# The "Bubbles" experiment - What is contemporary music worth?



## chipia

Hi,

I would like to introduce you to an exciting experiment that I discovered.

It's about the Dutch composer Alexander Comitas. He wanted to test whether the modern atonal art music, which is usually promoted nowadays, can be distinguished from hitting random keys on the piano.

For this purpose he "composed" a piece called "Bubbles" by letting his young children, who had no musical education, play random notes on the keyboard. In the end, the children only divided the notes among the instruments. However, the composer did not tell anyone how the piece was made.

And indeed: Alexander Comitas received a grant of 3000 € for this composition! The jury, which consisted of a composer, a musicologist and a conductor, found the piece to be of high quality and even better than the previous (mostly tonal) compositions by Comitas.

You can take a closer look at the story under the following links:

https://aristos.org/aris-13/bubblesetc.htm






And here the composition Bubbles:






What do you think about this? I find the experiment very exciting, as it confirms what I had been thinking for a long time: Most modern classical music can hardly be distinguished from random notes.
I have seriously studied the composition methods of modern composers like Boulez, but came to the conclusion: No matter how "structured" these compositions seem on paper, they are irrelevant to the listener, since these structures are simply not audible.

However, instead of criticizing these compositions constructively, advocates of atonal music are often amazed at the "complex" and "innovative" structures of the compositions - even if they do not exist, as the Bubbles experiment shows.

I think that such experiments should be performed more often so that it becomes clear that the avantgarde mentality is causing damage to modern classical music and hindering the development of new music that actually relates to way humans perceive music.

What do you think?


----------



## Phil loves classical

I don't know who was in that review panel, but I can tell it was badly written. It's a flawed experiment because he took months putting the thing together to make it more structured, which itself is a part of the act of composing, and still came up with bad results. His motive is really to try to fool the judges, and make light of serial music. He may have succeeded in some way, but it's not nearly as conclusive as he is trying to make it seem.


----------



## SanAntone

Yeah, I've seen paintings done by elephants. They were interesting - for a little while. 

Also, irrelevant, IMO.


----------



## fbjim

chipia said:


> I have seriously studied the composition methods of modern composers like Boulez, but came to the conclusion: No matter how "structured" these compositions seem on paper, they are irrelevant to the listener, since these structures are simply not audible.
> 
> What do you think?


This is something I thought when first introduced to things like serialism generally, but the problem is that you can say similar things about CPT techniques like fugal writing, and even harmonization (how many listeners actually keep track of, e.g. the classical rule of home key importance?)

I think these things can actually work better when "inaudible" and when they are put to work for expressive purposes, rather than theoretical ones. It's like the cliche that the best film editing is the type the viewer doesn't notice.


----------



## mikeh375

Well as Jim intimates, the inner workings are vital for the composer, especially when working in expanded tonality and atonality. The processes used yield the expression and the listener needs to be able to listen in a different way when a tune is not present. The structures aren't ordinarily meant to be discernible and the impression of randomness although understandable from a superficial pov, is often an illusion based on unfamiliarity or aversion.

There's no doubt though that as far as the general public is concerned and to a certain extent, professionals, the lack of discernible signposts in a piece is an issue that can cloud judgement. Exploitation of the uncertainty is not helpful though because many a fan of contemporary practices (me included), will tell you that there is a great depth of expression to be found in music that on first hearing, may sound utterly bewildering. 

As always, some listening effort is often rewarded with a deeper understanding and appreciation, as many a TC'er here will testify.


----------



## fbjim

I made the mistake of reading up on serialism before listening to it, and I think, like a lot of people, I was like, "this is just theoretical, this is dumb, what about the listener?"

This is just kinda tangential but probably the thing that stuck with me the most is someone writing that Schoenberg wasn't trying to destroy musical tradition- he was actually trying to continue/revive the Vienna/Germanic tradition of abstract art music (the big guys in Germanic music at the time were Strauss, who was all programmatic, Bruckner, who had a totally unique compositional technique, and Mahler, who was Mahler), which is why he sometimes gets criticized for applying his serial techniques to "old-world" forms- which of course he would have done if he saw himself as deliberately trying to resuscitate those forms. I think some people (notably Boulez, I think?) criticized him as being at heart a conservative for sticking with those forms, and I don't think that's entirely wrong, though that's not a bad thing. 


which is all part of the long Post-Beethoven period where people (except Brahms, to an extent) were seemingly having difficulty continuing that tradition without dipping into late-romantic and programmatic music (or with folk melody, if you were Dvorak or Russian). Which was interesting to me, because I find his music frequently dry and emotionally unsatisfying in almost precisely the same way as I find Bach's keyboard music, as essential as both composers are.


anyway, Webern and Berg provided legitimately affecting serial music that I fell in love with, so it was all good from there


----------



## mikeh375

fbjim said:


> I made the mistake of reading up on serialism before listening to it, and I think, like a lot of people, I was like, "this is just theoretical, this is dumb, what about the listener?"
> 
> This is just kinda tangential but probably the thing that stuck with me the most is someone writing that Schoenberg wasn't trying to destroy musical tradition- he was actually trying to continue/revive the Vienna/Germanic tradition of abstract art music (the big guys in Germanic music at the time were Strauss, who was all programmatic, and Mahler, who was Mahler), which is why he sometimes gets criticized for applying his serial techniques to "old-world" forms- which of course he would have done if he saw himself as deliberately trying to resuscitate those forms. I think some people (notably Boulez, I think?) criticized him as being at heart a conservative for sticking with those forms, and I don't think that's entirely wrong, though that's not a bad thing.
> 
> which is all part of the long Post-Beethoven period where people (except Brahms, to an extent) were seemingly having difficulty continuing that tradition without dipping into late-romantic and programmatic music (or with folk melody, if you were Dvorak or Russian). Which was interesting to me, because I find his music frequently dry and emotionally unsatisfying in almost precisely the same way as I find Bach's keyboard music, as essential as both composers are.


Schoenberg did indeed try to carry on in the old way which was his intention for developing serialism in the first place as you say. But his serialism and its implications could not ultimately be fully contained within the regular barline and animated with regular, common rhythms, so a new syntax was developed that gave the (nascent) sonic expanses he had opened up the acoustic freedom they needed to flourish. Boulez's criticism was fair imo and yet some of Schoenberg's music is very special.


----------



## Knorf

I'm extremely embarrassed for the OP thay they apparently didn't notice how exceedingly poor this is as an "experiment". In fact, it doesnt even qualify as an experiment _at all_; literally nothing can be concluded from this anecdote beyond the banal observation that some people are totally ashholes and cannot get over the trauma of other people liking music they don't.

The composer used a chaotic source-N.B. _not random_, chaotic-and brought to it fundamentally altering organization by scoring it in standard music notation and providing instrumentation. Composers have been doing this sort of thing for literally centuries. This particular example is not very interesting, but juries often give out awards to banal shirt so that's hardly a surprise, either.

What it emphatically does not and cannot  "prove" is anything at all that the OP says it did. One single, pathetic, deliberately misleading non-experiment proves _nothing_.


----------



## pianozach

There are a few songs available on Youtube that were "composed" by AI, using its understanding of the components of popular music. They are pretty strange.

Of course, they, too, had a human "adjust" things afterwards, but still . . .

Here's one called _*Daddy's Car*_, supposedly in the style of the *Beatles*.


----------



## pianozach

Knorf said:


> Im extremely embarrassed for the OP thay they apparently didn't notice how exceedingly poor this is as an "experiment". In fact, it doesnt even qualify as an experiment _at all_; literally nothing can be concluded from this anecdote beyond the banal observation that some people are totally ashholes and cannot get over the trauma of other people liking music they don't.
> 
> The composer used a chaotic source-N.B. _not random_, chaotic-and brought to it fundamentally altering organization to it by scoring it in standard music notation and providing instrumentation. Composers have been doing this sort of thing for literally centuries. This particular example is not very interesting, but juries often give out awards to banal shirt so that's hardly a surprise, either.
> 
> What it emphatically does not and cannot  "prove" is anything at all that the OP says it did. One single, pathetic, deliberately misleading non-experiment proves _nothing_.


True. I believe I once heard a tune composed by taking a photo of birds on some power lines, and using that as a staff and notes.

People have been creating random (or chaotic) music for a long long time.


----------



## SONNET CLV

I see the "Bubbles" piece was revised in 2011, several years after the initial work was "composed". I wonder what needed to be revised, or, rather, what _was_ revised!

Alas!

I'd like to comment more on this, but the neighbor's dog is giving a piano recital this afternoon, and I don't want to miss it. Gotta go!


----------



## fbjim

SONNET CLV said:


> I see the "Bubbles" piece was revised in 2011, several years after the initial work was "composed". I wonder what needed to be revised, or, rather, what _was_ revised!
> 
> Alas!


But should we listen to the Hass or Novak version of "Bubbles"?


----------



## science

I think we have the answer to Alma Deutscher right here. This guy's kids were prodigies who could compose contemporary music. 

But more seriously, what would Cage have to say about this? And once we've learned to understand that noise itself can be musical, what does this actually prove?


----------



## elgar's ghost

I haven't a problem with the premise - musical jokes should come in all shapes and sizes. For each person who thinks it brings music into disrepute maybe there is someone else who thinks that a little debunking never did any harm. Let it be and then it will be quietly forgotten (while hoping there won't be a transcription by some forgettable death metal band in the meantime...).


----------



## starthrower

I wonder if the distinguished panel would award this one a prize? Probably too raw and unpolished.


----------



## mikeh375

Is it me, or is there an implication of insincerity and a lack of integrity that makes the whole stunt quite insidious?


----------



## 59540

Phil loves classical said:


> I don't know who was in that review panel, but I can tell it was badly written. It's a flawed experiment because he took months putting the thing together to make it more structured, which itself is a part of the act of composing, and still came up with bad results. His motive is really to try to fool the judges, and make light of serial music. He may have succeeded in some way, but it's not nearly as conclusive as he is trying to make it seem.


That's an interesting take. How is it "badly written"?

Those who are indignant seem to be indignant over the fact that some jurors were duped, and at the sentiments expressed by the OP. But the "piece" in question seems like it would fit under the heading of "aleatory music", which I guess is legit.


----------



## mikeh375

dissident said:


> That's an interesting take. How is it "badly written"?
> 
> Those who are indignant seem to be indignant over the fact that some jurors were duped, and at the sentiments expressed by the OP. But the "piece" in question seems like it would fit under the heading of "aleatory music", which I guess is legit.


For me a stunt like this just fuels a fire, one intent on burning down something not fully understood or that doesn't conform to entertainment. I'm the first to admit and accept that music that is more individual is going to sever ties with the norm and isolate itself, but this stunt displays ignorance and is a cheap shot imv. Stuff like this matters to professionals but I will admit that so far as the lay listener is concerned, it's a shot on target, a direct hit at modernity's Achilles heel. It's a difficult one to find a rejoinder to.

This music can't be considered aleatoric btw because within that genre, there is more often than not an overarching, considered control and a dictating of basic material by the composer. Besides, it is precisely written out fwiw. I couldn't care less for the opinion of a jury btw, nor that of academia.


----------



## 59540

mikeh375 said:


> ...
> This music can't be considered aleatoric btw because within that genre, there is more often than not an overarching, considered control and dictating of material by the composer. Besides, it is precisely written out fwiw. I couldn't care less for the opinion of a jury btw.


But it seems that wouldn't make such music "aleatoric" any longer. As I understand from the first video, the man's sons sat at a digital keyboard and the result was transcribed by the Sibelius software. And the children's father could be that "overarching, considered control" in post-production. I actually think some of this sounds kind of interesting rhythmically. Some of it as described in the video is pretty funny satire. Maybe some modern music is a little too self-important. Even Bach has his PDQ Bach.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

I don't really want to get involved in this discussion. All I'll say is, if you don't hear a difference between "Bubbles" and this, I feel a little bit sorry for you.


----------



## fbjim

I don't actually like that kind of music much but I do find the idea that "modern atonal music is what usually gets promoted nowadays" to be interesting. Did he step out of a time machine from 1965?


----------



## 59540

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> I don't really want to get involved in this discussion. All I'll say is, if you don't hear a difference between "Bubbles" and this, I feel a little bit sorry for you.


That one has a flute and narration and sounds interesting too. "Please staaaaaaay tuned".


----------



## Portamento

More rehashing of polemics from half a century ago. Great.


----------



## 59540

starthrower said:


> I wonder if the distinguished panel would award this one a prize? Probably too raw and unpolished.


:lol: I love it.


----------



## Phil loves classical

dissident said:


> That's an interesting take. How is it "badly written"?
> 
> Those who are indignant seem to be indignant over the fact that some jurors were duped, and at the sentiments expressed by the OP. But the "piece" in question seems like it would fit under the heading of "aleatory music", which I guess is legit.


I'm no expert, but I'm sure not all aleatory music is created equal. You can use the same raw material and come up with something that sounds totally different. The part around 2:55 where the composer says in the creative process "I allowed myself to bring my knowledge and craftsmanship into the play, *as far as the elements were concerned were not essential to the actual creative process -- * distributing the notes among the available instruments, tempo, dynamics, articulation, etc." already doomed the piece. They are more essential than the notes themselves, since in that way the randomness is contained, or made good use of.

That's where the music fails, it doesn't make good use of rhythms, dynamics, etc., and the distribution among the instruments is poor. Overall has bad balance. He never really believed in the music's potential in the first place. Or just doesn't have the skill to make good use of it.

Here in John Cage's work, he is able to distribute the randomly derived notes well between the registers, make good use of rhythms, etc. (the stuff that Comitas said was NOT ESSENTIAL to the actual creative process). You could give Comitas the same source material, and he'd ruin it.

Plus randomness and serialism is really a minor process of contemporary music, which he is trying to pigeonhole.


----------



## SanAntone

The process or method used for a work is not the most important ingredient, IMO. It is how the composer has edited, developed and managed the process which produces the end result. IOW, Schoenberg's 12-tone method is used by many composers in a very different ways producing a wide variety of music. The most important things are the composer's instinct for issues concerning form and balancing repetition, variation, and sequence - all of which are evident in classical musical compositions from pre-CPT to the most avant-garde works.

Did this composer take the raw material and manipulate it in any manner? If so, then it was not a random assemblage of sounds. 

Not that there is anything inherently unmusical with random assemblage of sounds.


----------



## 59540

Phil loves classical said:


> I'm no expert, but I'm sure not all aleatory music is created equal. You can use the same raw material and come up with something that sounds totally different. The part around 2:55 where the composer says in the creative process "I allowed myself to bring my knowledge and craftsmanship into the play, *as far as the elements were concerned were not essential to the actual creative process -- * distributing the notes among the available instruments, tempo, dynamics, articulation, etc." already doomed the piece. They are more essential than the notes themselves, since in that way the randomness is contained, or made good use of.
> 
> That's where the music fails, it doesn't make good use of rhythms, dynamics, etc., and the distribution among the instruments is poor. Overall has bad balance. He never really believed in the music's potential in the first place. Or just doesn't have the skill to make good use of it.
> 
> Here in John Cage's work, he is able to distribute the randomly derived notes well between the registers, make good use of rhythms, etc. (the stuff that Comitas said was NOT ESSENTIAL to the actual creative process). You could give Comitas the same source material, and he'd ruin it.
> 
> Plus randomness and serialism is really a minor process of contemporary music, which he is trying to pigeonhole.


Just out of curiosity, can you think of any other similarly "badly written" pieces? Also in the OP's example the music is indeed distributed between the registers, although I don't know what you mean exactly by "well", as in "well distributed". Or "bad balance" for that matter. Also I think the concocted piece does have some interesting rhythmic characteristics, more so than in that Cage piece.


----------



## Merl

starthrower said:


> I wonder if the distinguished panel would award this one a prize? Probably too raw and unpolished.


Tbh that sounds better than my guitar playing.


----------



## chipia

mikeh375 said:


> Well as Jim intimates, the inner workings are vital for the composer, especially when working in expanded tonality and atonality. The processes used yield the expression and the listener needs to be able to listen in a different way when a tune is not present. The structures aren't ordinarily meant to be discernible and the impression of randomness although understandable from a superficial pov, is often an illusion based on unfamiliarity or aversion.


But what is the point of having structures if they are not audible? If the structure of music can't be heard isn't the result effectively perceived as unstructured / chaotic / random sounding music?



mikeh375 said:


> As always, some listening effort is often rewarded with a deeper understanding and appreciation, as many a TC'er here will testify.


The question is how reliable such accounts are. In this case a composer, a conductor and a musicologist (people who should be experts in the field) found appreciation for bubbles. Does this make the piece good?



fbjim said:


> I don't actually like that kind of music much but I do find the idea that "modern atonal music is what usually gets promoted nowadays" to be interesting. Did he step out of a time machine from 1965?


Bubbles was actually made in 2005. Comitas made the piece as a reaction to the fact, that in the Netherlands composers who don't conform to the atonal aesthetic are mostly denied funding.
Bubbles was supposed to showcase the absurdity of this mentality.

From my experience the situation is similar in other western european countries. It may be different in America though.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Ah, so he was responding to a "conspiracy" by the evil followers of contemporary music to put a stop to the new and innovative. I imagine he will have harmed his own reputation as a serious artist but perhaps that wasn't worth preserving?


----------



## chipia

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Ah, so he was responding to a "conspiracy" by the evil followers of contemporary music to put a stop to the new and innovative.


How is atonal music new and innovative? It has been around for over 100 years.

Also, I don't think this is about "stopping" atonal music. Rather the intention is to promote a mentality of Artistic Freedom, instead of forcing composers to adopt a specific, arbitrarily chosen aesthetic to receive funding.



Enthusiast said:


> I imagine he will have harmed his own reputation as a serious artist but perhaps that wasn't worth preserving?


The composer showed that the jury would rather fund a deliberately bad atonal piece instead of earnestly composed tonal pieces. This shows that there may be legitimate problems with the funding process. I don't think that demonstrating issues should harm anybody's reputation.

Also, as far as I understood, this stunt actually helped Comitas and a fellow Composer to receive funding again.


----------



## mikeh375

chipia said:


> But what is the point of having structures if they are not audible? If the structure of music can't be heard isn't the result effectively perceived as unstructured / chaotic / random sounding music?


Yes, complicated music can also be heard as chaotic and random, but the structure and inner workings (techniques) have a more fundamental purpose acting as signposts and justifications for the choices made during the writing of a piece.



chipia said:


> The question is how reliable such accounts are. In this case a composer, a conductor and a musicologist (people who should be experts in the field) found appreciation for bubbles. Does this make the piece good?


Ultimately if a piece moves a listener then it is good to them I suppose. The developments of the last 100 years or so has made it that much more difficult to appraise with authority or confidence. 
Like I said before, it's a clever attack on modernity's Achilles Heel and one just has to trust the integrity and sincerity of the composers who use modern techniques and prefer to pursue their individual expression over something with a more popular appeal, no matter where it takes them.
One follows or doesn't.


----------



## hammeredklavier

---------------------------------------------


----------



## fbjim

It depends what you're looking for in the music. There are certainly a lot of mediocrities I've heard and not particularly cared to hear again, just as in any other genre. I thought Kontakte by Stockhausen wasn't something I had any fondness for but his piano works were great.

To be honest stuff that strikes me as outright "bad" is more interesting than mediocrities, which make up the bulk of any body of music.


----------



## Aries

chipia said:


> I would like to introduce you to an exciting experiment that I discovered.
> 
> It's about the Dutch composer Alexander Comitas. He wanted to test whether the modern atonal art music, which is usually promoted nowadays, can be distinguished from hitting random keys on the piano.
> 
> For this purpose he "composed" a piece called "Bubbles" by letting his young children, who had no musical education, play random notes on the keyboard. In the end, the children only divided the notes among the instruments. However, the composer did not tell anyone how the piece was made.
> 
> And indeed: Alexander Comitas received a grant of 3000 € for this composition! The jury, which consisted of a composer, a musicologist and a conductor, found the piece to be of high quality and even better than the previous (mostly tonal) compositions by Comitas.


Interessting, but not even surprising. I always thought that serialism etc. is nonsense. It has no artistic expression.

But for some people the purpose of art is just to be able to show off intellect. And art that nobody understands is maybe even better for this purpose. An owner of modern art must have a modern and great mind, doesn't he?

Maybe I should try it to produce modern art too as a cheap way to make money. But you probably need a name fist. It only has value if the artist has a high reputation.


----------



## mmsbls

I'm trying to understand the OP a bit better.



chipia said:


> What do you think about this? I find the experiment very exciting, as it confirms what I had been thinking for a long time: Most modern classical music can hardly be distinguished from random notes.


I assume you mean that _some_ modern classical music can hardly be distinguished from random notes. Are you really referring to avant-garde music rather than modern classical in general? A high percentage of the modern classical I hear is tonal, and I assume you don't think those works sound random.



chipia said:


> I have seriously studied the composition methods of modern composers like Boulez, but came to the conclusion: No matter how "structured" these compositions seem on paper, they are irrelevant to the listener, since these structures are simply not audible.


I think it's somewhat interesting to discuss what classical music listeners hear when they listen to music. I'll give two examples from my experience - Mozart's Symphony 41 and Xenakis's Pithoprakta.

I adored Mozart's Symphony 41 from the first time I heard it. I especially loved the last movement, but I had little understanding of what Mozart had done to create that movement. I heard the music but not the structure. Later I learned about the structure and found it fascinating, but that knowledge did not change my emotional reaction to the work.

I read a detailed explanation of how Xenakis created a portion of Pithoprakta. He used a very technical process to map the distribution of velocities of the molecules in a gas onto music. I understood the process, but that process had no effect on how I heard the music. I certainly could not hear the "structure" or that process in that portion.

People can enjoy a work whether they understand the creation process (hear the structures) or not. I understand little about the "structures" or creative process for Boulez's Sur Incises, but I find the work engaging, beautiful at times, and quite enjoyable. Can you give me a better sense of why you say, "No matter how "structured" these compositions seem on paper, they are irrelevant to the listener, since these structures are simply not audible"?


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> I once started a thread on that question
> Great avant-garde music vs. Average/Mediocre avant-garde music
> Great avant-garde music vs. Average/Mediocre avant-garde music
> 
> Is there a line (standard of quality) differentiating between the two? What are some examples of "masterpieces" by John Cage, and "less successful/valuable works" by him, for example? What are the individual elements or traits that determine "quality" in those works?
> 
> Here's an example of "standard of quality" in common practice music":
> Malcolm Bilson: Taste in Mozart and Chopin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (3:02~5:40)
> 
> Is there a similar method of reasoning for avant-garde music, in distinguishing the great stuff from the average/mediocre stuff?


Well yeah I'm a little familiar with the mindset: we can't make value judgements on "new music" because art is intensely personal and so on and so forth. But ironically the piece in the OP is "bad", apparently because it's satirical... and most of what the satirist/composer has done otherwise is "bad", tainted by his lack of respect for some "new music" and arts councils and the like. More to the point, I wonder how much of the satirical basis this music has influenced the judgement of its value. If this very same "piece" had been offered up as a legit new composition from a legit new composer I wonder if the overall verdict would've been different. In fact the fatal weakness of the "joke" is that the punch line was delivered too early, at the beginning even.
And so...


Enthusiast said:


> ^ Ah, so he was responding to a "conspiracy" by the evil followers of contemporary music to put a stop to the new and innovative. I imagine he will have harmed his own reputation as a serious artist but perhaps that wasn't worth preserving?


Maybe "Bubbles" is just as "new and innovative" as a lot of other things out there. Honestly, I find some of it kinda interesting.


mikeh375 said:


> ...Stuff like this matters to professionals but I will admit that so far as the lay listener is concerned, it's a shot on target, a direct hit at modernity's Achilles heel. It's a difficult one to find a rejoinder to.
> ...


It might be interesting to dissect that a little: why this divide between "professionals" and "lay listeners", and why a rejoinder is difficult to come up with.


----------



## Forster

chipia said:


> But what is the point of having structures if they are not audible? If the structure of music can't be heard isn't the result effectively perceived as unstructured / chaotic / random sounding music?


Audible to whom? I wonder what proportion of the audience for, say, Beethoven's 6th, can recognise, name and describe the effect of sonata form? If they can't, does the symphony suddenly become chaotic?

Picture the well-to-do on their way to the first performance in 1808:



> "Oh yes, Lobkowitz, I'm sure Mr Beethoven will try once again to entertain us with sonata form. Personally, I think he needs to replace the minuet with a scherzo, but we will see what he has for us."
> 
> "My dear Razumovsky, you are such an ***! He already replaced the minuet in his 'Eroica'. Were you not there? It has such a transformative effect on the whole piece, but I wish he would try something a little fugal."
> 
> And afterwards:
> 
> "Donner und blitzen!! Four hours has giiven me such a sore arsch!"


At the moment, I'm listening for 'polymodality' in the music of Ralph Vaughan Williams. I was not familiar with the term when I first heard his 3rd Symphony, nor would I have recognised it until it was pointed out to me. I suspect I'll not continue to recognise it in other of his works, as it's too subtle a 'structure' for my ears. But the symphony doesn't sound chaotic or random.


----------



## mikeh375

mikeh375 said:


> Stuff like this matters to professionals but I will admit that so far as the lay listener is concerned, it's a shot on target, a direct hit at modernity's Achilles heel. It's a difficult one to find a rejoinder to.





dissident said:


> It might be interesting to dissect that a little: why this divide between "professionals" and "lay listeners", and why a rejoinder is difficult to come up with.


I meant that it matters to pros in the sense that their sincerity and integrity is important to them, as is their standing and how they are seen amongst their peers, this regardless of the criticism and/or derision from the general listener. There is inevitably a big difference between a composer and a layperson as to how they will perceive music and for a modern composer in particular, one manifestation of this is a greater tolerance and appreciation for dissonance (harmonic, timbral and rhythmic too), the very things that when extended become anathema to a lot of listeners. These aspects of music are also a very enticing lure, offering as they do so much creative and expressive potential. It's certainly a deep rabbit hole for the adventurous and enquiring composer.

Imo, the reason it's hard to counter the implication that dissonance has the same effect as randomness is simply because of the gulf in aesthetics between the listeners lay ears and composer's trained ears. There is also a difference in the expectation of each group as to what music is supposed to be and what it's meant to do. Composers do have the choice when writing as to whether or not to guide and help the listener in varying degrees as their work progresses. But if they choose to pursue the music for its own sake and without regard for anything other than their own instincts, then I don't see why they should be lampooned, specifically via cynical exploitation of the gulf between modernity's dissonance and the general listener and especially when dissonance is only a question of tolerated, acclimatised degrees. It's just not helpful imv.


----------



## chipia

Forster said:


> Audible to whom? I wonder what proportion of the audience for, say, Beethoven's 6th, can recognise, name and describe the effect of sonata form?


A lay listener probably cannot name sonata form correctly, but they can certainly hear it.

Lets take for example Mozart Symphony 40, 4th Movement:

At the moment the 2nd theme starts, the listener notices that this is a different section of the piece: It's a completely different melody from the 1st theme and also as a much brighter, sweeter mood, which is the result of changing to the relative major key!

In the development section one can clearly hear that it is based on the motive from the first theme. Also, one can hear that this theme is imitiated in the various voices. The increasingly dense contrapuntal texture along with the chromaticism give this sections a more intense and dark mood which is common for development sections.

Once the the recapitulation starts the 1st theme is played again the same way as in the exposition, hence it is easily recognisable as such (which is helped by the fact that it is a quite catchy and memorable theme). 
However as the recapulation continues one quickly notices that it is different from the exposition: Instead of moving to a brighter, more cheerful mood, the 2nd theme retains the sad mood of the 1st theme - which is the result of being assimilated to the home key of g minor.

So yes, the structural devices of sonata form are indeed audible to non-musicians. Maybe not every detail, but certainly the most defining aspects.



Forster said:


> If they can't, does the symphony suddenly become chaotic?


No. Even if we assume that sonata form can't be heard, the piece still won't sound chaotic. This is due to the fact that sonata form is only one of many aspects of classical music's highly structured nature.

The others are the rules of common-practice tonality: Diatonic scales (major/minor keys), Triadic harmonies (major / minor chords), Harmonic Syntax (cadences, modulation rules), and voice leading rules (resolution of dissonances). 
All this things work together to give the music a distinct, structured and non-random sound.

I would argue that simply following the rules of common practice tonality almost inevitably yields highly structured sounding music, which may be the reason why it has survived for so long.


----------



## 59540

mikeh375 said:


> ...
> 
> Imo, the reason it's hard to counter the implication that dissonance has the same effect as randomness is simply because of the gulf in aesthetics between the listeners lay ears and composer's trained ears. There is also a difference in the expectation of each group as to what music is supposed to be and what it's meant to do. Composers do have the choice when writing as to whether or not to guide and help the listener in varying degrees as their work progresses. But if they choose to pursue the music for its own sake and without regard for anything other than their own instincts, then I don't see why they should be lampooned, specifically via cynical exploitation of the gulf between modernity's dissonance and the general listener and especially when dissonance is only a question of tolerated, acclimatised degrees. It's just not helpful imv.


Well with all due respect I think this is a big part of the reason that "modern music" has such a moribund feel to it at times. It's too much of a little in-game.

Why shouldn't they be lampooned? As I said even Bach has gotten the treatment.


----------



## mikeh375

dissident said:


> Well with all due respect I think this is a big part of the reason that "modern music" has such a moribund feel to it at times. It's too much of a little in-game.
> 
> Why shouldn't they be lampooned? As I said even Bach has gotten the treatment.


It's obvious that if a listener wants memorable tunes, or perhaps entertainment, or an easier listen generally, there are plenty of options available, even with contemporary composers.

Despite becoming niche, nothing will stop some composers exploring sound further because, a) they know how to and can see expressive potential in doing so and b), it's a good thing for the vitality and relevance of the art. Surely some modern music is only perceived as an "in-game" because the aesthetics of modernity's more extreme sound are either not understood, not been assimilated, not cared for, or are hated because they don't give a listener what they want or expect out of a piece. Valid reasons all these may be for some, but they do not undermine aspects like quality and worth (not that you are suggesting this). One thing's for certain, artists will not perceive their composing as a 'game' because it isn't. They will have an imaginary or ideal audience in mind though (see Jonathan Harvey, 'Music and Inspiration').

I've just explained why I think the lampooning is more insidious than the average phiss-take. I think 'Bubbles' is actually quite funny once one gets over the fact that the gulf between listener and the modern tending composer will probably never be fully bridged so any echo-chamber negativity generated by it doesn't really matter anyway. My wife after a few glasses can go to our piano and give her 'Boulez recital', which consists of a musical (she can play a little) but random performance - hands down if you will. On a few occasions I've asked her to hold a chord as it piqued my interest, one of Stravinsky's 'lucky finds' I guess (or the extra glasses kicking in). So, on a practical level, the Achilles Heel that suggests anything goes can yield some promise too but it's always about knowing how and what to do with an idea once found that matters, because by exerting control, a composer can create personal expression and perhaps art. In light of this, the perception (accusation) of randomness is more often than not, erroneous and even laughable in an ironic way.


----------



## 59540

> the gulf between listener and the modern tending composer will probably never be fully bridged so any echo-chamber negativity generated by it doesn't really matter anyway.


But the "pro" camp can also be an echo chamber. Instead of being indignant, modern fans should probably be glad for the discussions whenever they arise.


----------



## Enthusiast

chipia said:


> How is atonal music new and innovative? It has been around for over 100 years.
> 
> Also, I don't think this is about "stopping" atonal music. Rather the intention is to promote a mentality of Artistic Freedom, instead of forcing composers to adopt a specific, arbitrarily chosen aesthetic to receive funding.


Maybe I didn't read a post fully but I did not understand the "experiment" to be about atonality - music that is not at all random and is (as you say) widely understood these days - but music that is more contemporary and not so widely familiar.



chipia said:


> The composer showed that the jury would rather fund a deliberately bad atonal piece instead of earnestly composed tonal pieces. This shows that there may be legitimate problems with the funding process. I don't think that demonstrating issues should harm anybody's reputation.
> 
> Also, as far as I understood, this stunt actually helped Comitas and a fellow Composer to receive funding again.


It is you that is linking this to atonality whereas from what you suggested above that is not your target. I did get that you are one of those who perceive an academic conspiracy and feel it was exposed by the silly experiment. Conspiracy theorists do tend to attract attention and supporters from those feeling a little lost.


----------



## chipia

Enthusiast said:


> Maybe I didn't read a post fully but I did not understand the "experiment" to be about atonality - music that is not at all random and is (as you say) widely understood these days - but music that is more contemporary and not so widely familiar.


As far as I understood composers who don't conform to an atonal aesthetic were denied state funding in the Netherlands. But I am not the composer in question so I may be wrong about the details.

Also, atonal music is in theory not random but it is often perceived as such, as it is often low in audible structural constituents compared to earlier compositional approaches. Comitas highlighted this fact by showing that even professionals in the field cannot tell the difference between a genuine atonal piece and a non-musicians improvisation.

This suggests the possibility that at least some of the praise atonal composers receive could actually be the result of a musical placebo effect.



Enthusiast said:


> It is you that is linking this to atonality whereas from what you suggested above that is not your target. I did get that you are one of those who perceive an academic conspiracy and feel it was exposed by the silly experiment. Conspiracy theorists do tend to attract attention and supporters from those feeling a little lost.


I've never mentioned a conspiracy. A conspiracy would entail that someone is acting in secrecy. However, as far as I understood the review panels in several countries openly admit that they only want atonal music to receive state funding.


----------



## Aries

Moving away from the general listener is a double-edged thing. Starting with it makes music more interessting but it can be exaggerated and then it is unhealthy. "Modern" classical music has exaggerated it way too much. It is not just a matter of taste or distaste anymore. The general listener doubts that it is music at all and questiones the sincerity of the composer and the buisness. Someone I talked to just said that atonalism is assault and battery, and I didn't want to argue against it. On the other hand these "avant-gardists" are in their bubble and reinforce themselves.

The problem is the claim that atonalism and serialism is the modern form and direction of classical music. Because of the fundamental inability of these styles to get popular, this harms classical music. We need to free classical music from these shackles.


----------



## Phil loves classical

^ I think those expressions 'unhealthy', 'exaggerated too much' is all relative. I used to think Beethoven's music exaggerated an expression too much, as compared to Mozart. Now I feel Mozart is sometimes undercharacterized. It applies to Modern expressionistic music too in a way compared to music in previous eras in a certain way of expression. To me it all comes down to expression. The general listener doesn't want to hear certain types of expression. There is no reason why it is wrong or bad for composers to achieve different sort of expressions that some may not want to hear, whether that be a majority or minority of listeners.


----------



## mikeh375

dissident said:


> But the "pro" camp can also be an echo chamber. Instead of being indignant, modern fans should probably be glad for the discussions whenever they arise.


Well you can counter everything with a counter position whilst not commenting on the more salient and relevant points and we could go on and on in that vein, except I'm not going to.

I'll ignore your last sentence.


----------



## Forster

chipia said:


> A lay listener probably cannot name sonata form correctly, but they can certainly hear it.


Can they? Are you a lay listener? I suspect not. You'd need to sample some lay listeners to be able to verify your assertion.

Speaking from my own experience as a relatively experienced lay listener, I could neither name nor hear 'sonata' form until it had been pointed out to me. But, as you quite rightly point out, there are other structures that any interested listener can hang on to to help make sense of a symphony.

Consequently, your assertion that without 'structure' there is chaos does not stand up.



chipia said:


> sonata form is only one of many aspects of classical music's highly structured nature.
> 
> The others are the rules of common-practice tonality: Diatonic scales (major/minor keys), Triadic harmonies (major / minor chords), Harmonic Syntax (cadences, modulation rules), and voice leading rules (resolution of dissonances).
> All this things work together to give the music a distinct, structured and non-random sound.


Of course, all true. but not all music requires these sorts of structures to be enjoyable, though that inevitably brings up the question of the definition of classical music, and I suspect your definition might be narrower than mine.


----------



## chipia

Forster said:


> Can they? Are you a lay listener? I suspect not. You'd need to sample some lay listeners to be able to verify your assertion.


I am not a lay listener anymore, but I used to be one. And even back then I noticed the things I mentioned in regards to Mozarts Symphony 40. It's actually not much different from noticing the chorus in a pop song. I mean, if you hear the recapitulation of the 4th movement, do you really feel that you are listening to a different melody than the one from the beginning?

I've also made similar experiences with other lay listeners. For example I once composed a piano piece in the mixolydian mode. A non-musician remarked "This is really good, it sounds a bit like that song by Ariana Grande!". Then I listened to the Ariana Grande song and the only similarity I noticed was that it also used the mixolydian mode. So the lay listener noticed the distinct sound of the mixolydian scale despite not understanding what it is in technical terms. It's the same e.g. when a Mozart symphony modulates to the relative major: The mood gets brighter, sweeter, more festive - the lay listener may not understand that this is caused by a key change but they can comprehend it psychologically.

This means that the structural constituents of traditional tonality and their distinct sonorities can be recognised by non-musicians, even if they don't comprehend it theoretically.



Forster said:


> Speaking from my own experience as a relatively experienced lay listener, I could neither name nor hear 'sonata' form until it had been pointed out to me. But, as you quite rightly point out, there are other structures that any interested listener can hang on to to help make sense of a symphony.
> 
> Consequently, your assertion that without 'structure' there is chaos does not stand up.


I don't understand your reasoning. You seem to be contradicting yourself.
You have just admitted yourself that classical symphonies make sense because _"there are other *structures* that any interested listener can hang on to to help make sense of a symphony." _

Consequently if these structures didn't exist, the symphony would be perceived as chaotic / random sounding.



Forster said:


> Of course, all true. but not all music requires these sorts of structures to be enjoyable, though that inevitably brings up the question of the definition of classical music, and I suspect your definition might be narrower than mine.


Sorry for my sloppy wording, I actually meant EARLY classical music.

However what I said also applies to some later developments in classical music, e.g. to impressionism, which sometimes uses different scales than common-practice-tonality (e.g. pentatonic scales, whole tone scales, spanish scales) but that are no less distinct sounding.


----------



## Aries

Phil loves classical said:


> ^ I think those expressions 'unhealthy', 'exaggerated too much' is all relative. I used to think Beethoven's music exaggerated an expression too much, as compared to Mozart.


It is relative in the case of Beethoven and Mozart. It is just a matter of taste what you like more and what you find exaggerated. But it is wrong to conclude that things can get extremer and extremer limitless without changing the relative character. Things becomes more and more absolut exaggerated if they get extremer.



Phil loves classical said:


> There is no reason why it is wrong or bad for composers to achieve different sort of expressions that some may not want to hear, whether that be a majority or minority of listeners.


It is probably relevant whether 75% dislike something or 99.9%. People have different tastes, so musical qualities are somewhat relative but not absolut relative. The sound of a drilling machine is just bad for humans for example. If just 75% of people dislike something, it is probably just a matter of taste, but if 99.9% dislike something there are probably good reasons based on common human properties.


----------



## Forster

chipia said:


> I don't understand your reasoning. You seem to be contradicting yourself.


I think we're both having difficulty. You said:



> If the structure of music can't be heard isn't the result effectively perceived as unstructured / chaotic / random sounding music?


We both acknowledge that actually, there are 'structures', plural, that can help the listener, but in any case, my point was whether _they could be heard. _We'll just have to disagree on what the lay listener does and does not hear.


----------



## chipia

Forster said:


> I think we're both having difficulty. You said:
> 
> We both acknowledge that actually, there are 'structures', plural, that can help the listener, but in any case, my point was whether _they could be heard. _


If they can help the listener, then of course they can be heard. I don't see how the listener can get help from something if he does not notice it.


----------



## Forster

chipia said:


> If they can help the listener, then of course they can be heard. I don't see how the listener can get help from something if he does not notice it.


This is a curious loop. The 'if is all important. If they can't be heard, they can't help, can they?


----------



## chipia

Forster said:


> This is a curious loop. The 'if is all important. If they can't be heard, they can't help, can they?


Exactly. That would be like following the advice of a person you cannot hear.


----------



## Forster

chipia said:


> Exactly. That would be like following the advice of a person you cannot hear.


Which leaves us where we were. You have greater confidence than I do that the lay listener will hear these structures.

Oh, and structureless music need not sound chaotic.


----------



## chipia

Forster said:


> Which leaves us where we were. You have greater confidence than I do that the lay listener will hear these structures.


Can you pinpoint the errors in my reasoning? I'm genuinely curious because I considered my points critical to demonstrate the difference in audibility between the structures in Common-Practice-Tonality and Atonal music.



Forster said:


> Oh, and structureless music need not sound chaotic.


Interesting take. Can you provide examples? I actually thought that chaos was by definition a lack of structure.


----------



## Simon Moon

I forgot all about this ridiculous 'composition'.

A friend of mine, about 7-8 years ago, tried to 'trip me up' with this thing, knowing that my classical tastes tend to be modern, post 1950's (mostly). I recognized it as crap those 7-8 years ago, and it has only become more obviously crap today. I even asked my friend if the keys/piano were being triggered by some random algorithm.

I have about as little knowledge of theory as anyone here, yet I have no problems discerning the difference between this and all the truly great modern and contemporary composers. I could care less about how structured modern classical looks on paper, since I don't understand too much about what I am seeing anyway. I hear structure, which is what counts to me.

The fact that my friend is unable to discern structure, in modern and contemporary classical music, or so many people here (like the OP) are also unable to, is pretty inconsequential to me.


----------



## 59540

I just think it's very interesting that some people who usually eschew artistic hierarchies of "this is better than that" can find such a hierarchy and place this piece on the lower level of it, and apparently without much basis other than the intent of the creator of it. To put it another way, Bach can't really be any "better" than Elliott Carter, but anything by Elliott Carter is somehow self-evidently better than "Bubbles".


----------



## Portamento

dissident said:


> I just think it's very interesting that some people who usually eschew artistic hierarchies of "this is better than that" can find such a hierarchy and place this piece on the lower level of it, and apparently without much basis other than the intent of the creator of it. To put it another way, Bach can't really be any "better" than Elliott Carter, but anything by Elliott Carter is somehow self-evidently better than "Bubbles".


Seems to me like you're creating straw men to knock down. Who are these people who eschew artistic judgements of any sort? Care to name names?


----------



## Simon Moon

dissident said:


> I just think it's very interesting that some people who usually eschew artistic hierarchies of "this is better than that" can find such a hierarchy and place this piece on the lower level of it, and apparently without much basis other than the intent of the creator of it. To put it another way, Bach can't really be any "better" than Elliott Carter, but anything by Elliott Carter is somehow self-evidently better than "Bubbles".


Not sure if this is in reference to my post immediately preceding it, but this does not describe me.

First if all, when I judged this piece to be bad, I had no idea whatsoever, what the intent of the composer was. It was played 'blind' to me. My judgements those years ago, were made on the basis of my friend portraying the piece as a legitimate modern piece.

Second, I can absolutely place music and art into hierarchies, _for my taste_. Even if there are no objective hierarchies (I am not making the case either way), I can still have personal, subjective hierarchies.

Of course Bach is better than Carter, for those who's subjective tastes judge Bach as being better. But not for my subjective tastes. See how that works?

I never said Carter was self evidently better than "Bubbles". But after years of listening to almost nothing but modern classical, I think it is pretty evident _to me_.

Funny how, when I thought this piece was bad those years ago, and even had strong suspicions that the keyboards were randomly triggered by a computer algorithm (I was only slightly incorrect), I was doing so with the understanding the piece was a serious piece. Again, when my friend presented this to me, I was ignorant of the context of the piece.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> I just think it's very interesting that some people who usually eschew artistic hierarchies of "this is better than that" can find such a hierarchy and place this piece on the lower level of it, and apparently without much basis other than the intent of the creator of it. To put it another way, Bach can't really be any "better" than Elliott Carter, but anything by Elliott Carter is somehow self-evidently better than "Bubbles".


I'm curious who are the members on TC who usually eschew artistic hierarchies of "this is better than that"?


----------



## 59540

Portamento said:


> Seems to me like you're creating straw men to knock down. Who are these people who eschew artistic judgements of any sort? Care to name names?


I didn't say "artistic judgements of any sort". I said Bach couldn't be "better" than Carter and anything by Carter would be better than "Bubbles". So there are artistic hierarchies? And now we'll get the "but yeah it's subjective but we can be indignant as if our spouse was insulted over someone else's subjective tastes".
Looking back though there was a whole 50-page thread or thereabouts that touched on the subject. So you're a proponent of artistic hierarchies? Good to know.


Simon Moon said:


> Of course Bach is better than Carter, for those who's subjective tastes judge Bach as being better. But not for my subjective tastes. See how that works?


Not really. If it was all just individual subjective tastes then there wouldn't have been the small-group-indignation-session.


SanAntone said:


> I'm curious who are the members on TC who usually eschew artistic hierarchies of "this is better than that"?


"Bach is superior to hip hop." Discuss.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> "Bach is superior to hip hop." Discuss.


You persistently ignore several people, including myself, who have told you that they recognize hierarchies as subjective assessments made individually. Your opinion might be that Bach is superior to Hip-hop, but another person may disagree.

Why are you incapable of understanding this fairly simply concept?


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> You persistently ignore several people, including myself, who have told you that they recognize hierarchies as subjective assessments made individually. Your opinion might be that Bach is superior to Hip-hop, but another person may disagree.
> 
> Why are you incapable of understanding this fairly simply concept?


Subjective assessments made individually are really no more meaningful than "blue is my favorite color", and I'm certainly not going to get my knickers in a twist if someone prefers red. Or ridicules blue. I'm not emotionally invested in blue though it's my favorite color.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> Subjective assessments made individually are really no more meaningful than "blue is my favorite color", and I'm not certainly not going to get my knickers in a twist if someone prefers red.


Well, you sure have spent a lot of time not getting your knickers in a twist over avant-garde classical music.

But you continue to miss the point: subjective assessments are meaningful to the individual.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> Well, you sure have spent a lot of time not getting your knickers in a twist over avant-garde classical music.


No I haven't. I find a lot of avant garde or "new music" to be very interesting. The only negative thing I've said about it is questioning the depth of John Cage's musical frame of reference.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> No I haven't. I find a lot of avant garde or "new music" to be very interesting.


You have continually argued about Bach, e.g., being greater than Carter, e.g., or Rap, etc. Why?


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> You have continually argued about Bach, e.g., being greater than Carter, e.g., or Rap, etc. Why?


"Continually"? No, only in this thread. Why not? Is Bach greater than Carter? Is ' "Bubbles" is better than _A Mirror on Which to Dwell_' a valid judgement?


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> "Continually"? No, only in this thread. Why not? Is Bach greater than Carter? Is ' "Bubbles" is better than _A Mirror on Which to Dwell_' a valid judgement?


Again, for the umpteenth time: Bach is greater than Carter to someone who thinks that, but not to someone who thinks the opposite.

There is really nothing else to say.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> Again, for the umpteenth time: Bach is greater than Carter to someone who thinks that, but not to someone who thinks the opposite.
> 
> There is really nothing else to say.


So he really isn't, and "Bubbles" may very well be better than Carter's entire output to someone who thinks so. Therefore why the consternation?


----------



## Forster

chipia said:


> Hi,
> 
> I would like to introduce you to an exciting experiment that I discovered.
> 
> It's about the Dutch composer Alexander Comitas. He wanted to test whether the modern atonal art music, which is usually promoted nowadays, can be distinguished from hitting random keys on the piano.


Exploring the 'Alexander Comitas'/Eduard de Boer website, I found the man has a lot on his mind, not just the conspiracy of music schools to promote only the atonal.

Whoever chipia is, I'm disinclined to discuss further an old and manufactured controversy aimed at provoking members into fruitless non-dialogue.


----------



## mikeh375

....anybody here sensing the posting spirit of voluntarily retired member consuono in some of this conversation?


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> So he really isn't, and "Bubbles" may very well be better than Carter's entire output to someone who thinks so. Therefore why the consternation?


I guess you believe (and it is a belief) there is objective criteria that establishes (as an incontrovertible fact) that Bach is better than Carter. And that this information is important. I disagree on both counts, but most emphatically on the second.


----------



## Phil loves classical

dissident said:


> "Continually"? No, only in this thread. Why not? Is Bach greater than Carter? Is ' "Bubbles" is better than _A Mirror on Which to Dwell_' a valid judgement?


I'm going to throw some fuel into the fire here with my illustration. Yes, Bach can be seen greater than Carter. His music builds much higher on structures he establishes. Bach builds like a 5-foot sand castle, while poor old Carter's is only an immense swath of bumpy different shapes and clumps, each of them no more than 6 inches high. Many will undoubtedly see Bach as the greater achiever, but some find any one of the shapes and clumps made by Carter more interesting than any of the smaller individual parts of Bach's sand castle.


----------



## 59540

Well I really don't want to debate objective/subjective because it goes nowhere. But someone earlier in the thread said that the "stunt" proves nothing. I disagree. Like it or not, it does show that an atonal piece composed as a "stunt" can be mistaken for something more "serious". On the other hand I don't think PDQ Bach and the real thing can ever really be mistaken for each other...but if on occasion even that is possible, then big deal. So what. Lighten up.


----------



## Aries

A composer wrote a atonal piece with an inferior methode and a jury gave him a prize for it. Now multiple people declare that this piece is bad. What kind of argument is this? It seems to suggest that the jury was just bad. But if musical quality is pure subjective this doesn't make sense. Bad-mouthing the work to downgrade the jury only makes sense if it is about objective aspects, because the jury obviously couldn't consider subjective evaluations of someone else. But if the work is objectively bad, then the jury could and had to see it.


----------



## SanAntone

It comes down to why a person listens to music, and what they look for and what it brings to their lives.

If listening to "the greatest music" is important to someone then they will look for outside authorities to provide them with guidance to those composers.

If you listen to music, as I do, for enrichment and fulfillment through the listening experience, then you don't need any outside authorities for guidance. All I need to do is listen to something and it either provides the experience I seek or it doesn't.

Being told that Composer X is greater than Composer Y translates to me as that person's subjective opinion, nothing more. I don't even think in terms of greater or lesser, for me the question is over whether I enjoy/find interesting a composer's work.


----------



## Aries

SanAntone said:


> If you listen to music, as I do, for enrichment and fulfillment through the listening experience, then you don't need any outside authorities for guidance. All I need to do is listen to something and it either provides the experience I seek or it doesn't.


The behavior of the avant-garde wasn't very pieceful towards more conservative composers in the past. And there is a competition for performance and influence anyway. So I demand a fair competition. Things like this, a composition verified to be badly composed wins a prize, backs up my assumption that there is no fair competition, and that decision makers are biased towards atonal music.


----------



## SanAntone

I watched the entire Bubbles video and came to the following conclusions:

1. It is hard to gain a meaningful impression of the work with only the MIDI sound samples. 

2. It is entirely possible, and maybe even probable, that the board has a priority to encourage works of a forward-looking nature as opposed to funding works that do not plow new artistic or stylistic ground.

3. The process with which he created the work falls entirely within the accepted method of composition. The raw material was developed through improvisation by his children, but improvised music has provided the foundation of musical works for centuries. Often I've read of a composer sitting at the piano and "fooling around" until he uncovers a phrase or harmony which he wishes to use. It shouldn't matter who improvised the music, the important thing is that the composer uncovers ideas and motives that are useful to him.

4. I do not respect the composer's agenda. But he would be a fool to ignore the results and only use this experience to further attack "avant-garde" music. I think he may have found a way to develop an entirely new avenue for his work, if he chooses to continue down this path.

I know that there is value in new music being written and am only sadly amused that someone like this composer admittedly spent years and much work to produce something with the sole ambition of discrediting avant-garde music and the artistic boards who fund commissions.


----------



## mikeh375

Aries said:


> The behavior of the avant-garde wasn't very pieceful towards more conservative composers in the past. And there is a competition for performance and influence anyway. So I demand a fair competition. Things like this, a composition verified to be badly composed wins a prize, backs up my assumption that there is no fair competition, and that decision makers are biased towards atonal music.


There is a truth to this imo. Even a respected atonal/serial composer such as Alexander Goehr had a piece rejected for performance by Boulez for idealogical reasons and even I experienced some bias at my alma mater. I think these days, the plethora of stylistic options are much more varied and more readily accepted, but atonality in all its varying degrees is also here to stay.


----------



## chipia

SanAntone said:


> I watched the entire Bubbles video and came to the following conclusions:
> 
> 2. It is entirely possible, and maybe even probable, that the board has a priority to encourage works of a forward-looking nature as opposed to funding works that do not plow new artistic or stylistic ground.


That does not seem probable to me. I mean, how is Bubbles a forward-looking piece? Does it really plow new stylistic ground?



SanAntone said:


> 3. The process with which he created the work falls entirely within the accepted method of composition. The raw material was developed through improvisation by his children, but improvised music has provided the foundation of musical works for centuries.


I get what you mean, there are pieces like Schumann's ABEGG-Variations, where he just mapped a person's name to musical notes and then used it as a motive. However, in these cases the 'random find' is just a small part of the composition, as the development of the motive and its harmonisation is mediated by the composer's craftmanship.

In the case of Bubbles, however, the 'random find' is literally the entire composition. There is no conscious musical structuring to speak of.


----------



## SanAntone

Aries said:


> The behavior of the avant-garde wasn't very pieceful towards more conservative composers in the past. And there is a competition for performance and influence anyway. So I demand a fair competition. Things like this, a composition verified to be badly composed wins a prize, backs up my assumption that there is no fair competition, and that decision makers are biased towards atonal music.


First of all it has not been demonstrated that the work was "badly composed." In fact, the process used included standard methods of composing: editing the thematic material, deciding upon a multi-movement form, applying durational manipulation and other standard tools such as retrograde to the motives and phrases, and deciding upon the instruments and orchestration.

And it did not win a prize. The composer was awarded a modest amount of money for the purpose of further exploiting the work. I don't think there is much to read into this event other than the boards involved perceived enough in the work to warrant their support.

You are right to say that there is a finite amount of performance opportunities for new music. As far as I can tell the community where this experiment took place has set up a process for the purpose of funding new music which will lead to performances. The process is one of a juried review. There are certainly other avenues for composers to try to get their work heard, however, this composer chose to follow the path of submitting a work to this agency and was successful in getting funding.

I fail to see what he has to complain about.


----------



## SanAntone

chipia said:


> That does not seem probable to me. I mean, how is Bubbles a forward-looking piece? Does it really plow new stylistic ground?


Apparently the boards perceived more stylistic new ground than in previous works by this composer known to them, this was stated in their letter.



> I get what you mean, there are pieces like Schumann's ABEGG-Variations, where he just mapped a person's name to musical notes and then used it as a motive. However, in these cases the 'random find' is just a small part of the composition, as the development of the motive and its harmonisation is mediated by the composer's craftmanship.
> 
> In the case of Bubbles, however, the 'random find' is literally the entire composition. There is no conscious musical structuring to speak of.


Then you did not watch the video since the composer described in detail all of the manipulation he applied to the raw material (you also must not have read my other post which specifically outlines the compositional process he used). What he did was very similar to the example of Schumann you cited.


----------



## Aries

SanAntone said:


> 3. The process with which he created the work falls entirely within the accepted method of composition. The raw material was developed through improvisation by his children, but improvised music has provided the foundation of musical works for centuries. Often I've read of a composer sitting at the piano and "fooling around" until he uncovers a phrase or harmony which he wishes to use.


But the kids "improvised" without musical education. And he used more than just the phrases he liked.

I assume improvisation by someone who can play an instrument is better than by someone who can't. And this also is a point that convinces me that musical quality is somewhat objective. If player A or B is better is primarily subjective but who wouldn't agree that the quality of the music from both was better after they learned to play the instrument?



SanAntone said:


> 2. It is entirely possible, and maybe even probable, that the board has a priority to encourage works of a forward-looking nature as opposed to funding works that do not plow new artistic or stylistic ground.


But which natures are forward-looking? This is an even more subjective question than the question of quality.

And "new" and "forward-looking" aren't the same thing. But maybe some avant-gardists don't make a distinction here.


----------



## SanAntone

Aries said:


> But the kids "improvised" without musical education. And he used more than just the phrases he liked.
> 
> I assume improvisation by someone who can play an instrument is better than by someone who can't. And this also is a point that convinces me that musical quality is somewhat objective. If player A or B is better is primarily subjective but who wouldn't agree that the quality of the music from both was better after they learned to play the instrument?


Who said the kids had no musical education? I have to assume they did. But in any event, it is irrelevant whether they did or did not have any training. The raw material is just that: material to be manipulated in order to create a musical work. This the composer has done. The meaning of the word composer is based on the idea of putting things together, which is the most important aspect of composing, not necessarily the origin of the raw material.



> But which natures are forward-looking? This is an even more subjective question than the question of quality.


I am not talking about the nature of a person, but the nature of the music. Obviously the boards in question have their own ideas about what music is forward-looking or at least I think their letter referenced the composer's stylistic evolution. I did not get the impression they were concerned with establishing a preferred style for all music they fund.



> And "new" and "forward-looking" aren't the same thing. But maybe some avant-gardists don't make a distinction here.


I can't speak for "avant-gardists" (whatever that is) in general. I generally give people the benefit of the doubt and don't assume they are insincere or indiscriminating concerning matters of taste.


----------



## Aries

SanAntone said:


> Who said the kids had no musical education? I have to assume they did.


The OP said it in the first post and it is mentioned in the first video of the same post that the first kid played as randomly as any other five year old would do at 1:14.



SanAntone said:


> But in any event, it is irrelevant whether they did or did not have any training. The raw material is just that: material to be manipulated in order to create a musical work.


I actually think that it is more important what you do with raw material than the raw material itself. But I don't think that the raw material is no factor at all.


----------



## chipia

SanAntone said:


> Then you did not watch the video since the composer described in detail all of the manipulation he applied to the raw material (you also must not have read my other post which specifically outlines the compositional process he used). What he did was very similar to the example of Schumann you cited.


I'm sorry but that's not correct.

I recommend you to watch the first video again, to pay attention to the Raw Material that he plays and to compare it to the finished music in the second video. The movements sound, despite the changed instrumentation, almost identical. So the composer clearly didn't do anything significant to change them.

As he explains in the first video, most of the things he did (double note values, bar lines) _only make the score more readable_ and professional looking without actually changing the music.

The only exception is indeed the 3rd movement. Here the composer applies the retrograde plugin which causes the *entire movement* to be played backwards. This makes the movement in fact even more random sounding than it already is. He thought that this randomness would create an increased vibe of "complexity".

So no, this can absolutely not be compared to what Schumann does. Schumann composed music, Comitas made a score look pretty. I think we can believe that this piece is indeed just a child's improvisation.


----------



## SanAntone

chipia said:


> I'm sorry but that's not correct.
> 
> I recommend you to watch the first video again, to pay attention to the Raw Material that he plays and to compare it to the finished music in the second video. The movements sound, despite the changed instrumentation, almost identical. So the composer clearly didn't do anything significant to change them.
> 
> As he explains in the first video, most of the things he did (double note values, bar lines) _only make the score more readable_ and professional looking without actually changing the music.
> 
> The only exception is indeed the 3rd movement. Here the composer applies the retrograde plugin which causes the *entire movement* to be played backwards. This makes the movement in fact even more random sounding than it already is. He thought that this randomness would create an increased vibe of "complexity".
> 
> So no, this can absolutely not be compared to what Schumann does. Schumann composed music, Comitas made a score look pretty. I think we can believe that this piece is indeed just a child's improvisation.


I am not arguing that what Comitas did was good music, but from my viewing of the video I came to a different impression of the amount of manipulation he applied. I only watched one video where he described his process of working with the raw material. Obviously, Comitas is not an exemplary example of a composer of avant-garde music, in fact he is trying his hardest to discredit the entire genre.

My point in this entire discussion is to argue that just because the improvisation of children formed the raw material for a musical composition does not imply that the work is invalid. The fact that Comitas used this as an elaborate gotcha scam is to his discredit.

But the cause of avant-garde music is unharmed by his little card trick.

For those of you grasping for anything to undermine avant-garde music, Comitas is your patron saint. For those of us who appreciate and enjoy an assortment of the avant-garde, Comitas is a clown who achieved his 15 minutes of attention. Sad that this is the only way he got some.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> ...
> For those of you grasping for anything to undermine avant-garde music, Comitas is your patron saint. For those of us who appreciate and enjoy an assortment of the avant-garde, Comitas is a clown who achieved his 15 minutes of attention. Sad that this is the only way he got some.


That's a little overboard. From what I understand Alexander Comitas was a pseudonym for the conservatory-trained composer Eduard de Boer, of whom I had honestly never heard (I haven't heard of a lot of modern composers, unfortunately) and I don't think he's a "clown" just because his views on modern composition techniques don't jibe with yours or mine or just because he satirized a mindset through the "Bubbles" thing. It's this sort of hyper-defensiveness that partly arouses hostility.

https://www.eduarddeboer.org/alexander-comitas/


----------



## Aries

SanAntone said:


> Obviously, Comitas is not an exemplary example of a composer of avant-garde music, in fact he is trying his hardest to discredit the entire genre.


But if he isn't an avant-garde composer this shows how extrem the avant-garde is today. I wondered what the music at the beginning of his video was, because I liked it. And I found this:






Which classical substyle is this? It is clearly more progressive than romanticism. It is dissonant, but stil has tonality and rhythm, so it isn't serialism or atonalism. Its semi-moderat modernism imo. I think its interssting.


SanAntone said:


> Comitas is a clown who achieved his 15 minutes of attention. Sad that this is the only way he got some.


Yes its sad, because his other stuff doesn't seem bad. I like his piece "the witches cauldron". He is not just an untalented composer salty that he is bad. He has some talent, but the jury preferred him using nonsense instead of his talent for composition. I fear that this "card-trick" is reproducible. But if it is reproducible than it is justified because it proves a grievance.


----------



## SanAntone

Aries said:


> Yes its sad, because his other stuff doesn't seem bad. I like his piece "the witches cauldron". He is not just an untalented composer salty that he is bad. He has some talent, but the jury preferred him using nonsense instead of his talent for composition. I fear that this "card-trick" is reproducible. But if it is reproducible than it is justified because it proves a grievance.


You are not giving enough credit to composers of new music if you think they are susceptible to perpetuating this kind of fraud. They are artists with the ambition of realizing specific aesthetic goals. They do this by writing new music that explores a variety of extended techniques, imaginative narratives, confronting social issues, and historical injustices.

Which is to say they are no different from composers throughout history.


----------



## Aries

SanAntone said:


> They are artists with the ambition of realizing specific aesthetic goals. They do this by writing new music that explores a variety of extended techniques, imaginative narratives, confronting social issues, and historical injustices.


Isn't that a bit too much political? Do they really have aesthetic goals if at least 50% of these aspects are political?



SanAntone said:


> Which is to say they are no different from composers throughout history.


Really? Where are the confronting social issues and historical injustices in the music of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, Bruckner and Tchaikovsky for example? In Wagners case ok I see it, "Verachtet mir die Meister nicht" somewhat fits into the "historical injustices" category. And the first and second theme in Bruckners Symphony No. 3 are actually about "confronting social issues". But I mean that is rather a side note. These composers wrote a lot of absolut music. Where are the politics in Tchaikovskys swan lake or Mozarts symphonia concertante KV 364?


----------



## pianozach

Aries said:


> The behavior of the avant-garde wasn't very pieceful towards more conservative composers in the past. And there is a competition for performance and influence anyway. So I demand a fair competition. Things like this, a composition verified to be badly composed wins a prize, backs up my assumption that there is no fair competition, and that decision makers are biased towards atonal music.


Music "competitions" are ridiculous, especially for songwriting.

I've had this discussion before: How do you compare *Ave Maria* to *Night on Bald Mountain*? Which is better, *Beethoven's Symphony No. 3* or *Vivaldi's Four Seasons*? _*Bubbles*_, or _*Revolution No. 9*_. Which opera is better, *The Magic Flute*, or *Fidelio*?



In my teens I competed in Bach Festivals, and did quite well. I wasn't technically the most proficient pianist, nor a great interpreter of Bach's works, but I was able to play fast and dramatically, and that seemed to impress the judges. My *"runaway train might just come of the rails"* approach was evidently quite effective.


----------



## SanAntone

Aries said:


> Isn't that a bit too much political? Do they really have aesthetic goals if at least 50% of these aspects are political?
> 
> Really? Where are the confronting social issues and historical injustices in the music of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, Bruckner and Tchaikovsky for example? In Wagners case ok I see it, "Verachtet mir die Meister nicht" somewhat fits into the "historical injustices" category. And the first and second theme in Bruckners Symphony No. 3 are actually about "confronting social issues". But I mean that is rather a side note. These composers wrote a lot of absolut music. Where are the politics in Tchaikovskys swan lake or Mozarts symphonia concertante KV 364?


Young composers have used some aspect of 21st century society as a jumping off point, but it is not always political in nature. Issues of community, otherness, communication, figure prominently in the lives of people in their 20s and 30s, and it is natural that these same issues will inspire their music. But not always. However, I have noticed this in my interviews with a number of young composers.

My last sentence is a broadly drawn comparison that today's composers have just as much artistic integrity as composers of the past. But because today's world is very different from the world of 150-300 years ago, the issues surrounding the creation of new music involve issues of technology, globalism, social media, and related "hive mind" concepts, as well as a plethora of extended instrumental techniques. Many of the scores these young composers produce are not using standard notation - but the music produced can only be described using unique notation.

I have noticed a resistance by some of TC to new music because it sounds different from the classical music of the past, and often this calls into question the motivation or sincerity of the composers. IMO, this is a red herring.


----------



## Aries

pianozach said:


> Music "competitions" are ridiculous, especially for songwriting.


I didn't meant contests, but the everyday rivalry on the market. Like Honda and Chevy but not in a race but at the shop counter.

There is music of classical composers which doesn't get performed at all or delayed for 50 years.



SanAntone said:


> Young composers have used some aspect of 21st century society as a jumping off point, but it is not always political in nature. Issues of community, otherness, communication, figure prominently in the lives of people in their 20s and 30s, and it is natural that these same issues will inspire their music.


And what inspires them to atonal music exactly? I associate "community", "communication", "social media" rather with popular music influence which is tonal. What is the purpose of making everything sound dissonant? What about musicans of popular music? Why do they prefer tonal music? Are they less inspired by "community, otherness, communication", "technology, globalism, social media, and related "hive mind" concepts"?


----------



## SanAntone

Aries said:


> I didn't meant contests, but the everyday rivalry on the market. Like Honda and Chevy but not in a race but at the shop counter.
> 
> There is music of classical composers which doesn't get performed at all or delayed for 50 years.
> 
> And what inspires them to atonal music exactly? I associate "community", "communication", "social media" rather with popular music influence which is tonal. What is the purpose of making everything sound dissonant? What about musicans of popular music? Why do they prefer tonal music? Are they less inspired by "community, otherness, communication", "technology, globalism, social media, and related "hive mind" concepts"?


I read these as rhetorical questions since there is no way I can answer them. But it ought to be obvious that composers choose the tonal/atonal style as it suits their expression.


----------



## musicrom

Okay, I'm not as much of a fan of contemporary classical music as others here may be, but the difference between "Bubbles" and anything by Boulez is like night and day. I would also question the jury if they really thought that music had merit.


----------



## RogerWaters

SanAntone said:


> I have noticed a resistance by some of TC to new music because it sounds different from the classical music of the past, and often this calls into question the motivation or sincerity of the composers. IMO, this is a red herring.


*It's not just that it sounds 'different'*. It's that, like so much of the output of the highly highly educated post-modern intelligentsia since the 1980s, it is often not too distinguishable from randomness.

I am reminded of the sokal hoax and other brilliant and related experiments in academia in which post-modern theory papers were generated (1) with a random algorothm or (2) to be intentionally absurd but with the 'correct' political orientation, and accepted by some journals, or not outrightly rejected (accepted 'with revisions'!)

Of course, a vanishingly small proportion of the human population is always able to detect the 'frauds' from the honest contributions, but when you have been enculturated for dozens of years *to* detect this difference on a purely intellectual basis, is this really significant?!


----------



## fbjim

Perpetuating fraud intentionally in order to accuse everyone else of being fraudsters is less an argument and more just exploiting the concept of good faith. It's like those honor system bowls of Halloween candy where the sign says "take one", if you stole the bowl and claimed your actions prove that society are thieves.


----------



## fbjim

Honestly the idea, though, that atonal composers are defrauding people is nothing but humorous. If there's one thing society, and the music industry love more than anything else, it's definitely giving people who write music with almost no mass market appeal and popular accessibility lots of money.


----------



## science

RogerWaters said:


> the sokal hoax


This reminded me of the Sokal hoax too, because I look at both of them as molehills portrayed as mountains. Sokal, for example, chose to submit his hoax to a journal that did not have peer review. The only thing his stunt proved is that they respected his name enough to publish his paper, but people who hate continental philosophy discuss it as if it refuted everything since 1945.

Basically the same thing is happening with Bubbles here. This guy pulls a stunt and the conclusion we're supposed to reach is that Schoenberg sucks.

Whatever. You had to provide a link to let people know what the Sokal hoax is, and this will be even less remembered.


----------



## BachIsBest

science said:


> This reminded me of the Sokal hoax too, because I look at both of them as molehills portrayed as mountains. Sokal, for example, chose to submit his hoax to a journal that did not have peer review. The only thing his stunt proved is that they respected his name enough to publish his paper, but people who hate continental philosophy discuss it as if it refuted everything since 1945.
> 
> Basically the same thing is happening with Bubbles here. This guy pulls a stunt and the conclusion we're supposed to reach is that Schoenberg sucks.
> 
> Whatever. You had to provide a link to let people know what the Sokal hoax is, and this will be even less remembered.


