# Which is more important for the evolution of music?



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

Sometimes listening to lots of crazy experimental music gets me disillusioned by how sterile the music is of any emotion. Of course it's interesting and through interest comes enjoyment. However, revolutionary music of the past (Beethoven, Berlioz, Stravinsky) always gave intellectual interest amidst a backdrop of highly evocative and emotional music.

This led me to the conclusion that we may be trying too hard to push music to its limits in terms of complexity and dissonance. The main trend of revolutionary composers seems to me now to be the rejection of musical norms of the time in which they live.

I present my puzzlement over to you to get your opinions on the matter. If what I think is true, then surely the next Beethoven would reject the crazy experimentalism that is the norm today for perhaps a much less radical approach of composition.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Actually I might have voted:

3. Both.

I think that is what's happening anyway. But I tend to agree that radical pushing of boundaries for the sake of pushing them is meaningless in and of itself. No novel, short story, or poem is going to be appreciated by anyone but the author if its language looks like, "Hsa0 ds m3**so fenws j33 ds fu33," although I am thinking of writing such in an attempt to win a prestigious award in literature.

I'd prefer to stick with a musical language most people know and _feel_, with a few surprises thrown in here and there that don't necessarily sound like a cat being run over by a lawn mower. (I am willing to give the latter a listen however.)


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Edward Elgar said:


> I present my puzzlement over to you to get your opinions on the matter. If what I think is true, then surely the next Beethoven would reject the crazy experimentalism that is the norm today for perhaps a much less radical approach of composition.


Before we get too far ahead, music from the Baroque and Classical (say, up to much of Beethoven) flourished because the composers were not revoluntionary experimentalists in the sense that modern composers are, far from it. For the most part, they were dutifully doing their job, which was required by their employment/commission, and they wrote music for that very pragmatic purpose. Music evolved nonetheless, very effectively, through the Baroque, the Classical and into the Romantic with such pragmatic purposes in mind.

And this is what bothers me with all this modern experimental stuff - writing stuff for the sake of experimenting, not as progress that would necessarily be as a result of writing entertainment/glorification/employment music. One day, 300 years from now, people will probably say 20th century composers wrote a lot of experimental crap that have no relevance to them, whereas a Bach piece or a Beethoven piece still stand, and by a long mile, showed progress in music that came about not for the sake of "experimentalism".


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I agree with Weston, I might have voted both!

There are so many connections within music, and that's not including visual art & literature. Some of the best works of the C20th don't necessarily break new ground per se, but just reinvent the wheel in an imaginative, dare I say innovative, way. Liszt was experimenting with atonality in his late piano works, the _Years of Pilgrimage_, but he probably didn't know it. Then you get composers like Charles Ives who were composing music that had absolutely nothing to do with looking back on past traditions & developing them. The influences came from around them, in their daily lives & communities. A great quote by Elgar was that he believed music was everywhere around him in the air, he just had to snatch it, pluck it out. Works from the mid-C20th like Carter's _String Quartet No. 1_ or Barber's _Piano Sonata_ both look backwards & forwards, backwards to the great traditions in those genres, to the innovations wrought by people like Schoenberg, and forwards to the complexity of modern life in our own time. Same with Beethoven, in many of his works he broke new ground (& wasn't understood like with the late string quartets & piano sonatas), but at the same time he respected the past. You have more iconoclastic figures like Varese, Cage & Stockhausen, but even they came out of some kind of tradition, whether it be local or global. The thing that I keep learning about classical music, is that there are many complex connections and synergies that exist between music produced in different times, places and contexts...


----------



## Boccherini (Mar 29, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> And this is what bothers me with all this modern experimental stuff - writing stuff for the sake of experimenting, not as progress that would necessarily be as a result of writing entertainment/glorification/employment music. One day, 300 years from now, people will probably say 20th century composers wrote a lot of experimental crap that have no relevance to them, whereas a Bach piece or a Beethoven piece still stand, and by a long mile, showed progress in music that came about not for the sake of "experimentalism".


