# Webern: Atonality is Oneness with god



## millionrainbows

I've been listening a lot to Webern lately. It is very spiritual music, very expressive, and dealing with spiritual subjects. The Cantatas are obviously an homage to Bach.

Some jibes have been leveled at him; rarely do I ever get responses to my 'reviews,' but here are a couple of responses from the Current Listening thread:

Originally Posted by *millionrainbows* *Webern: Six Pieces for Orchestra, op. 6 (1909)*, from the SONY set. Webern is not completely 12-tone yet; *he has not fully ascended into the thin air of the heights*. Even now, he takes joy in pure sound, and is proceeding into silence.



EDaddy said:


> Or fallen like a brick into the boggy depths.





tdc said:


> This is interesting to me, because that is my favorite work by Webern. I find a lot of his other music often becomes too abstract for my tastes, to the point of sounding random. I suspect this started to occur after he went fully twelve tone.


Take note; in tonal music, tonality is god. This means, god as as separate deity, and Man as his chosen subject. Very traditional. God is "out there" and we are still ourselves, with our ego and will.

The more Webern moves away from tonality, the closer he is to _actually_ becoming "one" with god, more in the Eastern sense of "god is within us."

Thus, the alienation some feel when faced with the (to some) incomprehensible, mysterious later works: Webern's music no longer has any tonal meaning; he has reached the peak of the mountain. The atmosphere is thin, rarified; hostile to the comfortable confines of the mere human ego.

The closer we get to 'the light,' the more we disintegrate. Like coming on to a strong dose of LSD, our egos begin dissolving; we are subsumed into the magnificent awesomeness of God.

To some this invokes fear and confusion; you must submit in order to see, to be; you must 'die' the death of the ego, to be reborn into a pure state of being. "You" do not matter anymore; "you" are an irrelevant speck in the vast scheme of things.

Schoenberg has touched on this as well, especially in Moses und Aaron, where the name of god is unpronounceable, and his image cannot possibly be shown. This is mystery, not meant for the mind of Man.

Then submit, ye tonal heathens: humble yourselves before the magnificence of the atonal god, if you want to 'get' the later works of Webern.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

What about atheist tonal and atonal music? Oh and by the way, is this a god of the three major western religions or another god?


----------



## starthrower

I don't know about the God stuff, but I like the music. I'm not sure why some folks have difficulty with it?
But hey, different strokes!


----------



## MoonlightSonata

Why bring religion into it? It's fantastic music, and can speak for itself.


----------



## AnotherSpin

God never asked music to be difficult. He is most simple himself.


----------



## dzc4627

i guess you could interpret it like that... but this seems like you are being satirical...


----------



## Morimur

million – no more drugs for you, pal.


----------



## starthrower

AnotherSpin said:


> God never asked music to be difficult. He is most simple himself.


You've discussed this with Him? Apparently Bach didn't get the message.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Non tonality will enable one to become a Buddha. The selflessness of eradicating egotistical tonal centres, eradicating the hierarchy of CP harmony, will enable one to journey along a path towards enlightenment.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

That was tongue in cheek, of course.


----------



## Mandryka

E


millionrainbows said:


> I've been listening a lot to Webern lately. It is very spiritual music, very expressive, and dealing with spiritual subjects. The Cantatas are obviously an homage to Bach.
> 
> Some jibes have been leveled at him; rarely do I ever get responses to my 'reviews,' but here are a couple of responses from the Current Listening thread:
> 
> Originally Posted by *millionrainbows* *Webern: Six Pieces for Orchestra, op. 6 (1909)*, from the SONY set. Webern is not completely 12-tone yet; *he has not fully ascended into the thin air of the heights*. Even now, he takes joy in pure sound, and is proceeding into silence.
> 
> Take note; in tonal music, tonality is god. This means, god as as separate deity, and Man as his chosen subject. Very traditional. God is "out there" and we are still ourselves, with our ego and will.
> 
> The more Webern moves away from tonality, the closer he is to _actually_ becoming "one" with god, more in the Eastern sense of "god is within us."
> 
> Thus, the alienation some feel when faced with the (to some) incomprehensible, mysterious later works: Webern's music no longer has any tonal meaning; he has reached the peak of the mountain. The atmosphere is thin, rarified; hostile to the comfortable confines of the mere human ego.
> 
> The closer we get to 'the light,' the more we disintegrate. Like coming on to a strong dose of LSD, our egos begin dissolving; we are subsumed into the magnificent awesomeness of God.
> 
> To some this invokes fear and confusion; you must submit in order to see, to be; you must 'die' the death of the ego, to be reborn into a pure state of being. "You" do not matter anymore; "you" are an irrelevant speck in the vast scheme of things.
> 
> Schoenberg has touched on this as well, especially in Moses und Aaron, where the name of god is unpronounceable, and his image cannot possibly be shown. This is mystery, not meant for the mind of Man.
> 
> Then submit, ye tonal heathens: humble yourselves before the magnificence of the atonal god, if you want to 'get' the later works of Webern.


Try to hear the canata performances which Boulez made with the Domaine Musical in 1957, recently released by Bibliothèque Nationale de France. The poems are certainly mystical, more mystical than you hear in JSB as far as I can recall. Does anyone know anything about Webern's beliefs?


----------



## Woodduck

Take note; in tonal music, tonality is god. This means, god as as separate deity, and Man as his chosen subject. Very traditional.

Tonality, the hierarchy of tones, embraces the principle of unity, equilibrium, stability, resolution, rest - allied to the principle of diversity, dynamism, instability, tension, change. The two principles are inherent and inseparable in phenomena, physical and mental; the second of them is not "subject" to the first; seeing phenomena as "subject" to order is an anthropomorphic projection which gives rise to the concept of a transcendent, creating, controlling deity. The so-called "god" of tonality is not separate and transcendent but thoroughly immanent: tonal music is not "subject" to tonality; rather, the music is, inherently, tonal. Thus, as music is not "subject" to tonality, tonal music does not represent "man" as "subject" to a tonal "god."

The more Webern moves away from tonality, the closer he is to actually becoming "one" with god...Webern's music no longer has any tonal meaning; he has reached the peak of the mountain..."You" do not matter anymore; "you" are an irrelevant speck in the vast scheme of things...This is mystery, not meant for the mind of Man.

If atonal music embraces any principle for the ordering of tones, then that principle qualifies for the designation "god" as well, or as poorly, as does the principle of tonality in tonal music, and atonal music is as "subject" to its own principle of order as tonal music. If atonal music has no such principle, then its tones are by definition disordered.

If disorder is what is reached at the peak of the mountain, such a "god" is indeed not meant for the mind of man.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

God can go back speak to nomadic desert tribes. 

I do think that the Second Viennese School was heading into 'something else' that is aesthetically very different from the 'objective' take of the Darmstadt School. Guess their peculiar deaths makes all for myth.


----------



## isorhythm

I tried to play the piano on acid once, all I wanted to do was repeat the same open fifth over and over and over, which is kind of the opposite of Webern. But I don't think this means anything.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

Means the fifth is more important than the octave. The Georgians would certainly agree.


----------



## Albert7

Webern kicks butt so I don't necessarily see the religious implications from my eyes but I can understand where he is coming from at least.

Word.


----------



## Ingélou

Interesting thread; I know nothing about atonal music, but have always loved religious jokes.


----------



## Ilarion

starthrower said:


> You've discussed this with Him? Apparently Bach didn't get the message.


"Bach didn't get the message" - And how has this conclusion been reached? A humble but inquiring mind wishes to know...

"What man proposes, God disposes".

I seem to arrive at the conclusion that music containing / ending on unresolved chords e.g. Jazz is very apt at describing the impasse that God and Man arrive at throughout human History. God's questions and answers to mankind are unresolved imo. Thusly, Jazz is very eloquent at expressing mankinds situation.


----------



## millionrainbows

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> What about atheist tonal and atonal music? Oh and by the way, is this a god of the three major western religions or another god?


Well, I'm just using "God" in the context of Webern, plus, I'm* really* talking about the overall hierarchy which tonal music models, which is a Christian hierarchy, with God at the center (tonal center) and God's chosen creature (Man) as his subsidiary, as a 2:3 fifth or some subsidiary relationship, in which everything is referred to "1" (God) or the key note. It's really not a religious question, but one of how music's tonal hierarchy is reflective of Western man's overall view of the world.


----------



## millionrainbows

starthrower said:


> I don't know about the God stuff, but I like the music.* I'm not sure why some folks have difficulty with it?*
> But hey, different strokes!


Probably because, by osmosis, unconsciously, they embody the same Western view of the world as every other Westerner.

It took an 'outsider' like Schoenberg (and Webern) to dare to take another view; plus, this new "musical relativity" reflects the abandonment of the Newtonian, (tonal) gravity-based science, into a new relativistic Einsteinian model (floating in space).

Schoenberg still couched it in terms of monotheistic religion (Moses und Aaron), because he had not fully transcended the "God/outer" paradigm. I think Webern had, as is evidenced by his music. The op. 19 lieder, for instance, are based on Goethe's "Chinese" poetry.


----------



## millionrainbows

MoonlightSonata said:


> Why bring religion into it? It's fantastic music, and can speak for itself.


I'm not talking specifically about religion; I'm talking about the paradigm it embodies: tonality as referring to '1' or God, and atonality embodying a new paradigm, in which "God" is within, not 'out there.' It's a total 180 shift, like looking into the other end of a telescope, and it becomes a microscope.

Numerically, tonality reflects this on a number line: "1" is identity and being (God/Man), and proceeds towards "zero" (which doesn't exist: it is verboten heresy in the traditional God-centered view)) in terms of fractions.

This is reflected in the way we measure time: being is identity, and identity has no zero; it starts at one. That's why there are no zeros on clocks (except for military 24-hour/digital time, which are both embodiments of "scientific/dehumanizing" factors, no "zero year" (it starts on 1 A.D.; the year before is 1 B.C.), babies (beings) are not ever "zero years old" but measured in fractions until they reach their first birthday (6 weeks, 3 months, etc).

Of course, I do not believe that science and digital technology are really "evil" or anything like that.


----------



## millionrainbows

AnotherSpin said:


> God never asked music to be difficult. He is most simple himself.


Yes, tonality is self-evident, sensual, and simple. Atonality reflects other, newer considerations, based on geometric symmetries, not harmonic models. It represents a branch of science, actually, in the Greek quadrivium.


----------



## millionrainbows

dzc4627 said:


> i guess you could interpret it like that... but this seems like you are being satirical...


It's hard to read satire and sarcasm on-line, isn't it? Actually, I'm serious. It all makes perfect sense to me, and somebody would have to present a logical counter-argument to convince me otherwise, and I think most of the people here cannot be bothered with putting forth that sort of effort.


----------



## millionrainbows

Morimur said:


> million - no more drugs for you, pal.


I'll submit to a drug test at any time. I'll say that to any employer as well. I challenge you!


----------



## millionrainbows

starthrower said:


> You've discussed this with Him? Apparently Bach didn't get the message.


AnotherSpin meant "simple" as in tonality compared to atonality.


----------



## GreenMamba

Delete: responded to the wrong post.


----------



## millionrainbows

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Non tonality will enable one to become a Buddha. The selflessness of eradicating egotistical tonal centres, eradicating the hierarchy of CP harmony, will enable one to journey along a path towards enlightenment.


More or less true, only Boulez and Stockhausen would not put a religious or Buddhistic spin on it. They wanted "self-generating systems" which would bypass their artistic biases. Then, they would deal with the mysteries. It's still art.

After WWII and the atomic bomb at Nagasaki/Hiroshima, they wanted to escape from nationalistic bombast, even "Man" himself, into a pure, hermetic world. See Boulez' "Structures" and read the notes to this CD, which back-up what I'm saying.


----------



## millionrainbows

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> That was tongue in cheek, of course.


I'm being perfectly serious, and I challenge anyone here to present a logical, coherent counter-argument. Of course, much of this is metaphysical if you put it into religious terms, but I'm really not talking about religion; this is more like sociology or social theory.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mandryka said:


> E
> 
> Try to hear the canata performances which Boulez made with the Domaine Musical in 1957, recently released by Bibliothèque Nationale de France. The poems are certainly mystical, more mystical than you hear in JSB as far as I can recall. Does anyone know anything about Webern's beliefs?


I've got those in a box set. I think Webern was Christian, but he was very attuned to nature, and was a poet. There is the 'spiritual' element. Also, consider the 'new theosophy' that was going on in Germany at the time, which Mahler got into as well. Schopenhauer was influenced by Eastern philosophy, and this in turn influenced Nietzsche, etc.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Take note; in tonal music, tonality is god. This means, god as as separate deity, and Man as his chosen subject. Very traditional.
> 
> Tonality, the hierarchy of tones, embraces the principle of unity, equilibrium, stability, resolution, rest - allied to the principle of diversity, dynamism, instability, tension, change. The two principles are inherent and inseparable in phenomena, physical and mental; the second of them is not "subject" to the first; seeing phenomena as "subject" to order is an anthropomorphic projection which gives rise to the concept of a transcendent, creating, controlling deity. The so-called "god" of tonality is not separate and transcendent but thoroughly immanent: tonal music is not "subject" to tonality; rather, the music is, inherently, tonal. Thus, as music is not "subject" to tonality, tonal music does not represent "man" as "subject" to a tonal "god."
> 
> The more Webern moves away from tonality, the closer he is to actually becoming "one" with god...Webern's music no longer has any tonal meaning; he has reached the peak of the mountain..."You" do not matter anymore; "you" are an irrelevant speck in the vast scheme of things...This is mystery, not meant for the mind of Man.
> 
> If atonal music embraces any principle for the ordering of tones, then that principle qualifies for the designation "god" as well, or as poorly, as does the principle of tonality in tonal music, and atonal music is as "subject" to its own principle of order as tonal music. If atonal music has no such principle, then its tones are by definition disordered.
> 
> If disorder is what is reached at the peak of the mountain, such a "god" is indeed not meant for the mind of man.


At least that's a logical counter-argument, but I don't think Woodduck presents a thorough or convincing argument.

It's very simple and easy to see the parallels between Newtonian science, gravity, and tonality. Plus, their are centuries of history which reinforce this use of tonality.


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> I tried to play the piano on acid once, all I wanted to do was repeat the same open fifth over and over and over, which is kind of the opposite of Webern. But I don't think this means anything.


I think it means the acid was not strong enough. If you had seen the great white light, or void, then I don't think open fifths would matter any more.


----------



## Guest

Comment withdrawn.


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> You ask for a counter-argument - or at least, challenge someone to show that there is one.
> 
> To what? Your experience of and understanding of Webern? There isn't one, except to say that some here may not feel kinship with how you've expressed your experience, might choose another way to describe _their _experience, or even reject _yours _altogether.
> 
> Counter-argument to the section I've highlighted in blue, which seems to depart from Webern and speak about god/God and music more generally? I offer no 'counter-argument', only a rejection of the concepts of which you speak ('the light', 'God', 'death of ego' etc).


This isn't really a counter-argument, since it doesn't address the idea or take it seriously. Instead, this is closer to an invalidation. Be careful, McLeod, and be gracious, because you're treading on shaky ground. Moderators take note.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> This isn't really a counter-argument, since it doesn't address the idea or take it seriously. Instead, this is closer to an invalidation. Be careful, McLeod, and be gracious, because you're treading on shaky ground. Moderators take note.