To me, the so-called "new Sokal hoax" is far more disturbing as fake articles were submitted to top journals with peer-review in the so-called "grievance studies" and often accepted or sent back for revisions (which generally means, if the authors do the revisions, the article will then be published). The original Sokal hoax was funnier, as the author wrote what was quite literally random gibberish and got it published in what was a top-journal (the fact that the journal didn't practice peer-review was part of the scandal).

More to the point of the thread, I do have to admit that I question whether *some* modern avant-garde music is meaningfully distinguishable from some kid doing stuff on a piano, and this does seems to say that, to a certain degree, the answer is no. Those who want to conclude that "all modern avant-garde music is essentially random noise", are almost certainly stretching the implications of this one small "experiment".


----------



## science

BachIsBest said:


> To me, the so-called "new Sokal hoax" is far more disturbing as fake articles were submitted to top journals with peer-review in the so-called "grievance studies" and often accepted or sent back for revisions (which generally means, if the authors do the revisions, the article will then be published). The original Sokal hoax was funnier, as the author wrote what was quite literally random gibberish and got it published in what was a top-journal (the fact that the journal didn't practice peer-review was part of the scandal).
> 
> More to the point of the thread, I do have to admit that I question whether *some* modern avant-garde music is meaningfully distinguishable from some kid doing stuff on a piano, and this does seems to say that, to a certain degree, the answer is no. Those who want to conclude that "all modern avant-garde music is essentially random noise", are almost certainly stretching the implications of this one small "experiment".


Let's just go ahead and posit that some "modern avant-garde music is essentially random noise." Fine. No one should care if that's what I (or anyone else) want to listen to.

Anyone who scorns someone else for the music they listen to deserves to suffer a scorn far more intense. There is a lot going on here -- the idea of progress in the arts and resistance to that idea, the idea that we should have progressive taste and resistance to that idea, nostalgia for various aspects of the past and resistance to that nostalgia, political wrangling over who gets money and how much, strange associations between arts and taste and status -- but none of it would matter if music were just music.


----------



## chipia

fbjim said:


> Perpetuating fraud intentionally in order to accuse everyone else of being fraudsters is less an argument and more just exploiting the concept of good faith.


But I don't think that this is about exploiting good faith. If the jury had good faith they would have also funded the other compositions by Comitas, yet they didn't. I think this indeed shows that the jury was strongly biased towards atonal music, to the point that they preferred random noise over a product of genuine craftsmanship.


----------



## Forster

Music that _sounds _like random noise may still be regarded as music. Not by all, it's true, and of course, it rather depends who is doing the listening and the declaring its randomness.

Random noise might be claimed to be music, but that's a debate that has little prospect of conclusive agreement, regardless of whether people like what they hear.


----------



## Sid James

Portamento said:


> More rehashing of polemics from half a century ago. Great.


I initially thought that too, but I was wrong. The publishers of Comitas' 2013 article say that they are "critical of both modernism and postmodernism." They oppose "the increasingly bizarre and inscrutable work promoted in the name of art since the early years of the twentieth century." (source: https://aristos.org/aristos2.htm). So we're going back at least 100 years, not only 50. To quote San Antone, this may be the biggest "red herring" to grace TC forum, and I've come across quite a few in my time.


----------



## fbjim

i just don't understand what's stopping people like this from listening to "the lark ascending" in peace, and letting people compose and listen to what they want 

i mean, i do understand why, but it's unfortunate.


----------



## AndorFoldes

Value is in the eye of the beholder. I would be fine without all serialist atonal music written after WWII.


----------



## mikeh375

Sid James said:


> I initially thought that too, but I was wrong. The publishers of Comitas' 2013 article say that they are "critical of both modernism and postmodernism." They oppose "the increasingly bizarre and inscrutable work promoted in the name of art since the early years of the twentieth century." (source: https://aristos.org/aristos2.htm). So we're going back at least 100 years, not only 50. To quote San Antone, this may be the biggest "red herring" to grace TC forum, and I've come across quite a few in my time.


Thanks for the link Sid, I see they mention craft and intelligibility as arbiters. Intelligibility for the listener is largely a surface property that the composer can make as clear or as abstruse as he/she wants. That can be a problem for modernity in the average lay listeners view undoubtedly.

The problem with interpreting craft is more complicated imv. As an example, I was toying with the idea of posting a recording of a progression of a few chords from pop music simple, developing via technical processes to complicated and then even further into the uncharted sonic ether to a more contemporary sound. With a few technical moves, it's easy to get from one end of the spectrum to the other and even show the craftsmanship it took to get there - any trained composer will be able to do this. Additionally it might've shown how aurally seductive 'pushing' the tonality into something else a little more exciting can be, opening up as it does so many options.

This craftsmanship is often not easy to discern at the surface and may even be impossible to analyse anyway, but in my experience, works by renowned composers will have mostly an underbelly of control, parameters perhaps, that are the creative driver and justification for choices made. The point being I suppose is that although superficially, a piece might sound random, it's more likely the result of technical and expressive processes, i.e craft, that along with honed instincts and artistry guides the composer on their journey.

In this regard, judging complexity's artistic merits on its craft is not clear cut, it is biased, difficult and a red herring imv. It is hard to justify assessing craft as a reliable arbiter of value for contemporary works because of the complexity of the musical language, the individual and private nature of its usage and the personal aesthetic ideology of the composer.


----------



## chipia

Sid James said:


> I initially thought that too, but I was wrong. The publishers of Comitas' 2013 article say that they are "critical of both modernism and postmodernism." They oppose "the increasingly bizarre and inscrutable work promoted in the name of art since the early years of the twentieth century." (source: https://aristos.org/aristos2.htm). So we're going back at least 100 years, not only 50. To quote San Antone, this may be the biggest "red herring" to grace TC forum, and I've come across quite a few in my time.


But I honestly don't see what's wrong with the sentences you've quoted. Being critical of modernism and postmodernism is a good thing, because it means you want to form your own opinion instead of blindly complying to dogma.

I think that some modernist ideologies have every right to be criticised, for example several modernist composers spread the belief that anything that somehow resembles tonal music is not appropriate in modern times. Boulez went so far as avoiding minor sevenths because they reminded him of dominant seventh chords. 
Milton Babbitt critizised Lowell Liebermann for putting a perfect fifth in the bass, as it reminded him too much of older music. He begged him to substitute it with a more dissonant tritone instead etc..

I don't think that these ideologies are conducive to a healthy development of the artistic medium, so I don't see why we shouldn't be critical of them.


----------



## Aries

science said:


> There is a lot going on here -- the idea of progress in the arts and resistance to that idea, the idea that we should have progressive taste and resistance to that idea, nostalgia for various aspects of the past and resistance to that nostalgia, political wrangling over who gets money and how much, strange associations between arts and taste and status -- but none of it would matter if music were just music.


Yes, for example the idea of progress in arts. There will be always development in arts, but it is a problem if someone judges what is progress and what isn't. "Progress" also implies a direction in history, that the progressive stuff will eventually replace everything else. If someone defines atonalism, serialism or something similar as progress, it is simply inacceptable for me because this music doesn't give me anything.


----------



## mikeh375

Aries said:


> Yes, for example the idea of progress in arts. There will be always development in arts, but it is a problem if someone judges what is progress and what isn't. "Progress" also implies a direction in history, that the progressive stuff will eventually replace everything else. *If someone defines atonalism, serialism or something similar as progress, it is simply inacceptable for me because this music doesn't give me anything.*


But Aries....just don't listen to it then.... Atonality is not going to go away and as much as you want to blame academia for it, many composers love it and partake willingly of it. Composers are their own person you know and I'll bet as many have rejected atonality as have taken to it. Most excitingly for my ears are the ones who _incorporate_ it. You've got plenty of milder options to follow even with contemporary composers.

I'm sooo dying to quote Ives but I wont...


----------



## 59540

Sid James said:


> I initially thought that too, but I was wrong. The publishers of Comitas' 2013 article say that they are "critical of both modernism and postmodernism." They oppose "the increasingly bizarre and inscrutable work promoted in the name of art since the early years of the twentieth century." (source: https://aristos.org/aristos2.htm). So we're going back at least 100 years, not only 50. To quote San Antone, this may be the biggest "red herring" to grace TC forum, and I've come across quite a few in my time.


I think that's kind of a deflection. We're still debating a lot of things with roots in the 19th century. I absolutely do *not* want to debate politics, but if the role of the state hasn't been "settled" in that time I don't know why the role and techniques of art would be. It's not a case of "well we've established this is 'good', so let's shut up and move on". The fact that some stunt from 2011 has sparked 8 pages of indignation says...something. In the end I think it comes down to conflicting political/philosophical worldviews and so it just goes round and round and round.


----------



## fbjim

Aries said:


> Yes, for example the idea of progress in arts. There will be always development in arts, but it is a problem if someone judges what is progress and what isn't. "Progress" also implies a direction in history, that the progressive stuff will eventually replace everything else.


I think the postmodernists had the same thought, hah


----------



## Sid James

mikeh375 said:


> Thanks for the link Sid, I see they mention craft and intelligibility as arbiters…In this regard, judging complexity's artistic merits on its craft is not clear cut, it is biased, difficult and a red herring imv. * It is hard to justify assessing craft as a reliable arbiter of value for contemporary works because of the complexity of the musical language, the individual and private nature of its usage and the personal aesthetic ideology of the composer.*


I've followed your argument in this thread, and I like the nuanced way you've described the compositional process. Especially in the way you talk about flexibility of technique and the role of instinct. That last line pretty much sums things up, the corollary of that is that intelligibility and craft cannot be defined by way of putting art into some sort of deep freeze. That would imply a fictitious one-size-fits-all approach to the production and reception of art.

The manifesto, as explained in that link, is deeply flawed. They say that they champion "contemporary work that, like the significant art of all ages, is concerned with important human values, and is both intelligible and well crafted." I guess its art of all ages except that including and coming after modernism. So that goes back at least 100 years, but in music it can go back as far as even Beethoven.

I guess these objective standards whatever they are, aren't to be found in the likes of _Salome_, let alone _Rite of Spring_ or _Pierrot Lunaire_. So I guess we'd need to go by the standards of someone like Max Bruch, who was a fine composer and a respected academic, to do things like judge grant applications. He died in 1921, was still composing following a mid-19th century aesthetic, and didn't comprehend the developments in music taking shape during his final decades.

It really sounds absurd, but after reading that I began to smell a rat. At least _Aristos_ are upfront about their extremely retrograde approach.



chipia said:


> But I honestly don't see what's wrong with the sentences you've quoted. Being critical of modernism and postmodernism is a good thing, because it means you want to form your own opinion instead of blindly complying to dogma.
> 
> I think that some modernist ideologies have every right to be criticised, for example several modernist composers spread the belief that anything that somehow resembles tonal music is not appropriate in modern times. Boulez went so far as avoiding minor sevenths because they reminded him of dominant seventh chords.
> Milton Babbitt critizised Lowell Liebermann for putting a perfect fifth in the bass, as it reminded him too much of older music. He begged him to substitute it with a more dissonant tritone instead etc..
> 
> I don't think that these ideologies are conducive to a healthy development of the artistic medium, so I don't see why we shouldn't be critical of them.


What Boulez said in the 1950's, it's ancient history. The link between new music and the need for progress was more or less severed by the 1970's. With postmodernism, an anything goes mentality emerged. It was okay to be tonal or whatever you wanted. Babbitt must have been one of the last men standing still fighting the modernist war when others like Boulez had softened considerably.

I was trying to look for background on the Netherlands and found this obituary of Louis Andriessen, who was probably their most famous composer of the past fifty years. He refers to the restrictions of modernist ideology, which he went along with in terms of study, but later he departed from it altogether:

"In the early 50s, [there was] no way that you could write tonal music - totally forbidden… You had to write like Schoenberg or Webern. And I did that, and I'm very happy I did it, because I learned a lot about sound and about the organization of pitches and harmonies."

https://www.npr.org/sections/decept...al-iconoclastic-dutch-composer-dies-at-age-82



dissident said:


> I think that's kind of a deflection. We're still debating a lot of things with roots in the 19th century. I absolutely do *not* want to debate politics, but if the role of the state hasn't been "settled" in that time I don't know why the role and techniques of art would be. It's not a case of "well we've established this is 'good', so let's shut up and move on". The fact that some stunt from 2011 has sparked 8 pages of indignation says...something. In the end I think it comes down to conflicting political/philosophical worldviews and so it just goes round and round and round.


It certainly is about differing views, but it isn't a deflection. We're living in 2021, and its impossible to go back 100 or more years to a situation where aesthetic approaches, techniques and the rest where completely different. In any case, postmodernism is the ultimate ideological _get out of jail free card_, if you like. Anything goes, however we want to label it. So you don't have to shut up, but in fact we have moved on.


----------



## SanAntone

Is this progress, random, unlistenable, something you like?






Charles Wuorinen: Fourth Piano Concerto (2003)

By now 18 years old. If this work were your child, they'd be leaving home for college.


----------



## fbjim

One of the odd consequences of the valuation of craft is that craft is most necessary in capitol-P Pop music, which is why current chart hits frequently have songwriting and production credits longer than most operatic cast lists. 

In fact this emphasis on craft and production technique is probably the most interesting part of Pop as a genre of serious study, such that it is. This is to say that craftsmanship, to an extent, is following the rules. It's why standard common-practice-style classical music can be passed off as a lost Mozart work (somehow this story is never used to discount all of the Classical era), and why Alma Deutscher's music sounds so familiar and nice- because she's composing with a set of rules designed to produce music that sounds exactly like Classical common-practice music sounds. Berlioz recounts a probably apocryphal story where Beethoven was arguing with Ferdinand Ries about a passage he had written- Reis protested that it was "not permitted" by music theorists of the day x,y,z (Czerny, maybe?)- and Beethoven angrily shouted "I permit it!"

i.e. I think any focus on "bringing back craft to music" will lead to an unavoidable place where we decide that it was OK for Beethoven, Berlioz, Debussy, Stravinsky etc to violate the rules but not anyone past that, and there's little justification for that other than market appeal and personal taste.


----------



## chipia

fbjim said:


> i.e. I think any focus on "bringing back craft to music" will lead to an unavoidable place where we decide that it was OK for Beethoven, Berlioz, Debussy, Stravinsky etc to violate the rules but not anyone past that, and there's little justification for that other than market appeal and personal taste.


I don't think that's correct. You seem to be confusing "craft" with "following rules". Those things are not related. Craft simply means to show *skill*. You can show skills both in old rulesets, like e.g. Mozart did, and in new ones like Debussy did.

However, I think in order to demonstrate craft in a ruleset, the rules themselves must be craftfully designed.

An example is Debussy: He broke the rules (or rather, established new rules), by introducing the whole tone scale and emancipating the augmented triad. This does not conform with the traditional rules of Common-Practice-Tonality, yet his pieces using the whole tone scale can be considered as craftfully composed. That's because these new rules produce music that sounds distinct, purposeful, structured and expressive and is perceived as such by the listener. (maybe it wasn't immediately perceived as such when it was new, but audiences eventually did understand it)

For comparison, if Debussy composed "Bubbles" then he would also break the rules, but in a way that is completely lacking in craft. That's because you need absolutely no skill to make random music. Literally anybody can do it. The result would be lacking creative, structural and expressive substance and thus wouldn't have made Debussy a great composer.


----------



## SanAntone

The only random music is that which is based on ambient or environmental sounds. But there has been plenty of beautiful music created from field recordings or ambient sounds. But, anytime a human is involved in the creation of music it is never really random.

This whole thing about randomness is another huge red herring. 

And just because you may not be able to hear the craft in an avant-garde composition does not equal the absence of craft.

For me, the bottom-line is what is the quality of my experience when I listen to a piece of music. I am not listening for craft, I am listening to the sound of the music - it either interests/pleases me or not.


----------



## science

chipia said:


> Being critical of modernism and postmodernism is a good thing....


Sure, you're right, and you could hardly have said a more modernist or postmodernist thing. For example:



chipia said:


> ... it means you want to form your own opinion instead of blindly complying to dogma.


The idea that forming your own opinion is such a good thing is pretty much modernist dogma.

And then:



chipia said:


> I don't think that these ideologies are conducive to a healthy development of the artistic medium....


Hard to say anything more postmodern than that.

Pointing this out is not a criticism. We're all where we are. No matter how critical we manage to be, we can't go back to the nineteenth or eighteenth or thirteenth century or whenever the golden age was supposed to have been.


----------



## fbjim

yeah like- the rejection of interpreting music history as a long string of some kind of objective "progression" is- well, you know.


----------



## fbjim

SanAntone said:


> The only random music is that which is based on ambient or environmental sounds. But there has been plenty of beautiful music created from field recordings or ambient sounds. But, anytime a human is involved in the creation of music it is never really random.
> 
> This whole thing about randomness is another huge red herring.


Just as an example, one of the most acclaimed (by which I mean it got praise from the mainstream music press) avant-garde works of the 21st century consisted of a tape loop which, due to problems with the equipment, slowly degraded over time as it was recorded and looped.

To what extent is it "just random"? Does it matter if the work was conceived by accident?


----------



## SanAntone

fbjim said:


> Just as an example, one of the most acclaimed (by which I mean it got praise from the mainstream music press) avant-garde works of the 21st century consisted of a tape loop which, due to problems with the equipment, slowly degraded over time as it was recorded and looped.
> 
> To what extent is it "just random"? Does it matter if the work was conceived by accident?


William Basinski's _Disintegration Loops_ - absolutely beautiful and extremely moving if you know the full story behind them.


----------



## Aries

Sid James said:


> What Boulez said in the 1950's, it's ancient history. The link between new music and the need for progress was more or less severed by the 1970's. With postmodernism, an anything goes mentality emerged. It was okay to be tonal or whatever you wanted.


I think this is narrowed point of view, too western-centric and too academical. Just look at the east, there was never an atonal hegemony, but also look to the west, see what great success Bernard Herrmann had with tonal music in the 50s for example. And then there are composers who are simple forgotten today, because academics don't think there are worth to remember. But the majority of composers was probably never atonal.



Sid James said:


> "In the early 50s, [there was] no way that you could write tonal music - totally forbidden… You had to write like Schoenberg or Webern.


Ottmar Gerster wrote a nice tonal Symphony No. 2 in 1952 just as an example.






Western academics just tend to forget about these aspects of history. But it is their atonal music for which nobody really cares outside of their bubble.



Sid James said:


> It certainly is about differing views, but it isn't a deflection. We're living in 2021, and its impossible to go back 100 or more years to a situation where aesthetic approaches, techniques and the rest where completely different.


What is this supposed to mean "impossible to go back"? Time traveling is impossible but that obvious to everyone. But many composers don't apply atonal aesthetics today. So I really don't know what you mean.


----------



## fbjim

Barber, Rochberg, Rorem and the like are not "forgotten", especially Barber. You can even throw Leonard Bernstein in there if you prefer. Any composer who composes polystylistically almost has to write at least partially in tonality by necessity. A great deal of the minimalists were tonal. 

Someone who knows about what the public schools teach can chime in but I seriously doubt the current teaching of the 20th century consists entirely of atonal composers. In fact at the turn of the century there was an active reappraisal of that entire narrative, it seems.


----------



## SanAntone

> many composers don't apply atonal aesthetics today.


Then you have nothing to complain about.


----------



## fbjim

honestly i kind of find the conservative rejection of the minimalists kinda funny. "write tonal music" *morton feldman does something astonishingly beautiful* "nooooo not that way"


----------



## 59540

Sid James said:


> ...
> I guess these objective standards whatever they are, aren't to be found in the likes of _Salome_, let alone _Rite of Spring_ or _Pierrot Lunaire_. So I guess we'd need to go by the standards of someone like Max Bruch, who was a fine composer and a respected academic, to do things like judge grant applications. He died in 1921, was still composing following a mid-19th century aesthetic


So, in a way, were Sibelius and Strauss. Well Sibelius gave it up perhaps partly because of the direction in which composition was heading. But I don't think even strident critics of "modernism" or whatever are suggesting that composers go back to composing in the style of Beethoven or Brahms. I think with a lot of them it begins with the conviction that "serious/art/classical music" is dead and they're trying to perform a post-mortem. Personally I think Schoenberg and all who followed him to the present day were part of a probably inevitable development. Not "progressive" in the literal sense necessarily, but an inevitable change of direction.



> So you don't have to shut up, but in fact we have moved on.


Apparently we haven't.


----------



## Aries

SanAntone said:


> Then you have nothing to complain about.


Some composers are almost forgotten and therefore not recorded. I miss recordings of a lot of works from Ottmar Gerster, Evgeny Brusilovsky, Evgeny Golubev and Alexey Rybnikov for example. Some works are only recorded in bad quality, like some works of Otar Taktakishvili, Vladimir Vlasov or Janis Ivanovs. Works of some composers deserve more recordings like the works of Martin Scherber. And the works of a lot of composers are not recorded at all. I don't blame atonal music for it, but I blame a view of history that sees atonal music as superior or supposes that tonal music was forbidden/inexistent in the 50s, because if it was forbidden/inexistent then there is nothing to search for, right?

And that a composer like Alexander Comitas gets financially supported for "Bubbels" instead of his genuine tonal output is a reason to complain too. Composers shouldn't adopt an atonal style only because of academical expectations.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> honestly i kind of find the conservative rejection of the minimalists kinda funny. "write tonal music" *morton feldman does something astonishingly beautiful* "nooooo not that way"


Is it only "conservatives" who reject minimalism? And what's "astonishingly beautiful" to you may not be to someone else. People who reject atonality aren't under an obligation to love everything that's tonal. Anyway I'm a fan of a lot of minimalist music and atonal music for that matter.


----------



## Sid James

Aries said:


> I think this is narrowed point of view, too western-centric and too academical. Just look at the east, there was never an atonal hegemony, but also look to the west, see what great success Bernard Herrmann had with tonal music in the 50s for example. And then there are composers who are simple forgotten today, because academics don't think there are worth to remember. But the majority of composers was probably never atonal.
> Ottmar Gerster wrote a nice tonal Symphony No. 2 in 1952 just as an example.
> …
> Western academics just tend to forget about these aspects of history. But it is their atonal music for which nobody really cares outside of their bubble.


Atonality and serialism emerged from Austria and Germany, which are Western countries. Eventually it penetrated into the USA, through composers who settled there, such as Schoenberg.

Aleatoricism has more diverse origins, one strand goes back to encounters (which go beyond music, into philosophy) between the West and Asia. The emergence of interest in modal music in Europe (particularly France, e.g. Satie) is related, as well as anarchist trends like the Futurists.

It is true that composers who didn't absorb any of these trends, even major ones, where poorly served by ideology. Sibelius and Rachmaninov where among these. They continued to be popular with audiences throughout the 1950's and '60's, and by the 1970's that whole ideological apparatus shifted and their legacies have been seen in a more balanced light since.

Eventually, serialism and aleatoricism entered the academy. Many composers, Andriessen included, went on to produce music which couldn't be described as modernist, because it was too eclectic. At the same time, learning the techniques of Schoenberg and Webern had its merits. Composers absorbed their techniques, albeit freely and not in a literal way. Many composers from that era had similar experiences to him.

Generations of composers since have followed what one can call more traditional paths in music. Here are a few from the USA, and notice how they all have different opinions:

https://nmbx.newmusicusa.org/would-you-describe-yourself-as-a-neoromantic-why-not/

I especially like what Bruce Adolphe says:

_"Sad to say, it is quite common for people (including some musicians!) to use the terms tonality and atonality recklessly, one to mean consonance and the other to mean dissonance. Are you a tonal or atonal composer? Religious or Atheist? Cerebral or Emotional? Let's face it, even asking are you male or female may not get a simple answer anymore, so how can a composer in this eclectic musical world of ours be expected to respond?

Here are some more choices to think about if you are a composer: should your music be tonal or tonally based, modal, modally derived but with a chromatic surface, atonal but not serial, twelve-tone, jazz-related and tonal, atonally jazz-related, electronic, concrete, minimal and tonal, minimal and modal, minimal and atonal, maximal and serial, ethnic mode related, klezmer-derived but with atonal layering, fusion of modes and chromatic atonality, etc.!"_

https://nmbx.newmusicusa.org/Would-you-describe-yourself-as-a-neoromantic-Why-not-Bruce-Adolphe/


> What is this supposed to mean "impossible to go back"? Time traveling is impossible but that obvious to everyone. But many composers don't apply atonal aesthetics today. So I really don't know what you mean.


I read two articles in _Aristos_, the one in the OP about Comitas and another about Borstlap's court case. I also looked at that Aristos manifesto and some career info on the two composers. It's not possible to go back, yet this is what the aim of these people seems to be.

I don't even fully understand the point of the court case, to be honest. Even if Borstlap had emphatically won it, what next? Do we reform the grants board to be in a mindset which is one hundred or more years old? Do we get rid of what is taught about serialism and aleatoricism in universities? Ditto modernism and postmodernism? How far do we go?

Even if we try to go back to some point in the past, even back then, people didn't all agree about aesthetics, technique, ideology and so on.



dissident said:


> So, in a way, were Sibelius and Strauss. Well Sibelius gave it up perhaps partly because of the direction in which composition was heading. But I don't think even strident critics of "modernism" or whatever are suggesting that composers go back to composing in the style of Beethoven or Brahms. I think with a lot of them it begins with the conviction that "serious/art/classical music" is dead and they're trying to perform a post-mortem. Personally I think Schoenberg and all who followed him to the present day were part of a probably inevitable development. Not "progressive" in the literal sense necessarily, but an inevitable change of direction.


What has happened has happened. I think the term post-mortem is apt. Even if we dig up the past, there has to be some aspect of moving on, because we're in the present. We can look backwards or forwards but ultimately we're in the present.



> Apparently we haven't.


Well, _Aristos_ certainly haven't, and neither have de Boer and Borstlap. Regarding _Aristos_, I think I can distinguish between balanced commentary on music and something which is heavily biased. As for de Boer and Borstlap, they are obviously educated men with some degree of talent and ability, attributes which can be put to better use than what was outlined in those two articles.


----------



## science

dissident said:


> ... I think with a lot of them it begins with the conviction that "serious/art/classical music" is dead...


I wonder what this could mean. People are still trying to make new "serious/art/classical music" and probably more people are interested in it (in absolute terms) than ever before.

I don't know for sure but I suspect one thing people mean is that high art (classical music, literature, painting, sculpture, etc.) no longer has the same social cachet that it used to. It still has some, to be sure, but other forms of entertainment and decoration have broken its monopoly.

They might just mean that they don't like the high art of our time. In a way, this is the opposite idea of the previous paragraph -- one of the main points of "high" art rather than ordinary art is to enable the people who pay for it to look down on the people who don't. Every time someone in a museum looks at a work of art and says "my grandkids could do that" a smirking billionaire somewhere feels a little more justified in making himself wealthier and more powerful to the harm of those grandkids. High art has played roles like this anywhere there's ever been social stratification. Not that the artists intend any of this, usually, or that art is politics -- politics is power, and art is only an attendant to it. But since wealthy people are still buying art to show off to other wealthy people, probably spending more money on it than ever before in fact, high art is alive and thriving, and people protesting that they feel excluded from it shows that it is working.

What else could "high art is dead" mean? It may simply be an expression of nostalgia for the nineteenth century. Not that the nineteenth century was so great for ordinary people, but for elites it was definitely a better time than the first half of the twentieth. New elites have arisen since then, but for the descendants of the old elite, and people who feel they would have been allied to the old elites, those days were better. So one expression of grief for that loss may be looking back on the arts of that era with a sense that they were better than the arts of today.

I'm trying to think of what else it could mean.


----------



## BachIsBest

science said:


> I wonder what this could mean. People are still trying to make new "serious/art/classical music" and probably more people are interested in it (in absolute terms) than ever before.
> 
> I don't know for sure but I suspect one thing people mean is that high art (classical music, literature, painting, sculpture, etc.) no longer has the same social cachet that it used to. It still has some, to be sure, but other forms of entertainment and decoration have broken its monopoly.
> 
> They might just mean that they don't like the high art of our time. In a way, this is the opposite idea of the previous paragraph -- one of the main points of "high" art rather than ordinary art is to enable the people who pay for it to look down on the people who don't. Every time someone in a museum looks at a work of art and says "my grandkids could do that" a smirking billionaire somewhere feels a little more justified in making himself wealthier and more powerful to the harm of those grandkids. High art has played roles like this anywhere there's ever been social stratification. Not that the artists intend any of this, usually, or that art is politics -- politics is power, and art is only an attendant to it. But since wealthy people are still buying art to show off to other wealthy people, probably spending more money on it than ever before in fact, high art is alive and thriving, and people protesting that they feel excluded from it shows that it is working.
> 
> What else could "high art is dead" mean? It may simply be an expression of nostalgia for the nineteenth century. Not that the nineteenth century was so great for ordinary people, but for elites it was definitely a better time than the first half of the twentieth. New elites have arisen since then, but for the descendants of the old elite, and people who feel they would have been allied to the old elites, those days were better. So one expression of grief for that loss may be looking back on the arts of that era with a sense that they were better than the arts of today.
> 
> I'm trying to think of what else it could mean.


I think it means that high art is unpopular to the point of near-extinction in virtually all areas of society. I can't remember the last time my local theater showed a film that could be consider an "art film"; the orchestra closest to me just cancelled all non-pops concerts in their annual festival, and the last advertised art exhibition in my area was the Vincent van Gogh thing where giant projections of Vincent van Gogh's paintings are up on the wall while vaguely new-agey music plays (apparently, the paintings alone were not enough). For better or for worse, people just don't care about high art anymore.

I also reject the notion that this is because high art somehow had a monopoly on entertainment in previous generations. There were always other forms of entertainment; high art is just, for whatever reason, losing the battle for peoples money and attention now.


----------



## Forster

Aries said:


> I blame a view of history that sees atonal music as superior or supposes that tonal music was forbidden/inexistent in the 50s, because if it was forbidden/inexistent then there is nothing to search for, right?


A view of history that would be wrong...am I right? Tonal music was neither forbidden nor non-existent in the 50s.


----------



## SanAntone

BachIsBest said:


> I think it means that high art is unpopular to the point of near-extinction in virtually all areas of society. I can't remember the last time my local theater showed a film that could be consider an "art film"; the orchestra closest to me just cancelled all non-pops concerts in their annual festival, and the last advertised art exhibition in my area was the Vincent van Gogh thing where giant projections of Vincent van Gogh's paintings are up on the wall while vaguely new-agey music plays (apparently, the paintings alone were not enough). For better or for worse, people just don't care about high art anymore.
> 
> I also reject the notion that this is because high art somehow had a monopoly on entertainment in previous generations. There were always other forms of entertainment; high art is just, for whatever reason, losing the battle for peoples money and attention now.


Define "high art."


----------



## Aries

Sid James said:


> Atonality and serialism emerged from Austria and Germany, which are Western countries. Eventually it penetrated into the USA, through composers who settled there, such as Schoenberg.
> 
> Aleatoricism has more diverse origins, one strand goes back to encounters (which go beyond music, into philosophy) between the West and Asia. The emergence of interest in modal music in Europe (particularly France, e.g. Satie) is related, as well as anarchist trends like the Futurists.
> 
> It is true that composers who didn't absorb any of these trends, even major ones, where poorly served by ideology.


But I wounder how wide this ideological treatment was geographically spread. It is clear that the complete opposite was true in the east. Ottmar Gerster for example was promoted by east germany, because his romantic style fitted into the socialist realism concept. The problem isn't that he had problems in his lifetime, but that now western elites rather want to forget him.

Inside the western world I am not sure about Great Britain. Their composers seem less avant-garde than french composers for example. One example is William Alwyn.

And I' m not sure about the third world countries (neither west nor east) at that time. Was Portugal third world after WWII? Joly Braga Santos is regarded as greatest portuguese composer of the 20th century and he was tonal. So I assume there was no avant-garde hegemony in Portugal after WWII.



Sid James said:


> I read two articles in Aristos, the one in the OP about Comitas and another about Borstlap's court case. I also looked at that Aristos manifesto and some career info on the two composers. It's not possible to go back, yet this is what the aim of these people seems to be.


The two greatest living composers I have discovered so far are John Williams and Alexey Rybnikov. And I don't see a break with the romantic tradition. Rybnikovs teacher was Aram Khachaturian. Their romantic line probably never broke.

I see the era of new music as an era of style pluralism. That's just fair. Its not true that it is just an era of atonal music and everything else is a century behind.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

Aries said:


> The two greatest living composers I have discovered so far are John Williams and Alexey Rybnikov. And I don't see a break with the romantic tradition. Rybnikovs teacher was Aram Khachaturian. Their romantic line probably never broke.


Interesting. Khachaturian said in one late interview, if memory serves, that the younger generations of composers were not interested in following the tradition of Prokofiev, Shostakovich, and himself. Which works by Rybnikov would you recommend?


----------



## Aries

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> Interesting. Khachaturian said in one late interview, if memory serves, that the younger generations of composers were not interested in following the tradition of Prokofiev, Shostakovich, and himself. Which works by Rybnikov would you recommend?


I really like his Symphonies No. 5 and No. 6:

No. 6: 



No. 5: 




Symphony No. 4 is unfinished, I can find only a recording in bad quality unfortunately: 




Symphonies 1-3 are older, from the 1970s and I don't find a recording.

He also wrote some Concerto Grossos, which are nice: 




Important are his operas too, which mix in rock music and his film music. But I have no big opinion about these yet.


----------



## Torkelburger

Yeah, the idea that modern music was or is dominated by the avant-garde, atonal music, and/or serialism is a myth and a strawman. 

There are and have been mainstream, major figures post-1950 all across the globe (America and Europe) who are arguably in close proximity to Shostakovich and Prokofiev’s stature and have carried on their symphonic traditions. You do not have to search far and wide to find them.

Just going by Symphonies alone you have (post-1950) at the bare minimum off the top of my head:

Rautavaara
Penderecki (all after #1)
Henze
Tippett
Simpson
Maxwell Davies
Schnittke

You can put Lutoslawski in the AG and atonal side, but his stuff really is quite approachable, though.

Americans probably aren’t on the Shosty level, as we are considered lower on the tier by non-Americans, but these are some of our highest-regarded symphonists post-1950 (off the top of my head), all conservative:

Harbison
Glass
Rouse
Tobias Picker
Rochberg
Zwilich
Stephen Albert
Samuel Jones
Samuel Adler
Daugherty
Danielpour
Bolcolm
There’s tons more I’m sure I’m forgetting.

Conservatism never went out of style in America, even in the 40’s and 50’s and 60’s. Major orchestras commissioned symphonies by Hanson and Barber (both Romantics), Piston, Mennin, Persichetti, Schuman, Rochberg, Lees, the list goes on, over and over and over again. We have a spectacular catalogue of conservative, popular, and historically significant symphony cycles during that time.


----------



## science

BachIsBest said:


> I think it means that high art is unpopular to the point of near-extinction in virtually all areas of society. I can't remember the last time my local theater showed a film that could be consider an "art film"; the orchestra closest to me just cancelled all non-pops concerts in their annual festival, and the last advertised art exhibition in my area was the Vincent van Gogh thing where giant projections of Vincent van Gogh's paintings are up on the wall while vaguely new-agey music plays (apparently, the paintings alone were not enough). For better or for worse, people just don't care about high art anymore.
> 
> I also reject the notion that this is because high art somehow had a monopoly on entertainment in previous generations. There were always other forms of entertainment; high art is just, for whatever reason, losing the battle for peoples money and attention now.


It sounds like you're finding yourself excluded by geography and finances. If you were the kind of person who had a private jet, you'd see all the art-films and hear all the non-pops concerts and see all the art exhibitions you could possibly desire, and you'd know a lot of other people who chose to spend their luxurious lives that way.

It's worth pondering the idea that high art existed for thousands of years before museums did, and that museums were originally inspired by democratic ideals that are essentially at odds with the concept of high art.


----------



## fbjim

There were absolutely specific influential schools and institutions promoting specific art movements but I don't think this is particularly unique to the 20th century. _Especially_ in France, which has a history of things like state or otherwise "official" institutional gatekeep control over things like the operatic stage.


----------



## fbjim

science said:


> It sounds like you're finding yourself excluded by geography and finances. If you were the kind of person who had a private jet, you'd see all the art-films and hear all the non-pops concerts and see all the art exhibitions you could possibly desire, and you'd know a lot of other people who chose to spend their luxurious lives that way.
> 
> It's worth pondering the idea that high art existed for thousands of years before museums did, and that museums were originally inspired by democratic ideals that are essentially at odds with the concept of high art.


In terms of wealth and high art, there's now accusations that the means have become the ends to an extent and high art is now effectively a money laundering mechanism (this seems specific to visual art, since those are specific assets which can be owned and appreciated in value).

I don't know enough about visual arts to really provide an informed view on this, though.

Also regarding museum ideals- one of the points of "Fountain" (you know, the toilet in the museum) was that if high art is defined by cultural framing, ie, being stuff exhibited in serious museums, the question becomes what that says about the relationship between high art and the people who control access to those institutions.


----------



## BachIsBest

science said:


> It sounds like you're finding yourself excluded by geography and finances. If you were the kind of person who had a private jet, you'd see all the art-films and hear all the non-pops concerts and see all the art exhibitions you could possibly desire, and you'd know a lot of other people who chose to spend their luxurious lives that way.
> 
> It's worth pondering the idea that high art existed for thousands of years before museums did, and that museums were originally inspired by democratic ideals that are essentially at odds with the concept of high art.


To be clear I would claim something slightly less dramatic than "high art is dead". The fact that I live in a large city and would need to do this would, to me, precisely demonstrate the fact that high art is declining.


----------



## BachIsBest

SanAntone said:


> Define "high art."


I can't give a precise mathematical definition of what high art is because it is a concept (like virtually every concept used in daily in life) that does not lend itself towards a precise definition. I, like many, have thought of definitions and criteria, but they all tend to be slightly vague.

Luckily, for the purposes of this conversation, we can rely on the fact that we all have a shared, reasonably similar view on what is "high art" (e.g. Ingmar Bergman movies - yes; Superhero movies - no; Brahms - yes; Tupac - no) like we do all the time when having conversations with other people. Although there are likely some grey areas in our views on high art, I don't believe these finer points on the definition are particularly relevant here.


----------



## SanAntone

BachIsBest said:


> I can't give a precise mathematical definition of what high art is because it is a concept (like virtually every concept used in daily in life) that does not lend itself towards a precise definition. I, like many, have thought of definitions and criteria, but they all tend to be slightly vague.
> 
> Luckily, for the purposes of this conversation, we can rely on the fact that we all have a shared, reasonably similar view on what is "high art" (e.g. Ingmar Bergman movies - yes; Superhero movies - no; Brahms - yes; Tupac - no) like we do all the time when having conversations with other people. Although there are likely some grey areas in our views on high art, I don't believe these finer points on the definition are particularly relevant here.


The reason why I asked (despite the obvious idea which you have articulated) is because for me the idea of "high art" is both noxious and a myth.

Art is either art or not. Tupac (or any musician working in a non-classical genre) can have written and produced music of a very high artistic quality, whereas Tchaikovsky, e.g., might have produced a few works of dreck.

The high art concept is noxious to me because it is yet another way of attempting to elevate classical music above other genres.

Again, for me, the quality of a musical work is not simply a matter of its genre, but in the particulars of the work itself. There have been many examples of extremely well-wrought non-classical pieces of music.


----------



## fbjim

The post-modern skepticism of "high art" didn't come out of nowhere, to an extent it reflects the culture which had legitimized popular art as a vehicle of serious artistry. Ingmar Bergman might be "high art" but nobody since like the 50s has trouble placing him next to Alfred Hitchcock, or Howard Hawks.

"High art" as a category reflects institutional access and wealth more than anything. You could also point to it being a form of art where the creators are thought to be somewhat insulated (via state/foundation patronage) from the market forces of popular art, but I'm not sure how true this really is, and if that's the case, you'd have to reckon with e.g. independent/amateur music and how that fits into that definition.


----------



## Forster

"High art": a serious (deep) reflection on the human experience, communicated via media that are sympathetic to that reflection, well-organised and/or well-wrought.

Any use as a starter for 10?


----------



## SanAntone

fbjim said:


> The post-modern skepticism of "high art" didn't come out of nowhere, to an extent it reflects the culture which had legitimized popular art as a vehicle of serious artistry. Ingmar Bergman might be "high art" but nobody since like the 50s has trouble placing him next to Alfred Hitchcock, or Howard Hawks.
> 
> "High art" as a category reflects institutional access and wealth more than anything. You could also point to it being a form of art where the creators are thought to be somewhat insulated (via state/foundation patronage) from the market forces of popular art, but I'm not sure how true this really is, and if that's the case, you'd have to reckon with e.g. independent/amateur music and how that fits into that definition.


The idea of high and low art might be differently perceived in the US than elsewhere. During the early-mid 19th century, in the US, Shakespeare and opera were performed to both the masses and the elite. It was not uncommon for traveling troupes to stage scenes from famous plays in the countryside for the common folk.

There is an entire section in Huckleberry Finn where Mark Twain describes this with much comic effect. The players perform Shakespearean scenes but mangling the language and received great howls of laughter from the audience of illiterates. Only because they knew Shakespeare intimately could they "get" the joke.

The idea of high and low art has never really prospered in America.


----------



## Sid James

Aries said:


> But I wounder how wide this ideological treatment was geographically spread...


There where definitely regional differences, and of course the Cold War impacted on this issue too.



> I see the era of new music as an era of style pluralism. That's just fair. Its not true that it is just an era of atonal music and everything else is a century behind.


That's basically in line with postmodernism.

Louis Andriessen wasn't saying that literally you couldn't compose tonal music in the 1950's. His comments need to be seen in the context of ideological issues which I but briefly touched upon.

*Andrew Ford* has written extensively on the split between modernism and postmodernism. Here, he discusses the shifting sands of ideology in relation to the career of Ligeti (entire post here: https://www.talkclassical.com/16940-gy-rgy-ligeti-22.html#post1479926) Ford's last paragraph alone expresses the tensions in ideology and the way understanding of what was modern had changed by the time Ligeti reached the end of his career:



Sid James said:


> "So is Ligeti's Piano Concerto modernist? In the broadest sense, yes. Ligeti is a modernist in the same way that Machaut and Monteverdi, Beethoven and Stravinsky were modernists: like those composers, he is an instinctive innovator, imagining types of music that nobody has previously imagined. This is really the only modernism that has ever mattered, and it is the sort of modernism that will never go away. In the context of the hard-line, dogmatic modernism of the 1950s avant-garde, of course, Ligeti's concerto doesn't fit at all. For one thing, and despite its complexity, it has become rather popular. In contrast, the post-war avant-garde had no hits. But then why would a work from the mid 1980s fit a 1950s definition of modernism? That decade of serial austerity was modernism's classical period, and Ligeti served his apprenticeship there (he even wrote a painstaking analysis of Boulez's Structures Ia). I think one might argue that this apprenticeship made possible his late pieces. But an artist that can find equal inspiration in fractals and pygmy music (not to mention the work of Lewis Carroll) is by nature no hardliner. Anyway, by the end of the twentieth century, the hardliners were elsewhere."


----------



## fbjim

wrt institutional "modernism" of the 50s/Boulez, I wonder if you can draw a parallel with "Wagnerism" which seemed to dominate muisc criticism as a concept for discourse in the late 1800s

just in terms of how it seemingly divided the musical world in two, in ways which, in retrospect, don't actually describe what was going on in music during that time at all


----------



## Sid James

I think that parallel can be drawn between those two periods. I think its significant that composers felt a need to figure out where they stood in relation to major ideological divides like those.

As ideas change, so does culture overall and this has impacts on music. I've come across many opinions by composers which, when read in light of what has happened since, appear to be archaic.

Just reflecting on the debate about high and low art, for instance, I saw a quote by Milton Babbitt where he was critical of the top university students for listening to popular music rather than classical music. He strongly implies that educated people should listen to different music than those with less or no education.

_"We receive brilliant, privileged freshmen at Princeton, who in their first year of college are likely to take a philosophy of science course with [logical positivist] Carl Hempel, and then return to their dormitories to play the same records that the least literate members of our society embrace as the only relevant music." _*

To disagree with that doesn't necessarily mean that Babbitt was wrong, he was simply expressing an opinion which was in line with his own view - or ideology - of music reception. He was a man of his time; nothing more, nothing less.

However, it is necessary to point out that Babbitt's view isn't current, and there are reasons for this. Andrew Ford, for example, who I quoted above is a musicologist who includes many types of music - jazz, pop, world, and so on - in his writings on classical music. With the new musicology that opened up in the 1970's, this sort of contextualised and pluralist view became the norm. Its important to acknowledge that shifts in thinking like this open up connections, which does have impacts on music and culture in general.

* I don't have the original context of this quote, but its in Richard Taruskin's _ The Danger of Music and Other Anti-Utopian Essays_, 2008.


----------



## SanAntone

> I saw a quote by Milton Babbitt where he was critical of the top university students for listening to popular music rather than classical music. He clearly stated his expectations that educated people should listen to different music than those with less or no education.


Absurdly ignorant statement. I suppose Babbitt would not approve of his students listening to Lou Reed (just one example) who studied journalism and creative writing at Syracuse where one of his professors was Delmore Schwartz who said Reed was "the first great person I ever met."

Many rock, pop, and hip-hop, artists are well educated and intelligent. Just read about Kanye West.

But this is not to say that uneducated musicians are unable to create music of high artistic quality. Robert Johnson, Louis Armstrong, Hank Williams, Muddy Waters. Uneducated does not equal unintelligent, or unsophisticated, or untalented.

The thing I find the most tiresome and pathetic is the kind of ignorant bias Babbitt shows towards non-classical music and musicians, and the fans of those genres.


----------



## Red Terror

SanAntone said:


> Many rock, pop, and hip-hop, artists are well educated and intelligent. Just read about Kanye West.


Kanye West is intelligent and well educated? Could have fooled me.


----------



## Sid James

SanAntone said:


> Absurdly ignorant statement. I suppose Babbitt would not approve of his students listening to Lou Reed (just one example) who studied journalism and creative writing at Syracuse where one of his professors was Delmore Schwartz who said Reed was "the first great person I ever met."
> 
> Many rock, pop, and hip-hop, artists are well educated and intelligent. Just read about Kanye West.
> 
> But this is not to say that uneducated musicians are unable to create music of high artistic quality. Robert Johnson, Louis Armstrong, Hank Williams, Muddy Waters. Uneducated does not equal unintelligent, or unsophisticated, or untalented.
> 
> The thing I find the most tiresome and pathetic is the kind of ignorant bias Babbitt shows towards non-classical music and musicians, and the fans of those genres.


To be fair to Babbitt, I merely provided that quote in order to illustrate my point that ideas are important. That sense of distrust of popular music by modernists is in direct opposition to postmodernism which embraced it. So basically, modernism had this privileged position in relation to popular styles and idioms. Even when Babbitt made those comments in the 1970's, the tide had turned. Most composers today would avoid making those kinds of comments.

With regards to education or social class, classical music is in direct contrast to the popular realm. I'm not very knowledgeable about Kanye, but I have come across criticism of him by other rappers, because he's not from the hood. In classical, there were hardly any composers who came from the hood, so to speak. Most where what we'd call middle class. A few exceptions to the rule that come to mind are Haydn, Brahms and Dvorak.


----------



## SanAntone

Sid James said:


> To be fair to Babbitt, I merely provided that quote in order to illustrate my point that ideas are important. That sense of distrust of popular music by modernists is in direct opposition to postmodernism which embraced it. So basically, modernism had this privileged position in relation to popular styles and idioms. Even when Babbitt made those comments in the 1970's, the tide had turned. Most composers today would avoid making those kinds of comments.
> 
> With regards to education or social class, classical music is in direct contrast to the popular realm. I'm not very knowledgeable about Kanye, but I have come across criticism of him by other rappers, because he's not from the hood. In classical, there were hardly any composers who came from the hood, so to speak. Most where what we'd call middle class. A few exceptions to the rule that come to mind are Haydn, Brahms and Dvorak.


West was a child prodigy as an artist, I think he got a scholarship to a Chicago art academy. I remember seeing a short documentary about him in which he was picked as one of small number of gifted children.

Also at a young age he moved to China with his mother who was a university professor and went to school there. No small transition, having to learn the language. He did drop out of university to pursue his music career, but was later honored with a doctorate.

It is not uncommon for some people to equate formal education with intelligence, but in fact there is no correlation.


----------



## fbjim

West mainly says a bunch of dumb stuff that makes it seem like his wealth has kind of insulated himself from reality. I've kind of joked that he's in that sort of period like when David Bowie did about ten tons of cocaine and kept giving interviews about how he admired Hitler (which understandably got kind of forgotten later)


also in terms of educated rappers, Ice Cube famously went to school for architectural drafting and was going to do that for a career if the whole rap thing didn't pan out


----------



## Sid James

SanAntone said:


> It is not uncommon for some people to equate formal education with intelligence, but in fact there is no correlation.


I think that the dividing line isn't intelligence, but opportunity. The opportunities you have, in terms of both formal and informal education, make a huge difference.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

SanAntone said:


> The thing I find the most tiresome and pathetic is the kind of ignorant bias Babbitt shows towards non-classical music and musicians, and the fans of those genres.


In his later years Babbitt confessed, perhaps a bit hyperbolically, that he would have given away all of his music for one song like those by Jerome Kern.


----------



## SanAntone

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> In his later years Babbitt confessed, perhaps a bit hyperbolically, that he would have given away all of his music for one song like those by Jerome Kern.


I am familiar with the stories about Babbitt and Broadway tunes/show - Stephen Sondheim is the source for some, since he studied with Babbitt.


----------



## mikeh375

SanAntone said:


> I am familiar with the stories about Babbitt and Broadway tunes/show - Stephen Sondheim is the source for some, since he studied with Babbitt.


I didn't know that, fascinating.


----------



## Aries

Sid James said:


> Just reflecting on the debate about high and low art, for instance, I saw a quote by Milton Babbitt where he was critical of the top university students for listening to popular music rather than classical music. He strongly implies that educated people should listen to different music than those with less or no education.


But for which reason? For demarcation to people with lower status or because they have more time and money for art and therefore should automatically tend towards the higher art?

If people listen to classical music for the wrong reasons, it will lead to a decay of classical music, maybe this happened already.

On the other hand abolishing all social hierarchies is probably a very dangerous and short-sighted thing to do. The rigid social hierarchy of previous centuries appears to be too strict, but there is a trend overturn ever more without limits. It is an experiment that could end really badly. Our societies have grown with hierarchies, where is the warranty that they can uphold without hierarchies?

For me as a young person my young contemporaries seem cultureless. I think it can't end well. You can't let cultureless people get into power. Look at Afghanistan, the Sowjet union, or the french revolution. Total terrorism is the result.

The social situation feels like a chess game where you think you made a smart move, but the resulting end game 20 moves later is simply lost.


----------



## Kreisler jr

SanAntone said:


> It is not uncommon for some people to equate formal education with intelligence, but in _fact there is no correlation_.


You cannot seriously believe this. Of course there is a strong correlation. This does not mean that it is a perfect correlation but there are obviously thresholds of intelligence that are necessary (not sufficient) for having a chance for certain accomplishments. One cannot even out any lack of cognitive ability with cramming and effort or some magic didactic method. (BTW the ability to make extraordinary effort or learn stuff by heart to even out lack of "raw intelligence" is also different in different people.)
I wonder if the people who claim this are either extremely intelligent, so they absolutely cannot understand how people struggle with e.g. 8th grade algebra and it is obvious that they will never be able to get a college degree in a subject demanding calculus or other higher maths, no matter how hard they try. Or they have never challenged themselves with something they were not good at, to experience their limits.


----------



## fbjim

> "I understand that people find it surprising, but I am not a strange creature. There are lots of we laborers who write, paint or play music," says Ferrari, an easygoing man who himself laughs about his disparate vocations.
> 
> "It is a peculiarity of capitalists and the bourgeoisie to think that we workers have no culture," adds the novelist, whose many tattoos include one of Karl Marx on his left arm.


(this is besides the point that intelligence is poorly defined)


----------



## SanAntone

Kreisler jr said:


> You cannot seriously believe this.


You are obviously well educated.


----------



## Aries

Is intelligence even the right criterion? What about social intelligence? What about vigor? What about mental health? Isn't the overall ability more important for success than just intelligence? I'm sure there is some correlation between success and the overall ability to success. But also randomness.


----------



## Enthusiast

SanAntone said:


> The reason why I asked (despite the obvious idea which you have articulated) is because for me the idea of "high art" is both noxious and a myth.
> 
> *Art is either art or not. Tupac (or any musician working in a non-classical genre) can have written and produced music of a very high artistic quality, whereas Tchaikovsky, e.g., might have produced a few works of dreck.
> *
> The high art concept is noxious to me because it is yet another way of attempting to elevate classical music above other genres.


I am really not sure about all this. Although I listen with real pleasure to a wide range of non-classical music, and although the pleasure I get from it is often a pleasure I cannot get from classical music, my subjective experience is that the experience of listening to much classical music does seem to me to be more precious and "involved" (it opens up complex worlds - i.e. there is detail in the invention that you don't get in other musical forms - in memorable ways). I am not seeking to argue that high art exists and is a worthwhile term (I have no idea about whether that could be argued in a way that would satisfy those who are not already convinced of it) but merely that the term "high art" does seem to offer an explanation of my personal experience. I would make the same point concerning literature and graphic arts.

Your proof (which I have bolded) doesn't convince at all. You start by imagining Tupac producing a great work of art - which is surely what you are trying to prove! - and note that those claimed to be great artists sometimes produce rubbish (which is irrelevant). As for your view that my experience is tainted with a noxious concept - the reason you give is that it is not true but suppose it is?


----------



## SanAntone

Enthusiast said:


> You start by imagining Tupac producing a great work of art - which is surely what you are trying to prove! - and note that those claimed to be great artists sometimes produce rubbish (which is irrelevant).


What I am saying is that the same care, discipline, artistic ambition, craft, seriousness of intent, can and does exist in music from other genres besides classical. The specific examples I chose are not the defining elements.

For me the idea of "high art" is not tied to the specific genre of classical music as it is to the specific nature of a work and the intent/goals of the creative composer/musician.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ I agree with your last para. But I cannot think of a single non-classical piece that exhibits "the same care, discipline, artistic ambition, craft, seriousness of intent" as an even moderately valued classical piece. I had always thought that non-classical musicians were aiming at something different and using different qualities. Note that I am not saying that classical music is better than much non-classical music - just that I feel an intuitive understanding of the term "high art" and feel that, for me at least, it is a real thing.


----------



## fbjim

If you want craft, you want pop music. I'm not even kidding, the high end stuff is fretted over by multiple extremely trained songwriters, producers, and futzed over for a good reason- it has to make money.

I remember people talking about how "pop music" is now a class in colleges as if this was like, postmodern ideological indoctrination- no, it's in colleges because if you want to be a musician and make money in the industry, that's probably the kind of thing you'll want to know.


----------



## chipia

fbjim said:


> If you want craft, you want pop music.


But what _kind_ of craft does pop music demonstrate? The craft to exhaust the formal, emotional, expressive and creative potentials of music? Or the craft to make teenagers sing along?


----------



## SanAntone

Enthusiast said:


> I cannot think of a single non-classical piece that exhibits "the same care, discipline, artistic ambition, craft, seriousness of intent" as an even moderately valued classical piece.


I certainly can.


----------



## fbjim

chipia said:


> But what _kind_ of craft does pop music demonstrate? The craft to exhaust the formal, emotional, expressive and creative potentials of music? Or the craft to make teenagers sing along?


The latter, which does go to show that craft and education aren't necessarily correlators to elevated art.

That said, pop does tend to be highly "progressive" in terms of (sometimes parasitic) appropriation of music production trends which frequently started as underground/independent sensations. From a craftsmanship perspective, this can actually be interesting in the ways that adventurous sounds get downfiltered and very carefully altered for mainstream consumption, though I certainly wouldn't call this an inherently laudable goal.


----------



## SanAntone

chipia said:


> But what _kind_ of craft does pop music demonstrate? The craft to exhaust the formal, emotional, expressive and creative potentials of music? Or the craft to make teenagers sing along?


I think firstly that there are many other kinds of non-classical music beyond pop music. However, even in pop music there are examples which I think are as artistically done as a song by Schubert (I get much more out of many pop songs than his). But if we were to consider genres such as musical theater, often equal to opera and more often of better overall quality, IMO; jazz, which requires very high level of instrumental virtuosity and melodic and harmonic invention; flamenco; fado; Indian ragas ...

I could go on, but I can't see any support for the idea that the artistic expression of music peaked with classical music around the mid- to late-19th century. How sad it would be to believe that, but even sadder to be unable to hear it elsewhere.


----------



## fbjim

Aries said:


> Is intelligence even the right criterion? What about social intelligence? What about vigor? What about mental health? Isn't the overall ability more important for success than just intelligence? I'm sure there is some correlation between success and the overall ability to success. But also randomness.


The biographies of artists would beg to differ. I certainly don't want to romanticize the purported connection between mental illness and creativity, which I consider pseudoscientific and borderline degrading to people with poor mental health, but I certainly don't believe any of those are requirements for being a great artist.

Especially social intelligence. One could fill a book with artists who loved to alienate people and had awful personal lives.


----------



## Neo Romanza

I don't agree with many members' attitudes in this thread about how only classical music can be artful, sophisticated, contain intellectual/emotional depth, etc. These attitudes show an unwillingness to think 'outside of the box' and appreciate the amount of work that goes into say the music of Alison Krauss or Kate Bush (just to throw two random musicians that I highly respect and admire out there). When I listen to say Miles Davis' _Porgy & Bess_, I think it's an incredible artistic achievement and the music touches me deeply. My point in all of this is if music _moves_ you, then it doesn't matter whether it's classical, jazz, rock, bluegrass, etc., you made a deeper connection with it and that's all that matters. Upholding some kind of mentality that classical music is somehow 'above it all' is dangerous and will certainly stifle the creativity and beauty that exists outside of it.


----------



## fbjim

I think you could say that classical music (_very_ generally speaking) requires a unique level of formal education to write - things like the tenets of CPT counterpoint, for instance, is specific, "institutional" knowledge in a way that writing rock/pop lyrics aren't. The history is also full of specific institutions/conservatories/"schools" which had influence on the genre at large in a way you don't particularly see in popular art- popular art is certainly driven by trends and scenes, but the gate to entry is too nonexistent to really be "institutional" in the way that classical music was.


----------



## Neo Romanza

fbjim said:


> I think you could say that classical music (_very_ generally speaking) requires a unique level of formal education to write - things like the tenets of CPT counterpoint, for instance, is specific, "institutional" knowledge in a way that writing rock/pop lyrics aren't. The history is also full of specific institutions/conservatories/"schools" which had influence on the genre at large in a way you don't particularly see in popular art- popular art is certainly driven by trends and scenes, but the gate to entry is too nonexistent to really be "institutional" in the way that classical music was.


I'll disagree and point you to jazz. Even though jazz hasn't been around for that long, there are music schools that teach jazz and have jazz programs that one can major in and, also, get tons of training. Also, one of the jazz degrees you can get receive is for jazz composition, which someone who has a large YouTube following like Adam Neely majored in and talks about on his channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/havic5.


----------



## Enthusiast

SanAntone said:


> I certainly can.


Some examples might help me to see where you are coming from.


----------



## Enthusiast

Neo Romanza said:


> I don't agree with many members' attitudes in this thread about how only classical music can be artful, sophisticated, contain intellectual/emotional depth, etc. These attitudes show an unwillingness to think 'outside of the box' and appreciate the amount of work that goes into say the music of Alison Krauss or Kate Bush (just to throw two random musicians that I highly respect and admire out there). When I listen to say Miles Davis' _Porgy & Bess_, I think it's an incredible artistic achievement and the music touches me deeply. My point in all of this is if music _moves_ you, then it doesn't matter whether it's classical, jazz, rock, bluegrass, etc., you made a deeper connection with it and that's all that matters. Upholding some kind of mentality that classical music is somehow 'above it all' is dangerous and will certainly stifle the creativity and beauty that exists outside of it.


Thanks for the diagnosis of my problem! But in fact I can't see how you can suggest that I can't think outside the box - and, given the limitations of your own classical taste (I can't quite remember but wasn't it "no opera and no Classical, Baroque or earlier"?) - think the suggestion a little "pot calling the kettle"!

But, then, I anyway was not saying that "only classical music can be artful, sophisticated, contain intellectual/emotional depth, etc.", merely that that these qualities do not seem to me (in terms of what I get out of the music) as strong for non-classical artists as for noted classical composers. I am a big Miles fan and an even bigger fan of Coltrane and a few others. So, yes, there is sophistication and art in much jazz ... along with inspiration and taste. And, yes, of course it moves me! But what it does in my brain is something quite different to what I get from classical music. Classical music could not replace it for me but it couldn't replace classical either.

I'm afraid I am very far away from liking Alison Krauss or Kate Bush - I feel they produce appalling music that I can only describe as horrible kitsch (i.e. I have an almost visceral dislike of what they do). But there is a lot of non-classical/non-jazz music that I do like greatly. But what I get from it is again not the same as what I get from classical.

This all - and similar experiences with literature, theatre, sculpture and painting - makes me feel that the term "high art" has a value and meaning.


----------



## SanAntone

Enthusiast said:


> Some examples might help me to see where you are coming from.


It would be different for different people, but in a followup post of mine, I give some broad indications.

From reading your posts it seems that you are not aware that (at least in the US) the idea of high and low art did not exist prior to the early 20th century.


----------



## fbjim

Enthusiast said:


> So, yes, there is sophistication and art in much jazz ... along with inspiration and taste. And, yes, of course it moves me! But what it does in my brain is something quite different to what I get from classical music. Classical music could not replace it for me but it couldn't replace classical either.


I think a mistake people sometimes assume (not you, just generally) is that the "postmodern" skepticism of artistic hierarchies between genres and practices of music constitutes an attack on the idea that artistic worth exists at all. I prefer to think if it as the simple concept that different forms of art have different purposes and audiences, and will be good at different things. Classical music will never make me feel the way a classic techno record does, and vice-versa.


----------



## science

SanAntone said:


> ... (at least in the US) the idea of high and low art did not exist prior to the early 20th century.


We definitely had ideas along those lines. People knew that some things were classier than other things.

The big difference, in the US and Europe and throughout the world of agricultural states, was that the "common people" still aspired to imitate their "betters."


----------



## science

fbjim said:


> If you want craft, you want pop music. I'm not even kidding, the high end stuff is fretted over by multiple extremely trained songwriters, producers, and futzed over for a good reason- it has to make money.
> 
> I remember people talking about how "pop music" is now a class in colleges as if this was like, postmodern ideological indoctrination- no, it's in colleges because if you want to be a musician and make money in the industry, that's probably the kind of thing you'll want to know.


I've written many times here that most of the intellectual work of pop music is in the technology -- instrumental and recording technology, but also anything that can make performances more impressive -- and the reason that classical listeners don't respect is that we tend not to care about the technology.


----------



## fbjim

just to expand on artistic goals being put in genre context- there are cases where I actually dislike "elevated" music because I don't think it fits the genre. I fell out of a lot of prog rock, for instance, because there were too many cases where the self-consciously elevated nature of it felt like it was trying to fit the square peg of popular rock music into a round hole (artistically-motivated rock I do like tends to do so within the rock aesthetic idiom, like say, 70s King Crimson, or Swans, rather than attempting to emulate other genres). This is obviously a matter of taste, but I tend to like it when music tries to do what its best at.


----------



## Enthusiast

SanAntone said:


> From reading your posts it seems that you are not aware that (at least in the US) the idea of high and low art did not exist prior to the early 20th century.


It is something I learned in this thread. It is an interesting fact but it seems that there were still divisions in music - if only because different types of music need different skills and training - so I wonder if different terms were used to mean more or less the same thing? Rural vs. city; traditions associated with different races?


----------



## science

SanAntone said:


> The high art concept is noxious to me because it is yet another way of attempting to elevate classical music above other genres.


I think it's the kind of thing that we've got to be honest about in order to question it. Classical music was "elevated" long before anyone on this message board came along.


----------



## SanAntone

science said:


> We definitely had ideas along those lines. People knew that some things were classier than other things.
> 
> The big difference, in the US and Europe and throughout the world of agricultural states, was that the "common people" still aspired to imitate their "betters."


My point is that in the 19th century, early and late, minstrel shows would include scenes from Shakespeare's plays both straight and parodied. These were performed for definitely lower classes who were able to appreciate the parodies, which required a knowledge of Shakespeare. Famous actors would go from town to town doing their Lears and Richards and Othellos.

Shakespeare was performed along side Jump Jim Crow by Daddy Rice and other crude comical scenes to the delight of the audiences made up of rural country folk.

Most cities of any size had at least one opera house, usually more than one; New Orleans had three. And these were attended by all levels of society - but they were often performed in English since the American public had no patience for hours of a stage play they could not understand. Opera traveling troupes brought their repertory to the countryside as well.

The idea that Shakespeare or opera was "high art" did not exist since these were performed and known and loved by all classes from low to high.


----------



## Enthusiast

fbjim said:


> I think a mistake people sometimes assume (not you, just generally) is that the "postmodern" skepticism of artistic hierarchies between genres and practices of music constitutes an attack on the idea that artistic worth exists at all. I prefer to think if it as the simple concept that different forms of art have different purposes and audiences, and will be good at different things. Classical music will never make me feel the way a classic techno record does, and vice-versa.


You are right there! I have a problem with post-modernism. It did some useful things - I really hate snobbism in the arts or anywhere else - but the idea that all is of equal value seems wrong to me. I suspect post-modernism is a dying school. I wonder what will come next?


----------



## fbjim

science said:


> I've written many times here that most of the intellectual work of pop music is in the technology -- instrumental and recording technology, but also anything that can make performances more impressive -- and the reason that classical listeners don't respect is that we tend not to care about the technology.


Well, there are other reasons - one assumption sometimes made of "elevated" art nowadays is that it should be, to some extent, shielded from market pressures by patronage. In film, for instance, a studio might take on a prestige project which will clearly have a lower ROI than a superhero film because they believe it will improve the image of the studio- in music, this was patronage- first from the nobility, then from states and non-profit foundations. Pop music obviously could not be more different- this is music with the specific function of making money, and this tends to arouse skepticism in more artistically-inclined listeners.

Ironically, the fact that the music has a specific purpose of making money is why it requires so much craft- but it does make the music come off more as, say, craftsmanship rather than being "artistic".


----------



## Neo Romanza

Enthusiast said:


> Thanks for the diagnosis of my problem! But in fact I can't see how you can suggest that I can't think outside the box - and, given the limitations of your own classical taste (I can't quite remember but wasn't it "no opera and no Classical, Baroque or earlier"?) - think the suggestion a little "pot calling the kettle"!
> 
> But, then, I anyway was not saying that "only classical music can be artful, sophisticated, contain intellectual/emotional depth, etc.", merely that that these qualities do not seem to me (in terms of what I get out of the music) as strong for non-classical artists as for noted classical composers. I am a big Miles fan and an even bigger fan of Coltrane and a few others. So, yes, there is sophistication and art in much jazz ... along with inspiration and taste. And, yes, of course it moves me! But what it does in my brain is something quite different to what I get from classical music. Classical music could not replace it for me but it couldn't replace classical either.
> 
> I'm afraid I am very far away from liking Alison Krauss or Kate Bush - I feel they produce appalling music that I can only describe as horrible kitsch (i.e. I have an almost visceral dislike of what they do). But there is a lot of non-classical/non-jazz music that I do like greatly. But what I get from it is again not the same as what I get from classical.
> 
> This all - and similar experiences with literature, theatre, sculpture and painting - makes me feel that the term "high art" has a value and meaning.


I love opera, but obviously not all of it and, yes, I have my own limitations even in every genre, but I have a wider appreciation for popular music than obviously do. Anyway, different genres and styles express different things and if you're moved by the music, then it doesn't matter if it's a piece of electronic music by Tangerine Dream or one of Chopin's _Nocturnes_. To somehow put classical music on some pedestal that no other music can reach, which is the impression I'm getting from your various posts is what is making me raise my eyebrow.


----------



## SanAntone

fbjim said:


> Well, there are other reasons - one assumption sometimes made of "elevated" art nowadays is that it should be, to some extent, shielded from market pressures by patronage. In film, for instance, a studio might take on a prestige project which will clearly have a lower ROI than a superhero film because they believe it will improve the image of the studio- in art, this was patronage- first from the nobility, then from states and non-profit foundations. Pop music obviously could not be more different- this is music with the specific function of making money, and this tends to arouse skepticism in more artistically-inclined listeners.


To me you seem to be reducing all pop music to one kind. How do you account for Brian Wilson's songs like "Don't Talk, Put Your Head on My Shoulder", or "God Only Knows", or "Good Vibrations"? Or many songs by The Beatles, or Peter Gabriel, or Townes Van Zandt, or Randy Newman, or in more recent times, Imogen Heap, or Inara George, or Jason Isbell, and any number of other pop musicians?

These are well-written songs without a major impact of technology.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Enthusiast said:


> You are right there! I have a problem with post-modernism. It did some useful things - I really hate snobbism in the arts or anywhere else - but the idea that all is of equal value seems wrong to me. I suspect post-modernism is a dying school. I wonder what will come next?


You don't like snobbery in the arts, but, yet, you said of Alison Krauss and Kate Bush, who I previously mentioned as being favorites, as "appalling music that I can only describe as horrible kitsch".  Right, so just as long as _you_ like them they're not kitsch.


