# Does time transfigure music?



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

Just think: Bach wasn't that highly regarded in his life time; certainly nowhere near to the extent he is revered now. The same can be said for many composers, even those who enjoyed great popularity, that time has transfigured their art, and in a modern context has rendered it far greater than it was as originally conceived. 

What do you think? Is it just the over-saturation of modern pop music in our culture that makes CM sound even more beautiful in contrast? :lol:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Jobis said:


> Just think: Bach wasn't that highly regarded in his life time; certainly nowhere near to the extent he is revered now. The same can be said for many composers, even those who enjoyed great popularity, that time has transfigured their art, and in a modern context has rendered it far greater than it was as originally conceived.
> 
> What do you think? Is it just the over-saturation of modern pop music in our culture that makes CM sound even more beautiful in contrast? :lol:


Time works both ways. Any number of composers loved and esteemed in their lifetimes fell into obscurity because the qualities enjoyed by their contemporaries failed to interest subsequent generations.

As for the comparison with the popular music that saturates today's world, almost anything sounds beautiful in contrast, including - oh where has it gone? - silence.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Time works both ways. Any number of composers loved and esteemed in their lifetimes fell into obscurity because the qualities enjoyed by their contemporaries failed to interest subsequent generations.
> 
> As for the comparison with the popular music that saturates today's world, almost anything sounds beautiful in contrast, including - oh where has it gone? - silence.


Chuffed and proud American Idol Contestant Number Twenty-seven: "I ain't lip-synck-in'."

Judge Blair: "That's the problem."


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I think it's our developments in technology that have enabled faster communication and more efficient ways of documenting records that are the main culprits for this phenomenon. 

Bach wasn't as well thought of in his own time because most common people were like "Bach who?" Even so, the people who knew Bach's music probably didn't get a chance to hear the pieces they did get a chance to hear more than once or twice, let alone were able to hear his entire catalog. Most music back then didn't get performed in the same place more than once or twice and and as a result, most people, if they could afford to hear a piece of music, only heard the piece once in their lifetime. Because of this, the piece had to be instantly gratifying, which Bach's music sometimes is not to a lot of people.

Today, most composer's who deserve recognition gain it within their lifetime or very close to the time they were alive because everything is so well documented and instantly accessible for multiple listenings to many people.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

violadude said:


> Today, most composer's who deserve recognition gain it within their lifetime or very close to the time they were alive because everything is so well documented and instantly accessible for multiple listenings to many people.


It's a catch 22, really. There's now a wealth of riches available... But, I feel the value of music has been weakened. There's not much journey or mystery in finding it anymore. I want to hear some piece from an obscure genre... I type it in google or youtube and it's in my face in a matter of seconds. The effort is very little, so the reward seems equally forgettable. I still adore music, but there's something cheap and easy about the whole transference.


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

My point is that we are not hearing Bach the way his contemporaries did; I would speculate we are at a more objective position to listen to his music, and thus appreciate it in a wider context that was not available to the people of the time. I think we have a very privileged position; a wide exposure to all sorts of music can make us more discerning and appreciative of real beauty and genius.


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2014)

Jobis said:


> a wide exposure to all sorts of music can make us more discerning and appreciative of real beauty and genius.


It can. Too bad it does it so infrequently.


----------



## Illuminatedtoiletpaper (Apr 12, 2012)

Vesuvius said:


> It's a catch 22, really. There's now a wealth of riches available... But, I feel the value of music has been weakened. There's not much journey or mystery in finding it anymore. I want to hear some piece from an obscure genre... I type it in google or youtube and it's in my face in a matter of seconds. The effort is very little, so the reward seems equally forgettable. I still adore music, but there's something cheap and easy about the whole transference.


Amazing! You've captured something I've felt to the bone.

Really, the only way to break the funk is to make music or to go dancing!



Jobis said:


> My point is that we are not hearing Bach the way his contemporaries did; I would speculate we are at a more objective position to listen to his music, and thus appreciate it in a wider context that was not available to the people of the time. I think we have a very privileged position; a wide exposure to all sorts of music can make us more discerning and appreciative of real beauty and genius.


For me, diversity of music simply lets me tap into the different mindsets of genres so that I can appreciate them all, or at least learn from them all. It's funny when you are listening to one genre of music with the "ears" from another genre. It sounds different!


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

There are multiple and interlocking questions here. Does the judgment of posterity influence how we look at a work of art? Yes. Cream rises to the top. Do we listen to/have access to music differently today than one, two, or three hundred years ago? Yes. Bach was mainly heard in the church he worked at. Classical pieces were mainly heard in wealthy people's salons and very occasional public concerts -- and at home (upper and upper middle class only) via transcriptions. Public concerts only took over in the nineteenth century, and to hear a work in concert more than once was rare, so you bought the piano/four hands version. Broadcast and recording media have made everything widely accessible and today people wander around with headphones on 24/7 (when they aren't texting) listening only to what they want to and <<curmudgeon alarm>> ignoring the rest of the world <<alarm off>>. Whether you sit around after dinner playing "Jeannie with the Light Brown Hair" or Liszt transcriptions on the piano, or listening to Toscanini or the Mills Brothers on your Magnavox, or whatever on your iPod -- the experience is different and less public nowadays. It does not affect the music (transfiguring or otherwise) at all -- but affects our approach to it.