[edit] You're right. I don't need to be part of this debate. I withdraw.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Take note; in tonal music, tonality is god. This means, god as as separate deity, and Man as his chosen subject. Very traditional.
> 
> Tonality, the hierarchy of tones, embraces the principle of unity, equilibrium, stability, resolution, rest - allied to the principle of diversity, dynamism, instability, tension, change. The two principles are inherent and inseparable in phenomena, physical and mental; the second of them is not "subject" to the first; seeing phenomena as "subject" to order is an anthropomorphic projection which gives rise to the concept of a transcendent, creating, controlling deity. The so-called "god" of tonality is not separate and transcendent but thoroughly immanent: tonal music is not "subject" to tonality; rather, the music is, inherently, tonal. Thus, as music is not "subject" to tonality, tonal music does not represent "man" as "subject" to a tonal "god."
> 
> The more Webern moves away from tonality, the closer he is to actually becoming "one" with god...Webern's music no longer has any tonal meaning; he has reached the peak of the mountain..."You" do not matter anymore; "you" are an irrelevant speck in the vast scheme of things...This is mystery, not meant for the mind of Man.
> 
> If atonal music embraces any principle for the ordering of tones, then that principle qualifies for the designation "god" as well, or as poorly, as does the principle of tonality in tonal music, and atonal music is as "subject" to its own principle of order as tonal music. If atonal music has no such principle, then its tones are by definition disordered.
> 
> If disorder is what is reached at the peak of the mountain, such a "god" is indeed not meant for the mind of man.


Since Woodduck's is the only serious counter-argument so far, I will address it further. Firstly, there is a flaw in his argument, but this is also its strength: attack the metaphor directly. Very good strategy.'

I see it as somewhat flawed, because I'm just using Western Christian worldview as a* metaphor *for what was happening in science, philosophy, and music & art. So, attacking the religious tenets of a metaphor is somewhat like fighting a ghost. But, nonetheless, I will address these specifics, although in the big picture, they are irrelevant, since they are just metaphors.



Woodduck said:


> Tonality, the hierarchy of tones, embraces the principle of unity, equilibrium, stability, resolution, rest - allied to the principle of diversity, dynamism, instability, tension, change. The two principles are inherent and inseparable in phenomena, physical and mental; the second of them is not "subject" to the first...


That's true up to the point of chromaticism. 12-note chromaticism is still tonality. It is only when the tonal hierarchy is totally removed that true atonality can take over. Even in heavy, late-Romantic chromaticism, there is still root movement and function.

Plus, I see an overall flaw in this conception of tonality as embodying both attraction (*unity* with '1' or tonic) and tension, dissolution of gravity, atonality (*nothingness*) equally.

Tonality is, at its simplest, *unity,* (with God) or 1:1. This is a single note.

*Tonality can be weakened by degrees,* so _it is not an absolute stat_e.

I see parallels in this and the doctrine of* Privatio Boni:* in the God-paradigm world of "being," *there can be no 'non-being' or zero, or non-existence, or void,* since God is the ultimate creator, created everything, and so it follows that there can be no "nothingness" which is outside the purview of God the creator.

Look at this "being" as the model for tonality. As an organism, "nothingness" or "evil" is more like a disease model. The "evil" or "nothingness" *does not really exist* except in relation to its host (being). This is like cancer; cancer cannot survive if it has no host. When the host dies, the cancer dies with it.

This is like tonality and atonality: tonality embodies "being" as I have already said from the outset of this thread (no zero, no nothingness, etc.), but tonality does not embody its own "nothingness" or atonality, its dissolution.



Woodduck said:


> ...seeing phenomena as "subject" to order is an anthropomorphic projection which gives rise to the concept of a transcendent, creating, controlling deity. The so-called "god" of tonality is not separate and transcendent but thoroughly immanent: tonal music is not "subject" to tonality; rather, the music is, inherently, tonal. Thus, as music is not "subject" to tonality, tonal music does not represent "man" as "subject" to a tonal "god."


That fits in perfectly with my argument. God is "being" and Man is part of that being. Tonality "embodies" itself totally. It cannot, however, embody its own dissolution or nothingness, since this would also remove the immanence of God.



Woodduck said:


> ...Thus, as music is not "subject" to tonality, tonal music does not represent "man" as "subject" to a tonal "god."


I don't think I ever said that it did. As you said, being and tonality are manifestations of an immanent God, which encompasses all things. Any "non-being" is impossible.

But as I also said, neither is music "subject to atonality" or negation of this being. Atonality, in this sense, exits (totally) the paradigm of tonality. It is a negation of "being," so _*it cannot really exist*_ in the tonal paradigm.



Woodduck said:


> If atonal music embraces any principle for the ordering of tones, then that principle qualifies for the designation "god" as well, or as poorly, as does the principle of tonality in tonal music...


Atonality is based on geometries and symmetries and ordering, but not on tonal gravity or reference to the "1" at the center. This is where atonality is quite different; it is a relative system, with no one reference point. Therefore, if it is a "god" as you say it is, then it is an impersonal god with no reference point. This dismantles the 'subject/God' model, and renders it irrelevant.



Woodduck said:


> ...atonal music is as "subject" to its own principle of order as tonal music. If atonal music has no such principle, then its tones are by definition disordered.


You are seeing all of this through the lens of tonality. The two paradigms are separate worlds. Tonality does not "encompass" atonality. There is a definite border, and ne'er the twain shall meet.


----------



## isorhythm

millionrainbows said:


> I think it means the acid was not strong enough. If you had seen the great white light, or void, then I don't think open fifths would matter any more.


There's probably some truth to this, I know on higher doses I lost all interest in music of any kind, it just seemed superfluous and I'd rather listen to the wind or whatever.

(n.b., this all happened during a period of youthful experimentation, I am now a responsible adult.)


----------



## Xaltotun

Millionrainbows, you make complete sense, as you always do, but I don't want to reach God, I don't want to sit on top of that mountain. I want infinite separation, striving, tragedy, manicheaism, looking up to that mountaintop in awe and pain and longing but never quite getting there. I haven't read Spengler but what I perceive as the Faustian element in Western culture seems to require this. If classicism in art (in general) is the ultimate expression of that separation, and romanticism is the challenge to that separation, or an expression of dissatisfaction with it, a combination of classicism and romanticism is the ultimate cultural expression to me. A call for unity that will ultimately never take place - that _must_ never take place.


----------



## isorhythm

Xaltotun said:


> Millionrainbows, you make complete sense, as you always do, but I don't want to reach God, I don't want to sit on top of that mountain. I want infinite separation, striving, tragedy, manicheaism, looking up to that mountaintop in awe and pain and longing but never quite getting there. I haven't read Spengler but what I perceive as the Faustian element in Western culture seems to require this. If classicism in art (in general) is the ultimate expression of that separation, and romanticism is the challenge to that separation, or an expression of dissatisfaction with it, a combination of classicism and romanticism is the ultimate cultural expression to me. A call for unity that will ultimately never take place - that _must_ never take place.


I wonder if you've identified a profound divide in what different people want out of music.


----------



## Lukecash12

millionrainbows said:


> I've been listening a lot to Webern lately. It is very spiritual music, very expressive, and dealing with spiritual subjects. The Cantatas are obviously an homage to Bach.
> 
> Some jibes have been leveled at him; rarely do I ever get responses to my 'reviews,' but here are a couple of responses from the Current Listening thread:
> 
> Originally Posted by *millionrainbows* *Webern: Six Pieces for Orchestra, op. 6 (1909)*, from the SONY set. Webern is not completely 12-tone yet; *he has not fully ascended into the thin air of the heights*. Even now, he takes joy in pure sound, and is proceeding into silence.
> 
> Take note; in tonal music, tonality is god. This means, god as as separate deity, and Man as his chosen subject. Very traditional. God is "out there" and we are still ourselves, with our ego and will.
> 
> The more Webern moves away from tonality, the closer he is to _actually_ becoming "one" with god, more in the Eastern sense of "god is within us."
> 
> Thus, the alienation some feel when faced with the (to some) incomprehensible, mysterious later works: Webern's music no longer has any tonal meaning; he has reached the peak of the mountain. The atmosphere is thin, rarified; hostile to the comfortable confines of the mere human ego.
> 
> The closer we get to 'the light,' the more we disintegrate. Like coming on to a strong dose of LSD, our egos begin dissolving; we are subsumed into the magnificent awesomeness of God.
> 
> To some this invokes fear and confusion; you must submit in order to see, to be; you must 'die' the death of the ego, to be reborn into a pure state of being. "You" do not matter anymore; "you" are an irrelevant speck in the vast scheme of things.
> 
> Schoenberg has touched on this as well, especially in Moses und Aaron, where the name of god is unpronounceable, and his image cannot possibly be shown. This is mystery, not meant for the mind of Man.
> 
> Then submit, ye tonal heathens: humble yourselves before the magnificence of the atonal god, if you want to 'get' the later works of Webern.


What on earth does deification have to do with any of this? Any concrete association at all? IMO, it's interesting enough to discuss religion and music in terms of what actually happened, and in that case you don't have to perform any mental gymnastics to contrive some esoteric understanding. The text of a cantata, magnificat, stabat mater, motet, mass, etc. can speak for itself. Religious thinkers were already esoteric enough; it isn't necessary to rewrite history in order to spice it up, because it's already quite a potpourri met on it's own terms.

Btw, Schoenberg was referring to _Yahweh_ aka the Tetragrammaton:









So, far from this mysticism you anachronistically insert into music, there is a well established tradition for such language. In the Masoretic translations that reworked the Septuagint into ancient Hebrew, there is only one instance of the Jewish name of God and it has long been tradition only to utter it while reciting the Shema or not at all, depending on your understanding of the Talmud and especially influenced by Maimonides (a medieval Jewish philosopher and theologian). This is one of the key differences between Hasidic and Reformed Judaism.

The real deal when it comes to these subjects is far more interesting than the esoteric interpretations that abound. I personally find Maimonides' work vivid enough, thank you very much.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> I'm just using Western Christian worldview as a* metaphor *for what was happening in science, philosophy, and music & art.


Now wait just a goldurned minute!

You initially said "In tonal music, tonality is god...as a separate deity and man as his chosen subject." This views tonal music as a metaphor for the Western Christian worldview.

Now you say you're using the Western Christian worldview (religion) as a metaphor for what was happening in science, philosophy, and *music* & art.

So you're using Western music as a metaphor for Western religion, but you're using Western religion as a metaphor for Western music?

This linguistic puzzle aside, I have to say that although I concede a sort of compatibility and coincidence between a conception of the universe as organized around a deity and a musical system organized around a tonic, I see this as a crude equation and do not see the latter as a manifestation of the former. I see both as manifestations of a basic attribute of the universe, a system of organization observed in both physical and mental reality: in the physical structures of nature (from galaxies to cells) and the actions thereof, in the hierarchical relationships of emotions and values, and in the structure of thought, which apprehends the world and itself in terms of causes, hierarchies, and syllogisms structured on basic premises or axioms. Man created tonality not as a metaphor of god, but as a metaphor of being: of his world, his body, his emotions, and his mind. God himself is just another metaphor.

If tonality need not represent the god of Christianity (and I, an atheist, have never considered that it did), atonality can hardly be construed as a metaphor for either an abandonment of that god or for any other sort of divinity. I am still waiting for a compelling explanation of what a-tonality does represent, other than something preceded by an "a."


----------



## Xaltotun

isorhythm said:


> I wonder if you've identified a profound divide in what different people want out of music.


Thank you, I'm happy if I've done exactly that!


----------



## Mahlerian

Woodduck said:


> If tonality need not represent the god of Christianity (and I, an atheist, have never considered that it did), atonality can hardly be construed as a metaphor for either an abandonment of that god or for any other sort of divinity. I am still waiting for a compelling explanation of what a-tonality does represent, other than something preceded by an "a."


The bugbears of ignorant critics.


----------



## norman bates

millionrainbows said:


> More or less true, only Boulez and Stockhausen would not put a religious or Buddhistic spin on it. They wanted "self-generating systems" which would bypass their artistic biases


Even if you are just setting parameters you are putting ego in a composition. Maybe less than in a traditional piece, but it's still there. Those parameters are part of the composition and are the marks of the composer.


----------



## isorhythm

Lukecash12 said:


> IMO, it's interesting enough to discuss religion and music in terms of what actually happened, and in that case you don't have to perform any mental gymnastics to contrive some esoteric understanding.


Well that's not very much fun.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Now wait just a goldurned minute!
> 
> You initially said "In tonal music, tonality is god...as a separate deity and man as his chosen subject." This views tonal music as a metaphor for the Western Christian worldview.
> 
> Now you say you're using using the Western Christian worldview (religion) as a metaphor for what was happening in science, philosophy, and *music* & art.
> 
> So you're using Western music as a metaphor for Western religion, but you're using Western religion as a metaphor for Western music?
> 
> This linguistic puzzle aside, I have to say that although I concede a sort of compatibility and coincidence between a conception of the universe as organized around a deity and a musical system organized around a tonic, I see this as a crude equation and do not see the latter as a manifestation of the former. I see both as manifestations of a basic attribute of the universe, a system of organization observed in both physical and mental reality: in the physical structures of nature (from galaxies to cells) and the actions thereof, in the hierarchical relationships of emotions and values, and in the structure of thought, which apprehends the world and itself in terms of causes, hierarchies, and syllogisms structured on basic premises or axioms. Man created tonality not as a metaphor of god, but as a metaphor of being: of his world, his body, his emotions, and his mind. God himself is just another metaphor.
> 
> If tonality need not represent the god of Christianity (and I, an atheist, have never considered that it did), atonality can hardly be construed as a metaphor for either an abandonment of that god or for any other sort of divinity. I am still waiting for a compelling explanation of what a-tonality does represent, other than something preceded by an "a."


I just see it as the difference between the old, theistic view of the world, versus the new scientific view. In the old paradigm, everything is related to "1" as fractions or ratios. In the new scientific paradigm, everything is relative; numbers are quantities, not identities.

Atonality fits into this perfectly, as well; everything is on a number line, and quantity, or interval-distance, is considered in place of intervals as functions (identities) in a tonal, harmonic hierarchy.



> Man created tonality not as a metaphor of god, but as a metaphor of being: of his world, his body, his emotions, and his mind.


"Being" is the key term here. The God stuff is secondary. In atonality, everything is objectified, the ego is gone, and being is no longer the focus.


----------



## millionrainbows

norman bates said:


> Even if you are just setting parameters you are putting ego in a composition. Maybe less than in a traditional piece, but it's still there. Those parameters are part of the composition and are the marks of the composer.


Maybe it's impossible, then. At least they tried. In Structures Books I-II, Boulez tried to get the composition to 'generate itself' out of the source material. He considers the work a failure, but if you listen to it, it has a curious sense of detachment and stasis.


----------



## EDaddy

I just want to send a "shout out" to Woodduck... without a doubt one of the most eloquent writers on this board. I find myself not only looking forward to threads he is involved with, but will actually seek them out from time to time. I suspect we can all learn a thing or two about the art of elegant, thoughtful and tightly-argued debate from this duck! I know I have. :cheers:


----------



## millionrainbows

Lukecash12 said:


> What on earth does deification have to do with any of this? Any concrete association at all? IMO, it's interesting enough to discuss religion and music in terms of what actually happened, and in that case you don't have to perform any mental gymnastics to contrive some esoteric understanding. The text of a cantata, magnificat, stabat mater, motet, mass, etc. can speak for itself. Religious thinkers were already esoteric enough; it isn't necessary to rewrite history in order to spice it up, because it's already quite a potpourri met on it's own terms.