I so agree with you. 
Making sounds by experiments, following a few rules, no matter how complex (and ridiculous) it sounds, I wouldn't call it music.
I do wonder though, what people in 300 years from now, would think about Stockhausen's _Helicopter String Quartet_. I must admit it's a great experiment (especially the vocalization part) but far from being called Music.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Joker64 said:


> I so agree with you.
> Making sounds by experiments, following a few rules, no matter how complex (and ridiculous) it sounds, I wouldn't call it music.
> I do wonder though, what people in 300 years from now, would think about Stockhausen's _Helicopter String Quartet_. I must admit it's a great experiment (especially the vocalization part) but far from being called Music.


Yep. I call it _structured sounds_, but music it ain't.


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

I didn't post a "both" category because that's just a cop out. The two concepts cannot be exactly equal in importance. They may be close but not exact.

It's interesting that HarpsichordConcerto thinks music will evolve without contemplation of evolution, but from obedience to the will of employers. I think Bach, Mozart and Haydn were all revolutionary in the way they implemented and subverted the musical traditions of their time. (Haydn tells us to play his music backwards!)

Is servitude good for music I wonder?

Andre, you talk about looking both forward and backwards, but when music becomes so radical it's influence is unrecognisable, how shall we distinguish greatness? If everything can be considered music (thanks in part to Cage), how do we judge its worth?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Edward Elgar said:


> It's interesting that HarpsichordConcerto thinks music will evolve without contemplation of evolution, but from obedience to the will of employers. I think Bach, Mozart and Haydn were all revolutionary in the way they implemented and subverted the musical traditions of their time. (Haydn tells us to play his music backwards!)
> 
> Is servitude good for music I wonder?


I'm not necessarily suggesting that servitude in general is good/progressive for music, but rather, making a historic observation that the most talented Baroque and Classical composers had largely servitude type jobs; jobs that one way or another, with a bit of creative genius of course, progressed music without explicitly experimenting like we see today. All composers as part of their creativity would experiment of course, but when Haydn decided a slow introduction was "right" for his later symphonies, that did not come about from the sake of experimenting per se, but first and foremost, from composing music that was his servitude as an employee of the Esterhazy court (for 3 decades).

Stockhausen's _Helicopter String Quartet_ does not have any servitude qualities (I think), not that it really matters, _nor any other criteria_, other than to experiment/structure some sounds within musical rules, and call the whole damn thing "music". Yeah, like I read in youtube under this piece, it's like calling murder, art. That's when one starts to blur the distinction between art that is uplifting and those that are not.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

There isn't a standard compositional technique used today though? There can be experimental music and also more traditional types as well perhaps. The very variety of styles and techniques open to composers perhaps can dilute the concentration on and development of styles.

As far as servitude (perhaps it would be better to say employment) it has been helpful in encouraging people into composing classical music in the past. It was a way in which they could earn money and be seen even as improving their status in a society. They were part of a group as well which was large enough and concentrated enough in the style chosen to explore in depth the possibilities of a style.



Andre said:


> The thing that I keep learning about classical music, is that there are many complex connections and synergies that exist between music produced in different times, places and contexts...


And yet some people want to desperately deny that, like it is some attack on their idea of identity (including their own).


----------



## SatiesFaction (Apr 12, 2010)

Edward Elgar said:


> Sometimes listening to lots of crazy experimental music gets me disillusioned by how sterile the music is of any emotion. Of course it's interesting and through interest comes enjoyment.


But why are you moved by Beethoven and the like? Would it be the same if you had only heard crazy experimental music and nothing else at all till you were 20 years old? That music would have been the backdrop to many a fond memory, and tonal music would perhaps mean nothing to you at all...


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

starry said:


> There isn't a standard compositional technique used today though? There can be experimental music and also more traditional types as well perhaps. The very variety of styles and techniques open to composers perhaps can dilute the concentration on and development of styles.


There is no standard compositional technique used today. The period we are in I would describe as the pluralist period. The main problem I have with pluralism is the inability to differentiate good from bad. If anything can be music, where does music end and sound begin (or visa versa)? The boundary lies in a different place for everyone I think. My boundary won't go past Cage 4:33.



starry said:


> As far as servitude (perhaps it would be better to say employment) it has been helpful in encouraging people into composing classical music in the past. It was a way in which they could earn money and be seen even as improving their status in a society. They were part of a group as well which was large enough and concentrated enough in the style chosen to explore in depth the possibilities of a style.