----------



## fbjim

SanAntone said:


> To me you seem to be reducing all pop music to one kind. How do you account for Brian Wilson's songs like "Don't Talk, Put Your Head on My Shoulder", or "God Only Knows", or "Good Vibrations"? Or many songs by The Beatles, or Peter Gabriel, or Townes Van Zandt, or Randy Newman, or in more recent times, Imogen Heap, or Inara George, or Jason Isbell, and any number of other pop musicians?


I mean capital-P Pop music, yeah. Rock music (including things like singer-songwriter or folk music) was more or less artistically legitimized by the mid-1960s. Pop took a while, and I do think there was a bit of an overreaction to the "legitimization" of pop in the "serious" rock press in the 2000s, though Pop certainly is not exempt from being artistic.

e) from an old article a few years back about the excesses of the pro-Pop trend in music crit- this has happened all the time when there are big shifts in art criticism, so nothing is new under the sun, and all that.



> Ideologies congeal. They cease to be alternatives and become hegemonies. Where once they sought to change the debate, they come to dictate it. They become the pigs at the end of Animal Farm, adopting all the grisly accoutrements of whatever they came to supplant. That's as true in music as it is in politics. It happened with punk; it happened with Britpop. Movements that were insurgent became establishment; they were codified with their own set of rules about what and what was not acceptable.
> 
> That's true of poptimism, too. Poptimists argued, once, that the disposal and the shiny were as valuable as the self-consciously worthy. They argued that the single was as worthwhile as the album. They insisted that unquestioning reverence for a style of music - reverence that was adopted just because that was the way things were, rather than because of any inherent worth in the music - was unjustified.
> 
> Now, though, pop occupies the space that, for many years, rock had colonised: the one in which, in the critic Douglas Wolk's words, rock was "normative", in other words, "rock is the standard state of popular music: the kind to which everything is compared, explicitly or implicitly". That's now the case with pop, and other non-rock genres, such as R&B and hip-hop.
> 
> It turns out, though, that the poptimists are just as proscriptive as the rockists. Poptimism has its own sacred cows, which are beyond challenge:
> 
> *The solo release by the member of a manufactured group is no longer the sad addendum to the imperial years; it is a profound statement of artistic integrity.
> 
> *The surprise release by the big-name act is in itself, a revolutionary act.
> 
> *To not care about Taylor Swift or Beyoncé or Lady Gaga or Zayn Malik is in itself questionable. It reveals not your taste in music, but your prejudices. In the worst-case scenario, you may be revealing your unconscious racism and sexism. At best, you're trolling.
> 
> *Commercial success, in and of itself, should be taken as at least one of the markers of quality. After all, 50m Elvis fans can't be wrong.
> 
> *Just as "authenticity" is worthless as a symbol of a music's worth, so contrivance and cynicism might be elevated and celebrated, as evidence of the maker's awareness of the game they are playing. (The pop South Sea Bubble that was the explosion of excitement around PC Music a couple of years back fits this bill.)


https://thequietus.com/articles/22389-rockism-poptimism


----------



## science

SanAntone said:


> My point is that in the 19th century, early and late, minstrel shows would include scenes from Shakespeare's plays both straight and parodied. These were performed for definitely lower classes who were able to appreciate the parodies, which required a knowledge of Shakespeare. Famous actors would go from town to town doing their Lears and Richards and Othellos.
> 
> Most cities of any size had at least one opera house, usually more than one; New Orleans had three. And these were attended by all levels of society - but they were often performed in English since the American public had no patience for hours of a stage play they could not understand. Opera traveling troupes brought their repertory to the countryside as well.
> 
> The idea that Shakespeare or opera was "high art" did not exist since these were performed and known and loved by all classes from low to high.


The "all levels of society" point is always exaggerated -- there have always been people who couldn't afford admission. We shouldn't forget that prior to the welfare state poverty was no joke.

It has been said that if people in rural 19th-century America had one book, it was the Bible, and if they had two, the second was a Shakespeare. In both cases, though, it's worth pointing out that literacy itself was consciously related to class and upward mobility. Working-class people insisted that their children's public schools teach art and music and Latin because they wanted their kids to have a chance to pass as being from the middle class. Culture was about upward mobility. Those ambitions were often mocked, as in Twain's portrayal of those performances in _Huckleberry Finn_. Without romantic nationalism to ennoble folk culture, it was just seen as backwards, even by the people who had little other culture.

What changed in the 20th century, particularly after WWII, is that working class youth and (especially from the 1960s onward) even middle class youth rejected the idea that they should ape the people above them in the hierarchy. "Roll over Beethoven and tell Tchaikovsky the news" might be the most apt lyric in the history of rock and roll. People stopped caring whether their kids were taught art or music in schools. To some extent, things got so turned around that upper class people even began valuing middle class and working class culture -- they forgot their paeans to democracy were supposed to be lip service... until it was too late!

I think things started flipping back towards the normal historical pattern sometime in the late 1980s and 1990s, but the damage was already done. Today's high culture and tomorrow's will include elements that would have been rejected as trash by our great-great-grandparents' rulers. It'll be interesting to see how it shakes out, if we live long enough and continue to have enough information about the elite wealth to know how they see things.


----------



## science

Enthusiast said:


> You are right there! I have a problem with post-modernism. It did some useful things - I really hate snobbism in the arts or anywhere else - but the idea that all is of equal value seems wrong to me. I suspect post-modernism is a dying school. I wonder what will come next?


I suspect it's dead already. Of course there are a few people still trying to keep it going - we can pretty easily see for ourselves that a few people are even trying to keep romanticism going. But as an intellectual ideology, it's hard to find people under 70 who take much of it very seriously.

Edit: Other than, of course, people who use it as a straw man!


----------



## Enthusiast

Neo Romanza said:


> I have a wider appreciation for popular music than obviously do.


I wonder. If you mean solely pop music then you are surely right. But if you include rock, alternative, soul, country, blues, hip-hop, African, Latin and so on then I suspect I could match the breadth of your taste in that field!



Neo Romanza said:


> Anyway, different genres and styles express different things and if you're moved by the music, then it doesn't matter if it's a piece of electronic music by Tangerine Dream or one of Chopin's _Nocturnes_. To somehow put classical music on some pedestal that no other music can reach, which is the impression I'm getting from your various posts is what is making me raise my eyebrow.


Yes, they are different. What I get from one I can't get from the other. But that doesn't mean they can't be compared. As for pedestals - I think it is you who introduced that idea. The term "high art" doesn't need to imply superiority.

Sorry to have remembered your view of opera wrongly, BTW. I remember now.


----------



## SanAntone

science said:


> The "all levels of society" point is always exaggerated -- there have always been people who couldn't afford admission.


You are simply incorrect on this point.

There is a well-researched and written book on the subject you might wish to read if you are interested: Levine, Lawrence. 2009. _Highbrow/Lowbrow The Emergence of Cultural Hierarchy in America_.


----------



## Enthusiast

Neo Romanza said:


> You don't like snobbery in the arts, but, yet, you said of Alison Krauss and Kate Bush, who I previously mentioned as being favorites, as "appalling music that I can only describe as horrible kitsch".  Right, so just as long as _you_ like them they're not kitsch.


Well, sorry, but all my contributions here are about what I feel about different types and examples of music. I make no claim to be the sole receiver of the truth. I'll remember to sprinkle my posts with IMOs in future discussions.


----------



## fbjim

science said:


> I suspect it's dead already. Of course there are a few people still trying to keep it going - we can pretty easily see for ourselves that a few people are even trying to keep romanticism going. But as an intellectual ideology, it's hard to find people under 70 who take much of it very seriously.
> 
> Edit: Other than, of course, people who use it as a straw man!


"Dead" may be an overstatement - movements come and go but they leave marks. Certainly there is a great air of historical pessimism around- e.g. crises of faith involving the worth of national ideals and the failure to live up to them. That, and a skepticism about the inevitability of progress.

It does seem that there's a big inflection point these days, though.

(also the strawman these days is "critical theory", I see "postmodern" as a pejorative less and less)


----------



## fbjim

Enthusiast said:


> Yes, they are different. What I get from one I can't get from the other. But that doesn't mean they can't be compared.


I guess this is where I depart. I mean, ok, sure, a terrible rock song is probably clearly worse than a great classical composition but I already have enough problems with the idea that you can compare the disparate artistic purposes of say, a Brahms symphony and "On the Beautiful Blue Danube".

Like, just personally, I don't really know how to compare the pieces in a way that isn't inherently like, missing the point of one of the pieces, or isn't just an expression of taste.


----------



## science

SanAntone said:


> You are simply incorrect on this point.
> 
> There is a well-researched and written book on the subject you might wish to read i you are interested: Levine, Lawrence. 2009. _Highbrow/Lowbrow The Emergence of Cultural Hierarchy in America_.


I'm familiar with that work. His own words are that it was "*less* hierarchically organized" (pg 9), not that cultural hierarchy was absent altogether, and what his study shows is how the status of a few particular elements -- Shakespeare, opera -- were transformed by the industrial capitalist elite. It's true that (white) America was indeed more democratic back then as well, and the industrialists went to work to change that, and were successfully doing so until WWII.

Yes, there were definitely people who couldn't afford admission. Of course able-bodied white men in 19th-century America were able to walk west and flee their creditors, but even so not everyone was able to do that. It's even easier to overlook abject poverty in history than it is to overlook it in our own world, but people died of exposure on the streets of 19th century America even more often than they do today. There was serious hunger. Debt peonage. Slavery. And just as now, people marked each other's class in many ways, including by whether they could read or not and what things they'd managed to read and learned to discuss intelligently.


----------



## science

fbjim said:


> "Dead" may be an overstatement - movements come and go but they leave marks. Certainly there is a great air of historical pessimism around- e.g. crises of faith involving the worth of national ideals and the failure to live up to them. That, and a skepticism about the inevitability of progress.
> 
> It does seem that there's a big inflection point these days, though.
> 
> (also the strawman these days is "critical theory", I see "postmodern" as a pejorative less and less)


This is partially a disagreement we have about what counts as "modern" and what counts as "postmodern." I view postmodernism as a particular form of modernism, not as something altogether different. Modernism is still with us and strongly so, albeit of course it's not quite the same thing it was in 1915 or 1945 or 1975.

If we use "postmodern" to refer to cultural patterns that emerged in the 1960s (for example, capitalism marketing counterculture, or a quasi-ironic embrace of kitsch and camp), it's still with us and will be for the foreseeable future. If we use it to refer to the wholesale rejection of any idea of truth or accuracy, it's been sick since the 1990s, dying since about 2001, and probably dead forever after 2008.

I'd argue that actually we're recovering, rediscovering, and recreating cultural patterns typical of gilded age America and the industrial era in Western Europe, which is only natural since the balance of power in our political and economic institutions are increasingly resembling that era as well.


----------



## SanAntone

science said:


> I'm familiar with that work. His own words are that it was "*less* hierarchically organized" (pg 9), not that cultural hierarchy was absent altogether, and what his study shows is how the status of a few particular elements -- Shakespeare, opera -- were transformed by the industrial capitalist elite. It's true that (white) America was indeed more democratic back then as well, and the industrialists went to work to change that, and were successfully doing so until WWII.
> 
> Yes, there were definitely people who couldn't afford admission. Of course able-bodied white men in 19th-century America were able to walk west and flee their creditors, but even so not everyone was able to do that. It's even easier to overlook abject poverty in history than it is to overlook it in our own world, but people died of exposure on the streets of 19th century America even more often than they do today. There was serious hunger. Debt peonage. Slavery. And just as now, people marked each other's class in many ways, including by whether they could read or not and what things they'd managed to read and learned to discuss intelligently.


You appear to be focussing on the end of the period and not the bulk of the 19th century. The price of admission to attend a tent show was easily affordable for most country folk, where many of these performances took place throughout the 19th century long before the industrial capitalists held sway.

Levine's book is about the evolution of the cultural hierarchy, i.e. moving from a period when there was hardly any (1820s-1880s), to the kind we are more familiar with since the turn of the 20th century.


----------



## SanAntone

If "postmodernism" is responsible for the breaking down of cultural hierarchies, I see it as a very good thing. These biases, along with the more toxic prejudices, need to go away if we have any hope of establishing a just and compassionate society.


----------



## science

SanAntone said:


> You appear to be focussing on the end of the period and not the bulk of the 19th century. The price of admission to attend a tent show was easily affordable for most country folk, where many of these performances took place throughout the 19th century long before the industrial capitalists held sway.
> 
> Levine's book is about the evolution of the cultural hierarchy, i.e. moving from a period when there was hardly any (1820s-1880s), to the kind we are more familiar with since the turn of the 20th century.


I think I've shown that I understand what you're saying, and it's enough for me that you're saying "hardly any" rather than "not at all." Hopefully you can see that I'm not disputing that the status of some things has moved from "for almost anyone" to "highbrow."

Would you also argue that there were no class patterns in 19th-century American religion?


----------



## science

SanAntone said:


> If "postmodernism" is responsible for the breaking down of cultural hierarchies, I see it as a very good thing. These biases, along with the more toxic prejudices, need to go away if we have any hope of establishing a just and compassionate society.


A more equal distribution of wealth and power, breaking down the hierarchies themselves, is the only thing that can "break down" the cultural manifestations of the hierarchies.

Moving things (like, for example, blues or jazz or folk music or opera or Shakespeare or pink flamingos or the word "y'all") from this category to that one doesn't make a fundamental difference.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Enthusiast said:


> Well, sorry, but all my contributions here are about what I feel about different types and examples of music. I make no claim to be the sole receiver of the truth. I'll remember to sprinkle my posts with IMOs in future discussions.


I'm not objecting to your opinions --- we all have them, but rather the contradictory nature in them.


----------



## Enthusiast

fbjim said:


> I guess this is where I depart. I mean, ok, sure, a terrible rock song is probably clearly worse than a great classical composition but I already have enough problems with the idea that you can compare the disparate artistic purposes of say, a Brahms symphony and "On the Beautiful Blue Danube".
> 
> Like, just personally, I don't really know how to compare the pieces in a way that isn't inherently like, missing the point of one of the pieces, or isn't just an expression of taste.


I hate to use the s word but subjectively you can compare them - by asking questions like "what does this music do for me" and "when do I want to hear this music?". Not very deep and certainly not definitive.


----------



## Enthusiast

Neo Romanza said:


> I'm not objecting to your opinions --- we all have them, but rather the contradictory nature in them.


Such as? I see no contradictions. The apparent contradictions arise if you read me as stating facts rather than reporting on personal impressions.


----------



## Aries

SanAntone said:


> If "postmodernism" is responsible for the breaking down of cultural hierarchies, I see it as a very good thing. These biases, along with the more toxic prejudices, need to go away if we have any hope of establishing a just and compassionate society.


If there was already a breaking down of cultural hierarchies with postmodernism, why do biases still need to go away? And if they would be gone, why wouldn't this be enough for more than just "any hope"? How extreme are your ideas if all the social changes that already happend aren't enough for confidence or substantial hope?

Whether classical music is higher art is discussable, but I have the impression, that these kind of things are just a beginning of a complete destruction of values and society.


----------



## SanAntone

Aries said:


> If there was already a breaking down of cultural hierarchies with postmodernism, why do biases still need to go away? And if they would be gone, why wouldn't this be enough for more than just "any hope"? How extreme are your ideas if all the social changes that already happend aren't enough for confidence or substantial hope?
> 
> Whether classical music is higher art is discussable, but I have the impression, that these kind of things are just a beginning of a complete destruction of values and society.


While some movement has occurred away from cultural hierarchical thinking, it is still with us - witness the many threads and posts on TC where this kind of debate occurs. And progress in this one area of the arts would not translate into the entire breakdown of all values in society.


----------



## Aries

SanAntone said:


> While some movement has occurred away from cultural hierarchical thinking, it is still with us - witness the many threads and posts on TC where this kind of debate occurs. And progress in this one area of the arts would not translate into the entire breakdown of all values in society.


I don't know a good reason to separate this from other areas. A society that doesn't implicitly treat such art that is supposed to be high art as high art, looks like it has lost control about itself. For example Angela Merkel visiting the Bayreuth Festival instead of a Rap concert seems right. Treating classical music not as high art wouldn't be just towards classical music. Treating low art as high art probably wouldn't be just towards lower arts also. A lot of lower art is liked for its ability to shock the society. To treat it as high art is probably the exact opposite of the intention. And a lot of lower art is geared towards children. As I child I was completely fine with it, that a lot of things I liked were not considered high art. Today too. I would find it weird and inappropriate if some pop music, soap opera or video game I like would be considered high art.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> ...
> (also the strawman these days is "critical theory", I see "postmodern" as a pejorative less and less)


Critical theory is no strawman. It's the underpinning of a lot of the debate in these threads.


----------



## SanAntone

Aries said:


> I don't know a good reason to separate this from other areas. A society that doesn't implicitly treat such art that is supposed to be high art as high art, looks like it has lost control about itself. For example Angela Merkel visiting the Bayreuth Festival instead of a Rap concert seems right. Treating classical music not as high art wouldn't be just towards classical music. Treating low art as high art probably wouldn't be just towards lower arts also. A lot of lower art is liked for its ability to shock the society. To treat it as high art is probably the exact opposite of the intention. And a lot of lower art is geared towards children. As I child I was completely fine with it, that a lot of things I liked were not considered high art. Today too. I would find it weird and inappropriate if some pop music, soap opera or video game I like would be considered high art.


I believe that there is no such thing as high art and low art. I find equally valuable art in many different musical genres. I find it a false dichotomy, and a false premise that Western classical music is superior to any other genre. First of all, it is very reductive to treat classical music and other genres monolithically. Each work is unique, with some more artistically achieved than others.

To argue that every classical work is inherently superior to any work of another genre does not reflect the reality I experience.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> ...
> 
> To argue that every classical work is inherently superior to any work of another genre does not reflect the reality I experience.


What about arguing that the best in one genre is better than the best in another?


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> What about arguing that the best in one genre is better than the best in another?


I wouldn't accept that. For me the best in any genre is among the best music; period. Our subjective taste, though, will dictate which kind of music we like to listen to more than another.


----------



## fbjim

Aries said:


> I don't know a good reason to separate this from other areas. A society that doesn't implicitly treat such art that is supposed to be high art as high art, looks like it has lost control about itself. For example Angela Merkel visiting the Bayreuth Festival instead of a Rap concert seems right. Treating classical music not as high art wouldn't be just towards classical music. Treating low art as high art probably wouldn't be just towards lower arts also. A lot of lower art is liked for its ability to shock the society. To treat it as high art is probably the exact opposite of the intention. And a lot of lower art is geared towards children. As I child I was completely fine with it, that a lot of things I liked were not considered high art. Today too. I would find it weird and inappropriate if some pop music, soap opera or video game I like would be considered high art.


Horse is out of the barn on that one. I mean, one of the specific ways you could differentiate the two in history is that "important" music got recorded and "unimportant" music, for the most part, did not. This obviously changed irrevocably with music recording, followed by the use of formerly "low" forms gaining artistic interest and legitimacy.

For the same reason you'd have to turn back the clock on widespread literacy and the printing press.


----------



## science

Aries said:


> I don't know a good reason to separate this from other areas. A society that doesn't implicitly treat such art that is supposed to be high art as high art, looks like it has lost control about itself.


AFAICT, what this really means is, "A society that doesn't implicitly recognize the art of its rulers as superior to the art of their subjects is one in which the rulers have lost control of the subjects."


----------



## fbjim

science said:


> AFAICT, what this really means is, "A society that doesn't implicitly recognize the art of its rulers as superior to the art of their subjects is one in which the rulers have lost control of the subjects."


i.e. the double whammies of the collapse of the Austro/German patronage system/monarchy, and democratization of institutional access to widespread music distribution with the phonograph. Big reason that "cultural degeneracy" was a big political talking point in those years. The big guys had lost control.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Enthusiast said:


> Such as? I see no contradictions. The apparent contradictions arise if you read me as stating facts rather than reporting on personal impressions.


I don't care what your opinions are on Kate Bush or Tangerine Dream, but when you make a pronouncement like "I hate musical snobbery" and then turn around and trash artists, it just makes you look dazed and confused. This is the contradiction I'm referring to. Other than that, I have no issues with anything you've written, because they are just opinions. I'm sure there's a lot of music you like that I wouldn't spend any amount of time listening to and vice versa.


----------



## 59540

science said:


> AFAICT, what this really means is, "A society that doesn't implicitly recognize the art of its rulers as superior to the art of their subjects is one in which the rulers have lost control of the subjects."


And that, folks, is critical theory. The thing is, most classical music has been produced from composers who were overwhelmingly from the "subjects" class. I don't know that the "rulers" were ever that much into "art" at all beyond ostentatious patronage.


----------



## Forster

dissident said:


> What about arguing that the best in one genre is better than the best in another?


One might continue to claim that this Cox's Orange Pippin is better than that Conference, but there is nothing inherently inferior in a pear compared to an apple. One might prefer one to the other, but that does not give it some critical advantage.

Unless you're Elisabeth Lutyens or Roger Warlock, in which case, you could open your mouth, make a declaration and the criticism sticks for a long time (see references to cows wrt to Vaughan Williams.)


----------



## erki

Listening the "raw" material and the final piece it is obvious(whatever he argues himself) that he composed a music out of random notes(non-music). I think he tried to show that this kind of music is worthless and can be created by anybody - children, monkey's, machines - and failed.


----------



## science

dissident said:


> And that, folks, is critical theory. The thing is, most classical music has been produced from composers who were overwhelmingly from the "subjects" class. I don't know that the "rulers" were ever that much into "art" at all beyond ostentatious patronage.


That's just a description. It doesn't necessary liberate anyone.

But, yes, artists for thousands of years were basically employees and their job was to enable their patrons to impress people.


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> Well, sorry, but all my contributions here are about what I feel about different types and examples of music. I make no claim to be the sole receiver of the truth. I'll remember to sprinkle my posts with IMOs in future discussions.


Kate Bush is kitsch? You must be redefining it's meaning.

Have you heard _This Woman's Work_? She uses unusual chord progressions (viz Wuthering Heights in particular) that most certainly do not equate with the vulgar and popular.


----------



## Enthusiast

Neo Romanza said:


> I don't care what your opinions are on Kate Bush or Tangerine Dream, but when you make a pronouncement like "I hate musical snobbery" and then turn around and trash artists, it just makes you look dazed and confused. This is the contradiction I'm referring to. Other than that, I have no issues with anything you've written, because they are just opinions. I'm sure there's a lot of music you like that I wouldn't spend any amount of time listening to and vice versa.


We are hear to discuss music. That means expressing opinions. You are upset because I have strongly negative feelings about Kate Bush (and always have since her first record). You want to say that is snobbish of me but there are lots of things I like a lot that are much more trashy or crude than KB. My dislike of her art is not looking down on it - it is no more than what I said: I dislike it, a lot.


----------



## Sid James

Aries said:


> But for which reason? For demarcation to people with lower status or because they have more time and money for art and therefore should automatically tend towards the higher art?


I'm not sure because I don't have the original Babbitt interview, only the book by Taruskin where he was quoted. Prima facie, I think its more the latter because Ivy League universities have a history going back to old money power. The priveleged freshmen Babbitt mentioned would have more likely than not grown up with classical music - learnt to play an instrument, went to concerts, had classical playing in the home, and so on. Taruskin goes on to mention Pierre Bourdieu, the sociologist whose concepts like cultural capital, milieu and habitus are relevant to how cultural power is transferred from one generation to the next.

I think we've covered the thread topic, and much else. I appreciate your replies, its been a pleasant conversation. This thread has turned out to be one of the more successful discussions I can remember of issues to do with modern and contemporary music.


----------



## 59540

Forster said:


> One might continue to claim that this Cox's Orange Pippin is better than that Conference, but there is nothing inherently inferior in a pear compared to an apple. ...


Or you could compare the Mass in B minor with Sgt Pepper. If it truly is apples and pears then that shoots down the whole "music is just music" view.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> Or you could compare the Mass in B minor with Sgt Pepper. If it truly is apples and pears then that shoots down the whole "music is just music" view.


You appear to be concerned with shooting down views.

I, on the other hand, am concerned with listening to music, and both Bach's _B Minor Mass_ and The Beatle's _Sgt. Pepper's_ are valued works to me. Far from wishing to shoot down anyone's view, I celebrate each and everyone's view as to finding the music which brings them joy and fulfillment.


----------



## Forster

dissident said:


> Or you could compare the Mass in B minor with Sgt Pepper. If it truly is apples and pears then that shoots down the whole "music is just music" view.


I don't follow your conclusion. Sorry.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> You appear to be concerned with shooting down views.
> 
> I, on the other hand, am concerned with listening to music, and both Bach's _B Minor Mass_ and The Beatle's _Sgt. Pepper's_ are valued works to me. Far from wishing to shoot down anyone's view, I celebrate each and everyone's view as to finding the music which brings them joy and fulfillment.


That's a little sanctimonious. Of course you're interested in shooting down views: "this piece is better than that." "There's more artistic craftsmanship to be found in this genre than that." "There is such a thing as objective quality in art." "Film scores can be considered classical music" Not saying any of the above are necessarily true, but please lay off the "it's just little ol' me trying to love my music" routine.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> That's a little sanctimonious. Of course you're interested in shooting down views: "this piece is better than that." "There's more artistic craftsmanship to be found in this genre than that." "There is such a thing as objective quality in art." "Film scores can be considered classical music" Not saying any of the above are necessarily true, but please lay off the "it's just little ol' me trying to love my music" routine.


Resorting to ad homs ("sanctimonious") will not advance your argument. And no, I do not shoot down views, I express my own.

I have never said, "this piece is better than that." (other than as my personal preference) or "There's more artistic craftsmanship to be found in this genre than that." I have clearly stated that all genres have music of quality. I actually said that the best in any genre is among the best music (all genres include examples of the "best music"), whereas it was you who wanted to place classical music above all other genres.

My main point is that all of us subjectively choose the music we enjoy the most - but that any genre has potentially within it examples of music that expresses the highest artistic values.

My bone of contention in the film score thread is not that film scores are not masterfully written and contain many examples of wonderful music. It is that I respect existing genre boundaries and see no benefit in blurring the lines by thinking of film scores as a form of classical music. Since I do not perceive classical music as the apogee of musical expression I see no reason to attempt to "elevate" film scores by calling them classical music. There are many examples of films scores that are already at the mountaintop and compare favorably with classical music without any need of re-branding.


----------



## Aries

SanAntone said:


> I believe that there is no such thing as high art and low art. I find equally valuable art in many different musical genres.


I remember there was a G20 summit in Hamburg in 2017 and there was a concert for them in the new Elbphilharmonie performing Beethoven Symphony No. 9. I think that was appropriate. Do you think it would have been equally appropriate to perform "Shut up" from the Black Eyed Peas instead?

The talk about value is kinda unnecessary, more necessary is a feeling for what is appropriate for what occasion.


SanAntone said:


> To argue that every classical work is inherently superior to any work of another genre does not reflect the reality I experience.


I think there is high non-classical music too. And I think not every classical music is high art. I like military marches for example, but I rather think they aren't high art. Maybe I'm wrong.



science said:


> AFAICT, what this really means is, "A society that doesn't implicitly recognize the art of its rulers as superior to the art of their subjects is one in which the rulers have lost control of the subjects."


Kinda yes, but I'm not sure if it is about superiority in the first place. Its about appropriateness for high occasions and high figures in society. Compare it to clothing. Suits and gowns are more appropriate for high occasions than t-shirts.

Every political direction needs some rulers, and rulers need to represent their status. You don't want to have rulers who rather don't rule.


----------



## SanAntone

Aries said:


> I remember there was a G20 summit in Hamburg in 2017 and there was a concert for them in the new Elbphilharmonie performing Beethoven Symphony No. 9. I think that was appropriate. Do you think it would have been equally appropriate to perform "Shut up" from the Black Eyed Peas instead?


I don't have an opinion on what music is played at a G20 summit, but would have been pleasantly surprised if they had played the Black Eyed Peas.



> Every political direction needs some rulers, and rulers need to represent their status. You don't want to have rulers who rather don't rule.


I prefer having leaders, not rulers. And the more humble they are the better - after all they are supposed to be serving us, not the other way around.


----------



## Aries

SanAntone said:


> I prefer having leaders, not rulers. And the more humble they are the better - after all they are supposed to be serving us, not the other way around.


Leader, ruler, rule makers, as you want, I don't think that makes a difference. But isn't Beethvens 9th more humble than "shut up"? "Shut up" is offensive.

Democratic structures have hierarchies too, normally. Someone is in charge, but he can be replaced by the people in elections. To dissolve all hierarchies would be new. I wonder how someone can think that this could end well. Just look at the history.


----------



## SanAntone

Aries said:


> Leader, ruler, rule makers, as you want, I don't think that makes a difference.


It does make a difference. I don't know where you live but in the USA we have a legislative system with elected officials that are supposed to represent the views and interests of the people in their district. There are checks and balances in the process that mitigates any leader's power, or at least is supposed to.

But I don't trust any politicians since their main priority is remaining in power, and they corrupt themselves in order to do so.



> But isn't Beethvens 9th more humble than "shut up"? "Shut up" is offensive.


It was your example not mine. I said I'd be pleasantly surprised if they played the Black Eyed Peas, but didn't endorse that specific song since I haven't heard it. The point I made was, "I don't have an opinion on what music is played at a G20 summit."


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

SanAntone said:


> I have never said, "this piece is better than that." (other than as my personal preference) or "There's more artistic craftsmanship to be found in this genre than that." I have clearly stated that all genres have music of quality. I actually said that the best in any genre is among the best music (all genres include examples of the "best music"), whereas it was you who wanted to place classical music above all other genres. ...


Dissident was trying to say that those are views held by others that you oppose in your posting. 
Indeed if one has any positive views at all (views that extend beyond mere indifference to the subject), then one must believe views to the contrary are wrong; no-one is an exception to this truth.


----------



## science

Aries said:


> I'm not sure if it is about superiority in the first place. Its about appropriateness for high occasions and high figures in society. Compare it to clothing. Suits and gowns are more appropriate for high occasions than t-shirts.
> 
> Every political direction needs some rulers, and rulers need to represent their status. You don't want to have rulers who rather don't rule.


Who needs "high" occasions and "high" figures? I don't mean this as a rhetorical question. I think it's a very interesting line of thought.

Unfortunately, I also think we'd better not discuss it here. If you want, you can probably find out what someone like me thinks about things like this, and that's where I have to leave it.


----------



## SanAntone

Isaac Blackburn said:


> Dissident was trying to say that those are views held by others that you oppose in your posting.


Okay, I misunderstood his post - but it is even stranger after your clarification. Are we not on a discussion board where people discuss opposing views?

My view is one of inclusion and parity of genres, which is opposed to maintaining cultural hierarchies. But I have no illusion that hierarchies will disappear because of my activity on TC.


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

SanAntone said:


> My view is one of inclusion and parity of genres, which is opposed to maintaining cultural hierarchies....





science said:


> Who needs "high" occasions and "high" figures? I don't mean this as a rhetorical question. I think it's a very interesting line of thought.


If a society values at all, then it will value some things more than others, for as a practical matter it is impossibly unlikely that the essence of the value is distributed equally among material goods. Thus, if a society values beauty, then it will prefer things that are more beautiful, and if it on the other hand is more apathetic towards "beauty", then it will make less differentiation amongst objects in that manner. The value a society recognizes in international coordination or marriage is also transformed into a sense of importance regarding events of that kind, such as summits or weddings. It is likely that the attitude of apathy or opposition to distinctions between high and low is a manifestation of a deep nihilism.


----------



## SanAntone

> If a society values at all, then it will value some things more than others, for as a practical matter it is impossibly unlikely that the essence of the value is distributed equally among material goods. Thus, if a society values beauty, then it will prefer things that are more beautiful


Society is made up of millions of individuals who have differing attitudes about what is beautiful.



> It is likely that the attitude of apathy or opposition to distinctions between high and low is a manifestation of a deep nihilism.


I see it as a celebration of diversity.


----------



## Enthusiast

Isaac Blackburn said:


> Dissident was trying to say that those are views held by others that you oppose in your posting.
> Indeed if one has any positive views at all (views that extend beyond mere indifference to the subject), then one must believe views to the contrary are wrong; no-one is an exception to this truth.


Not so. It is easy to recognise that other people's views work for them even though they are not for you. You'd need to be a bit arrogant to be an exception to this truth!


----------



## fbjim

I'm tempted to say this is beyond the scope of discussion. The selection of music for a state occasion versus a high school dance versus a rave is going to be done, but not specifically because a state occasion should have the "best" music, at least aesthetically speaking. This is more a case where music is serving functional purposes external to how listeners usually engage with it.


To put it another way, I don't think very many listeners actively seek value music for the same reasons it might be appropriate for a state occasion.


----------



## Aries

SanAntone said:


> It does make a difference. I don't know where you live but in the USA we have a legislative system with elected officials that are supposed to represent the views and interests of the people in their district. There are checks and balances in the process that mitigates any leader's power, or at least is supposed to.


I guess ruler sounds more like dictator. I think I first missed this nuance.



SanAntone said:


> But I don't trust any politicians since their main priority is remaining in power, and they corrupt themselves in order to do so.


This is true.



SanAntone said:


> It was your example not mine.


Apart from that example, you said "the more humble they are the better - after all they are supposed to be serving us"

I think classical music is more suitable to express this than popular music. Classical music is rather instrumental with less exposed non-musical messages compared to popular music. And classical music music is older and therefore eludes itself from current social disputes.

Popular music on the other hand is more connected to the lifestyle of specific social groups and to current social disputes. Therefore choosing popular music for a political occasion is somewhat tantamount to partisanship with some group against another.

Choosing classical music is more restrained regarding partisanship and therefore better to express that political leaders are serving all of the people.


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

Enthusiast said:


> Not so. It is easy to recognise that other people's views work for them even though they are not for you. You'd need to be a bit arrogant to be an exception to this truth!


If this is to say that the validity of a view is dependent on how well it works for the individual and not by its correctness, then that in itself is a view that should not be taken to be objectively true by its own criterion, and so refutes itself. If this is a mere recognition of people's right to their beliefs, then I am in agreement.



SanAntone said:


> Society is made up of millions of individuals who have differing attitudes about what is beautiful.


The manner in which this beauty is appreciated must be separated to some degree from the act of valuation. One person may find beauty in a pop song that a classical pianist does not. In these cases I would defer to the person with greater experience in the territory. 
A slightly similar case arises when comparing cultures: what is considered grand in one culture may be heard as a bit silly by an outsider, but they are at least able to appreciate the act of valuation.
In practice the material objects do not differ so widely, which speaks to fundamentalities in the human being.


----------



## fbjim

Aries said:


> I think classical music is more suitable to express this than popular music. Classical music is rather instrumental with less exposed non-musical messages compared to popular music. And classical music music is older and therefore eludes itself from current social disputes.
> 
> Popular music on the other hand is more connected to the lifestyle of specific social groups and to current social disputes. Therefore choosing popular music for a political occasion is somewhat tantamount to partisanship with some group against another.
> 
> Choosing classical music is more restrained regarding partisanship and therefore better to express that political leaders are serving all of the people.


This is foreign to how most people actually engage with music, though. This really goes back to the whole kerfuffle about aesthetic subjectivity, where aesthetics depend not just on individual views on beauty or aesthetic pleasure, but on the framework you are viewing the art through.

If I am told to program music for a very serious state occasion, and assuming I want it to be "appropriate", I'm going to be evaluating the music I choose through a completely different lens than if I want to listen to music that I find pleasing to my ears. I think that in most judgments of art, though, we're much more concerned with frameworks of evaluation closer to the latter example than the former one.


----------



## Aries

science said:


> Who needs "high" occasions and "high" figures? I don't mean this as a rhetorical question. I think it's a very interesting line of thought.


At the very least we need high figures to prevent other high figures, such we don't want. There is always someone who wants power, so arising anarchy will immediately collapse.


----------



## science

Aries said:


> At the very least we need high figures to prevent other high figures, such we don't want. There is always someone who wants power, so arising anarchy will immediately collapse.


Yes, well, if we have to choose between dictators, I guess ours are better than theirs, and hopefully we'll have the better music.


----------



## Enthusiast

Isaac Blackburn said:


> If this is to say that the validity of a view is dependent on how well it works for the individual and not by its correctness, then that in itself is a view that should not be taken to be objectively true by its own criterion, and so refutes itself. If this is a mere recognition of people's right to their beliefs, then I am in agreement.


All I'm saying really is that what we do here is share and debate our personal views. I don't think many of us are seeking the "objectively true". I don't think the format of a discussion forum is suitable for arriving at "the truth" of philosophical or aesthetic debates.


----------



## SanAntone

Isaac Blackburn said:


> The manner in which this beauty is appreciated must be separated to some degree from the act of valuation. One person may find beauty in a pop song that a classical pianist does not. In these cases I would defer to the person with greater experience in the territory.


Right. A classical pianist does not have greater experience in the territory of pop songs.



> A slightly similar case arises when comparing cultures: what is considered grand in one culture may be heard as a bit silly by an outsider, but they are at least able to appreciate the act of valuation.


I strongly oppose a hierarchy of cultures. This kind of classification is only possible when the priorities, norms, preferences, of one culture are applied to a foreign culture - in which case the foreign culture will appear to be lacking in some regard. In essence this is what is being done when classical music is compared to another genre using the attributes and priorities of classical music. The music of the non-classical genre is found wanting precisely because it lacks what classical music has in abundance.

However, the opposite is also true: classical lacks what pop music has in abundance.


----------



## Forster

Enthusiast said:


> My dislike of her art is not looking down on it - it is no more than what I said: I dislike it, a lot.


But you didn't just say you don't like it. You also described as kitsch. Did you mean to use the word as a derogatory term, or a factual one?

Definition of kitsch:



> showy art or cheap, decorative objects that are attractive to people who are thought to lack any appreciation of style or beauty:


https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/kitsch
Some considerable unfocused discussion about 'high art' with what seemed like two assumptions about what the term means, and with no agreed definition. (I suggested a definition of 'high art' which may simply have been overloooked, or perhaps read then ignored as not suiting those assumptions).

Assumption 1 - 'High art' means the only art worth troubling oneself with, relates especially to the traditional and classical, not the modern (and especially not rap!)

Assumption 2 - 'High art' is a term used by the pretentious, the snob, to elevate themselves above hoi polloi, and to denigrate art from particular periods and genres.

If I missed the agreed definition, I'm sorry - could someone point me to it?

Thanks


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Of course, kitsch can be fun and not a bad thing on its own. But I think I said _appallingly _kitsch or some such words. The adjective is the key word for my reaction to the artists in question.

I'm not sure I care to define high art - the looseness of the term seems fertile as far as discussion is concerned - but I can see that there might be a need to dispel and remove the prejudices (assumptions) you allude to.


----------



## chipia

SanAntone said:


> If "postmodernism" is responsible for the breaking down of cultural hierarchies, I see it as a very good thing. These biases, along with the more toxic prejudices, need to go away if we have any hope of establishing a just and compassionate society.


But apparently hierarchies are not breaking down and biases don't go away.

If anything the opposite is happening: Hierarchies are being inverted instead of broken down (with Popular culture now being at the top of the hierarchy) and biases are getting stronger (*against* 'high art'): Most people my age, even academics, rather listen to pop than to any classical music. They do not even consider giving classical music an honest listen because they think it's just music for old and boring people.

I think this is in some way also evident in the Bubbles experiment where there was a strong bias against competent tonal music in favour of a child improvisation.

If hierarchies and biases would break down, that would mean that most people, regardless of their background, are open to both classical and popular music. And that musicians would integrate elements from both art forms in their music.

That would indeed be a good thing, but I absolutely don't see this happening. If anything we are farther away from this situation than ever.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> Right. A classical pianist does not have greater experience in the territory of pop songs. ...


Why would you assume that? My assumption would be that a classical pianist will probably have more experience with pop than a pop songwriter would have with a Prokofiev sonata. I.e., the classical pianist's musical frame of reference is most likely going to be much larger than that of someone who knows only pop, since pop is the simpler air that most of us breathe.


chipia said:


> But apparently hierarchies are not breaking down and biases don't go away.
> 
> If anything the opposite is happening: Hierarchies are being inverted instead of broken down (with Popular culture now being at the top of the hierarchy) and biases are getting stronger (against 'high art'):


I think there's a lot of truth in that.


----------



## SanAntone

chipia said:


> But apparently hierarchies are not breaking down and biases don't go away.
> 
> If anything the opposite is happening: Hierarchies are being inverted instead of broken down (with Popular culture now being at the top of the hierarchy) and biases are getting stronger (*against* 'high art'): Most people my age, even academics, rather listen to pop than to any classical music. They do not even consider giving classical music an honest listen because they think it's just music for old and boring people.
> 
> I think this is in some way also evident in the Bubbles experiment where there was a strong bias against competent tonal music in favour of a child improvisation.
> 
> If hierarchies and biases would break down, that would mean that most people, regardless of their background, are open to both classical and popular music. And that musicians would integrate elements from both art forms in their music.
> 
> That would indeed be a good thing, but I absolutely don't see this happening. If anything we are farther away from this situation than ever.


To the extent there has been a backlash against _the idea of_ high art, it is a healthy reset of a obsolete set of assumptions.

Classical music's popularity has remained fairly constant in the last 100 years, although it was at one time more popular than it is today, for at least the last 50 years it has averaged maybe 5% in the music marketplace (some place this at 1%). I believe that there will always be an audience for classical music since it is a rewarding listening experience and the music occupies a unique niche (only some film music compares).

Most of the non-classical genres are a constantly changing style, about every five years, as the primary audience ages out and the next generation defines the music. But also over the last 100 years there has grown up a canon of classic popular music. Beginning with the Great American Songbook and Broadway of the 30s-60s, then the songs of The Beatles, Beach Boys, and other bands of the 60s-70s.

I am sure there will be other "golden oldies" joining these classics, but it will take some time for the 80s-present songs to survive the test of time. Springsteen, Randy Newman, Willie Nelson, Kris Kristofferson, Prince, the Eagles, Jackson Browne, and others have already established a seemingly lasting place in a wide audience's playlist.

Classical music has remained solidly at the bottom of the list, but is holding on to both its audience and caché. What has changed is the prestige of pop and other non-classical genres has risen; rightfully so, IMO.


----------



## science

I guess most of us are doing somewhat better than average -- not many people who are struggling just to get by spend a lot of time posting on the internet. But I doubt that many of us are really, really elite. There just aren't that many really, really elite people. Some of us may be -- some of us might be sitting on the board of three or four major corporations with a summer home on Martha's Vineyard, on a first-name basis with our senators and governors, spending weekends as guests on the yachts of Gulf royalty. Some, maybe. But not too many of us. 

So how much do we actually know about what those guys are doing with the arts? It's pretty easy to know that they're still conspicuously consuming things like paintings and sculptures. They're still making impressive donations -- David Koch's hundred million to Lincoln Center is one that most of us probably remember easily. Even at a somewhat lower level of society, the people who aren't quite plutocrats but are high enough up there that they know the plutocrats personally, we can see those people's names on the program notes of any performance we attend (as well, of course, as a few relatively ordinary people like successful doctors, who just happen to care so much about the arts that they give enough money to get their name listed there). 

Certainly the elite are spreading their conspicuous philanthropy to a wider variety of media than they did fifty or a hundred years ago -- in the world of music, jazz and nonwestern traditions stand out as two new additions to the repertoire of the donors, things that are classy to appreciate. There is increasingly appreciation for "the best" rock and roll and other popular culture, so that having one of Elvis's guitars in your house might impress someone as much as being the patron of a ballet company. Some of them would certainly feel more prestige in having someone like Roberta Flack perform at their birthday party than in having someone like Joshua Bell do so. 

So the actual content of what is considered "high" is changing over time. It has always been changing over time. And there is a zero-sum game aspect of it -- money given to fund a program that teaches kids to perform jazz dance is money that is not given to fund a youth orchestra. 

But still, there is some significance in the fact that there is a Royal Oman Orchestra and that people all over East Asia who aspire to upward mobility have their kids learn the violin. There are two ballet schools within a block of my office, but I don't know of a single hip-hop hagwon in all of Seoul. What the western elite of a century ago admired as high art is very, very obviously still admired by today's global elite. 

So what is going on when people say things like "classical music isn't admired anymore?" 

I don't think people are going to like this, but I think what's going on there is that people are intentionally misrepresenting some locally significant people as "the elite." At an extreme, it's high school students or college students portraying, say, a particular frat as the elite. Sure, in that frat, classical music isn't cool. If your idea of the elite is the owner of a local gravel business, well, sure, probably less than 50% chance that classical is his favorite kind of music. Or maybe it's the head of the philosophy department at the local state college. Maybe that guy is the kind of faux-populist that strives to stand with the people by admiring pop culture. But we're not being honest with ourselves or each other when we pretend that anyone like that is elite. And to the extent that we live in countries that are still quasi-democratic, our politicians usually can't represent themselves as elite, so they will pay their lip service to someone like Katy Perry, and we're also not being honest with ourselves if we treat that as anything other than transparent posturing.


----------



## fbjim

chipia said:


> But apparently hierarchies are not breaking down and biases don't go away.
> 
> If anything the opposite is happening: Hierarchies are being inverted instead of broken down (with Popular culture now being at the top of the hierarchy) and biases are getting stronger (*against* 'high art'): Most people my age, even academics, rather listen to pop than to any classical music. They do not even consider giving classical music an honest listen because they think it's just music for old and boring people.
> 
> I think this is in some way also evident in the Bubbles experiment where there was a strong bias against competent tonal music in favour of a child improvisation.


what?

even if we accept that "academics" are biased towards atonal music (something which is very debatable in 2021), they would certainly not be biased toward it because of a bias toward "lower art".

if anything, the standard complaint has been that music was "killed" by excess elevation toward academic goals which alienated the "average listener", which is hardly a popular music point-of-view


----------



## fbjim

chipia said:


> But apparently hierarchies are not breaking down and biases don't go away.
> 
> If anything the opposite is happening: Hierarchies are being inverted instead of broken down (with Popular culture now being at the top of the hierarchy) and biases are getting stronger (*against* 'high art'): Most people my age, even academics, rather listen to pop than to any classical music. They do not even consider giving classical music an honest listen because they think it's just music for old and boring people.


what is at top of the hierarchy is money. this is down to a) the entire history of the 20th century up to today, but less jokingly, b) the record, and the record label. a lot of published music prior to the 20th century might be termed "noblesse oblige" or something like that - donations to orchestras aside*, a lot of this funding for music commissions got taken over by states, but this has proven controversial in ways that, for whatever reason, noble patronage has not (how often do you hear of Boulez "wasting tax dollars"?). much of the devaluation of classical music is a _literal_ devaluation (or from viewing it strictly from a ROI-centered point-of-view)

this is admittedly glossing over a lot, like say, the mid-60s cultural legitimization of rock music as an "artistic" genre (likewise, early 80s for hip-hop) with the rise of the "serious" rock press, but for people growing up in the latter half of the 20th century who wanted to create music with artistic integrity (i.e. not just chasing the market), they could now follow the path of the Velvet Underground rather than Stravinsky - and the cheap, "lightweight" nature of popular music recording and the rise of independent labels meant they could now perform and mass distribute their music even without it necessarily making lots of money.

*to an extent I see this more as a museum donation- concerned with keeping performance tradition of mostly 19th century music going rather than keeping composition alive


----------



## Aries

Forster said:


> Some considerable unfocused discussion about 'high art' with what seemed like two assumptions about what the term means, and with no agreed definition. (I suggested a definition of 'high art' which may simply have been overloooked, or perhaps read then ignored as not suiting those assumptions).
> 
> Assumption 1 - 'High art' means the only art worth troubling oneself with, relates especially to the traditional and classical, not the modern (and especially not rap!)


I notice that there is a distinction in german between E-Musik (serious music) and U-Musik (entertainment music), but the term "entertainment music" doesn't seem to appear in english. E-Musik is music that requires troubling oneself with, U-Musik is for easy amusement. But not all classical music counts as serious music. Johann Strauß senior was the first who used the term U-Musik for dance music, which was classical in his case. I think the term entertainment music is useful, because a lot of music is actually for singing and/or dancing without musical comprehension barriers much different from complicated classical forms. It happens to be that most popular musics are short songs instead of symphonies, sonatas or operas etc. But classical music also contains songs, dances, marches and other rather easy stuff like this.

So as a alternative to the distinction between high and low genres its maybe a good idea to distinguish between serious and light forms.


----------



## fbjim

it's mostly social elevation. there are specific aesthetics, fashions, manners of speech, and music which we associate with socially "elevated" occasions (i.e. black-tie) and that is mostly separate from aesthetic evaluation, at least for most listeners. Johan Strauss, for instance, is appropriate music for an elevated social occasion, and The Miraculous Mandarin is not- but most people (on this site, anyway) classify Johann Strauss as "light music" and Bartok as more artistically driven. 

I generally use "popular music" or "popular forms" to describe music which descends from the 20th century tradition of recorded popular music- i.e. rock, capital-P Pop, and - to an extent - jazz, which beat rock to the "artistic legitimization" punch by several decades*. this is admittedly misleading because music frequently is in these popular forms but very not much "Pop" in the sense that it has intentionally limited appeal, or artistic aims. 



*avoiding -for now- the extent which "black music" should be evaluated as an entirely separate tradition, as it has obvious crossover with the history of popular music in a way that the two can not cleanly be cut apart


----------



## chipia

Aries said:


> So as a alternative to the distinction between high and low genres its maybe a good idea to distinguish between serious and light forms.


To me personally the distinction was mostly based on the composer's musical education and knowledge. Most classical composers got extensive training in harmony, counterpoint, form and orchestration and also got knowledge of music history and studied the important works of the past. Usually this is evident in their music.

By contrast, I think most pop musicians knowledge in these areas tends to be relatively limited. It's just anecdotes, but I've known some pop/rock musicians and they had no idea what chromaticism or modulations are. When I once pointed out that he could also use notes outside of the key, he just said "but then it will sound all wrong!". etc. Also they tend to be, like most people, ignorant of the great works of the past (especially classical music).

To me this is one of the main aspects that forms the distinction.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> it's mostly social elevation. there are specific aesthetics, fashions, manners of speech, and music which we associate with socially "elevated" occasions (i.e. black-tie) and that is mostly separate from aesthetic evaluation...


I don't listen to Mozart or Bach for "social elevation" and if I don't I don't know how we can assume that that's how they came into prominence. The "socially elevated" music hasn't been "classical" for quite a while. And again most of the practitioners of "high art" haven't really been all that socially elevated themselves.


----------



## fbjim

OK? I said none of those things. Social elevation of events/dress/music exists in many, many cultures- how many cultures have specific formal or ceremonial dress, or music for elevated occasions? These are cultural signifiers which can form the context of how the music was created, but only informs aesthetic evaluation in a very limited way. 

The fact that you don't listen to Bach due to those things is sort of the point. I think the whole "high art" thing is somewhat irrelevant to this discussion because it doesn't have any relevance to how most of us engage with music. In fact you literally quoted the part of the post that said that.


(with that being said, Bach did get prominence for making music for socially elevated occasions, in the sense that this includes sacred music- but non-Catholic listeners are perfectly able to get enjoyment out of a Bach Mass, though they may find it a bit more of a challenge than someone who has cultural experience with the intended context of the music)


----------



## SanAntone

> Most classical composers got extensive training in harmony, counterpoint, form and orchestration and also got knowledge of music history and studied the important works of the past. Usually this is evident in their music.


True of Classical music and music that benefits from the skills such as orchestration (film, Broadway, some popular music scores, orchestrated jazz, and some world musics) - but irrelevant for the skill needed for most other music. Skills which the majority of Classical musicians not only do not possess but have difficulty acquiring precisely because of their conservatory training.



> By contrast, I think most pop musicians knowledge in these areas tends to be relatively limited. It's just anecdotes, but I've known some pop/rock musicians and they had no idea what chromaticism or modulations are.


You must not listen to much Pop music or non-Classical music in general. The items you cited are mostly either done instinctively, or an unnecessary aspect of the music, e.g. Blues, or Rock, or R&B, or Rap, or Flamenco, or any number of genres which have their own kind of complexity unrelated to a conservatory training. Chromaticism exists in a Blues song, it is microtonal as well, and the melodies and rhythms cannot be accurately captured in standard music notation. The same can be said for a plethora of non-Classical musics.


----------



## chipia

SanAntone said:


> Chromaticism exists in a Blues song, it is microtonal as well, and the melodies and rhythms cannot be accurately captured in standard music notation. The same can be said for a plethora of non-Classical musics.


I am perfectly aware of your examples, but they are not representative of contemporary pop music. I am not aware of any recent blues or flamenco hits (might be different in the US though). And the musicians I knew were playing the kind of pop you typically hear on radio these days.

I admit that I find a lot of older popular music much more interesting than the modern stuff, and I would personally even accept some of it as 'classical music', e.g. jazz.

Also, I thought that conservatory training nowadays includes blues and flamenco (I've certainly learned blues at music school).


----------



## SanAntone

chipia said:


> I am perfectly aware of your examples, but they are not representative of contemporary pop music. I am not aware of any recent blues or flamenco hits (might be different in the US though). And the musicians I knew were playing the kind of pop you typically hear on radio these days.
> 
> I admit that I find a lot of older popular music much more interesting than the modern stuff, and I would personally even accept some of it as 'classical music', e.g. jazz.
> 
> Also, I thought that conservatory training nowadays includes blues and flamenco (I've certainly learned blues at music school).


Why are you limiting your scope to the most current Pop songs (this is not to say that even today's Pop songs are monolithic and some are very creatively done)? I suggest you listen to Inara George's recording with Van **** Parks. I am sure it will fall outside the stereotype that is lodged in your brain.






Also, the discussion is only valuable to the extent all non-Classical musics are addressed.


----------



## fbjim

as much as I like it, capitol-P Pop has a very, very low hit-miss ratio for my tastes which is to be expected, given how and why it's made, but I always do love it when you randomly get a total left-field hit with unusual/harsh production, something which is just such a perfectly crafted masterpiece that it can't help but be great to listen to, or even outright experimentation.






(I still have no clue why or how this was released)


----------



## chipia

SanAntone said:


> Why are you limiting your scope to the most current Pop songs (this is not to say that even today's Pop songs are not monolithic and some are very creatively done)? I suggest you listen to Inara George's recording with Van **** Parks. I am sure it will fall outside the stereotype that is lodged in your brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, the discussion is only valuable to the extent all non-Classical musics are addressed.


But your example actually fits my personal definition of classical music - according to his wikipage Van **** Parks majored in music (he even studied with Aaron Copland) and he already performed in operas as a child (he even sang Schönbergs atonal music!). He is obviously musically highly educated and hence not exactly a counter example.


----------



## SanAntone

chipia said:


> But your example actually fits my personal definition of classical music - according to his wikipage Van **** Parks majored in music (he even studied with Aaron Copland) and he already performed in operas as a child (he even sang Schönbergs atonal music!). Not exactly a counter example.


It an example of current Pop music - which is outside your stereotype. I intentionally chose that Van **** Parks/Inara George project to show you that Pop music is broader than you wish to admit. Do you not wonder how it was that such a classically trained musician such as Van **** Parks chose to make his career in Pop music? Another of his projects was with Brian Wilson on the Smile album. He mainly provided lyrics for that.

Here's something else from Inara George, which you may safely dismiss, however.


----------



## SanAntone

> Also, I thought that conservatory training nowadays includes blues and flamenco (I've certainly learned blues at music school).


Sure. That makes you another Muddy Waters. I'd love to hear you perform some Blues.

Maybe something like this:


----------



## Enthusiast

Aries said:


> I notice that there is a distinction in german between E-Musik (serious music) and U-Musik (entertainment music), but the term "entertainment music" doesn't seem to appear in english. E-Musik is music that requires troubling oneself with, U-Musik is for easy amusement. But not all classical music counts as serious music. Johann Strauß senior was the first who used the term U-Musik for dance music, which was classical in his case. I think the term entertainment music is useful, because a lot of music is actually for singing and/or dancing without musical comprehension barriers much different from complicated classical forms. It happens to be that most popular musics are short songs instead of symphonies, sonatas or operas etc. But classical music also contains songs, dances, marches and other rather easy stuff like this.
> 
> So as a alternative to the distinction between high and low genres its maybe a good idea to distinguish between serious and light forms.


To me high art and (lower) art means exactly that - and that is the way I have been using these terms. It is certainly true that not all classical music is, or is intended as, high art.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> Sure. That makes you another Muddy Waters. ...


No, that makes him aware of the blues. Not many blues players take on Sor or Giuliani either though, to be fair.


fbjim said:


> ...
> The fact that you don't listen to Bach due to those things is sort of the point. I think the whole "high art" thing is somewhat irrelevant to this discussion because it doesn't have any relevance to how most of us engage with music. In fact you literally quoted the part of the post that said that.
> 
> (with that being said, Bach did get prominence for making music for socially elevated occasions, in the sense that this includes sacred music- but non-Catholic listeners are perfectly able to get enjoyment out of a Bach Mass, though they may find it a bit more of a challenge than someone who has cultural experience with the intended context of the music)


But I think we can agree that Bach's music is "high art" and that Vanilla Ice is not. So what's the difference?

What I resent and strongly oppose is the idea that I love Bach, Mozart, Beethoven etc because the moneyed interests or the "power structures" have wanted it that way. It doesn't compute. If anything they'd want me to listen to whatever smash pop/rap/whatever hits are out there right now. There's nothing more nonconformist than to be an untattooed classical music fan.


----------



## fbjim

If there's confusion it's between "high art" in terms of social/class signifiers and whether or not you're talking about it in terms of composition intent- what someone termed as the "serious music" divide, where we might call a light divertimento "entertainment music" and might call an extremely adventurous, market-unfriendly underground electronic release "art music". 

I don't think the former is really relevant - the latter might be, but has come in for its own share of skepticism.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> If there's confusion it's between "high art" in terms of social/class signifiers and whether or not you're talking about it in terms of composition intent- what someone termed as the "serious music" divide, where we might call a light divertimento "entertainment music" and might call an extremely adventurous, market-unfriendly underground electronic release "art music".
> 
> I don't think the former is really relevant - the latter might be, but has come in for its own share of skepticism.


No, that's either word salad or my mind is too slow to keep up. Is Bach's music "high art" and if so what makes it so?


----------



## fbjim

It's high art in both senses - It was written for an elevated context (sacred music - or music for serious study) and also in the latter sense - it has a level of complexity and depth we associate with "serious" music, and not music for lightweight entertainment. 

Whether or not this directly affects the enjoyment of the music is something only you can really answer.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> It's high art in both senses - It was written for an elevated context (sacred music - or music for serious study) and also in the latter sense - it has a level of complexity and depth we associate with "serious" music, and not music for lightweight entertainment.
> 
> Whether or not this directly affects the enjoyment of the music is something only you can really answer.


OK, good. We are in agreement, fbjim. :cheers:


----------



## SanAntone

fbjim said:


> If there's confusion it's between "high art" in terms of social/class signifiers and whether or not you're talking about it in terms of composition intent- what someone termed as the "serious music" divide, where we might call a light divertimento "entertainment music" and might call an extremely adventurous, market-unfriendly underground electronic release "art music".
> 
> I don't think the former is really relevant - the latter might be, but has come in for its own share of skepticism.


You see, I disagree with you. There has been plenty of great music written for entertainment, in fact, I would argue that all good music is written for entertainment, on some level. Duke Ellington said his music was dance music, and he was proud of the fact. He did not recognize high art and low art, and neither do I. Some of the dullest music has been written, according to the composer, for a higher purpose than "mere entertainment."

Entertainment is a lofty goal, just as lofty as writing music as you wrote for an "elevated context (sacred music - or music for serious study)." Comedy is harder than drama, and writing infectious music which brings people joy is a very worthy motive, and often great art has been made in the process.


----------



## fbjim

SanAntone said:


> You see, I disagree with you. There has been plenty of great music written for entertainment, in fact, I would argue that all good music is written for entertainment, on some level. Duke Ellington said his music was dance music, and he was proud of the fact. He did not recognize high art and low art, and neither do I. Some of the dullest music has been written, according to the composer, for a higher purpose than "mere entertainment."
> 
> Entertainment is a lofty goal, just as lofty as writing music as you wrote for an "elevated context (sacred music - or music for serious study)." Comedy is harder than drama, and writing infectious music which brings people joy is a very worthy motive, and often great art has been made in the process.


Oh, I'm just providing definitions for the terms as I understand them - I don't really like the latter "serious/entertainment" division as a value statement either. One being that it's excessively focused on attempting to determine the intent of the composer, or is just a subjective aesthetic evaluation - The former definition of social elevation and the high/low divide has the benefit of being more objective (in that we can objectively say that sacred music is for a more socially elevated occasion than say, a punk song) but is beyond the scope of the form of aesthetic evaluation that most of us are interested in.


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> What I resent and strongly oppose is the idea that I love Bach, Mozart, Beethoven etc because the moneyed interests or the "power structures" have wanted it that way. It doesn't compute. If anything they'd want me to listen to whatever smash pop/rap/whatever hits are out there right now. There's nothing more nonconformist than to be an untattooed classical music fan.


The only reason a listener likes or dislikes music is fundamentally because they find it aesthetically pleasing in some way. This is true whether you are listening to Bach, Beethoven, Schoenberg, Cage, or Kanye West.

Analysis on the cultural context of music is more of interest to historians or musicologists. We might say, for example, that the reason we have so much surviving sacred music is that for a very long time, sacred music was considered the only form of music worth recording, to the extent that music notation was invented for it. If there's any iconoclasm in it, it's not the statement of "you only like it because [...]", it's more against the idea that the library of "great works" is a pure aesthetic evaluation and not one which has been formed by about a billion different cultural and historical factors. This can provide motivation for some to find enjoyable music off the beaten path of Western history and outside the sphere of the history of the record/music industry.

So no, nobody likes (hopefully) Bach specifically due to power structures, or whatever. Historical context _can_ inform why there are 500 billion recordings of Bach, or why Opera evolved the way it did, or why popular music wasn't taken seriously as an artistic field until the mid-20th century. And certainly there are excesses in rhetoric on both sides where someone says people who like Bach are white supremacists or whatever- but fundamentally you like what you like listening to because it sounds good to your ears.

As Charles Ives apparently said, if we believe in innate musical talent, there are almost certainly far more people with talent matching or exceeding Mozart, Mendelssohn, and Beethoven who never got the chance to be recognized because they were born and died poor laborers, or because they were born outside of the West, or any other number of reasons. This doesn't mean Mozart, Mendelssohn, or Beethoven's music is any less good, or that one should enjoy it any less.


----------



## science

This kind of reminds me of Plato's idea that we need philosopher-kings to tell us which entertainment is appropriate for us.

On this topic, I venture to share a lecture by Alexander Nehamas -- a critical theorist, no doubt, alas for all of us and our grandchildren, but perhaps we can relax just a little at the thought that he was addressing Columbia undergrads forced to study the dead white males heroes of Western culture. Or vice versa. Anyway, it's really a pretty little lecture, IMVHO.


----------



## science

fbjim said:


> The only reason a listener likes or dislikes music is fundamentally because they find it aesthetically pleasing in some way.


I suspect it goes in the other direction -- we find it aesthetically pleasing (or not) because we like it (or not), and we like it (or not) for reasons related to our social identities and desires -- at least occasionally.


----------



## fbjim

science said:


> I suspect it goes in the other direction -- we find it aesthetically pleasing (or not) because we like it (or not), and we like it (or not) for reasons related to our social identities and desires -- at least occasionally.


Yeah, but that's just because we're human beings in a specific time and place who live in certain societies with certain values. That's true of everybody. I think it's perhaps worth thinking about but it's not something that I find to be too helpful when it comes to the question of enjoying music.

To go back to the question of modern music - it's why I dislike accusations of "bad faith" - like the Ned Rorem quote that people only pretended to like Elliot Carter to look smart - so much. Our personalities might be shaped by our upbringings and our societies, but an aesthetic evaluation is still a very personal thing.


----------



## science

fbjim said:


> Yeah, but that's just because we're human beings in a specific time and place who live in certain societies with certain values. That's true of everybody. I think it's perhaps worth thinking about but it's not something that I find to be too helpful when it comes to the question of enjoying music.
> 
> To go back to the question of modern music - it's why I dislike accusations of "bad faith" - like the Ned Rorem quote that people only pretended to like Elliot Carter to look smart - so much. Our personalities might be shaped by our upbringings and our societies, but an aesthetic evaluation is still a very personal thing.


We seem to be in agreement but I would have expressed it a little differently -- not only that we are in a specific time, place, and society, but with specific relationships to other people who respect various kinds of music; i.e. one person might be the resentful younger sibling of a super-successful star student who raves about Bach and Beethoven, and that is going to affect things somehow, depending on a lot of other things. The "very personal thing" is so personal, such a deep part of us, because it relates so closely to who we see ourselves as and who we want the people around us to see us as.


----------



## SanAntone

I would like to further develop what I only touched on in my last post, namely the idea of how dance has related to music throughout history, and the danger of music becoming more cerebral instead of physical.

It is generally accepted that music was originally always associated with dance. For a long time this remained the case, and even had a vestigial life well into the 20th century. Baroque suites were based on dance forms and maintained the traditional meters, and waltzes were used as part of the four movement works of the Romantic era. Mazurkas, Polonaises, and other dance forms have had a long life, as did folk forms such as Hungarian and Romanian dances. 

To the extent music has become separated from dance has it become more cerebral, and IMO, not an improvement. The more cerebral music becomes it loses a significant amount of audience. Which has been the case for Classical music.

The same phenomenon has occurred with Jazz. For decades Jazz was associated with dancing, it was not until the mid-40s with the development of bebop did Jazz sever its connection with dance and become more cerebral. But it retained the aspect of swing, which was some link with the prior dance music.

In later eras, Jazz completely severed its connection with swing, finally becoming much more cerebral - again to its detriment, IMO. Again, to the extent Jazz severed its connection with dance and swing it lost audience. People have complained about Miles's turn to funk in his late career bands, but he saw his audience dwindle and knew that if he wanted to play to a large audience made up of his own community, the abstract, free-styled Jazz he had been playing was not the path.

So, when I see people describing music for dance as low art and music not for dancing as high art, I think things have flipped upside down, and finally, not an improvement, IMO.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> I would like to further develop what I only touched on in my last post, namely the idea of how dance has related to music throughout history, and the danger of music becoming more cerebral instead of physical.
> It is generally accepted that music was originally always associated with dance. For a long time this remained the case, and even had a vestigial life well into the 20th century. Baroque suites were based on dance forms and maintained the traditional meters, and waltzes were used as part of the four movement works of the Romantic era. Mazurkas, Polonaises, and other dance forms have had a long life, as did folk forms such as Hungarian and Romanian dances.
> To the extent music has become separated from dance has it become more cerebral, and IMO, not an improvement. The more cerebral music becomes it loses a significant amount of audience. Which has been the case for Classical music.
> \


So stuff like the Gregorian chant was also associated with dance?


----------



## Livly_Station

With no intent of disagreeing with SanAntone (because I don't, necessarily), his mention that classical music always featured dances reminded me of how undanceable most of these movements are, at least to me... and this situation has always tormented my soul!!!

I've listened to baroque music for years now and I still don't know what the hell is a gavotte, or what's a sarabande, or what's a gigue, etc. I don't know what's a polonaise, or what's a mazurka, or what's whatever other dance featured in romantic music. I mean, I know the _time signature_ of some of these dances, but I don't understand how the rhythm works exactly, and I don't feel like dancing to them at all (and I like to dance!). Beethoven does a much better job than any of these people with much of his music despite not designating his movements after dances.

I can only recognize a waltz... and I believe that's only because Johann Strauss II is still famous and he knows how to make danceable music.


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> So stuff like the Gregorian chant was also associated with dance?


I should have written that the origins of music are linked to dance. While these were used ritually, especially in Africa and other regions, Western liturgical music has a different history.


----------



## 59540

science said:


> I suspect it goes in the other direction -- we find it aesthetically pleasing (or not) because we like it (or not), and we like it (or not) for reasons related to our social identities and desires -- at least occasionally.


It doesn't apply to me. I grew up in a totally non-classical-listening home and discovered the genre on my own and grew to love it for no other reason than that I love it, and I would say I'm probably not alone. Maybe you're projecting your own experiences onto others...which in itself, though maybe mistaken, is at least honest in your own case.

That's essentially the whole problem I have with (broadly speaking) "critical theory". It generalizes individuals until they're just manipulated cogs in a machine. It's an unprovable, untestable exercise in fitting a political viewpoint onto areas of existence that are probably not within its scope, and then it becomes an exercise in confirmation bias. It's this reflexive division of humanity between "oppressors" and "oppressed" (or at least "the manipulated") and it's wearisome.


----------



## science

dissident said:


> It doesn't apply to me. I grew up in a totally non-classical-listening home and discovered the genre on my own and grew to love it for no other reason than that I love it, and I would say I'm probably not alone. Maybe you're projecting your own experiences onto others...which in itself, though maybe mistaken, is at least honest in your own case.
> 
> That's essentially the whole problem I have with (broadly speaking) "critical theory". It generalizes individuals until they're just manipulated cogs in a machine. It's an unprovable, untestable exercise in fitting a political viewpoint onto areas of existence that are probably not within its scope, and then it becomes an exercise in confirmation bias. It's this reflexive division of humanity between "oppressors" and "oppressed" (or at least "the manipulated") and it's wearisome.


I don't think we can evaluate ourselves like this. None of us know what is really going on in our minds. Our consciousness is always shallow and sometimes simply deceptive.