Maybe nothing. I think the key here is "being" and Man's relationship to the universe "out there" (and early on he was the center), while atonal music would represent the converse, or a more Eastern view: Man as an _integral part_ or embodiment, not separated as a subject, of the universe via the inner route.

Music reflects this also: tonality's 7-note system is based on fifths/fourths, which project outside of the octave range (P4=5x12=60, P5=7x12=84), and encourage movement, and embody "the other," while geometric and symmetric divisions of the octave are based on smaller, recursive intervals (m2=12÷1=12, M2=12÷2=6, m3=12÷3=4, M3=12÷3=3, tritone=12÷6=2), and embody "the inner."


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> If tonality need not represent the god of Christianity (and I, an atheist, have never considered that it did), atonality can hardly be construed as a metaphor for either an abandonment of that god or for any other sort of divinity. I am still waiting for a compelling explanation of what a-tonality does represent, other than something preceded by an "a."


Well, it's just metaphor, but beyond that, I thinks Man's worldview and religious beliefs are reflected in his art and the hierarchies he creates. This is more social theory than religion, like Giambattista Vico.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> I just see it as the difference between the old, theistic view of the world, versus the new scientific view. In the old paradigm, everything is related to "1" as fractions or ratios. *In the new scientific paradigm, everything is relative*; numbers are quantities, not identities.
> 
> *Atonality fits into this perfectly*, as well; everything is on a number line, and quantity, or interval-distance, is considered in place of intervals as functions (identities) in a tonal, harmonic hierarchy.
> 
> *"Being" is the key term here.* The God stuff is secondary. *In atonality, everything is objectified, the ego is gone, and being is no longer the focus.*


The ego cannot ever be "gone" until we ourselves cease to exist. Moreover, "being" is all there is: there is nothing else to "focus" on. How then can art ever be egoless or cease to focus on being? Without being and ego, there is nothing to focus on and no one to focus on it. If this is your "god within," which you say Webern reached at the "peak of the mountain," "magnificent" and "awesome" are not the descriptors that come to mind.

Your "new scientific paradigm," in which "everything is relative," cannot be a description of the universe. The universe in which we live and about which we can say anything meaningful, is not one in which "total relativity" can be either perceived or conceived except as a floating abstraction, devoid of any concrete referent. "Total relativity" is a negation of (among other things) the way the mind works: of the organizing processes by which percepts and concepts are formed, of the structure of perceptual patterning and concept-formation. It is thus not something that can be represented, communicated, or experienced through any symbolic medium, through language or through art, and any presumption that it can is illusory - unless that representation consists of total accident, chaos, "indeterminacy." But that is merely a formula for meaninglessness, or for the only meaning that the deliberate presentation of meaninglessness can convey: nihilism.

Music which rejects systemic hierarchical organization of pitches must still possess _some _principle(s) of organization if it is to be coherent (not chaotic) and perceived as having any meaning other than pure negation. "Total relativity" is not such a principle of organization. If Webern's music can in fact be experienced as coherent and as having a positive meaning, then your identification of his music with a "new scientific paradigm" of "total relativity," is simply inaccurate, and your imputing to his music (or atonal music in general) a representation of the "god within us" has meaning only by some definition of that god which falls short of the ultimate reality (what happened to relativity?) which the very concept of "God" exists in order to convey.

But, truly, this is not even a "god of the gaps." This god is nothing but a gap. The immensity of Being may leave us speechless with awe, but we may also be mute simply because we find nothing to talk about. I suspect - in this talk of the "atonal god, "new paradigms," absolute "relativity," "unpronounceable names" and "mysteries not meant for the mind of man" - merely another variant of the old fallacy that if we find what is profound to be incomprehensible, we must find the incomprehensible to be profound.


----------



## Lukecash12

millionrainbows said:


> Maybe nothing. I think the key here is "being" and Man's relationship to the universe "out there" (and early on he was the center), while atonal music would represent the converse, or a more Eastern view: Man as an _integral part_ or embodiment, not separated as a subject, of the universe via the inner route.
> 
> Music reflects this also: tonality's 7-note system is based on fifths/fourths, which project outside of the octave range (P4=5x12=60, P5=7x12=84), and encourage movement, and embody "the other," while geometric and symmetric divisions of the octave are based on smaller, recursive intervals (m2=12÷1=12, M2=12÷2=6, m3=12÷3=4, M3=12÷3=3, tritone=12÷6=2), and embody "the inner."


"Maybe" nothing? There are two terms that describe these attitudes in textual criticism, which are used especially by theologians but also spoken of, and at least utilized in principle, by historians: _exegesis_ and _eisegesis_.

_Eisegesis_/_aɪsəˈdʒiːsəs_ is a compound Greek work based on the preposition _εἰς_ for "into", which is in turn derived from _ἐξηγεῖσθαι_, a verb meaning "to lead out" or more simply understood as "interpret". When someone is using _eisegesis_ to assess something, they insert ideas derived from their own personal context, more often than not driven by confirmation bias. It is a common process by which we impose our own ideas upon the material we come into contact with, literary or otherwise (although today these terms are used especially in a literary context). _Exegesis_/_ɛksəˈdʒiːsəs _ is also derived from ἐξήγησις or ἐξηγεῖσθαι meaning "interpret", and as opposed to "into" it is based on the preposition for "from". When we perform _exegesis_ we are meeting material on it's own terms, allowing the originator(s) and any information we have regarding them to be our sole reference point for interpretation.

What's important to note here is that eisegesis is a very solipsistic practice. An eseigetic attitude imposes one perspective on everything it comes into contact with. There are basic underpinning thoughts to this attitude like "well my interpretation of it is more interesting", "I cannot fathom why they thought that way so I am supplying an alternative thought process that makes more sense for them", and so on. When we use this attitude we often work under the assumption that we are smarter, more interesting, more wise, can do more with the material than it's originator.

Exegesis on the other hand is a selfless practice. It allows us to expand our minds by accepting different perspectives and coming to terms with those that are foreign to us. Other people are interesting, what they have to say about their own material is valid, and our ideas are not necessary to insert in order to fit their thoughts into a rational context. Not only can it be fun for us in our own minds, but it can be fun to approximate as best we can the mind of another. This is how we make personal connections through a vicarious experience.

Do we want to experience something esoteric? Well we don't have to stay in our own mental playground alone to have an esoteric experience, as we can vicariously experience this too. There is nothing inherently wrong with either attitude, although each has it's possible cognitive consequences. For the most part we see a wave of musical eisegesis here, but let's not fool ourselves that exegesis is some dry, boring practice. The actual meaning behind the text of a mass, for example, is just as compelling as any meaning you have supplied for yourself.


----------



## Lukecash12

Woodduck said:


> The ego cannot ever be "gone" until we ourselves cease to exist. Moreover, "being" is all there is: there is nothing else to "focus" on. How then can art ever be egoless or cease to focus on being? Without being and ego, there is nothing to focus on and no one to focus on it. If this is your "god within," which you say Webern reached at the "peak of the mountain," "magnificent" and "awesome" are not the descriptors that come to mind.
> 
> Your "new scientific paradigm," in which "everything is relative," cannot be a description of the universe. The universe in which we live and about which we can say anything meaningful, is not one in which "total relativity" can be either perceived or conceived except as a floating abstraction, devoid of any concrete referent. "Total relativity" is a negation of (among other things) the way the mind works: of the organizing processes by which percepts and concepts are formed, of the structure of perceptual patterning and concept-formation. It is thus not something that can be represented, communicated, or experienced through any symbolic medium, through language or through art, and any presumption that it can is illusory - unless that representation consists of total accident, chaos, "indeterminacy." But that is merely a formula for meaninglessness, or for the only meaning that the deliberate presentation of meaninglessness can convey: nihilism.
> 
> Music which rejects systemic hierarchical organization of pitches must still possess _some _principle(s) of organization if it is to be coherent (not chaotic) and perceived as having any meaning other than pure negation. "Total relativity" is not such a principle of organization. If Webern's music can in fact be experienced as coherent and as having a positive meaning, then your identification of his music with a "new scientific paradigm" of "total relativity," is simply inaccurate, and your imputing to his music (or atonal music in general) a representation of the "god within us" has meaning only by some definition of that god which falls short of the ultimate reality (what happened to relativity?) which the very concept of "God" exists in order to convey.
> 
> But, truly, this is not even a "god of the gaps." This god is nothing but a gap. The immensity of Being may leave us speechless with awe, but we may also be mute simply because we find nothing to talk about. I suspect - in this talk of the "atonal god, "new paradigms," absolute "relativity," "unpronounceable names" and "mysteries not meant for the mind of man" - merely another variant of the old fallacy that if we find what is profound to be incomprehensible, we must find the incomprehensible to be profound.


Bravo, monsieur, bravo! Now this is what I call Socratic dialogue, and it's a pleasure to read.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> The ego cannot ever be "gone" until we ourselves cease to exist. Moreover, "being" is all there is: there is nothing else to "focus" on. How then can art ever be egoless or cease to focus on being? Without being and ego, there is nothing to focus on and no one to focus on it. If this is your "god within," which you say Webern reached at the "peak of the mountain," "magnificent" and "awesome" are not the descriptors that come to mind.


This is so totally Western. Of course, "the void" is heresy, nothingness is heresy, The East is heresy. The loss of ego is talked about all the time in Eastern philosophy, and this is what John Cage and Boulez were both trying to accomplish in their own ways. Of course, that's a "religious" or metaphysical idea, and this is art.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Your "new scientific paradigm," in which "everything is relative," cannot be a description of the universe. The universe in which we live and about which we can say anything meaningful, is not one in which "total relativity" can be either perceived or conceived except as a floating abstraction, devoid of any concrete referent.


Oh, that's easy; Newtonian gravity vs. outer space, in which gravity is relative, and things are attracted to each other in terms of relative mass.



Woodduck said:


> "Total relativity" is a negation of (among other things) the way the mind works: of the organizing processes by which percepts and concepts are formed, of the structure of perceptual patterning and concept-formation. It is thus not something that can be represented, communicated, or experienced through any symbolic medium, through language or through art, and any presumption that it can is illusory - unless that representation consists of total accident, chaos, "indeterminacy." But that is merely a formula for meaninglessness, or for the only meaning that the deliberate presentation of meaninglessness can convey: nihilism.


I'd say Barraque is perhaps nihilistic. But this is just a metaphor; it's easy to see how tonality, with its attraction to one note, is like the old Newtonian model, and how atonality is a new world without gravity. It's child's play.



Woodduck said:


> Music which rejects systemic hierarchical organization of pitches must still possess _some _principle(s) of organization if it is to be coherent (not chaotic) and perceived as having any meaning other than pure negation. "Total relativity" is not such a principle of organization. If Webern's music can in fact be experienced as coherent and as having a positive meaning, then your identification of his music with a "new scientific paradigm" of "total relativity," is simply inaccurate, and your imputing to his music (or atonal music in general) a representation of the "god within us" has meaning only by some definition of that god which falls short of the ultimate reality (what happened to relativity?) which the very concept of "God" exists in order to convey.


You're taking this metaphor _waay_ too literally. Of course serialism has a way to organize its material, but tone-centricity is not the most important of these ways, as it is in tonality. I don't see the need for these long-winded counter-arguments. I'm just playing with metaphors. I think my metaphor is a good one, and it stands up on several levels, even literally.



Woodduck said:


> But, truly, this is not even a "god of the gaps." This god is nothing but a gap. The immensity of Being may leave us speechless with awe, but we may also be mute simply because we find nothing to talk about. I suspect - in this talk of the "atonal god, "new paradigms," absolute "relativity," "unpronounceable names" and "mysteries not meant for the mind of man" - merely another variant of the old fallacy that if we find what is profound to be incomprehensible, we must find the incomprehensible to be profound.


It's just a less sensually-based, Man-at-the-center based way of doing things. Labyrinths can be created in which even the artist can get lost. It's just a new way of looking at art & music. People get tired of egotistical bombast.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

millionrainbows said:


> This is so totally Western. Of course, "the void" is heresy, nothingness is heresy, The East is heresy. The loss of ego is talked about all the time in Eastern philosophy, and this is what John Cage and Boulez were both trying to accomplish in their own ways. Of course, that's a "religious" or metaphysical idea, and this is art.


A consciousness that is conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms, millionrainbows.

Before one can identify oneself as a consciousness, on must first be conscious of 'something.'

Consciousness means to identify oneself_ apart from _something else.

Consciousness implies "consciousness '_of_.'"

Neither Hegel nor Bradley nor Eastern mysticism can abjure their metaphysical posturings of this elementary fact.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> But this is just a metaphor; it's easy to see how tonality, with its attraction to one note, is like the old Newtonian model, and how atonality is a new world without gravity. It's child's play.
> 
> *You're taking this metaphor waay too literally*. Of course serialism has a way to organize its material, but tone-centricity is not the most important of these ways, as it is in tonality. I don't see the need for these long-winded counter-arguments. I'm just playing with metaphors.
> 
> It's just a less sensually-based, *Man-at-the-center* based way of doing things. Labyrinths can be created in which even the artist can get lost. It's just a new way of looking at art & music. *People get tired of egotistical bombast*.


OK, I'll take this as your final word on how far your metaphor actually goes in describing the world. It all sounded pretty profound and far-reaching in your OP; you made extravagant-sounding claims for the scientific and metaphysical (philosophical-religious) significance of Webern and atonality, and you did say at one point "Actually, I'm serious. It all makes perfect sense to me, and somebody would have to present a logical counter-argument to convince me otherwise, and I think most of the people here cannot be bothered with putting forth that sort of effort."

So I put forth that sort of effort. Too much effort, I guess! But I do have two more points to make.

First, I'm not sure what you're characterizing as "egotistical bombast," but since the opposition you're setting up is tonal versus atonal music, I think it's safe to say that people all over the world, listening to their tone-centered music over who knows how many centuries, would be enormously surprised to be told that what they were playing and singing was "egotistical bombast."

And second, if I want an experience which reminds me that Man is not at the center of the universe, I find walking in the hills or glancing at the night sky quite a bit more convincing than listening to a few minutes of carefully contrived music put together by a person who, in order to conceive it, make it, get it published, get it performed, and get paid for it, had to be very much the center of his universe. Presumably, that person, if he is a serious and disciplined artist, spends a goodly portion of his time being that center, even if he is telling himself all the while that he is not.

Art is about Man, no matter what else it may be about, and it represents his way of comprehending the world. The need to create it is a human need, and artists will sacrifice much, even everything, to fulfill that need. The universe does not need art. Man, in his desire to comprehend and symbolize the universe as he sees it - repeat, _as he sees it_ - does.

The artist is the egoist, ne plus ultra.


----------



## Lukecash12

Woodduck said:


> First, I'm not sure what you're characterizing as "egotistical bombast," but since the opposition you're setting up is tonal versus atonal music, I think it's safe to say that people all over the world, listening to their tone-centered music over who knows how many centuries, would be enormously surprised to be told that what they were playing and singing was "egotistical bombast."


This is a perfect example of eisegesis. Another person's carefully crafted ideas must fit into his head, rather than his own ideas registering in any substantial way the ideas in their heads. Most ideas of the primarily eisegetical thinker are bound up in a subjective truism, because his deficiency in entertaining the ideas of others can make his ideas alone real enough to seem compelling. Which is ironic because this is clearly an expression of the "ego's" influence.