Sonata form was _the_ form of the classical period. With it, composers could churn out lots of music by using the "sonata form template". Composition may be harder today as composers must find their own forms. However it may also be easier because of the lack of discipline and craft. Can effort and knowledge equate to good art? And then there's the issue of money. I think the poorer a society, the more accessible the music is, and the richer the society, the more art orientated the music is. that's where we get this boundary pushing that imo can only go so far. We will have to, at some point, bring music back from the brink of sound.


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

SatiesFaction said:


> But why are you moved by Beethoven and the like? Would it be the same if you had only heard crazy experimental music and nothing else at all till you were 20 years old? That music would have been the backdrop to many a fond memory, and tonal music would perhaps mean nothing to you at all...


I used to hold that opinion, and still do to an extent. Music is all about metaphor. Music you listened to as a child could remain pleasurable, be that Beethoven or Xenakis simply because it sparks fond childhood memories.

I'm not talking about tonality as much as I'm talking about complexity and dissonance. Music is seemingly going in a very forward direction. The best music I think is that which is not too simple and not too complex and explores many aspects about music such as melody, harmony, texture, timbre. Beethoven does that and Xenakis does that to a degree.

I just think Beethoven was better!


----------



## SatiesFaction (Apr 12, 2010)

What puzzles me most is how we can still produce new music, while all the notes have been used up a long time ago 

Are musical possibilities infinite? Or when we hear new music, are our brains unable to recognise that something similar has already been done?


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

SatiesFaction said:


> What puzzles me most is how we can still produce new music, while all the notes have been used up a long time ago
> 
> Are musical possibilities infinite? Or when we hear new music, are our brains unable to recognise that something similar has already been done?


Is that first question by any chance a joke?  Even if it is, I'll answer it anyway.

What about the notes in between the notes and then the notes in between the notes between the notes. Notes are just fixed values of sonic frequencies. The twelve tone system is just by far the most popular in the West. It isn't superior or even more 'natural' than any other tuning system as the overtone series is more complex than any system that tries to encapsulate it.

Musical possibilities must be infinite when you take into account the myriad of factors. I'd go as far as to say that even music composed for a fixed tone instrument, say for example a snare drum, has an infinite amount of musical possibilites.



> We will have to, at some point, bring music back from the brink of sound.


Maybe, or maybe free sound from the rule of music.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

SatiesFaction said:


> What puzzles me most is how we can still produce new music, while all the notes have been used up a long time ago
> 
> Are musical possibilities infinite? Or when we hear new music, are our brains unable to recognise that something similar has already been done?


Because I don't think it is just about someone thinking up a new pattern of notes. I think there are even dictionaries that have melodic patterns in. It's about the context in which they are used, the structure of the piece, the dynamics....there are all kinds of variables which can make a piece feel creative beyond using some melodic pattern somewhere that has been heard before.


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

Was it Stravinsky who said the twelve pitches will never exhaust the human genius? We can crush the notes into clusters of dissonance or separate the notes to create blissful consonance. My question is; which way do we go?

I think Cage liberated sound from music when he made 4:33. A piece that the performer has very little control over. If anything can be music, how do we define music?


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

I voted "rejection," simply because the 20th century already pushed the boundaries of music/noise as far as they go and then some, so it ain't gonna do us any good today.

I'd just as soon let composers do what they want; it isn't like there's anything else to do. I mean, we've got living composers who compose in just about every imaginable style, for example Arvo Part ("holy minimalism"/neo-Renaissance), Einojuhani Rautavaara (neo-Romantic, essentially), Pierre Boulez (hard-core modernist), Erkki-Sven Tuur and Kalevi Aho, the latter two of which are especially difficult to classify. I think it's the last two who will find the most lasting influence on music of the future.

Oh, and I think recording as a medium is dying/dead, just to say, so I tend to think music is going to go back to the older ways of just going to live concerts. Not saying people won't record anything anymore; I just think the recording medium has been over-filled with so many superfluous entries as to bewilder and drive away people who would otherwise be interested (myself included; I've got a shelf of recordings that I find useful to me, which I believe has dwindled to no more than 15 recordings at all; buying recordings is beginning to be the equivalent of leaving one's door open while the air conditioning is on midday during the depths of summer).