It is not possible to discuss your ideas about critical theory here because it is a political discussion. Suffice it to say that I disagree.


----------



## Forster

Aries said:


> I notice that there is a distinction in german between E-Musik (serious music) and U-Musik (entertainment music), but the term "entertainment music" doesn't seem to appear in english. E-Musik is music that requires troubling oneself with, U-Musik is for easy amusement. But not all classical music counts as serious music. Johann Strauß senior was the first who used the term U-Musik for dance music, which was classical in his case. I think the term entertainment music is useful, because a lot of music is actually for singing and/or dancing without musical comprehension barriers much different from complicated classical forms. It happens to be that most popular musics are short songs instead of symphonies, sonatas or operas etc. But classical music also contains songs, dances, marches and other rather easy stuff like this.
> 
> So as a alternative to the distinction between high and low genres its maybe a good idea to distinguish between serious and light forms.


I have no problem with the idea that one composer might be communing with his heavenly mentor while another is looking to 'just' strum and entertain the kids. In fact, that's exactly what I am saying, and why comparing one form of music with another is odious. The composer's intent is not a sufficient ground on which to base a critical analysis of whether something is high or low, superior or inferior. By all means compare Stravinsky's Scherzo a la Russe and his Rite of Spring and call one high and one low if you wish. But they can be assessed on their own terms as engaging and enjoyable, satisfying the needs of listeners, exploring an aspect of the human experience ('fun' is just as important to us as 'serious' or 'deep') and both written for specific but different purposes.

Scherzo: _"The only two conditions were: the piece had to be easy-listening and it had to fit on a 78 rpm disc."_[4]
Rite: _"was written for the 1913 Paris season of Sergei Diaghilev's Ballets Russes company"

_(Both from Wiki)



Enthusiast said:


> ^ Of course, kitsch can be fun and not a bad thing on its own. But I think I said _appallingly _kitsch or some such words. The adjective is the key word for my reaction to the artists in question.
> 
> I'm not sure I care to define high art - the looseness of the term seems fertile as far as discussion is concerned - but I can see that there might be a need to dispel and remove the prejudices (assumptions) you allude to.


The looseness of the term is partly what leads to infertile discussion. And the assumptions remain unchallenged while it is freely thought that classical music is not just 'high art' (but undefined and therefore unchallengeable) but superior art, and those who like it are superior beings.

While we're on definitions, it seems there's also a problem with what constitutes 'pop'. When it gets represented by a single act (Perry, Bieber, etc), you can be pretty sure that the writer is either taking the p!$$ or hasn't the faintest idea about either pop today or the full spectrum of what might be covered by 'Popular music'. It seems that if it ain't classical, it's mere pop, and all pop can be reduced to K-Pop, whether it's folk, rock, indie, alt etc etc

Some of the posts here are utterly incomprehensible to me. Talk of hierarchies breaking down or inverting and the implications for society...I don't know where to begin to object to such...stuff.



science said:


> I suspect it goes in the other direction -- we find it aesthetically pleasing (or not) because we like it (or not), and we like it (or not) for reasons related to our social identities and desires -- at least occasionally.


I find music aesthetically pleasing because I find it aesthetically pleasing.

In my journey through music over time, there has inevitably been a social component to my choices, because I've not always been listening to music in a social vacuum, whether it was listening with my parents and siblings, teen peers at school, friends at college or my partner. When I meet with the members of my quiz team, we might compare notes and acknowledge the 'identifiers' of our generation (those albums that everyone has in their collection - or not), but we're well past liking music just because of its social implications.

Having said that, there _may _be members here who want to tell us about their currently listening, and their top ten this or that because they seek some kind of social currency, but please let's not generalise about everyone.


----------



## mikeh375

dissident said:


> It doesn't apply to me. I grew up in a totally non-classical-listening home and discovered the genre on my own and grew to love it for no other reason than that I love it, and I would say I'm probably not alone. ......


.....you're not alone.


----------



## science

Forster said:


> please let's not generalise about everyone.


We're all just human beings. Seeking connection is what we do. It's essential to our wellbeing. We need a tribe the way bees need a hive.


----------



## Forster

science said:


> We're all just human beings.


Stop there. I'm averse to being lumped in with the rest of the human race just because of biology and evolution. I hesitate to raise the names of any well-known mass murderers, dictators, cheap celebrities for obvious reasons, but they too are 'just' human beings.


----------



## janxharris

dissident said:


> It doesn't apply to me. I grew up in a totally non-classical-listening home and discovered the genre on my own and grew to love it for no other reason than that I love it, and I would say I'm probably not alone.


even more you are not alone.


----------



## science

Forster said:


> Stop there. I'm averse to being lumped in with the rest of the human race just because of biology and evolution. I hesitate to raise the names of any well-known mass murderers, dictators, cheap celebrities for obvious reasons, but they too are 'just' human beings.


This sounds like a rather human thought to me. You seem to be one of us, no matter how averse you are to it.


----------



## 59540

science said:


> ...
> It is not possible to discuss your ideas about critical theory here because it is a political discussion. Suffice it to say that I disagree.


It's not possible then to discuss *any* ideas about critical theory because it's political at its core. But yet here we are.


----------



## gregorx

dissident said:


> It's not possible then to discuss *any* ideas about critical theory because it's political at its core. But yet here we are.


You bring this up in every other post. You're opinion on this has been noted. Give it a rest.


----------



## chipia

SanAntone said:


> To the extent there has been a backlash against _the idea of_ high art, it is a healthy reset of a obsolete set of assumptions.


But I think that the backlash against the idea of high art caused more damage than good. Popular music is anyways ubiquitous and enjoyed but lots of people, there's a reason it's called popular.

If you abolish the concept of high art, the result is that people will just listen to whatever music is easiest available / accessible to them and ignore classical music because, if all is equally good, why bother seeking out something else, especially if it requires more effort to appreciate?

So you gain nothing, but lose whatever influence classical music had.

Also, I think the artistic and technical horizon of musicians is becoming more narrow as a result, because if everything is equally good, the effort to educate yourself on music may be considered a waste of time.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ If you do away with all categories of music then people will start to categorise the field. And does it matter if the categories of classical music turn many off?


----------



## 59540

gregorx said:


> You bring this up in every other post. You're opinion on this has been noted. Give it a rest.


I'm not the one that's constantly bringing it up.


----------



## Forster

chipia said:


> But I think that the backlash against the idea of high art caused more damage than good. Popular music is anyways ubiquitous and enjoyed but lots of people, there's a reason it's called popular.
> 
> If you abolish the concept of high art, the result is that people will just listen to whatever music is easiest available / accessible to them and ignore classical music because, if all is equally good, why bother seeking out something else, especially if it requires more effort to appreciate?
> 
> So you gain nothing, but lose whatever influence classical music had.
> 
> Also, I think the artistic and technical horizon of musicians is becoming more narrow as a result, because if everything is equally good, the effort to educate yourself on music may be considered a waste of time.


What concept of "high art" is being abolished, and who is doing the abolishing ? Who set the definition and who gets to decide what belongs to it?

Thanks.


----------



## SanAntone

chipia said:


> If you abolish the concept of high art, the result is that people will just listen to whatever music is easiest available / accessible to them and ignore classical music because, if all is equally good, why bother seeking out something else, especially if it requires more effort to appreciate?


According you Classical music is not available / accessible to people unless it is labeled high art.

I am fine with there being no hierarchies and trust that people will find the music which brings them joy without any need to label it one way or another.

And I am not invested if the music that bings them joy is Classical music or Pop.


----------



## EdwardBast

Re high art versus low: 

Stop the hand wringing please. If the prejudicial terms bother you, use others, but it's lazy to deny the difference between music as a fine art and pop music, especially since it's easy to acknowledge the difference without condescension or snobbery. Here's how: Don't say simplistic things like classical music is better than pop. Instead address what needs and desires among listeners are met by the different forms of music in specific technical terms. For example, it's pretty obvious that for those who enjoy lengthy instrumental structures organized by analogy to coherent sequences of internal states, classical music is better than pop — any pop of any era. Likewise, if one enjoys the musical equivalent of Celtic knots, intricately woven and equally weighted contrapuntal lines developed in patterns of steadily increasing complexity, Bach fugues and Josquin motets are better than any form of pop music. Enjoy labyrinthine harmonic progressions through multiple keys wherein rising and ebbing levels of tension are fluidly controlled … . You get the idea. In general, it's fair to say that fine art music satisfies many aesthetic appetites not addressed by pop music. Someone else who cares can wax poetic on the needs met by pop songs.


----------



## Forster

EdwardBast said:


> Re high art versus low:
> 
> Stop the hand wringing please. If the prejudicial terms bother you, use others, but it's lazy to deny the difference between music as a fine art and pop music, especially since it's easy to acknowledge the difference without condescension or snobbery. Here's how: Don't say simplistic things like classical music is better than pop. Instead address what needs and desires among listeners are met by the different forms of music in specific technical terms. For example, it's pretty obvious that for those who enjoy lengthy instrumental structures organized by analogy to coherent sequences of internal states, classical music is better than pop - any pop of any era. Likewise, if one enjoys the musical equivalent of Celtic knots, intricately woven and equally weighted contrapuntal lines developed in patterns of steadily increasing complexity, Bach fugues and Josquin motets are better than any form of pop music. Enjoy labyrinthine harmonic progressions through multiple keys wherein rising and ebbing levels of tension are fluidly controlled … . You get the idea. In general, it's fair to say that fine art music satisfies many aesthetic appetites not addressed by pop music. Someone else who cares can wax poetic on the needs met by pop songs.


I agree that "classical" (by which we assume we mean CPT and nothing 'modern') and "pop" (by which we mean chart fodder, not anything from jazz, rock, soul, blues etc) are different and serve different needs for broadly different audiences.


----------



## fbjim

The difference "doesn't exist" in the sense that the distinction is cultural and not something inherent. I think to the extent that artists attempt to "dispute" the difference, it's in very deliberate ways like the affectation of kitsch, or the mixing of high/low forms (a la Mahler). It used to be considered an ironic gesture, but I think it's more to make an implied statement that both are, in their ways, aesthetically valid by putting high/low on equal footing.


----------



## science

fbjim said:


> The difference "doesn't exist" in the sense that the distinction is cultural and not something inherent. I think to the extent that artists attempt to "dispute" the difference, it's in very deliberate ways like the affectation of kitsch, or the mixing of high/low forms (a la Mahler). It used to be considered an ironic gesture, but I think it's more to make an implied statement that both are, in their ways, aesthetically valid by putting high/low on equal footing.


I think a lot of people are even just trying to disregard the whole idea of high and low in art rather than worry about whether anything is on equal footing. The equal footing point was accomplished a generation ago, from their point of view.


----------



## fbjim

science said:


> I think a lot of people are even just trying to disregard the whole idea of high and low in art rather than worry about whether anything is on equal footing. The equal footing point was accomplished a generation ago, from their point of view.


Going back to the serious/entertainment divide, there definitely was a movement to disregard this divide in popular music criticism, which is why disco music was retrospectively re-evaluated as a critically important genre in the development of modern popular music, for instance. I actually think it got kind of excessive and there was a moderate backlash to this, but at least you won't get laughed out of the room by indie rock fans for saying you like a Kylie Minogue song anymore.

One of the earliest ways I saw this was actually back in like, the late 80s when it suddenly became cool among underground musicians to like the Carpenters, maybe the most critically trashed major band of their era.

Now how this fits into the Millenial artistic re-evaluation and revival of Steely Dan will follow in several academic papers....


----------



## SanAntone

EdwardBast said:


> Re high art versus low:
> 
> Stop the hand wringing please. If the prejudicial terms bother you, use others, but it's lazy to deny the difference between music as a fine art and pop music, especially since it's easy to acknowledge the difference without condescension or snobbery. Here's how: Don't say simplistic things like classical music is better than pop. Instead address what needs and desires among listeners are met by the different forms of music in specific technical terms. For example, it's pretty obvious that for those who enjoy lengthy instrumental structures organized by analogy to coherent sequences of internal states, classical music is better than pop - any pop of any era. Likewise, if one enjoys the musical equivalent of Celtic knots, intricately woven and equally weighted contrapuntal lines developed in patterns of steadily increasing complexity, Bach fugues and Josquin motets are better than any form of pop music. Enjoy labyrinthine harmonic progressions through multiple keys wherein rising and ebbing levels of tension are fluidly controlled … . You get the idea. In general, it's fair to say that fine art music satisfies many aesthetic appetites not addressed by pop music. Someone else who cares can wax poetic on the needs met by pop songs.


I argue against the kind of monolithic idea you are promoting. Neither Classical music nor Pop is only one thing. There is Pop music which has the attributes you describe for both symphonic orchestral music as well as contrapuntal works. And there are lightweight Classical miniatures, which resemble Pop.

The only classification I recognize is the one that compares complexity to complexity and simplicity to simplicity no matter in which genre it occurs. And music which exhibits simplicity does not mean it is not on a high artistic level or does not require enormous skill.

One of the hardest things to do is write a melody which sounds effortless and organic as if it has always existed, but at the same time offers artistic fulfillment.

I reject any suggestion that Classical music has cornered the market on skill, art, invention, complexity, or breadth of expression.


----------



## EdwardBast

SanAntone said:


> I argue against the kind of monolithic idea you are promoting. Neither Classical music nor Pop is only one thing. There is Pop music which has the attributes you describe for both symphonic orchestral music as well as contrapuntal works. And there are lightweight Classical miniatures, which resemble Pop.


This problem doesn't exist for me because I don't accept the categories as defined by Amazon, formerly by the likes of Tower Records, or anyone else who is "strictly from commercial." I regard a considerable array of music lumped into the pop or non-classical category as fine art music and some in the classical bin as popular, based on the kind of technical criteria I noted.


----------



## SanAntone

EdwardBast said:


> This problem doesn't exist for me because I don't accept the categories as defined by Amazon, formerly by the likes of Tower Records, or anyone else who is "strictly from commercial." I regard a considerable array of music lumped into the pop or non-classical category as fine art music and some in the classical bin as popular, based on the kind of technical criteria I noted.


You say this now but here's your words in the previous post: "it's lazy to deny the difference between music as a fine art and pop music" as if no Pop music were fine art.

"or those who enjoy lengthy instrumental structures organized by analogy to coherent sequences of internal states, classical music is better than pop"

Yesterday I listened to both selections from Mahler symphonies and the Yes recording _Close to the Edge_. Both featured the attributes you described above.

"In general, it's fair to say that fine art music satisfies many aesthetic appetites not addressed by pop music."

It is not fair to say since there are many examples of Pop which satisfy my aesthetic appetite, as I'm sure for others as well.


----------



## janxharris

...indeed, Jon Anderson was inspired to write _Close to the edge_ after listening to Sibelius's 6th and 7th symphonies.


----------



## chipia

SanAntone said:


> Yesterday I listened to both selections from Mahler symphonies and the Yes recording _Close to the Edge_. Both featured the attributes you described above.


The problem is that your are demonstrating the supposed complexity of pop music by using unrepresentative examples. Sure, in every genre there are fringe movements that stray away from its core attributes and defy easy classification. Prog is a niche genre that afaik didn't get much attention since the 80s. Also, the whole point of prog was to make rock music more similar to classical music, and thus essentially a new form of classical music.

If I ask some random classical music listeners what music they like, there is a high chance they will mention complex pieces like symphonies, concertos, sonatas. If I ask pop listeners, it will almost certainly be simpler music (and not progressive rock). And I think there is a reason for that.


----------



## SanAntone

chipia said:


> The problem is that your are demonstrating the supposed complexity of pop music by using unrepresentative examples.


I could point out to you that there is as much complexity and art in a Blues performance by Robert Johnson as there is in a song by Schubert, but I expect you would be unable to understand what I were saying.



> Sure, in every genre there are fringe movements that stray away from its core attributes and defy easy classification. Prog is a niche genre that afaik didn't get much attention since the 80s. Also, the whole point of prog was to make rock music more similar to classical music, and thus essentially a new form of classical music.


 The band Yes is far from a fringe group, and Prog Rock is not the only style in which one can find high artistic values demonstrated in Pop. However, I suggest a more meaningful discussion would compare Classical music with all non-Classical genres, not the low hanging fruit of the most superficial style of Pop.

I expect you would not accept my allegation that there is artistic invention in Rap/Hip-hop, just as you would reject Graffiti as approaching fine art painting.



> If I ask some random classical music listeners what music they like, there is a high chance they will mention complex pieces like symphonies, concertos, sonatas. If I ask pop listeners, it will almost certainly be simpler music (and not progressive rock). And I think there is a reason for that.


The issue is not what your hypothetical Pop listener prefers but what is included in Pop, or non-Classical genres. The problem is in your own mind, IMO, not the artistic expressions I have mentioned. You have blinders on, and define Pop and other non-Classical styles of music with a reductive broad brush.


----------



## fbjim

(as far as classical music inspired popular music goes- more relevant than prog these days, the likes of Stockhausen and the minimalists had influence on the burgeoning Krautrock scene which would eventually combine with disco, and black house music culture and explode into what we now know as electronic)


I do find it interesting, though understandable that Gershwin is sometimes considered the last major figure to try to bridge the classical/popular music divide when the Krautrock guys did the same thing, just with avant-garde classical music and rock.


----------



## Forster

SanAntone said:


> The issue is not what your hypothetical Pop listener prefers but what is included in Pop, or non-Classical genres. The problem is in your own mind, IMO, not the artistic expressions I have mentioned. You have blinders on, and define Pop and other non-Classical styles of music with a reductive broad brush.


Unless I missed it, chipia doesn't define pop at all. I've asked, they refuse to answer...yet.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> You say this now but here's your words in the previous post: "it's lazy to deny the difference between music as a fine art and pop music" as if no Pop music were fine art.
> 
> "or those who enjoy lengthy instrumental structures organized by analogy to coherent sequences of internal states, classical music is better than pop"
> 
> Yesterday I listened to both selections from Mahler symphonies and the Yes recording _Close to the Edge_. Both featured the attributes you described above.
> 
> "In general, it's fair to say that fine art music satisfies many aesthetic appetites not addressed by pop music."
> 
> It is not fair to say since there are many examples of Pop which satisfy my aesthetic appetite, as I'm sure for others as well.


The best pop music is probably going to be more artistic than the weakest classical; but the best classical vs the best pop is no contest.


----------



## SanAntone

Forster said:


> Unless I missed it, chipia doesn't define pop at all. I've asked, they refuse to answer...yet.


By the way they dismiss it as superficial "they" have defined Pop, ignoring any examples that don't fit that description. Chipia has referred to Prog Rock as no Pop since it aspires to Classical status. But the fact remains, Prog rock is not Classical music but a form of Pop music.

I suggest that there are many examples of Pop music which defy the kind of superficiality they describe.



> The best pop music is probably going to be more artistic than the weakest classical; but the best classical vs the best pop is no contest.


Maybe according to your taste, but not in my estimation - and I received a Classical music training.


----------



## fbjim

I dunno, I dislike a bit of prog specifically because it seemed a bit too concerned with artistic "relevance" by affecting things from classical music which they seemed to mainly take as "really long track lengths". It's a case where I think they got away from what popular music was actually strong at, and why my favorite prog is still in a rock idiom (like 70s King Crimson), or is outright experimental (Krautrock).

I've talked about this before but I don't think it's a coincidence that the most enduring "progressive" (not necessarily "prog") music of that period was taking inspiration from the newest, most adventurous fringes of classical music and adapting it, rather than reaching back to classic symphonies or whatever.


----------



## Forster

dissident said:


> The best pop music is probably going to be more artistic than the weakest classical; but the best classical vs the best pop is no contest.


Simplistic...er...nonsense. As has often been pointed out in this kind of debate, you might as well argue that the best car vs the best television is no contest.


----------



## Forster

fbjim said:


> I dunno, I dislike a bit of prog specifically because it seemed a bit too concerned with artistic "relevance" by affecting things from classical music which they seemed to mainly take as "really long track lengths". It's a case where I think they got away from what popular music was actually strong at, and why my favorite prog is still in a rock idiom (like 70s King Crimson), or is outright experimental (Krautrock).
> 
> I've talked about this before but I don't think it's a coincidence that the most enduring "progressive" (not necessarily "prog") music of that period was taking inspiration from the newest, most adventurous fringes of classical music and adapting it, rather than reaching back to classic symphonies or whatever.


And I dislike a bit of baroque because...

How does such an observation advance the argument?


----------



## fbjim

Forster said:


> And I dislike a bit of baroque because...
> 
> How does such an observation advance the argument?


Well, if we're going to argue about the artistic merits of pop music versus classical, the example of popular music which deliberately affected classical music as an attempt at artistic elevation seems actually like arguing the contrary position.


----------



## Forster

fbjim said:


> Well, if we're going to argue about the artistic merits of pop music versus classical, the example of popular music which deliberately affected classical music as an attempt at artistic elevation seems actually like arguing the contrary position.


Did someone propose that pop affected classical?

I don't accept that "prog" had a published agenda of any kind. In fact, "prog" is another term that is of dubious origin and fails to do justice to the array of bands that it allegedly encompasses.


----------



## fbjim

Forster said:


> Did someone propose that pop affected classical?
> 
> I don't accept that "prog" had a published agenda of any kind. In fact, "prog" is another term that is of dubious origin and fails to do justice to the array of bands that it allegedly encompasses.


That's how I generally saw it, as in "prog" prog. Complexity as a goal, emphasis on virtuosity, tone-poem-like use of abstract music as a form of storytelling. But I see this as popular music affecting romantic classical music in an earnest attempt to "break out" of the bonds of popular music using the tenets of "high" romantic music, while I see Krautrock/experimental rock as a continuation or evolution of minimalist and avant-garde classical of the modern era.

As it turned out, "prog" died out with the big reaction in rock music (it wasn't just prog that punk was reacting against - there were a ton of droopy, "serious" singer-songwriter types that the rock purists hated as well) but the German experimental rock guys kept on trucking along and changed popular music forever. I don't want to be all "well look at the scoreboard" but it's the difference between a weird popular music offshoot which seemed to think that old forms were the key to artistry, and experimental music which wanted to push with new music.

But that's just how I see it and all that.


----------



## Forster

fbjim said:


> That's how I generally saw it, as in "prog" prog. Complexity as a goal, emphasis on virtuosity, tone-poem-like use of abstract music as a form of storytelling. But I see this as popular music affecting romantic classical music in an earnest attempt to "break out" of the bonds of popular music using the tenets of "high" romantic music, while I see Krautrock/experimental rock as a continuation or evolution of minimalist and avant-garde classical of the modern era.
> 
> As it turned out, "prog" died out with the big reaction in rock music (it wasn't just prog that punk was reacting against - there were a ton of droopy, "serious" singer-songwriter types that the rock purists hated as well) but the German experimental rock guys kept on trucking along and changed popular music forever. I don't want to be all "well look at the scoreboard" but it's the difference between a weird popular music offshoot which seemed to think that old forms were the key to artistry, and experimental music which wanted to push with new music.
> 
> But that's just how I see it and all that.


Well, you're entitled to see it anyway you want I suppose. I saw it as an evolution of the music that some musicians liked, being taken and adapted, enhanced and extended, as they saw fit. I don't doubt that some prog figure at the time (Wakeman perhaps) pontificated about what he/they were trying to achieve, but it seemed to me that it just boiled down to playing what they wanted because that's what they wanted to play. Wakeman himself has said as much



> In the mid-'70s, bands like Pink Floyd, Genesis, and Yes were all competing to outdo each other with the latest theatrics: lasers, dry ice, pyrotechnics. But while prog rock was taking itself more and more seriously, Wakeman, who'd grown up on vaudeville and relished the comedy of it all, didn't care what people thought. "I'm permanently reading 9.8 on the I-don't-give-a-**** meter," he says.


https://www.vanityfair.com/style/20...secret-history-of-prog-rock-icon-rick-wakeman


----------



## chipia

Forster said:


> Unless I missed it, chipia doesn't define pop at all. I've asked, they refuse to answer...yet.


I've actually already posted my personal and rather loose definition, but I can post it again:

_"To me personally the distinction was mostly based on the composer's musical education and knowledge. Most classical composers got extensive training in harmony, counterpoint, form and orchestration and also got knowledge of music history and studied the important works of the past. Usually this is evident in their music.

By contrast, I think most pop musicians knowledge in these areas tends to be relatively limited. It's just anecdotes, but I've known some pop/rock musicians and they had no idea what chromaticism or modulations are. When I once pointed out that he could also use notes outside of the key, he just said "but then it will sound all wrong!". etc. Also they tend to be, like most people, ignorant of the great works of the past (especially classical music).

To me this is one of the main aspects that forms the distinction."_

That's why the "counter-examples" in this thread don't refute anything, given that they are mostly classically trained musicians who are trying to make music that embodies classical qualities. It may be Pop according to your personal definition, but not to mine.


----------



## Forster

chipia said:


> I've actually already posted my personal and rather loose definition, but I can post it again:
> 
> _"To me personally the distinction was mostly based on the composer's musical education and knowledge. Most classical composers got extensive training in harmony, counterpoint, form and orchestration and also got knowledge of music history and studied the important works of the past. Usually this is evident in their music.
> 
> By contrast, I think most pop musicians knowledge in these areas tends to be relatively limited. It's just anecdotes, but I've known some pop/rock musicians and they had no idea what chromaticism or modulations are. When I once pointed out that he could also use notes outside of the key, he just said "but then it will sound all wrong!". etc. Also they tend to be, like most people, ignorant of the great works of the past (especially classical music).
> 
> To me this is one of the main aspects that forms the distinction."_
> 
> That's why the "counter-examples" in this thread don't refute anything, given that they are mostly classically trained musicians who are trying to make music that embodies classical qualities. It may be Pop according to your personal definition, but not to mine.


That's a pretty poor generalisation about some of the people, not the music. Try offering something simpler and more recognisable as a description of the _music _that you believe the term 'pop' encompasses. We can then at least see the range and examples of what it is you are dismissing, and what you think is typical (since you think prog isn't).

And instead of delving into the past, let's stick with the present.

PS. A quick search of t'internet suggests that while some 'prog' rockers were classically trained (Wakeman, reportedly) others were not (Fripp, Emerson, Banks). I'm not sure your theory holds water, and, of course, the term 'classically trained' would also need unpacking.


----------



## EdwardBast

SanAntone said:


> You say this now but here's your words in the previous post: "it's lazy to deny the difference between music as a fine art and pop music" as if no Pop music were fine art.
> 
> "or those who enjoy lengthy instrumental structures organized by analogy to coherent sequences of internal states, classical music is better than pop"
> 
> Yesterday I listened to both selections from Mahler symphonies and the Yes recording _Close to the Edge_. Both featured the attributes you described above.
> 
> "In general, it's fair to say that fine art music satisfies many aesthetic appetites not addressed by pop music."
> 
> It is not fair to say since there are many examples of Pop which satisfy my aesthetic appetite, as I'm sure for others as well.


Ah, I see the difficulty: _Close to the Edge_ isn't pop music! (even by industry standards) It's art music, art rock if one wants to get more specific about it. Art rock with a borderline incoherent lyric, but art music nonetheless. 

As for the Bubble Experiment, since I haven't addressed that: All it proves is that there are incompetent judges who don't give a fick with the power to give grants. It says nothing else but that about modern music.


----------



## Forster

EdwardBast said:


> Ah, I see the difficulty: _Close to the Edge_ isn't pop music! It's art music, art rock if one wants to get more specific about it. Art rock with a borderline incoherent lyric, but art music nonetheless.


"The difficulty" is that those with an axe to grind about 'pop' can't do what you said is possible to do: report difference without snobbery or condescension.

While there have been some interesting posts on related issues, which has kept me reading, the substance of the OP remains just as it was: lacking in substance.


----------



## SanAntone

chipia said:


> I've actually already posted my personal and rather loose definition, but I can post it again:
> 
> _"To me personally the distinction was mostly based on the composer's musical education and knowledge. Most classical composers got extensive training in harmony, counterpoint, form and orchestration and also got knowledge of music history and studied the important works of the past. Usually this is evident in their music.
> 
> By contrast, I think most pop musicians knowledge in these areas tends to be relatively limited. It's just anecdotes, but I've known some pop/rock musicians and they had no idea what chromaticism or modulations are. When I once pointed out that he could also use notes outside of the key, he just said "but then it will sound all wrong!". etc. Also they tend to be, like most people, ignorant of the great works of the past (especially classical music).
> 
> To me this is one of the main aspects that forms the distinction."_
> 
> That's why the "counter-examples" in this thread don't refute anything, given that they are mostly classically trained musicians who are trying to make music that embodies classical qualities. It may be Pop according to your personal definition, but not to mine.


I offered many counter examples which are not Pop music made by classically trained musicians. Most of Pop, Rock, Blues, Folk, Bluegrass, Country, R&B, Funk, Soul, Rap, and even most Jazz for its first 50 years, has been created by musicians who can't even read music. This music was learned by ear, the training was not anything like what a classical musician receives, but just as rigorous.

However, you refuse to recognize the artistic quality of these non-Classical examples, and won't admit that it is your personal taste guiding your appraisal. I also suspect your interest in non-Classical music is insignificant, and as a consequence a broad exposure to it has exceeded your experience.

Here's an interesting sidebar: I spent my teenage years playing in Top Forty cover bands (this was the 60s so the music was pretty good). I learned the songs right off the radio, figuring them out by ear, down to the exact replication of each part. When I entered music school I was surrounded by piano students who had been practicing their scales and Hanon, and playing Bach and Beethoven for 15 years or so. But in the first year ear-training class, they were lost whereas I could do the exercises in my sleep. Classical musicians often are great at reading a score but just as often lousy at actually listening. All non-Classical musicians learn first and foremost to listen to the musicians and respond - to create the music on the fly. This is a very different skill set than what a classically trained musician possesses.

The creators of non-Classical music also have very different skill sets than a classically trained composer (my degree) - although they often _instinctively_ exhibit the same kind of technical and craft concerns of constructing a successful song form.


----------



## chipia

Forster said:


> That's a pretty poor generalisation about some of the people, not the music. Try offering something simpler and more recognisable as a description of the _music _that you believe the term 'pop' encompasses.


My description was actually related to the music, maybe it's more obvious if I summarise it in one sentence: _Classical music is music that reflects an advanced musical education._

Following from that, Pop music would be music that doesn't reflect that amount of musical education.

However, I've also considered an alternative definition of pop:
_Pop music consists of usually short songs in Verse-Chorus form that focus on easily comprehensible, memorable and singable vocal melodies. _

This definition would allow Pop songs that display a higher level of musical education / complexity and pass as 'high art' if you wish. 
However, I still believe that most Pop displays a low level of musical education by classical standards. I don't want to sound condescending, I just think that's the objective truth.


----------



## Livly_Station

SanAntone said:


> I offered many counter examples which are not Pop music made by classically trained musicians. Most of Pop, Rock, Blues, Folk, Bluegrass, Country, R&B, Funk, Soul, Rap, and even most Jazz for its first 50 years, has been created by musicians who can't even read music. This music was learned by ear, the training was not anything like what a classical musician receives, but just as rigorou


I'd also like to add that some of pop music today is actually written by musically trained (in classical and jazz) composers... but they use their knowledge to make infectious catchy tunes for mass consumption instead of some sort of "prog pop". And in some cases the music is deceptively more "sophisticated" (in theory) than expected, especially for non-trained listeners. K-pop is the best example of that nowadays.


----------



## 59540

Forster said:


> Simplistic...er...nonsense. As has often been pointed out in this kind of debate, you might as well argue that the best car vs the best television is no contest.


No, that's nonsense. A more apt comparison would be between a Lamborghini and a child's red wagon.


SanAntone said:


> I offered many counter examples which are not Pop music made by classically trained musicians. Most of Pop, Rock, Blues, Folk, Bluegrass, Country, R&B, Funk, Soul, Rap, and even most Jazz for its first 50 years, has been created by musicians who can't even read music. This music was learned by ear, the training was not anything like what a classical musician receives, but just as rigorous.


Maybe, but in the sense of "arithmetic is 'just as rigorous' as differentiation".


----------



## Forster

dissident said:


> No, that's nonsense. A more apt comparison would be between a Lamborghini and a child's red wagon.


Would it? Why ?


----------



## SanAntone

chipia said:


> My description was actually related to the music, maybe it's more obvious if I summarise it in one sentence: _Classical music is music that reflects an advanced musical education._


Classical music reflects an advanced musical training *within a specific tradition*. Classically trained musicians are not by definition the best musicians; they are the best musicians for playing Classical music. There are musicians from other genres that display just as much virtuosity, and excellence and musicianship (more in many cases) than classically trained musicians.



> However, I still believe that most *Pop displays a low level of musical education by classical standards*. I don't want to sound condescending, I just think that's the objective truth.


Of course Pop musicians display a lower level of "musical education by classical standards." Pop musicians do display a high level of training, from a different discipline and tradition.

Pop musicians have no need for musical training by classical standards and it can actually inhibit their instincts for what is important for creating Pop music - or Jazz, or Blues, or Rock or Country or Funk, etc.


----------



## 59540

Forster said:


> Would it? Why ?


Because you'd be comparing one specimen within a genus with another.


----------



## fbjim

Capital-P "pop" requires a great deal of craftsmanship but I do think the nature of the genre being very "functional" and financially/chart motivated does mean it has less appeal for the type of things people listen to art music for. This doesn't mean there can't be great chart pop, but I find the ratio of great music to music I dislike to be a bit lower than other genres.


This is really down to what you hope to get out of music, though. Not to mention that things change completely if we're talking about capitol-P top-40 Pop music, or music in popular forms, aka the descendents of the recorded popular music tradition from the 20th century, in which case basically every non-classical genre of western music is fair game.


----------



## Forster

dissident said:


> Because you'd be comparing one specimen within a genus with another.


So, you missed the deliberate absurdity of my post which was to highlight the illogical comparison of music of "different genera".


----------



## Forster

chipia said:


> My description was actually related to the music, maybe it's more obvious if I summarise it in one sentence: _Classical music is music that reflects an advanced musical education._
> 
> Following from that, Pop music would be music that doesn't reflect that amount of musical education.
> 
> However, I've also considered an alternative definition of pop:
> _Pop music consists of usually short songs in Verse-Chorus form that focus on easily comprehensible, memorable and singable vocal melodies. _
> 
> This definition would allow Pop songs that display a higher level of musical education / complexity and pass as 'high art' if you wish.
> However, I still believe that most Pop displays a low level of musical education by classical standards. I don't want to sound condescending, I just think that's the objective truth.


So, pop music is defined by you as music written/ performed by pop musicians as you define them...but you can offer no examples to illustrate.

How about elaborating more precisely on the ways that a 3 and a half minute song is inferior to a 40 minute symphony (that aren't connected to the obvious difference in length?)

Or better still, explain why such a comparison has any validity


----------



## 59540

What I find baffling about this forum is why people who apparently don't think there's anything particularly special about classical music would hang out here so much.


----------



## chipia

SanAntone said:


> I offered many counter examples which are not Pop music made by classically trained musicians. Most of Pop, Rock, Blues, Folk, Bluegrass, Country, R&B, Funk, Soul, Rap, and even most Jazz for its first 50 years, has been created by musicians who can't even read music. This music was learned by ear, the training was not anything like what a classical musician receives, but just as rigorous.


I actually agree that it doesn't matter if you learn your musical skills by ear or by other means. Whether you study at school, from a book or simply by listening... I don't care as long as they eventually possess advanced skills in disciplines like harmony, counterpoint, form etc. on the same level (or higher?) as someone with more formal training. However, that requires a willingness to listen to, analyse and imitate a broad array of music, including 'classical' music.

Fwiw, I think that formal training can speed up and enhance the acquisition of these skills to a degree.

As for your blues example: I actually think that it's fine for what it is, but I think it's obvious that a repetitive 3-Chord-Song does not display the same scope of musical knowledge as a symphony with dozens of chords, modulations, contrapuntal developments, formal intricacies and changing moods. The musical language here isn't 'just different' from classical music. It's markedly more limited.



SanAntone said:


> However, you refuse to recognize the artistic quality of these non-Classical examples, and won't admit that it is your personal taste guiding your appraisal. I also suspect your interest in non-Classical music is insignificant, and as a consequence a broad exposure to it has exceeded your experience.


I don't think this is about taste. There is a good amount of pop songs that I like, also some video game music, but I would never consider them high art on the level of a Brahms symphony simply because they are enjoyable.


----------



## 59540

Forster said:


> ...
> 
> How about elaborating more precisely on the ways that a 3 and a half minute song is inferior to a 40 minute symphony that isn't connected to the obvious difference in length?
> 
> Or better still, explain why such a comparison has any validity


Why don't you tell us? You're at a classical music forum, after all. I wouldn't think of hanging out at a jazz forum just to try to convince the fans that jazz really isn't any better than bluegrass.


----------



## Livly_Station

dissident said:


> What I find baffling about this forum is why people who apparently don't think there's anything particularly special about classical music would hang out here so much.


It's just important to not mistake a subjective appreciation (that we all share for classical music) for an objective evaluation.

Objectivity should only be concearned with description, not qualification - unless it's done with a lot more care than people usually do. A lot of the time it just feels like epistemologically poor reasoning to justify a sense of self-importance.


----------



## 59540

lucashomem said:


> It's just important to not mistake a subjective appreciation (that we all share for classical music) for an objective evaluation. ...


So what is that subjective appreciation *for*, exactly?


----------



## SanAntone

chipia said:


> As for your blues example: I actually think that it's fine for what it is, but I think it's obvious that a repetitive 3-Chord-Song does not display the same scope of musical knowledge as a symphony with dozens of chords, modulations, contrapuntal developments, formal intricacies and changing moods. The musical language here isn't 'just different' from classical music. It's markedly more limited.e.


To state the obvisou: There's more to Blues than the standard three chord, 12 bar, form. The musical language in Blues is markedly different from Classical music - but not more limited.

The harmonic content of a Blues song includes much more than 3 chords: there's microtonal melodic phrases that establish a call and response dialog with the vocal. Often the actual chordal harmonies are not major or minor, but somewhere in between, and finally, the goal of a symphony is very different from the goal of a Blues performance. It is true that what Mahler accomplishes in his symphonies is very different from a performance by Muddy Waters. However, Muddy Waters also does something far outside of anything found in a Mahler symphony. Does this really need to be pointed out?

Your yardstick is Classical music, so the Blues does not measure up. Just as if my yardstick were the Blues, then Classical music would be found wanting.

Do you also complain that an orange does not display the same characteristics of an apple?


----------



## Livly_Station

dissident said:


> So what is that subjective appreciation *for*, exactly?


_Subjective appreciation_ simply exists as a consequence of you liking something. And then it serves the purpose of helping you choose what _you_ want to do with your life; and for you to describe how _you_ feel for others; and to create a community for people who share the same feelings on something.

Once you have a _subjective appreciation_ for an object, you can also analyse it in order to understand what are the characteristics that you like about it. This will allow you to create _theory_ for you and others to be able to create more objects like the one you appreciate.


----------



## Forster

dissident said:


> What I find baffling about this forum is why people who apparently don't think there's anything particularly special about classical music would hang out here so much.


I can't speak for others, but I just love to come here and have fruitless debates, as do you, apparently.


----------



## SanAntone

> What I find baffling about this forum is why people who apparently don't think there's anything particularly special about classical music would hang out here so much.


Oh, I find something special about Classical music, and hang out here because there's a lot of composers and music which I listen to and wish to share (I also like the games). But I also listen to other music and don't think that Classical music is better or more special than any of the other music I love.


----------



## Forster

chipia said:


> it's obvious that a repetitive 3-Chord-Song does not display the same scope of musical knowledge as a symphony with dozens of chords, modulations, contrapuntal developments, formal intricacies and changing moods.


So? All that means is that a repetitive 3-Chord-Song does not display the same scope of musical knowledge as a symphony with dozens of chords, modulations, contrapuntal developments, formal intricacies and changing moods.



dissident said:


> Why don't you tell us?


Why would I? I'm not the one that thinks such a comparison has any validity.


----------



## 59540

Forster said:


> I can't speak for others, but I just love to come here and have fruitless debates, as do you, apparently.


Twitter is that way ===>


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> Oh, I find something special about Classical music...


And what would that be?


----------



## SanAntone

Forster said:


> So? All that means is that a repetitive 3-Chord-Song does not display the same scope of musical knowledge as a symphony with dozens of chords, modulations, contrapuntal developments, formal intricacies and changing moods.


The 3-chord structure of most Blues songs is the least important aspect (many Blues songs use a drone harmony). Blues is primarily a vocal art form; it is the singing, and instrumental mirroring of the singing, that forms the style. This is why slide guitar, allowing for the same kind of pitch bending Blues singers accomplish, is so common.


----------



## Forster

SanAntone said:


> The 3-chord structure of most Blues songs is the least important aspect (many Blues songs use a drone harmony). Blues is primarily a vocal art form; it is the singing, and instrumental mirroring of the singing, that forms the style. This is why slide guitar, allowing for the same kind of pitch bending Blues singers accomplish, is so common.


I wasn't making a point about the blues per se. I used chipia's own words to point out that identifying differences between the blues and classical does not inevitably lead to an evaluative judgement about one being 'better' than the other, merely because of those differences.


----------



## SanAntone

Forster said:


> I wasn't making a point about the blues per se. I used chipia's own words to point out that identifying differences between the blues and classical does not inevitably lead to an evaluative judgement about one being 'better' than the other, merely because of those differences.


Yeah, I got that - I was just reinforcing how much his comment missed the point of Blues. Comparing genres, especially those so different as Mahler and Blues is always pointless.


----------



## chipia

Forster said:


> I wasn't making a point about the blues per se. I used chipia's own words to point out that identifying differences between the blues and classical does not inevitably lead to an evaluative judgement about one being 'better' than the other, merely because of those differences.


I've never used the word 'better', I was only explaining my distinction between "higher" and "lower" art. I just don't think that the rather repetitive blues song that was posted before can be said to exhibit the same amount of depth as a sonata movement (or let alone a symphony). It may have neutral thirds, but I don't think that's enough to compensate the lack of everything else.


----------



## Forster

chipia said:


> I've never used the word 'better', I was only explaining my distinction between "higher" and "lower" art. I just don't think that the rather repetitive blues song that was posted before can be said to exhibit the same amount of depth as a sonata movement (or let alone a symphony). It may have neutral thirds, but I don't think that's enough to compensate the lack of everything else.


I know you didn't use the word 'better' - that's why I put it in scare quotes. But it seems to me that your purpose in defining high and low art is to assert that one is 'better' than the other.


----------



## Livly_Station

chipia said:


> I've never used the word 'better', I was only explaining my distinction between "higher" and "lower" art. I just don't think that the rather repetitive blues song that was posted before can be said to exhibit the same amount of depth as a sonata movement (or let alone a symphony). It may have neutral thirds, but I don't think that's enough to compensate the lack of everything else.


All characteristics of a piece of music are _means_ to an _end_: the pleasure or catharsis or _*insert noun*_ of the listener, be it emotionally or intellectually*. Since it's a "results-based" phenomenon, the _depth_ hinges upon the individual experience of the listener. It's subjective. If a person finds blues deeply moving and cathartic, then that's it - you can't argue otherwise based on criteria that you're enforcing arbitrarily. Likewise, a listener may not find anything meaningful in Mahler's symphonies despite all of his intentions and the abundance of material.

*PS: music can be means for other ends too: academic, social, cultural, you name it. I was only referring to its use in private.


----------



## SanAntone

chipia said:


> I've never used the word 'better', I was only explaining my distinction between "higher" and "lower" art. I just don't think that the rather repetitive blues song that was posted before can be said to exhibit the same amount of depth as a sonata movement (or let alone a symphony). It may have neutral thirds, but I don't think that's enough to compensate the lack of everything else.


You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But that is all it is, though you continue to try to prove that it is objectively true. And your understanding of Blues leaves a lot to be desired.


----------



## hammeredklavier

EdwardBast said:


> Josquin motets are better than any form of pop music.






"Rapnaissance"


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But that is all it is, though you continue to try to prove that it is objectively true. And your understanding of Blues leaves a lot to be desired.


You seem to imagine blues music to be something that it really isn't. No, it simply isn't as complex or "rigorous" as a Bach fugue. It's a form of folk music. That's objectively true. The same holds true for Appalachian music, Hungarian folk music, whatever. And yes I know the blues, being a big fan of John Lee Hooker and the "three Kings".


lucashomem said:


> If a person finds blues deeply moving and cathartic, then that's it - you can't argue otherwise based on criteria that you're enforcing arbitrarily.


A lot of things can be "deeply moving and cathartic" though. That can also make for "one-dimensional art".


----------



## Livly_Station

dissident said:


> A lot of things can be "deeply moving and cathartic" though. That can also make for "one-dimensional art".


And what does that even mean? Sounds like empty rethoric to scare off a naive intelocutor who hasn't put his thoughts together regarding these abstract philosophical questions.

If a piece of art is "moving and cathartic", that's as deep and _x_-dimensional as it goes (how many dimensions do you like? Is 10+ dimensions like in string theory enough?). And that's precisely the reason why classical music was so relevant in the past and it still is today: because people find beauty and meaning in it - it knocks their socks off! And if you believe the reason is something else instead, you're just fooling yourself.

When we try to understand why a piece of classical music moves us, we investigate its inner mechanisms (of its musical language) to find the answers: its harmony, counterpoint, themes, development, texture, structure, etc. But the value of those things are only proven significant once they accomplish their goal: to move the listener. And _it does_ a lot of the time! But this is only proven case by case. It's personal. Subjective.

Likewise, other genres of music can do the same to other people (or even to you!), regardless of its inherent technique and means. If you find this music to be too simplistic to justify a powerful reaction on the listener, who cares? What matters is that it fulfills its ultimate purpose: to move the listener. And if you can't deal with that, then blame our lizard brains or something, but _it is what it is_. It's personal. Subjective.


----------



## Forster

chipia said:


> you need absolutely no skill to make random music. Literally anybody can do it.


If music is truly 'random', it can't be 'made', can it?

So, the 'random' music that _has _been made and that has garnered critical approval (though I recognise not necessarily universal approval) did take some skill. Not just anybody can make it.



SanAntone said:


> Define "high art."


So, this is all your fault 



chipia said:


> But what _kind_ of craft does pop music demonstrate? The craft to exhaust the formal, emotional, expressive and creative potentials of music? Or the craft to make teenagers sing along?


Is there something wrong with making teenagers sing along? Is there something wrong with making any of us sing along...to any piece of music?



chipia said:


> But I think that the backlash against the idea of high art caused more damage than good. Popular music is anyways ubiquitous and enjoyed but lots of people, there's a reason it's called popular.
> 
> If you abolish the concept of high art, the result is that people will just listen to whatever music is easiest available / accessible to them and ignore classical music because, *if all is* *equally good*, why bother seeking out something else, especially if it requires more effort to appreciate?
> 
> So you gain nothing, but lose whatever influence classical music had.
> 
> Also, I think the artistic and technical horizon of musicians is becoming more narrow as a result, because* if everything is equally good*, the effort to educate yourself on music may be considered a waste of time.


In other words, there has to be a distinction between what is good and what is better?

Returning to your apparent refusal to explain what you mean by pop, other than any music composed by any artist ignorant of the classical, I would assert that this is because you are completely unfamiliar with the range of musics you disparage (as 'low' art). I am also certain that if we accept your simple definition - that pop is music written by the musically uneducated - you would have difficulty proving it, not least because you would have difficulty establishing their ignorance.

Here's the lineup for a festival this weekend. What can you tell us about any of these artists and their music?

https://www.greenman.net/line-up/2021/?type=music

There's more than 100 to investigate, whose credentials you must establish before determining whether they are writing high or low art.

The problem you have is that it's all too easy to take pot shots at the small number of pop 'names' you might have in mind, and you're probably more familiar with them for being in the news as celebrities than with their actual music. The truth is that non-classical music encompasses not just more genres than you can think of, but many more acts than you can think of.

And, if this festival is anything to go by, non-classical is of very great value to those prepared to engage with it. Frankly, I don't care whether The Beatles' songs live as long as Beethoven's 5th, as long as I continue to enjoy both in my lifetime. I don't feel the need to justify my listening choices on the basis that I'm listening to 'high art'. Or lament that high art is in decline because other people want to listen to Porridge Radio (or Bubbles).


----------



## chipia

Forster said:


> If music is truly 'random', it can't be 'made', can it?
> 
> So, the 'random' music that _has _been made and that has garnered critical approval (though I recognise not necessarily universal approval) did take some skill. Not just anybody can make it.


Arbitrarily striking piano keys like a little kid can be considered a 'skill' if you wish, but it's an extremely simple skill that certainly the vast majority of people possess.



Forster said:


> Is there something wrong with making teenagers sing along? Is there something wrong with making any of us sing along...to any piece of music?


It is not 'wrong' but it's a very limited goal compared to the other things I've mentioned. Plenty of classical music already features catchy, singable melodies, AND on top of that the other aspects. In that respect classical music can be considered more ambitious as the scope of its artistic goal is much broader and thus requires more skill and musical knowledge.



Forster said:


> Returning to your apparent refusal to explain what you mean by pop, other than any music composed by any artist ignorant of the classical, I would assert that this is because you are completely unfamiliar with the range of musics you disparage (as 'low' art). I am also certain that if we accept your simple definition - that pop is music written by the musically uneducated - you would have difficulty proving it, not least because you would have difficulty establishing their ignorance.


It's not difficult to establish the ignorance given that many openly admit that they don't care about classical music or music theory.

That being said, I've already offered you an alternative definition of Pop music that disregards education but still leaves many of my points intact:

_"Pop music consists of usually short songs in Verse-Chorus form that focus on easily comprehensible, memorable and singable vocal melodies."_



Forster said:


> The problem you have is that it's all too easy to take pot shots at the small number of pop 'names' you might have in mind, and you're probably more familiar with them for being in the news as celebrities than with their actual music.


If you think that it's easier to criticise the pop celebrities in the news than the pop music you listen to, wouldn't that imply that there DOES exist a hierarchy after all?



Forster said:


> I don't feel the need to justify my listening choices on the basis that I'm listening to 'high art'.


This thread wasn't really about justifying listening choices but about justifying decisions in regards to arts funding.


----------



## 59540

lucashomem said:


> If a piece of art is "moving and cathartic"


The sequence there is weird. Is it a piece of art because it's "moving and cathartic", or does someone find it "moving and cathartic" because it's a work of art? You bring up "art" without defining it much beyond "moving and cathartic". A lot of people find reality TV shows to be such. But they ain't art.


----------



## science

dissident said:


> But they ain't art.


This is kind of an argument from authority. "Art" doesn't have a universally-agreed-upon definition. Like "religion" and "philosophy" and "science" and "classical music," it appears to be a category that we more-or-less just made up.


----------



## 59540

science said:


> This is kind of an argument from authority. "Art" doesn't have a universally-agreed-upon definition. Like "religion" and "philosophy" and "science" and "classical music," it appears to be a category that we more-or-less just made up.


So they *are* art, then? Yes, you do have some universally-agreed-upon definitions, at least in a macro sense. Otherwise existence is chaos. Everything is art nothing is art there is no such thing as art.


----------



## science

chipia said:


> I've never used the word 'better', I was only explaining my distinction between "higher" and "lower" art. I just don't think that the rather repetitive blues song that was posted before can be said to exhibit the same amount of depth as a sonata movement (or let alone a symphony). It may have neutral thirds, but I don't think that's enough to compensate the lack of everything else.


I don't think there can be a meaningful difference between "better" and "higher." No matter how much we pretend to insist that there is, "higher" will always imply "better." This is apparently true in all human cultures.


----------



## science

dissident said:


> So they *are* art, then?


Depends on who gets to make the definitions. (As you know, that's what "argument from authority" means.) Personally, I think the word "art" is almost meaningless, so I wouldn't play a constructive role in arguments about its meaning.


----------



## 59540

science said:


> Depends on who gets to make the definitions. Personally, I think the word "art" is almost meaningless, so I wouldn't play a constructive role in arguments about its meaning.


So if I say Beethoven isn't music, then Beethoven simply isn't music.


----------



## science

dissident said:


> So if I say Beethoven isn't music, then Beethoven simply isn't music.


To anyone who accepts you as an authority on that subject. Does anyone?


----------



## 59540

science said:


> To anyone who accepts you as an authority on that subject. Does anyone?


I don't know. I'm enjoying looking at Rembrandt's famous sculpture, The Night Watch.


----------



## science

dissident said:


> I don't know. I'm enjoying looking at Rembrandt's famous sculpture, The Night Watch.


Whatever works for you, bro.


----------



## 59540

science said:


> Whatever works for you, bro.


Right. But Beethoven's status as "music" doesn't depend on my authority. Just as my perception of a tree as a turtle doesn't make it so. Or just as my perception of "American Ninja Warrior" as art doesn't make it so.


----------



## science

dissident said:


> Right. But Beethoven's status as "music" doesn't depend on my authority. Just as my perception of a tree as a turtle doesn't make it so. Or just as my perception of "American Ninja Warrior" as art doesn't make it so.


I suspect that "tree" and "turtle" are different kinds of categories than "art." But it might not matter. If you have something to communicate it and you manage to get your communication done, mission accomplished.

What is the definition of art that you're using here?


----------



## 59540

science said:


> I suspect that "tree" and "turtle" are different kinds of categories than "art."


Why are you arguing from authority?


> What is the definition of art that you're using here?


That's what I was asking lucashomem above. Apparently it's whatever is "moving and cathartic". Speaking of whom,


lucashomem said:


> And what does that [one-dimensional] even mean?


An example would be relying on sensationalism or arousing disgust through gruesomeness and the like, like splatter films. Now some of those do approach an artistic level, though I detest them. But they are visceral.


lucashomem said:


> When we try to understand why a piece of classical music moves us, we investigate its inner mechanisms (of its musical language) to find the answers: its harmony, counterpoint, themes, development, texture, structure, etc. But the value of those things are only proven significant once they accomplish their goal: to move the listener. ...


That isn't entirely true. I came to an appreciation of the works of Schoenberg and Webern only *after* I got into the inner workings of their music. My initial reaction to hearing such was a big yawn. There are also no doubt many contemporary pieces which at the moment don't do much for me mainly because I haven't taken the time to examine what the composer is doing, which is more my ignorance than the composer's incompetence...which in turn is why I don't automatically dismiss such as "not art".


----------



## Forster

chipia said:


> It is not 'wrong' but it's a very limited goal compared to the other things I've mentioned. Plenty of classical music already features catchy, singable melodies, AND on top of that the other aspects. In that respect classical music can be considered more ambitious as the scope of its artistic goal is much broader and thus requires more skill and musical knowledge


One of the most sought after things in CPT classical is catchy singable melodies (and those who dislike contemporary yearn for them). Mozart is allegedly brilliant at it. Yet catchy singable melodies in 'pop' are to be disparaged?

As for getting people to sing being a 'very limited goal' - in your opinion. Obviously, in your world, there is a hierarchy of the criteria for pleasure, and 'ambition' (which belongs to the artist and not the audience) and 'skill and knowledge' (also belonging to the artists, not the audience - when does the audience get a look in here?) are somewhere near the top. Whereas the opportunity to sing along to a catchy melody is also to be disparaged.



chipia said:


> It's not difficult to establish the ignorance given that many openly admit that they don't care about classical music or music theory.


So, how far did you get in establishing the credentials of the artists on offer at the Green Man Festival. Which of them have 'admitted' that they don't care about classical.

And when will you admit the extent of your ignorance about pop?



chipia said:


> If you think that it's easier to criticise the pop celebrities in the news than the pop music you listen to, wouldn't that imply that there DOES exist a hierarchy after all?


No.



chipia said:


> _"Pop music consists of usually short songs in Verse-Chorus form that focus on easily comprehensible, memorable and singable vocal melodies."_


So, that's fine. To the extent that that is a recgnisable description of a branch of 'pop', I can accept that. And if you want to listen to and sing along to a catchy melody - a perfectly worthy activity - pop offers a wealth of opportunity. I have to say that whilst I can sing along to Ode to Joy, the rest of Beethoven's 9th is somewhat more troublesome, though I get great pleasure from doing my best.

Maybe you should try singing sometime. It's not just for teenagers, and can be very cathartic, as recommended by Classical Greece.


----------



## SanAntone

> And if you want to listen to and sing along to a catchy melody - a perfectly worthy activity - pop offers a wealth of opportunity.


And don't forget, DANCING. One of the primary attributes of Pop, Rock, R&B, Funk, Blues, Old Time/String Band music, Latino music, and plenty of Jazz, is the rhythmic pulse that encourages dancing.

Dancing has been throughout history a major activity of human beings. Dancing is a community activity, it brings people together in social events and encourages bonding and positive interaction. Some theorize that it actually releases endorphins and elevates our mood, as does any vigorous physical activity.

Also, something that has not been mentioned yet (as far as I can tell) or at least has not been a focus are LYRICS. A song is music and LYRICS.

For me, the lyrical content is as important (often more important) to my enjoyment and interest as the music. I am a huge fan of songs - Folk Ballads especially. Some genres are known for their focus on well-written lyrics: Country (Hank Williams, Willie Nelson, Kris Kristofferson, Merle Haggard, Guy Clarke, Townes Van Zandt, Steve Earle), Broadway (Hammerstein, Sondheim, Arlen), American Standards (Gershwin, Porter, Mercer), Rock (Bob Dylan, Neil Young, Eagles), Pop (Randy Newman, Jackson Browne, Joni Mitchell).

I love good songs so much that if I had to, I could be very happy listening to only the work of great songwriters and never open a Classical CD case again.


----------



## hammeredklavier

-------------------------------------------


----------



## hammeredklavier

fbjim said:


> In fact this emphasis on craft and production technique is probably the most interesting part of Pop as a genre of serious study, such that it is. This is to say that craftsmanship, to an extent, is following the rules.


So you're saying contemporary music is like the musical equivalent of:

"While there is a lot of skill in a lot of modern and contemporary art, there's also a lot of art that is more about the idea than it is about skill. And so yes you could do it but you didn't. "
-Elisabeth Sherman, an assistant curator at the Whitney Museum of American Art in New York


----------



## science

dissident said:


> Why are you arguing from authority?


Did you intend to select a different part of my quote? I wasn't arguing for or from _anything_ in the selection you quoted.



dissident said:


> That's what I was asking lucashomem above. Apparently it's whatever is "moving and cathartic".


Is that your definition as well?


----------



## fbjim

hammeredklavier said:


> What if I told you "We can generate random sounds with a computer and pass them off as any of the avant-gardists' work".
> I know you'll say "The more you get into their work, the more you'll recognize the styles that differentiate them". -but then the same can be said about Mozart. We talked about this before:


that's.... exactly what I'm saying? a lot of Mozart _is_ superficially similar to the music his contemporaries were making at the time, especially his earlier or lesser-known works. so yeah, it's more or less similar to the idea that you can write a pastiche of classical-era CPT music, end up with something that sounds "like Mozart" a bit, and play it to a non-expert and probably convince them that Mozart wrote it. Someone with experience listening to Mozart and that era of music is far less likely to be fooled.

how often have you heard someone talking about a form of music they dislike by saying "it all sounds the same to me", whether it's jazz, metal, techno, or pop? I've heard people say "all classical sounds the same to me"- of course, the idea that Mozart sounds anything like Mahler, Debussy, or Bartok is ridiculous to a classical music listener, but when you don't get the idiom of the music, it's hard to listen beneath the surface level.


----------



## Aries

SanAntone said:


> I would like to further develop what I only touched on in my last post, namely the idea of how dance has related to music throughout history, and the danger of music becoming more cerebral instead of physical.
> 
> It is generally accepted that music was originally always associated with dance. For a long time this remained the case, and even had a vestigial life well into the 20th century. Baroque suites were based on dance forms and maintained the traditional meters, and waltzes were used as part of the four movement works of the Romantic era. Mazurkas, Polonaises, and other dance forms have had a long life, as did folk forms such as Hungarian and Romanian dances.
> 
> To the extent music has become separated from dance has it become more cerebral, and IMO, not an improvement. The more cerebral music becomes it loses a significant amount of audience. Which has been the case for Classical music.
> 
> The same phenomenon has occurred with Jazz. For decades Jazz was associated with dancing, it was not until the mid-40s with the development of bebop did Jazz sever its connection with dance and become more cerebral. But it retained the aspect of swing, which was some link with the prior dance music.
> 
> In later eras, Jazz completely severed its connection with swing, finally becoming much more cerebral - again to its detriment, IMO. Again, to the extent Jazz severed its connection with dance and swing it lost audience. People have complained about Miles's turn to funk in his late career bands, but he saw his audience dwindle and knew that if he wanted to play to a large audience made up of his own community, the abstract, free-styled Jazz he had been playing was not the path.
> 
> So, when I see people describing music for dance as low art and music not for dancing as high art, I think things have flipped upside down, and finally, not an improvement, IMO.


This is an interessting point.

On the one hand we have music whose appeal comes partially from the suitability for dancing, and on the other hand we have music without this particular appeal. The masses clearly prefer the former, but imo there is no general difference in value. Both can be bad and good, but the latter is propably more scattering.

And it seems like this characteristic is connected with the distinction between high and low art. And it makes sense to me. Dancing itself isn't music, so the value of dance music consists of something non-musical. If some other music reaches the same overall value with pure musical methods, the pure musical value of this other music must be higher. Its probably more difficult to reach the same value without suitability for dancing. But the potential is probably even higher because the suitability for dancing requires some restrictions for the music.

Similar to the suitability for dancing is the suitability for singing along. Singing along is a physical activity for the listener. If music reaches the same value for the listener without the value of this activity, the pure musical value of the piece has to be higher.

Its true that classical music is more celebral than popular music, but dance and sang music isn't endangered in common practice classical music. But probably its endangered in atonal and serial music. At least for me its difficult to imagine to dance to it or to sing it. The target of atonal/serial music is an even higher art than the target of common practice music, but my view is that its simply fails, because its too extreme, too far away from dancing and singing. I think the rhythms are even worse than the dissonances.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> And don't forget, DANCING. One of the primary attributes of Pop, Rock, R&B, Funk, Blues, Old Time/String Band music, Latino music, and plenty of Jazz, is the rhythmic pulse that encourages dancing.
> 
> Dancing has been throughout history a major activity of human beings. Dancing is a community activity, it brings people together in social events and encourages bonding and positive interaction. Some theorize that it actually releases endorphins and elevates our mood, as does any vigorous physical activity.
> ...


Well I would agree with that. To get back to Bach (no pun or alliteration implied) a fascinating characteristic of much of his music is how closely it's associated with dance and physical movement. A good many of the sections of the B minor Mass even are based on dance forms.


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> So you're saying contemporary music is like the musical equivalent of:
> 
> "While there is a lot of skill in a lot of modern and contemporary art, there's also a lot of art that is more about the idea than it is about skill. And so yes you could do it but you didn't. "


That's a little similar to a reply I saw to someone criticizing a melody by Tchaikovsky. The criticism was something like "anyone could've come up with such melodies" and the reply, "maybe, but only Tchaikovsky did".


----------



## Forster

"Why is modern art so bad?" is a question similar to "When did you stop beating your wife?"


----------



## Forster

Aries said:


> Dancing itself isn't music, so the value of dance music consists of something non-musical.


The value of dance music is its rhythm, something very definitely musical.



Aries said:


> If some other music reaches the same overall value with pure musical methods, the pure musical value of this other music must be higher.


Setting aside that this part is supposed to follow from your first point, which is illogical, why would 'some other music' be of higher value than dance music? Given the number of classical symphonies containing a minuet, you've just devalued some of the most highly regarded pieces in the classical canon!



Aries said:


> Similar to the suitability for dancing is the suitability for singing along. Singing along is a physical activity for the listener. If music reaches the same value for the listener without the value of this activity, the pure musical value of the piece has to be higher.


Potentially then, the further away music moves from danceability and singability, the higher the value. That puts some avant-garde or contemporary music at the top of the tree!


----------



## mikeh375

Forster said:


> Potentially then, the further away music moves from danceability and singability, the higher the value. That puts some avant-garde or contemporary music at the top of the tree!


...tee hee hee.


----------



## fbjim

I'm not sure I buy the "dancing is purity and moving away from it is bad" thing but then again I hate IDM and distrust any modern electronic you can't dance to so hey.


----------



## SanAntone

fbjim said:


> I'm not sure I buy the "dancing is purity and moving away from it is bad" thing but then again I hate IDM and distrust any modern electronic you can't dance to so hey.


If you are referring to my post, then you have misconstrued my point.

I never said that music remaining linked to dance was "purity", only that it was less cerebral than music which had severed a link to dance.


----------



## Forster

SanAntone said:


> If you are referring to my post, then you have misconstrued my point.
> 
> I never said that music remaining linked to dance was "purity", only that it was *less cerebral *than music which had severed a link to dance.


...and that less cerebral does not necessarily mean qualitatively worse?


----------



## SanAntone

Forster said:


> ...and that less cerebral does not necessarily mean qualitatively worse?


No. IMO, it means better. Too much of a cerebral quality in music is a defect, IMO. How much is too much? YMMV


----------



## Aries

Forster said:


> The value of dance music is its rhythm, something very definitely musical.


A part of the value auf dance music and songs is not just the passive hearing of rhythm and melody but the active participation in rhythm and melody. The value of other music completely lies within passive listening. That is the difference.



Forster said:


> Setting aside that this part is supposed to follow from your first point, which is illogical, why would 'some other music' be of higher value than dance music?


The pieces I like the most aren't dance music in the narrow sense. (But they still have appealing rhythms.)



Forster said:


> Given the number of classical symphonies containing a minuet, you've just devalued some of the most highly regarded pieces in the classical canon!


I didn't said that every other music has to be better than dance music, but that some other music can have the same value. And that other music probably scatters more in quality.

Do you think minuets are overall the best movements in symphonies that contain a minuet? In my opinion minuets in particular aren't very good dance music. I actually like the other movements more usually. I like scherzos more than minuets. But scherzos which are the best movements are also rare imo. But I think scherzos within symphonies I don't like have a better chance to be the movement I like the most.


Forster said:


> Potentially then, the further away music moves from danceability and singability, the higher the value. That puts some avant-garde or contemporary music at the top of the tree!


Moving away from danceability and singability opens up some creative possibilities, but it also makes the music less accessibly and less human. It is a double-edged sword. I think you can overdo it.


----------



## 59540

Forster said:


> ...and that less cerebral does not necessarily mean qualitatively worse?


Is there such a thing as "qualitatively worse"?



SanAntone said:


> No. IMO, it means better. Too much of a cerebral quality in music is a defect, IMO. How much is too much? YMMV


Do you have some examples of "overly cerebral" music? If any music would be "overly cerebral" I would think it would be that of the serialists and "New Complexity" composers. Is it defective?

Personally it sounds like a false dichotomy.


----------



## Andrew Kenneth

lucashomem said:


> I'd also like to add that some of pop music today is actually written by musically trained (in classical and jazz) composers... but they use their knowledge to make infectious catchy tunes for mass consumption instead of some sort of "prog pop". And in some cases the music is deceptively more "sophisticated" (in theory) than expected, especially for non-trained listeners. K-pop is the best example of that nowadays.


There's an interesting youtube channel with lots of videos of classical & jazz musicians reacting to K-pop.


----------



## fbjim

Is there actually a formal term for music in dance forms which isn't intended for dancing? It shows in electronic obviously (AKA "IDM") but a lot of classical music falls in the same category.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> Do you have some examples of "overly cerebral" music?


I would say Classical music in general is more cerebral than Roots music genres. There is a kind of Jazz which is cerebral: European Jazz, Jazz that doesn't swing. Some cabaret song revues are pretty cerebral. Prog Rock. All the "noise" genres. Ambient music.

But it's not all-or-nothing.

Obviously, there is an expressive/emotional aspect to all music whether or not it is cerebral, dance-related, or singable; and much of Classical music is expressive and conjures emotional reactions. Atonal/avant-garde Classical music is probably the most cerebral and least emotional; as well as the kind of Jazz that mirrors those same values.


----------



## fbjim

I tend to find Bach instrumental music as my go-to for "cerebral" though that's certainly not a bad thing for Bach lovers. A lot of common-practice classical too, just that emphasis on very meticulous, "proper" composition. 

Things like noise and ambient aren't exactly dance-y though I find them uh, "visceral" is kind of a music crit cliche word but that's what comes to mind. Stuff that almost seems to inspire physical reactions rather than emotional/expressive ones. 

Oh, and post-punk / "art student punk". Hard to get more cerebral in punk music than like, Wire, though once again, I don't think that's a bad thing by any means.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Aries said:


> Do you think minuets are overall the best movements in symphonies that contain a minuet?


look at these suspensions over a dominant pedal from Mozart K.334/v




I consider it to be as effective as the chromaticism of K.334/i





also look at this section in K.516/ii




 (also look at the subsequent part-writing at 13:31), 
which is reminiscent of this section in K.516/iv




, 
is a prime example of "happy sadness" in Mozart.


----------



## Forster

dissident said:


> Is there such a thing as "qualitatively worse"?


Some people believe so.


----------



## 59540

Forster said:


> Some people believe so.


Are they wrong?


----------



## Forster

Aries said:


> A part of the value auf dance music and songs is not just the passive hearing of rhythm and melody but the active participation in rhythm and melody. The value of other music completely lies within passive listening. That is the difference.


I'm not sure the word 'value' is helpful here, but I used it to follow on from your use of it where you said



> the value of dance music consists of something non-musical.


Dance music can have multiple 'values' - it depends on the music.*

When you make the distinction between passive and active listening, do you just mean singing along and dancing to music is 'active' and just sitting and listening is 'passive'?