Such postmodern thinking and it's similar iterations in eastern thinking falls prey to it's own inconsistency. It renders language meaningless and at the same time that it does that, it simply tacks on another unsupported claim that language is *necessarily* meaningless. Not only does it forsake any known tools of reasoning, it appeals to experiential validation.

Accepting experiential validation as the sole tool of reasoning invites so much contradiction that even at this radical juncture of reasoning we find that nothing can be validated, because the very moment that they argue validation for it they are using language, one of the very same tools of reasoning that they deny. They are right based on the simple virtue that they say so. So as we can see, the very same thinkers that deny the ego use it exclusively to validate their own thoughts. That such reasoning and conclusions are taken seriously is the height of irony.


----------



## Woodduck

Lukecash12 said:


> This is a perfect example of eisegesis. Another person's carefully crafted ideas must fit into his head, rather than his own ideas registering in any substantial way the ideas in their heads. Most ideas of the primarily eisegetical thinker are bound up in a subjective truism, because his deficiency in entertaining the ideas of others can make his ideas alone real enough to seem compelling. Which is ironic because this is clearly an expression of the "ego's" influence.
> 
> Such postmodern thinking and it's similar iterations in eastern thinking falls prey to it's own inconsistency. It renders language meaningless and at the same time that it does that, it simply tacks on another unsupported claim that language is *necessarily* meaningless. Not only does it forsake any known tools of reasoning, it appeals to experiential validation.
> 
> Accepting experiential validation as the sole tool of reasoning invites so much contradiction that even at this radical juncture of reasoning we find that nothing can be validated, because the very moment that they argue validation for it they are using language, one of the very same tools of reasoning that they deny. They are right based on the simple virtue that they say so. So as we can see, the very same thinkers that deny the ego use it exclusively to validate their own thoughts. That such reasoning and conclusions are taken seriously is the height of irony.


I'm finding this hard to follow, Lukecash, and I wonder if it boils down to what Ayn Rand called the "fallacy of the stolen concept," whereby one denies the validity of a concept whose root concepts one must accept even in the act of denying it. One thus ends up with a self-refuting idea. An example would be the statement "You cannot prove you exist," which ignores the fact that "proof" presupposes the existence of someone to do the proving. In the context of this discussion, only a being possessing an ego can talk of denying the ego, and the (unachievable) attempt to obliterate ego must be an act of ego rooted in a desire of ego.


----------



## Lukecash12

Woodduck said:


> I'm finding this hard to follow, Lukecash, and I wonder if it boils down to what Ayn Rand called the "fallacy of the stolen concept," whereby one denies the validity of a concept whose root concepts one must accept even in the act of denying it. One thus ends up with a self-refuting idea. An example would be the statement "You cannot prove you exist," which ignores the fact that "proof" presupposes the existence of someone to do the proving. In the context of this discussion, only a being possessing an ego can talk of denying the ego, and the (unachievable) attempt to obliterate ego must be an act of ego rooted in a desire of ego.


Your description of a self refuting idea is exactly what it boils down to. And the irony I am referring to is that the inconsistency in postmodern and eastern thinking falls flat on the face in it's apparent use of the ego.

What material are you having trouble with? My reference to exegesis and eisegesis, or my refutation of million's underpinning philosophy?


----------



## Marschallin Blair

> _Woodduck: The artist is the egoist, ne plus ultra._


I _LOVE_ that quote.

Close thy Bible.

Open thy Woodduck. . . or even thy Rand. _;D_


----------



## Albert7

Wow this thread is pretty derailed. I think that I am going to buy some Webern and chill and relax with a beer in hand.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> I suspect - in this talk of the "atonal god, "new paradigms," absolute "relativity," "unpronounceable names" and "mysteries not meant for the mind of man" - merely another variant of the old fallacy that if we find what is profound to be incomprehensible, we must find the incomprehensible to be profound.


It wasn't just me then (that found it incomprehensible)? That's a relief. Thanks for shouldering the burden this time, Woodduck.


----------



## Lukecash12

MacLeod said:


> It wasn't just me then (that found it incomprehensible)? That's a relief. Thanks for shouldering the burden this time, Woodduck.


Welcome to postmodern thinking. Million has used postmodern thinking numerous times already and there are tons of threads that he has made, that are exactly like this. After reading enough of it I tried to address the underpinnings of his type of thinking, and imo Woodduck did a fine job of addressing that as well. I'm sure it must have seemed off topic to Albert7, but I doubt several of us here who have read thread after thread like this feel that way.

It baffles me how pervasive postmodern thinking is today, and what's more it baffles me that it became a prominent movement in the first place. Doubtless, even romance period philosophers would have found this school of thought inane.

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

_Martin Heidegger

Rejected the philosophical basis of the concepts of "subjectivity" and "objectivity" and asserted that similar grounding oppositions in logic ultimately refer to one another. Instead of resisting the admission of this paradox in the search for understanding, Heidegger requires that we embrace it through an active process of elucidation he called the "Hermeneutic Circle". He stressed the historicity and cultural construction of concepts while simultaneously advocating the necessity of an atemporal and immanent apprehension of them.

Jacques Derrida

Re-examined the fundamentals of writing and its consequences on philosophy in general; sought to undermine the language of 'presence' or metaphysics in an analytical technique which, beginning as a point of departure from Heidegger's notion of Destruktion, came to be known as Deconstruction. Derrida utilized, like Heidegger, references to Greek philosophical notions associated with the Skeptics and the Presocratics, such as Epoché and Aporia to articulate his notion of implicit circularity between premises and conclusions, origins and manifestations, but - in a manner analogous in certain respects to Gilles Deleuze - presented a radical re-reading of canonical philosophical figures such as Plato, Aristotle and Descartes as themselves being informed by such "destabilizing" notions.

Richard Rorty

In addition, he denounces the traditional epistemological perspectives of Representationalism and Correspondence theory that rely upon the independence of knowers and observers from phenomena and the passivity of natural phenomena in relation to consciousness. As a proponent of anti-foundationalism and anti-essentialism within a Pragmatist framework, he echoes Postmodern strains of Conventionalism and Philosophical Relativism, but opposes much Postmodern thinking with his commitment to Social Liberalism._

Representationalism and Correspondence theory is being denied by a number of such philosophers, so we have principles basic to empiricism being thrown out with the bathwater, and what other means are we left with in order to reason then? The school of rationalism (although a number of rationalist models still accept correspondence and varying levels of representationalism), which romanticism and other similar schools fit under.

But postmodernists can't make even a rational appeal for the truth value of any of their statements either because they deny that language is able to represent/explain in any way the truth. So the truth must be experienced (and it can't even be a sensory experience at that, it has to be "transcendental"/Hindu-sage or "immanent"/Taoist-sage). And when we use experience alone that is when we go off the deep end regarding any semblance of rationality.

Representationalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_and_indirect_realism
Correspondence theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_theory
Rationalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism#Modern_rationalism
Coherence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherence_theory_of_truth

Sorry guys if this material seems dense, but if you break just a bit of it down from the last three entries I've referred, you can see exactly how far off the deep end thinkers like million go whenever they use solipsism itself as the only accepted form of reasoning. You may notice that there are some pretty basic concepts behind these last four entries I've referenced and you probably use that kind of reasoning yourself all the time, because it has to be done in order to operate in the real world (most especially a mixture of coherence and correspondence).

I would highly suggest IEP and the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy on these issues, but I just went with wiki because those sources would probably have entirely too much technical jargon type vocabulary for me to get my point across. Even referring to wiki instead it appears there is a hefty amount of technical jargon, but once you see the basic ideas here it's not hard to grasp. Correspondence theory, for example, is really quite simple once you get past the jargon, and it'll be apparent why there are nonsensical consequences to not accepting it at all, or at least marrying it with coherence or some other value.

There's a clear reason why realists, post modernists, and complete skeptics are for the most part being criticized by reputable philosophy journals today. The least sensible part of their philosophy is the substitute tools of reasoning that they supply to fill the void in the absence of these basic standards of reasoning that they reject wholesale.


----------



## isorhythm

^I used to agree with a lot of that but I mostly no longer do.

Every attempt at an empiricist/logical positivist system falls apart quickly when you poke at it too much. The basic problem is that we know the world only through our subjective perception, and the relationship between our perception and the world "out there" proves impossible to pin down.

One way out of this is postmodernism. Another is religion.


----------



## millionrainbows

Marschallin Blair said:


> A consciousness that is conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms, millionrainbows.
> 
> Before one can identify oneself as a consciousness, on must first be conscious of 'something.'
> 
> Consciousness means to identify oneself_ apart from _something else.
> 
> Consciousness implies "consciousness '_of_.'"
> 
> Neither Hegel nor Bradley nor Eastern mysticism can abjure their metaphysical posturings of this elementary fact.


That's good logic, but logic isn't going to work here, because we're talking about that part of the self which is pre-thought. It's just pure awareness. These kinds of paradoxes are scattered everywhere through Zen and Eastern writings, like the diamond sutra. They are big lists that go on for pages. This is not Western philosophy.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> OK, I'll take this as your final word on how far your metaphor actually goes in describing the world. It all sounded pretty profound and far-reaching in your OP; you made extravagant-sounding claims for the scientific and metaphysical (philosophical-religious) significance of Webern and atonality, and you did say at one point "Actually, I'm serious. It all makes perfect sense to me, and somebody would have to present a logical counter-argument to convince me otherwise, and I think most of the people here cannot be bothered with putting forth that sort of effort."
> 
> So I put forth that sort of effort. Too much effort, I guess! But I do have two more points to make.
> 
> First, I'm not sure what you're characterizing as "egotistical bombast," but since the opposition you're setting up is tonal versus atonal music, I think it's safe to say that people all over the world, listening to their tone-centered music over who knows how many centuries, would be enormously surprised to be told that what they were playing and singing was "egotistical bombast."


That's not my purpose at all; the ego is not all bad. But after WWII, and the destruction of Europe, and then the hydrogen bomb, the Darmstadt boys were understandably bitter. Plus, the modernist idea of "self-generating systems" is not new. Plus, there is the surrealist influence, of "unconscious" drawing and writing, like Pollock and the ab-ex boys were into. Cage as well. None of this is meant for logical analysis, because it's not philosophy, it's art.



Woodduck said:


> And second, if I want an experience which reminds me that Man is not at the center of the universe, I find walking in the hills or glancing at the night sky quite a bit more convincing than listening to a few minutes of carefully contrived music put together by a person who, in order to conceive it, make it, get it published, get it performed, and get paid for it, had to be very much the center of his universe. Presumably, that person, if he is a serious and disciplined artist, spends a goodly portion of his time being that center, even if he is telling himself all the while that he is not.


Your metaphor of a night sky is a fortuitous coincidence; Stockhausen called it "star music." What if an artist wanted to re-create your "walk in the hills?" I think it's just art that does not want to seem postured or too infused with the artist's persona. That's not very hard to wrap your mind around.



Woodduck said:


> Art is about Man, no matter what else it may be about, and it represents his way of comprehending the world. The need to create it is a human need, and artists will sacrifice much, even everything, to fulfill that need. The universe does not need art. Man, in his desire to comprehend and symbolize the universe as he sees it - repeat, _as he sees it_ - does.
> 
> The artist is the egoist, ne plus ultra.


Yes, I see your point, but that is after the fact, in a way. A landscape, or an objective still life is about the objects depicted; you're supposed to play along and just look at the bowl of fruit, or whatever it is. The same way with serialism; or John Cage, or Boulez; they are going for a kind of objectivity, and that should be your focus. The philosophy about "art is about man" can come afterwards. You're putting the horse before the cart. Modernists try to create "labyrinths" that we can get lost in. The art is about structures more than it is some sort of commentary on Man or a not-so-subtle expression of their own ego. At least, that's what they are attempting to do. No attempt is perfect.


----------



## Guest

isorhythm said:


> The basic problem is that we know the world only through our subjective perception, and the relationship between our perception and the world "out there" proves impossible to pin down.


For you may be, but not for everyone. A pragmatic approach to life accepts that, whatever problems the philosophers put in our way, we can (and probably must) continue to behave as if what we sense through our subjective perception is actually "real". This is partly because we can compare our experiences with so many other people's experiences, as well as developing our own store of knowledge about the reliability of the world around us.

If you don't want a pragmatic approach, that's fine, but don't feel compelled to impose your worldview of the rest of us! 



Lukecash12 said:


> Welcome to postmodern thinking.


Thanks for the post, and the links. I've sampled them, but inevitably, the density (or is it the over-simplicity) makes it difficult reading. For the reasons I've given to isorhythm, I prefer life in a simpler world where I don't have to wade through layers of over-complexity to get to life experience - which is quite complicated enough, thank you.


----------



## isorhythm

MacLeod said:


> For you may be, but not for everyone. A pragmatic approach to life accepts that, whatever problems the philosophers put in our way, we can (and probably must) continue to behave as if what we sense through our subjective perception is actually "real". This is partly because we can compare our experiences with so many other people's experiences, as well as developing our own store of knowledge about the reliability of the world around us.
> 
> If you don't want a pragmatic approach, that's fine, but don't feel compelled to impose your worldview of the rest of us!


Naturally in real life I do adopt a pragmatic approach, as does almost everyone I imagine. But philosophers' whole job is to think! Anyway full-on pragmatism shades into postmodernism (see Rorty reference in Lukecash's post).

I'm somewhat surprised that so many people are having trouble with associating music with the irrational, mystical or transpersonal. To me that's all at the heart of what music is...but of course there are a lot of ways to listen to music.


----------



## Kathrin

It would be interesting to see what Webern would say to the content of this thread... after all even listening is part of the interpretation process... in any case Webern was born catholic, non practicing religion with an inclination to nature and spirit. I think he was mainly interested in tonal versus non-tonal aspects of his compositions.


----------



## Lukecash12

isorhythm said:


> Naturally in real life I do adopt a pragmatic approach, as does almost everyone I imagine. But philosophers' whole job is to think! Anyway full-on pragmatism shades into postmodernism (see Rorty reference in Lukecash's post).
> 
> I'm somewhat surprised that so many people are having trouble with associating music with the irrational, mystical or transpersonal. To me that's all at the heart of what music is...but of course there are a lot of ways to listen to music.


I don't have any trouble thinking about music along those lines. My personal problem with it is that it is an anachronism. And anachronistic thinking is simply not interesting to me. It is eisegesis and it is solipsistic, neither of which I find to be inherently problematic but neither of which do I personally find entertaining when I enjoy art.

Example:









This is Leonardo da Vinci's painting of the Last Supper. While on it's own it is a fascinating piece of art, let's hypothesize that the Last Supper itself is another piece of art. Say we were listening to "the Last Supper" and million wanted to go on and on with me about tables. It wouldn't be terribly compelling to me because in Jesus' day there was no such thing as that type of table. In fact, they would have been sitting on cushions, or ragged mats considering the meager means of their host, around a cloth. The reason that I am more compelled by the real image than a feast at a table, is that I am connecting more with those actual people and their ideas, instead of inserting my ideas into their setting, or even inserting my ideas into their heads. Like I said, that is solipsistic.

So, when I see the suggestion that Webern was concerning himself with a loaded philosophical concept like oneness, and all kinds of other anachronisms, it strikes me to point out that the real deal itself isn't as boring as we crack it up to be. We don't have to supply inspirational interpretations using solely our own frame of reference.