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

Where does music end and sound begin?


----------



## SatiesFaction (Apr 12, 2010)

Argus said:


> Is that first question by any chance a joke?  Even if it is, I'll answer it anyway.


Good point. I might have been kind of joking, indeed  But when I hear, for example, a new 3-chord song that moves me and doesn't sound like anything I've heard before, it surprises me, because it seems unlikely to me that new 3-chord songs can be written, although I have to admit that they do exist once I've heard them.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

SatiesFaction said:


> Good point. I might have been kind of joking, indeed  But when I hear, for example, a new 3-chord song that moves me and doesn't sound like anything I've heard before, it surprises me, because it seems unlikely to me that new 3-chord songs can be written, although I have to admit that they do exist once I've heard them.


The blues is (mostly) three chords, uses (mostly) pentatonics, uses (mostly) 12 or 16 bar forms yet there is considerable scope for variety within the genre. The subtleties of the style become more pronounced within the strict boundaries. Change the basic formula too much and people start calling it jazz or rock and roll or something.



> Where does music end and sound begin?


To modify a phrase from some old dead dude, 'Music is in the ear of the beholder'.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Neither. The fact that music is created all the time, in many ways, and is listened to in many conventions/venues, is a testament to it's relevance to anyone and everyone who can hear it and receive it in any way.


----------



## prustage (May 22, 2010)

I dont really agree with either of the options offered. Evolution is all about some naturally arising adaptations (arising through chance genetic combination or mutation) being found to be advantageous in a changing environment. To emulate this in musical terms means effectively generating as much novelty as possible and seeing what survives. On that basis there really are no rules about whether we should be doing this or that. Quite simply we should be trying everything. Some things will turn out to have a clear "fit" with our changing musical needs. Others will be dead ends. Survival of the fittest.

It is worth noting however that evolution is all about "fitting" to a given environment. There are many environments in nature, that is why there are so many successful species. In music too there are many environments. The music that is the right evolutionary "fit" for hormone raging adolescents to dance to is not the same as for the mature intellectual to be inspired by, the shopper to shop to or the driver to drive to. This is why I despair of discussions on the_ worth _of music and arguments about which music is _best_. Comparing Mahler to Madonna is like comparing a Lion to an Octopus - they are both equally successful within their own evolutionary niche but cannot be compared against each other.


----------



## SatiesFaction (Apr 12, 2010)

prustage said:


> Comparing Mahler to Madonna is like comparing a Lion to an Octopus - they are both equally successful within their own evolutionary niche but cannot be compared against each other.


Interesting comparison. I saw a Lady Gaga ad on my way to work this morning and thought that, had she been born 3 centuries earlier, she'd probably be writing cantantas instead of in-your-face dance music at the moment.


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

prustage, perhaps you are concentrating on biology and success a little too much.

If we look solely at music, where it's come from and where it's going, we see the expansion and contraction of certain ideas. Two ideas that have evolved since the birth of music have been those of dissonance and complexity.

I'm asking, should this be the direction composers take, or should composers break from the compositional norms (mutate if you will). If the latter occurs, I wonder what that would mean for the issues of complexity and dissonance.

Thoughts?


----------



## Guest (May 24, 2010)

I think music is very organic, and very much a reflection of the society that produces it. I think the evolution of music is inevitable - it is going to happen. There is always a striving for the "new." We can still look back on the past and enjoy what it has to offer, but nobody really wants to then move forward by simply replicating the past, no matter how revered it may be. 

I think the evolution is shaped by natural forces. Even when music was produced by people under contract, evolution still occurred. Works were commissioned, because patrons wanted something new that everybody else didn't have, although still within certain boundaries. But composers could introduce new ideas, and if they appealed to people, they were then incorporated by others. Sometimes that evolution took large steps, sometimes small ones.