Aries said:


> Do you think minuets are overall the best movements in symphonies that contain a minuet?


I don't see what I think about minuets is relevant. Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven all wrote well-regarded symphonies containing a minuet. Beethoven's 7th is all about dance. To suggest that music based on or containing elements of dance is in some way of lower musical value is, I think, misguided.

*I'm not referring in any of this to music that a modern audience would be expected to actually get up and dance to, only to music with a sufficiently strong rhythm that it might set your feet tapping, or with an obvious connection to dance. You might at least tap your feet to the first movement of Shostakovich's 7th, but you'd be unlikely to dance to it. But I wonder, did contemporary audiences dance to the minuets in Mozart's 40th and 41st?


----------



## SanAntone

When I brought dance into this discussion it was the idea of music that has a *tempo, meter, and pulse that originated with a dance*. Of course over time these movements morphed into abstractions of the dance and no longer functioned as actual dance music. It would seem to be a waste of time focusing on whether people did dance to minuet symphonic movements since they did not, but the minuet movements share many characteristics with the underlying dance.

But the point is that there is vast difference between music which has a *link to dance* (whether people dance to it or not) and that which does not.


----------



## Forster

^^ re minuets...it was just an afterthought...I assumed symphonies were listened to, not danced to.


----------



## SanAntone

> But the point is that there is vast difference between music which has a link to dance (whether people dance to it or not) and that which does not.


Music which is connected to dance is more naturally accessible and resonates at an instinctive level, there is a physical muscle memory that comes into play, which I think can make it more entertaining and enjoyable for a majority of listeners because of its accessibility.

That said, there is certainly a different kind of enjoyment, no less important, to be had with music which excites our imaginations and intellectual faculties, i.e. more cerebrally.

Speaking for myself, I have had periods when I sought out very cerebral music but have found myself coming back to my original love of music that operates at a more physical level more and more.

Which is odd since I often find myself on TC defending avant-garde music (in this very thread), when in fact I hardly listen to it anymore. However, I still feel very strongly that composers operating in that style deserve all the respect given to more traditional composers and can't help but rise to their defense when I see them disparaged, or their motivation, talent, and integrity called into question.


----------



## fbjim

i just mainly get offended at accusations of bad faith. the "emperors new clothes" stuff where people basically get called liars for liking or composing it. music can be good or bad but unless there's good reason, i never like accusing artists, or especially listeners, of cynicism. 

that, and people who seem hell-bent on waging ideological wars from the 1970s which nobody in the field actually cares about anymore


----------



## Aries

Forster said:


> Dance music can have multiple 'values' - it depends on the music.*
> 
> *I'm not referring in any of this to music that a modern audience would be expected to actually get up and dance to, only to music with a sufficiently strong rhythm that it might set your feet tapping, or with an obvious connection to dance.


I actually rather meant actual dance music like in pop music or ballet music. But there are many graduations. The more dancy music is the more physical is its value. Even without any physical activity it seems to work more like coffee or an energy drink.

This has a value for me, but I think music can do more, but in order to do more its probably necessary to leave strict dance forms (by doing that some kind of value seems to be necessarily lost).

To make music very dancy seems to me to be a solid and rather easy way to make music valueable. Without the framework of the dance some of the easy rhythm appeal is lost and its difficult to get other value in. But if it works to get other value in it is "high art".



Forster said:


> When you make the distinction between passive and active listening, do you just mean singing along and dancing to music is 'active' and just sitting and listening is 'passive'?


Yes, I meant that.



Forster said:


> I don't see what I think about minuets is relevant. Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven all wrote well-regarded symphonies containing a minuet. Beethoven's 7th is all about dance. To suggest that music based on or containing elements of dance are in some way of lower musicl value is, I think, misguided


The form of Beethovens 7th is more free and complicated than actual dance music. Its a good example for "high art" imo.

And I did not suggest that. I suggest that the best non-strict dance music is better than the best strict dance music, because the ladder is somewhat limited by the form. But to maintain elements of dance is recommendable imo.


----------



## Forster

Aries said:


> I actually rather meant actual dance music like in pop music or ballet music. The more dancy music is the more physical is its value. Even without any physical activity it seems to work more like coffee or an energy drink.
> 
> This has a value for me, but I think music can do more[etc].


I'm losing the thread of what you're arguing. You seem to think that the value of music can be quantified in some way, either by the number of different 'values', or by some hierarchy of values. Not only do I have no right to tell you _what _value(s) you get out of a piece of music, I have no right to tell you what those values are worth. Moreover, there is no hierarchy, and the value of music to individuals may be unquantifiable altogether.


----------



## Aries

Forster said:


> I'm losing the thread of what you're arguing. You seem to think that the value of music can be quantified in some way, either by the number of different 'values', or by some hierarchy of values. Not only do I have no right to tell you _what _value(s) you get out of a piece of music, I have no right to tell you what those values are worth. Moreover, there is no hierarchy, and the value of music to individuals may be unquantifiable altogether.


The worth of music isn't exactly quantifiable. But I think some rough statements are possible. For example that Beethovens Symphony No. 7 is better than his Yorckscher Marsch from a musical point of view. I would dare such statements if there is an accordance between logical considerations and personal evaluations of many people.

I also think that you can split the worth of something into different aspects for analysis. And I think that the worth of some music consists of things that are not the music itself anymore. Beethoven Yorckscher Marsch for example has a military value beside a pure musical value.

It is not the point to talk into someones personal evaluations of art. Its about understanding what such a term like "high art" means, and if there is some truth to it.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> i just mainly get offended at accusations of bad faith. the "emperors new clothes" stuff where people basically get called liars for liking or composing it. ..


That's no more an accusation of "bad faith" than saying that "canonical" composers are such through the manipulative behavior of this or that "elite". It's saying that some people will say they adore this or that work or composer just to fit in and not be thought a hopeless rube.


----------



## Forster

Aries said:


> The worth of music isn't exactly quantifiable. But I think some rough statements are possible. For example that Beethovens Symphony No. 7 is better than his Yorckscher Marsch from a musical point of view. I would dare such statements if there is an accordance between logical considerations and personal evaluations of many people.
> 
> I also think that you can split the worth of something into different aspects for analysis. And I think that the worth of some music consists of things that are not the music itself anymore. Beethoven Yorckscher Marsch for example has a military value beside a pure musical value.
> 
> It is not the point to talk into someones personal evaluations of art. Its about understanding what such a term like "high art" means, and if there is some truth to it.


I don't think I'm much further forward in understanding. Sometimes, we're talking about the 'value' of music - referring to what people get out of it. Then we switch to talking about the 'quality' of music, referring to the skill, intricacy, 'musical' value put in by the composer, and then to the 'worth' or estimation given to it by the listener - a comparative ranking.

Beethoven's 7 is a better symphony than his March: his March is a better March than his 7th Symphony. Music for different purposes. Neither are as good as 2,4,6,8 Motorway for dancing.

IMO, we're back at my earlier definition of the term 'high' art: a means to elevate the worth of the listener above other listeners which says little of interest about the actual music.


----------



## Aries

Forster said:


> I don't think I'm much further forward in understanding. Sometimes, we're talking about the 'value' of music - referring to what people get out of it. Then we switch to talking about the 'quality' of music, referring to the skill, intricacy, 'musical' value put in by the composer, and then to the 'worth' or estimation given to it by the listener - a comparative ranking.


I don't think so complicated about it. Value/worth/quality is all about what people get out of it. But people get different things out of it, so it is difficult and no exact statement about the worth is possible. It somewhat depends on the listener, but does it totally depend on the listener? That doesn't make sense for me. Its logical that it depends both on the piece and the listener what the listener gets out. Otherwise something like three random sounds would be as valuable as Beethovens 7th. That would be totally absurd imo.



Forster said:


> Beethoven's 7 is a better symphony than his March: his March is a better March than his 7th Symphony. Music for different purposes.


But symphonies are maybe more worth than marches. Thats very likely because marches are much shorter.



Forster said:


> IMO, we're back at my earlier definition of the term 'high' art: a means to elevate the worth of the listener above other listeners which says little of interest about the actual music.


I think this is an ideologically driven position that shows disregard towards the art. Beethoven had higher ambitions for his 7th symphony than for his Yorckschen Marsch. Composers have different ambitions for different works. Some composers have overall other ambitions than other composers. And some composers are more talented than others. We can't measure these differences exactly, but we can know that there are these differences.


----------



## SanAntone

> But symphonies are maybe more worth than marches. Thats very likely because marches are much shorter.


Maybe for you, but symphonies are worthless to me. I actually dislike everything about the form. I vastly prefer chamber music. I also love miniatures, the solo piano music of Satie and Mompou, some of Stravinsky's shorter works like Tango and Ragtime.


----------



## Forster

Aries said:


> I don't think so complicated about it. Value/worth/quality is all about what people get out of it.


It is complicated when you complicate it. "What people get out of it" is not the same as "what the piece comprises that gives it quality". You keep hopping from one to the other.



Aries said:


> It somewhat depends on the listener, but does it totally depend on the listener?


No.



Aries said:


> But symphonies are maybe more worth than marches. Thats very likely because marches are much shorter.


No, that's absurd. Symphonies are not "worth more" and length has nothing to do with anything, unless you're proposing that we measure symphonic quality by the minute.

In the case of the march you've cited, it was entirely written for military purposes, and better suited to them than a symphony.



Aries said:


> I think this is an ideologically driven position that shows disregard towards the art.


Is your enthusiasm _for _'high art' ideologically driven? What ideology do you think is driving my point of view? In what way am I 'disregarding' the art?



Aries said:


> We can't measure these differences exactly, but we can know that there are these differences.


If we can't "measure" the differences, we must surely be able to identify them in some way. If not, all that is left is to vainly assert that there are some, or lamely claim that the differences are self-evident.

Let me be clear. I don't dispute that a case can be made for the superiority of one symphony over another, but a significant component in that case would be to do with personal response ("I like it"), historical response ("It's always been popular with audiences"), critics' response ("Tovey says it's brilliant"), artists' response ("Mozart says..."), extra-musical content ("It's deep, about the meaning of life") and so on. It's harder to find a justification for it that is only about the musical content, structure, dynamics, timbre, mode and so on.


----------



## Aries

SanAntone said:


> Maybe for you, but symphonies are worthless to me. I actually dislike everything about the form. I vastly prefer chamber music. I also love miniatures, the solo piano music of Satie and Mompou, some of Stravinsky's shorter works like Tango and Ragtime.


Compare it to milk. It is useless for people with lactose intolerance but it still has an inherent value.



Forster said:


> It is complicated when you complicate it. "What people get out of it" is not the same as "what the piece comprises that gives it quality". You keep hopping from one to the other.


The only difference I see is what is between things in there that people potentially can get out, and things in there that people actually get out.



Forster said:


> No.


So the worth of a piece for a listener depends on the listener and on the inherent value of the piece. So for example SanAntone multiplies the inherent value of symphonies (usually >0) by 0 so the value for him is 0.



Forster said:


> No, that's absurd. Symphonies are not "worth more"


Its obvious that composers overall had higher ambitions for symphonies than for marches. Beethoven for example worked years for symphonies. Was that all worthless? No special inherent value was created? I like military marches (although Beethovens aren't my favorite), but marches are simply a different size class than symphonies (after the Baroque ended at least).



Forster said:


> and length has nothing to do with anything, unless you're proposing that we measure symphonic quality by the minute.


The latter would be a gateway for nonsense works with low quality per length. But length matters if the quality per length is the same.

Lets just assume Beethoven had the same quality per length in everything he wrote. Then his Symphony No. 7 would be like 20 times more valuable than his Yorckscher Marsch. In order to be as valueable as his Symphony No. 7 the Yorcksche Marsch needs to be 20 times as good per length. Is 1 average minute of the Yorckschen Marsch 20 times better than 1 average minute of his Symphony No. 7? I think we can rule that out with knowledge of the works and common sense.


Forster said:


> In the case of the march you've cited, it was entirely written for military purposes, and better suited to them than a symphony.


Of course. It has more military value. But less musical value.


Forster said:


> Is your enthusiasm _for _'high art' ideologically driven?


Is it really enthusiasm? A bit earlier in this thread I suggested an alternative to "high art". https://www.talkclassical.com/71985-bubbles-experiment-what-contemporary-18.html#post2125857

Then I got more thoughts. But I'm open and only care for the matter.



Forster said:


> What ideology do you think is driving my point of view?


An ideology, that listeners are equal and that the spread of the right ideology is more important than truth. The smell of the latter is also there, but it may not apply to you.



Forster said:


> In what way am I 'disregarding' the art?


You deny differences in the worth of art and you relate ideas by others about that to questions about the worth of listeners.



Forster said:


> If we can't "measure" the differences, we must surely be able to identify them in some way. If not, all that is left is to vainly assert that there are some, or lamely claim that the differences are self-evident.


You can't be sure of everything. Life in general requires some pragmatic assumptions.


----------



## SanAntone

> Compare it to milk. It is useless for people with lactose intolerance but it still has an inherent value.


If you are describing objective value, then you and I are in different universes. Not only do I question the entire premise, but the only value I am really concerned with is, is the value I place on a piece of music.


----------



## Aries

SanAntone said:


> If you are describing objective value, then you and I are in different universes. Not only do I question the entire premise, but the only value I am really concerned with is, is the value I place on a piece of music.


You were not concerned with people describing music not for dancing as high art?



SanAntone said:


> So, when I see people describing music for dance as low art and music not for dancing as high art, I think things have flipped upside down, and finally, not an improvement, IMO.


I think "high art" has more implications than just personal preferences. "Objectivity" on the other hand is maybe to far-reaching. Human high art has more inherent value for humans than "blib-blob-blub" sounds, but some aliens may prefer "blib-blob-blub". Objectively maybe everything is irrelevant.


----------



## SanAntone

Aries said:


> You were not concerned with people describing music not for dancing as high art?


For me it more of a question of social values, not a musical one. I consider it an act of condescension to refer to music other than Classical as "low art."



> I think "high art" has more implications than just personal preferences. "Objectivity" on the other hand is maybe to far-reaching. Human high art has more inherent value for humans than "blib-blob-blub" sounds, but some aliens may prefer "blib-blob-blub". Objectively maybe everything is irrelevant.


I haven't a clue what kind of music you mean with "blib-blob-blub" but I assume it is the kind of music you don't care for. But again, I consider it less than kind to describe someone's favorite music in insulting terms, even if you find it trash. And I don't think music of any kind has any "inherent value" other than for entertainment. And we all decide for ourselves which music provides that.


----------



## Forster

Aries said:


> So the worth of a piece for a listener depends on the listener and on the inherent value of the piece.


The worth of a piece _for the listener _depends on both the piece and the listener. In saying that, both 'piece' and 'listener' encompass a number of factors. The context for listening can be significant too - for example at home, in the car, on the radio, streaming, CD; the physical and emotional state of the listener - and the worth can vary from one listening experience to the next.



Aries said:


> So the worth of a piece for a listener depends on the listener and on the inherent value of the piece. So for example SanAntone multiplies the inherent value of symphonies (usually >0) by 0 so the value for him is 0.


I don't think maths formulas helpful here.



Aries said:


> Its obvious that composers overall had *higher ambitions *for symphonies than for marches. Beethoven for example worked years for symphonies. Was that all worthless? No special inherent value was created? I like military marches (although Beethovens aren't my favorite), but marches are simply a different size class than symphonies (after the Baroque ended at least).


Composers had _different _ambitions for different pieces. To fulfil a commission and earn money could be just as valuable a goal as any other. Given what I've read about Beethoven, I'm pretty sure he attached greater importance to some pieces than others, but once he's given them up to the audience, it's over to us what value we attach, regardless of his intent, otherwise we would routinely accept what his intent was, regardless of his success.

Now, it so happens that _I personally_ attach greater value to symphonies than I do to marches, but that doesn't mean that marches are _intrinsically _of lesser value.



Aries said:


> Lets just assume Beethoven had the same quality per length in everything he wrote. Then his Symphony No. 7 would be like 20 times more valuable than his Yorckscher Marsch. In order to be as valueable as his Symphony No. 7 the Yorcksche Marsch needs to be 20 times as good per length. Is 1 average minute of the Yorckschen Marsch 20 times better than 1 average minute of his Symphony No. 7? I think we can rule that out with knowledge of the works and common sense.


You're taking my quip about length too seriously. But then, I didn't think you would seriously suggest that marches have less value than symphonies because they are shorter!



Aries said:


> Of course. It has more military value. But less musical value.


I feel if I ask you to define 'musical value' we may be back where we started. Suffice to say that I don't think you can separate 'military' from 'musical' value in the way you suggest.



Aries said:


> Is it really enthusiasm?


Well, you seem quite attached to the idea, and took exception to my apparent disrespect for it.



Aries said:


> An ideology, that *listeners are equal *and that *ideology is more important than truth*. The smell of the latter is also there, but it may not apply to you.


Well they are...aren't they? I mean, they're not the same, but they have equal entitlement to declare what they find valuable in music without receiving scorn because they're not embracing 'high art'.

I'm sure we're both after "the truth".



Aries said:


> You deny differences in the worth of art and you relate ideas by others about that to questions about the worth of listeners.


I don't deny that different audiences find differences in the worth of art. I don't deny that I find differences between Vaughan Williams whom I like and Bruckner whom I don't. I do deny the idea that such differences should give rise to a differential estimation of the worth of listeners. That is, I deny the idea that I am entitled to feel superior to others just because I value one over the other.

Perhaps more critically, on your very last point, if I am to be persuaded that there are differences, I'm not going to take it on trust. If I were to assert that Vaughan Williams' Symphony No 3 is the greatest ever written, you might reasonably ask me to justify my assertion.


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> That's no more an accusation of "bad faith" than saying that "canonical" composers are such through the manipulative behavior of this or that "elite". It's saying that some people will say they adore this or that work or composer just to fit in and not be thought a hopeless rube.


No, claiming that social influences exist in art is not an accusation of bad faith. Claims that art doesn't represent genuine creativity but instead represent an attempt to defraud taxpayers, cover up one's lack of talent, or are purely ideologically driven are accusations of bad faith.

Also note the thread you are posting this in.


----------



## Aries

SanAntone said:


> For me it more of a question of social values, not a musical one. I consider it an act of condescension to refer to music other than Classical as "low art."


I think other music can be "high art" too, and not all classical music is "high art".



SanAntone said:


> I haven't a clue what kind of music you mean with "blib-blob-blub" but I assume it is the kind of music you don't care for.


I think I rather meant just some weird sounds instead of music. The thing is I have the feeling that not just any kind of value difference between "high" and "low art" is denied but that value differences in everything is denied. Some person will prefer waterdrop sounds over music, right? So does nobody deny the difference in musical value between music and waterdrop sounds?



SanAntone said:


> But again, I consider it less than kind to describe someone's favorite music in insulting terms, even if you find it trash.


The denial of quality differences in things is insulting and toxic to the complete society. Composers don't work for creating things as valuable as drilling machine noises.

If you deny that value differences in music are possible, I don't see why this logic should be restricted to music and not be applied to just everything else too.



SanAntone said:


> And we all decide for ourselves which music provides that.


Of course, but I don't get your point. We life in a society.


----------



## SanAntone

I do not recognize the existence of "high art" and "low art" - for me Art is found in many things, many styles, just about anywhere if you can see it. Art is something that brings me joy, can have an ennobling aspect, i.e. reminding me of how wonderful is man's ability to create. Art can also be found in nature, or our environment generally.

I don't judge what others find artfully done, just as I hope for others not to judge the kind of music I enjoy. Some people enjoy thrash metal music; I don't - but some would call it low art; I don't. I don't enjoy arthouse films, but some consider it high art.

IMO all Art is entertainment in some form. And entertainment is a high value, IMO - higher than "art for art's sake" since often that kind is self-indulgent and boring. No, all I ask from music, or film, or a book, or painting, is for it to interest me and bring me some joy or entertainment. Life is too long.

By my definition a Beethoven symphony has no more _inherent value_ than a thrash metal song. The value is perceived by an individual.


----------



## science

Anything like "high art" exists solely in the minds of the people who use such a term.


----------



## fbjim

I don't think art has inherent value- or at least, we don't generally evaluate it on inherent value. That's what makes it interesting, it's the things humans make which aren't intended to fulfill any purpose except as an expression of our aesthetic values and creativity. 


"Inherent worth" can exist in specific frameworks of evaluation but isn't something I am generally concerned with.


----------



## Aries

Forster said:


> I don't think maths formulas helpful here.


Math is often useful.



Forster said:


> Composers had _different _ambitions for different pieces. To fulfil a commission and earn money could be just as valuable a goal as any other. Given what I've read about Beethoven, I'm pretty sure he attached greater importance to some pieces than others, but once he's given them up to the audience, it's over to us what value we attach


What is the reason for the correlation between the importance he attached and the value we attach?



Forster said:


> regardless of his intent


Why is there are correlation between intents and receptions?



Forster said:


> otherwise we would routinely accept what his intent was, regardless of his success.


Intention is only one factor beside others.



Forster said:


> You're taking my quip about length too seriously. But then, I didn't think you would seriously suggest that marches have less value than symphonies because they are shorter!


Well, we are not talking about little differences. 2 min vs. 40 min makes a difference.



Forster said:


> Suffice to say that I don't think you can separate 'military' from 'musical' value in the way you suggest.


Some people like military march music for military memories. This is not a musical value. And it is seperatable.



Forster said:


> Well they are...aren't they? I mean, they're not the same, but they have equal entitlement to declare what they find valuable in music without receiving scorn because they're not embracing 'high art'.


I don't think that such considerations matter here.



Forster said:


> I don't deny that different audiences find differences in the worth of art. I don't deny that I find differences between Vaughan Williams whom I like and Bruckner whom I don't. I do deny the idea that such differences should give rise to a differential estimation of the worth of listeners.


But who does that? That is not the point.

I know a really smart person who isn't very musical, and he also states that he isn't very musical. I rate this person very high. But what I don't rate high is his listening to music. But don't confuse the worth of the listening with the worth of the listener.


----------



## SanAntone

> I know a really smart person who isn't very musical, and he also states that he isn't very musical. I rate this person very high. But what I don't rate high is his listening to music. But don't confuse the worth of the listening with the worth of the listener.


Well, your opinion of the music he likes is irrelevant, and it would be unkind to let him know your low opinion of his taste in music. He sounds like a humble person, which is a very good character trait. Much more important, IMO, than so-called "good taste" in music.


----------



## Forster

@ Aries. I think we've gone as far as we can with our dissection of posts. Thanks for the discussion.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> No, claiming that social influences exist in art is not an accusation of bad faith. Claims that art doesn't represent genuine creativity but instead represent an attempt to defraud taxpayers, cover up one's lack of talent, or are purely ideologically driven are accusations of bad faith.
> 
> Also note the thread you are posting this in.


It's the same thing. The only difference is you don't credit independent thinking or autonomy in one case, while not crediting discernment in the other. It's just as easy to say "you like the avant garde just because you want to seem 'edgy' and pose as some kind of social rebel" as it is to say "you love Bach because musicologists and others in academia have told you you should". Social influences in both cases, unless you want to say that everybody loves "new music" of their own free will and no one dare question that while we're socially conditioned to love CP era music. In which case it's illogical and inconsistent.


----------



## fbjim

Genuine artistic motivation happens within a society, and is almost always reflective of it. This is completely different than outright calling artists liars, and implying that their work has no artistic motivation and therefore does not count as art at all.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> It's the same thing. The only difference is you don't credit independent thinking or autonomy in one case, while not crediting discernment in the other. It's just as easy to say "you like the avant garde just because you want to seem 'edgy' and pose as some kind of social rebel" as it is to say "you love Bach because musicologists and others in academia have told you you should". Social influences in both cases, unless you want to say that everybody loves "new music" of their own free will and no one dare question that while we're socially conditioned to love CP era music. In which case it's illogical and inconsistent.


I suppose there might be some people who say they like avant-garde music so as to appear "cool." But I can't see that being the majority of people who listen to new music. First of all, there are not that many people who say they like it; the audience for it is tiny. It is not such a "cool" thing to like. What's the benefit, really?

If you, dissident, do think that most people who express a preference for avant-garde music are phonies, then I think that reflects more on you, your cynicism and difficulty with new music.

The music itself is not without merit, there are legitimate reasons to enjoy it.


----------



## Forster

Just in case the kind of criticism of 'contemporary' music that is being objected to has been lost to view, here's an example, from this thread:



> Interessting, but not even surprising. I always thought that serialism etc. is nonsense. It has no artistic expression.
> 
> But for some people the purpose of art is just to be able to show off intellect. And art that nobody understands is maybe even better for this purpose. An owner of modern art must have a modern and great mind, doesn't he?
> 
> Maybe I should try it to produce modern art too as a cheap way to make money. But you probably need a name fist. It only has value if the artist has a high reputation.


----------



## Aries

fbjim said:


> No, claiming that social influences exist in art is not an accusation of bad faith. Claims that art doesn't represent genuine creativity but instead represent an attempt to defraud taxpayers, cover up one's lack of talent, or are purely ideologically driven are accusations of bad faith.


Claiming lack of talent is different to claiming bad faith.

Everyone has a different limit of art recognition. To accept precautionary everything as art doesn't seem right. Art is for the audience. If the audience doesn't recognize it as art, the artist has to live with it.

There is art simple, ugly and abstract at the same time. Example: https://media.istockphoto.com/photo...=moBgcjpWX5dna9FgpHaP4ZJcoU1ADYymIz0GoJPnu2M=

I think there is no good reason to acknowledge an artistic value. If someone else does it, ok, but I don't have to do it. I don't want to increase the likelihood that something like this is produced or shown. The thing about accusations of bad faith is, that they are mostly done without bad faith. At the end I rather see the responsability in the artist, because art is for the audience.


----------



## mikeh375

Aries said:


> Claiming lack of talent is different to claiming bad faith.
> 
> Everyone has a different limit of art recognition. To accept precautionary everything as art doesn't seem right. Art is for the audience. If the audience doesn't recognize it as art, the artist has to live with it.
> 
> There is art simple, ugly and abstract at the same time. Example: https://media.istockphoto.com/photo...=moBgcjpWX5dna9FgpHaP4ZJcoU1ADYymIz0GoJPnu2M=
> 
> I think there is no good reason to acknowledge an artistic value. If someone else does it, ok, but I don't have to do it. I don't want to increase the likelihood that something like this is produced or shown. The thing about accusations of bad faith is, that they are mostly done without bad faith. *At the end I rather see the responsability in the artist, because art is for the audience.*


Art in music isn't just for the audience and a composer is surely more beholden to their own voice, not just the audiences tastes, unless required to do so, or feels the need. Some of the greatest names in music thought about the music they wanted to hear above all other considerations and produced some of the finest works because of that.


----------



## Aries

mikeh375 said:


> Art in music isn't just for the audience and a composer is surely more beholden to their own voice, not just the audiences tastes, unless required to do so. Some of the greatest names in music thought about the music they wanted to hear above all other considerations and produced some of the finest works because of that.


Is it surprising that a work of a great composer which is composed along his own taste is described as one of the finest works by the audience? Great composers know it better then the audience. But some others have much less talent.


----------



## fbjim

Aries said:


> Claiming lack of talent is different to claiming bad faith.


Not claiming a lack of talent, claiming that modernism was a deliberate attempt to _cover up_ a lack of talent. Two different things.


----------



## SanAntone

Aries said:


> Everyone has a different limit of art recognition. To accept precautionary everything as art doesn't seem right. Art is for the audience. If the audience doesn't recognize it as art, the artist has to live with it..


I agree with this: a composer follows his artistic integrity and produces the best work he can according to his talent and skill. Sometimes his taste is in line with the zeitgeist and his work finds an audience. Other times he is out of step with the prevailing taste of the moment and his work falls by the wayside. This comes with the territory of being an artist.



mikeh375 said:


> Art in music isn't just for the audience and a composer is surely more beholden to their own voice, not just the audiences tastes, unless required to do so, or feels the need. Some of the greatest names in music thought about the music they wanted to hear above all other considerations and produced some of the finest works because of that.





Aries said:


> Is it surprising that a work of a great composer which is composed along his own taste is described as one of the finest works by the audience? Great composers know it better then the audience. But some others have much less talent.


It is not about talent - it is about timing. Van Gogh obviously had the talent, but his work was ahead of his time.

Composers of avant-garde music have talent and artistic integrity, i.e. they are not charlatans or trying to disguise a lack of talent by writing music that is adventurous and outside the norms. Of course this does not describe the OP's composer, who did act as a charlatan.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> I suppose there might be some people who say they like avant-garde music so as to appear "cool." But I can't see that being the majority of people who listen to new music. First of all, there are not that many people who say they like it; the audience for it is tiny. It is not such a "cool" thing to like. What's the benefit, really?
> 
> If you, dissident, do think that most people who express a preference for avant-garde music are phonies, then I think that reflects more on you, your cynicism and difficulty with new music.
> 
> The music itself is not without merit, there are legitimate reasons to enjoy it.


I'm not the one reflexively attributing people's preferences to whatever external pressure and influence. I never have.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> I'm not the one reflexively attributing people's preferences to whatever external pressure and influence. I never have.


You did speculate that some people who claim to like avant-garde music are doing so to appear cool. That's the post I responded to.


----------



## Aries

SanAntone said:


> It is not about talent - it is about timing. Van Gogh obviously had the talent, but his work was ahead of his time.


But today his talent is recognized by a wider audience. I agree that he obviously had talent.

But I'm not sure if you can transfer that to much extremer modernists later in time. The understanding of art in the 19th century was more narrow, so moderate modern artist like van Gogh didn't got the recognition they deserved. But today anything goes. Today it is more likely that if an modern artist fails to be recognized by a wider audience that it has more fundamental artistic reasons. Or is anything new that don't get recognition just ahead of time?



SanAntone said:


> Composers of avant-garde music have talent and artistic integrity, i.e. they are not charlatans or trying to disguise a lack of talent by writing music that is adventurous and outside the norms. Of course this does not describe the OP's composer, who did act as a charlatan.


I don't understand the hostility towards the OP's composer. If he is wrong you have nothing to fear. If he has a point, it should be the cause to make art commitee's etc. better. To just attack him is a weak response. To test the competence of jurys is not a bad thing.


----------



## SanAntone

Aries said:


> But today his talent is recognized by a wider audience. I agree that he obviously had talent.
> 
> But I'm not sure if you can transfer that to much extremer modernists later in time. The understanding of art in the 19th century was more narrow, so moderate modern artist like van Gogh didn't got the recognition they deserved. But today anything goes. Today it is more likely that if an modern artist fails to be recognized by a wider audience that it has more fundamental artistic reasons. Or is anything new that don't get recognition just ahead of time?
> 
> I don't understand the hostility towards the OP's composer. If he is wrong you have nothing to fear. If he has a point, it should be the cause to make art commitee's etc. better. To just attack him is a weak response. To test the competence of jurys is not a bad thing.


The OP's composer was clearly trying to create a "gotcha" moment - implying that sincere composers of avant-garde should be viewed with suspicion. Or his point was that the juried process is flawed. I'm not convinced of either of these premises.

There are two issues as I see it:

1. Does the motivation behind a work matter?

2. Is a work that was produced by children making random sounds on a piano disqualified simply because of how it was created?

I think that regarding #1, a composer's motivation for producing a work is important, but ultimately it is the sound of the music that is the final arbiter of its worth (which varies with the individual).

Regarding #2, I think we naturally reject works which were created by a process which confounds what we expect of a composer. But again I think the sound of the music is the only important consideration.


----------



## fbjim

I think for #1, we can critique the motivation behind a work but to an extent, we cease to be performing art criticism if we do so, unless the criticism is framed in terms of listener experience. It's no different than, e.g. criticizing an artist for political views - this may be relevant (usually more in terms of narrative, or explicitly political/advocacy art, not abstract art) but still should be framed in aesthetic terms unless we want to go beyond art criticism.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> You did speculate that some people who claim to like avant-garde music are doing so to appear cool. That's the post I responded to.


That's not what I said. I said:
'It's just as easy to say "you like the avant garde just because you want to seem 'edgy' and pose as some kind of social rebel" as it is to say "you love Bach because musicologists and others in academia have told you you should". Social influences in both cases...'


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> That's not what I said. I said:
> 'It's just as easy to say "you like the avant garde just because you want to seem 'edgy' and pose as some kind of social rebel" as it is to say "you love Bach because musicologists and others in academia have told you you should". Social influences in both cases...'


Who have said those kinds of things?


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> Who have said those kinds of things?


A simple "no, you're right, you didn't say that" would've been sufficient rather than the attempt at deflection. Anyway, in answer to your question, look around.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> A simple "no, you're right, you didn't say that" would've been sufficient rather than the attempt at deflection. Anyway, in answer to your question, look around.


If you don't have examples at hand, why don't you just say it?


----------



## fbjim

You are bizarrely equating the frankly trivial concept that humans are influenced by their societies and cultures with the denial of free will.


----------



## chipia

SanAntone said:


> I suppose there might be some people who say they like avant-garde music so as to appear "cool." But I can't see that being the majority of people who listen to new music. First of all, there are not that many people who say they like it; the audience for it is tiny. It is not such a "cool" thing to like. What's the benefit, really?


I don't think it's that common to claim a preference for avantgarde music to be cool. But I believe that there are some people who enjoy atonal music due to a "musical placebo effect", i.e. they enjoy the music only because they are being told (often by academia) that the piece / composer is "great".

Some have openly admitted this: Composer Kyle Gann for example wrote on his blog the following:

_"I also analyzed every note of the Boulez Second Sonata before hearing it, and was so brainwashed that, when I finally heard it, I cried over its beauty. Today I wouldn't recognize that piece in a blindfold test."_

This is also what may have happened in the Bubbles-experiment.


----------



## fbjim

Whether or not this effect exists (and it almost certainly does), Gann is a very intelligent writer and at no point dismisses the work of Boulez or Carter, though he doesn't care for either composer.

To the extent of "academia" being a scare word for avant-garde - what would you call the group of writers who constantly tell us that Mozart is great? Certainly I've had experiences where I've tried to convince myself that canonical works are enjoyable only to find after further listening that I actually like other music much more.

In any case, the thing I take exception to is a) outright telling someone that they only like something because it's popular/to look cool/"academia", and b) saying that people _in general_ only like certain works due to their popularity.


----------



## fluteman

The most interesting aspect of all this to me is how in the composer's explanation of his process, he describes the "dynamics, articulation and tempo" he contributes as non-essential "non-composing". For him, the 'essential composing' consists solely of the notes his children provide. To dynamics, articulation and tempo he might have added timbre, which is provided by the keyboard instrument he makes available to his children for the project, together with whatever his decisions on how to 'distribute' the notes and his computer software and electronics contribute.

For me, his attitude reflects a continuing traditional western focus on pitch, even without harmony, as the flagship and by far most significant element of music. But the results of his (admittedly dubious) experiment suggest these other elements play a greater role than he assumes. So perhaps he is at least as dogmatic as the jury he tries to ridicule.

The real question is, how is it his competitors for this grant money, many of whom presumably worked just as long and hard with their Sibelius software as he did, and produced something not too far off from what he did, were not able to come up with 
something better?

Edit: I see others here have already made a similar point. So it must be pretty evident from his presentation. Too bad someone with his skills feels the need to do something like this.


----------



## SanAntone

chipia said:


> I don't think it's that common to claim a preference for avantgarde music to be cool. But I believe that there are some people who enjoy atonal music due to a "musical placebo effect", i.e. they enjoy the music only because they are being told (often by academia) that the piece / composer is "great".


The same might even be true for people claiming to like Beethoven.


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> The same might even be true for people claiming to like Beethoven.


Yes, and it's a shame there is such an endless battle here along these lines. It infects much of the discussion here, at least indirectly. I'm a traditional classical music guy, but I keep an open mind and ears for anything new. If one dares mention any music here that challenges the traditional orthodoxy in any way outside certain relatively safe zones, one is piled up on and scolded in a rather condescending way. And that orthodoxy isn't even consistent. Many ridicule efforts to perform baroque music more as it would have been originally, yet are even more hostile to modern reinterpretations of apparently sacred and untouchable 19th century operas.


----------



## 59540

fluteman said:


> ... If one dares mention any music here that challenges the traditional orthodoxy in any way outside certain relatively safe zones, one is piled up on and scolded in a rather condescending way. ...


Any examples of that? I mean, I hear so much about how new music advocates are so horribly mistreated here, but most of what I see are new music advocates tag-teaming in 30-page threads against naysayers or sometimes even anyone who has the vague aura of being skeptical about some contemporary music. Meanwhile there are quite a few modern music threads here that don't seem to be scenes of new music fans being harassed.


----------



## fbjim

This thread is literally about how " the avantgarde mentality is causing damage to modern classical music and hindering the development of new music that actually relates to way humans perceive music.".

This is not "vaguely skeptical about some contemporary music", this is once again another thread about how music the OP doesn't like is not only bad, but actively killing classical music, without regard to individual works, or composers.

As has been stated repeatedly, one of the big reasons for toxicity is the idea that contemporary music is not only bad, but doesn't deserve to exist, or should be actively suppressed.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> This thread is literally about how " the avantgarde mentality is causing damage to modern classical music and hindering the development of new music that actually relates to way humans perceive music.".
> 
> This is not "vaguely skeptical about some contemporary music", this is once again another thread about how music the OP doesn't like is not only bad, but actively killing classical music, without regard to individual works, or composers.


That's an opinion and you and like-minded people have spent 30 pages trying to refute it. Piling on, in some cases.



> As has been stated repeatedly, one of the big reasons for toxicity is the idea that contemporary music is not only bad, but doesn't deserve to exist, or should be actively suppressed.


Who has said this music doesn't deserve to exist or should be suppressed?


----------



## fbjim

Believe it or not, when people want to discuss music, on a music message board, they tend not to want to "debate" topics like "is the music you like killing art and contributing to the decay of society", or "is it all a big con artist job to get tax money?". They want to discuss music.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> Believe it or not, when people want to discuss music, on a music message board, they tend not to want to "debate" topics like "is the music you like killing art and contributing to the decay of society", or "is it all a big con artist job to get tax money?". They want to discuss music.


Well if you don't want to discuss it you don't have to. It doesn't mean it can't be discussed. And you still didn't answer who has said this music doesn't deserve to exist and should be actively suppressed.


----------



## fbjim

I recall lovely posts to the effects that avant-garde music was a "parasite on classical music", that avant-garde music not be allowed in the classical music forum, and that it "must be stopped" to stop the death of orchestras. I'm also curious what the implications are that avant-garde music is "damaging classical music" other than that it should be suppressed.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> I recall lovely posts to the effects that avant-garde music was a "parasite on classical music", that avant-garde music not be allowed in the classical music forum, and that it "must be stopped" to stop the death of orchestras. I'm also curious what the implications are that avant-garde music is "damaging classical music" other than that it should be suppressed.


That's an opinion of category, not a statement that "avant garde" shouldn't be allowed to exist. And how often is even this said, and by how many? Nor did you provide an exact quote for context. One person says something you don't like, and then you're persecuted? Poor thing.


----------



## chipia

fbjim said:


> I recall lovely posts to the effects that avant-garde music was a "parasite on classical music", that avant-garde music not be allowed in the classical music forum, and that it "must be stopped" to stop the death of orchestras. I'm also curious what the implications are that avant-garde music is "damaging classical music" other than that it should be suppressed.


I actually referred to the avantgarde *mentality* and meant the idea that any music that isn't atonal is inaproppiate nowadays. The result is that a lot of talented tonal composers cannot realize their skills, and instead composers, some of whom compose music that possibly isn't much better than Bubbles, are supported.

Many people here have claimed that this mentality doesn't exist anymore, although apparently it was still in the Netherlands 10 years ago, and in my opinion it's still the case in German speaking countries. Maybe it's just a local problem, but then it still makes sense to point out this absurdity so that all countries will finally adapt. It's a shame that such things are still happening in the 21st century.


----------



## 59540

I think the point of the whole "stunt" was to point out the narrow way in which "modern music" is interpreted. It has to sound *just* like this, and use this or that method, or it's hopelessly retro and not worthy of consideration.


----------



## SanAntone

chipia said:


> I actually referred to the avantgarde *mentality* and meant the idea that any music that isn't atonal is inaproppiate nowadays. The result is that a lot of talented tonal composers cannot realize their skills, and instead composers, some of whom compose music that possibly isn't much better than Bubbles, are supported.
> 
> Many people here have claimed that this mentality doesn't exist anymore, although apparently it was still in the Netherlands 10 years ago, and in my opinion it's still the case in German speaking countries. Maybe it's just a local problem, but then it still makes sense to point out this absurdity so that all countries will finally adapt. It's a shame that such things are still happening in the 21st century.


I don't think that a mentality stopped any composer with anything to say from writing his music and if he is good enough to get performances.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> I don't think that a mentality stopped any composer with anything to say from writing his music and if he is good enough to get performances.


Maybe, but it has an effect on output. "Socialist realism", "formalism", etc etc.


----------



## science

I figure that we can let the revanchists rage all they want. Avant-garde music isn't going anywhere.


----------



## mmsbls

science said:


> I figure that we can let the revanchists rage all they want. Avant-garde music isn't going anywhere.


I agree avant-garde will always be with us. But so will tonal music, at least for some time. I remember years ago working my way through the composers on the Naxos Music Library and being surprised that so much contemporary music is tonal. And these were all works that had been recorded not simply composed. I can't remember what percentage was what I would call avant-garde, but I have the feeling it was relatively small.


----------



## Aries

mmsbls said:


> I agree avant-garde will always be with us. But so will tonal music, at least for some time. I remember years ago working my way through the composers on the Naxos Music Library and being surprised that so much contemporary music is tonal. And these were all works that had been recorded not simply composed. I can't remember what percentage was what I would call avant-garde, but I have the feeling it was relatively small.


I was surprised too.

When was younger and started too care for classical music, it seem to me that the historiography of classical music ended with Gustav Mahler. I was surprised that Shostakovich existed.

I once saw an interview with Wolfgang Rihm in television, and thought what kind of guy is this? He was declared to be a german "composer" "today". I wondered if he was like Beethoven. But after I heard some of his music, I thought, there is a good reason, why Beethoven is known and Rihm isn't. I thought it is sad but true, that this weird episode with Schönberg ended classical music.

Today I am surprised how much good classical music was written after WWI and also after WWII and today.

What is the reason classical music after WWI isn't famous (with few exceptions like Adagio for strings, Bolero, Carmina Burana or Turandot)?

I think one part of the problem is that many classical listeners are just very traditional and will be happy with Bach, Mozart and Beethoven forever. They don't need/want something new. The old composers have a good name, and the pieces are known.

But the other part of the problem is that "progressives" focus on atonal music.

What needs to change is the view of contemporary classical music. The knowledge that most contemporary music is tonal, understandable need to spread.


----------



## SanAntone

Wolfgang Rihm is pretty well-known. There is an audience for new music which isn't tonal.


----------



## 59540

science said:


> I figure that we can let the revanchists rage all they want. Avant-garde music isn't going anywhere.


The thing is I don't really see any "rage". I think some avant garde fans want so badly to be outrageous that they see rage when it isn't there. Épater la bourgeoisie and all that. But there isn't a 1913 Paris anymore. Now it's more indifference than anything. Even in other genres it's a similar thing. Way back when, I remember controversy over 2 Live Crew or Body Count's song "Cop Killer" or Madonna's leather whatevers. Now it's pretty much anything goes and a big yawn.

By the way your last sentence there is terribly ironic. :lol:


----------



## Simon Moon

dissident said:


> Who has said this music doesn't deserve to exist or should be suppressed?


You haven't been here for very long, but there is a long history of posts that imply, or come right out and say, that avant-garde classical shouldn't exist.

In fact, many such comments have been aimed at much of modernism in general, not just the avant-garde.

Those of us that are fans of modernism, and have been here for a few years longer than you have, are not pulling the long history of these types of antimodernism posts out of our rear ends.


----------



## fluteman

Aries said:


> What needs to change is the view of contemporary classical music. The knowledge that most contemporary music is tonal, understandable need to spread.


Before I started looking at online classical discussion groups in 2004, I would not have believed this wasn't obvious to anyone and everyone who listens to classical music at all. I also was stunned at the diatribes against Arnold Schoenberg and a handful of other composers, most of whom have been dead for a long time, for "ruining" classical music by making it atonal. But there is a dynamic in these internet groups in which a niche group gets together and its members convince each other of things that would astonish a lot of people in the outside world, both regular audience members and experienced professional musicians.


----------



## Simon Moon

Let me add, that there have been no shortage of threads started by someone wanting recommendations of modern or contemporary music, where the anti-modernists seem to feel the need to jump in and ridicule it all.

I am at a total loss as to why they feel the need to post on threads where their opinion is not being requested.


----------



## Simon Moon

Aries said:


> I was surprised too.
> 
> What needs to change is the view of contemporary classical music. The knowledge that most contemporary music is tonal, understandable need to spread.


While the majority of my tastes tends towards post WWII classical and atonal, I agree with the above.

Many (most?) of the anti-modernists on TC tend to paint all of post WWII classical music, with a broad brush based on the most extreme examples of avant-garde music they've heard.


----------



## fluteman

Simon Moon said:


> While the majority of my tastes tends towards post WWII classical and atonal, I agree with the above.
> 
> Many (most?) of the anti-modernists on TC tend to paint all of post WWII classical music, with a broad brush based on the most extreme examples of avant-garde music they've heard.


Frankly, I see it as a disingenuous debating technique. Some of these posters know perfectly well what they are doing. Of course, nothing is forcing anyone to engage with them. Not that "tonal" necessarily is equivalent to "accessible", or "traditional", or "non-avant garde". That also would be painting with too broad a brush.


----------



## SanAntone

Simon Moon said:


> You haven't been here for very long, but there is a long history of posts that imply, or come right out and say, that avant-garde classical shouldn't exist.


Wasn't there a thread about it? And I think a poll was suggested. IRRC hammeredklavier was one of the biggest proponents of moving avant-garde to a separate forum.


----------



## science

dissident said:


> The thing is I don't really see any "rage". I think some avant garde fans want so badly to be outrageous that they see rage when it isn't there. Épater la bourgeoisie and all that. But there isn't a 1913 Paris anymore. Now it's more indifference than anything. Even in other genres it's a similar thing. Way back when, I remember controversy over 2 Live Crew or Body Count's song "Cop Killer" or Madonna's leather whatevers. Now it's pretty much anything goes and a big yawn.
> 
> By the way your last sentence there is terribly ironic. :lol:


Indifference doesn't make so much noise.


----------



## 59540

science said:


> Indifference doesn't make so much noise.


Trust me, once I navigate away from this forum, it's forgotten.


----------



## 59540

Simon Moon said:


> Let me add, that there have been no shortage of threads started by someone wanting recommendations of modern or contemporary music, where the anti-modernists seem to feel the need to jump in and ridicule it all.
> 
> I am at a total loss as to why they feel the need to post on threads where their opinion is not being requested.


What threads are these? The modern music threads I've looked at seem pretty quiet and downright idyllic.


----------



## Enthusiast

dissident said:


> What threads are these? The modern music threads I've looked at seem pretty quiet and downright idyllic.


I think I have seen the atonal and even the near-contemporary become much more popular on TC over the last few years. But it is a huge field and therefore hard to discuss: some composers and works seem more or less accepted by those who explore the very new but many more are not so widely known. I see many posts about contemporary composers who I have barely heard (or not at all) and I just don't have time to explore it all. Put 50 years between us and a work and its reputation will have begun to settle.


----------



## Aries

SanAntone said:


> Wolfgang Rihm is pretty well-known. There is an audience for new music which isn't tonal.


Known is relative. I didn't make a survey but my feeling is that in Germany 98% have heard of Beethoven and 95% know that he was a classical composer. In Rihms case my feeling is that 2% have heard his name and 1% know that he is a classical composer. I guess someone like Gustav Mahler will be at 50%/30% maybe. But the knowledge clearly falls of for the 20th/21st century.



fluteman said:


> Before I started looking at online classical discussion groups in 2004, I would not have believed this wasn't obvious to anyone and everyone who listens to classical music at all.


That contemporary classical music is mostly tonal? Well, I think for most people who listen to classical music it is not obvious that contemporary classical music exists at all, or they count someone like Ravel still as contemporary. Most listeners are casual listeners.


----------



## 59540

Here's a recent "new music" thread:
"Post 2000 Works incorporating Electronics"

Not one negative comment from those raging "revanchist" baddies.

Here's another:
"Who are the most consistent composers post-1950?"

Ditto. A Bach thread would draw forth more snark.

So I'm still wondering where all the persecution of new music advocates is going on.


----------



## Forster

Controversial posts are often deleted. Controversial threads may be closed down. Thus the evidence from some of the worst threads is no longer readily visible.


----------



## fluteman

Aries said:


> That contemporary classical music is mostly tonal? Well, I think for most people who listen to classical music it is not obvious that contemporary classical music exists at all, or they count someone like Ravel still as contemporary. Most listeners are casual listeners.


Yes, true, but anyone who listens enough to belong to TC, or is a regular live concert goer in a large urban area, should be more than savvy enough to know about contemporary tonal music, and that there is a spectrum between tonal and atonal. Everything isn't strict serialism or Rogers and Hammerstein. And Schoenberg, Cage, Stockhausen and Boulez are not the only modern composers. And Leonard Bernstein used serialism but also wrote On The Town and West Side Story. And John Williams used the Sacrificial Dance from Stravinsky's Rite of Spring almost verbatim for his famous theme in Jaws.

Anyone who listens at all will hear these things.


----------



## SanAntone

The most popular and successful living Classical music composers are:

John Adams
Philip Glass
Steve Reich
Arvo Pärt

And we might as well throw in John Williams.

Their music is accessible, tonal, and enjoys a large audience.


----------



## Aries

SanAntone said:


> The most popular and successful living Classical music composers are:
> 
> John Adams
> Philip Glass
> Steve Reich
> Arvo Pärt
> 
> And we might as well throw in John Williams.
> 
> Their music is accessible, tonal, and enjoys a large audience.


Did these composers apart from Williams wrote any famous music? Nothing comes to my mind. I think Pärt isn't accessible, its like simplified Sibelius slowed down by factor 2 or 3, just very boring. I heard one piece of Adams "Short Ride in a Fast Machine" and I didn't liked it at all. I think I listened into Glass and Reich too, but I thought its primitive with low artistic expression. If these composers are popular, there have to be some famous pieces, right?


----------



## science

dissident said:


> Trust me, once I navigate away from this forum, it's forgotten.


What does that prove?

The people who are indifferent to this topic forget it even while they're here.


----------



## fbjim

Aries said:


> Did these composers apart from Williams wrote any famous music? Nothing comes to my mind. I think Pärt isn't accessible, its like simplified Sibelius slowed down by factor 2 or 3, just very boring. I heard one piece of Adams "Short Ride in a Fast Machine" and I didn't liked it at all. I think I listened into Glass and Reich too, but I thought its primitive with low artistic expression. If these composers are popular, there have to be some famous pieces, right?


music for 18 Musicians had like big crossover success man, significantly beyond the classical sphere


----------



## fbjim

Crumb is also not the most accessible but Ancient Voices of Children sold really, really well for contemporary music on a small label


----------



## science

Seems to me that nearly everything Glass does gets somewhat famous. 

Gorecki's 3rd symphony was a big hit.


----------



## fbjim

science said:


> Seems to me that nearly everything Glass does gets somewhat famous.
> 
> Gorecki's 3rd symphony was a big hit.


As long as we're talking mainstream popularity, Glass has 1.5 million subscribers on Spotify which I'd imagine would comfortably beat any contemporary composer except John Williams.


----------



## SanAntone

Aries said:


> Did these composers apart from Williams wrote any famous music? Nothing comes to my mind. I think Pärt isn't accessible, its like simplified Sibelius slowed down by factor 2 or 3, just very boring. I heard one piece of Adams "Short Ride in a Fast Machine" and I didn't liked it at all. I think I listened into Glass and Reich too, but I thought its primitive with low artistic expression. If these composers are popular, there have to be some famous pieces, right?


I appears to me that you are using your own experience as a yardstick to extrapolate into making generalizations about contemporary Classical music. But your experience does not appear to be an accurate measuring stick.

From Spotify

Philip Glass has 1.5 million monthly listeners
John Adams has 203,000 monthly listeners
Steve Reich has 186,000 monthly listeners
Arvo Pärt has 735,000 monthly listeners

As comparison, Karlheinz Stockhausen has 13,000 monthly listeners.


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> The most popular and successful living Classical music composers are:
> 
> John Adams
> Philip Glass
> Steve Reich
> Arvo Pärt
> 
> And we might as well throw in John Williams.
> 
> Their music is accessible, tonal, and enjoys a large audience.


You, with a little help from fbjim and science, wrote the post I was about to write. I well remember taking my daughter to see Pixar's Ice Age (or was it Ice Age II?) in the movie theater full of squealing little kids, and hearing Arvo Part's Spiegel im Speigel in the soundtrack. That's what happens to classical music and art of every era. It seeps into our consciousness and popular culture almost without our noticing.

One more thing: I wouldn't be too harsh on the Bubbles composer. All composers need to have ironclad faith in the paramount merit and importance of their particular approach. Otherwise, they would have great difficulty creating anything original. His disingenuous attitude, especially his failure to see he is being as dogmatic as the jury or 'Board' he ridicules, is minor compared to the insults Chopin heaped on Liszt. Tchaikovsky did not appreciate Brahms. Wagner, as we've discussed at too great length, did not appreciate Mendelssohn. Boulez piled on Schoenberg after the latter died and could not respond. Schoenberg ridiculed Stravinsky.

Those composers can be excused for some overheated rhetoric. I think we're better off being a bit more open minded.


----------



## fbjim

Part is popular enough that one film critic I know wrote up a list of common complaints he had with current movies, and one of them, verbatim, was "STOP USING 'SPIEGEL IM SPIEGEL'"


----------



## 59540

Forster said:


> Controversial posts are often deleted. Controversial threads may be closed down. Thus the evidence from some of the worst threads is no longer readily visible.


Ok, what are some of these "worst threads"? And are you saying that moderation here is slanted toward new music? That doesn't sound like persecution.



science said:


> What does that prove?
> 
> The people who are indifferent to this topic forget it even while they're here.


Indifferent to some of the music, not to the topic. And yes that indifference can indeed be 24/7.


----------



## fluteman

fbjim said:


> Part is popular enough that one film critic I know wrote up a list of common complaints he had with current movies, and one of them, verbatim, was "STOP USING 'SPIEGEL IM SPIEGEL'"


I wonder if this will become for Part what Bolero is for Ravel. Of course, that's one of the things popular culture does: endless repetition, so much so the repetition itself sometimes becomes the most important thing.


----------



## Aries

SanAntone said:


> I appears to me that you are using your own experience as a yardstick to extrapolate into making generalizations about contemporary Classical music. But your experience does not appear to be an accurate measuring stick.


I have my experience but I also read books, look at shops etc. It matches the low spotify number for Stockhausen but the high number for Glass is a bit surprising too me. Maybe it's a case where the historiography doesn't match the reality. But I'm not sure if spotify is representative. There are probably way more young people. But maybe I underestimate the popularity of minimalists nonetheless. Imo its not really a favorable direction for music though.



fluteman said:


> I wonder if this will become for Part what Bolero is for Ravel.


I wonder that too. I didn't know the piece until now. And if you ask like that, it means its not yet as famous as Ravels Bolero. My impression was exactly that, that there is a lack of fame of contemporary composers. That is why I asked about famous works.


----------



## science

dissident said:


> Indifferent to some of the music, not to the topic.


A distinction without a difference to me.

How many posts on TalkClassical do you suppose it will take to beat avant-garde music out of our culture?


----------



## fbjim

Aries said:


> But maybe I underestimate the popularity of minimalists nonetheless. Imo its not really a favorable direction for music though.


Well, given the influence it's had on modern electronic music, the cat's out of the bag on that one.


----------



## Forster

dissident said:


> Ok, what are some of these "worst threads"? And are you saying that moderation here is slanted toward new music? That doesn't sound like persecution.


No, I'm not saying anything, except what I said.


----------



## Aries

fbjim said:


> Well, given the influence it's had on modern electronic music, the cat's out of the bag on that one.


What you mean exactly? Non-classical music? Do you have some examples for me? "Music for 18 Musicians" reminds me a bit of the Minecraft soundtrack which is nice.


----------



## fluteman

Aries said:


> I wonder that too. I didn't know the piece until now. And if you ask like that, it means its not yet as famous as Ravels Bolero. My impression was exactly that, that there is a lack of fame of contemporary composers. That is why I asked about famous works.


What a strange comment. As if you're looking for a "gotcha!" to win a debate against me. Well, those kids in that movie theater, mine included, will grow up remembering Spiegel im Spiegel and not Bolero. I win, QED. Go debate someone else.


----------



## Aries

fluteman said:


> What a strange comment. As if you're looking for a "gotcha!" to win a debate against me.


Its rather strange that you understand it in that way. This is not a personal battle. I'm just trying to find out the real famousness of contemporary composers.


----------



## SanAntone

Aries said:


> Its rather strange that you understand it in that way. This is not a personal battle. I'm just trying to find out the real famousness of contemporary composers.


Since Classical music in general does not produce "stars" like Rock and Pop, only the most canonical composers are what could commonly be thought of as "famous" or "celebrities." Most people have heard of Mozart and Beethoven, although maybe not actually heard their music. How many people would know the name Ralph Vaughan Williams?

I already gave you a list of those living composers I felt were the most well known. You quibbled with it for some reason.

And within the community of Classical listeners who follow contemporary music a composer like Wolfgang Rihm is a household name. But because you hadn't heard of him, well, he is not well known.

So, there it is.


----------



## Aries

SanAntone said:


> But because you hadn't heard of him, well, he is not well known.


I hadn't heard his name in ~2004 after like one year of intensive engagement with classical music.

What is even the point of our discussion? I said



> The knowledge that most contemporary music is tonal, understandable need to spread.


I think its right. Maybe I should add the attribute "accessible". But I'm not sure if it is still the majority then. So what is exactly the point of discussion?

I guess you suppose, that I should be satisfied with Pärt and some minimalists being somewhat popular. But that doesn't really satisfy me. Where is the problem?


----------



## 59540

Forster said:


> No, I'm not saying anything, except what I said.


Right. So where are those terrible threads? "Well they were there but they were controversial and deleted or locked." Oh. Or something like "User X who has since been banned said very mean things about modern music listeners back in 2013 and I'm still quivering from the experience..."


----------



## 59540

science said:


> A distinction without a difference to me.
> 
> How many posts on TalkClassical do you suppose it will take to beat avant-garde music out of our culture?


I don't care about "beating avant garde music out of our culture". Hey, let the music stand or fall on its own.


----------



## Forster

dissident said:


> Right. So where are those terrible threads? "Well they were there but they were controversial and deleted or locked." Oh. Or something like "User X who has since been banned said very mean things about modern music listeners back in 2013 and I'm still quivering from the experience..."


What I said was



Forster said:


> Controversial posts are often deleted. Controversial threads may be closed down. Thus the evidence from some of the worst threads is no longer readily visible.


Slightly more nuanced than your reduced version.

Since you're so keen to find "these terrible threads", you can always look for them.


----------



## EdwardBast

dissident said:


> Right. So where are those terrible threads? "Well they were there but they were controversial and deleted or locked." Oh. Or something like "User X who has since been banned said very mean things about modern music listeners back in 2013 and I'm still quivering from the experience..."


I've been on this forum for nearly eight years. Threads like this one maligning modern music and its composers have been nauseatingly common the whole time I've been here. Every year new people who think they're doing something original join and start bemoaning the downfall of classical music and the noisy modernist frauds who are killing it. There was one that was thousands of posts long just focused on Cage's 4'33''.


----------



## BachIsBest

EdwardBast said:


> There was one that was thousands of pages long just focused on Cage's 4'33''.


That very thread was the inspiration for the wildly popular comedy _Much Ado About Nothing_.


----------



## 59540

EdwardBast said:


> I've been on this forum for nearly eight years. Threads like this one maligning modern music and its composers have been nauseatingly common the whole time I've been here. Every year new people who think they're doing something original join and start bemoaning the downfall of classical music and the noisy modernist frauds who are killing it. There was one that was thousands of pages long just focused on Cage's 4'33''.


Well not everyone is going to love modern music as a whole, or especially atonality. I don't see anything particularly "nauseating" about the way the OP presented his/her case, and he/she certainly didn't engage in personal attacks against any of the participants that I could see. I also saw a thread about not "getting" J. S. Bach. I also saw one that argued that Mozart is overrated. It didn't have me clutching my stomach in an attack of nausea. If modern music is strong then I think it can withstand dissenting opinions on an internet forum.


----------



## fbjim

Aries said:


> What you mean exactly? Non-classical music? Do you have some examples for me? "Music for 18 Musicians" reminds me a bit of the Minecraft soundtrack which is nice.


Structurally in that it emphasizes repetition and slow, gradual development, and frequently the interplay of different "lines" against each other in a way that emphasizes sustained atmosphere over musical drama.

I don't think all of minimalism begat all of modern popular electronic, but the influence was certainly there.


----------



## SanAntone

Aries said:


> I hadn't heard his name in ~2004 after like one year of intensive engagement with classical music.
> 
> What is even the point of our discussion? I said
> 
> I think its right. Maybe I should add the attribute "accessible". But I'm not sure if it is still the majority then. So what is exactly the point of discussion?
> 
> I guess you suppose, that I should be satisfied with Pärt and some minimalists being somewhat popular. But that doesn't really satisfy me. Where is the problem?


I couldn't give a fig about your personal journey to find contemporary music or your personal speculation as to how contemporary music is perceived.

I was responding to your distorted opinion so that others don't come to assume it is accurate if it is not challenged.


----------



## 59540

Forster said:


> What I said was
> 
> Slightly more nuanced than your reduced version.
> 
> Since you're so keen to find "these terrible threads", you can always look for them.


Different wording, same idea. I would think that if these threads caused such disturbance I wouldn't have to search them out. The "anti-modern bigotry here is nauseating" isn't my thesis and I don't have to prove it.

Here are some more modern-themed threads where seldom is heard a discouraging word:
New Orchestral Music - Works of the 21st Century

Who were the 'best' composers during the late 1970s?

Favorite 20th c. Fugue

21st Century Classical


----------



## Lisztian

As far as popularity goes for some of these minimalist composers, when looking up the highest rated classical albums on the music rating website rateyourmusic, some minimalist music scores very highly indeed.

https://rateyourmusic.com/charts/top/album/all-time/g:classical-music/exc:live,archival/


----------



## EdwardBast

dissident said:


> Well not everyone is going to love modern music as a whole, or especially atonality. I don't see anything particularly "nauseating" about the way the OP presented his/her case, and he/she certainly didn't engage in personal attacks against any of the participants that I could see. I also saw a thread about not "getting" J. S. Bach. I also saw one that argued that Mozart is overrated. It didn't have me clutching my stomach in an attack of nausea. If modern music is strong then I think it can withstand dissenting opinions on an internet forum.


The OP wasn't the problem. It was the laughable "experiment" the OP cited. "Bubbles" is an obvious, reeking POS. That it was awarded a grant proves one thing and one thing alone: That the judges were incompetent. It says nothing about contemporary music.


----------



## 59540

EdwardBast said:


> The OP wasn't the problem. It was the laughable "experiment" the OP cited. "Bubbles" is an obvious, reeking POS. That it was awarded a grant proves one thing and one thing alone: That the judges were incompetent. It says nothing about contemporary music.


"Obvious, reeking POS" subjectively or objectively? :lol: If I say I like the piece, what gives you the right to call it a POS? And if I say Elliott Carter's music is sh#t, how could you disagree other than to say, "well, I like it..." That from the start of this thread is what's been interesting to me: how subjective judgements suddenly become objective in some way in the view of proponents of "non-hierarchical" art.


----------



## fluteman

EdwardBast said:


> I've been on this forum for nearly eight years. Threads like this one maligning modern music and its composers have been nauseatingly common the whole time I've been here. Every year new people who think they're doing something original join and start bemoaning the downfall of classical music and the noisy modernist frauds who are killing it. There was one that was thousands of posts long just focused on Cage's 4'33''.


The irony for me is, I've been a Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Brahms guy since I was seven. I gradually became familiar with some post 1950 music, especially in college where my conductor was himself a Pulitzer prize winner composer, my flute teacher a student of Stockhausen, and both knew many contemporary composers. Not until I started with these classical music internet discussion groups did I even realize there was this antimodernist movement.

And it's hard to figure out what that movement really is, as such a wide range of music can come under the term 'modern'. As you say, 4'33" attracts a lot of hostile fire, as does 20th century conceptual art generally, as does Arnold Schoenberg generally, and thus serial music, though even much of what Schoenberg wrote is not serial music, or even atonal. But all that barely scratches the surface of modern music, even under its narrowest definition.


----------



## SanAntone

fluteman said:


> The irony for me is, I've been a Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Brahms guy since I was seven. I gradually became familiar with some post 1950 music, especially in college where my conductor was himself a Pulitzer prize winner composer, my flute teacher a student of Stockhausen, and both knew many contemporary composers. Not until I started with these classical music internet discussion groups did I even realize there was this antimodernist movement.
> 
> And it's hard to figure out what that movement really is, as such a wide range of music can come under the term 'modern'. As you say, 4'33" attracts a lot of hostile fire, as does 20th century conceptual art generally, as does Arnold Schoenberg generally, and thus serial music, though even much of what Schoenberg wrote is not serial music, or even atonal. But all that barely scratches the surface of modern music, even under its narrowest definition.


Are you familiar with the argument that there is no such thing a "atonality?"

It goes something like this (if I understand it properly): tonality is fundamentally about the resolution of tension, i.e. resolving dissonance. The resolution of dissonance primarily occurs when there is a system of consonance and dissonance, such as the major/minor system.

However, there is also resolution of tension in "atonal" works, where everything is some sort of dissonance, between one dissonance and one that is less dissonant. Or from one highly tense sound moving to one that is more placid, even if still a dissonant cluster.


----------



## 59540

fluteman said:


> Not until I started with these classical music internet discussion groups did I even realize there was this antimodernist movement.


I'm not so sure there really is an antimodernist "movement". I also don't think there's any such thing anymore as an "avant garde". Avant garde implies a kind of subversiveness, but I think the viewpoints of what we'd call today "avant garde" are fairly close to those of academia and mass media. "Avant garde" became Establishment.


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> Are you familiar with the argument that there is no such thing a "atonality?"
> 
> It goes something like this (if I understand it properly): tonality is fundamentally about the resolution of tension, i.e. resolving dissonance. The resolution of dissonance primarily occurs when there is a system of consonance and dissonance, such as the major/minor system.
> 
> However, there is also resolution of tension in "atonal" works, where everything is some sort of dissonance, between one dissonance and one that is less dissonant. Or from one highly tense sound moving to one that is more placid, even if still a dissonant cluster.


I've read Schoenberg himself despised the term "atonal". But there is little doubt that over the course of a few centuries of western music, a system for organizing a hierarchy of (more or less) regularly spaced pitches was developed that we know today as the diatonic scale. The diatonic scale became increasingly fundamental to western music, until, in my opinion inevitably, creative western musicians began to consider other possibilities in the late 19th century, in part due to influence of non-western cultures. And after 1950, technological advances made it easier to explore these other possibilities.

That's all there is to all this hullabaloo, in my opinion. The diatonic scale is still very much alive, just not as sacred and untouchable as it was 150 years ago.


----------



## science

dissident said:


> I don't care about "beating avant garde music out of our culture". Hey, let the music stand or fall on its own.


It's been standing for a hundred years now. It'll keep standing for the foreseeable.


----------



## 59540

science said:


> It's been standing for a hundred years now. It'll keep standing for the foreseeable.


Maybe. I don't see a Stravinsky or Schoenberg at the moment though.


fluteman said:


> That's all there is to all this hullabaloo, in my opinion. The diatonic scale is still very much alive, just not as sacred and untouchable as it was 150 years ago.


I don't think there is an artistic, technical "hullabaloo" anymore, but a philosophical one. No one is really up in arms over New Complexity, for example. Extremely few have even heard of it or representative works in the style. How is so-called "avant garde" today a radical departure from what we've had over the past century? I don't think it is. The possible ways to be "avant" are limited, until it becomes just as formulaic as common practice.


----------



## Aries

EdwardBast said:


> Every year new people who think they're doing something original join and start bemoaning the downfall of classical music and the noisy modernist frauds who are killing it.


But what is the reason they do this? Why don't they like the modern music, and why do they think it damages classical music. If so many feel and think this way there are probably sensible reasons for it.

Where is the artistic intersection between atonal/serial music and other classical music? I don't see it. If you like classical music, its likely that you don't like atonal music.

And different styles obviously compete for influence and performance time. So it is just a reasonable cultural war. Inevitable. And given what is happening elsewhere in society at least I'm not in the mood for appeasement. I don't know how much fraud is involved in atonal music, but a lot is imaginable, because I have no trust in "progressives". It is usually no problem for them to accept cultural collateral damage and to lie if necessary. Our decadent societies will have to pay the bill at some point.


----------



## EdwardBast

dissident said:


> "Obvious, reeking POS" subjectively or objectively? :lol: If I say I like the piece, what gives you the right to call it a POS? And if I say Elliott Carter's music is sh#t, how could you disagree other than to say, "well, I like it..." That from the start of this thread is what's been interesting to me: how subjective judgements suddenly become objective in some way in the view of proponents of "non-hierarchical" art.