----------



## Guest

isorhythm said:


> I'm somewhat surprised that so many people are having trouble with associating music with the irrational, mystical or transpersonal.


I'm not. Well, I'd be surprised if they can't accept that this connection is often made - between music and what others claim is an irrational, mystical or transpersonal experience.

But I'm not surprised if they actually reject the framing of musical experience in this way. You and I might have exactly the same response to music - physiologically speaking - but analyse and describe it in different terms, coming to a different understanding of our experience, informing our emotional and psychological response quite differently.

The difficulty is that if I say I don't have a "mystical" response to music, another might simply claim that I've not listened yet to the right music, or that I'm not properly understanding it, or that I'm not sensitive enough. I might argue in return that I'm getting a full, rich, rewarding experience - I just don't believe in the 'mystic', so wouldn't characterise it in suchlike terms.


----------



## isorhythm

MacLeod said:


> I just don't believe in the 'mystic'


I don't really understand what this means. The "mystic" is an important and powerful human experience across cultures, whether or not you have experienced it and regardless of what meanings people do or do not attach to it.

Anyway this discussion has gotten too abstract for me. Going to listen to Webern's symphony.


----------



## Woodduck

isorhythm said:


> I'm somewhat surprised that so many people are having trouble with associating music with the irrational, mystical or transpersonal. To me that's all at the heart of what music is.


I suppose that whether and how we associate music with the irrational, the mystical, and the transpersonal depends on what we think those words mean. Does the "irrational" mean the pre-rational (as in the unconscious organization of percepts by the brain), the sub-rational (as in intuitive connections made without conscious deliberation, which are the "underwater part of the iceberg" in any thought process), the anti-rational (as in ideas or attitudes that defy logic), or merely the non-rational (as in the mental functions of an infant, which in an adult would persist as pre-rational functions)? Or does the irrational refer to emotion, particularly in those respects in which feeling is independent of, or in opposition to, rational functioning? Most people, I suspect, would view the experience of music as "irrational" in several of these senses.

The mysterious power of music to affect our feelings might be regarded as "mystical," in the loose sense of the term which conflates it with the "mysterious." Strictly defined, mysticism is not a synonym for the unexplained or the unexplainable. Nor, I think, is the experience of music a type of mystical experience, though the two may be equally impossible to comprehend rationally. Music may give us an experience different from "ordinary" consciousness; we might have a sense of being "one" with it, which might resemble, to an extent, the feeling of "oneness" with things which is part of the mystical experience. But the true mystical experience, whatever precipitates it, seems generated from within and is indiscriminate in what it embraces, while the musical experience is caused by the music while we are hearing it, and our experience of "oneness" focuses on it alone to the exclusion of other things in our environment. This is not to say that music, like almost any other stimulus, cannot act to induce a true mystical experience. Certain types of music have been used ritually to do just that.

I'm not sure that any of this relates to the idea that atonal music is somehow analogous to a relativistic, hierarchy-free universe or an egoless psychological state. But it seems an interesting tangent.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> *The ego is not all bad.* But after WWII, and the destruction of Europe, and then the hydrogen bomb, *the Darmstadt boys were understandably bitter. *
> 
> What if an artist wanted to re-create your "walk in the hills?" I think *it's just art that does not want to seem postured or too infused with the artist's persona. *That's not very hard to wrap your mind around.
> 
> A landscape, or an objective still life is about the objects depicted; you're supposed to play along and just look at the bowl of fruit, or whatever it is. The same way with *serialism; or John Cage, or Boulez; they are going for a kind of objectivity,* and that should be your focus. Modernists try to create "labyrinths" that we can get lost in. * The art is about structures more than it is some **sort of commentary on Man or a not-so-subtle expression of their own ego.* At least, that's what they are attempting to do. No attempt is perfect.


The term "ego" is ambiguous and problematic. On the one hand we are told we need a strong ego in order to have a clear identity, to "know who we are," to feel secure and efficaceous in living in the world. On the other hand we are told that we need to "get over ourselves," to avoid "egotism," and at the extreme to seek an experience of "egolessness" as a sign of "enlightenment." I don't find the use of it here entirely clear.

I think I understand your reference to art that seems "too infused with the artist's persona" or "postured." I'm less clear as to what specific art you're describing that way. Staying with music, it seems obvious that some music strives conspicuously for emotional expression, and other music less so. But there does seem to be a lot of disagreement as to what music does or intends what. Mahlerian, for example, appears to hear a lot of non-tonal music as more expressive than some other listeners do. Some hear a marked expressiveness in certain works of Stravinsky or Webern which others find cool and cerebral. But, leaving such disagreements aside, the question arises as to whether expressiveness as such indicates "infusion with the artist's persona" or "posturing" - and, for that matter, are these not two different things? If music is a genuine expression of the artist's feelings or sensibility, in what way is it posturing?

The pursuit of "objectivity" in the representational visual arts seems straightforward: take a snapshot, and you have a pretty objective view of your flower arrangement or whatever. But even a snapshot cannot avoid having a point of view, portraying certain effects of light, and framing its subject in a certain way. Music, not being (essentially or necessarily) a representation of objects and thus not being concerned with the portrayal of them, might seem better poised to be "purely objective." But what is the "object"? An arrangement of sounds. And what is an "arrangement"? A pattern. Can a pattern be "objective"? A pattern has to be decided by choice, and a choice has to be made on the basis of some principle, identified or not, determining what note "ought" to follow what. That principle can be a mathematically-derived one, or it can be based on some "feeling" other than a sense of mathematical interval and proportion. But from whence arise such feelings? What - if something other than a mathematical sense - urges a composer to make one note follow another? It seems to me that such feelings and urges are necessarily manifestations of a composer's subjective being. The composer may not be aiming at expressing anything in particular, but if he composes "honestly" according to his feelings, he will (assuming that his feelings are not purely chaotic and whimsical) express his individuality. Is that individuality his "ego," or is it something else?

To take an extreme case, it's probably pretty easy to agree that 4'33" is not striving for "self-expression" (regardless of how anyone "listening" to it feels as a result of the experience). But is not the very concept of it "infused with the artist's persona," and has it not been seen by many, rightly or wrongly, as an instance of "posturing"? We might ask the same questions about Cage's "chance" music, or any other conscious effort to remove from music the "ego" of the artist. A composer who chooses and patterns his notes by virtue of felt necessity, whether or not he is working within an established form, and whether or not he intends any particular expression, including self-expression, is creating naturally and expressing his individuality, and yet there is nothing intrinsically "egotistical" in the activity. On the contrary, artists know that the process of creation, when most spontaneous and uninhibited by preconceived notions, is the most blissfully self-forgetting act they can perform. On the other hand, the attempt to replace that natural, non-egotistical flow of inspiration with some "concept" of music which bears the certification "ego-free" seems to me to be, paradoxically, as completely and unqualifiedly a self-conscious, egotistical act and a "posturing" as can be.

The purveyors of Romantic bombast were just mediocre talents trying sincerely to do what their superiors did better. They were not out to prove anything. The same cannot be said of Boulez, Stockhausen, Cage and the other prophets of "new paradigms." The "Darmstadt boys" may well have been bitter about human destructiveness - who isn't? - but if they actually thought, as you seem to be saying, that art expressive of human feeling represented or contributed to the destruction of civilization and the invention of The Bomb, and that an impersonal, "objective" pattern-play concerned with "structures" was the solution, they were throwing out the biggest baby with the smallest basin of bathwater in musical history.


----------



## Guest

isorhythm said:


> I don't really understand what this means.


Hang on...it was you who introduced the term in our exchange, not me. Now you say you don't understand it? Or do you mean that you can't understand why I'm saying I don't believe in it?



isorhythm said:


> The "mystic" is an important and powerful human experience across cultures, whether or not you have experienced it and regardless of what meanings people do or do not attach to it.


Regardless? I think you must have regard to the meaning - or we can't discuss. Anyway, substitute 'god' for 'mystic' and you'll see what I mean. I'm well aware that it is a powerful and important experience across cultures, but I reject the reality and the significance that believers attach to it.



isorhythm said:


> Anyway this discussion has gotten too abstract for me. Going to listen to Webern's symphony.


Too abstract? I'm the one trying to keep it within the bounds of the concrete. Never mind the music; get back here and finish the discussion!


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> The term "ego" is ambiguous and problematic. On the one hand we are told we need a strong ego in order to have a clear identity, to "know who we are," to feel secure and efficaceous in living in the world. On the other hand we are told that we need to "get over ourselves," to avoid "egotism," and at the extreme to seek an experience of "egolessness" as a sign of "enlightenment." I don't find the use of it here entirely clear.


It's like a good tennis player, or improvisor, who is able to act with pure awareness. They have 'transcended' the need for monitoring or rational posturing, and are simply acting from a state of pure being.



Woodduck said:


> I think I understand your reference to art that seems "too infused with the artist's persona" or "postured." I'm less clear as to what specific art you're describing that way. Staying with music, it seems obvious that some music strives conspicuously for emotional expression, and other music less so. But there does seem to be a lot of disagreement as to what music does or intends what. Mahlerian, for example, appears to hear a lot of non-tonal music as more expressive than some other listeners do. Some hear a marked expressiveness in certain works of Stravinsky or Webern which others find cool and cerebral. But, leaving such disagreements aside, the question arises as to whether expressiveness as such indicates "infusion with the artist's persona" or "posturing" - and, for that matter, are these not two different things? If music is a genuine expression of the artist's feelings or sensibility, in what way is it posturing?


Wagner is the kind of Nationalism which embodies the old paradigm of "genius and masterpiece." Cage was trying to remove all traces of his personality from the work by creating systems which were self-generating. Whether or not either one accomplished this 'perfectly' is not my point. Modernism in general is less concerned with personal expression.



Woodduck said:


> The pursuit of "objectivity" in the representational visual arts seems straightforward: take a snapshot, and you have a pretty objective view of your flower arrangement or whatever. But even a snapshot cannot avoid having a point of view, portraying certain effects of light, and framing its subject in a certain way.


Yes, but that is splitting hairs. A better example might be Warhol, who screen-printed images, or Jackson Pollock ("Jack the Dripper") who never touched the canvas with a brush.



Woodduck said:


> Music, not being (essentially or necessarily) a representation of objects and thus not being concerned with the portrayal of them, might seem better poised to be "purely objective." But what is the "object"? An arrangement of sounds. And what is an "arrangement"? A pattern. Can a pattern be "objective"? A pattern has to be decided by choice, and a choice has to be made on the basis of some principle, identified or not, determining what note "ought" to follow what. That principle can be a mathematically-derived one, or it can be based on some "feeling" other than a sense of mathematical interval and proportion. But from whence arise such feelings? What - if something other than a mathematical sense - urges a composer to make one note follow another? It seems to me that such feelings and urges are necessarily manifestations of a composer's subjective being. The composer may not be aiming at expressing anything in particular, but if he composes "honestly" according to his feelings, he will (assuming that his feelings are not purely chaotic and whimsical) express his individuality. Is that individuality his "ego," or is it something else?


Again, the logic is good, but this is art, not philosophy. Morton Feldman is a good example of ego-minimization; his music seems to be 'static' at times, achieving a state of stasis or stillness. He has said he took Cage's advice, and wants to "let the notes be themselves."



Woodduck said:


> To take an extreme case, it's probably pretty easy to agree that 4'33" is not striving for "self-expression" (regardless of how anyone "listening" to it feels as a result of the experience).


See? Aren't you glad that 4'33" exists? It's times like these when we need it as a reference point. :lol:



Woodduck said:


> But is not the very concept of it "infused with the artist's persona," and has it not been seen by many, rightly or wrongly, as an instance of "posturing"? We might ask the same questions about Cage's "chance" music, or any other conscious effort to remove from music the "ego" of the artist. A composer who chooses and patterns his notes by virtue of felt necessity, whether or not he is working within an established form, and whether or not he intends any particular expression, including self-expression, is creating naturally and expressing his individuality, and yet there is nothing intrinsically "egotistical" in the activity. On the contrary, artists know that the process of creation, when most spontaneous and uninhibited by preconceived notions, is the most blissfully self-forgetting act they can perform. On the other hand, the attempt to replace that natural, non-egotistical flow of inspiration with some "concept" of music which bears the certification "ego-free" seems to me to be, paradoxically, as completely and unqualifiedly a self-conscious, egotistical act and a "posturing" as can be.


Yes, but that assessment comes after the fact, or is at least obstructing one's perception of it, and the composer's intent. When I hear Milton Babbit's Piano Concerto, I accept the "given" that it is concerned with different things than Wagner's music.



Woodduck said:


> The purveyors of Romantic bombast were just mediocre talents trying sincerely to do what their superiors did better. They were not out to prove anything. The same cannot be said of Boulez, Stockhausen, Cage and the other prophets of "new paradigms." The "Darmstadt boys" may well have been bitter about human destructiveness - who isn't? - but if they actually thought, as you seem to be saying, that art expressive of human feeling represented or contributed to the destruction of civilization and the invention of The Bomb, and that an impersonal, "objective" pattern-play concerned with "structures" was the solution, they were throwing out the biggest baby with the smallest basin of bathwater in musical history.


Boulez himself admitted that "Structures" for 2 pianos was a failure. On the other hand, works such as these are milestones on the road to a totally different modern paradigm.


----------



## isorhythm

Sorry, I somehow failed to notice that this conversation was still happening.



Woodduck said:


> *Music may give us an experience different from "ordinary" consciousness; we might have a sense of being "one" with it, which might resemble, to an extent, the feeling of "oneness" with things which is part of the mystical experience. *But the true mystical experience, whatever precipitates it, seems generated from within and is indiscriminate in what it embraces, while the musical experience is caused by the music while we are hearing it, and our experience of "oneness" focuses on it alone to the exclusion of other things in our environment. *This is not to say that music, like almost any other stimulus, cannot act to induce a true mystical experience. Certain types of music have been used ritually to do just that.*


Yes - the bolded parts are exactly what I was getting at here. I'm not sure I agree with your distinction between true mystical experience and that induced by music; I would say that they're manifestations of the same thing.



MacLeod said:


> Anyway, substitute 'god' for 'mystic' and you'll see what I mean. I'm well aware that it is a powerful and important experience across cultures, but I reject the reality and the significance that believers attach to it.


The difference between "god" and "mystic" is that the former refers to something that exists "out there," or not. Most people believe in god, but they may well be mistaken. It is impossible by definition, however, to be mistaken about one's own subjective experience.

I don't mean my very short responses to be glib or dismissive, by the way. It's only that I'm finding it difficult to put my thoughts on this into words, and - get ready for possibly the most brazen cop-out in the history of TalkClassical! - I believe these concepts are by nature not susceptible to verbal description.


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> Sorry, I somehow failed to notice that this conversation was still happening.
> 
> Yes - the bolded parts are exactly what I was getting at here. I'm not sure I agree with your distinction between true mystical experience and that induced by music; I would say that they're manifestations of the same thing.


Yes, I agree; we 'resonate' to music.



isorhythm said:


> The difference between "god" and "mystic" is that the former refers to something that exists "out there," or not. Most people believe in god, but they may well be mistaken. It is impossible by definition, however, to be mistaken about one's own subjective experience.