The problem now, though, is that, particularly in the early part of the 20th century, there was a great movement where people thought they knew the rules, and could bend them to move evolution along at a faster pace. This was spurred on by much new thought - eugenics, social Darwinism, progressivism, socialism - the idea that society could be improved by enlightened individuals who knew the rules of the game, and could direct the flow of that evolution. Boundaries were pushed. And in many instances disastrous results occurred. Why? Because you simply can't predict what direction humanity will evolve. Nor can you predict how their tastes will evolve. For the most part, it tends to be reactionary to the prevailing circumstances. How that plays out, though, is difficult to predict. Only in the lens of hindsight do we seem to be able to easily identify those who correctly predicted the trends. Usually a bottleneck occurs, but rather than something completely new emerging, we get some aspect, probably fairly minor at first, emerging to then become the new.

In the 20th century, though, probably more than in any previous century, the world in general was more affluent, and with that came more disposable money that could be used to subsidize non-essential things - in this case, one could argue music. More people were able to write without thought of marketability than in previous centuries. The concept of art for art's sake. Now, while it could be argued that this removed restraints on creativity (i.e. not being limited to what people would buy) and allowed for greater creativity, it probably also removed much of the selection pressure that would weed out the good from bad. Regardless of this, ultimately those selection pressures win out, because you really can't swim against the tide forever and expect to come out the winner. Think of it like educating children in a vacuum - allow them to learn in whatever way they choose, whatever they choose, allow them to push whatever rules they wish. Maybe they choose to not believe that 2 and 2 make 4. As long as they exist in this vacuum, they will be fine. But send them out into the real world, and some may succeed, but the vast majority will probably fail miserably. Ultimately, there are certain rules out there that you simply can't ignore. I think music is a component of a society, and ultimately, the musical works that stand the test of time will be those that reflect the society that produced them. Beethoven's genius was due, no doubt, as much to his musical abilities as the changing society in which he lived.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Art is as much about fashion as 'evolution'. Evolution suggests some inevitable development and I'm not sure that is helpful.


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

I think the progression of certain ideas in music is inevitable starry. Composers will try to explore whatever aspect of musical composition attracts them the most in a way that's unique to them.

I agree with DrMike that wealth and security in the late 20th century meant composers didn't even need an audience in order to develop their ideas. I honestly don't know if the absence of an audience is beneficial or detrimental to a composer. Even Beethoven had an audience to a certain extent.

Perhaps nowadays music is composed by intellectuals for the enjoyment of intellectuals. I'm not sure I like that idea. What's the purpose of music that can only be understood by those who create it? Is that the pinnacle of human expression?


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Of course the society can affect what kind of music is created. In a more religious society there will be more of that kind of music for example. But still some developments in music are partly because of the creativity of individuals and how their prominence (fashionability) has led to new styles becoming popular. Artists influence each other as well as being affected by other factors.


----------



## munirao2001 (Mar 2, 2009)

Edward Elgar
"The main trend of revolutionary composers seems to me now to be the rejection of musical norms of the time in which they live". It is not only applicable for the present times but, also past and future. When the revolutionary music is created in the past, they must have heard or read simillar expressions.
I am posting once again my reply to " How much does another person's musical taste influence your opinion of them? "
Music is always composed with goals and objectives of:


- Body Centric – the beats/fast beats, with pulsating effects, creating interest,
Arrests/rivets the listener’s attention, excites and is invigorating. The process
activates, the body and the mind.
- Ear Centric – when the pleasure is perceived and derived, essentially with
the support of the lyric and with simple tune/melody, but gives the satisfaction only during the listening process/times, gives the comfort and all pervading pleasantness, pleasing to the ears-frees from the blemishes of the loudness/high decibel and striking sound(s).

- Mind Centric – music, with the judicious combination and usage of melody
and the lyrics, creating high emotions, sway the heart, music becoming heartfelt. Such high degree of emotional feelings/experiences, bring in great warmth, tenderness and great happiness, with recall capabilities.

- Intellect Centric (the ultimate) – music, with the greatest power of pure and noble sound, transports the listener and makes him/her to forget the self- thought less and silent for a /few moments, one with divinity. The blissful experience, realized, cleanses the intellect, invigorates. With unalloyed joy/feelings, peace of mind and re-energizes. The rendering of true, powerful and pure note(s) or melody with powerful and pure note(s), which transports the listener to inner self, from outer self-soulful(forgetting for moments, the self ‘I’), giving blissful listening experience, with or without the help of lyric- are considered to have met the Intellect centric’s goal.