What gives me the right to call it a reeking POS is that everyone has that right. Because I actually know stuff about aesthetic theory and philosophy, I don't believe subjective judgments "suddenly become objective." Like almost everyone else on this forum who discusses the objective-subjective debate, you need to learn a new word: _Intersubjective_. If you learn that word and what it means your arguments will "suddenly become" better informed.


----------



## 59540

EdwardBast said:


> What gives me the right to call it a reeking POS is that everyone has that right.


Thank you. Yes. No need for nausea then.


> Because I actually know stuff about aesthetic theory and philosophy, I don't believe subjective judgments "suddenly become objective." Like almost everyone else on this forum who discusses the objective-subjective debate, you need to learn a new word: _Intersubjective_. If you learn that word and what it means your arguments will "suddenly become" better informed.


Thank you, professor. Much appreciated. Now try living by your obviously superior knowledge.


----------



## Forster

EdwardBast said:


> you need to learn a new word: _Intersubjective_. If you learn that word and what it means your arguments will "suddenly become" better informed.


:lol:

See my latest post in this tired old thread

the politics of objective greatness in art


----------



## 59540

Forster said:


> :lol:
> 
> See my latest post in this tired old thread
> 
> the politics of objective greatness in art


:lol:

So then why get worked up over such an intersubjective topic? If someone says he/she absolutely HATES DESPISES with a purple passion every note of Baroque music, I couldn't care less.


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> Thank you, professor. Much appreciated. Now try living by your obviously superior knowledge.


Eddie is also a "rebel" and a "flexible thinker" at heart. One of my favorite comments by him on this forum:



EdwardBast said:


> From the perspective of a music student educated in the late 20thc I would say that the significance of serial composition both historically and aesthetically was comically exaggerated for decades. As an undergrad I signed up for a composition course that required a preliminary interview with the professor/composer. When I was told the first assignment (write a short 12-tone work observing the "non-repetition myth" and avoiding any sequences of tones with tonal or triadic implications) I said "I have no interest in doing that and won't be taking the course." I was verbally abused as I stood and left the man's office.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

This thread will go on and on in this forum.


----------



## mmsbls

Aries said:


> But what is the reason they do this? Why don't they like the modern music, and why do they think it damages classical music. If so many feel and think this way there are probably sensible reasons for it.


Yes, there are sensible, meaning understandable, reasons for it. The music has broken far enough from common practice tonality (CPT) that it is difficult for many to hear anything beautiful or interesting in it. Those people are used to CPT music. Their brains have learned to follow it, find beauty in it, expect what CPT music gives them. Modern music in some sense is like a different language. If you don't understand it, it sounds nonsensible, even bizarre.

Although some like it almost immediately, most must learn to like it. The process is similar to all learning. One struggles as one's brain tries to make sense of the new language, math, music, or whatever. As one's brain interacts with the new material, one's brain changes and learns to find the new material more accessible, more understandable. In music, that can lead to finding the music enjoyable.

Studies have shown that through exposure people can learn to find certain chords much less dissonant. That's simple compared to learning to enjoy, say, Boulez. When I first came to TC, I hated most modern music. I didn't even enjoy Shostakovich or Prokofiev. I gradually learned to love much modern music by listening repeatedly and _listening for different things than I found in CPT music_. I went through the learning process. For some, like myself, the process was fairly long, but I assume for others, the process is much quicker.

I assume some feel it damages classical music simply because composers are no longer composing music they like. Concert going is a zero sum game in that one realistically can only go to so many concerts. If some now schedule this awful music, they are scheduling less "good" music



Aries said:


> Where is the artistic intersection between atonal/serial music and other classical music? I don't see it. If you like classical music, its likely that you don't like atonal music.


I'm not knowledgeable enough to understand, except in a very general sense, the links between Renaissance, Baroque, Classical, Romantic, and Modern music. I know Schoenberg sounds somewhat romantic to me, but I couldn't give a detailed reason why. I do know that many people, my daughter for example, who have studied these transitions do see a clear movement from one style to another.

I think saying "If you like classical music, its likely that you don't like atonal music" is like saying, "If you like vegetables, it's likely you don't like broccoli." It may be true, but it gives the impression that broccoli is not a vegetable.



Aries said:


> And different styles obviously compete for influence and performance time.


Agreed.



Aries said:


> So it is just a reasonable cultural war.


I don't think it has anything to do with culture as I've explained above.



Aries said:


> Inevitable. And given what is happening elsewhere in society at least I'm not in the mood for appeasement.


I'm unaware of the demands you would be appeasing.



Aries said:


> I don't know how much fraud is involved in atonal music, but a lot is imaginable, because I have no trust in "progressives". It is usually no problem for them to accept cultural collateral damage and to lie if necessary. Our decadent societies will have to pay the bill at some point.


This seems to be a political statement rather than a musical one. I have no idea what it could mean musically. Do you not trust Monteverde, Haydn, Beethoven, or Wagner? Did they lie? What bill?


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> Eddie is also a "rebel" and a "flexible thinker" at heart. One of my favorite comments by him on this forum:


So "Eddie" had an experience similar to the guy who made the video referenced by the OP. Ironic.


----------



## 59540

Richannes Wrahms said:


> This thread will go on and on in this forum.


It's running out of steam, waiting for the next round of indignation over a thread badmouthing John Cage or Brian Ferneyhough.


----------



## hammeredklavier

mmsbls said:


> I'm not knowledgeable enough to understand, except in a very general sense, the links between Renaissance, Baroque, Classical, Romantic, and Modern music.


But jazz and prog-rock also have their links to classical music. Just cause the stuff you listed is all labeled "classical music" by some "academics", it doesn't mean we all have to consider them all to be "part of the family". If someone on this forum is only interested in stuff like Stockhausen, Xenakis, Ferneyhough and trashes common practice music all the time, there's no reason we shouldn't consider him an "outsider".



hammeredklavier said:


> There are even threads from the past, like
> Mozart vs. Modernism
> Always Praising the Same Music/The Dinosaurs are Among Us
> boring pieces by Mr. Mozart
> "For every ****** Mozart cd you buy because it has his name on it (apart from the wonderful stuff he made also) you could also buy interesting music by a lesser known composer that is probably underrated and - if he's still living - might deserve your support and keep music alive." -Casebearer
> It's never a bad thing that these people appreciate contemporary music more, and their views should be respected, but I feel that if there are too many of them in a classical music forum, it'll no longer be a true "classical music community".





hammeredklavier said:


> Strangely, it seems that "Mozart vs Modernism" was a hot issue on the forum in the past. I just hope it doesn't happen again.
> A Thread for People who Don't Like Mozart
> "No arguments here PLEASE. Just a nice thread where we can discuss all the music that is so much better than most of the stuff Mozart wrote. I really can't stand the Mozart-Modern conflict on TC, I don't want any more civil wars. " -ComposerOfAvantGarde


----------



## hammeredklavier

Aries said:


> But what is the reason they do this? Why don't they like the modern music, and why do they think it damages classical music. If so many feel and think this way there are probably sensible reasons for it.


I agree that the avant-gardist mindset has some negative effects on classical music. In some instances, it encourages and promotes the thinking that 
1. composers such as Rachmaninoff, Brahms, Saint-Saëns did not contribute anything fresh to classical music; 
2. every new generation of composers must create something that seems "new".
3. artists like John Williams aren't "classical music composers" even though they're writing "incidental music for the public" just like the masters of the past. 
The obsession sometimes seems extreme today. I want us to take a moment to ask why; "is it even necessary"?


----------



## SanAntone

I don't see it as a zero-sum game. 

There is no reason why someone can't listen to both both Mozart, i.e. CPT, and contemporary music; I do. There are extremists on both sides of the issue, though, and they seem to be poisoning the well for everyone.


----------



## Aries

mmsbls said:


> Yes, there are sensible, meaning understandable, reasons for it. The music has broken far enough from common practice tonality (CPT) that it is difficult for many to hear anything beautiful or interesting in it. Those people are used to CPT music. Their brains have learned to follow it, find beauty in it, expect what CPT music gives them. Modern music in some sense is like a different language. If you don't understand it, it sounds nonsensible, even bizarre.
> 
> Although some like it almost immediately, most must learn to like it. The process is similar to all learning. One struggles as one's brain tries to make sense of the new language, math, music, or whatever. As one's brain interacts with the new material, one's brain changes and learns to find the new material more accessible, more understandable. In music, that can lead to finding the music enjoyable.
> 
> Studies have shown that through exposure people can learn to find certain chords much less dissonant.


I agree. I also think that CPT music has more in common with popular music and even with Jazz than with serial music.

I remember that I had to learn to listen to tonal music too, but it was very easy in comparison and I liked many things immediately.

In the case of Shostakovich and Prokofiev it was more difficult to get access to lets they both second symphonies. I think with time I found them less dissonant and I found more shades of dissonance. But I don't really think that its like a different language unlike serial music. I see some kind of musical story in these works like in CPT music. But what makes serial music different is the non-artistic approach to melody and rhythm. Its more like a math-formula with music as a secondary effect.



mmsbls said:


> That's simple compared to learning to enjoy, say, Boulez. When I first came to TC, I hated most modern music. I didn't even enjoy Shostakovich or Prokofiev. I gradually learned to love much modern music by listening repeatedly and _listening for different things than I found in CPT music_. I went through the learning process. For some, like myself, the process was fairly long, but I assume for others, the process is much quicker.


What is the most atonal/serial piece you learned to like?



mmsbls said:


> I assume some feel it damages classical music simply because composers are no longer composing music they like. Concert going is a zero sum game in that one realistically can only go to so many concerts. If some now schedule this awful music, they are scheduling less "good" music


Yes, and there is not really much one can say against this logic.



mmsbls said:


> This seems to be a political statement rather than a musical one. I have no idea what it could mean musically. Do you not trust Monteverde, Haydn, Beethoven, or Wagner? Did they lie? What bill?


Yes its political, but not only.

There is an interesting thought in what you said. Monteverdi, Haydn, Beethoven and Wagner as progressives like Boulez, Schönberg and Stockhausen. As if progressiveness stays the same.

Its a philosophical question: Is progressiveness always better then tradition, and is it just a matter of time until it pushes trough, or is a mixture of the right progressive and conservative ideas better? I think a mixture is better and the fundamental partisanship for one direction is extremism. In music and elsewhere.

I approve the developments of Haydn, Beethoven and Wagner, but I don't approve the developments of Schönberg and Stockhausen. Going into a direction is only good until its bad.


----------



## mmsbls

hammeredklavier said:


> But jazz and prog-rock also have their links to classical music. Just cause the stuff you listed is all labeled "classical music" by some "academics", it doesn't mean we all have to consider them all to be "part of the family".


I don't think works by Stockhausen, Xenakis, Messiaen, or Boulez are labeled classical music by _some_ academics. As far as I know, _all_ music schools view those as classical music composers. I have never seen a general classical music website that doesn't include them. So, sure, you don't have to consider them to be "part of the family", but at TC we will continue to view them as classical music.



hammeredklavier said:


> If someone on this forum is only interested in stuff like Stockhausen, Xenakis, Ferneyhough and trashes common practice music all the time, there's no reason we shouldn't consider him an "outsider".


In my experience on TC I have never seen someone trash CPT music. I've seen people disparage a composer or some works, but I've never seen someone disparage CPT music in general. I know people who do not like CPT works, but those people never make disparaging comments about it.


----------



## fbjim

"progression" in art is a natural result of artists coming into the field who grew up in different periods in history. I forgot who made the observation but artistic "progression" is maybe less people introducing new ideas, than it is people doing the same thing in different ways.

Stockhausen and Xenakis obviously grew up and were influenced in different ways than a young artist would be now. This is just saying that the arrow-of-progression model of how art works is maybe not the most accurate way to look at things, more that each generation views creativity through a different lens.

If you want to stop this, you either have to change the environment and society to be more like the 19th century (this, I think is where the political aspect of modern art fundamentally stems), or you have to make the field of classical music hemmed in and restricted, and basically turn it into a living museum piece, like traditional folk dancing. There's complaints that orchestras which only program canonical works are doing exactly that.


----------



## fluteman

EdwardBast said:


> What gives me the right to call it a reeking POS is that everyone has that right. Because I actually know stuff about aesthetic theory and philosophy, I don't believe subjective judgments "suddenly become objective." Like almost everyone else on this forum who discusses the objective-subjective debate, you need to learn a new word: _Intersubjective_. If you learn that word and what it means your arguments will "suddenly become" better informed.


Though the term "intersubjectivity" originates with Husserl and has been refined by later writers, the idea when applied to aesthetics was stated, if somewhat elliptically, in the 18th century by David Hume, in his essay Of The Standard Of Taste. The famous quotation from that essay is:

Thus, though the principles of taste be universal, and, nearly, if not entirely the same in all men; yet few are qualified to give judgment on any work of art, or establish their own sentiment as the standard of beauty. [....] Strong sense, united to delicate sentiment, improved by practice, perfected by comparison, and cleared of all prejudice, can alone entitle critics to this valuable character; and the joint verdict of such, wherever they are to be found, is the true standard of taste and beauty.

Less famous, but equally essential to Hume's idea, is a later passage:

Theories of abstract philosophy, systems of profound theology, have prevailed during one age: In a successive period, these have been universally exploded: Their absurdity has been detected: Other theories and systems have supplied their place, which again gave place to their successors: And nothing has been experienced more liable to the revolutions of chance and fashion than these pretended decisions of science. The case is not the same with the beauties of eloquence and poetry. Just expressions of passion and nature are sure, after a little time, to gain public applause, which they maintain for ever. ARISTOTLE, and PLATO, and EPICURUS, and DESCARTES, may successively yield to each other: But TERENCE and VIRGIL maintain an universal, undisputed empire over the minds of men. The abstract philosophy of CICERO has lost its credit: The vehemence of his oratory is still the object of our admiration.

Thus, we don't necessarily have to hunt for these highly qualified critics and seek out their verdicts. These verdicts naturally and inevitably gain the public consensus over time. That is the intersubjectivity phenomenon as applied to aesthetics. Humans naturally seek this consensus as part of their social instincts.

None of this means one cannot "like what one likes" and go one's individual way. After all, humans also naturally seek to be independent and follow their own path, to a point. But to ignore the importance and prevalence of this phenomenon, call it intersubjectivity or something else, is to ignore something very fundamental in art and aesthetics.

I see that you, science, Portamento, and several others here understand all of that at least as well as I do. But others, if they also understand, cling to the essentialist fallacy and other sophist arguments, and in many cases their motive seems to be to prove the inherent superiority of certain European cultural traditions. Oh, well. All of this prompted me to read or reread some very good essays and books from halcyon college days.


----------



## mmsbls

Aries said:


> What is the most atonal/serial piece you learned to like?


I'm not trying to duck your question since I understand why it's interesting, but when listening, I don't really think of works as atonal or serial. When I first came to TC, I thought I knew which works were atonal. After reading more about the term and talking to my daughter, who almost decided to pursue a doctorate about atonal music, I realized I will never know simply by listening. Works which many here think are atonal, are not.

A few examples of music dissimilar to CPT that I really like would be:
Boulez - Anthemes II
Furrer - Spur
Grisey - Les Espaces Acoustiques

Does that help?



Aries said:


> Its a philosophical question: Is progressiveness always better then tradition, and is it just a matter of time until it pushes trough, or is a mixture of the right progressive and conservative ideas better? I think a mixture is better and the fundamental partisanship for one direction is extremism. In music and elsewhere.


I do think that's an interesting question, and I don't know the answer. I think music progressiveness is different than political progressiveness. I don't see music progressiveness as ever harming anyone. You may like the music or not. If not, you move on or learn to like it (unlike politics where you can't necessarily move on). I'm not sure I know what fundamental partisanship for one direction in music is. As far as I can tell, there have never been more directions explored in classical music then being explored now.


----------



## mmsbls

SanAntone said:


> I don't see it as a zero-sum game.
> 
> There is no reason why someone can't listen to both both Mozart, i.e. CPT, and contemporary music; I do. There are extremists on both sides of the issue, though, and they seem to be poisoning the well for everyone.


By zero-sum game I don't mean you have to listen to one or the other. Rather I mean that there is a fixed amount of listening time (or concert going time). If during some of that time, a "unpleasant" work is substituted for one you like, you've lost "enjoyable" listening.


----------



## fbjim

And what even counts as "musical tradition"? Renaissance and baroque performance practice was obviously far different than it was in the Romantic era (HIP is, in it's own way, a post-modern phenomenon). You end up running into the same problem where you draw a line and say "all this is traditional, but none of this after the line is", and honestly, that's as much a consequence of history as anything, since it's obvious that very little in the postmodern era would have any sort of time to be established as "tradition".


----------



## SanAntone

mmsbls said:


> By zero-sum game I don't mean you have to listen to one or the other. Rather I mean that there is a fixed amount of listening time (or concert going time). If during some of that time, a "unpleasant" work is substituted for one you like, you've lost "enjoyable" listening.


Or opened up a new vista. I have always valued an open and curious mind as the best traits when given the opportunity to hear music which is new to me.


----------



## mmsbls

SanAntone said:


> Or opened up a new vista. I have always valued an open and curious mind as the best traits when given the opportunity to hear music which is new to me.


Well, that does not affect whether it's a zero-sum game. It is. I have always valued an open and curious mind period. And you know I would prefer access to new music as well.


----------



## fbjim

just to go back to generations viewing things from different lenses - people do complain about modernists trying to deliberately destroy tradition, and some of them certainly had this in their rhetoric (mostly the Boulez types - I certainly don't think this was true of the SVS). But when your worldview is informed by the great kingdoms and republics of Europe causing two world wars and a major genocide in the last half century, it should be relatively obvious *why* they thought a deliberate iconoclastic break from European artistic tradition was a laudable artistic goal. Nowadays we are more deliberately skeptical about grand historical narratives of this nature, but that's also a result of us coming of age at a different period.

This is obviously a massive oversimplification but because artistic movements are so tied with history and society, it should be more clear why there is a political aspect to distrust of contemporary art.


----------



## SanAntone

mmsbls said:


> Well, that does not affect whether it's a zero-sum game. It is. I have always valued an open and curious mind period. And you know I would prefer access to new music as well.


When I said "zero-sum game" I was thinking more about the idea that if you love CPT you couldn't possibly care for contemporary music.

But everything in life could be viewed as a zero-sum game: if you are doing this, you can't be doing that. However, I have found that there is enough time to engage in any kind of listening I wish.

I vacillate between digging deeper into a genre or period I know I like, and investigating music by composers I've never heard of before. And these days 100% of my listening is done at home via recordings. I haven't been to a concert in years, maybe decades. But even when I did, there was never a program which did not include something I thought I wish wasn't there.

E.g., I went to a concert to hear a program that had two of my favorite works (which I've now forgotten) but also Ravel's _Bolero_. Heard live, that work was vastly more enjoyable than I ever thought it would be for me - and that is the only thing I remember about that concert.


----------



## 59540

fluteman said:


> ...
> I see that you, science, Portamento, and several others here understand all of that at least as well as I do. But others, if they also understand, cling to the essentialist fallacy and other sophist arguments, and in many cases their motive seems to be to prove the inherent superiority of certain European cultural traditions. Oh, well.


Not quite. I generally look at individual works of art produced by individual minds, not the "superiority of European cultural traditions". That also includes modern music and even the so-called avant garde. I find a lot of it quite interesting actually. Also there are some products of that European tradition that I can't stand. I'd rather listen to gamelan music than Strauss waltzes. What does that tell you? That's actually kind of an ad hominem. You're conflating and projecting facets of your own political outlook onto others (as we all know, "European superiority" is a loaded term with fascistic overtones). Among those artistic products, some I deem to be "better" than others, however you want to define "better". I don't listen to the Musical Offering and think how much more glorious European culture is compared to that of Asia or Africa. It's a simplistic division between enlightened right-thinkers like you, Edward, Portamento and science compared to the "sophists". You know the *real* reason someone would dislike modern music or pop or jazz. It's arrogance.


mmsbls said:


> ...
> In my experience on TC I have never seen someone trash CPT music. I've seen people disparage a composer or some works, but I've never seen someone disparage CPT music in general. I know people who do not like CPT works, but those people never make disparaging comments about it.


I don't think very many would care even if they did. I certainly wouldn't.


----------



## fbjim

If it became nearly impossible to discuss certain composers (John Cage being an obvious example) without the thread devolving into toxicity, people might complain. This has, in fact, happened with certain CPT composers and people did complain.

I am fundamentally far less concerned with whether contemporary music can "survive" people hating it, and more concerned with whether or not this makes for a toxic discussion environment.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> If it became nearly impossible to discuss certain composers (John Cage being an obvious example) without the thread devolving into toxicity, people might complain. This has, in fact, happened with certain CPT composers and people did complain.
> 
> I am fundamentally far less concerned with whether contemporary music can "survive" people hating it, and more concerned with whether or not this makes for a toxic discussion environment.


Define "toxic". The main lightning rod CP composer I can think of is Wagner and lengthy discussions of his work usually deteriorates into politics.


----------



## fbjim

As it turns out, Wagner threads were noted for becoming toxic to the extent that action had to be taken on them.

When threads are consistently derailed in ways that reflect either a reflexive dismissal in a way that reflects a lack of engagement in their art (read: minimalist and 4'33'' jokes), or are ideologically and not aesthetically based tend to make for bad discussion.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> As it turns out, Wagner threads were noted for becoming toxic to the extent that action had to be taken on them.
> 
> When threads are consistently derailed in ways that reflect either a reflexive dismissal in a way that reflects a lack of engagement in their art (read: minimalist and 4'33'' jokes), or are ideologically and not aesthetically based tend to make for bad discussion.


Who are you to judge that the jokes and criticism *aren't* engagement? Are you defining the "proper" way to engage? If someone cites critical theory-type critiques of why we like certain composers, isn't that driven more by ideology than aesthetics? Yet I don't recall seeing you complain about that.


----------



## fbjim

I have read all sorts of criticism of canonical works of art that reflect a listener who has clearly engaged with the work and dislikes it. Reducing a composer with a vast catalog of works and enormous historical importance to a zero effort joke with which to dismiss and derail discussion does not qualify.

Also unless one believes in determinism, pointing out that we as listeners are influenced by our cultural values and by historic views on art is not an ideological dismissal.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> I have read all sorts of criticism of canonical works of art that reflect a listener who has clearly engaged with the work and dislikes it. Reducing a composer with a vast catalog of works and enormous historical importance to a zero effort joke with which to dismiss and derail discussion does not qualify.


So everyone is obligated to love 4'33"? I don't think Cage would be offended by the jokes. The man apparently had a good sense of humor, unlike some of his fans.



> Also unless one believes in determinism, pointing out that we as listeners are influenced by our cultural values and by historic views on art is not an ideological dismissal.


That *is* deterministic. We are what our cultural environment makes us. And yes it's ideological, not aesthetic.


----------



## fbjim

If the goal of this forum is to discuss classical music, then yes, I think lazy, derailing dismissals should be discouraged because they facilitate bad discussion.

And if you think a simple statement that Beethoven's music speaks to us because our cultural environment means we share certain aesthetic values with his music constitutes me trying to invalidate someone's love for his music, that's on you. I certainly don't believe that to be true.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> If the goal of this forum is to discuss classical music, then yes, I think lazy, derailing dismissals should be discouraged because they facilitate bad discussion.


Are you the judge of what's lazy and derailing? Not every discussion and comment is going to be to your liking or agreeing with you or giving you high-fives.


> And if you think a simple statement that Beethoven's music speaks to us because our cultural environment means we share certain aesthetic values with his music constitutes me trying to invalidate someone's love for his music, that's on you. I certainly don't believe that to be true.


Maybe it's the fact that we're *human*.


----------



## Simon Moon

mmsbls said:


> I don't think works by Stockhausen, Xenakis, Messiaen, or Boulez are labeled classical music by _some_ academics. As far as I know, _all_ music schools view those as classical music composers. I have never seen a general classical music website that doesn't include them. So, sure, you don't have to consider them to be "part of the family", but at TC we will continue to view them as classical music.


I have no problems finding a thread from CPT composers, up through Stockhausen, Xenakis, Messiaen, or Boulez, and beyond.

All the above composers studied under CP composers.



> In my experience on TC I have never seen someone trash CPT music. I've seen people disparage a composer or some works, but I've never seen someone disparage CPT music in general. I know people who do not like CPT works, but those people never make disparaging comments about it.


I am one of those that is not interested by CP, but as you state, I have never seen it fitting to post on a thread about my opinion of a certain CP composer. But those that do not like modernism and avant-garde, seem to regularly make their feelings felt on threads about modern composers.

The only disparaging remarks I've ever seen about CP composers, is by other fans of CP composers, who happen to dislike certain other CP composers.


----------



## fbjim

Well that's just how I would like a forum about classical music to be. I'd certainly rather this be the forum where you talk about classical music, and not the forum where you make lazy, zero effort jokes dismissing and trashing classical music, though I suppose some would rather it be the latter.


----------



## 59540

Simon Moon said:


> I have no problems finding a thread from CPT composers, up through Stockhausen, Xenakis, Messiaen, or Boulez, and beyond.
> 
> All the above composers studied under CP composers.


That doesn't make their own works CP.



> I am one of those that is not interested by CP, but as you state, I have never seen it fitting to post on a thread about my opinion of a certain CP composer. But those that do not like modernism and avant-garde, seem to regularly make their feelings felt on threads about modern composers.
> ...


Well if you want to keep your opinion to yourself that's on you. I did see a Ligeti thread that didn't seem to have the negative input you refer to here.

Here it is:
Any Love for Ligeti?

This one even doesn't seem to be all that bad either, no worse than a Mozart thread would be:
John Cage


----------



## Aries

mmsbls said:


> A few examples of music dissimilar to CPT that I really like would be:
> Boulez - Anthemes II
> Furrer - Spur
> Grisey - Les Espaces Acoustiques
> 
> Does that help?


Yes, of course. I'm just curious. And after the first impression I can imagine that its learnable to like these pieces.



mmsbls said:


> I do think that's an interesting question, and I don't know the answer. I think music progressiveness is different than political progressiveness.


They are maybe tied together. fbjim mentiones this:



fbjim said:


> But when your worldview is informed by the great kingdoms and republics of Europe causing two world wars and a major genocide in the last half century, it should be relatively obvious *why* they thought a deliberate iconoclastic break from European artistic tradition was a laudable artistic goal.


Well, experiencing horror doesn't make it obvious to me to break a beautiful art tradition. It is a very specific ideology. And the traditional art is probably not the real target. They probably rather want to destroy the society (because you can't really blame art for world wars but you can blame societies). And the musical war is probably just a symbolic fight. These guys really seem to love symbolic fights, maybe even more than substantial changes. They crossed too many lines for me.  Breaking with art for ideological reasons - think about the ruthlessness behind it.



EdwardBast said:


> From the perspective of a music student educated in the late 20thc I would say that the significance of serial composition both historically and aesthetically was comically exaggerated for decades. As an undergrad I signed up for a composition course that required a preliminary interview with the professor/composer. When I was told the first assignment (write a short 12-tone work observing the "non-repetition myth" and avoiding any sequences of tones with tonal or triadic implications) I said "I have no interest in doing that and won't be taking the course." I was verbally abused as I stood and left the man's office.


----------



## fbjim

Aries said:


> Well, experiencing horror doesn't make it obvious to me to break a beautiful art tradition. It is a very specific ideology. And the traditional art is probably not the real target. They probably rather want to destroy the society (because you can't really blame art for world wars but you can blame societies). And the musical war is probably just a symbolic fight. These guys really seem to love symbolic fights, maybe even more than substantial changes. They crossed too many lines for me.  Breaking with art for ideological reasons - think about the ruthlessness behind it.


Right, but once again, to simplify things a lot, you can say the periods of enlightenment and romanticism constitute a deliberate rebellion against concepts that we find unacceptable today - like the divine right of kings. This certainly had profound effects on art and resulted in a lot of broken traditions, and though there are a minority who believe romanticism destroyed art, this isn't a common view at all.

Certainly the evolution of the view of the artist from a craftsman in service to the nobility or the Church to a heroic, romantic figure who stands apart from those institutions is steeped in the ideology of that era.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> Right, but once again, to simplify things a lot, you can say the periods of enlightenment and romanticism constitute a deliberate rebellion against concepts that we find unacceptable today - like the divine right of kings. This certainly had profound effects on art and resulted in a lot of broken traditions, and though there are a minority who believe romanticism destroyed art, this isn't a common view at all.
> 
> Certainly the evolution of the view of the artist from a craftsman in service to the nobility or the Church to a heroic, romantic figure who stands apart from those institutions is steeped in the ideology of that era.


The "divine right of kings" was dispensed with in Britain long before the Enlightenment. Plus Milton (for example) was a completely independent artist after the fall of the Commonwealth. That's the danger of generalization. Correlation/causation. I would agree though that the financial situation of "the artist" overall probably changed as a result of the rise of "the bourgeoisie" who could afford the products, taking the place of noble patronage. What effect that had on the art itself though is debatable. You also had the "shock the bourgeoisie" movement, which is still around, apparently.


----------



## Forster

dissident said:


> :lol:
> 
> So then why get worked up over such an intersubjective topic? If someone says he/she absolutely HATES DESPISES with a purple passion every note of Baroque music, I couldn't care less.


a) Don't ask me. I'm not in the 'worked up' camp.
b) I couldn't care less either what people say they hate: I do demur when they say that anyone who loves Baroque must be an idiot, or their dismissal of the music implies that those who like it must be imbeciles.


----------



## 59540

Forster said:


> a) Don't ask me. I'm not in the 'worked up' camp.
> b) I couldn't care less either what people say they hate: I do demur when they say that anyone who loves Baroque must be an idiot, or their dismissal of the music implies that those who like it must be imbeciles.


Well then we're in agreement, Forster. :cheers:


----------



## Forster

dissident said:


> Well then we're in agreement, Forster. :cheers:


That can't be right. Quick, I need to find alternative opnions.


----------



## Calipso

One question for contemporary atonal music lovers. Why is almost all this music sounds as autistic, anxious alien escaped from mental hospital?


----------



## SanAntone

Calipso said:


> One question for contemporary atonal music lovers. Why is almost all this music sounds as autistic, anxious alien escaped from mental hospital?


It doesn't sound like that to me.


----------



## mmsbls

Calipso said:


> One question for contemporary atonal music lovers. Why is almost all this music sounds as autistic, anxious alien escaped from mental hospital?


Basically, your comment could be read as, "Why does atonal music sound different?" It certainly is different from what you've become accustomed to. Baroque music is different from Renaissance. Romantic music sounds different from Classical. And modern/contemporary sounds different from Romantic. In particular, modern/contemporary often has more dissonance, may not focus on tonal centers as much, can be rhythmically unusual, etc.. Many people, such as myself, have to spend time becoming familiar with the new language before we find the music engaging, satisfying, or even beautiful.

Many of us have become more accustomed to the new languages used in modern/contemporary music and find the music wonderful, and yes, we also find it different.


----------



## Calipso

Well, that was caricature a bit. My main problem with this kind of music is autistic sound of almost every composition. Some kind of mysterious vibe can attract me, but autistic and anxious atmosphere quickly became empty, boring, and emotionally unsatisfying. So, Im interested why this type of sounds dominating in this music and what is pleasant in it?


----------



## fbjim

I'm very interested in what "Autistic" means in this context.

There is a lot of music which isn't traditionally tonal, much of which has a lot of stylistic difference from each other. Are there any specific composers you're thinking of?


----------



## Calipso

mmsbls said:


> Basically, your comment could be read as, "Why does atonal music sound different?" It certainly is different from what you've become accustomed to. Baroque music is different from Renaissance. Romantic music sounds different from Classical. And modern/contemporary sounds different from Romantic. In particular, modern/contemporary often has more dissonance, may not focus on tonal centers as much, can be rhythmically unusual, etc.. Many people, such as myself, have to spend time becoming familiar with the new language before we find the music engaging, satisfying, or even beautiful.
> 
> Many of us have become more accustomed to the new languages used in modern/contemporary music and find the music wonderful, and yes, we also find it different.


Contemporary atonal music sounds as mental hospital, absurd, empty. There is nothing human in it. You simple dont have aesthetic criteria.


----------



## EdwardBast

Forster said:


> :lol:
> 
> See my latest post in this tired old thread
> 
> the politics of objective greatness in art


I did and appreciated it.


----------



## Calipso

fbjim said:


> I'm very interested in what "Autistic" means in this context.
> 
> There is a lot of music which isn't traditionally tonal, much of which has a lot of stylistic difference from each other. Are there any specific composers you're thinking of?


Almost everyone. Take this for example


----------



## SanAntone

Ho-hum, a new face enters the fray - but saying the same things. I should create a file of responses to the standard rhetoric that regularly appears when new anti-modern music members show up.

The easy answer is: different strokes for different folks.


----------



## Calipso

SanAntone said:


> Ho-hum, a new face enters the fray - but saying the same things. I should create a file of responses to the standard rhetoric that regularly appears when new anti-modern music members show up.
> 
> The easy answer is: different strokes for different folks.


Some sort of introspective method is always welcomed. Why we love or hate something? Some people also, enjoy in brutal morbid horror movie. Why they enjoy in these movies?

I would say that the problem with atonal music (that is, with its non-acceptance and challenge) is that it violates some basic human needs, which are probably innate (or acquired, but have become, say, archetypal, ie collective). I don't think it's a matter of misunderstanding (it's not a matter of thinking or knowledge), but of a natural resistance to the absence of harmony, order, orderliness (i.e., disruption of human need for them - civilization rests on them as its foundation). Another factor is hedonism, because the feeling of beauty is connected with consonances, and any dissonance can be accepted only as a temporary effort, resistance, disharmony, discomfort or fatigue, which is later resolved even more efficiently in the subsequent or final harmony. The great power of music rests on the constant provocation of tension (which can also be represented by ordinary ascents of the melody or harmonic "distancing"), but above all on their dismissals. Beauty is a victory over ugliness, which can be won only after a great and "uncertain" fight. It is not natural for music, or any art, to be based solely on effort, resistance, disharmony, discomfort, or fatigue. Music that (clearly) does not correspond to sublime emotions cannot be significant, to provoke passionate attachment, to have an effect on our personality, regardless of whether it is based on the "aesthetics of the ugly" or flirts with it or not. Atonality simply cannot be tied to our human nature. And if it is music, it is music, and that is legitimate.


----------



## mmsbls

Calipso said:


> My main problem with this kind of music is autistic sound of almost every composition. Some kind of mysterious vibe can attract me, but autistic and anxious atmosphere quickly became empty, boring, and emotionally unsatisfying.


I'd agree with fbjim that I have no idea what is meant by autistic music. Autistic is generally a term used to describe people not sounds. Personally, I also dislike music that has an anxious atmosphere which quickly becomes empty, boring, and emotionally unsatisfying, but I suspect we're not talking about the same music.

One problem is that you are using terms which no person who enjoys the music would ever use. How do you expect someone to respond to that? If someone asks another, "Why do you like horrible music?" What would they say?

Incidentally, here's an example from the internet of why people don't like classical music.



> Classical music is dryly cerebral, lacking visceral or emotional appeal. The pieces are often far too long. Rhythmically, the music is weak, with almost no beat, and the tempos can be funereal. The melodies are insipid - and often there's no real melody at all, just stretches of complicated sounding stuff.


Basically, classical music is boring, emotionally unsatisfying, too cerebral, and unmelodic. Why do you like music like that?


----------



## fbjim

Calipso said:


> Some sort of introspective method is always welcomed. Why we love or hate something? Some people also, enjoy in brutal morbid horror movie. Why they enjoy in these movies?
> 
> I would say that the problem with atonal music (that is, with its non-acceptance and challenge) is that it violates some basic human needs, which are probably innate (or acquired, but have become, say, archetypal, ie collective). I don't think it's a matter of misunderstanding (it's not a matter of thinking or knowledge), but of a natural resistance to the absence of harmony, order, orderliness (i.e., disruption of human need for them - civilization rests on them as its foundation). Another factor is hedonism, because the feeling of beauty is connected with consonances, and any dissonance can be accepted only as a temporary effort, resistance, disharmony, discomfort or fatigue, which is later resolved even more efficiently in the subsequent or final harmony. The great power of music rests on the constant provocation of tension (which can also be represented by ordinary ascents of the melody or harmonic "distancing"), but above all on their dismissals. Beauty is a victory over ugliness, which can be won only after a great and "uncertain" fight. It is not natural for music, or any art, to be based solely on effort, resistance, disharmony, discomfort, or fatigue. Music that (clearly) does not correspond to sublime emotions cannot be significant, to provoke passionate attachment, to have an effect on our personality, regardless of whether it is based on the "aesthetics of the ugly" or flirts with it or not. Atonality simply cannot be tied to our human nature. And if it is music, it is music, and that is legitimate.


This is foreign to not only art/classical music, but popular music as well. One of the most popular forms of music in the last century centered around introducing distortion to natural guitar tones. Perhaps beauty is more popular than ugliness, but I can think of all sorts of art - and popular art at that - which provokes negative emotions, or feelings of discomfort.


----------



## Aries

Calipso said:


> Another factor is hedonism, because the feeling of beauty is connected with consonances, and any dissonance can be accepted only as a temporary effort, resistance, disharmony, discomfort or fatigue, which is later resolved even more efficiently in the subsequent or final harmony.


I think that the problem of atonalism is rather the abolition of consonance than the acceptance of dissonance. Dissonance in contrast to consonance can have a good effect. Like major and minor. Even at the end of a section a dissonance can be pleasing.

Some examples:











In these cases a dissonant ending of the passage affirms the overall character and make it appear more consequent.

But I agree that in most cases dissonances should be resolved. Better keep unsolved tensions reserved for special moments. Compare it to this: Knots should be opened normally, but some knots, Gordian knots you rather want to just destroy with a sword like Alexander the Great.


----------



## Calipso

mmsbls said:


> I'd agree with fbjim that I have no idea what is meant by autistic music. Autistic is generally a term used to describe people not sounds. Personally, I also dislike music that has an anxious atmosphere which quickly becomes empty, boring, and emotionally unsatisfying, but I suspect we're not talking about the same music.
> 
> One problem is that you are using terms which no person who enjoys the music would ever use. How do you expect someone to respond to that? If someone asks another, "Why do you like horrible music?" What would they say?
> 
> *Incidentally, here's an example from the internet of why people don't like classical music.
> 
> Classical music is dryly cerebral, lacking visceral or emotional appeal. The pieces are often far too long. Rhythmically, the music is weak, with almost no beat, and the tempos can be funereal. The melodies are insipid - and often there's no real melody at all, just stretches of complicated sounding stuff.
> 
> Basically, classical music is boring, emotionally unsatisfying, too cerebral, and unmelodic. Why do you like music like that?*


Nope. Wrong analogy. That can be truth for some classical piece, but there is so much variety in melody, harmony, emotional range in music of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev, Bartok, Ravel, Stravinsky etc. In modern atonal music dominate anxious atmosphere without authentic human need for harmony, order, beauty, inspiration, pleasure, sadness etc.


----------



## mmsbls

Calipso said:


> Nope. Wrong analogy. That can be truth for some classical piece, but there is so much variety in melody, harmony, emotional range in music of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev, Bartok, Ravel, Stravinsky etc. In modern atonal music dominate anxious atmosphere without authentic human need for harmony, order, beauty, inspiration, pleasure, sadness etc.


I think you're missing the point. Your view of modern/contemporary music is uniform. _All such music_ is dominated by "anxious atmosphere without authentic human need for harmony, order, beauty, inspiration, pleasure, sadness etc." The quote I used is the view of many people who dislike classical music. Their view is that _all classical music_ "is dryly cerebral, lacking visceral or emotional appeal. The pieces are often far too long. Rhythmically, the music is weak, with almost no beat, and the tempos can be funereal. The melodies are insipid."

Your view of modern/contemporary atonal music is similar to their view of classical music. You may think that's not possible, but they don't. CPT classical music _really is_ boring, dry, and unemotional to them no matter what you think.


----------



## chipia

mmsbls said:


> I think you're missing the point. Your view of modern/contemporary music is uniform. _All such music_ is dominated by "anxious atmosphere without authentic human need for harmony, order, beauty, inspiration, pleasure, sadness etc." The quote I used is the view of many people who dislike classical music. Their view is that _all classical music_ "is dryly cerebral, lacking visceral or emotional appeal. The pieces are often far too long. Rhythmically, the music is weak, with almost no beat, and the tempos can be funereal. The melodies are insipid."
> 
> Your view of modern/contemporary atonal music is similar to their view of classical music. You may think that's not possible, but they don't. CPT classical music _really is_ boring, dry, and unemotional to them no matter what you think.


Well "boring, dry, too long, unemotional etc." are judgements of the music, not qualitative statements. Most of these people would probably still recognize that the 4th movement of Beethoven Symphony 5 expresses a happier emotion than the 1st Movement, even if they find it boring / too long / whatever.

On the other hand I can't think of atonal pieces that express emotions like happiness, harmony or peace. But maybe someone more knowledgeable can provide counter examples.


----------



## fbjim

chipia said:


> Well "boring, dry, too long, unemotional etc." are judgements of the music, not qualitative statements. Most of these people would probably still recognize that the 4th movement of Beethoven Symphony 5 expresses a happier emotion than the 1st Movement, even if they find it boring / too long / whatever.
> 
> On the other hand I can't think of atonal pieces that express emotions like happiness, harmony or peace. But maybe someone more knowledgeable can provide counter examples.


putting aside whether or not atonal music can provide emotion, the idea that music should be judged on its ability to express positive emotions is just as subjective a judgement as that music should have a beat, or that complexity is an impediment to enjoyment.

we could just as easily say something like : the nearly universal popularity of dance music across multiple cultures indicates that music intended for dance is natural and good- and therefore the vast majority of classical music, which is not typically danced to, is unnatural, and alien to the sensibilities of humanity


----------



## Calipso

mmsbls said:


> I think you're missing the point. Your view of modern/contemporary music is uniform. _All such music_ is dominated by "anxious atmosphere without authentic human need for harmony, order, beauty, inspiration, pleasure, sadness etc." The quote I used is the view of many people who dislike classical music. Their view is that _all classical music_ "is dryly cerebral, lacking visceral or emotional appeal. The pieces are often far too long. Rhythmically, the music is weak, with almost no beat, and the tempos can be funereal. The melodies are insipid."
> 
> Your view of modern/contemporary atonal music is similar to their view of classical music. You may think that's not possible, but they don't. CPT classical music _really is_ boring, dry, and unemotional to them no matter what you think.


Nope. Im not missing the point. But, if "many people" would hear modern atonal music they will be screaming after 2 minutes and probably will be try suicide. There is another interesting thing, there is some classical popular piece as Moonlight sonata or Dance of knights. Imagine that you play these pieces to people who dont listen classical, and then play them some string quartet by Elliott Carter. What you think what will be their reaction, and which music they would prefer? How they would describe emotions and aesthetic in these pieces, and what will be general view and consensus?


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> Ho-hum, a new face enters the fray - but saying the same things. I should create a file of responses to the standard rhetoric that regularly appears when new anti-modern music members show up.
> 
> The easy answer is: different strokes for different folks.


I think there may be a little more variety among the "anti" set than among the "pro". You don't think the "pro" camp says the same things over and over? It's all more or less "you're stupid. Go away" from all around. Or "you're eeeeeville/racist/sophist/uninformed/whatever". Modern music might be a lot better off without some of its fans. No doubt "classical" as well with its pedantry.


----------



## Aries

fbjim said:


> putting aside whether or not atonal music can provide emotion, the idea that music should be judged on its ability to express positive emotions is just as subjective


Don't judge it solely on the ability to express positive emotions but on the overall width of possible emotions.

More emotions possible = better ?

Is it actually agreed that atonal pieces can't express emotions like happiness, harmony or peace? That is quite an restriction.


----------



## SanAntone

Aries said:


> Is it actually agreed that atonal pieces can't express emotions like happiness, harmony or peace? That is quite an restriction.


I don't agree. "Atonal" music is not limited as to the kind of emotions or number of emotions, or limited in any way differently than tonal music.


----------



## Calipso

SanAntone said:


> I don't agree. "Atonal" music is not limited as to the kind of emotions or number of emotions, or limited in any way differently than tonal music.


Could you give some example from works of well known contemporary composers? Thanks


----------



## mmsbls

Calipso said:


> Nope. Im not missing the point. But, if "many people" would hear modern atonal music they will be screaming after 2 minutes and probably will be try suicide. There is another interesting thing, there is some classical popular piece as Moonlight sonata or Dance of knights. Imagine that you play these pieces to people who dont listen classical, and then play them some string quartet by Elliott Carter. What you think what will be their reaction, and which music they would prefer? How they would describe emotions and aesthetic in these pieces, and what will be general view and consensus?


If I understand you correctly, you are arguing that more people find CPT music pleasing than atonal music. I agree, but that has little to do with your original points. The original comments were:



Calipso said:


> Why is almost all this music sounds as autistic, anxious alien escaped from mental hospital?





Calipso said:


> My main problem with this kind of music is autistic sound of almost every composition. ...autistic and anxious atmosphere quickly became empty, boring, and emotionally unsatisfying. ...





Calipso said:


> Contemporary atonal music sounds as mental hospital, absurd, empty. There is nothing human in it. You simple dont have aesthetic criteria.


Put aside the fact that I don't understand what autistic, mental hospital music is, and I suspect no one else does either. I simply posted a summary comment about classical music from those who dislike it showing that some who don't like classical music find it boring, emotionally unsatisfying, too cerebral, and unmelodic. That view is roughly similar to your view of contemporary atonal music.

So you don't like contemporary atonal music. Fine. I don't like some of it either.


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> I think there may be a little more variety among the "anti" set than among the "pro". You don't think the "pro" camp says the same things over and over? It's all more or less "you're stupid. Go away" from all around. Or "you're eeeeeville/racist/sophist/uninformed/whatever". Modern music might be a lot better off without some of its fans. No doubt "classical" as well with its pedantry.


If you think this, go ahead and report me, or any modern music listeners you think should be gone. I think the responses to yet more posts about how modern music is inhuman, emotionless and makes people want to kill themselves were entirely reasonable and I apologize if you didn't find them sufficiently deferential, or interestingly varied.


----------



## mmsbls

chipia said:


> Well "boring, dry, too long, unemotional etc." are judgements of the music, not qualitative statements. Most of these people would probably still recognize that the 4th movement of Beethoven Symphony 5 expresses a happier emotion than the 1st Movement, even if they find it boring / too long / whatever.


That may be true, but are you suggesting that as a criticism of modern, contemporary, or atonal music? Why? Berg's Violin Concerto is stunningly beautiful. It's a remarkable piece of music, and it's atonal. Even if atonal music does not give a sense of happiness, why is that important?



chipia said:


> On the other hand I can't think of atonal pieces that express emotions like happiness, harmony or peace. But maybe someone more knowledgeable can provide counter examples.


I absolutely do not believe any music can convey harmony or peace. Someone may experience happiness when listening to some music. I would say I experience a sense of serenity when listening to the end of Berg's Violin Concerto, but I'm sure that others would not necessarily experience that feeling.

Overall, I don't see that as argument against atonal music. You either like the music or not. It may be interesting, engaging, beautiful, but it's just music.


----------



## Sid James

Richannes Wrahms said:


> This thread will go on and on in this forum.


The topic certainly will. At their best, modernist conversations tend to peter out into an endless merry-go-round and splitting of hairs. At their worst, they accumulate a multitude of hates and fears, a bit like one of those massive floating garbage islands. This is why I think its best to say my piece, do my best to answer any replies, then leave. I have a genuine interest in modernism, especially its historical aspects, but after many years here I think it is definitely the one topic which can drain my positive energy like no other.


----------



## fbjim

The one thing I've had against (Stravinsky?) theory that no emotional response to music is inherent to the music is the ability of musical instruments to emulate the human voice. This clearly isn't a technique that tonal music must have a monopoly on, though-arguably atonal music actually might come closer, though I don't know if this is really the goal of many atonal composers.


----------



## 59540

mmsbls said:


> ...
> I absolutely do not believe any music can convey harmony or peace. ...


I don't know. I think the Gratias/Dona nobis pacem from the B Minor Mass can. I think atonal music, or at least a good bit of it, is intended to be more "cerebral" and less "emotional", and I like a lot of it for that. An atonal piece probably wouldn't convey the feelings of a nice family stroll in the park for most people. And there's nothing inherently wrong with that, so I don't see the point in denying the obvious.


Sid James said:


> The topic certainly will. At their best, modernist conversations tend to peter out into an endless merry-go-round and splitting of hairs. At their worst, they accumulate a multitude of hates and fears, a bit like one of those massive floating garbage islands. This is why I think its best to say my piece, do my best to answer any replies, then leave. I have a genuine interest in modernism, especially its historical aspects, but after many years here I think it is definitely the one topic which can drain my positive energy like no other.


I agree, and sorry modern music fans, but I think the main culprit is hyper-defensiveness and a weird aura of insecurity. If you think the music you love is truly great and you love it, it doesn't matter what anybody says. Case in point:


fbjim said:


> If you think this, go ahead and report me, or any modern music listeners you think should be gone. I think the responses to yet more posts about how modern music is inhuman, emotionless and makes people want to kill themselves were entirely reasonable and I apologize if you didn't find them sufficiently deferential, or interestingly varied.


Quit twisting words. I didn't say I want anybody to be gone and I don't report anybody. From what I observe it's the "modern" camp that wants people to shut up. Do you know what quotation marks mean? Also learn the meaning of the word "hyperbole".


----------



## fbjim

Negative posts have no bearing on my enjoyment of contemporary music. They have a significant impact on whether or not discussions on contemporary music can be done without toxicity.

I have no desire to go over forum history with you again. I simply do not want the board to once again gain the reputation as the place where you do not discuss contemporary music.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> Negative posts have no bearing on my enjoyment of contemporary music. They have a significant impact on whether or not discussions on contemporary music can be done without toxicity.
> 
> I have no desire to go over forum history with you again. I simply do not want the board to once again gain the reputation as the place where you do not discuss contemporary music.


"Toxicity", like "troll", can all too often mean "something I don't agree with".


----------



## Sid James

dissident said:


> I agree, and sorry modern music fans, but I think the main culprit is hyper-defensiveness and a weird aura of insecurity. If you think the music you love is truly great and you love it, it doesn't matter what anybody says.


Insecurity exists on both sides. It takes two to tango. This can best be illustrated by how people who see nothing in Cage tend to see at least some merit in Alma Deutscher, and vice-versa. In previous years, it was arguably worse, because the objects of hatred would inevitably be long dead, like Schoenberg on one side and Rachmaninov on the other. Horrible atonal noise versus sentimental treacle. Probably no need for me to explain. Same sorts of subcultures of hatred as in the 1950's.

I think what we say does matter, because we're here to discuss music. Musical taste being a personal thing, arguments are liable to happen at the best of times. Ultimately what matters is how we talk about the music we like and don't like. If the tone of the conversation encourages exchange of ideas, then there can be a true meeting of the minds involved. In my experience there's not much of a chance of this happening in modernist topics.

The best outcome is a sort of stalemate, so the battle doesn't end but sort of lingers, inevitably arising in another thread. There was a point here many years ago when several modernist threads where created every week, one after the other.


----------



## Forster

What specific pieces of "contemporary" music have you been listening to that led you to describe it as 'autistic' music? I'm picturing you happily listening to the 'Moonlight' Sonata, and then you decide to plunge into a "contemporary" piece which leads you to conclude that "Almost everyone" of contemporary composers writes "autistic music". So, what compositions actually led you to that conclusion?



Calipso said:


> Atonality simply cannot be tied to our human nature.


Well, if it's been written by a human, it's tied to our human nature.



chipia said:


> Well "boring, dry, too long, unemotional etc." are judgements of the music, not qualitative statements.


Eh? "Judgements" _are _"qualitative statements"...aren't they?


----------



## Calipso

mmsbls said:


> If I understand you correctly, you are arguing that more people find CPT music pleasing than atonal music. I agree, but that has little to do with your original points. The original comments were:
> 
> Put aside the fact that I don't understand what autistic, mental hospital music is, and I suspect no one else does either. I simply posted a summary comment about classical music from those who dislike it showing that some who don't like classical music find it boring, emotionally unsatisfying, too cerebral, and unmelodic. That view is roughly similar to your view of contemporary atonal music.
> 
> So you don't like contemporary atonal music. Fine. I don't like some of it either.


If someone says that is atonal contemporary music emotionally unsatisfying, he is absolute right. This is natural and normal reaction. If someone says that Bach, Mozart or Tchaikovsky emotionally unsatisfying, there something probably wrong with that person. Btw, do you want to show me some contemporary atonal music which doesnt sound only weird, creepy, anxious? Thanks


----------



## Calipso

Forster said:


> What specific pieces of "contemporary" music have you been listening to that led you to describe it as 'autistic' music? I'm picturing you happily listening to the 'Moonlight' Sonata, and then you decide to plunge into a "contemporary" piece which leads you to conclude that "Almost everyone" of contemporary composers writes "autistic music". So, what compositions actually led you to that conclusion?
> 
> *Well, if it's been written by a human, it's tied to our human nature.*
> 
> Eh? "Judgements" _are _"qualitative statements"...aren't they?


Part of human nature are also different deviations.


----------



## Torkelburger

Calipso said:


> If someone says that is atonal contemporary music emotionally unsatisfying, he is absolute right. This is natural and normal reaction. If someone says that Bach, Mozart or Tchaikovsky emotionally unsatisfying, there something probably wrong with that person. Btw, do you want to show me some contemporary atonal music which doesnt sound only weird, creepy, anxious? Thanks


This is atonal, dissonant music (which, btw, aren't mutually exclusive), and not only doesn't sound weird or creepy or anxious to me (especially beginning at :30 and 1:20 when it really gets going), but is meditative and relaxing to me. You need not agree, however. Please listen to the whole thing for full effect.


----------



## Enthusiast

And more ...


----------



## mikeh375

Calipso said:


> Part of human nature are also different deviations.


Well I've known for a long time that composers are deviants but am glad they are still a part of the human race.....


----------



## Forster

Calipso said:


> Part of human nature are also different deviations.


You chose not to answer my main question. That might lead one to conclude that you are shy of putting forward evidence.


----------



## Calipso

Forster said:


> You chose not to answer my main question. That might lead one to conclude that you are shy of putting forward evidence.


 Everything by Carter, Boulez, Xenakis, Ligeti, Stockhauzen, Wuorinen, Saariaho etc.


----------



## Forster

Calipso said:


> Everything by Carter, Boulez, Xenakis, Ligeti, Stockhauzen, Wuorinen, Saariaho etc.


I think you misread, or misunderstood my question. What I asked was, what _in particular _did you listen to after switching from CPT to 'contemporary' that lead you to label it 'autistic'?

"Everything by...etc."...is just a sweeping generalisation. Why, if it's so awful, would you continue to listen to "Everything by...etc"?

I mean, I don't persist in listening to music I'm not interested in, never mind music I'm actually averse to, so it seems quite perverse that you have listened to so much that is awful.

I'm beginning to think that your judgement about "contemporary" music is suspect (not least because much of what you've listed is not really contemporary - the Carter you posted is almost 60 years old!)


----------



## chipia

Torkelburger said:


> This is atonal, dissonant music (which, btw, aren't mutually exclusive), and not only doesn't sound weird or creepy or anxious to me (especially beginning at :30 and 1:20 when it really gets going), but is meditative and relaxing to me. You need not agree, however. Please listen to the whole thing for full effect.


Beautiful music, but I'm not sure if Takemitsu can be called atonal. I haven't analyzed his scores in detail, but based on what I hear, his music seems to be based on characteristic scales and chord structures, like tonal music. 
I think he uses Messiaens modes of limited transpositions and occasionally japanese scales (which are subsets of the diatonic scale!). There are even parts that are based on major triads!

Maybe he uses atonality on occasion, I'm not sure. But overall I think that this has stronger ties to impressionism than to atonality.


----------



## Calipso

Forster said:


> I think you misread, or misunderstood my question. What I asked was, what _in particular _did you listen to after switching from CPT to 'contemporary' that lead you to label it 'autistic'?
> 
> "Everything by...etc."...is just a sweeping generalisation. Why, if it's so awful, would you continue to listen to "Everything by...etc"?
> 
> I mean, I don't persist in listening to music I'm not interested in, never mind music I'm actually averse to, so it seems quite perverse that you have listened to so much that is awful.
> 
> I'm beginning to think that your judgement about "contemporary" music is suspect (not least because much of what you've listed is not really contemporary - the Carter you posted is almost 60 years old!)


You dont have to understand every my word literally.


----------



## Forster

Calipso said:


> You dont have to understand every my word literally.


Well, yes, actually, what else is there to go on? What have I taken too literally? You haven't listened to all those composers (and more besides?)

Anyway, what about the idea that you've persisted in listening to lots of music you don't like? Why would you do that?


----------



## SONNET CLV

Forster said:


> ...
> Anyway, what about the idea that you've persisted in listening to lots of music you don't like? Why would you do that?


Count me as one who persists in listening to music I don't like. Of course, I listen more often (_much_ more often) to music I _do_ like. Or to, to me, new or unknown music by composers of music I have previously liked. Or to new music to sample if I will like it or not.

But I do re-listen to pieces that I have not enjoyed on first hearing. I sometimes do this to see if I have changed my mind. A case in point concerns cantatas by Bach and the Stravinsky _Rite of Spring_; I didn't like either the cantatas or the _Rite_ on first hearing, and I generally avoided both for years. But further listenings taught me my error. And today I remain a great fan of both. An immense fan.

Decades ago I played on my turntable the Iron Maiden album _Power Slave_. It's in my collection. I made it through about half of the first side before turning it off. Awful stuff, I thought. Since that time (mid-80s?) I've played the _Power Slave_ music a number of times, never quite making it through a side. I just can't get it. But the album is billed as "a heavy metal classic" and has likely sold millions of copies, so I think I may be missing something. I am, after all, a fan of contemporary music. But Iron Maiden has so far confounded my attempts to join them with the likes of Bach and Stravinsky. Alas .... Still, every couple of years, fate permitting, I will attempt a re-hearing of this album. Minds _can_ change, no?









I've always liked the cover art of this one.


----------



## Torkelburger

chipia said:


> Beautiful music, but I'm not sure if Takemitsu can be called atonal. I haven't analyzed his scores in detail, but based on what I hear, his music seems to be based on characteristic scales and chord structures, like tonal music.
> I think he uses Messiaens modes of limited transpositions and occasionally japanese scales (which are subsets of the diatonic scale!). There are even parts that are based on major triads!
> 
> Maybe he uses atonality on occasion, I'm not sure. But overall I think that this has stronger ties to impressionism than to atonality.


Yes, it is atonal. Atonal music can be based on scales. Like this for example, is completely atonal:






There is no tonal center whatsoever. There is no major or minor tonality. Yet, it is based on a scale (whole tone). However, you cannot sing a tonal center. There is none. It is completely atonal. It is also quite beautiful and expressive.

Same with pentatonic scales (which also occur in Debussy's music). There are no tonal centers. Any note can be the center as there are no leading tones (there are no half-steps). So that can also be considered atonal.

Chord structures make no difference either. Stacked perfect fourths are not tonal. Neither are mirror chords in Varese, for example.

I do not see how Messiaen Modes are tonal. They are symmetrical. But I do not hear one tone centered over others. Even the octatonic. All intervals are the same. Just like whole tone and chromatic (which are also Messiaen Modes).

Alot of impressionism is atonal. Like using parallel seventh chords with no function (often in Ravel for example). Just because triads are used does not mean the music is tonal.

Watch this excellent video for further explanation. It is made by a composer who studied with David Diamond at Julliard to receive a doctorate in composition. Not only is that point explained, but also the one about how atonality does not mean something is dissonant (and also substantiates why Takemitsu is atonal).


----------



## Forster

SONNET CLV said:


> Count me as one who persists in listening to music I don't like. Of course, I listen more often (_much_ more often) to music I _do_ like. Or to, to me, new or unknown music by composers of music I have previously liked. Or to new music to sample if I will like it or not.
> 
> But I do re-listen to pieces that I have not enjoyed on first hearing. I sometimes do this to see if I have changed my mind. A case in point concerns cantatas by Bach and the Stravinsky _Rite of Spring_; I didn't like either the cantatas or the _Rite_ on first hearing, and I generally avoided both for years. But further listenings taught me my error. And today I remain a great fan of both. An immense fan.
> 
> Decades ago I played on my turntable the Iron Maiden album _Power Slave_. It's in my collection. I made it through about half of the first side before turning it off. Awful stuff, I thought. Since that time (mid-80s?) I've played the _Power Slave_ music a number of times, never quite making it through a side. I just can't get it. But the album is billed as "a heavy metal classic" and has likely sold millions of copies, so I think I may be missing something. I am, after all, a fan of contemporary music. But Iron Maiden has so far confounded my attempts to join them with the likes of Bach and Stravinsky. Alas .... Still, every couple of years, fate permitting, I will attempt a re-hearing of this album. Minds _can_ change, no?
> 
> View attachment 158808
> 
> 
> I've always liked the cover art of this one.


Count me as one too. I dismissed the entirety of Mahler's symphonic output having heard and disliked only the adagietto from the 5th. Eventually, I succumbed to the 6th, the 5th, the 3rd and the 1st, by various routes.

So, yes, _open _minds can change. But a mind that has dismissed the entirety of "contemporary" music as our fellow member has is rather more sweeping a dismissal than the kind of specific rejection we've both admitted to.

I'm not sure about the Iron Maiden. I have none in my collection, so can't comment, but both my brothers rave about King Crimson. I periodically have a go - I said as much to my younger brother just last Sunday..."Oh, yes, I keep meaning to listen a bit more, but..."

So much music to enjoy, to discover, why waste time listening to so much that apparently gives only displeasure?


----------



## mmsbls

Forster said:


> Count me as one too. I dismissed the entirety of Mahler's symphonic output having heard and disliked only the adagietto from the 5th. Eventually, I succumbed to the 6th, the 5th, the 3rd and the 1st, by various routes.
> 
> So, yes, _open _minds can change. But a mind that has dismissed the entirety of "contemporary" music as our fellow member has is rather more sweeping a dismissal than the kind of specific rejection we've both referred to....


I know many, including myself, who have repeatedly listened to many new works to "learn" how to appreciate them. Many of those I know have had much success in going from finding a work unpleasant to greatly enjoying the work. All of them believed that the work could eventually become accessible (they had an open mind).

I doubt anyone who believes that certain music sounds like an "anxious alien escaped from mental hospital" would listen with the appropriate attitude necessary to change how one's brain hears the music.


----------



## Simon Moon

SONNET CLV said:


> Count me as one who persists in listening to music I don't like. Of course, I listen more often (_much_ more often) to music I _do_ like. Or to, to me, new or unknown music by composers of music I have previously liked. Or to new music to sample if I will like it or not.
> 
> But I do re-listen to pieces that I have not enjoyed on first hearing. I sometimes do this to see if I have changed my mind. A case in point concerns cantatas by Bach and the Stravinsky _Rite of Spring_; I didn't like either the cantatas or the _Rite_ on first hearing, and I generally avoided both for years. But further listenings taught me my error. And today I remain a great fan of both. An immense fan.
> 
> Decades ago I played on my turntable the Iron Maiden album _Power Slave_. It's in my collection. I made it through about half of the first side before turning it off. Awful stuff, I thought. Since that time (mid-80s?) I've played the _Power Slave_ music a number of times, never quite making it through a side. I just can't get it. But the album is billed as "a heavy metal classic" and has likely sold millions of copies, so I think I may be missing something. I am, after all, a fan of contemporary music. But Iron Maiden has so far confounded my attempts to join them with the likes of Bach and Stravinsky. Alas .... Still, every couple of years, fate permitting, I will attempt a re-hearing of this album. Minds _can_ change, no?
> 
> I've always liked the cover art of this one.


Count me as yet another who persists in listening to music I do not initially like.

I have a long history in listening to music I do/did not initially like, where such music becomes some of my favorite in my collection. This dates back to before I even started listening to classical.

For example, I had several Gentle Giant recordings in my collection for a couple of years that I'd repeatedly listen to, before they finally sunk in. Since then, they have remained one of my favorite bands. It might have been their use of dissonance that took me a while to get.

Then it was avant-prog bands such as, Thinking Plague, who use serial techniques and dissonance in their compositions. Again, took me a while to get, but the entire subgenre remains one of my favorite.


----------



## chipia

Torkelburger said:


> There is no tonal center whatsoever. There is no major or minor tonality. Yet, it is based on a scale (whole tone). However, you cannot sing a tonal center. There is none. It is completely atonal. It is also quite beautiful and expressive.
> 
> Same with pentatonic scales (which also occur in Debussy's music). There are no tonal centers. Any note can be the center as there are no leading tones (there are no half-steps). So that can also be considered atonal.


That just shows how useless the terms "tonal" and "atonal" are. If a classification puts "Old Mac Donalds had a farm" into the same category as Schoenberg, you know it's in need of replacement. I've never liked the terms tonal/atonal personally: They are too vague and on top of that don't make sense: Atonal means "not through tones", but atonal music is just as much based on tones as tonal music!

Anyways, I think in the context of this discussion we should restrict the term "atonal" to music that emancipates all 12 chromatic tones i.e. the second viennese school and their successors. I think it's obvious we were not talking about debussy or old mac donalds (pentatonic scale!).


----------



## Forster

chipia said:


> That just shows how useless the terms "tonal" and "atonal" are.


And yet you used the term in your OP to talk about the music "which is usually promoted *nowadays*" which, afaik, wouldn't encompass just "the second viennese school and their successors".


----------



## chipia

Forster said:


> And yet you used the term in your OP to talk about the music "which is usually promoted *nowadays*" which, afaik, wouldn't encompass just "the second viennese school and their successors".


Yes I had to use the terms because these are unfortunately the standard terms to refer to this kind of music. If had made up my own terms nobody would have understood me.

Also, there is still a lot of music written that continues the tradition started by the second viennese school and emancipates the 12 tones.


----------



## Torkelburger

chipia said:


> That just shows how useless the terms "tonal" and "atonal" are. If a classification puts "Old Mac Donalds had a farm" into the same category as Schoenberg, you know it's in need of replacement. I've never liked the terms tonal/atonal personally: They are too vague and on top of that don't make sense: Atonal means "not through tones", but atonal music is just as much based on tones as tonal music!
> 
> Anyways, I think in the context of this discussion we should restrict the term "atonal" to music that emancipates all 12 chromatic tones i.e. the second viennese school and their successors. I think it's obvious we were not talking about debussy or old mac donalds (pentatonic scale!).


Yeah, and then there is also the argument that modal is not tonal, etc. as well. But let's not get sidetracked. Anyway, I see no reason to be so specific unless you have some personal agenda against the SVS. Debussy simply is atonal, by it's very definition and more importantly, he is its modern-day predecessor. Not only that, but even he did not just pull it out of a hat. It's been around for millennia (by definition).

There is truth, in fact (at least according to Bernstein) in what you say when you say "atonal music is just as much based on tones as tonal music". Have you seen (or read) Leonard Bernstein's famous Harvard Lectures? When discussing 12-tone music, he made the argument that you can't really completely have atonal music totally separate from tonality. The reason for this is simply because they are both based on the same 12-tones. If you really wanted something not tonal, you'd need a completely different set of tones (I think this is what he was saying). So atonality really is in a way a subset of tonality, so to speak. He goes into it in much more detail, of course, but...(someone correct me if I am interpreting him incorrectly). I can try and find the speech at some point if need be.

I am happy to discuss whatever aspect of atonality you'd like. However, atonality existed in many forms from many different composers and countries in the 20th century, not just Vienna post-Arnie's op. 11. Charles Ives in very early 20th cent., Bartok can be extremely atonal, even Hindemith can be sort of described as kind of a liminal space between the two schools. There's many others. (And there are even passages in Strauss and extended passages in Berlioz that are atonal).

But what about the SVS is bothering you?


----------



## Torkelburger

chipia said:


> Hi,
> 
> I would like to introduce you to an exciting experiment that I discovered.
> 
> It's about the Dutch composer Alexander Comitas. He wanted to test whether the modern atonal art music, which is usually promoted nowadays, can be distinguished from hitting random keys on the piano.
> 
> For this purpose he "composed" a piece called "Bubbles" by letting his young children, who had no musical education, play random notes on the keyboard. In the end, the children only divided the notes among the instruments. However, the composer did not tell anyone how the piece was made.
> 
> And indeed: Alexander Comitas received a grant of 3000 € for this composition! The jury, which consisted of a composer, a musicologist and a conductor, found the piece to be of high quality and even better than the previous (mostly tonal) compositions by Comitas.
> 
> You can take a closer look at the story under the following links:
> 
> https://aristos.org/aris-13/bubblesetc.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here the composition Bubbles:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think about this? I find the experiment very exciting, as it confirms what I had been thinking for a long time: Most modern classical music can hardly be distinguished from random notes.
> I have seriously studied the composition methods of modern composers like Boulez, but came to the conclusion: No matter how "structured" these compositions seem on paper, they are irrelevant to the listener, since these structures are simply not audible.
> 
> However, instead of criticizing these compositions constructively, advocates of atonal music are often amazed at the "complex" and "innovative" structures of the compositions - even if they do not exist, as the Bubbles experiment shows.
> 
> I think that such experiments should be performed more often so that it becomes clear that the avantgarde mentality is causing damage to modern classical music and hindering the development of new music that actually relates to way humans perceive music.
> 
> What do you think?


There was a huge difference between what his children played and the what he submitted. He edited and filtered the music. He put tempo markings, tightened up the meters to make more musical sense, and it's obviously been quantized. Also, he added dynamics and articulation which was not there previously. Further, he made the music idiomatic for the instruments (put them into their ranges (they were at times out of range when improvised), and removed notes down to one voice when multiple were entered onto one part previously. And he added coloristic effects that were not there initially. That's a lot of editing. It's not as random as he is making it appear. The piece is technically COMPOSED as normal.