Nice observation, but unfortunately, the converse is also true: we cannot "prove" our experience, any more than we can "prove" that God exists. As the British psychologist R.D. Laing said, _"The soul is Man's invisibility to Man."_

Ironic, isn't it? I can't "prove" I exist to you, because our beings are separated. Your experience is "invisible" to me in a very real, concrete way. I can only "infer" from your attempts to communicate with me, but I can't BE you.



isorhythm said:


> I don't mean my very short responses to be glib or dismissive, by the way. It's only that I'm finding it difficult to put my thoughts on this into words, and - get ready for possibly the most brazen cop-out in the history of TalkClassical! - I believe these concepts are by nature not susceptible to verbal description.


Exactly; that's why psychology is now all based on observable behavior, not experience, or dreams, etc; observed behavior yields DATA, and everybody loves data these days, especially corporate entities.

*HAPPY FOURTH OF JULY, EVERYONE! *


----------



## Guest

isorhythm said:


> The difference between "god" and "mystic" is that the former refers to something that exists "out there," or not. Most people believe in god, but they may well be mistaken. It is impossible by definition, however, to be mistaken about one's own subjective experience.


Except that "mystic" is usually used to refer to the idea of connecting to something "out there" - both the experience of "connecting" and the thing connected to.

As for subjective experience, it's quite possible to be mistaken.


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> Except that "mystic" is usually used to refer to the idea of connecting to something "out there" - both the experience of "connecting" and the thing connected to.
> 
> As for subjective experience, it's quite possible to be mistaken.


I think your concept of "mysticism" is inaccurate. The mystical experience refers not to "something out there" but to _everything_ both "out there" and "in here." It's an experience typically described as one of unity: an expansion of the self to include what is usually felt to be separate from the self, an absorption of the separate self into a larger reality, a loss of the usual sense of boundedness. It is is not basically a feeling of relationship to "something," as "relationship" implies "thingness" - particularity, separateness, and boundedness. It is therefore not a feeling of relationship to a "god," even if one happens to believe in some such entity. No such belief is necessary; belief is not even in question, and religious believers who have these experiences have described them as going "beyond" God, since God is a "being" defined as possessing particular qualities. Since mystical experience can't be described in terms of "things," it can only be described obliquely and in terms of its emotional component, which is usually called "ecstasy."

I, as an atheist, have experienced this, though not often and not for a great many years now. I suspect it is a rare experience for most adults, but a common one for children, whose subjective sense of reality is more open and fluid. I would say that certain ordinary experiences can at times "imitate" mysticism in a partial way by producing a loss of awareness of our boundedness, notably music and sex. We often feel "absorbed" by music, or feel that it's "inside" us; we can't tell whether what we're feeling is a part of the music itself or merely a part of our response to it.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> I think your concept of "mysticism" is inaccurate.


Quite possibly, but I've not been talking about mysticism; I've been using 'mystic' (not 'mysticism') as a shorthand for the collection of terms being bandied around here which you yourself said need definition (_"__the irrational, the mystical, and the transpersonal depends on what we think those words mean"_). 



Woodduck said:


> The mystical experience refers not to "something out there" but to _everything_ both "out there" and "in here." It's an experience typically described as one of unity: an expansion of the self to include what is usually felt to be separate from the self, an absorption of the separate self into a larger reality, a loss of the usual sense of boundedness. It is is not basically a feeling of relationship to "something," as "relationship" implies "thingness" - particularity, separateness, and boundedness.


I fail to see how "connectedness to _something_" (non-specific, but not 'god') is not compatible with "connectedness to _everything._"

In any case, my intention was to indicate that I reject the idea that listening to music 'connects' me to _anything _- except the music and myself. Whilst I know that I cannot/should not also reject the _experiences _of other people, nevertheless, I reject any _explanation _of the description of such experiences that entails the identification of "something" (inner or outer) to which one connects.

To put it a mite crudely, if someone were to say that listening to Beethoven's 9th makes them come over all wibbly-wobbly - that's fine. When they go on to say that 'wibbly-wobblyness' is explained by their becoming connected to a "Oneness" or "A Universal Whole" or, in narrower circumstances, to an "Almighty Presence or Being" - that's where I draw the line, since I don't believe that any of these entities exist (I'm not rejecting only the notion of 'god').


----------



## millionrainbows

EDaddy said:


> I just want to send a "shout out" to Woodduck... without a doubt one of the most eloquent writers on this board. I find myself not only looking forward to threads he is involved with, but will actually seek them out from time to time. I suspect we can all learn a thing or two about the art of elegant, thoughtful and tightly-argued debate from this duck! I know I have. :cheers:


In order for "God" Woodduck to exist, there must be a "Devil" millionrainbows.


----------



## Guest

It's the aural equivalent of a surrealist painting. It's irrational and unguided because if the painter puts meaning into it, it is spoiled with his personality. It must be a painting untainted by human conceptions and perceptions where the viewer may see something in it that is greater than anything the artist could ever have dreamed of inserting. Likewise, in atonality, the human personality is dissolved. disintegrated and all that is left is pure music where the listener may hear something far beyond what the composer could ever have consciously inserted. In this way, the listener get closer to "god" although it is not a god of religion but something cosmic, intelligent and great but also undefined and unknowable by normal modes of consciousness.


----------



## Mahlerian

Victor Redseal said:


> It's the aural equivalent of a surrealist painting. It's irrational and unguided because if the painter puts meaning into it, it is spoiled with his personality. It must be a painting untainted by human conceptions and perceptions where the viewer may see something in it that is greater than anything the artist could ever have dreamed of inserting. Likewise, in atonality, the human personality is dissolved. disintegrated and all that is left is pure music where the listener may hear something far beyond what the composer could ever have consciously inserted. In this way, the listener get closer to "god" although it is not a god of religion but something cosmic, intelligent and great but also undefined and unknowable by normal modes of consciousness.


Can you explain how so-called atonal music removes the human personality? It sounds to me as if the music called atonal is intensely personal.

 Webern - String Quartet

Could anyone besides Schoenberg have written this piece, with its compact, lyric intensity, its fluid shifts of mood?
Schoenberg - String Quartet 3 Adagio

Takemitsu - Landscape

Carter - Fragments 1 and 2


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahlerian said:


> Can you explain how so-called atonal music removes the human personality? It sounds to me as if the music called atonal is intensely personal.
> Could anyone besides Schoenberg have written this piece, with its compact, lyric intensity, its fluid shifts of mood?


Yes, Mahlerian, I agree that Schoenberg's personality shines through in everything he did. Still, we can't ignore the implications which the 12-tone or any "method" or "system" inevitably bring to mind.

Boulez and Cage, post war, were both clearly in search of "self-generating" systems. With Boulez, this was traceable to Mallarme and Surrealism; with Cage it was Zen and chance.

Are you saying that you are opposed even to the idea of "mechanistic" music, or music which attempts to transcend one's "controlling ego," and seeks to be a spontaneous manifestation of some force beyond the control of the conscious will?


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, Mahlerian, I agree that Schoenberg's personality shines through in everything he did. Still, we can't ignore the implications which the 12-tone or any "method" or "system" inevitably bring to mind.
> 
> Boulez and Cage, post war, were both clearly in search of "self-generating" systems. With Boulez, this was traceable to Mallarme and Surrealism; with Cage it was Zen and chance.
> 
> Are you saying that you are opposed even to the idea of "mechanistic" music, or music which attempts to transcend one's "controlling ego," and seeks to be a spontaneous manifestation of some force beyond the control of the conscious will?


Opposed to it?

No, of course not. There is an element of the mechanistic in much of the music of the 20th century, from the early Soviet "factory" pieces and Hindemith's Neoclassicism to (as you say) the early experiments with multiple serialism and Cage's chance works all the way up through the "process" music of the early minimalists.

I don't think this has anything to do with Webern, though, whose process of creation was anything but mechanical or systematic.


----------



## Woodduck

Victor Redseal said:


> It's the aural equivalent of a surrealist painting. It's irrational and unguided because if the painter puts meaning into it, it is spoiled with his personality. It must be a painting untainted by human conceptions and perceptions where the viewer may see something in it that is greater than anything the artist could ever have dreamed of inserting. Likewise, in atonality, the human personality is dissolved. disintegrated and all that is left is pure music where the listener may hear something far beyond what the composer could ever have consciously inserted. In this way, the listener get closer to "god" although it is not a god of religion but something cosmic, intelligent and great but also undefined and unknowable by normal modes of consciousness.


There appears to be here an implication that removing the human personality from art results in something greater than human. No reason is given to think that this is true or even possible. Perhaps what we're really left with is something less than human. Or, perhaps, art cannot be either greater or less than human. Perhaps it merely reflects different aspects of the human.

Music is not painting or sculpture, and it is not language. It can manifest neither in sacred iconography nor in metaphysical discourse. If some people find in Webern - or in Bach, or in Josquin Desprez - manifestations of God, that is a listener's human response to a composer's human expression.

If there is a God, he is probably amused at the artistic games we play - assuming he isn't too busy thinking up more universes to pay attention to us at all.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> There appears to be here an implication that removing the human personality from art


There appears to be an assumption that the human personality can be removed from art. I would argue that this is not possible, even before you get to the idea that in removing the human, something else might appear.


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> There appears to be an assumption that the human personality can be removed from art. I would argue that this is not possible, even before you get to the idea that in removing the human, something else might appear.


In thinking about this, I come up with a few ways to _minimize_ the presence of the artist in his work.

1. You can work with purely decorative forms, thinking only of aesthetically pleasing patterns.

2. You can base your work on a formula that ensures a comprehensible design but requires no choices based on "feel."

3. You can leave the choice of design elements mainly or entirely to chance.

It's hard to see how any of these can give you anything of much interest or value. #1 might give you nice wallpaper, #2 would be suitable for mass production, and #3 might win you acclaim as an innovative force in modern art.

As for opening up spiritual vistas and a path to the Divine...


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> In thinking about this, I come up with a few ways to _minimize_ the presence of the artist in his work.


Ah, you're a charitable soul, Woodduck. I'm more of a hardliner. With the exception of your example of chance (something that's been debated at some length in other threads, so I'll not elaborate here) I can't see how the artist can produce something and yet not still be substantially present in it - unless I'm taking 'human personality' to mean something different than either you or Victor. He said,



> if the painter puts meaning into it, it is spoiled with his personality


I don't see how 'personality' can 'spoil' - nor what is wrong with putting meaning into a work. I suppose if you hold the view that the artist is supposed to be an inert medium for Meaning to flow through from some other source, then you don't want 'personality' to get in the way. However, Victor isn't explicit about the 'It's' with which his post begins, so I'm not clear whether he means 'atonality', Webern's music, or art more generally.


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> Ah, you're a charitable soul, Woodduck. I'm more of a hardliner. With the exception of your example of chance (something that's been debated at some length in other threads, so I'll not elaborate here) I can't see how the artist can produce something and yet not still be substantially present in it - unless I'm taking 'human personality' to mean something different than either you or Victor. He said,
> 
> I don't see how 'personality' can 'spoil' - nor what is wrong with putting meaning into a work. I suppose if you hold the view that the artist is supposed to be an inert medium for Meaning to flow through from some other source, then you don't want 'personality' to get in the way. However, Victor isn't explicit about the 'It's' with which his post begins, so I'm not clear whether he means 'atonality', Webern's music, or art more generally.


Well! I've never been accused of being charitable on these theory threads! Do I dare take off my bulletproof vest for a few minutes? :lol:

No, never fear. I really didn't mean that I think real art can be wholly devoid of the human touch. Artistic choices are inevitably motivated by some degree of personal taste, and to whatever degree they are the artist will be present in the work. Honestly I find the whole idea of striving to be absent from one's creations rather silly, but perhaps I'd better put the vest back on before I say so.

Having been creative in both music and the visual arts, I have to report that, for me, the normal state of mind of the artist while creating contains little intention either to include nor to exclude his personality from the product. The issue just doesn't arise, unless he's specifically intending some kind of self-portrait. An artist trying to do either of those things on a conscious level is imposing an agenda not intrinsic to the creative process, akin to the agenda of one trying to create art as propaganda. It tends not to result in the best art.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Well! I've never been accused of being charitable on these theory threads! Do I dare take off my bulletproof vest for a few minutes? :lol:
> 
> No, never fear. I really didn't mean that I think *real art* can be wholly devoid of the human touch. *Artistic choices are inevitably motivated by some degree of personal taste*, and to whatever degree they are the artist will be present in the work. Honestly I find the whole idea of *striving to be absent from one's creations rather silly*, but perhaps I'd better put the vest back on before I say so.
> 
> Having been creative in both music and the visual arts, I have to report that, for me, the normal state of mind of the artist while creating contains little intention either to include nor to exclude his personality from the product. The issue just doesn't arise, unless he's specifically intending some kind of self-portrait. *An artist trying to do either of those things on a conscious level is imposing an agenda not intrinsic to the creative process,* akin to the agenda of one trying to create art as propaganda. It tends not to result in the best art.


Should I take off my hazmat suit to reply?

Taking each of the parts of your post I've emboldened in order...

And what about unreal art (or the untrue Scotsman?)

Are the 'personal tastes' element more important than the sub-conscious selection and organisation of the material?

Silly indeed. The contortions I'm imagining are quite unhygienic.

I'm not sure I agree. If I were to invest my product with something reflecting my personal values - as so many great artists do - I would think that less reprehensible than trying to avoid any kind of personal investment. Besides, the creative act is both a conscious and an unconscious process.


----------



## Woodduck

Unreal art? Hmmm... All sorts of shenanigans have been called art, haven't they? I suppose everything is real, really. Still... Hmmm...

I don't mean anything by "personal tastes" other than "what the artist likes." Conscious or subconscious matters not.

It isn't that the artist is unconscious that his work is in some sense an expression of himself. It's just that the work has an objective identity he's focused on; he's absorbed in it as something outside and separate. The feeling is one of losing oneself in the work, of taking direction from it, not of pulling the work out of oneself or of transferring one's self into it. There's a kind of selflessness in creation which is the best part of the process.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Unreal art? Hmmm... All sorts of shenanigans have been called art, haven't they? *I suppose everything is real, really*. Still... Hmmm...
> 
> I don't mean anything by "personal tastes" other than "what the artist likes." Conscious or subconscious matters not.
> 
> It isn't that the artist is unconscious that his work is in some sense an expression of himself. It's just that the work has an objective identity he's focused on; he's absorbed in it as something outside and separate. *The feeling is one of losing oneself in the work, of taking direction from it, not of pulling the work out of oneself or of transferring one's self into it.* There's a kind of selflessness in creation which is the best part of the process.


This puts me in mind of The Real, by Brian Eno and Rick Holland...






(You may only wish to hear the words once through, if this isn't your cup of tea.)

A difficult balance to strike, I guess. Without maintaining a conscious awareness, how do you know that you're being immersed and selfless?


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> This puts me in mind of The Real, by Brian Eno and Rick Holland...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (You may only wish to hear the words once through, if this isn't your cup of tea.)
> 
> A difficult balance to strike, I guess. Without maintaining a conscious awareness, how do you know that you're being immersed and selfless?


You aren't unconscious. You're just not thinking about it, including thinking about maintaining it, or maintaining any sort of balance. You become what you behold, what you do. No time to think about it. You think about it later, and smile.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Unreal art? Hmmm... All sorts of shenanigans have been called art, haven't they? I suppose everything is real, really. Still... Hmmm...
> 
> I don't mean anything by "personal tastes" other than "what the artist likes." Conscious or subconscious matters not.
> 
> *It isn't that the artist is unconscious that his work is in some sense an expression of himself. It's just that the work has an objective identity he's focused on; he's absorbed in it as something outside and separate. The feeling is one of losing oneself in the work, of taking direction from it, not of pulling the work out of oneself or of transferring one's self into it. There's a kind of selflessness in creation which is the best part of the process*.