----------



## Guest (May 25, 2010)

When you say that fashion has an impact on music, to me, that reinforces the concept that music reflects the society. In fashion, there is the fashion that is shown to those who engross themselves in such things, but doesn't actually have applicability to real life. Then there is the everyday fashion that is constantly changing, but within (although sometimes pushing the boundaries of) the culture at that time. 

But I absolutely think that music evolves with a society, and that evolution is usually reactionary to the previous era. The greater structure and adherence to rules of the classical era was a reaction to the ornateness and the embellishments of the baroque era. The Romantic era was then a reaction to what was viewed by some as the sterility of the classical, introducing emotion as one of the important components in music. In the 20th century, we can see this rejection of over the top romanticism and emotion by looking at music from the rules that governs it, rather than the emotions behind it, and striving to stretch and re-shape those rule, without being tied to evoking an emotional response, rather an intellectual response.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Yes reaction is very much part of fashion, and music - to an extent - can reflect upon changes in a society. But it is still ultimately a musical style and can't reflect all the complexities of societies across many different countries. For example you can have several styles co-existing together. Schoenberg created serialism, but many composers at that time didn't compose in that way, they continued doing some form of romantic music. Through the romantic period some composers were more romantic than others who were really more conservative and classical. The classical style only gradually replaced the baroque and itself evolved very rapidly over just half a century. Sometimes maybe a style just plays itself out like baroque and people seek new ideas which then gradually shape into a new style when some composers create successful and influential early pieces in that style. Reaction isn't so much how societies 'evolve' it's more how art rejuvenates itself.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> And this is what bothers me with all this modern experimental stuff - writing stuff for the sake of experimenting, not as progress that would necessarily be as a result of writing entertainment/glorification/employment music. One day, 300 years from now, people will probably say 20th century composers wrote a lot of experimental crap that have no relevance to them, whereas a Bach piece or a Beethoven piece still stand, and by a long mile, showed progress in music that came about not for the sake of "experimentalism".


This remark and others in this thread sound forty years out of date!

What is this "modern experimental stuff"?

I think there is very little "experimental stuff" being written. Disprove me, please! A few composers are writing music that some people don't like, or can't be bothered to listen to, but unless you're arguing that anything more complicated than Karl Jenkins is to be repudiated, I think you'll have a hard time finding evidence for your argument.

On the other hand, there appears to be a movement in America which, judging by some of the CDs I've been sent by _Fanfare _for review, I would call the New Triteness if that didn't imply a level of complexity and originality wholly missing from these composers' works; music for which the word 'simplistic' would be a term of intellectual elitism.

JS Bach may have been conservative, but his far greater predecessor, Monteverdi, was radically experimental in many genres, the point being that most of what he wrote was genius, however experimental (eg, his operas). And, as almost everyone knows, much of Beethoven's music was greeted with hostility and incomprehension by contemporary audiences such was its radical experimentalism.


----------



## djj (May 14, 2010)

*the musical palette*

This is a very interesting thread. A few thoughts. Firstly we need to define the musical space we are talking about. Being a 'Classical Music Forum' , (putting aside the slippery definition of 'Classical' as opposed to 'Romantic', 'Baroque' 'Modern', or indeed Rock or Pop) we are considering music produced with western classical instruments, not Indian Sitar, Japanese Koto or electric guitar. 
We must remember that the concept of dissonance or complexity are culturally dependent. The complexity of many musical languages, for instance Indian Classical music overwhelms the novice. What is musically pleasing to one is dissonant and unpleasant to another. Yet learn the language and the rewards are many.
Western musical language, like all languages is evolving. Musical fashions come and go. But within a cultural tradition they are evolutionary. That is they follow an ancestral line. Western classical music evolved on the the foundation of the equal tempered scale and classical rules of harmony. The reason the baroque evolved into the romantic was that Bach, and his peers, had pretty much exploited these 'rules' to the fullest. Hence Beethoven, on the fore front of the Romantic style, whilst still using the equal tempered scale and classical harmony, developed the textural possibilities of a larger orchestras and the expressive possibility of individual expression. We have to remember this was the beginning of the industrial revolution. Technology was replacing God and music was being written for the concert hall not the church.
Come the 20th Century, global war and the cult of the superstar. Stravinsky's shocking ballet scores. Schoenberg's 12 tone system, jazz, minimalism and the tape recorder changed music forever. The incorporation of non equal tempered scales into western music (see the excellent thread on Harry Partch) expanded its musical palette We are delving into realms beyond that we would call classical. 
At this point we must remember, or be made aware, that the concept of complexity and dissonance have strict physical and mathematical definitions that are not irrelevant. Consider how we distinguish between complexity and randomness. Complexity is just having very complicated rules. Randomness does not have rules. What we may hear as random or dissonant and musically unpleasing may just have a set of rules that are different from what we may expect or have been culturally ingrained. I believe one can expand and be enlightened to a new world of musical enjoyment by not dismissing musics that sound subjectively dissonant, but with patience and open minded exploration, discovering the dialect of a new musical language.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> Pushing music to its limits to see how far we can take the concepts of complexity and dissonance?