The fact that children chose the tones at random on the keyboard in order for him to COMPOSE WITH, does not mean the whole piece was random and is not at all shocking or unusual. Composers do, in fact, use randomness sometimes to select pitches to compose with ON PURPOSE because they do not want any kind of relatable response from the listener, etc. Before computers, you could have used printed books of random numbers (as used by scientists), dice, or the I Ching, etc. Now we have random number generators on computers to help with this. But it is not an uncommon technique. I do not see what the fuss is about.


----------



## EdwardBast

chipia said:


> Atonal means "not through tones", but atonal music is just as much based on tones as tonal music!


No, it doesn't mean "not through tones." It means without tonality.


----------



## chipia

Torkelburger said:


> There was a huge difference between what his children played and the what he submitted. He edited and filtered the music. He put tempo markings, tightened up the meters to make more musical sense, and it's obviously been quantized. Also, he added dynamics and articulation which was not there previously. Further, he made the music idiomatic for the instruments (put them into their ranges (they were at times out of range when improvised), and removed notes down to one voice when multiple were entered onto one part previously. And he added coloristic effects that were not there initially. That's a lot of editing. It's not as random as he is making it appear. The piece is technically COMPOSED as normal.


Did you actually listen to the children's raw version from the 1st video, and the edited version from the 2nd video side by side? For example 1st Video 1:20 vs 2nd Video 0:16. They sound almost the same. He added barlines without actually changing the music, they are only there to make the score more readable. I think he had to add dynamics and articulation to make the score look professional, because these things were not included in the automatic transcription.

I wouldn't call this composing, he really adjusted the improvisation only as much as was necessary to get a professional looking sheet music.


----------



## Torkelburger

chipia said:


> Did you actually listen to the children's raw version from the 1st video, and the edited version from the 2nd video side by side? For example 1st Video 1:20 vs 2nd Video 0:16. They sound almost the same. He added barlines without actually changing the music, they are only there to make the score more readable. I think he had to add dynamics and articulation to make the score look professional, because these things were not included in the automatic transcription.
> 
> I wouldn't call this composing, he really adjusted the improvisation only as much as was necessary to get a professional looking sheet music.


If that's the case, then there would be no reason for him to do anything AT ALL, whatsoever. He would just hand them the initial print out of what was improvised. No, I'm not buying it. It's an intentional attempt to fool someone by pretending that it was random when IT WASN'T. It's a grossly edited and refined score. Sorry.


----------



## chipia

EdwardBast said:


> No, it doesn't mean "not through tones." It means without tonality.


No, it doesn't. 
"atonal" is derived from the Ancient Greek prefix "a-" (not), the Latin "tonus" (tone) and the Latin suffix "-alis"/-al (pertaining to).
So the literal meaning of "atonal" is "not pertaining to tones" which is obviously wrong.


----------



## chipia

Torkelburger said:


> If that's the case, then there would be no reason for him to do anything AT ALL, whatsoever. He would just hand them the initial print out of what was improvised. No, I'm not buying it. It's an intentional attempt to fool someone by pretending that it was random when IT WASN'T. It's a grossly edited and refined score. Sorry.


I've already explained that barlines, dynamics, articulation and tempo indications are necessary to make a score look professional. The jury probably wouldn't consider a score without these things, because avantgarde scores are typically very detailed (just look at ferneyhough).

I admit though that the stunt would be a bit more convincing if the transcription software also transcribed dynamics etc. but apparently that was not an option. Maybe someone should repeat it with better equipment?


----------



## Calipso

mmsbls said:


> I know many, including myself, who have repeatedly listened to many new works to "learn" how to appreciate them. Many of those I know have had much success in going from finding a work unpleasant to greatly enjoying the work. All of them believed that the work could eventually become accessible (they had an open mind).
> 
> *I doubt anyone who believes that certain music sounds like an "anxious alien escaped from mental hospital" would listen with the appropriate attitude necessary to change how one's brain hears the music.*


I dont believe. I know.


----------



## mmsbls

Torkelburger said:


> I am happy to discuss whatever aspect of atonality you'd like. However, atonality existed in many forms from many different composers and countries in the 20th century, not just Vienna post-Arnie's op. 11. Charles Ives in very early 20th cent., Bartok can be extremely atonal, even Hindemith can be sort of described as kind of a liminal space between the two schools. There's many others. (And there are even passages in Strauss and extended passages in Berlioz that are atonal).


When I first came to TC, I thought pretty much any modern work that sounded "weird" was atonal. I quickly learned that I had no understanding of atonal. My daughter, when studying theory in school, gave me a very different sense of atonal than the "simple" idea of a work with no tonal center. She told me her understanding of atonal was a decision made typically by musicologists analyzing works. In her view, it had little to do with hearing a tonal center (although this could also be true), but rather the distinction was whether analyzing a work made more sense within a CPT framework or not. If so, the work was tonal. If analyzing using other techniques (I guess modern techniques) made more sense, then the work was atonal. She said she even analyzed Wagner using a non-CPT framework. She said one could do it, but she felt it made more sense to use a CPT framework. If you think this is not quite right, please let me know.

I never even think whether a work is tonal or not since, unless it's, for example, Classical or Romantic, I probably would have no idea. The concept seems fairly useless to the vast majority of TC members since they don't analyze music.

One question I have is whether there are significant numbers of non-CPT modern works that aren't really atonal. For example, would a work such as Scelsi's Uaxuctum or Penderecki's Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima be considered atonal?


----------



## Torkelburger

chipia said:


> *I've already explained that barlines, dynamics, articulation and tempo indications are necessary to make a score look professional.* The jury probably wouldn't consider a score without these things, because avantgarde scores are typically very detailed (just look at ferneyhough).
> 
> I admit though that the experiment would be a bit more convincing if the transcription software also transcribe dynamics etc. but apparently that was not an option. Maybe someone should repeat it with better equipment?


Those are also willful acts of composition. None of this rebuts anything I said anyway. I said he edited what the children played. He edited it with willful, purposeful, acts of composition such as indicating the tempo markings, choosing the meters, dynamics, and articulation. Also, the music was quantized. Just look at what was played and what was submitted (it DOESN'T MATTER THAT IT SOUNDS SIMILAR). Sixty-fourth and thirty-second notes and rests in succession are rounded to the nearest beats, etc. Further, ONE alto sax cannot play a huge CHORD, especially one where the notes are WELL ABOVE and BELOW it's range, not even close to it. And ONE bassoon cannot play a CHORD of a cluster of seconds WAY BELOW it's range either. So no, it doesn't always sound exactly the same. He had to change A LOT in some circumstances. It's a charade I'm not buying. It's totally dishonest of him to say he submitted a piece randomly composed by his children. It wasn't. He composed a piece editing notes they chose at random. That is the accurate description of what happened. Big deal. Composers do that all the time. I don't care if it sounds similar. He composed the piece.


----------



## Torkelburger

mmsbls, I will attempt to answer tomorrow. Gotta run.


----------



## 59540

Torkelburger said:


> Those are also willful acts of composition. None of this rebuts anything I said anyway. I said he edited what the children played. He edited it with willful, purposeful, acts of composition such as indicating the tempo markings, choosing the meters, dynamics, and articulation. Also, the music was quantized. Just look at what was played and what was submitted (it DOESN'T MATTER THAT IT SOUNDS SIMILAR). Sixty-fourth and thirty-second notes and rests in succession are rounded to the nearest beats, etc. Further, ONE alto sax cannot play a huge CHORD, especially one where the notes are WELL ABOVE and BELOW it's range, not even close to it. And ONE bassoon cannot play a CHORD of a cluster of seconds WAY BELOW it's range either. So no, it doesn't always sound exactly the same. He had to change A LOT in some circumstances. It's a charade I'm not buying. It's totally dishonest of him to say he submitted a piece randomly composed by his children. It wasn't. He composed a piece editing notes they chose at random. That is the accurate description of what happened. Big deal. Composers do that all the time. I don't care if it sounds similar. He composed the piece.


So was it good? 


EdwardBast said:


> No, it doesn't mean "not through tones." It means without tonality.


Maybe "non-centered tonality" would be better. Semantics and the aforementioned inevitable hair-splitting contest.


----------



## EdwardBast

dissident said:


> So was it good?
> 
> Maybe "non-centered tonality" would be better. Semantics and the aforementioned inevitable hair-splitting contest.


Non-centered tonality is an oxymoron. Tonality as used by theorists means something specific and the word atonal was defined in relation to that meaning.


----------



## chipia

dissident said:


> Maybe "non-centered tonality" would be better. Semantics and the aforementioned inevitable hair-splitting contest.


Personally I like the term Schönberg himself used for his music: *Pantonal*, which means "pertaining to _all_ tones". 
This makes sense, as his music typically emancipates all 12 tones of the chromatic scale (instead of focusing on specific subsets of tones like diatonic/pentatonic/etc.). I like this term because it describes the music by what it is instead by what it isn't.

Also, it avoids the pitfall of having Schönberg and Old Macdonalds in the same category...


----------



## 59540

EdwardBast said:


> Non-centered tonality is an oxymoron. Tonality as used by theorists means something specific and the word atonal was defined in relation to that meaning.


If that's an oxymoron then atonality would be better. Either way most not wanting to split hairs know what's meant.


----------



## Forster

dissident said:


> If that's an oxymoron then atonality would be better. Either way most not wanting to split hairs know what's meant.


But splitting hairs does mean the question of what the objection to "atonal" music is really about can be avoided.


----------



## Enthusiast

What is it _about_? This is an unanswerable question. It is music. It "talks to" (metaphor!) many people. Some people struggle with it when they first encounter it but most get over that fairly quickly if they care to. But, of course, atonal music has many different manifestations and the great many major composers who write atonal music are often very different from each other. I find it best not to worry if a piece is or is not atonal - I honestly can't say for many pieces I know and love! - and so it is just the question of do I like the music or not, does it tell me something new and striking and even personal.


----------



## EdwardBast

dissident said:


> If that's an oxymoron then atonality would be better. Either way most not wanting to split hairs know what's meant.


In this thread, "not wanting to split hairs" means clueless about basic concepts and terminology. For example:



chipia said:


> *Pantonal*, which means "pertaining to _all_ tones".


In the terms atonal and pantonal, tonal refers not to tones but to tonalities.


----------



## chipia

EdwardBast said:


> In this thread, "not wanting to split hairs" means clueless about basic concepts and terminology. For example:
> 
> In the terms atonal and pantonal, tonal refers not to tones but to tonalities.


I was providing a _literal_ translation based on the greek/latin roots of the term. My point was to come up with a terminology that describes the music more appropriately. The fact that some people already use "pantonal" in a sense that is at odds with its etymology, the music it describes, and the usage of analogous terms (like pandiatonic) only shows that the term is in need of redefinition to describe music more concisely. In any case, I think pantonal is a more appropriate word than "atonal".


----------



## EdwardBast

chipia said:


> I was providing a _literal_ translation based on the greek/latin roots of the term. My point was to come up with a terminology that describes the music more appropriately. The fact that some people already use "pantonal" in a sense that is at odds with its etymology, the music it describes, and the usage of analogous terms (like pandiatonic) only shows that the term is in need of redefinition to describe music more concisely. In any case, I think pantonal is a more appropriate word than "atonal".


You got the etymology wrong. The term isn't in need of redefinition, it's only in need of people who learn, or at least care, what terms mean before they use them.


----------



## chipia

EdwardBast said:


> You got the etymology wrong. The term isn't in need of redefinition, it's only in need of people who learn, or at least care, what terms mean before they use them.


If you know better, could you demonstrate music that qualifies as pantonal?

Also, what is according to your understanding of etymology, the correct graeco-latin term for "pertaining to all tones"?


----------



## Forster

...continuing to avoid the question...

What does the etymology matter? You already said what you meant was SVS, so perhaps you could develop that part of your argument and respond to questions posed by other posters.


----------



## fbjim

chipia said:


> I was providing a _literal_ translation based on the greek/latin roots of the term. My point was to come up with a terminology that describes the music more appropriately. The fact that some people already use "pantonal" in a sense that is at odds with its etymology, the music it describes, and the usage of analogous terms (like pandiatonic) only shows that the term is in need of redefinition to describe music more concisely. In any case, I think pantonal is a more appropriate word than "atonal".


There are all sorts of instances where words, when used in the context of specialized fields, have meanings that are not strictly in line with their dictionary definitions, let alone their etymologies.


----------



## mmsbls

fbjim said:


> There are all sorts of instances where words, when used in the context of specialized fields, have meanings that are not strictly in line with their dictionary definitions, let alone their etymologies.


Absolutely, yes. In particle physics there are is a particle known as the charm quark. The term "charm" here has nothing whatsoever to do with the definition of charm (e.g. giving delight). It is simply a technical term.

We've had debates about atonal and it's meaning. It is a technical term used by those who analyze music. My feeling is that anyone who does not routinely analyze music and _talk to others in the field of music analysis about such music_ may misunderstand the term and its usage. The etymology of a word in general usage can be very useful, but the etymology of technical terms can be misleading.


----------



## SanAntone

mmsbls said:


> Absolutely, yes. In particle physics there are is a particle known as the charm quark. The term "charm" here has nothing whatsoever to do with the definition of charm (e.g. giving delight). It is simply a technical term.
> 
> We've had debates about atonal and it's meaning. It is a technical term used by those who analyze music. My feeling is that anyone who does not routinely analyze music and _talk to others in the field of music analysis about such music_ may misunderstand the term and its usage. The etymology of a word in general usage can be very useful, but the etymology of technical terms can be misleading.


I've seen where people try to say that Anti-Semiticism also refers to Arabs, because they are Semites too. But the history of the word shows that it is very specifically directed at Jews. Mark Twain had a funny comment about this kind of thing, i.e. not knowing the difference between lightening and lightening bugs.

As far as the term "atonal" - I've never seen it used in any other way than in the usage to describe music which is outside of the diatonic tonal system of music. The idea that it means music that is without tones is absurd.


----------



## Torkelburger

> In her view, it had little to do with hearing a tonal center (although this could also be true), but rather the distinction was whether analyzing a work made more sense within a CPT framework or not. If so, the work was tonal.


That's an interesting take. I find it a little too specific, I think, because modal music would be tonal if you based it on hearing a tonal center, but it is atonal if you based it on a CPT framework. I don't know what the official verdict is by theorists, perhaps Taggart or EdwardBast know.


> If analyzing using other techniques (I guess modern techniques) made more sense, then the work was atonal. She said she even analyzed Wagner using a non-CPT framework. She said one could do it, but she felt it made more sense to use a CPT framework.


You can analyze anything with modern techniques (pitch class set theory, Schenkerian, etc.) but yeah, I would analyze Wagner in a tonal, functional sense. Even Tristan. But I am no expert on Wagner, unfortunately. Woodduck is the expert and I believe he has posted quite extensively on the harmonic analysis of Wagner. Good reads.


> One question I have is whether there are significant numbers of non-CPT modern works that aren't really atonal.


Sure, lots. Some music by Copland, Stravinsky, Bernstein, Vaughn-Williams, Walton, Kabalevsky, Khachaturian, and many, many others.


> For example, would a work such as Scelsi's Uaxuctum or Penderecki's Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima be considered atonal?


Yes, Threnody is definitely atonal. There is no tonal center and there are gigantic clusters containing dozens of notes including microtones. Also, he uses twelve-tone rows to generate pitch content (though he is not writing in any 12-tone method, technically). Also, he is working with unpitched sounds. So yes, atonal.


----------



## chipia

SanAntone said:


> As far as the term "atonal" - I've never seen it used in any other way than in the usage to describe music which is outside of the diatonic tonal system of music. The idea that it means music that is without tones is absurd.


The real problem is that - regardless of etymology - the term "atonal" is way too vague as it encompasses disparate schools of music like impressionism, second viennese school and pentatonic children's songs.

I proposed that "pantonal" may be a more useful term to avoid this confusion, as it pertains specifically to SVS and related traditions, i.e. the types of music that people typically mean when they talk about "atonal" music.


----------



## Torkelburger

chipia said:


> The real problem is that - regardless of etymology - the term "atonal" is way too vague as it encompasses disparate schools of music like impressionism, second viennese school and pentatonic children's songs.
> 
> I proposed that "pantonal" may be a more useful term to avoid this confusion, as it pertains specifically to SVS and related traditions, i.e. the types of music that people typically mean when they talk about "atonal" music.


By that logic, you just have the same problem then, just reversed. "Tonal" then becomes too vague. Now we don't know what tonal is in any clear sense. Is impressionism now tonal? Are pentatonic songs tonal? Gregorian chant? EVERYTHING outside of the SVS? Not just CPT? That's pretty vague. Gonna gave to come up with a new term for tonal too.


----------



## SanAntone

chipia said:


> The real problem is that - regardless of etymology - the term "atonal" is way too vague as it encompasses disparate schools of music like impressionism, second viennese school and pentatonic children's songs.
> 
> I proposed that "pantonal" may be a more useful term to avoid this confusion, as it pertains specifically to SVS and related traditions, i.e. the types of music that people typically mean when they talk about "atonal" music.


The term "atonal" has been widely used over many decades and includes music beyond the second Viennese school, or 12-tone music. Atonal simply means music which cannot be ascribed in the main to any of the 24 major or minor keys, or if you wish to include the 8 modes. Music can be analyzed as to whether it is tonal or not, one indicator (although not definitive) is the existence of a key signature, which might be a clue as to how the composer viewed the work. But there are ways to also try to make out even 12-tone works could be analyzed as tonal.

IMO, Western Classical music fundamentally involves the resolution of tension: either created by the resolution of the dissonance harmonic values to consonance harmonic values (e.g. V-I) in diatonic tonality, or the resolution of tension created by a complex texture to a simpler one; or a highly charged dissonance to a less complicated one.

These examples can occur in tonal as well as atonal works. Essentially what I am saying is that the important aspects of Classical music are not bound up with tonality or atonality, the primary values transcend those superficial attributes.

I can't help but feel that there is something driving your argument other than semantics.


----------



## chipia

Torkelburger said:


> By that logic, you just have the same problem then, just reversed. "Tonal" then becomes too vague. Now we don't know what tonal is in any clear sense. Is impressionism now tonal? Are pentatonic songs tonal? Gregorian chant? EVERYTHING outside of the SVS? Not just CPT? That's pretty vague. Gonna gave to come up with a new term for tonal too.


You are totally right and I had exactly the same thoughts. I'm not a fan of "tonal" either. I guess the opposite of pantonal could be "oligotonal" i.e. music where several tones take precedence over the others. In the case of diatonic music (which encompasses both CPT and Modal) for example the 7 notes of the diatonic scale take precedence over the remaining 5 chromatic tones.

It is still a broad category, but in a more meaningful way than the tonal / atonal dichotomy: 
E.g. it makes more sense to have impressionists in the same category as CPT because it is much closer related to CPT than to SVS: It's still based on characteristic scales and chord structures, their contrasts, and modulation between them. The SVS did away with this things, which was a much more fundamental break with the tradition. And I don't think I need to get into pentatonic child's song...


----------



## Torkelburger

Thanks for your honesty and candor. Did you read SanAntone's post above #641? And what is it in particular about the SVS that is bothering you about this? Is it that you think they sound random? And so serial technique is pointless? Is it that their version of atonality is too dissonant to your tastes? Is it how it is written? What are your issues?


----------



## Torkelburger

dissident said:


> So was it good?



No, not really, IMO. The music lacks a clear, strong character and overall narrative whereas the SVS does. The music is not moving at all (does not "move" me) whereas (since we are comparing to the SVS) Schoenberg and Berg especially move me immensely.

The music is completely uninteresting for a variety of reasons. It doesn't develop or resolve to anything. There is no discernible punctuation. Nothing memorable or any sign of a personal voice other than tepidness. The orchestration is bland, not terribly idiomatic, doesn't make use of foreground/background (everything is just grey). There is no contrast. They don't even work as miniatures. The beginning, middle, and ends are relatively the same and you can take one note and pull it out of context, place it somewhere else and the piece wouldn't change.

You can't say the same things for the SVS as asserted, IMO.

And quite frankly, a big problem I have is that this music DOES NOT SOUND RANDOM AT ALL, but dull and poorly-written. There is no discernible system of harmony or melody, etc. And if you aren't going to use melody, that's fine, but something else must take up the slack. And nothing does.

But the lack of randomness in the pitches is a big problem. There is no chromatic cycling through pitch classes in order to maintain an overall sense of freshness and novelty.

The notes, in fact, really were not random at all. Which could be why they sound so bad. See this video for an explanation of why (I grew up watching this program and watch it still for nostalgic reasons. It's where I knew scientists used books for random number generation in the old days. LOL!)


----------



## Torkelburger

chipia said:


> You are totally right and I had exactly the same thoughts. I'm not a fan of "tonal" either. I guess the opposite of pantonal could be "oligotonal" i.e. music where several tones take precedence over the others. In the case of diatonic music (which encompasses both CPT and Modal) for example the 7 notes of the diatonic scale take precedence over the remaining 5 chromatic tones.
> 
> It is still a broad category, but in a more meaningful way than the tonal / atonal dichotomy:
> E.g. it makes more sense to have impressionists in the same category as CPT because it is much closer related to CPT than to SVS: It's still based on characteristic scales and chord structures, their contrasts, and modulation between them. The SVS did away with this things, which was a much more fundamental break with the tradition. And I don't think I need to get into pentatonic child's song...


Just to nitpick--the whole purpose of impressionism, at least as far as Debussy was concerned (I'm sure the others as well), was to *deliberately reject* CPT and the entire Germanic tradition up to that point. So you have grossly misrepresented impressionism in the post above.

CPT and the traditions you are advocating was "done away with" long before the SVS.


----------



## EdwardBast

chipia said:


> If you know better, could you demonstrate music that qualifies as pantonal?
> 
> Also, what is according to your understanding of etymology, the correct graeco-latin term for "pertaining to all tones"?


I don't use the word pantonal because I don't recognize any coherent conceptual basis for it.

The term doesn't derive directly from an ancient root. Tonal in that context relates to the modern musical term tonality, not to tone.


----------



## chipia

Torkelburger said:


> Just to nitpick--the whole purpose of impressionism, at least as far as Debussy was concerned (I'm sure the others as well), was to *deliberately reject* CPT and the entire Germanic tradition up to that point. So you have grossly misrepresented impressionism in the post above.
> 
> CPT and the traditions you are advocating was "done away with" long before the SVS.


Whatever the *intention* of impressionism was, the fact is that it is actually still based on the same principles as CPT music: Melodies and characteristic chord structures derived from characteristic scales. This puts it in sharp contrast to SVS who abandoned these principles all together.

Of course impressionism is different from CPT in that it uses *different* scales and chords from CPT - e.g. pentatonic and whole-tone scales in your debussy example - but they don't remove this basic principle altogether. They simply adjust it to their specific needs. SVS on the other hand completely breaks this tradition (whatever their intention may be).


----------



## mmsbls

EdwardBast said:


> I don't use the word pantonal because I don't recognize any coherent conceptual basis for it.
> 
> The term doesn't derive directly from an ancient root. Tonal in that context relates to the modern musical term tonality, not to tone.


I wonder how often the term atonal is used within professional circles. Do composers regularly use the term even when discussing SVS or other such works? Do musicologists refer to atonality often? Obviously it could depend on the specific discussion, but I wonder if it's considered a very useful or important term.

I quoted EdwardBast but would appreciate inputs from Torkelburger or any other professionals.


----------



## EdwardBast

mmsbls said:


> I wonder how often the term atonal is used within professional circles. Do composers regularly use the term even when discussing SVS or other such works? Do musicologists refer to atonality often? Obviously it could depend on the specific discussion, but I wonder if it's considered a very useful or important term.
> 
> I quoted EdwardBast but would appreciate inputs from Torkelburger or any other professionals.


For general usage, the term atonal isn't good for much. One could say 12-tone works are (usually) atonal (Duh!), but there's not much point in doing so. One might say that works in whole tone scales don't have a tonal center, but saying they're atonal is silly and beside any point. The term is just too vague for most applications and there is almost always a better and more specific one if one is describing a particular work. Any term saying what a work is, is more useful than saying what it isn't (tonal in this case). The term is abused constantly. I've seen it applied to music like the slow movement of Prokofiev's 7th sonata, a usage that is worse than vacuous.

In musicology the term atonal has been used to describe pre-12-tone works by SVS composers, and this usage is considered legitimate. In this context it is used as part of a dialectical relationship to the extended tonal practice of post Romantic composers. The idea is that this atonality is just a further step in freeing chromatic music from traditional harmonic language and progression, but with the understanding that certain stylistic sensibilities about voice-leading could still be in effect. Thus one will hear about the atonal works of Schoenberg (beginning with Op. 11), which distinguishes them from the tonalish ones before and the 12-tone ones after. Outside of this and similar specific historical contexts it should be used with caution or eschewed in favor of something more precise.


----------



## mikeh375

George Perle on atonality...

"The dissociation of the chromatic scale from chromaticism"
"..it is impossible to state fundamental conditions of atonality in general, except in a negative way, merely stipulating the abscence of a priori functional connections among the 12 notes."

from Serial Composition and Atonality.


----------



## chipia

Torkelburger said:


> CPT and the traditions you are advocating was "done away with" long before the SVS.


I can easily demonstrate based on the debussy piece you've posted, that impressionism did not do away with the traditions I am advocating:






The part until 1:58 is entirely in the whole-tone scale. It's only 6 tones, that take precedence over all the others. There's no emancipation of all 12 tones at all. This is what gives this part its specific "color" or "feel" as the whole-tone scale has a specific sonority that is often associated with mystery that the ear can easily recognize.

However, at 1:30 an interesting detail emerges: In the right hand there is a D-Flat, a note outside of the whole-tone scale! But the note is immediately resolved to C, a note inside the whole-tone scale - it's basically a chromatic passing note. This is what I meant by "oligotonality": The 6 tones of the whole tone scale have the highest priority. You can still introduce notes outside of the scale but they must be resolved into the scale, because they are lower in the hierarchy. So there is still no emancipation of the 12 notes.

This is really the same principle as chromaticism in CPT-music: A chromatic note must also be resolved to a note inside the scale (unless you modulate), for example in c-major a d-sharp is resolved to e, etc. Debussy took the principle of chromaticism but instead of diatonic scales he applied it to the whole tone scale.

Another interesting thing happens at 1:58: The music modulates to the G-Flat Pentatonic scale! Note that this modulation happens through common tones: Both scales have Gb, Ab and Bb in common. Note how Debussy emphasises this by lingering specifically on the two tones Bb and Ab before moving to the rest of the pentatonic scale, to allow a smooth transition. He is using them as pivot tones, much like pivot tones are used in CPT-music to modulate between different major/minor scales.

Note that the change to the pentatonic scale is easily tangible by the human ear, as the mood substantially changes: The pentatonic scale has a more stable, less mysterious feel than the whole-tone scale and reminds of east-asian music. This contrast is also emphasised by the harmony: The pentatonic section uses mostly perfect fifths, whereas the whole-tone section emphasises major thirds. Also there is still a "hierarchy" in this section, it has just shifted to the 5 tones of the pentatonic scale.

So apparently, Debussy didn't abolish the devices I promoted. He still sticks to scales and applies CPT-Concepts such as Chromaticism and Modulation to them. So obviously Debussy didn't reject the basic principles of CPT, he just expands on them by introducing new scales and chords that originally didn't exist. By doing this, he is expanding the vocabulary of CPT and allowing more different types of expressions.

This is totally different from SVS: They didn't expand this tradition, they simply abolished it. The concept of scales, chromaticism, modulation, hierarchies was completely removed. There were no more specific scales with hierarchies, just the chromatic scale.

I consider this the fundamental break with the CPT-Tradition and probably the reason why so many people have a hard time with this music, yet they can comprehend debussy.


----------



## mmsbls

So the question asked is "What is contemporary music worth?" I think we'd all agree that although plenty of contemporary music is tonal, there is a group of works that are clearly different from what was written in the Romantic era. I think we all agree that those works which deviate further from Romantic sensibilities are often difficult for many classical listeners to appreciate. In fact, many will find them boring, ugly, repulsive even. They may be seen as having no emotional content, random sounding, and "unrelated to how humans perceive music."

We can also agree that many listeners find some of these works exciting, engaging, even beautiful. Many look forward to hearing new contemporary works and exploring the musical sounds. In fact, many view these works in the same light as CPT music - interesting, desirable to hear, and moving. To most of those people CPT and non-CPT contemporary are simply different, and so is Renaissance different from late Romantic. Some contemporary likely would be viewed as more different from CPT than Renaissance is from late Romantic.

So, What is contemporary music worth? Presumably to those who like it, roughly the same as CPT music. The great Alban Berg said, "Music is music." 

There are those who dislike or hate contemporary music. Fine. There are those who do not wish to spend time learning to appreciate the music. Fine. The follow on question is, "Why do some who dislike contemporary music spend time explaining what's wrong with it?"


----------



## Torkelburger

> Whatever the *intention* of impressionism was, the fact is that it is actually still based on the same principles as CPT music: Melodies and characteristic chord structures derived from characteristic scales.


That is not what makes music tonal. That has nothing to do with it. Further, as has already been pointed out to you several times, atonal music can also be based on scales and characteristic chord structures and melodies derived from scales (not just whole tone or pentatonic either). In addition, serial music also has melodies carefully chosen from a group of notes from a row that form characteristic motives and phrases easily identifiable and recognizable that is no different than selecting them from a scale. What is more, chords in serial music are structured characteristically from notes in the row.

The row and its order can give a very specific sound to serial music for its melody and chords, just as scales give their sound in CPT. Take Webern's design of rows. Webern often designs rows that are a succession of seconds (ascending and descending half and whole steps). This creates a unified sound in both melody and chords that is easily recognizable (and ensures atonality).

So, if one is using the segmentation method of 12-tone composition, and take notes 1 through 4 for a motif, he will have seconds and/or sevenths in a characteristic motive. Then notes 5 through 8 will be the harmony and will have the same characteristic sound using seconds and sevenths. And if one is using the horizontal/vertical method, that characteristic sound is still maintained vertically. And if one is using the combinatorial method of two simultaneous rows, that characteristic sound is still maintained as seconds and sevenths will be heard in constant repetition of chordal structures and motives and phrases.

Berg's rows would be different. He would use tonal rows based on triads, which would further link him to the past. His Violin Concerto's row is tonal, utilizing stacked thirds. So he will get consonant intervals in melodies and harmonies.

William Walton's third movement to his Second Symphony is written with the twelve-tone technique also utilizes a tone row based on triads (G Bb D F# A etc.). In the first movement, he uses the first 6 notes of the row in a completely tonal sense (G minor). And in the second movement he uses the last 6 notes of the row in a tonal sense. But in the third he uses the complete row in a 12-tone setting, but it is a tonal row like Berg.

So you are demonstrably wrong, atonal and 12-tone music is based on melodies and chord structures derived from characteristic scales or tone rows that include tonal rows with triadic and tonal implications.

It would do you some good to watch Bernstein's Harvard Lecture on modern music, especially his analysis of Schoenberg and Berg. He goes into quite some depth about how their music is tied to the past, especially Schoenberg's atonality (utilizing augmented triads and a sense of "blurred tonality" so-to-speak) and Berg's tonal implications (and quotations) in his Violin Concerto (a serial piece). You would learn a lot and not make such sweeping, blundering statements about that which you know nothing about.

Further, you should read Reginald Smith Brindle's book _Serial Composition_ as he details not only serial composition, but atonal composition and analysis as well. He analyses Schoenberg and shows how Arnie actually deliberately chose to use an "obscured" tonality even in more detail than Bernstein (mostly in how Schoenberg's atonality will often suggest keys in rapid succession and how he does it). He then discusses Webern's atonality and how it is the complete opposite and goes through Webern's thought process on an entire excerpt showing how each pitch was selected.



> This puts it in sharp contrast to SVS who abandoned these principles all together.


Wrong. You either don't know what you are talking about, or are blatantly lying.



> Of course impressionism is different from CPT in that it uses *different* scales and chords from CPT - e.g. pentatonic and whole-tone scales in your debussy example - but they don't remove this basic principle altogether.


And none of that makes impressionism tonal. Atonality and serialism uses different scales and "rows" and chords from CPT as well. And they didn't remove basic principles either. Impressionism is not CPT.



> They simply adjust it to their specific needs. SVS on the other hand completely breaks this tradition (whatever their intention may be).


Totally and demonstrably false.


----------



## Torkelburger

> The part until 1:58 is entirely in the whole-tone scale. It's only 6 tones, that take precedence over all the others.


That does not make it tonal in the least. I could compose a piece with 3 tones taking precedence over all others. Still atonal.



> There's no emancipation of all 12 tones at all.


That has nothing to do with what makes something atonal. Nor does it make something tonal.



> This is what gives this part its specific "color" or "feel" as the whole-tone scale has a specific sonority that is often associated with mystery that the ear can easily recognize.


That does not make it tonal. Atonality isn't "colorless" or "without feel", despite what you or other haters assert. Atonality and serialism can have very specific sonorities associated with a range of emotions the ear can easily recognize.



> However, at 1:30 an interesting detail emerges: In the right hand there is a D-Flat, a note outside of the whole-tone scale! But the note is immediately resolved to C, a note inside the whole-tone scale - it's basically a chromatic passing note. This is what I meant by "oligotonality": The 6 tones of the whole tone scale have the highest priority. You can still introduce notes outside of the scale but they must be resolved into the scale, because they are lower in the hierarchy. So there is still no emancipation of the 12 notes.


Doesn't make it tonal.



> Another interesting thing happens at 1:58: The music modulates to the G-Flat Pentatonic scale! Note that this modulation happens through common tones: Both scales have Gb, Ab and Bb in common. Note how Debussy emphasises this by lingering specifically on the two tones Bb and Ab before moving to the rest of the pentatonic scale, to allow a smooth transition. He is using them as pivot tones, much like pivot tones are used in CPT-music to modulate between different major/minor scales.


Serial music does this as well. For example, in Stravinsky's twelve-tone works he will often transition through common-tones when going from one row transposition to the next. To illustrate what this means, if the last note of the original row is A, then he will begin the next musical material with the next row transposition that STARTS on A, and will not repeat that note. This allows for a smooth transition. He is using them as pivot tones, much like pivot tones are used in CPT-music to modulate between different major/minor scales.



> Note that the change to the pentatonic scale is easily tangible by the human ear, as the mood substantially changes: The pentatonic scale has a more stable, less mysterious feel than the whole-tone scale and reminds of east-asian music.


The same things are done in non-pentatonic atonal music as well. For example, changing from a pitch class set to its complimentary pitch class set. Or using aggregate harmonies such as twelve tone triads (Lutoslawski). The later especially can often be exploited for use of stability to instability.



> This contrast is also emphasised by the harmony: The pentatonic section uses mostly perfect fifths, whereas the whole-tone section emphasises major thirds.


This is the key to atonality. In atonality, if you so choose, you don't always have the crutch of relying on triads for emotion or feel. This does not mean you cannot get emotion or feeling across. You use INTERVALS, as you just pointed out. A major third means something different than a minor ninth. Further, intervals mean something harmonically than they do vertically as well. And what is more, their connotation is different whether they are descending or ascending (like a minor ninth descending or ascending). A (good) atonal composer must consider all of this when composing.



> Also there is still a "hierarchy" in this section, it has just shifted to the 5 tones of the pentatonic scale.


I don't know what you mean here. If you mean it is somehow tonal and there is a hierarchy of tones, I'm not buying it.



> So apparently, Debussy didn't abolish the devices I promoted. He still sticks to scales and applies CPT-Concepts such as Chromaticism and Modulation to them.


You obviously know nothing of atonality (even SVS) as they do the same exact things.



> So obviously Debussy didn't reject the basic principles of CPT, he just expands on them by introducing new scales and chords that originally didn't exist.


Since you are using a VERY BROAD version of "basic principles of CPT" to cover Debussy, those same principles were expanded by SVS too, you are just ignorant of it.



> By doing this, he is expanding the vocabulary of CPT and allowing more different types of expressions.


As does atonality.



> This is totally different from SVS: They didn't expand this tradition, they simply abolished it.


Utter nonsense.



> The concept of scales, chromaticism, modulation, hierarchies was completely removed.


No it wasn't. Chromaticism is where it came from. You can make scales from any complex chord structure (such as mirror chords in Varese), which I've done (I'm a composer), that have no tonal basis whatsoever. You put the notes in ascending order. It makes no tonal center or no key relation or anything at all. Yet it's a scale. And as I said, the octatonic and other scales have no tonal center (any chords made from them can be the center). You know nothing about modulation between atonal scales, rows, pitch class sets, aggregate harmony or anything else of which you are willfully ignorant.



> There were no more specific scales with hierarchies, just the chromatic scale.


Why do you speak with such authority about that which you know nothing about?



> I consider this the fundamental break with the CPT-Tradition and probably the reason why so many people have a hard time with this music, yet they can comprehend debussy.


Actually, a lot of composers today, especially film composers, can't even use a language as sophisticated as Tchaikovsky, let alone Debussy.


----------



## 59540

Torkelburger said:


> That does not make it tonal. Atonality isn't "colorless" or "without feel", despite what you or other haters assert. Atonality and serialism can have very specific sonorities associated with a range of emotions the ear can easily recognize.


I don't think it's colorless at all, but what are some examples of "happy" vs "sad" atonality?


----------



## chipia

Torkelburger said:


> That is not what makes music tonal. That has nothing to do with it. Further, as has already been pointed out to you several times, atonal music can also be based on scales and characteristic chord structures and melodies derived from scales (not just whole tone or pentatonic either).


Why are you even talking about tonality? I didn't even mention tonality in the post you quoted. As I said before, I find the terms tonal/atonal rather useless and prefer not to use or discuss them. I proposed oligotonal / pantonal ( or maybe "panchromatic") as a more practical alternative, because a categorization that puts child's songs closer to Schoenberg than to Mozart doesn't seem purposeful by most standards.



Torkelburger said:


> So you are demonstrably wrong, atonal and 12-tone music is based on melodies and chord structures derived from characteristic scales or tone rows that include tonal rows with triadic and tonal implications.


I was already aware of your examples (except Walton - thanks!) and I don't see any "scales" in them. What scales do they use? You didn't point them out. And I wasn't even talking about rows.



Torkelburger said:


> Wrong. You either don't know what you are talking about, or are blatantly lying.


If I am wrong, then please show me the scales, chromatic non-scale-tones and modulations in serial music, I didn't spot them in your examples.



Torkelburger said:


> And none of that makes impressionism tonal. Atonality and serialism uses different scales and "rows" and chords from CPT as well. And they didn't remove basic principles either. Impressionism is not CPT.


Again, I have no interest in debating the terms tonal / atonal. What matters to me is that Impressionism is based on the same basic principles as CPT, i.e. scales as fundamental structural units, as well as their relation to each other and to non-scale tones. I demonstrated this based on the Debussy-piece you've posted. If you think my analysis is wrong, feel free to point out the errors, maybe that would be illuminating.

EDIT: Sorry I didn't notice your answer to my analysis! Either way, the rest of my post stands.


----------



## Torkelburger

> Why are you even talking about tonality? I didn't even mention tonality in the post you quoted. As I said before, I find the terms tonal/atonal rather useless and prefer not to use or discuss them. I proposed oligotonal / pantonal ( or maybe "panchromatic") as a more practical alternative, because a categorization that puts child's songs closer to Schoenberg than to Mozart doesn't seem purposeful by most standards.


The whole conversation is in regards to tonality/atonality. You're losing that battle so you have decided to move the goalposts. I totally see why you are playing the semantics game SanAntone was talking about.

What you are doing is defining ALL MUSIC no matter what it is, sans the SVS, into ONE single category and the SVS into it's own tiny, little niche category. You will shoehorn literally anything you can, no matter what straws you have to grasp at, in order to put anything that is not the SVS or their ilk into it. Whether it's gregorian chant, children's songs, ethnic, impressionist, I'm sure quite anything. You are grasping at common tone usage, far-fetched and loose characterizations of modulations and chromaticism, saying those are just as important or more important in defining CPT, ignoring functional harmony and key, etc. You ignore and deny in SVS any of the same exact things you see in other non-CPT music you include in your new "acceptable music" category with blinders on and don't care.

It's all just to support your hatred, disdain, and personal prejudice against the SVS (not anyone else's version of atonality, mind you, not Ives, not Bartok, no one else's). You do not accept triads into your new goalpost re-definition, nor scales without key or tonal function or heirarchy. Even though I posted a Julliard PhD's video showing atonal music with triads, not to mention highly educated and decorated composer, theorist, and lecturer Samuel Andreyev's atonal video (which I can post if needed) showing Ravel's atonal triadic use. No, you're not having any of that. You want to make up your own little terms and re-write the theory books and go against established music theory, textbooks, etc. It is hubris, arrogant, and intellectually dishonest.



> I was already aware of your examples (except Walton - thanks!) and I don't see any "scales" in them. What scales do they use? You didn't point them out. And I wasn't even talking about rows.


Scales in atonal music? Well,...modes, whole-tone, chromatic, octatonic, but since those fit into your "oligotonal" nonsense, let's just get into some other specifics that might suit your needs...

Pitch class set theory arranges atonal collections into ordered sets called "normal order". This is the most compact version a set collection can be written in and is written in ascending order within an octave as a scale.

The collection can be between 2 to 6 pitches. The composer selects from this set/scale to compose with just as he would a scale in tonal music. Except no note of the set/scale is more important than the other unless he wants to intentionally emphasize it (or them). He uses them to make chords just like taking notes from a major scale. He can state the notes in normal order in any "mode" (starting on any pitch) and write a scale in the music itself. Even if you have say, a 3-note set. Like [0, 1, 4]. To make a scale for a flute with that pitch class, you would just transpose it throughout the octave (repeat the PCS throughout the octave).
You can modulate between different transpositions and inversions of the set because any one pitch class set will have common tones with other transpositions of the set. Alan Belkin, who did the previously video mentioned above, has two PCS composition videos and one part of them shows this in practice. Although, since this does not fit into your script, I'm sure you will poo-poo it as not satisfying your whims and meeting the same criteria as impressionism did.

There is also aggregate harmony as used in the post-mid-60's works of Lutoslawski and his followers. These use twelve tone triads (nothing to do with serialism) where atonal hexachords/hexatonic scales in pairs one after the other that use all 12 tones when taken as a whole. The scales themselves have no tonal center or heirarchy, and any note of the scale could be emphasized if the composer so chooses. Again, the composer uses the notes of the scales to sound the scale itself in the music, make chords of any type he wishes, make melodies, harmonies, etc. Also, you have the same thing with modulation between scales as different twelve tone triads will yield common tones between different hexachordal combinations.

You can also take any complex atonal chord and make a scale out of it (this is like making a PCS) but do it every bar and change the scale as each chord changes (I mentioned this earlier when mentioning mirror chords).



> If I am wrong, then please show me the scales, chromatic non-scale-tones and modulations in serial music, I didn't spot them in your examples.


In serial music, the row acts as the scale, so-to-speak. It is where the composer gets his melodies, harmonies, and counterpoint from. I already explained a method of modulation in serial music with Stravinsky, but you seem to have glossed over it. You can read this webpage for a very detailed explanation, complete with musical examples from his works. If you have trouble finding what i was talking about, let me know.

https://sites.google.com/site/strav...acteristics-of-stravinsky-s-twelve-tone-music



> Again, I have no interest in debating the terms tonal / atonal. What matters to me is that Impressionism is based on the same basic principles as CPT, i.e. scales as fundamental structural units, as well as their relation to each other and to non-scale tones. I demonstrated this based on the Debussy-piece you've posted.


What boggles my mind is that you won't bend over backwards to do the same for the music you have a biased personal prejudice against like you are doing for other non-CPT music. Amazing.



> If you think my analysis is wrong, feel free to point out the errors, maybe that would be illuminating.


Your premise is wrong, and I've explained why already. The correlations you've made between impressionism and CPT in order to shoehorn them together are completely trivial.


----------



## hammeredklavier

mmsbls said:


> To most of those people CPT and non-CPT contemporary are simply different, and so is Renaissance different from late Romantic. Some contemporary likely would be viewed as more different from CPT than Renaissance is from late Romantic.


Actually, Renaissance music can be seen as having even more commonalities with late Romantic music (in terms of harmony, not form) than certain other common practice period music:


----------



## Forster

chipia said:


> I can easily demonstrate based on the debussy piece you've posted, that impressionism did not do away with *the traditions I am advocating*:


Why not just stick to advocating those traditions? Why not elaborate in detail on what it is that you think composers should be writing nowadays (that, presumably, hasn't already been done)?



chipia said:


> I consider this the fundamental break with the CPT-Tradition and probably the reason why *so many people have a hard time with this music, yet they can comprehend debussy*.


Well, _Suite Bergamasque _is easily comprehensible. But I guess you weren't referring to that piece.

So, who are the "they" that can comprehend Debussy, and which pieces by Debussy do you have in mind?


----------



## mikeh375

chipia said:


> .........They (SVS),didn't expand this tradition, they simply abolished it. The concept of scales, chromaticism, modulation, hierarchies was completely removed. There were no more specific scales with hierarchies, just the chromatic scale.
> 
> I consider this the fundamental break with the CPT-Tradition and probably the reason why so many people have a hard time with this music, yet they can comprehend debussy.


More from Perle seems pertinent....

_"Perhaps the most important influence of Schoenberg is not the 12 note idea in itself, but along with it, the individual concepts of permutation, inversional symmetry and complementation, invariance under transformation, aggregate construction, closed systems, properties of adjacency as compositional determinants, transformations of musical surfaces through predefined operations and so on. Each of these ideas by itself, or in conjunction with many others, is focused upon with varying degrees of sharpness in the music of such different composers as Bartok, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Varese etc. In this sense, the development of the serial idea may be viewed not as a radical break with the past but as an especially brilliant coordination of musical ideas which had developed in the course of recent history. The symmetrical divisions of the octave so often found in Liszt and Wagner, for example, are not momentary aberrations in tonal music which led to its ultimate destruction, but , rather, important musical ideas which, in defying integration into a concept of a musical language, challenged the boundaries of that language."_

George Perle, 'Serial Composition and Atonality'.


----------



## chipia

Torkelburger said:


> The whole conversation is in regards to tonality/atonality. You're losing that battle so you have decided to move the goalposts. I totally see why you are playing the semantics game SanAntone was talking about.


I don't have to move the goalposts, because this thread was never about debussy and child's song to begin with. The only reason I used the term "atonal" is because I wasn't aware of its broad definition before you entered the thread.

And you have to admit that tonal / atonal isn't a useful distinction in this context. According to this classification you are basically saying "Debussy and OldMacDonald are not the same as CPT, Schönberg is not the same as CPT, Beethoven is CPT. _Hence Debussy and OldMacDonald are closer related to Schönberg than to Beethoven_"

But according to this same logic I could just as well say: "Debussy and OldMacDonald are not the same as Serialism, Beethoven is not the same as Serialism, Schönberg is Serialism. _Hence Debussy and OldMacDonald are closer related to Beethoven than to Schönberg._" Which is an obvious contradiction to the first statement. Hence this way of associating musical styles _by what they are not _ is logically incoherent.


----------



## hammeredklavier

chipia said:


> Another interesting thing happens at 1:58: The music modulates to the *G-Flat Pentatonic scale!* So obviously Debussy didn't reject the basic principles of CPT, he just expands on them by introducing new scales and chords that originally didn't exist. By doing this, he is expanding the vocabulary of CPT and allowing more different types of expressions.


Before Debussy, Chopin had written a whole piece in that scale;


----------



## Forster

It's a fascinating read, the exchanges between those who evidently have a great technical knowledge of music and those with either much less, or with a somewhat deformed knowledge. It is helping my understanding of the construction of classical.

I wish it also helped my understanding of what the OP is driving at. Their refusal to to do anything other than generalise, and to answer questions aimed at pinning down what they mean is frustrating to say the least.

Then there's moving the goalposts:



chipia said:


> Yes I had to use the terms [tonal and atonal] because these are unfortunately the standard terms to refer to this kind of music.





chipia said:


> The only reason I used the term "atonal" is because I wasn't aware of its broad definition before you entered the thread.


Which is true, I wonder?

And will they elaborate on what, exactly, they are referring to? Whose works, and does it matter?


----------



## chipia

Forster said:


> I wish it also helped my understanding of what the OP is driving at. Their refusal to to do anything other than generalise, and to answer questions aimed at pinning down what they mean is frustrating to say the least.


Could you show me were I generalised? Maybe then we could illuminate misunderstandings. Currently I don't know what you're talking about.



Forster said:


> Then there's moving the goalposts:
> 
> Which is true, I wonder?


Again, I didn't move the goalposts because this thread was from the beginning about the styles spawned by SVS, i.e. also things like boulez (I even mentioned him in the op). I was using "atonal" in a very colloquial way and was naive to assume that it is clear what kinds of music we are talking about.

I was vaguely aware that the definition of atonality is often contested (there was similar hair-splitting in another forum years ago) but I forgot about it, as in most contexts colloquially I don't see "atonal" often applied to impressionism or pentatonic music. Apparently, according to Wikipedia even Indonesian Gamelan, which is even farther from CPT than Debussys Pentatonic scales, is considered tonal.

Anyways, I just suggested that maybe we should leave the terms tonal/atonal aside for the rest of this discussion in order to avoid confusion.


----------



## SanAntone

> this thread was from the beginning about the styles spawned by SVS


The "Bubbles" experiment has nothing to do with Schoenberg and his method of composition. The "Bubbles" experiment involved children making random sounds on a keyboard, whereas Schoenberg's method was a highly organized and disciplined method of composing.


----------



## chipia

SanAntone said:


> The "Bubbles" experiment has nothing to do with Schoenberg and his method of composition. The "Bubbles" experiment involved children making random sounds on a keyboard, whereas Schoenberg's method was a highly organized and disciplined method of composing.


It has to do with Schoenberg in the sense, that it is music that is freed from a hierarchy of tones induced by specific scales and freely employs the 12 chromatic tones.

Of course it isn't composed with the discipline of real composers but a trivial method. But the point is that the jury still mistook it with the real thing.


----------



## SanAntone

chipia said:


> It has to do with Schoenberg in the sense, that it is music that is freed from a hierarchy of tones induced by specific scales and freely employs the 12 chromatic tones.


Composition is about more than scales.

There is no relationship between Schoenberg's method of 12-tone composition and what was demonstrated in the Bubbles experiment. Actually, there is no difference between how Schoenberg composed and the method Beethoven used. Whereas any method based on randomness and accidental note choice is far removed from both Beethoven and Schoenberg.


----------



## chipia

SanAntone said:


> Composition is about more than scales.
> 
> There is no relationship between Schoenberg's method of 12-tone composition and what was demonstrated in the Bubbles experiment. Actually, there is no difference between how Schoenberg composed and the method Beethoven used. Whereas any method based on randomness and accidental note choice is far removed from both Beethoven and Schoenberg.


There is certainly a difference. When beethoven composed he made sure that the music adheres to the current scale. He didn't freely employ the chromatic scale. Chromatics were carefully introduced and resolved.


----------



## SanAntone

chipia said:


> There is certainly a difference. When beethoven composed he made sure that the music adheres to the current scale. *He didn't freely employ the chromatic scale*. Chromatics were carefully introduced and resolved.


Neither did Schoenberg. I guess you don't know anything about Schoenberg's method.


----------



## chipia

SanAntone said:


> Neither did Schoenberg. I guess you don't know anything about Schoenberg's method.


Forgive my vague phrasing. When I said "freely employ the chromatic scale" I meant that the chromatic tones are not subordinated to a specific scale (e.g. in CPT chromatics are subordinated to the diatonic scale).


----------



## SanAntone

chipia said:


> Forgive my vague phrasing. When I said "freely employ the chromatic scale" I meant that the chromatic tones are not subordinated to a specific scale (e.g. in CPT chromatics are subordinated to the diatonic scale).


So? Schoenberg substituted a 12-tone row/series, in a specific order. This row was the raw material (just as a diatonic scale) from which Schoenberg spun out a complete work. He used the same kind of procedures composers have used throughout history: transposition, inversion, retrograde, diminution, augmentation, motivic variation and development. He wrote both contrapuntally, and homophonically.

As I said, there is no difference in the method used by Beethoven and Schoenberg.


----------



## chipia

Torkelburger said:


> *Alan Belkin, who did the previously video mentioned above*, has two PCS composition videos and one part of them shows this in practice.


I find it ironic that you keep citing Alan Belkin, given that he himself is rather critical of serial music.

This is from his Website: 




> _"Active tones in scales or modes: As mentioned previously, in any unequal scale some notes are more active than others. These notes create instability, pushing the music forward. (*This is one reason why music which relentlessly exploits the total chromatic scale, especially if there is no particular tonal focus, quickly becomes gray and uninteresting.*) Active tones modulate the level of harmonic tension."_


This is also interesting:



> *Much serial technique has long created problems of this sort, since the "order" in question usually has nothing to do with what can be reliably heard, even by an experienced, attentive listener.* Further, chords in serial music inevitably create interval combinations not inherent in the row. And in any case, what is the meaning of "order" in a chord whose notes are heard simultaneously? (Of course, these comments do not imply that no serial music is of any value, but just that serial procedures easily lead to unmusical thinking.)


----------



## Torkelburger

chipia said:


> I find it ironic that you keep citing Alan Belkin, given that he himself is rather critical of serial music.
> 
> This is from his Website:
> 
> 
> This is also interesting:


You have a very strange sense of irony, then. Am I supposed to agree with everyone on every single subject? For your information, my youtube channel is HnefataflModern (my name is Adam Torkelson, I am a composer) and I criticized Alan in this video:






He actually replied to me but he later deleted his remarks. He said the symphony was performed and he received no comments by the timpani player. My comment still stands, however. He wrote an unplayable part. I don't care about the other user's reply as a lot of orchestras do not have 2 sets of timpani. Also, I don't care that he didn't receive comments. I'm a professional tubist and I often don't give negative feedback on unplayable or poorly-written parts.

I also disagree with Andreyev on certain things, as well. Such as his assessment of Ferneyhough (currently, anyway). But I still respect his intelligence and input on other matters just like I respect Belkin. I also don't agree with other users on this site on many things, (SanAntone likes BF, EdwardBast doesn't like serial music, etc) but I respect their insight, opinions, and thoughts on a vast number of things with very high regard. I don't expect everyone to be in line with my likes and dislikes. But to make statements out of ignorance or to be insulting towards music I like is another thing...

He has said similar negative things, BTW, in his lessons on composing in the serial style (which I do not recommend). One thing he said, and proved, was that you cannot identify a row when it is played backwards, inverted, or inverted or backwards. But this is totally irrelevant. The reason it is irrelevant is because rarely is a row stated that way. You don't just constantly write melodies following that strict order. The notes are (gasp!) REPEATED, either the same one or in groups of 2 or more--melodically or accompaniment figures, ostinatos, etc. Also, the notes are identified by rhythms as well. You can have motifs, phrases, sentences, periods, double-periods, etc. just as in classical period music. The composer tries to make a memorable, identifiable melody just as in any other period of music. Further, there are characteristic notes often times in the row that will stick out, like a tritone in the middle of a series of seconds, and this will help with identification.

The meaning of the order in a chord in 12-tone music will yield similar structures that can unify the sound. When the notes are in the same order and you use them for chords, they will yield the same structures. It doesn't matter that a second becomes a seventh, thirds become sixths. It's still the same. And even if you move one note down the row, the order will still be maintained for the notes you used in common previously.


----------



## Forster

chipia said:


> Could you show me were I generalised?


The title of your thread refers to "*contemporary music*". First generalisation. What does it refer to?



> the *modern atonal art music*, which is usually promoted nowadays


Second generalisation. What does this refer to? Some of what you have mentioned is getting pretty elderly now. Are you lumping all "modern" music in with the SVS - anything composed yesterday and beforehand? Or do you only mean that which was produced by a group of composers most active in the 50s and 60s?



> I have seriously studied the composition methods of *modern composers like Boulez*


Generalisation no 3. Which works by Boulez? He was a busy man, composing from the 1940s to the late 1990s. And which composers *like *Boulez?



> Also, I don't think this is about "stopping" atonal music. Rather the intention is to promote a mentality of Artistic Freedom, instead of forcing composers to adopt a specific, arbitrarily chosen aesthetic to receive funding.


Generalisation no 4. That "composers are forced". You've offered a single example of someone who feels that they were disadvantaged by a panel biased in favour of "atonal" music. Now, I gather that there is some history that there were music schools that promoted, even insisted on a particular approach to composition. Others better versed in history can give an account of this. My concern is that your one example is used to generalise for a continuing bias in western European music schools, and for all "contemporary" music.

I won't go back over your generalisations about pop music. That dead horse has been beaten enough.



chipia said:


> Anyways, I just suggested that maybe we should leave the terms tonal/atonal aside for the rest of this discussion in order to avoid confusion.


Rather difficult to do that, since it forms the basis of your whole thesis, and you haven't given examples of what it is you object to except "modern composers like Boulez".


----------



## Torkelburger

> I don't have to move the goalposts, because this thread was never about debussy and child's song to begin with.


Sure you do. Debussy and child's song don't fit with your script, so you have to change the definition of what "atonal" means and give it a new name (move the goalposts) so you can keep your prejudicial mold perfectly intact.



> The only reason I used the term "atonal" is because I wasn't aware of its broad definition before you entered the thread.


Once myself and several others pointed out that the SVS was not alone in writing music that was not tonal or CPT, you decided to change your criteria (move the goalposts).



> And you have to admit that tonal / atonal isn't a useful distinction in this context.


It was to me. Someone asked for a non-anxious, etc. example of atonal music and I gave them one, hat-in-hand, and since it opposed your bias, you decided to play a semantics game in order to paint the SVS into a corner with rules so arbitrary and that only pertain to your whims and dislikes, that no one can argue with you. That's what you want and you aren't having it any other way. You don't get to re-write the theory books and make your own rules.



> According to this classification you are basically saying "Debussy and OldMacDonald are not the same as CPT. , Schönberg is not the same as CPT, Beethoven is CPT. Hence Debussy and OldMacDonald are closer related to Schönberg than to Beethoven"
> 
> But according to this same logic I could just as well say: "Debussy and OldMacDonald are not the same as Serialism, Beethoven is not the same as Serialism, Schönberg is Serialism. Hence Debussy and OldMacDonald are closer related to Beethoven than to Schönberg." Which is an obvious contradiction to the first statement. Hence this way of associating musical styles by what they are not is logically incoherent.


Why so black and white? This is only in regards to tonality. Debussy intentionally distanced his music from the Germanic tonal tradition up to that time. That is a historical fact. Watch a documentary or read a book for crying out loud. It's not ME saying it.
What about "writing using the equal-tempered 12-note scale"? Then Debussy is CPT? Schoenberg is CPT? But Ligeti is atonal? Mozart wrote a song about farm animals. He is closer to Old McDonald than Schoenberg. You can group things any way you want.

This seems like an equivocation fallacy, or something like an undistributed middle fallacy:

All dogs have fur.
My cat has fur.
Therefore, my cat is a dog.

Stop trying to say cats are dogs. We are just identifying what animals have fur (what is atonal).


----------



## chipia

Forster said:


> Generalisation no 4. That "composers are forced". You've offered a single example of someone who feels that they were disadvantaged by a panel biased in favour of "atonal" music. Now, I gather that there is some history that there were music schools that promoted, even insisted on a particular approach to composition. Others better versed in history can give an account of this. My concern is that your one example is used to generalise for a continuing bias in western European music schools, and for all "contemporary" music.


I can provide more examples. Here is an interesting article by Kyle Gann about atonal bias in America.

Some quotes:



> Today young composers come and tell me that their professors won't let them write the kind of music they want to. What's wrong with the music they want to write? It's too... tonal, or too consonant, or too triadic, or it doesn't have climaxes, or it's not tense enough, or not gestural enough, or it's too slow, or too happy, or too static, or too pop-influenced, or it doesn't have enough dynamics marked.





> I don't pretend to be unique in this regard, but we are less numerous than is usually admitted. Lots of composition teachers say they never discriminate by style, only by quality, but in reality they consider the "wrong" style deficient in quality. And in my experience, the teachers who match my liberality tend to be at the lesser-known music schools.


----------



## SanAntone

I was also guided by my composition professor away from the kind of music I _thought_ I wanted to write. But I was a freshman student and it was his job to teach me, not be a cheerleader.

There are skills that must be learned, and often the best way to learn them is by writing a kind of music for which there is no affinity, at least at the beginning. It is also true that left to our own devices, writing just what _we want to_, we are not objective, or we repeat the same kinds of patterns, because it is easier than stretching our muscles, but this does not advance our development. It is similar to a pianist practicing what he already knows instead of practicing what he has difficulty with.

So, just because a student complains that his teacher did not want him to write the kind of music the student did - is no proof of a bias against tonal music.


----------



## Bwv 1080

chipia said:


> I can provide more examples. Here is an interesting article by Kyle Gann about atonal bias in America.
> 
> Some quotes:


That was nothing compared to the Galant cabal in Haydn's day and all the young composers thrown out of conservatories for writing Fauxbourdon motets


----------



## Forster

chipia said:


> I can provide more examples. Here is an interesting article by Kyle Gann about atonal bias in America.
> 
> Some quotes:


Thanks. Like I said, others who know more about the music school scene can comment on the extent of what Gann complains about, but he acknowledges that what he calls repressive teachers are not everywhere.



> And in my experience, the teachers who match my liberality tend to be at the lesser-known music schools. The young composers who complain to me about their repressive teachers don't come from Tennessee Tech and University of Arkansas, they come from Peabody, Eastman, Columbia, UCSD.


He also criticises "repressive teachers" for criticising their students' work for being more than just "tonal".



> Today young composers come and tell me that their professors won't let them write the kind of music they want to. What's wrong with the music they want to write? It's too... tonal, or too consonant, or too triadic, or it doesn't have climaxes, or it's not tense enough, or not gestural enough, or it's too slow, or too happy, or too static, or too pop-influenced, or it doesn't have enough dynamics marked.


So, he rails against teachers who won't let students write the music they hear in their head, rather than that they are forced to write "atonal".

Now, how about the other generalisations?


----------



## chipia

Torkelburger said:


> Once myself and several others pointed out that the SVS was not alone in writing music that was not tonal or CPT, you decided to change your criteria (move the goalposts).


I didn't change the criteria. I couldn't change criteria even if I wanted to, because I never layed out any criteria to begin with. This was in fact my error, had I stated in the OP that my definition of Atonality is "music that emancipates the 12 chromatic tones" I could have avoided a lot of misunderstanding. Sorry about that.



> That's what you want and you aren't having it any other way. You don't get to re-write the theory books and make your own rules.


But Atonality simply IS a vague term, whose definition gets contested by several theorists, who keep rewriting the theory books. 
mikeh375 also posted a definition of atonality that is different from yours.

Here is a video by Andreyev about atonality:






He himself acknowledges the vagueness of the term, and alludes to why I think it promotes logical fallacies: It isn't very useful to group objects "by what they are not", because the list of things an object *is not* is endless. I've demonstrated this in post #661 .

Also, Andreyev explains that *according to his definition* atonal music avoids major triads. So according to this your Takemitsu example would not fit the definition, as there were many prominent major triads in this piece.

Also, according to *his* definition, atonal music does not deploy "consciously structured principles". However, the Pentatonic and Whole-Tone-Scales in your Debussy-Example are in fact very conscious structural decisions, as I've demonstrated in my analysis, so according to this definition they are not atonal either.

Given the vagueness of "atonality", I don't understand why you keep assuming that I was working with the same definition you do, when I started the OP.



Torkelburger said:


> Why so black and white? This is only in regards to tonality. Debussy intentionally distanced his music from the Germanic tonal tradition up to that time. That is a historical fact. Watch a documentary or read a book for crying out loud. It's not ME saying it.


I don't care about his intentions but about the result of his intentions, i.e. the actual music. Many people have lofty intentions, but fail to realise them. When I set out to write a Beethoven-Sonata but the result sounds like a chopin Nocturne then the music is more similar to Chopin than to Beethoven, no matter what my *intentions* were.

If Debussy wanted to distance himself from CPT he was not very consequential about it, as many hallmarks of CPT such as Diatonic scales and major/minor triads are featured prominently in much of his music.

Also, talking about intentions, Schönberg rejected the term "atonality" and intended his music to be "pantonal". If Debussy's intentions are so important to the classification of his music, why do you ignore the intentions of Schönberg?


----------



## SanAntone

chipia said:


> I didn't change the criteria. I couldn't change criteria even if I wanted to, because I never layed out any criteria to begin with. This was in fact my error, had I stated in the OP that my definition of Atonality is "music that emancipates the 12 chromatic tones" I could have avoided a lot of misunderstanding. Sorry about that.?


That is your definition, but the term historically has been understood differently.

Wikipedia:



> Atonality in its broadest sense is music that lacks a tonal center, or key. Atonality, in this sense, usually describes compositions written from about 1908 to the present day, where a hierarchy of pitches focusing on a single, central tone is not used, and the notes of the chromatic scale function independently of one another.[2] More narrowly, the term atonality describes music that does not conform to the system of tonal hierarchies that characterized classical European music between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries.[3] "The repertory of atonal music is characterized by the occurrence of pitches in novel combinations, as well as by the occurrence of familiar pitch combinations in unfamiliar environments".[1]
> 
> The term is also occasionally used to describe music that is neither tonal nor serial, especially the pre-twelve-tone music of the Second Viennese School, principally Alban Berg, Arnold Schoenberg, and Anton Webern.[3] However, "as a categorical label, 'atonal' generally means only that the piece is in the Western tradition and is not 'tonal'",[4] although there are longer periods, e.g., medieval, renaissance, and modern modal music to which this definition does not apply. "Serialism arose partly as a means of organizing more coherently the relations used in the pre-serial 'free atonal' music. ... Thus, many useful and crucial insights about even strictly serial music depend only on such basic atonal theory".[5]
> 
> Late 19th- and early 20th-century composers such as Alexander Scriabin, Claude Debussy, Béla Bartók, Paul Hindemith, Sergei Prokofiev, Igor Stravinsky, and Edgard Varèse have written music that has been described, in full or in part, as atonal.l.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]


And here are the cited sources:

Ansermet, Ernest. 1961. Les fondements de la musique dans la conscience humaine. 2 vols. Neuchâtel: La Baconnière.
Babbitt, Milton. 1991. "A Life of Learning: Charles Homer Haskins Lecture for 1991". ACLS Occasional Paper 17. New York: American Council of Learned Societies.
Baker, James M. 1980. "Scriabin's Implicit Tonality". "Music Theory Spectrum" 2:1-18.
Baker, James M. 1986. The Music of Alexander Scriabin. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Bertram, Daniel Cole. 2000. "Prokofiev as a Modernist, 1907-1915". PhD diss. New Haven: Yale University.
DeLone, Peter, and Gary Wittlich (eds.). 1975. Aspects of Twentieth-Century Music. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. ISBN 0-13-049346-5.
Du Noyer, Paul (ed.). 2003. "Contemporary", in The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Music: From Rock, Jazz, Blues and Hip Hop to Classical, Folk, World and More, pp. 271-272. London: Flame Tree Publishing. ISBN 1-904041-70-1.
Forte, Allen. 1977. The Structure of Atonal Music. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-02120-2.
Griffiths, Paul. 2001. "Varèse, Edgard [Edgar] (Victor Achille Charles)". The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, second edition, edited by Stanley Sadie and John Tyrrell. London: Macmillan.
Grout, Donald Jay. 1960. A History of Western Music. New York: W. W. Norton.
Haydin, Berkat, and Stefan Esser. 2009 (Joseph Marx Society). Chandos, liner notes to Joseph Marx: Orchestral Songs and Choral Works (accessed 23 October 2014.
Katz, Adele T. 1945. Challenge to Musical Traditions: A New Concept of Tonality. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, reprint edition, New York: Da Capo, 1972.
Kennedy, Michael. 1994. "Atonal". The Oxford Dictionary of Music. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-869162-9.
Kohlhase, Hans. 1983. "Außermusikalische Tendenzen im Frühschaffen Paul Hindemiths. Versuch über die Kammermusik Nr. 1 mit Finale 1921". Hamburger Jahrbuch für Musikwissenschaft 6:183-223.
Kostka, Stefan and Payne, Dorothy (1995). Tonal Harmony. Third Edition. ISBN 0-07-300056-6.
Lansky, Paul, and George Perle. 2001. "Atonality §2: Differences between Tonality and Atonality". The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, second edition, edited by Stanley Sadie and John Tyrrell. London: Macmillan.
Lansky, Paul, George Perle, and Dave Headlam. 2001. "Atonality". The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, second edition, edited by Stanley Sadie and John Tyrrell. London: Macmillan.
Meyer, Leonard B. 1967. Music, the Arts, and Ideas: Patterns and Predictions in Twentieth-Century Culture. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. (Second edition 1994.)
Mosch, Ulrich. 2004. Musikalisches Hören serieller Musik: Untersuchungen am Beispiel von Pierre Boulez' «Le Marteau sans maître». Saarbrücken: Pfau-Verag.
Obert, Simon. 2004. "Zum Begriff Atonalität: Ein Vergleich von Anton Weberns 'Sechs Bagatellen für Streichquartett' op. 9 und Igor Stravinskijs 'Trois pièces pour quatuor à cordes'". In Das Streichquartett in der ersten Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts: Bericht über das Dritte Internationale Symposium Othmar Schoeck in Zürich, 19. und 20. Oktober 2001. Schriftenreihe der Othmar Schoeck-Gesellschaft 4, edited by Beat A. Föllmi [de] and Michael Baumgartner. Tutzing: Schneider.
Orvis, Joan. 1974. "Technical and stylistic features of the piano etudes of Stravinsky, Bartók, and Prokofiev". DMus Piano pedagogy: Indiana University.
Oster, Ernst. 1960. "Re: A New Concept of Tonality (?)", Journal of Music Theory 4:96.
Parks, Richard S. 1985. "Tonal Analogues as Atonal Resources and Their Relation to form in Debussy's Chromatic Etude". Journal of Music Theory 29, no. 1 (Spring): 33-60.
Perle, George. 1962. Serial Composition and Atonality: An Introduction to the Music of Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern. University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-07430-0.
Perle, George. 1977. Serial Composition and Atonality: An Introduction to the Music of Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern. Fourth Edition. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-03395-7.
Rahn, John. 1980. Basic Atonal Theory. New York: Longman. ISBN 0-582-28117-2.
Rülke, Volker. 2000. "Bartóks Wende zur Atonalität: Die "Études" op. 18". Archiv für Musikwissenschaft 57, no. 3:240-263.
Schoenberg, Arnold. 1978. Theory of Harmony, translated by Roy Carter. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Seeger, Charles. 1930. "On Dissonant Counterpoint." Modern Music 7, no. 4:25-31.
Simms, Bryan R. 1986. Music of the Twentieth Century: Style and Structure. New York: Schirmer. ISBN 0-02-872580-8.
Swift, Richard. 1982-83. "A Tonal Analog: The Tone-Centered Music of George Perle". Perspectives of New Music 21, nos. 1/2 (Fall-Winter/Spring-Summer): 257-284. (Subscription access.)
Teboul, Jean-Claude. 1995-96. "Comment analyser le neuvième interlude en si♭ du "Ludus tonalis" de Paul Hindemith? (Hindemith ou Schenker?) ". Ostinato Rigore: Revue Internationale d'Études Musicales, nos. 6-7:215-232.
Webern, Anton. 1963. The Path to the New Music, translated by Leo Black. Bryn Mawr. Pennsylvania: Theodore Presser; London: Universal Edition.
Westergaard, Peter. 1963. "Webern and 'Total Organization': An Analysis of the Second Movement of Piano Variations, Op. 27." Perspectives of New Music 1, no. 2 (Spring): 107-20.
Westergaard, Peter. 1968. "Conversation with Walter Piston". Perspectives of New Music 7, no. 1 (Fall-Winter) 3-17.
Xenakis, Iannis. 1971. Formalized Music: Thought and Mathematics in Composition. Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press. Revised edition, 1992. Harmonologia Series No. 6. Stuyvesant, New York: Pendragon Press. ISBN 0-945193-24-6.
Zimmerman, Daniel J. 2002. "Families without Clusters in the Early Works of Sergei Prokofiev". PhD diss. Chicago: University of Chicago.