I can agree with that. After all, much of this is traceble from Surrealism to Abstract Expressionism.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahlerian said:


> Opposed to it?
> 
> No, of course not. There is an element of the mechanistic in much of the music of the 20th century, from the early Soviet "factory" pieces and Hindemith's Neoclassicism to (as you say) the early experiments with multiple serialism and Cage's chance works all the way up through the "process" music of the early minimalists.
> 
> I don't think this has anything to do with Webern, though, whose process of creation was anything but mechanical or systematic.


I think it does concern Webern, especially when comparing his music with Schoenberg and Berg's, and also the esteem with which Boulez holds Webern. Should I continue?


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> I think it does concern Webern, especially when comparing his music with Schoenberg and Berg's, and also the esteem with which Boulez holds Webern. Should I continue?


Yes, his music has a different character, but more recent studies focus on the expressive element of his music and the importance of lyricism to his work.
http://www.mtosmt.org/issues/mto.98.4.2/mto.98.4.2.alpern.html

I also think it's misleading to think of Boulez as being an inexpressive composer. As Daniel Barenboim recently said, he managed to merge both abstract and emotional writing, "thinking with his heart and feeling with his brain."


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahlerian said:


> Yes, his music has a different character, but more recent studies focus on the expressive element of his music and the importance of lyricism to his work.
> http://www.mtosmt.org/issues/mto.98.4.2/mto.98.4.2.alpern.html
> 
> I also think it's misleading to think of Boulez as being an inexpressive composer. As Daniel Barenboim recently said, he managed to merge both abstract and emotional writing, "thinking with his heart and feeling with his brain."


 Ok, I won't......... I wasn't going to say Webern was "unexpressive" or "mechanistic," only that he...oh, nevermind.

I'm starting to re-assess Schoenberg, in terms of his aesthetic goals. I see how he was using the 12-tone method to simply further his tonal-style approach to composition, and seeing what a traditionalist he was. Certain key works are emerging in this light: The fourth string quartet, the suite op. 25, and Ode to Napoleon, in terms of how he was using the method.

It's making me see Webern as much more "progressive" in terms of branching away from tonality, and tonal thinking. Does that make him "unexpressive " or "mechanistic?" No, but it puts him closer to "the method" in terms of accepting it for what it can be, and do, compared to Schoenberg's use of it as a vehicle for his already-established tonal rhetortic and goals.


----------



## Guest

Mahlerian said:


> Can you explain how so-called atonal music removes the human personality? It sounds to me as if the music called atonal is intensely personal.


I can tell an Ernst painting from a Magritte from a Grosz from a Breton from a Dali from a Miro in a glance. But that doesn't invalidate that all of them were surrealists engaged in painting irrational forms with no meaning to them. Each had his own approach, that can't be helped, but, ultimately, any meaning one got from one of their paintings was a valid as any other interpretation and if one regarded it all as meaningless garbage then that was also as valid as any other view that finds it meaningful. The exact same process as picking shapes out of clouds.

Ernst actually invented a new technique one day staring at a floor that had been washed and scrubbed so many times over the years that he fancied he could see all kinds of images in the wear patterns. When he tried to paint them, he couldn't. So he took paper and pencil and rubbed over the patterns and put them into his paintings that way to impart all kinds of weird textures. What was he trying to say with it? Nothing. He simply hoped the viewer would see something in it they way he did when first started to notice it. Other artists picked up on this technique after a while (I believe it is now called frottage) but, for awhile, he was the only one doing it. So, yes, it could be seen as intensely personal but it doesn't change the fact that he was ultimately saying nothing--leaving that up to the viewer to decide what it said.

So it goes with the music. Dada was anti-art and atonality could be seen as anti-music. Not in the sense of championing talentlessness but rather a rejection of formal conceptions that introduced the artist's personality, his cultural upbringing, his beliefs, his likes and dislikes into a painting. If all that is in the painting then there is nothing to see beyond that. A Bach cantata is a fine, beautiful thing to listen to, but those pieces are meant to be heard for what they are--music in service to the Lutheran Church. Atonality belongs to no one, to nothing, it serves nothing, it says nothing. It's just there to be heard and to be made sense of by the listener.


----------



## millionrainbows

Victor Redseal said:


> I can tell an Ernst painting from a Magritte from a Grosz from a Breton from a Dali from a Miro in a glance. But that doesn't invalidate that all of them were surrealists engaged in painting irrational forms with no meaning to them. Each had his own approach, that can't be helped, but, ultimately, any meaning one got from one of their paintings was a valid as any other interpretation and if one regarded it all as meaningless garbage then that was also as valid as any other view that finds it meaningful. The exact same process as picking shapes out of clouds.
> 
> Ernst actually invented a new technique one day staring at a floor that had been washed and scrubbed so many times over the years that he fancied he could see all kinds of images in the wear patterns. When he tried to paint them, he couldn't. So he took paper and pencil and rubbed over the patterns and put them into his paintings that way to impart all kinds of weird textures. What was he trying to say with it? Nothing. He simply hoped the viewer would see something in it they way he did when first started to notice it. Other artists picked up on this technique after a while (I believe it is now called frottage) but, for awhile, he was the only one doing it. So, yes, it could be seen as intensely personal but it doesn't change the fact that he was ultimately saying nothing--leaving that up to the viewer to decide what it said.
> 
> So it goes with the music. Dada was anti-art and atonality could be seen as anti-music. Not in the sense of championing talentlessness but rather a rejection of formal conceptions that introduced the artist's personality, his cultural upbringing, his beliefs, his likes and dislikes into a painting. If all that is in the painting then there is nothing to see beyond that. A Bach cantata is a fine, beautiful thing to listen to, but those pieces are meant to be heard for what they are--music in service to the Lutheran Church. Atonality belongs to no one, to nothing, it serves nothing, it says nothing. It's just there to be heard and to be made sense of by the listener.


I see what you are saying, but the way you said that last part is going to be misinterpreted. What I think you mean is that there is no "built-in" meaning in modern art of this nature. Further, I think "abstraction" is misunderstood as being "nothing" because it is not representational in the traditional sense. There are still "elements" which exist in such art (and music) which are inherently "charged with potential content," even if this is not explicit.


----------



## Guest

Victor Redseal said:


> But that doesn't invalidate that all of them were surrealists engaged in painting irrational forms with no meaning to them.


What kind of 'meaning' do you mean? Symbolic significance? Narrative? Representational content? Emotional connection? The Dadaists and Surrealists may well have been exploring ways to render 'art' meaningless (I don't think they succeeded), but if their point was that art should have no meaning, that _was _the meaning!


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> There appears to be here an implication that removing the human personality from art results in something greater than human. No reason is given to think that this is true or even possible.


No reason could suffice because we are entering into an area where reason simply does not apply. It's not a question of whether it is true because the very concept of truth has no meaning here. It is the attempt that matters. It may lead somewhere, it may not, but with no attempt, nothing happens.



> Perhaps what we're really left with is something less than human. Or, perhaps, art cannot be either greater or less than human. Perhaps it merely reflects different aspects of the human.


This assumes that the human race knows itself. Nothing could further from the truth. WHAT are we??? I don't know. No one knows. We are and that's all we know. Why do we make music or draw images or sing out our hearts? What IS music??? I don't know.



> Music is not painting or sculpture, and it is not language. It can manifest neither in sacred iconography nor in metaphysical discourse.


That's telling me what it isn't. I want to know it is.



> If some people find in Webern - or in Bach, or in Josquin Desprez - manifestations of God, that is a listener's human response to a composer's human expression.


But we process it differently. When I listen to Bach, I listen to every note. When I listen to something atonal or to something ambient, I just let it flow through me. When I listen to Bach, I hear Bach the man; when I listen to Webern, I don't picture a man.



> If there is a God, he is probably amused at the artistic games we play - assuming he isn't too busy thinking up more universes to pay attention to us at all.


Again, this a standard conception of God and not at all what I am getting at.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> You aren't unconscious. You're just not thinking about it, including thinking about maintaining it, or maintaining any sort of balance. You become what you behold, what you do. No time to think about it. You think about it later, and smile.


I deliberately avoided saying 'unconscious' for fear of suggesting you work when you're knocked out or plastered!


----------



## millionrainbows

I think art (esp in John Cage's case) attempts to help us achieve a state of being which is connected with our inherent oneness with a greater power. It requires submission or a relaxing of the normal consciousness. In this sense, it is meaningless to try to argue from the other side, the side of individual identity and "ego." We will get nowhere fast.


----------



## millionrainbows

Webern's later music exemplifies "moment time," where events occur as singularities. Thus, even his shortest works are charged with meaning which might take other music much longer to achieve.


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> I deliberately avoided saying 'unconscious' for fear of suggesting you work when you're knocked out or plastered!


Yes, "plastered...." You must *become* the wall.


----------



## Mahlerian

Victor Redseal said:


> So it goes with the music. Dada was anti-art and *atonality could be seen as anti-music*. Not in the sense of championing talentlessness but rather a rejection of formal conceptions that introduced the artist's personality, his cultural upbringing, his beliefs, his likes and dislikes into a painting. If all that is in the painting then there is nothing to see beyond that. A Bach cantata is a fine, beautiful thing to listen to, but those pieces are meant to be heard for what they are--music in service to the Lutheran Church. Atonality belongs to no one, to nothing, it serves nothing, it says nothing. It's just there to be heard and to be made sense of by the listener.


How?

Which formal conceptions are removed? A Schoenberg harmony is like a harmony in any other work. A Schoenberg melody is like a melody in any other work. A Schoenberg sonata form is like a sonata form anywhere else.

The music makes sense in the exact same way any other music does, by presenting elements and their relationship to each other, and working with that. The main difference is that there are more elements and they resemble each other less than in many older works.


----------



## Guest

Mahlerian said:


> How?
> 
> Which formal conceptions are removed? A Schoenberg harmony is like a harmony in any other work. A Schoenberg melody is like a melody in any other work. A Schoenberg sonata form is like a sonata form anywhere else.


To be honest, Schoenberg doesn't strike me as being atonal at all. I have a couple CDs of his work and I don't hear anything atonal in it. I agree with you in that his music sounds perfectly conventional but the Webern piece would definitely strike some as "noodling"--that's their favorite word. They use that same word to describe the more esoteric forms of bop jazz and virtually all free jazz--"That's just people noodling around with their instruments."

The thing is to get them to hear passed that "noodling." That perception is born of an everyday world of three dimensions in a clockwork Newtonian universe. They've been taught to hear music this way--what you hear all you get. Atonalism scrubs those conventional notions out or it tries to. It wants people to HEAR music for the first time. Ornette Coleman had a unique thing he would do--he would play a piece using, say, the F note in every conceivable fashion in every conceivable scale and chord but then he would figure that he did enough with that and would want to move onto something new so he would play an erasure line--a few bars or a few dozen bars of stuff that had nothing to do with anything, completely unrelated to anything he had been playing--so that when he started off in a new direction, everyone forgot everything they'd just heard. It takes unconventional listening to comprehend Coleman. His stuff wasn't atonal, at least not most of the time, but he wanted to give people new ears, extra-terrestrial ears, as it were.



> The music makes sense in the exact same way any other music does, by presenting elements and their relationship to each other, and working with that. The main difference is that there are more elements and they resemble each other less than in many older works.


I can't intelligently comment on Schoenberg. I don't know enough about him and he doesn't sound atonal to me.


----------



## Woodduck

No reason could suffice because we are entering into an area where reason simply does not apply. It's not a question of whether it is true because the very concept of truth has no meaning here. 

For a subject to which reason does not apply, there seems to be a lot of talk going on here. For a subject in which the very concept of truth has no meaning, there seems to be a quite an effort to assert something as true.

This assumes that the human race knows itself. Nothing could further from the truth. WHAT are we??? I don't know. No one knows. We are and that's all we know.

Actually we do know a bit more about ourselves than the mere fact that we exist. I do, anyway; I won't speak for you. What we don't know is that there's anything "beyond" the human that music - Webern's or anyone's - can express.

When I listen to Bach, I listen to every note. When I listen to something atonal or to something ambient, I just let it flow through me. When I listen to Bach, I hear Bach the man; when I listen to Webern, I don't picture a man.

I experience the opposite on both counts. When I listen to Bach, I may hear every note, but, more importantly, I am hearing an incalculable complexity of relationships between the notes as they form complex webs and logical structures in time and carry me on a brilliantly plotted journey. The forms and the journey absorb and transcend the notes, and give them a many-faceted and iridescent meaning which can't be described in words but can be felt and experienced in the precise way that music can be. But when I listen to Webern or something "atonal" (whatever exactly you mean by that), I hear each note as an event in itself far more than I do with Bach, and most definitely cannot just let the music "flow through me" if I want to make sense of what's going on.

When I hear a Bach concerto I don't think of the man for a single instant; what I might choose to visualize of him, based on whatever knowledge of him I've picked up, is irrelevant to my experience of the music. When I hear a Webern quartet, the image of a very serious-looking man with granny glasses hunched over his desk, frowning over the choice of each note and subtle sonority, is much more part and parcel of his music than Bach in his wig ever was of _his_. Bach, to me, seems to forget himself and open his mind to a force that floods him with musical sounds which, I can easily imagine, he can barely write down fast enough. Webern? I can imagine him having nightmares about not being able to find the next note. So which composer is closer to "God" - and what "God" are we talking about?

What does all this prove? Not much, I think. But it does say to me that the distinctions you're trying to make - that this thread in general is trying to make - are based on quite subjective and personal views of music, music which others may perceive quite differently. Maybe that Webern quartet speaks to you of some impersonal, superhuman state of being to which the very concepts of reason and truth are irrelevant, and makes you imagine, as it flows through you, that you are leaving behind the structures and functions of consciousness and the awareness of personal subjectivity which you perceive as limitations on your ability to perceive reality as it ultimately is. Or something like that.

Others, though, will hear nothing of the kind, and the same music may conjure an entirely different set of notions. Whose understanding is the correct one? Or can we recognize our contrived interpretations for what they are, and just say what music makes us - personally and subjectively - feel?


----------



## pavelissa

Ilarion said:


> "Bach didn't get the message" - And how has this conclusion been reached? A humble but inquiring mind wishes to know...
> 
> "What man proposes, God disposes".
> 
> I seem to arrive at the conclusion that music containing / ending on unresolved chords e.g. Jazz is very apt at describing the impasse that God and Man arrive at throughout human History. God's questions and answers to mankind are unresolved imo. Thusly, Jazz is very eloquent at expressing mankinds situation.