You can't take the latter any further. We live in times when nothing is considered banned or wrong in terms of harmony. If you claim to be atonal composer noone will point at your music and say: "this is wrong!".

The most important thing for the evolution of music in closest future is to retreat from pushing boundaries, because boundaries are no more and every attempt to break them is more regressive and unoriginal than maintaining restrictions of tonality.


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

The radical can easily become the mundane.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

I don't see the two options in the poll as having any correlation with each other. You can do one or the other, both or neither. They aren't mutually exclusive of each other.



> The most important thing for the evolution of music in closest future is to retreat from pushing boundaries, because boundaries are no more and every attempt to break them is more regressive and unoriginal than maintaining restrictions of tonality.


I believe boundaries in art are there to be pushed and also there to be created anew. Anything but strictly adhered. I also think there are plenty still left to be pushed and many that probably exist yet we are oblivious to their very existence as of this time. As human perception of the world grows these boundaries will be recognised and then treated like those which have already been defined.



> The radical can easily become the mundane.


Inevitably the radical will become the mundane and then a new radical will replace this old, mundane one and the cycle will continue.



> At this point we must remember, or be made aware, that the concept of complexity and dissonance have strict physical and mathematical definitions that are not irrelevant. Consider how we distinguish between complexity and randomness. Complexity is just having very complicated rules. Randomness does not have rules. What we may hear as random or dissonant and musically unpleasing may just have a set of rules that are different from what we may expect or have been culturally ingrained. I believe one can expand and be enlightened to a new world of musical enjoyment by not dismissing musics that sound subjectively dissonant, but with patience and open minded exploration, discovering the dialect of a new musical language.


I agree.

The only rules in art are one's that we impose upon ourselves.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> I believe boundaries in art are there to be pushed


But where? It's been half of century since absence of music has been considered musical work. You can write sonata for helicopter and boiling meat and this will be music too. If definition of music is so liberated that it equals any sound there is no boundary.

No line to cross, there is only line that we can walk along in search of new music, but not cross it.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Aramis said:


> But where? It's been half of century since absence of music has been considered musical work. You can write sonata for helicopter and boiling meat and this will be music too. If definition of music is so liberated that it equals any sound there is no boundary.
> 
> No line to cross, there is only line that we can walk along in search of new music, but not cross it.


Thats what the rest of my paragraph tackled. I believe there are boundaries or lines or whatever you want to call them that have not yet been even recognised as existing at all in our interactions with the world around us. Much like people before Newton had no concept of gravity even though the effects of it were always apparent to them, there will someone or maybe a group of people who discover an aspect of sound/music that has yet to be even thought of by people of today, even though it was always present in music. This is then the new boundary to be explored.

Obviously I can't back this claim up with any hard evidence but it is a prediction for the future that I believe will occur.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

The human capacity for hearing could be extended into a wider range of frequencies in the future through science perhaps, and of course you never know what new kind of instrument could come next. The electrification of musical instruments obviously had a large effect on music in the twentieth century and some new effect could be just as big. Some areas have been touched on in the twentieth century but not necessarily fully explored or developed and some of these using unusual instruments or sounds, or combination of cross cultural instruments in either a minimalist or maximalist way could develop more.


