Their most successful USA song was one of my favorites, Do Ya, which was hard core rock with a driving guitar opening. In ELO, Jeff Lynne wanted to inject classical elements into rock music not rock music into classical music. (Actually, the concept was originally Roy Wood's idea.)


Wow, you sure are passionate about putting music into its proper narrow little cubbyhole. That may be the way record and CD stores, and now streaming and download services, run their businesses for economic and convenience reasons, but art doesn't really work that way, and never has.


----------



## eugeneonagain

DaveM said:


> Go back and look at your post (which didn't mention Tommy at all) that I was responding to. It was about fluteman's post which was about Quadrophenia.


You're right. I was certain it was about Tommy. I was wrong. Apologies squire.



DaveM said:


> You can try to wordsmith your way around it all you want, but ELO was in the rock section because it is rock. Jeff Lynne had his rock origins in the group The Move with the rock singer-songwriter Roy Wood. Their most successful USA song was one of my favorites, Do Ya, which was hard core rock with a driving guitar opening. In ELO, Jeff Lynne wanted to inject classical elements into rock music not rock music into classical music. (Actually, the concept was originally Roy Wood's idea.)


I'm not trying to 'wordsmith' my way around anything. I know why they were in the rock section and I know they were a symphonic rock band, I am very familiar with ELO. At least we both seem to like ELO, that's something.


----------



## eugeneonagain

DaveM said:


> Perhaps if you're confusing a forum for a university lecture hall (ignoring the hyperbole of the opening sentence).


Is it me confusing opinion for fact? Where was the hyperbole?


----------



## DaveM

fluteman said:


> Wow, you sure are passionate about putting music into its proper narrow little cubbyhole. That may be the way record and CD stores, and now streaming and download services, run their businesses for economic reasons, but art doesn't really work that way, and never has.


There something nice about cubbies. You always know where your stuff is. Categories have value - it's nice to know what the hell were talking about. That doesn't mean that one doesn't understand that there is overlap and blending in the arts.


----------



## DaveM

eugeneonagain said:


> Is it me confusing opinion for fact? Where was the hyperbole?


Where indeed....


----------



## DaveM

eugeneonagain said:


> At least we both seem to like ELO, that's something.


True.  One of my favorite ELO ballads:


----------



## fluteman

DaveM said:


> There something nice about cubbies. You always know where your stuff is. Categories have value - it's nice to know what the hell were talking about. That doesn't mean that one doesn't understand that there is overlap and blending in the arts.


Fine, just so you know that though these categories may be convenient for you, they don't mean much in terms of establishing cultural significance or merit, can be quite arbitrary, and the verdict of history may put things in very different categories. The novels of Charles Dickens, hailed as serious literary classics today, were originally published in serial form in popular magazines. 
You certainly can't focus on a revolutionary like Arnold Schoenberg or an anarchist/provocateur like John Cage and conclude that contemporary music isn't accessible to common people. Those kinds of artists have important roles and will always be around, but the whole picture is vastly larger than that.


----------



## DaveM

fluteman said:


> Fine, just so you know that though these categories may be convenient for you, they don't mean much in terms of establishing cultural significance or merit, can be quite arbitrary, and the verdict of history may put things in very different categories.


The use of these categories seems to be very common and convenient on this and similar forums so I don't appear to be the outlier.


----------



## fluteman

DaveM said:


> The use of these categories seems to be very common and convenient on this and similar forums so I don't appear to be the outlier.


Yes, indeed, these music categories are used a lot, including the category "contemporary music", or as it's sometimes called, "adult contemporary music". But the term usually means something very different than what you seem to mean. So I don't think "most people", or "the common man/woman", whoever they may be, find contemporary music inaccessible, as you suggest. Rather, I think they would find your views about contemporary music confusing, if not inaccessible. 
And I think I'm very safe in saying that most people, or the common man/woman, are not engaging in these internet debates.


----------



## hpowders

Lisztian said:


> We can't possibly know what the world would have been like with religion as an influence, and I feel as if any comments regarding Bach's stature without this influence are purely idle, unhelpful speculation. As eugene mentioned, most composers of the time were believers and the large majority didn't come close to having his stature as a composer. Of course, you guys against this position will probably feel as if the world would have been a far worse place, less conducive to creativity (if it existed at all), and that's fine. I lean towards disagreeing but, again, _idle speculation_. Not here to debate that. But can we please refrain from expressing these speculative ideas in such a objective manner...


Yes. Bach was a man of his times, deeply devout. His music, not only the intentionally religious, but also his secular music, was influenced by his love of God.

Simply listen to the Sarabandes of the Keyboard Partitas. For me, listening to them is as close to a religious, meditative experience as I could ever achieve by going to church.

I have no way of actually knowing of course, but I highly suspect that if Bach was brought up in a secular society, he would not have been listed among "the three B's"


----------



## Botschaft

hpowders said:


> I have no way of actually knowing of course, but I highly suspect that if Bach was brought up in a secular society, he would not have been listed among "the three B's"


But what about the other two? They weren't particularly religious; the third may not have been religious at all, despite all those religious texts. Was Bach perhaps more in need of faith than these? Then I do think the seriousness and purity of his music may owe something to the fact that he wrote it to the glory of God.


----------