I was thinking the same after reading the starting remark and then listening to the Webern's six pieces for orchestra and following the rest of the conversation I thought yes jazz might be described as containing that mystical experience if its all about getting away from harmony in music. And then I came across your comment and thought , yes true.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> No reason could suffice because we are entering into an area where reason simply does not apply. It's not a question of whether it is true because the very concept of truth has no meaning here.
> 
> For a subject to which reason does not apply, there seems to be a lot of talk going on here. For a subject in which the very concept of truth has no meaning, there seems to be a quite an effort to assert something as true.
> 
> This assumes that the human race knows itself. Nothing could further from the truth. WHAT are we??? I don't know. No one knows. We are and that's all we know.
> 
> Actually we do know a bit more about ourselves than the mere fact that we exist. I do, anyway; I won't speak for you. What we don't know is that there's anything "beyond" the human that music - Webern's or anyone's - can express.
> 
> When I listen to Bach, I listen to every note. When I listen to something atonal or to something ambient, I just let it flow through me. When I listen to Bach, I hear Bach the man; when I listen to Webern, I don't picture a man.
> 
> I experience the opposite on both counts. When I listen to Bach, I may hear every note, but, more importantly, I am hearing an incalculable complexity of relationships between the notes as they form complex webs and logical structures in time and carry me on a brilliantly plotted journey. The forms and the journey absorb and transcend the notes, and give them a many-faceted and iridescent meaning which can't be described in words but can be felt and experienced in the precise way that music can be. But when I listen to Webern or something "atonal" (whatever exactly you mean by that), I hear each note as an event in itself far more than I do with Bach, and most definitely cannot just let the music "flow through me" if I want to make sense of what's going on.
> 
> When I hear a Bach concerto I don't think of the man for a single instant; what I might choose to visualize of him, based on whatever knowledge of him I've picked up, is irrelevant to my experience of the music. When I hear a Webern quartet, the image of a very serious-looking man with granny glasses hunched over his desk, frowning over the choice of each note and subtle sonority, is much more part and parcel of his music than Bach in his wig ever was of _his_. Bach, to me, seems to forget himself and open his mind to a force that floods him with musical sounds which, I can easily imagine, he can barely write down fast enough. Webern? I can imagine him having nightmares about not being able to find the next note. So which composer is closer to "God" - and what "God" are we talking about?
> 
> What does all this prove? Not much, I think. But it does say to me that the distinctions you're trying to make - that this thread in general is trying to make - are based on quite subjective and personal views of music, music which others may perceive quite differently. Maybe that Webern quartet speaks to you of some impersonal, superhuman state of being to which the very concepts of reason and truth are irrelevant, and makes you imagine, as it flows through you, that you are leaving behind the structures and functions of consciousness and the awareness of personal subjectivity which you perceive as limitations on your ability to perceive reality as it ultimately is. Or something like that.
> 
> Others, though, will hear nothing of the kind, and the same music may conjure an entirely different set of notions. Whose understanding is the correct one? Or can we recognize our contrived interpretations for what they are, and just say what music makes us - personally and subjectively - feel?


Actually, this metaphor of art&God might be less subjective than you think, and has a history. I'm reading about perspective now, and the Church fully supported the idea and use of perspective, and I see that as a very similar thing to what we have discussed in music.


----------



## millionrainbows

This thread is a good example of why I find it impossible to talk about "religious music" without talking about religion, and how religion implicitly shaped the works and the worldview. But I am taking an intellectual approach, so I'm in the minority. The rest seem to accept "religious music" implicitly, or simply ignore it without examining why.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> This thread is a good example of why I find it impossible to talk about "religious music" without talking about religion, and how religion implicitly shaped the works and the worldview.


Talking about religion is acceptable here so long as we don't argue the validity of particular views. That's for the "groups." If the subject is Bach, it's acceptable to describe aspects of Lutheranism that might be relevant. If it's Brahms, it's acceptable to point out that he was not a believer despite having written a Requiem on Biblical texts. If we're discussing styles of music, it's acceptable to theorize on why certain styles have been used in certain religious contexts. What isn't acceptable is to start proselytizing one's beliefs, criticizing the beliefs of others, or discussing religion without making any point about music.

This seems difficult for people in practice, but it seems pretty clear in principle. We may certainly talk about "how religion implicitly shaped the works and the worldview." We simply should not talk about people's religious (or non-religious) beliefs as such and what we think people who hold those beliefs are like or ought to be like - and not merely because we stand a better than good chance of being wrong.


----------



## Friendlyneighbourhood

I have always felt a transience in Webern's music, much like Feldman.


----------



## Pugg

Friendlyneighbourhood said:


> I have always felt a transience in Webern's music, much like Feldman.


For me it does nothing, absolutely nothing.


----------



## Friendlyneighbourhood

Pugg said:


> For me it does nothing, absolutely nothing.


And you have a problem with people that get a lot of enjoyment out of it? I hope not!!


----------



## arpeggio

Friendlyneighbourhood said:


> And you have a problem with people that get a lot of enjoyment out of it? I hope not!!


He does..............


----------



## Guest

Friendlyneighbourhood said:


> And you have a problem with people that get a lot of enjoyment out of it? I hope not!!


I'll not speak for Pugg, but some posts, some threads seem to invite the brief riposte. When the OP exhorts us all to



> "submit, ye tonal heathens: humble yourselves before the magnificence of the atonal god"


it's hardly surprising that someone might want to respond to such hyperbole with negatory brevity.


----------



## isorhythm

arpeggio said:


> He does..............


He didn't say so, and to my knowledge never has. Unclear why you choose to imagine this.


----------



## ArtMusics Dad

Pugg said:


> For me it does nothing, absolutely nothing.


Same for me, it's empty noise


----------



## Pugg

ArtMusics Dad said:


> Same for me, it's empty noise


Glad we do agree so often, oh wait... that's your son I believe.


----------



## Merl

I can't say I'm in any camp regarding Webern's music. My first exposure to his music was a CD of 'In Sommerwind' (Sinopoli / Dresden) that I borrowed from the library many moons ago. I really liked it so I began to explore more and I acquired a copy of the 6cd Complete Webern (Boulez) from the library (I still have it). There's pieces I enjoy on there and pieces that sound like a bunch of people fumbling around a music storeroom in the dark. I like some bits but not others, however, that's not uncommon for me with any music I like. I should probably talk about serialism, 12-note theory and atonality, but I don't understand music theory and cannot read or write music (I play guitar to a basic level but it is 'basic').


----------



## Chronochromie

Oh boy.  :lol:

Edit: Thank god for the deletion fairy!


----------



## Guest

I hope that this is not the beginning of insults or ridiculisation.We had enough problems in the near past so let us be civil or otherwise silent.


----------



## millionrainbows

Traverso said:


> I hope that this is not the beginning of insults or ridiculisation.We had enough problems in the near past so let us be civil or otherwise silent.


I'm not bothered at all; in fact, I'm overjoyed! I'd much rather see people express their honest opinion about Webern, or any other atonal music they do not like, rather than "defenses" like this one from page 8:




> A Schoenberg harmony is like a harmony in any other work. A Schoenberg melody is like a melody in any other work. A Schoenberg sonata form is like a sonata form anywhere else.





> ..The music makes sense in the exact same way any other music does, by presenting elements and their relationship to each other, and working with that. The main difference is that there are more elements and they resemble each other less than in many older works.




No, it does not make sense 'just like any other music,' but I still like it because of what it is, and others have the privilege of disliking it for the same reason.


----------



## Classical Gas

I wonder what the musical embodiment/translation of Negative Theology would sound like...? From atonal to apophatic...?


----------



## millionrainbows

Classical Gas said:


> I wonder what the musical embodiment/translation of Negative Theology would sound like...? From atonal to apophatic...?


Well, if you stick to my metaphor, with tonality being the manifestation of God ( cataphatic theology), then atonality is the manifestation of the negation of tonality ( Negative theology or Apophatic theology). This gives atonality the benefit of the doubt as being a manifestation of God and spirituality, as is certainly evidenced by Webern's music (Cantatas) and Schoenberg's Moses und Aaron.


----------



## dzc4627

You missed the mark with one pesky prefix, "a-"

Tonality is one of the many ways our ancestors of civilization connected with God. The idea is tonality=beauty=God. Atonality came during the crux of faithlessness and breaking civilizations.


----------



## millionrainbows

dzc4627 said:


> You missed the mark with one pesky prefix, "a-"
> 
> Tonality is one of the many ways our ancestors of civilization connected with God. The idea is tonality=beauty=God.


Sure, the "drone" of tonality can be heard in many places: Indian raga, most folk music, etc., so it's cataphatic: it manifests as a "thing" called tonality.



> Atonality came during the crux of faithlessness and breaking civilizations.


Atonality came as the old paradigm of God died, a paradigm which had outlived its usefulness, and became just another power structure. Now that this old paradigm had died (as Nietzsche said), Man was free to seek out and explore new paradigms, which did not involve scripture, or a deity which resembled Man. He could now see what God was not, and therefore was able to "define" God in a negative way. Atonality is the perfect metaphor for this, if 'tonality' represented the old God.


----------



## fluteman

We played Webern's Six Pieces in my college orchestra, and it was a most interesting experience, like looking at a Mahler symphony through a kaleidoscope. But I have a different and perhaps more prosaic view of this tonal v. atonal discussion that meanders through this site. To me, music consists of a number of related but distinct elements of which harmony (or scale) is only one. Others include rhythm, structure, duration, timbre, texture and volume. All can be organizing principles or systems for sound. If a musical system de-emphasizes harmony as an organizing principle (It could be abandoned entirely, but I would argue Schoenberg and Webern seldom or never did that) it's possible, or even necessary, to focus more on those other elements or organizing principles. (And if we got into a battle over which of these principles is most fundamental to music generally, I'd probably vote for rhythm. But don't jump on me for that, I know others might choose harmony.)

I think that's the point John Cage was making with his endlessly ridiculed 4'33". There's always sound, even if it's just the ambient sounds of the performance venue. The key is which organizing principles are used, in that case duration alone. He's encouraging us to think about those principles separately as well as in tandem. The jarring dissonances combined with propulsive rhythms in Stravinsky's music do the same thing. That's all. I don't think deities or anti-deities enter into it.

Bach would likely disagree, and maybe this is an existential attitude. But that's how I hear it.


----------



## Phil loves classical

I tried to make sense of 12 tone music, and struggled very much at the beginning and just couldn't get into it. One time I was playing the Berg violin concerto and fell asleep, but it was in my semi-conscious state that I suddenly can recognize or make sense of the music, it was quite an experience. Now i can get past the actual notes to something beyond. I haven't tried it yet with total serialism, but suspect the abrupt changes in dynamics will ruin my 'trance'.


----------



## Portamento

Phil loves classical said:


> I tried to make sense of 12 tone music, and struggled very much at the beginning and just couldn't get into it. One time I was playing the Berg violin concerto and fell asleep, but it was in my semi-conscious state that I suddenly can recognize or make sense of the music, it was quite an experience. Now i can get past the actual notes to something beyond. I haven't tried it yet with total serialism, but suspect the abrupt changes in dynamics will ruin my 'trance'.


You must listen to Radulescu then - quiet, distinctive serialism .

On a side note: OH MY GOD this just catapulted its way into my top 10 piano sonatas.


----------



## st Omer

I bought the complete works of Webern a few years ago. It contains 4 CDs and was conducted by Boulez. It didn't have all his works but it had all of them with opus numbers. It didn't have his highly romantic work Im Sommerwind that he composed before he had his epiphany with Schoenberg, got converted to the true religion of tonality, disowned his earlier works, and was initiated a member of the holy trinity of atonality sitting on the right hand of Schoenberg with Berg on the left hand, but not the left wing. Im Sommerwind was apparently never performed in Webern's lifetime. It is my understanding it wasn't performed until the 1960s when everything forbidden was given a shot even if it offended God, and in the case of Im Sommerwind, maybe it offended the unholy ghost of Webern. 

I can't say that listening to Webern was a religious experience for me, but that could be because I have been deceived by the false gods of tonality and have developed a reprobate mind unable to comprehend the true beauties of atonality that only those who have ears to see and eyes to hear can understand. How then shall we be converted except there is a preacher. If there be a preacher they must preach the good word. Alas the good word was preached. I partook of the unforbidden fruit of atonality but alas my ears were stopped by the impenetrable wax of Lucifer and I was unable to see. I have been flushed from the bathroom of the heart of Schoenberg and corrupted with the ear candy of Tchaikovsky. Who will pay the ransom to deliver me from the purgatory of tonality? I may have to spend an eternity with Wagner listening to overweight German women wail in tonal strains about how Wotan cheated on them. Somebody help me please!!


----------



## Guest

Here is an example of "getting closer to god" although it's not so much atonalism for atonalism's sake but rather atonalism as the natural outcome of music that moves beyond human capability.


----------



## Larkenfield

I have been for the 12 toners or any other dramatic upheavals or revolutions in music. The change was necessary to open up the language of the unconscious, the challenge to the conditioning of the familiar relationship with major and minor keys, and 2000 years of tonal perception. Not only that, but its new vocabulary has exploded the possibilities in all of music with its branches and offshoots now a permanent part of the musical landscape, including in the cinema. I've heard and enjoyed my share. But I must confess that I view it more as oneness with _the psychology of _ _Man_ than as oneness with God. 
:tiphat:


----------



## Guest

It's the same thing. Man is the everyday mundane part of us. But there is another part that transcends all this. Some people call it god.


----------



## ST4

Webern is absolutely transcendental, along with Scriabin, Hildegard and Scelsi :cheers:

Except, his music completely defies the laws of music physics. The only way I can describe it, is an illusion of an object being small but containing ten times it's physical size within the inside. It's incredible!


----------



## mathisdermaler

I love tonal music but I do admit that I only find deep spirituality in atonal music. Tonal music, while beautiful and profound, never feels connected to God. That is just my perception of course.


----------



## hpowders

I would place Webern's statement that "Atonality is Oneness with God" in the same innane category as Glenn Gould's "Mozart lived too long".


----------



## ST4

hpowders said:


> I would place Webern's statement that "Atonality is Oneness with God" in the same innane category as Glenn Gould's "Mozart lived too long".


Agreed, getting stoned, drinking lots of alcohol and having a lot of sex is as close that a human being can get to this "God" they speak of :tiphat:


----------



## hpowders

ST4 said:


> Agreed, getting stoned, drinking lots of alcohol and having a lot of sex is as close that a human being can get to this "God" they speak of :tiphat:


Which forum am I on?


----------



## Woodduck

ST4 said:


> Agreed, getting stoned, drinking lots of alcohol and having a lot of sex is as close that a human being can get to this "God" they speak of :tiphat:


Indeed. And I'm certain that putting on Webern string quartets during those activities would not bring one a millimeter closer to Him.


----------



## Woodduck

What's this thing about Oneness anyway? I've always preferred Twoness to Oneness. Talking to myself - or doing other things to myself - will do in a pinch, but it's all more fun if you're with me.


----------



## ST4

Woodduck said:


> Indeed. And I'm certain that putting on Webern string quartets during those activities would not bring one a millimeter closer to Him.


Neither will praying or sacrificing animals, so yes


----------



## ST4

Do you think that even God is close to God?


----------



## Woodduck

ST4 said:


> Do you think that even God is close to God?


No closer than "awesome!" is to awesome.


----------



## ST4

Woodduck said:


> No closer than "awesome!" is to awesome.


I bet "god" really hates himself, he does all this crazy stuff and can't remember it the next day. Sad to be him tbh

"_I love my creation!!! ......oh wait I just remembered, I HATE MY CREATION!!! .....oops, that was a mistake, maybe I did love them. Wait, didn't I have a son....oops, why did I send him as a human again?_" [dials phone number] "_Hello, I'm looking to book counseling_"


----------



## Botschaft

Maybe if your god is Satan.


----------



## Guest

ST4 said:


> I bet "god" really hates himself, he does all this crazy stuff and can't remember it the next day. Sad to be him tbh


Now he's president of the US.


----------