----------



## munirao2001 (Mar 2, 2009)

Edward Elgar
I am keenly awaiting for your reply for my post#29


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

munirao2001 said:


> Edward Elgar
> I am keenly awaiting for your reply for my post#29


I think you've got music figured out. Yes it can be enjoyable on many levels, whether that be instant in the case of the body or over time in the case of the mind.

I would slightly change your definition of the intellectual aspect of music being concerned with moving music. True you may like a piece because of the emotional associations you make with it, but I think intellectual stimulus in music comes from knowledge of the compositional process.

I was thinking recently about novelty and radicalism. Beethoven started out writing novel piano sonatas and string quartets. They kept traditions and yet they had Beethoven's unique stamp on them. Beethoven's last music may be considered radical and also some of the best music composed by a human being. However, this was brought about through experimentation with novel ideas.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

I didn't vote, simply because I don't think you can put the cart before the horse. Aren't those old sayings wonderful?


----------



## munirao2001 (Mar 2, 2009)

Edward Elgar
Thanks and I agree with you the intellectual stimulus is definitely related with the knowledge of the compositional process and compositions.


----------



## Yanick Borg (May 28, 2010)

The experimental or revloutionary music, particularly that which resonates from Britain, is not about writing for everyone. Rather, it is about writing for other composers. It is a narcicistic grab for recognition, balancing difference in the field with the repetition of accomplishment.(Deleuze) By "repetition of acomplishment", I am meaning the number of graduates of composition, who would otherwise, in an ordinary sense be emulating eachother's work for lack of further expression. You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. 

Soon enough all that dissonance will sound the same. In architecture, Zaha Hadid calls this movement hopeless formlessness. The movement has already faded, and again we look to the future of new formalities, which is exciting. Personally, I'd like to see more classical pieces in the global music charts. Sounds that do contain emotion, formality, and are truly moving, rather than submissing me to the shock therapy.

If we listen to Cold PLay's Viva La Vida, we hear a great use of classical timbres.






Without the experiments in electronic music, or rock n roll, we wouldn't have this sound. I question the need for current dissonance though, particularly British composition. Surely there aren't enough horror stories to justify the current rate of production ?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Jeremy Marchant said:


> This remark and others in this thread sound forty years out of date!
> 
> What is this "modern experimental stuff"?
> 
> ...


True about Bach and Monterverdi. Yes, when they experimented, they also entertained and took music forward. Haydn experimented over 100 times with his chamber/public symphonies, and wrote works that entertained. When the composer who wrote that helicopter string quartet experimented (I can't remember his/her name; don't really care), he/she failed to entertain and I seriously doubted if that piece would ever forward music. Just the same if a 16 hour string quartet was trying to do some epic description of human kind, I doubt that's going to really achieve much either.


----------



## gmubandgeek (Jun 8, 2010)

Edward Elgar said:


> Sometimes listening to lots of crazy experimental music gets me disillusioned by how sterile the music is of any emotion. Of course it's interesting and through interest comes enjoyment. However, revolutionary music of the past (Beethoven, Berlioz, Stravinsky) always gave intellectual interest amidst a backdrop of highly evocative and emotional music.
> 
> This led me to the conclusion that we may be trying too hard to push music to its limits in terms of complexity and dissonance. The main trend of revolutionary composers seems to me now to be the rejection of musical norms of the time in which they live.
> 
> I present my puzzlement over to you to get your opinions on the matter. If what I think is true, then surely the next Beethoven would reject the crazy experimentalism that is the norm today for perhaps a much less radical approach of composition.


Your opinion reminds me of Mendelssohn, and his reminiscence of the old style in the midst of Romanticism.

It's one thing to write music because it came from the heart, but to write music just for the sake of writing music is just ludicrous to me. Sometimes I listen to these new compositions and I'm left scratching my head. I hear many notes and dissonances but where was the emotion? It seems that we've become afraid of consonance and neglected forms that have been tried and true. In my opinion for what its worth, true composers expound upon what has been written, not try to erase it.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

_Rejecting the standard compositional techniques _- seems to have been the most popular


----------