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

GGluek said:


> There are multiple and interlocking questions here. Does the judgment of posterity influence how we look at a work of art? Yes. Cream rises to the top. Do we listen to/have access to music differently today than one, two, or three hundred years ago? Yes. Bach was mainly heard in the church he worked at. Classical pieces were mainly heard in wealthy people's salons and very occasional public concerts -- and at home (upper and upper middle class only) via transcriptions. Public concerts only took over in the nineteenth century, and to hear a work in concert more than once was rare, so you bought the piano/four hands version. Broadcast and recording media have made everything widely accessible and today people wander around with headphones on 24/7 (when they aren't texting) listening only to what they want to and <<curmudgeon alarm>> ignoring the rest of the world <<alarm off>>. Whether you sit around after dinner playing "Jeannie with the Light Brown Hair" or Liszt transcriptions on the piano, or listening to Toscanini or the Mills Brothers on your Magnavox, or whatever on your iPod -- the experience is different and less public nowadays. It does not affect the music (transfiguring or otherwise) at all -- but affects our approach to it.


I wasn't so much concerned with how we physically digest our music (although that has a major influence on our listening) as with how we mentally approach it, having an incredibly wide range of materials to compare and contrast it with. The people of Bach's day knew nothing but Renaissance, Baroque, a little Folk and perhaps some Medieval music, and as such had few things to compare their music to. These days it can feel as though the entire history of music is documented and waiting to be heard on the internet, as Vesuvius said; just a few clicks away. Far from its impact on listening habits, I wonder if this accessibility and vast wealth of music (in terms of sheer volume and diversity) has in turn affected the way we appreciate music.

Put it this way: what we now hear in some passages of Bach as 'jazzy' or 'bluesy' chords (for example) is a purely modern corruption of what the music initially expressed. Likewise; we seem to respond with far greater feeling to a simple chorale cadence or progression, than those of the time, to whom it sounded like mere convention and common practice of their day. It never occurred to them that their music was 'tonally conservative' or any of the buzzwords we might associate with Baroque music.

Likewise, perhaps we have lost a little of the feeling of shock and impact certain daring progressions or modulations had upon past audiences; many modern music listeners don't bat an eyelid hearing the opening bars of Tristan und Isolde, for example, and have to be informed about its revolutionary quality and defiance of conventional tonality before they can recognise its true power to shock the audiences of its day.

I think this is a good thing. If we are heading towards a point in history where dissonance (as such) is emancipated to the point where we can listen to even the likes of Berio or Babbitt without surprise or shock, maybe then we will stand a better chance of recognising their greatness? Maybe music realises its full potential to be beautiful at its moment in history when it does cease to shock.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

There is merit to what you say. Our ears are far more open than at any other time in history, and that's not a bad thing. And the ability to bring to mind anachronistic elements is a mixed blessing, but a fun one (I love the boogie-woogie variation in Beethoven's Opus 111 sonata). Greatness often transcends context, and sometimes the further away from the immediate context something travels, the better we are able to judge its merit. cheers --


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Illuminatedtoiletpaper said:


> Amazing! You've captured something I've felt to the bone.


______________________________ :lol: :tiphat:



Illuminatedtoiletpaper said:


> Really, the only way to break the funk is to make music or to go dancing!


____________________________* * * * *


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

The laws of familiarity. There's a death in over-abundance. The mind becomes docile towards the object, passion decreases, and the object fades into obscurity. Why are diamonds still so valuable? Because they're still quite difficult to get on your own....


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Jobis said:


> I wonder if this accessibility and vast wealth of music (in terms of sheer volume and diversity) has in turn affected the way we appreciate music.





Vesuvius said:


> The laws of familiarity. There's a death in over-abundance. The mind becomes docile towards the object, passion decreases, and the object fades into obscurity.


And the media is aware of how differently 'you' do appreciate music from the previous generation, for example, and they are responding. Attention and interest are on the wane due to over-abundance.

This is directly related to popular music, but a lot of people consume classical music via Spotify, YT and other streaming or digital delivery formats. How often have you scanned through a piece, not bothered to listen to the whole work, etc.? And yet, you still formed an impression of the work, the composer, etc., without having given it a real hearing.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

brotagonist said:


> And the media is aware of how differently 'you' do appreciate music from the previous generation, for example, and they are responding. Attention and interest are on the wane due to over-abundance.
> 
> This is directly related to popular music, but a lot of people consume classical music via Spotify, YT and other streaming or digital delivery formats. How often have you scanned through a piece, not bothered to listen to the whole work, etc.? And yet, you still formed an impression of the work, the composer, etc., without having given it a real hearing.


Well, for genres like Rock and Pop... I usually form an impression within the first 10 seconds. When it comes to genres like Classical and Jazz, I consciously withhold impressions until I am familiar with the piece. I don't use Spotify, or any other music application like it. Whatever I listen to, I have in my collection... so I can intake exactly what I want as much as necessary.


----------