This is not to say that there has also been controversy over the term, which Wikipedia also includes.

*But my real question is: what is your purpose with this thread, i.e. what is it you hope to prove?*


----------



## Torkelburger

Thanks, SanAntone! It would have saved us a lot of time and effort and confusion if I had just done that in the first place. Thanks again.


----------



## EdwardBast

chipia said:


> Also, talking about intentions, Schönberg rejected the term "atonality" and intended his music to be "pantonal". If Debussy's intentions are so important to the classification of his music, why do you ignore the intentions of Schönberg?


This is just spin control PR by Schoenberg; Embracing all tonalities at once (pantonal) sounds more welcoming and less heretical than denying tonality (atonal).


----------



## Forster

Definitions are all well and good. But the definition then needs to be applied to some music, and so far, all we've had is 'like Boulez'!


----------



## Torkelburger

> I don't care about his intentions but about the result of his intentions,


If you truly cared as much as you are pretending, you would seek the actual reasons then why Debussy sounds nothing at all like composers of the Classical and Romantic Periods and why his music is so different and unique, so much in fact, that HISTORIANS have labelled his musical style he helped develop as ITS VERY OWN MUSICAL ERA and COMPLETELY UNIQUE CATEGORY AND PERIOD OF MUSIC COMPLETELY SEPARATE FROM ALL THAT CAME BEFORE.



> Many people have lofty intentions, but fail to realise them.


Wow. Just wow. That is rich. I'm practically speechless. Asserting one of the greatest musical geniuses in the history of western music didn't realize his musical intent.



> When I set out to write a Beethoven-Sonata but the result sounds like a chopin Nocturne


I seriously doubt you could do either of those, on purpose or by accident.



> If Debussy wanted to distance himself from CPT he was not very consequential about it, as many hallmarks of CPT such as Diatonic scales and major/minor triads are featured prominently in much of his music.


I'm getting really sick and tired of repeating myself for the millionth time. I'm only going to say it one more time since all you do is stick your fingers in your ears and say "La la la la la la" and repeat yourself ad nauseum. This is getting to be a waste of my time. You are grasping at straws. And it is completely arbitrary. The harmonies are obviously not used in any functional sense. And that was done on purpose. They are for coloristic effects, etc. Read the Wikipedia page on Impressionism (from the page "The dissonance of chords were not resolved, but were used as timbres.") I mean, I could just as easily say, atonal music and CPT use chromatic scales prominently in their music as well, so my cat is a dog too.

Here, I'll lay it out like this:

Here are some prominent features of Impressionism NOT in CPT (according to Wikipedia, since you won't believe me):

New chord combinations
Ambiguous tonality
Extended harmonies--, large unresolved chords (e.g., 9ths, 11ths, 13ths)***
Modes
Exotic scales
Parallel motion
Extra-musicality
Evocative titles
Detached observation instead of emotion or telling a story (as in CPT)

***and the large chords is what Andreyev used in Ravel's Valses nobles et sentimentales saying it was atonal so I'm not sure why he said triads are not in atonal music. But I guess I won't be quoting him further.



> Also, talking about intentions, Schönberg rejected the term "atonality" and intended his music to be "pantonal". If Debussy's intentions are so important to the classification of his music, why do you ignore the intentions of Schönberg?


I don't ignore anything. You pretend that Schoenberg's intentions was to revolutionize music, when it's been pointed out to you, like everything else, over and over and over again, that he didn't. As I stated earlier, a couple times, in Bernstein's Harvard Lecture he shows triads used in Schoenberg's atonal music. I also explained Brindle's analysis of Schoenberg's atonality showing the use of rapidly changing keys. These, of course, are not links to CPT to you like they are for impressionism. Not to your whims.


----------



## chipia

Torkelburger said:


> I'm getting really sick and tired of repeating myself for the millionth time. I'm only going to say it one more time since all you do is stick your fingers in your ears and say "La la la la la la" and repeat yourself ad nauseum. This is getting to be a waste of my time.


I'm sorry you feel this away. I didn't stick fingers into my ears but I think we have lost focus on what this discussion actually is about. 
You have implied that I said "a cat is a dog" (metaphorically, obviously). Could you point out where I said this, because I am not aware of doing so. Maybe this will clear up misunderstandings.


----------



## Torkelburger

chipia said:


> I'm sorry you feel this away. I didn't stick fingers into my ears but I think we have lost focus on what this discussion actually is about.
> You have implied that I said "a cat is a dog" (metaphorically, obviously). Could you point out where I said this, because I am not aware of doing so. Maybe this will clear up misunderstandings.


Are you familiar with the logical fallacy of the Undistributed Middle that I mentioned at the bottom of post #675?

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


----------



## chipia

Torkelburger said:


> Are you familiar with the logical fallacy of the Undistributed Middle that I mentioned at the bottom of post #675?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_undistributed_middle


Yes, but I still don't know where I have stated " a cat is a dog". Could you point out which of my statements you are referring to?


----------



## Torkelburger

chipia said:


> Yes, but I still don't know where I have stated " a cat is a dog". Could you point out which of my statements you are referring to?


These are exact quotes from you in this thread:

"a classification puts "Old Mac Donalds had a farm" into the same category as Schoenberg

Schönberg and Old Macdonalds in the same category

it makes more sense to have impressionists in the same category as CPT"

You are calling things the same from arbitrary "middle terms" (term from the undistributed middle link) that both things you are comparing share. That is a logical fallacy. Please read the link (I don't think you did). I had my own version of what you are doing and used the example of calling a cat a dog.


----------



## chipia

Torkelburger said:


> These are exact quotes from you in this thread:
> 
> it makes more sense to have impressionists in the same category as CPT


OK, I guess my sloppy usage of the term "category" provoked miscomprehension. I didn't mean to say that impressionists "are the same" as CPT or let alone ARE in fact CPT. 
By "in the same category" I meant that I would group impressionism _closer_ (not identical!) to CPT than to SVS because I think their music has more aspects in common (in particular in regards to pitch organization).

I evidenced this by the fact that Impressionism still has ties to CPT in the form of the usage of scales as fundamental structural building blocks (along with the concepts of chromaticism and modulation), including prominent usage of the diatonic scale from CPT, as well as often prominent usage of major/minor triads, sometimes even cadences.

SVS distanced themselves further from CPT than Impressionism and more radically by abolishing the notion of scales and using tone-rows instead ( which may be a stand-in, but are still a different concept from a scale). 
Furthermore, SVS didn't use triads much, certainly not as prominently as Debussy e.g. in La Cathédrale engloutie. SVS typically doesn't sound particularly diatonic either, at best there may be diatonic allusions but no clear and obviously diatonic passages like in Impressionist pieces like La Cathedral... or Bruyeres.

I also stated that this may be the reason why - at least from my experiences - most people who like or comprehend Debussy also like/comprehend CPT music, yet tend to have problems with SVS.

That's why I consider Impressionist music having more ties to CPT than to SVS (but *not* being *the same* as CPT!). Hence I found it missing the point, when a thread is critical of "atonal music like Boulez" to post Takemitsu and Debussy as counterexamples. But this was bound to happen as I didn't lay out clear criteria in the OP.

Btw. the things I mentioned are all in regards to pitch-related structure (melody/harmony). The formal aspects of SVS are probably closer to CPT than Impressionism. But as a listener I find the former to be the more salient aspects, some people may have a different viewpoint though.


----------



## Bwv 1080

chipia said:


> Beautiful music, but I'm not sure if Takemitsu can be called atonal. I haven't analyzed his scores in detail, but based on what I hear, his music seems to be based on characteristic scales and chord structures, like tonal music.
> I think he uses Messiaens modes of limited transpositions and occasionally japanese scales (which are subsets of the diatonic scale!). There are even parts that are based on major triads!
> 
> Maybe he uses atonality on occasion, I'm not sure. But overall I think that this has stronger ties to impressionism than to atonality.


Which Takemitsu are you talking about?

This one:






or this one:






or this one?


----------



## SanAntone

I've some to the conclusion that *chipia* doesn't know the true definitions of "atonal" and "tonal" music. If something sounds pleasant to him, then it is tonal; if it sounds harsh to him, it is atonal.


----------



## chipia

Bwv 1080 said:


> Which Takemitsu are you talking about?


About the one Torkelburger posted:


----------



## chipia

SanAntone said:


> I've some to the conclusion that *chipia* doesn't know the true definitions of "atonal" and "tonal" music. If something sounds pleasant to him, then it is tonal; if it sounds harsh to him, it is atonal.


We have already earlier come to the conclusion that the way I used "atonal" (emancipation of the 12 tones )was a fringe definition that doesn't align with the way most people here use the term and was provoking confusion. 
Thus I'm not going to use the term in this sense anymore. And I think we can now move on to the music that was actually meant in the OP.

Also it's not true that I categorize all pleasant music as tonal , e.g. I find Schönbergs piano concerto pleasant but I would still consider it under the umbrella of the definition I've provided.


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> So? Schoenberg substituted a 12-tone row/series, in a specific order. This row was the raw material (just as a diatonic scale) from which Schoenberg spun out a complete work. He used the same kind of procedures composers have used throughout history: transposition, inversion, retrograde, diminution, augmentation, motivic variation and development. He wrote both contrapuntally, and homophonically.
> 
> As I said, there is no difference in the method used by Beethoven and Schoenberg.


In fact, in many ways Schoenberg was a conservative composer with strong ties to the 19th century European tradition that preceded him. And the quotation from George Perle above is well taken. As profoundly influential as Schoenberg's innovations were on 20th century music in a more general sense, his specific methods were emphatically rejected by many important composers (including his early mentor Mahler and Hindemith), despite his own explicit appeals in some cases, much to his bitter disappointment. Eventually he wrote some sarcastic if not downright abusive comments about some of his contemporaries.

And of course, Boulez eventually returned the favor with some harsh dismissals of his music.


----------



## Bwv 1080

scales really don't have much to do with tonality. You can have very chromatic music that is tonal (Reger, early Schoenberg etc),diatonic music without any tonal center (neoclassical Stravinsky) or scales without any tonal center (Messiaen etc)


----------



## fluteman

Bwv 1080 said:


> scales really don't have much to do with tonality. You can have very chromatic music that is tonal (Reger, early Schoenberg etc),diatonic music without any tonal center (neoclassical Stravinsky) or scales without any tonal center (Messiaen etc)


Except that a traditional way of western music in organizing pitches into a hierarchical relationship is the diatonic scale, with the tonic pitch of primary importance, followed by the dominant pitch. As you say, the neoclassical modernists, though they adhere to that convention in much of their music, aren't afraid to depart from it, either. Others make use of modes and modal harmonies.

For me, what tonality really has to do with is the primacy of pitch, and contrasts between different pitches, as a musical element, as opposed to rhythm, tempo, dynamics, timbre, texture and counterpoint or other structural systems. Organizing a series of pitches into a hierarchy is a common way to do that in western music. This is why I can't entirely agree with SanAntone's comment about tension and release, as that can be accomplished without the use of a series of contrasting pitches.

Edit: What the Bubbles composer does is, mostly but not entirely abandon control over the choice of specific pitches, or assign them to predetermined systems, and focus intently on the other musical elements I mention, with the help of sophisticated electronic equipment and software. This is very much not what Schoenberg (or Beethoven) did. But there is a long precedent for it dating back at least to the late 1950s, with the likes of Otto Luening and Vladimir Ussachevsky, when computer technology made it more feasible.


----------



## Bwv 1080

fluteman said:


> Organizing a series of pitches into a hierarchy is a common way to do that in western music. This is why I can't entirely agree with SanAntone's comment about tension and release, as that can be accomplished without the use of a series of contrasting pitches.


Some collections of intervals are more 'tense' than others regardless of whether the music is tonal or not. There is plenty of tension and release in Carter, for example


----------



## Torkelburger

> By "in the same category" I meant that I would group impressionism closer (not identical!) to CPT than to SVS because I think their music has more aspects in common (in particular in regards to pitch organization).


But that's never been the discussion. I don't care about "grouping". No one mentioned anything about "grouping". You brought it up as if it is some sort of valid counter-argument to saying that portions of Debussy's vocabulary (and the piece I posted) can be described as atonal. It's obvious to anyone that it would be "closer" as music history progresses chronologically and Impressionism is chronologically closer to CPT period than the SVS. That has no bearing on the discussion and has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that a very large portion of impressionist tonality can be described as "atonal" as in the piece I posted.

The piece I posted is atonal. And no, I don't go around telling people "Hey, want to hear an atonal piece? Listen to Debussy!" You made the statement that atonal music isn't based on scales and I used the most obvious counter-example I could. I don't care if you want to shoehorn Impressionism and CPT together in a "group" and say they are "closer" than CPT than SVS…it DOESN'T MATTER. The point is the piece and scale posted is atonal. Period.



> I evidenced this by the fact that Impressionism still has ties to CPT in the form of the usage of scales as fundamental structural building blocks (along with the concepts of chromaticism and modulation), including prominent usage of the diatonic scale from CPT, as well as often prominent usage of major/minor triads, sometimes even cadences.


It's like you don't even read what I write, or think before you reply. I am wasting my time. I will not reply to this for the millionth +1 time. This has to be a cruel joke. It has to be. You may think you are being funny and pulling a joke on me, but I don't think it's funny.

Also, you are using Equivocation Fallacy definitely now. I will not spend 3 pages explaining it to you. But since there are multiple usages of the "diatonic scale", you are equivocating them all as if they were used the same way. You know very well that Mozart's use of the "diatonic scale" and Debussy's are not the same in the least (I will not spend page upon page explaining how as I'm sure you'll deny it), just as Gregorian Chant's use of the diatonic scale and Mozart's aren't even close. And just as Stravinsky, Bartok, or even Berg. Shame on you.



> SVS distanced themselves further from CPT than Impressionism and more radically by abolishing the notion of scales and using tone-rows instead ( which may be a stand-in, but are still a different concept from a scale).


I've already explained several times how this is false and will not explain it any further. It doesn't even matter, as explained above. What the SVS did or didn't do, or even if it existed at all, has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether the impressionists used a harmonic vocabulary theorists can label as "atonal". Your SVS obsession and groupings and who is closer or not to CPT is all a RED HERRING.



> Furthermore, SVS didn't use triads much, certainly not as prominently as Debussy e.g. in La Cathédrale engloutie.
> Please go back and read the million times I've replied to this.
> SVS typically doesn't sound particularly diatonic either, at best there may be diatonic allusions but no clear and obviously diatonic passages like in Impressionist pieces like La Cathedral... or Bruyeres.


Boy, is all of that ignorant. It's just amazing how you speak as though you've studied scores and scores of the SVS, read their writings, have a college degree in theory or composition, etc. and make the most ignorant remarks with such bravado and confidence without any hesitation over and over again, no matter how foolish you look. It's incredible. Not only is there Schoenberg's obvious _Verklarte Nacht_, but arguable the most famous atonal masterpiece ever composed-Berg's epic opera _Wozzeck_, such as the climactic, spine-chilling Act III scene I in D Minor (with some chromaticism, of course) (and Act III scene IV in F Minor) which are not only passages but entire pieces and scenes!

And _Wozzeck_ is described by historians, theorists, Wikipedia, etc. as atonal and considered a masterpiece in the genre. Interestingly enough, it's quite amazing that in it, Berg created a virtual catalogue of 20th century compositional techniques and showed how each one can be used to underscore emotion and story in a dramatic context. There are WHOLE TONE scales (I guess he's CPT then), quartal and quintal harmony, pure atonality, the aforementioned tonality (with chromaticism) (again, he's CPT now), etc. etc. All for us to see in a clear, understandable context.



> That's why I consider Impressionist music having more ties to CPT than to SVS (but not being the same as CPT!).


That doesn't save you from the fact that the Debussy piece I posted 1) uses a scale and 2) is atonal. How close or far Impressionism is to CPT in regards to SVS has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with that fact.



> Hence I found it missing the point, when a thread is critical of "atonal music like Boulez".


Then by the same token, I can say it's also missing the point to bring up the SVS when a thread is critical of "atonal music like Boulez". Boulez is not apart of the SVS and actually distanced himself from them in many ways. Also, since you are the resident expert on Boulez, I'm sure you are fully aware of the fact that like most composers, Boulez CHANGED his style, approach, and technique SEVERAL TIMES ALL THROUGHOUT HIS CAREER. _Structures_ is in a completely different style, approach, and technique than _Notations_, and both of those are completely different style, approach, and technique than his _Second Piano Sonata_, and all of those are completely different in style, approach, and technique than _Le Marteau Sans Maître_, and ALL of those STILL are completely different style, approach, and technique than _Sur Incises_. I'm completely confident you've studied all of these in great detail and can confirm, I'm sure.


----------



## fluteman

Bwv 1080 said:


> Some collections of intervals are more 'tense' than others regardless of whether the music is tonal or not. There is plenty of tension and release in Carter, for example


Yes, indeed. Tension and release can also be established by rhythm, timbre and dynamics.

I hesitate to add this, but I really don't understand these semantic debates. I suppose one can define 'tonal' music very narrowly, i.e., as music in which the primary element is the organization of a series of pitches selected from the 12-tone scale and consisting of the diatonic scale into a hierarchy in which the tonic tonic tone is primary, followed by the dominant tone. The hierarchy is established and consistently maintained through the use of actual and implied triads and harmonic progressions along the circle of fifths.

With this narrow definition, one can find atonal music well before the 20th century. Many centuries before, in fact. So atonality, in that sense, certainly is not Schoenberg's innovation. Again, I like George Perle's comments about Schoenberg.

Edit: I see my broad and narrow definitions of tonality track almost exactly the definitions given by SanAntone with his lengthy bibliography. Clearly, great, and well-informed, minds think alike.


----------



## SanAntone

chipia said:


> We have already earlier come to the conclusion that the way I used "atonal" (emancipation of the 12 tones )was a fringe definition that doesn't align with the way most people here use the term and was provoking confusion.
> Thus I'm not going to use the term in this sense anymore. And I think we can now move on to the music that was actually meant in the OP.


It is not only how "most people here use the term" - it is how the term is understood by nearly all Classical musicians and academics, with a few iconoclasts here and there, as there always are.



> Also it's not true that I categorize all pleasant music as tonal , e.g. I find Schönbergs piano concerto pleasant but I would still consider it under the umbrella of the definition I've provided.


Goody for you.

I keep waiting to see what it is you are trying to say, demonstrate, or prove. I asked you straight out what was the purpose of this thread. What do you hope to prove by starting a thread about that silly experiment?


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> It is not only how "most people here use the term" - it is how the term is understood by nearly all Classical musicians and academics, with a few iconoclasts here and there, as there always are.
> 
> Goody for you.
> 
> I keep waiting to see what it is you are trying to say, demonstrate, or prove. I asked you straight out what was the purpose of this thread. What do you hope to prove by starting a thread about that silly experiment?


I don't think what the Bubbles composer did even qualifies as an experiment. He imitated something that was done in the late 50s and 60s, perhaps he didn't do it that well, but well enough so that the link to that specific tradition is recognizable. It is as if I wrote a ragtime or stride piano piece, not a very good or original one, but one competent enough that it was recognizable as ragtime or stride. I would earn some points for evoking a well-known tradition among those who appreciate that tradition, even if my composition was ordinary at best.

Not that I'm speaking from actual experience in music class. Ahem.


----------



## 59540

fluteman said:


> I don't think what the Bubbles composer did even qualifies as an experiment. He imitated something that was done in the late 50s and 60s, perhaps he didn't do it that well, but well enough so that the link to that specific tradition is recognizable. ...


How specifically could it have been "better", if there is such a thing?


----------



## Torkelburger

dissident said:


> How specifically could it have been "better", if there is such a thing?


Please refer to post #644.


----------



## 59540

Torkelburger said:


> Please refer to post #644.


I didn't notice that answer, sorry. There have been so many comments since. :lol:. But now that you mention it,


> ... The music lacks a clear, strong character and overall narrative whereas the SVS does. The music is not moving at all (does not "move" me) whereas (since we are comparing to the SVS) Schoenberg and Berg especially move me immensely.
> 
> The music is completely uninteresting for a variety of reasons. It doesn't develop or resolve to anything. There is no discernible punctuation. Nothing memorable or any sign of a personal voice other than tepidness. The orchestration is bland, not terribly idiomatic, doesn't make use of foreground/background (everything is just grey). There is no contrast. They don't even work as miniatures. The beginning, middle, and ends are relatively the same and you can take one note and pull it out of context, place it somewhere else and the piece wouldn't change.


Torkelburger, people make the exact same criticisms of all sorts of "modern" music. They're vague. "Schoenberg and Webern just don't move me...there is no discernible development and resolution in Ferneyhough...nothing memorable or any sign of a discernible voice in Boulez..." ...and what if being "just grey" is the composer's intention?


----------



## Bwv 1080

dissident said:


> people make the exact same criticisms of all sorts of "modern" music. They're vague. "Schoenberg and Webern just don't move me...there is no discernible development and resolution in Ferneyhough...nothing memorable or any sign of a discernible voice in Boulez..." ...and what if being "just grey" is the composer's intention?


That is where re-education camps would serve a valuable role, correcting these fallacious notions


----------



## Torkelburger

dissident said:


> I didn't notice that answer, sorry. There have been so many comments since. :lol:. But now that you mention it,
> Torkelburger, people make the exact same criticisms of all sorts of "modern" music. They're vague. "Schoenberg and Webern just don't move me...there is no discernible development and resolution in Ferneyhough...nothing memorable or any sign of a discernible voice in Boulez..." ...and what if being "just grey" is the composer's intention?


Read it again, then. That isn't even close to all that I said.


----------



## Aries

Bwv 1080 said:


> That is where re-education camps would serve a valuable role, correcting these fallacious notions


With or without gas chambers?


----------



## SanAntone

The TC critics (to use a nice word) of "modern" music usually display no real depth of experience with it. No one who has spent a moderate amount of time listening to a variety of "modern" music, from across several decades (say from 1950 on) could make the kind of ignorant statements which fill these threads.

The one thing that music from 1950 on demonstrates is that there are hundreds of styles, so it is not "one thing." Just about each composer had a unique style - there were hardly any schools. And of the ones musicologists like to bandy about, e.g. The New York School, the composers show no real common style, just that they happened to know each other at the same time in NYC.

Even the notorious Second Viennese School, these three composers are really nothing alike. Berg's music could never be confused with Webern's.

It is all poppycock.


----------



## Torkelburger

dissident said:


> I don't think it's colorless at all, but what are some examples of "happy" vs "sad" atonality?


Missed this. But if I were to compose happy atonal music, I would exploit major thirds/minor sixths in the musical fabric, faster tempi, staccato-type articulations, louder dynamics perhaps, and rising figures, as well as brighter orchestration and maybe something like jaunty rhythms, like dotted rhythms (dotted eighth-sixteenth in succession or something).

For sad, I would exploit minor thirds/major sixths perhaps, slower tempi, legato, softer dynamics, descending gestures, darker/melancholic colors (like oboe or other double reeds, muted strings, etc.) and so forth...

If you want expressive examples from literature, off the top of my head, probably Ruggles Lilacs (sad or melancholic), lots of Hindemith can be happy, Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra, (Sessions Sym. No 6 mvt 2, for sad and expressive, esp. the double reed writing). Stuff like that.


----------



## Red Terror

I derive much enjoyment from modern and contemporary music (especially the former). But I must confess that Brian Ferneyhough's work does nothing for me. Most of his pieces come across as mere technical exercises (devoid of feeling and/or discernible meaning). When contrasted with a composer like Kurtág, Ferneyhough seems rather inconsequential.


----------



## fluteman

Torkelburger said:


> Please refer to post #644.


I like your post #644! Thanks for referring back to it. I like all of it, but especially this:



Torkelburger said:


> There is no discernible system of harmony or melody, etc. And if you aren't going to use melody, that's fine, but something else must take up the slack.


Well put. And both for those who have made up their minds ante facto that nothing can take up the slack caused by the absence of a discernible system of harmony or melody, and for those open to the possibility that something can, this experiment concluded as might be expected. Which is why it really isn't an experiment.


----------



## 59540

Torkelburger said:


> Read it again, then. That isn't even close to all that I said.


No I didn't quote your entire comment. So we'll continue:


> And quite frankly, a big problem I have is that this music DOES NOT SOUND RANDOM AT ALL, but dull and poorly-written.


So it's not random, and I could call numerous modern pieces "dull and poorly-written" with "no discernible system of harmony or melody, etc." 


> And if you aren't going to use melody, that's fine, but something else must take up the slack. And nothing does.


I could say the rhythm does.


> But the lack of randomness in the pitches is a big problem. There is no chromatic cycling through pitch classes in order to maintain an overall sense of freshness and novelty.


The standards you're using are what puzzles me. How much of your judgement of this piece is based on what you knew about it prior to listening to it, and on what you know of the "composer's" intentions? "Randomness" and "cycling through pitch classes" is a standard of absolute good? I remember reading in this forum that a composer's artistic means of expression is intensely personal and in some way beyond our judgement.


----------



## 59540

Red Terror said:


> I derive much enjoyment from modern and contemporary music (especially the former). But I must confess that Brian Ferneyhough's work does nothing for me. Most of his pieces come across as mere technical exercises (devoid of feeling and/or discernible meaning). When contrasted with a composer like Kurtág, Ferneyhough seems rather inconsequential.


Yeah, see there?


----------



## Bwv 1080

dissident said:


> I don't think it's colorless at all, but what are some examples of "happy" vs "sad" atonality?


"happy" (bright, upbeat)


----------



## Bwv 1080

dissident said:


> Yeah, see there?


see what, someone does not like Ferneyhough? What about the great musicians who, out of love for the music, dedicated the time to learn and play it - they are just chumps I suppose?

This is a great, great piece


----------



## 59540

Bwv 1080 said:


> see what, someone does not like Ferneyhough?


Yes, exactly.


> What about the great musicians who, out of love for the music, dedicated the time to learn and play it - they are just chumps I suppose?


No, they're playing it for themselves and people like you who like it. Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## 59540

Bwv 1080 said:


> "happy" (bright, upbeat)


Well that could also be "how am I going to pay that bill this month?" though.


----------



## Aries

Isn't Boulez's "Le Marteau sans maître" an example for happy serialism?






However the method the pieces achieves this impression for me are short checked off sounds. Because of that the dissonances don't appear to be something serious. So the impression is something like a happy simpleton for me. Its not really a healthy happiness.


----------



## Andrew Kenneth

Adamek is a fun composer.


----------



## 59540

Andrew Kenneth said:


> Adamek is a fun composer.


Meh. More bizarre than fun. It's gimmicky and I guess would've had some kind of shock value in 1920 or so. Now, not so much. In a way, still riffing on Dali and Buñuel in the 21st century.


----------



## Torkelburger

> So it's not random, and I could call numerous modern pieces "dull and poorly-written" with "no discernible system of harmony or melody, etc."


Exactly. That's why I tend not to listen to those. I'm not a masochist, you see.



> I could say the rhythm does.


How? In what way? And to what extent?

There are differing levels of this. When you use really good musical sources as a reference, and compare this piece to it, it falls short in comparison. You need not agree.



> How much of your judgement of this piece is based on what you knew about it prior to listening to it, and on what you know of the "composer's" intentions?


The exact same as yours.



> "Randomness" and "cycling through pitch classes" is a standard of absolute good?


No, but it sure would help not make it dull and boring. Nice try trying to change the subject and create a red herring, though.



> I remember reading in this forum that a composer's artistic means of expression is intensely personal and in some way beyond our judgement.


And I remember never saying that, so don't bother asking me to defend it.


----------



## 59540

Torkelburger said:


> Exactly. That's why I tend not to listen to those. I'm not a masochist, you see.


The OP could say the same.



> How? In what way? And to what extent?


I dunno. I could just say it sounds compelling and interesting. What more do I need?


> There are differing levels of this. When you use really good musical sources as a reference, and compare this piece to it, it falls short in comparison. You need not agree.


You'd have to define "really good musical sources". "Good" according to whom?


> The exact same as yours.


No, I actually listened to it with a fairly open mind.


> No, but it would sure would help not make it dull and boring. Nice try trying to change the subject and create a red herring, though.


Red herring? You refer to standards and I ask you what those standards are. And what of those who find Schoenberg and Webern dull and boring? Or Elliott Carter or Milton Babbitt?


> And I remember never saying that, so don't bother asking me to defend it.


I didn't say you did say it.


----------



## mmsbls

chipia said:


> ...Thus I'm not going to use the term in this sense anymore. And I think we can now move on to the music that was actually meant in the OP....


Obviously you can continue the present discussion, but I'm not sure I understand your original intent in the OP. Could you give several specific examples of works that you were referring to when you wrote "Most modern classical music can hardly be distinguished from random notes"? As you say, we can ignore the tonal/atonal designations, but I don't really know which modern classical music you mean. Do you think it's the majority of contemporary music now being composed?


----------



## Torkelburger

> The OP could say the same.


Good. The next step would be not to listen to it, then.



> I dunno. I could just say it sounds compelling and interesting. What more do I need?


You don't need anything. Just don't expect others to give much weight, value, or credence to your opinion, then, since you are unwilling, incapable, or totally ambivalent in expressing anything more valuable than stating something equivalent to your dislike of vanilla-flavored ice cream. Some people care more than that when discussing something like classical music. But if you don't care, fine. Just don't expect others to care about your opinion, either. I sure don't.



> You'd have to define "really good musical sources". "Good" according to whom?


According to established canon, textbooks, history, wide consensus among professionals (composers, instrumentalists, conductors, theorists, etc.)



> No, I actually listened to it with a fairly open mind.


Like I said, exactly same as yours. Call me a liar all you want. Coming from you, means nothing.



> Red herring? You refer to standards and I ask you what those standards are.


So you don't think out of hundreds of years of western music, we can't conclude, no matter what the style, a set of standards of what makes good craft in composing? So if a student composer brought a teacher an orchestral piece and there was a loud fortissimo tutti chord played by the entire orchestra, but he had the first bassoon playing a passage by itself outlining the chord, the teacher should just not say anything? And when it's played and you can't hear the bassoon at all, it's no one's fault? Just the "bad" orchestra, right? There's no standard of balance and what makes good orchestration, it's just "Hey, whatever, just write what you want." The teacher should just stand there with a blank look on his face? We aren't allowed to criticize that poorly-written composition, because it would be an opinion and there are no such things as standards?



> I didn't say you did say it.


Don't bring it up, then. I have no interest in defending arguments I didn't make.


----------



## 59540

Torkelburger said:


> Good. The next step would be not to listen to it, then.


 Absolutely agree, but 700+ comments on this thread...



> You don't need anything. Just don't expect others to give much weight, value, or credence to your opinion, then, since you are unwilling, incapable, or totally ambivalent in expressing anything more valuable than stating something equivalent to your dislike of vanilla-flavored ice cream. ...


I've been told that's what it all comes down to anyway. Your argument would seem to be with the "pro-moderns" rather than the hapless OP.



> According to established canon, textbooks, history, wide consensus among professionals (composers, instrumentalists, conductors, theorists, etc.)


Uh oh. Paging Portamento and fbjim...



> Like I said, exactly same as yours. Call me a liar all you want. Coming from you, means nothing.


Oh, my goodness.



> So you don't think out of hundreds of years of western music, we can't conclude, no matter what the style, a set of standards of what makes good craft in composing? So if a student composer brought a teacher an orchestral piece and there was a loud fortissimo tutti chord played by the entire orchestra, but he had the first bassoon playing a passage by itself outlining the chord, the teacher should just not say anything? And when it's played and you can't hear the bassoon at all, it's no one's fault? Just the "bad" orchestra, right? There's no standard of balance and what makes good orchestration, it's just "Hey, whatever, just write what you want." The teacher should just stand there with a blank look on his face? We aren't allowed to criticize that poorly-written composition, because it would be an opinion and there are no such things as standards?


Well, I dunno, Torkelburger. How did the respected teacher and composer Saint-Saëns react to Debussy, "Les Six" and Stravinsky? What just is absolutely not done today becomes standard practice tomorrow. Heck, that lone overpowered bassoon may have a deeper philosophical significance. How dare you.



> Don't bring it up, then. I have no interest in defending arguments I didn't make.


I'll bring up what I want, darn it! *joking*


----------



## Torkelburger

> I've been told that's what it all comes down to anyway. Your argument would seem to be with the "pro-moderns" rather than the hapless OP.


Well, now you're being told it doesn't.



> Well, I dunno, Torkelburger. How did the respected teacher and composer Saint-Saëns react to Debussy, "Les Six" and Stravinsky? What just is absolutely not done today becomes standard practice tomorrow.


Ah, so you _were_ just pretending not to know there are standards. Tsk, tsk. So what standards did Debussy, "Les Six" and Stravinsky not satisfy, pray tell? Keep in mind, standards of compositional craft are not the same as "standard practice". That's equivocation.


----------



## 59540

Torkelburger said:


> Well, now you're being told it doesn't.


You're arguing with the wrong people, Torkelburger.


> Ah, so you _were_ just pretending not to know there are standards. Tsk, tsk. So what standards did Debussy, "Les Six" and Stravinsky not satisfy, pray tell? ...


You'd have to ask Saint-Saëns.


----------



## Torkelburger

> You're arguing with the wrong people, Torkelburger.


Meh, just hand-waving.



> You'd have to ask Saint-Saëns.


So would you.


----------



## 59540

Torkelburger said:


> So would you.


Well there was apparently something about them he didn't like.


----------



## Torkelburger

dissident said:


> Well there was apparently something about them he didn't like.


You implied it was a standard. Now it's "something". Say what the standard was or retract your bluff.


----------



## Torkelburger

> And what of those who find Schoenberg and Webern dull and boring? Or Elliott Carter or Milton Babbitt?


After perusing through the thread again, I noticed you added this much later after the intial posting. This needs to be addressed.

This is implying that you hold the very popular following belief:

_Because all opinions are not facts, then all opinions carry the same weight and value, no matter who holds them, because all opinions are subjective to the observer and not objectively true. All opinions therefore have the same value._

That belief is erroneous and unreasonable. I will get around to how those who find Schoenberg and Webern, et al, dull and boring or terrible,--whatever negative description you want--should preferably respond in a reasonable and sensible manner. But first I have to illustrate the point, with 2 similar illustrations (because I'm long-winded), avoiding music to hopefully make it clearer:

1. If there is a viticulturist and they've entered a wine-making contest or am having wine judged or graded in some manner, they happen to be given two opinions:

One is from a person who has very limited experience or practically no knowledge whatsoever about wine at all. The only thing they know is the $2.99 bottles they occasionally purchase at the convenience store. In fact, if asked, they could not tell you the difference between a $2 bottle or a $100 bottle of wine. They don't know. However, they have no problem at all giving you their inexperienced, uneducated, ill-informed, and ignorant opinion on your wine.

The other person is an official wine sommelier with decades of experience tasting wine and can tell you what temperature a wine was stored at (if it was stored too hot or too cold), how long the skins were left on, what kind of barrel it was in, or whatever, all that fancy stuff. They also offer their opinion.

Do both opinions carry the same weight? Should the viticulturist value the opinions the same? Would it be reasonable to do so? Is one opinion more informed than the other?

2. In the arts, if you are a poet and you are getting a degree in creative writing from a university, and just in everyday life you come across two people who give you their opinion of your latest poem:

One is a young junior high adolescent girl who has no interest in poetry whatsoever, never reads it outside of English class in which she doesn't pay attention, has no concept of form, technique, irony, allusion, figures of speech, rhythm, rhyme scheme, free verse, yada, yada, yada...She doesn't care. She thinks all poetry is a waste of time and boring. She spends all day texting and listening to 3 minute pop songs about adolescent boy-girl relationships. She says your poem is stupid and boring and dull, negative things with no substance or reasons given at all, and she says "I dunno" when asked why.

The other person is a college English professor who has studied poetry extensively, all periods, for decades and writes it themselves as well. They may even be published. They offer their opinion.

Do both opinions carry the same weight? Should the poet value the opinions the same? Would they be justified in doing so?

It is perfectly within ANYONE'S RIGHT to like or dislike anything they so choose for whatever reason. However, when they are made aware of something's merits as solidified by history, or informed, educated, individuals, experts, consensus, traditions, standards, substantiated by good reasons, etc. etc. etc., then they should accept the following: "This is not for me, however, I acknowledge that this is considered to have merits by knowledgeable and experienced people in this field and can respect it on those grounds. It's just not for me." I have learned to do that myself. That's really formal but you get the idea.


----------



## Forster

There is no obligation on anyone to write happy music, or for those trying to defend "modern" music to find some that might be heard as happy by some listeners, just to prove a point against ill-informed opinion that "modern" music is all the same angst-filled random etc...

Until chipia names a decent sample of pieces from whatever period(s) they are objecting to and can exemplify their objection that "all modern music is...", it remains a valueless claim.

Never mind 'atonal'; we don't even know what is meant by 'contemporary'.


----------



## Enthusiast

If there is no happy contemporary music then how come the tradition of writing comic operas continues to produce first class works?


----------



## 59540

Torkelburger said:


> You implied it was a standard. Now it's "something". Say what the standard was or retract your bluff.


No YOU implied it's a standard which "Bubbles" failed to meet. The point is that that standard was set by composers who were in turn violators of standards. Standard-bearer Saint-Saëns felt that Debussy et al were violators of all that was high and holy while you now use those same composers as a standard yourself. To put it briefly, the standards which you use to dismiss "Bubbles" are not set in stone.


> This is implying that you hold the very popular following belief:
> 
> Because all opinions are not facts, then all opinions carry the same weight and value, no matter who holds them, because all opinions are subjective to the observer and not objectively true. All opinions therefore have the same value. Good luck with that.
> 
> That belief is erroneous and unreasonable. ...


Like I said, you're arguing with the wrong people. When you say something like


> It is perfectly within ANYONE'S RIGHT to like or dislike anything they so choose for whatever reason. However, when they are made aware of something's merits as solidified by history, or informed, educated, individuals, experts, consensus, traditions, standards, substantiated by good reasons, etc. etc. etc., then they should accept the following: "This is not for me, however, I acknowledge that this is considered to have merits by knowledgeable and experienced people in this field and can respect it on those grounds. It's just not for me." I have learned to do that myself. That's really formal but you get the idea.


 a possible rejoinder these days is that that consensus, history, standards, traditions and "good reasons" have been imposed at least in part from above, in the service of power structures.


----------



## Aries

Forster said:


> There is no obligation on anyone to write happy music


No, but its about the breadth of the spectrum of possible expressions. Why would you restrict yourself by sticking to a restrictive serial method before you even conceive a work? The twelve-tone technique for example. What if a composer finds out during composing that he just wants 10 tones and less dissonance? The twelve-tone technique just doesn't make sense in the first place, because its an unnecessary restriction.



Forster said:


> Until chipia names a decent sample of pieces from whatever period(s) they are objecting to and can exemplify their objection that "all modern music is...", it remains a valueless claim.


I always thought twelve-tone-technique and serialism is meant. All this talk about what atonal means is diversion, isn't it?


----------



## 59540

Enthusiast said:


> If there is no happy contemporary music then how come the tradition of writing comic operas continues to produce first class works?


"First class" is a value judgement that probably not too many would share...and I'm not saying they're *not* first class. I'm not into opera. Anyway I think the argument was about the ability of "atonal" styles to convey different emotions.


----------



## 59540

Aries said:


> Why would you restrict yourself by sticking to a restrictive serial method before you even conceive a work? The twelve-tone technique for example. What if a composer finds out during composing that he just wants 10 tones and less dissonance? The twelve-tone technique just doesn't make sense in the first place, because its an unnecessary restriction.


But that can be said of any form or restriction. Why would Bach restrict himself to concentrating on just the bass line in the Goldbergs? It's because the discipline required to work within limits can have a way of producing great results.


----------



## SanAntone

> Anyway I think the argument was about the ability of "atonal" styles to convey different emotions.


For those of us who listen to atonal music, including 12-tone works (which, by the way, is a system that is no longer actively used by many composers) - the music has enough going on so that the experience is rewarding. I don't ever concern myself with emotional conveyance by any work of music, whether it is Verdi, or Webern - so your issue is a red herring, IMO.


----------



## Enthusiast

dissident said:


> "First class" is a value judgement that probably not too many would share...and I'm not saying they're *not* first class. I'm not into opera. Anyway I think the argument was about the ability of "atonal" styles to convey different emotions.


Value judgment? Well recognised! And one that you might agree with but you are not into opera. Perhaps you can tell us which of the classical genres you like and can be considered when we evaluate your arguments. There are many atonal comic operas which might go to show that atonal composers can do the light and humorous within the context of modern classical opera. If you don't like opera you can sample the odd song? Or perhaps you don't like classical singing?

I wonder, when you talk about which emotions can be conveyed in atonal music, how you think non-dramatic music "conveys" emotion? It may be interesting for you to explore that pathway. I think it leads to whether and what emotions are perceived by the listener and is not properly a quality of the music.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> ... I don't ever concern myself with emotional conveyance by any work of music, whether it is Verdi, or Webern - so your issue is a red herring, IMO.


Emotional conveyance might not matter to you, but it doesn't mean it wasn't important to Verdi, or Bach or Beethoven or Mozart or any number of CP composers. This isn't meant to convey any emotion at all?





Or this?


----------



## Aries

dissident said:


> But that can be said of any form or restriction. Why would Bach restrict himself to concentrating on just the bass line in the Goldbergs? It's because the discipline required to work within limits can have a way of producing great results.


But what limits? Historical methods, rules and limits proved themselves in the history. Schönberg didn't built up on what was historically grown, but just invented completely new rules with awful results.

About historical rules can not be said that they produced awful results. But what could be said is that they produced too solid results. So the mondernst idea to loosen up the rules and make more things possible isn't that bad imo, but inventing entirely new thought up rules apparently just rapes music from a normal point of listening.

Rules are not bad in general, but you can't just think them up, they need to depend on what works practically and we have the entire common practice which evolved great results.


----------



## mikeh375

Aries said:


> No, but its about the breadth of the spectrum of possible expressions. Why would you restrict yourself by sticking to a restrictive serial method before you even conceive a work? The twelve-tone technique for example. What if a composer finds out during composing that he just wants 10 tones and less dissonance? The twelve-tone technique just doesn't make sense in the first place, because its an unnecessary restriction.
> 
> I always thought twelve-tone-technique and serialism is meant. All this talk about what atonal means is diversion, isn't it?


Aries, there are several forms of 'row', including rows with less than 12 notes (even rows with more). Dissonance is tempered by using rows that imply triads. Far from being a restriction, thinking in the 'total chromatic' can be exhilarating. Careful choices in the intervallic make up of a row can help determine levels of dissonance.
Your technical assumptions are unfounded.


----------



## 59540

Aries said:


> But what limits? Historical methods, rules and limits proved themselves in the history. Schönberg didn't built up on what was historically grown, but just invented completely new rules with awful results. ...


Schoenberg was still grounded in traditional harmony. But as for the historical methods and rules, WHY require the "answer" in a fugue to be in the dominant? It's just the way things turned out.


----------



## Aries

dissident said:


> Schoenberg was still grounded in traditional harmony.


He had three periods, a romantic, a free atonal and a twelve-tone-period. I like the first period, but I don't see what the last period had to do with traditional harmony.



dissident said:


> But as for the historical methods and rules, WHY require the "answer" in a fugue to be in the dominant? It's just the way things turned out.


The dominant makes the most sense I think, because of the consonance between quint and tonic. What else do you suggest?

Doesn't it sound good? As long as what sounds good is the rule, it is better than something else being the rule. But rules in general shouldn't be mandatory.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> Emotional conveyance might not matter to you, but it doesn't mean it wasn't important to Verdi, or Bach or Beethoven or Mozart or any number of CP composers. This isn't meant to convey any emotion at all?


I have no idea, and neither do you, what was going on in the heads of Verdi or Bach when writing their music. I would tend to think it had more to do with the specific demands of the work in progress, practical things. In any event I question the supposition that Verdi or Bach or Beethoven had a different mindset when composing than Schoenberg or Webern or Wuorinen.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> I have no idea, and neither do you, what was going on in the heads of Verdi or Bach when writing their music. ...


When Beethoven directs that a movement be played "langsam und sehnsuchtsvoll" I think it's a clue that it wasn't written for emotionless automatons. As for BWV 21 of course we can refer to the cantata's title.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> When Beethoven directs that a movement be played "langsam und sehnsuchtsvoll" I think it's a clue that it wasn't written for emotionless automatons.


No music is written for "emotionless automatons" with or without directions from a composer.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> No music is written for "emotionless automatons" with or without directions from a composer.


But that's how you say you choose to listen to it. That's on you, not the composer.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> But that's how you say you choose to listen to it. That's on you, not the composer.


No, it has nothing to do with me, it is a fact, that musicians are not "emotionless automatons."


----------



## SanAntone

Is this music devoid of evoking emotional response?






Berg hopes not since he marked every movement with these adjectives:

00:00 - I. Allegretto *gioviale*
03:09 - II. Andante *amoroso*
09:26 - III. Allegro *misterioso* - Trio *estatico*
12:43 - IV. Adagio *appassionato*
19:05 - V. Presto *delirando* - *Tenebroso*
24:00 - VI. Largo *desolato*


----------



## SanAntone

And what of this work by Schoenberg?






Is Uchida an automaton?

Wikipedia has this interesting note:

The manuscript contains markings at the beginning of each of the four movements, suggesting an autobiographical connection between this work and the composer, as well as German refugees in general. The markings are "Life was so easy", "Suddenly hatred broke out", "A grave situation was created", and "But life goes on", each matched with a suitable expression in the music (Anon. 2009). These markings were not included in the final published version, as Schoenberg disapproved of this kind of fixed musical interpretation: they were to guide his composition of the work, and not to provide a programmatic reference for the listener.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> Is this music devoid of evoking emotional response?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Berg hopes not since he marked every movement with these adjectives:
> 
> 00:00 - I. Allegretto *gioviale*
> 03:09 - II. Andante *amoroso*
> 09:26 - III. Allegro *misterioso* - Trio *estatico*
> 12:43 - IV. Adagio *appassionato*
> 19:05 - V. Presto *delirando* - *Tenebroso*
> 24:00 - VI. Largo *desolato*


Yes, but the point is it's not as immediately apparent. I don't need the composer's indication to feel the particular emotion of this, for example:




Nor do you.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> Yes, but the point is it's not as immediately apparent.


Unfortunately, it would appear that is your limitation, not the music's.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> Unfortunately, it would appear that is your limitation, not the music's.


Not really. Without being led by the markings I don't think I'd be alone in being able to pin down exactly what emotion is being conveyed in those examples.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> Not really. Without being led by the markings I don't think I'd be alone in being able to pin down exactly what emotion is being conveyed in those examples.


You don't think? These indications are a guide for the performer, not you, or any listener. We as listeners either attach certain emotions to a piece of music or not.

If you are immune to Berg's music, you can't blame that on Berg (since others are not, including myself and those with whom I've discussed his music), and you also are not equipped to speak for anyone other than yourself.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> You don't think? These indications are a guide for the performer, not you, or any listener. We as listeners either attach certain emotions to a piece of music or not.


Those indications are given in a solely composer-performer vacuum?


> If you are immune to Berg's music, you can't blame that on Berg (since others are not, including myself and those with whom I've discussed his music), and you also are not equipped to speak for anyone other than yourself.


I can admire the craftsmanship that went into Berg's work, but the fact remains that "immunity" to detecting particular emotional states in that particular style seems to be widespread enough to rule out my own personal limitations.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> Those indications are given in a solely composer-perforner vacuum?


Yes, since almost all of the time a listener does not see them, and most composers wish for the music to speak for itself.



> I can admire the craftsmanship that went into Berg's work, but the fact remains that "immunity" to detecting particular emotional states in that particular style seems to be widespread enough to rule out my own personal limitations.


It is not widespread in my experience. In fact, just the opposite has been my experience; most people with whom I discuss Berg almost always observe how his music is so much more "emotional" than other atonal composers. That observation I think is inaccurate, but Berg's music seems more likely to draw that kind of a response than, say, Webern's.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> Yes, since almost all of the time a listener does not see them, and most composers wish for the music to speak for itself.


Just spitballing, but for most listeners that Berg example probably wouldn't sound too "gioviale".



> It is not widespread in my experience. In fact, just the opposite has been my experience; most people with whom I discuss Berg almost always observe how his music is so much more "emotional" than other atonal composers. That observation I think is inaccurate, but Berg's music seems more likely to draw that kind of a response than, say, Webern's.


It may be because Berg wasn't as thoroughgoing in his application of "atonality" as Webern.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> Just spitballing, but for most listeners that Berg example probably wouldn't sound too "gioviale".


How do you know what "most listeners" would think.



> It may be because Berg wasn't as thoroughgoing in his application of "atonality" as Webern.


That may be true, i.e. Berg intentionally constructed his tone rows using thirds, and even diatonic triads, and because of his dramatic talent, there is a narrative quality to his music. All this results in atonal music which is very expressive.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> How do you know what "most listeners" would think.


Just spitballing, like I said.



> That may be true, i.e. Berg intentionally constructed his tone rows using thirds, and even diatonic triads, and because of his dramatic talent, there is a narrative quality to his music. All this results in atonal music which is very expressive.


Which kind of proves the point.


----------



## Forster

Enthusiast said:


> If there is no happy contemporary music then how come the tradition of writing comic operas continues to produce first class works?


Was this addressed to me? If so, I must clarify that I didn't say that there is no happy contemporary music.


----------



## science

The Lyric Suite is 90 years old. It's further away from us, even in straightforward literal linear time, than it was from Mendelssohn.


----------



## Forster

Aries said:


> No, but its about the breadth of the spectrum of possible expressions. Why would you restrict yourself by sticking to a restrictive serial method before you even conceive a work? The twelve-tone technique for example. What if a composer finds out during composing that he just wants 10 tones and less dissonance? The twelve-tone technique just doesn't make sense in the first place, because its an unnecessary restriction.
> 
> I always thought twelve-tone-technique and serialism is meant. All this talk about what atonal means is diversion, isn't it?


"Why would you..." Because you want to. Duh!

As for "what is meant", chipia has not exemplified what is meant by citing specific examples of what is meant. It's not for us to assume or guess what is meant by " like Boulez". Lots of contemporary composers don't write anything like Boulez.


----------



## Simon Moon

dissident said:


> Yes, but the point is it's not as immediately apparent. I don't need the composer's indication to feel the particular emotion of this, for example:


You just pointed out one of the main reasons why I like SVS, atonal, dissonant, avant-garde and contemporary classical music so much.

It is _because_ the emotional content is not so obvious and spelled out so plainly by the composer, that is one of the aspects of these types of classical music that makes them so compelling and intriguing.

For me, with CP classical music, the obviousness of the emotional response the composer is trying to elicit, comes off as predictable and trite.

Yes, the emotional response is not so apparent, and that is a good thing.


----------



## Enthusiast

Often when I see discussion of emotion in music (emotional expression, emotional enjoyment etc) I wonder what the poster means by emotion. Isn't an emotion a thought? And isn't the difference (between a thought that can be called an emotion and one that won't be called an emotion) a matter of whether or not it is accompanied by physical feelings (butterflies in the stomach, a faster heartbeat etc)? Given this it seems that it is mostly down to what the listener experiences. We are back to our old friend subjectivity.


----------



## chipia

SanAntone said:


> most people with whom I discuss Berg almost always observe how his music is so much more "emotional" than other atonal composers.


But I don't think anybody was saying that serial music is "not emotional" but that it doesn't convey positive emotions like happiness well, or at best relatively. In the Schönberg Piano Concerto the outer movements have a less dark vibe compared to the inner ones, but they don't really recall happiness or an "easy life" by themselves. The first movement seems rather eerie to me.

This Boulez Sonata on the other hand is supposed to sound "hysterical" and "disordered" (according to the analysis by Samuel Andreyev on Youtube) and I find that more convincing:


----------



## SanAntone

chipia said:


> But I don't think anybody was saying that serial music is "not emotional" but that it doesn't convey positive emotions like happiness well, or at best relatively. In the Schönberg Piano Concerto the outer movements have a less dark vibe compared the inner ones, but they don't really recall happiness or an "easy life" by themselves. The first movement seems rather eerie to me.
> 
> This Boulez Sonata on the other hand is supposed to sound "hysterical" and "disordered" (according to the analysis by Samuel Andreyev on Youtube) and I find that more convincing:


I am not going to conduct a survey of music from the Second Viennese School in order to show you works which I think demonstrate what you claim is missing from the music. I won't do this because it would be very time consuming to assemble the material and frankly, I do not think you are intellectually honest enough to benefit from my work.

Needless to say, I know you are wrong, and more to the point, whatever you get or miss from this music is not proof of anything other than the limits of your perception - limits we all have for various things.


----------



## 59540

- "I don't find atonal music to be able to convey varied emotions as well as CP can."

-"I don't listen to music for emotional conveyance anyway. It's a red herring."

(examples of "emotional" CP music)

"How dare you say atonal music can't convey emotions?" :lol:


----------



## chipia

SanAntone said:


> I am not going to conduct a survey of music from the Second Viennese School in order to show you works which I think demonstrate what you claim is missing from the music. I won't do this because it would be very time consuming to assemble the material and frankly, I do not think you are intellectually honest enough to benefit from my work.
> 
> Needless to say, I know you are wrong, and more to the point, whatever you get or miss from this music is not proof of anything other than the limits of your perception - limits we all have for various things.


I don't think my opinion is caused by bias - Simon Moon, who apparently listens mostly to contemporary music admitted himself that emotions tend to be more vague than in CPT and actually said that's a good thing. Is he "wrong" as well?


----------



## 59540

chipia said:


> But I don't think anybody was saying that serial music is "not emotional" but that it doesn't convey positive emotions like happiness well, or at best relatively.


You know, I think that's true. I don't hear joy or happiness in atonal music. Mostly I hear "analytical" and even coldness or hardness, which has its place.


SanAntone said:


> Needless to say, I know you are wrong, and more to the point, whatever you get or miss from this music is not proof of anything other than the limits of your perception - limits we all have for various things.


So much for individual interpretation. If you don't hear this just like I do, you're wrong and intellectually dishonest. And limited.


----------



## Forster

chipia said:


> But I don't think anybody was saying that serial music is "not emotional" but that it doesn't convey positive emotions like happiness well, or at best relatively. In the Schönberg Piano Concerto the outer movements have a less dark vibe compared to the inner ones, but they don't really recall happiness or an "easy life" by themselves.


So? Is that what music is required to do?


----------



## chipia

Forster said:


> So? Is that what music is required to do?


Well happiness is one of the most fundamental human emotions, so I think it should be part of music just like anything else. I see no good reason to exclude it.


----------



## SanAntone

chipia said:


> I don't think my opinion is caused by bias - Simon Moon, who apparently listens mostly to contemporary music admitted himself that emotions tend to be more vague than in CPT and actually said that's a good thing. Is he "wrong" as well?


Simon Moon is entitled to his opinion, I will leave it to him to explain or not.

I am not the one claiming that a certain kind of music does or does not express emotions. I don't happen to listen to music for that purpose, but I also perceive that all music, atonal music included, is open to that kind of perception by a variety of listeners. I also think that as listeners we have holes in our perception which can leave some music outside of our appreciation.

The difference between you and I is that I don't blame the music.



dissident said:


> You know, I think that's true. I don't hear joy or happiness in atonal music. Mostly I hear "analytical" and even coldness or hardness, which has its place.
> So much for individual interpretation. If you don't hear this just like I do, you're wrong and intellectually dishonest. And limited.


I have never said that. This is a paraphrase of some of what I have said, different people will hear different things in any music. Only, some blame the music for what they don't get out of it.


----------



## Forster

chipia said:


> Well happiness is one of the most fundamental human emotions, so I think it should be part of music just like anything else. I see no good reason to exclude it.


Who's excluding it? I'm simply saying it's not required. I'm pretty sure Ravel wasn't aiming for happiness when writing Pavane pour une infante défunte.


----------



## Torkelburger

> No YOU implied it's a standard which "Bubbles" failed to meet.


You're using Equivocation. You were the very first one to use "standard". I thought you meant a personal standard, personal criteria I used. When judging, a person will use both their personal standards and biases in addition to universal standards such as the example I gave. I explained in post #727 this difference which you ignored. There are standards to the craft of composition no matter what the "practice" (your term) is. Like the example I gave in post #725 DOESN'T MATTER if it's Classical, Romantic, Tonal, Serial, Microtonal, Impressionistic...it doesn't matter.

That standard applies to all music. There are other standards of orchestration, such as writing an A below the staff in a bassoon part. The standards of the craft of composition do not allow for this, no matter what the "practice" is.

In fact, that is why the composer of "Bubbles" removed those very notes from his children's improvisation. He was following the "standards" of the craft of composition as set by history and experts, to help the judges determine his piece as a piece of better quality than it would have been determined had he not followed that standard.



> The point is that that standard was set by composers who were in turn violators of standards. Standard-bearer Saint-Saëns felt that Debussy et al were violators of all that was high and holy while you now use those same composers as a standard yourself.


That's where you are wrong. The vast majority of standards of compositional craft have been developed from ALL great composers and compositions since the very beginning. It is what they all have in common. Like I said, the two examples I've used so far in orchestration apply to ALL PERIODS and ALL STYLES and ALL COMPOSERS, regardless of whether the music you're orchestrating moves the listener or not. It doesn't matter. That is afterwards.

And you do not know what reason it was, whether it's some personal bias (he doesn't like the harmonies or something), or whether it is an actual standard regarding the actual craft of composition.

Quite frankly, if any standard whatever it is, did change in the future, does not mean I can not use it or that it is invalid TODAY. We are judging music at this very moment in time, not music according to the POSSIBLE likes and dislikes of people who haven't even been born yet. If all standards as I know them today were negated 100 years in the future does not forbid me to use them today to discern music of quality from the rest.



> To put it briefly, the standards which you use to dismiss "Bubbles" are not set in stone.


When listeners go to an orchestra concert, is it unfair of them to have a universal set of minimum standards of professional performance (which is what they are paying the performers for)? Like you go to a Mozart symphony concert and several players play 80 cents sharp or flat of every note they play, it wouldn't be fair of anyone to say they didn't meet standards of quality performance because standards are never set in stone, right?



> a possible rejoinder these days is that that consensus, history, standards, traditions and "good reasons" have been imposed at least in part from above, in the service of power structures.


I once heard one time that a possible reply to that is that they should probably take that up with the Olympics committee then, given that standards, traditions, "good reasons", and expert opinion and consensus is what gives people like Simone Biles gold medals. And about a million other competitions, like International Chopin Competition, etc. But I'll let you pass that on to them, since I don't want to argue with the wrong people and you're just their dutiful messenger.


----------



## Torkelburger

I once composed a piece in college at the age of about 20 and had it performed by our concert band. It used the 12-tone technique, but I kind of did my own thing with it and what I did was instead of just writing single note pitches for each tone of the row, I would write a complete major triad using the pitch from the row as the root.

For the rhythm, I used the technique used by Michael Torke in _Ecstatic Orange_ but instead of in 4/4 time, I used 6/8. I also used Stravinskian additive form where the rhythms would start very, very simple and get more and more difficult until they built up to the major themes of the piece. I don't have a recording, but it sounded incredible (please excuse me for flattering myself). I am actually going to write it again soon. It sounded very happy.

Anyway, I wrote the following piece in college at the age of 21. It is 12-tone (first theme anyway) and sounds a bit happy I would say...I would have written the rhythms much more interesting if I had written it today as they are quite boring, but you could make it more "happier" if that is what you are looking for:


----------



## SanAntone

Torkelburger said:


> Anyway, I wrote the following piece in college at the age of 21. It is 12-tone (first theme anyway) and sounds a bit happy I would say...I would have written the rhythms much more interesting if I had written it today as they are quite boring, but you could make it more "happier" if that is what you are looking for:


Nice! Bravo, and :tiphat: for posting it here.


----------



## fluteman

Torkelburger said:


> I once composed a piece in college at the age of about 20 and had it performed by our concert band. It used the 12-tone technique, but I kind of did my own thing with it and what I did was instead of just writing single note pitches for each tone of the row, I would write a complete major triad using the pitch from the row as the root.
> 
> For the rhythm, I used the technique used by Michael Torke in _Ecstatic Orange_ but instead of in 4/4 time, I used 6/8. I also used Stravinskian additive form where the rhythms would start very, very simple and get more and more difficult until they built up to the major themes of the piece. I don't have a recording, but it sounded incredible (please excuse me for flattering myself). I am actually going to write it again soon. It sounded very happy.
> 
> Anyway, I wrote the following piece in college at the age of 21. It is 12-tone (first theme anyway) and sounds a bit happy I would say...I would have written the rhythms much more interesting if I had written it today as they are quite boring, but you could make it more "happier" if that is what you are looking for:


You just made sticking with this thread worth the trouble, and that was no mean feat.


----------



## Aries

Torkelburger said:


> Anyway, I wrote the following piece in college at the age of 21. It is 12-tone (first theme anyway) and sounds a bit happy I would say...I would have written the rhythms much more interesting if I had written it today as they are quite boring, but you could make it more "happier" if that is what you are looking for:


This pieces has meaningful rhythms, instrumentation and it sounds (pseudo-)tonal for me. I'm curious if its possible to interpret the harmonies as fast changing tonal. However this is different to how Schönbergs 12-tone pieces sound. It is something very different to typical serialism.


----------



## SanAntone

> typical serialism


There is no such thing; not anymore so than "typical tonalism."


----------



## Art Rock

Thread closed for clean-up.


----------



## Art Rock

The thread is now open again. Several posts have been removed (those that do not meet our guidelines and replies to them).


----------



## 59540

Torkelburger said:


> You're using Equivocation. You were the very first one to use "standard". I thought you meant a personal standard, personal criteria I used. When judging, a person will use both their personal standards and biases in addition to universal standards such as the example I gave. I explained in post #727 this difference which you ignored. There are standards to the craft of composition no matter what the "practice" (your term) is. Like the example I gave in post #725 DOESN'T MATTER if it's Classical, Romantic, Tonal, Serial, Microtonal, Impressionistic...it doesn't matter.


No, now you're using equivocation. " ' Bubbles' fails to meet the standards [by whatever equivocating term you want to call them]..." "At some point Stravinsky was also judged to have failed to meet 'standards'..." "What standards are you talking about?"

Sustained dissonance also used to be non-standard. Playing string instruments in front of the bridge rather than behind it was standard. Cellos and basses were not struck with timpani mallets, and screws and bolts were not wedged into piano strings. Those "universal" standards have been shifting for a while, Torkelburger. You don't judge Penderecki's Threnody by Bach standards, or Cage's Sonatas and Interludes by Chopin standards, so I don't know why you would judge "Bubbles" by Penderecki or Cage standards. The only reason I can see is to find a pretext to condemn something you just don't like. "Bubbles" is unlike Carter and others, so it's beyond the pale. But I could also say Carter is unlike Beethoven and therefore unacceptable.



> In fact, that is why the composer of "Bubbles" removed those very notes from his children's improvisation. He was following the "standards" of the craft of composition as set by history and experts, to help the judges determine his piece as a piece of better quality than it would have been determined had he not followed that standard.


So I don't know what your gripe with the piece is, other than 1. the intention of the composer and 2. you just subjectively don't like it.

As for the rest of the screed, TL;DR


----------



## Torkelburger

Aries said:


> This pieces has meaningful rhythms, instrumentation and it sounds (pseudo-)tonal for me. I'm curious if its possible to interpret the harmonies as fast changing tonal. However this is different to how Schönbergs 12-tone pieces sound. It is something very different to typical serialism.


Thanks SanAntone, fluteman, and Aries for the kind words! It is not pseudo-tonal, Berg would be more tonal than this. It really is a pure 12 tone row with no key or triad relation and all notes are sounded in order without repetition until the transition which is segmented pieces of the row and the second theme is pentatonic, of course (still atonal in the strict sense discussed earlier in the thread). You are absolutely correct in that my goal was to not sound "typical" (at least what majority of non-serial listeners associate with the style) and be something "quite different", unique, etc.

ETA: The "serial style" really is adaptable to the composer using it. So as SanAntone said, there is nothing really "typical". Like to me, the SVS styles are completely different (I mean Schoenber and Berg's Violin Concertos are both "serial" but they don't really sound much alike right?), and Boulez is very different from them, Stravinsky STILL sounds like Stravinsky even when writing serial music, and Nono is his own sound, Dallapicolla, and on and on.


----------



## Torkelburger

> Sustained dissonance also used to be non-standard.


Like I said, it doesn't matter anyway. Just because some standard today may be changed 100 years in the future does not forbid me from using it to judge music of acceptable quality today. I don't care if the standard in 100 years from now is to play upside-down with their instruments filled with water. If sustained dissonance was not a standard 300 years ago, by all means, the judges had every right to dismiss it back then as sub-standard. Doesn't matter if the standard is different now.

And as John Corigliano says (paraphrasing), "It doesn't matter what style of techniques, modern or contemporary, old or new you use, it is what you do with it that matters." Meaning there are abstract principles of communication involved that go beyond playing techniques you keep mentioning and all the trivial things you bring up that apply to Mozart, Lachenmann, or whoever, whether it be issues of cohesion, form, or lack thereof.



> Sustained dissonance also used to be non-standard. Playing string instruments in front of the bridge rather than behind it was standard. Cellos and basses were not struck with timpani mallets, and screws and bolts were not wedged into piano strings. Those "universal" standards have been shifting for a while, Torkelburger.


Again, that has nothing to do with what I was talking about. And going by that logic, one would use different standards to judge Mozart and Beethoven, and early Beethoven and late Beethoven.



> You don't judge Penderecki's Threnody by Bach standards,


What's funny is that that is exactly what chipia seems to be doing. I haven't seen you say this even one time to him. Interesting.



> Cage's Sonatas and Interludes by Chopin standards


And that.

And when listeners go to an orchestra concert, is it unfair of them to have a universal set of minimum standards of professional performance (which is what they are paying the performers for)? Like you go to a Mozart symphony concert and several players play 80 cents sharp or flat of every note they play, it wouldn't be fair of anyone to say they didn't meet standards of quality performance because standards are never set in stone, right?



> So I don't know what your gripe with the piece is, other than 1. the intention of the composer and 2. you just subjectively don't like it.


Since you seem to not find anything wrong with the piece whatsoever, keep harping the pro-modern crowd for reasons why it's bad and arguing against them, and advocating for qualities you find have merits (such as how you argued how good the rhythm is and how well it takes up the slack for no melody being present), why don't you ask chipia? Chipia thinks the piece is terrible and is unworthy of the award? Yet, you've haven't one single time asked chipia: "How is it "badly written"?", or "How specifically could it have been "better", if there is such a thing?"

I don't recall seeing you tell* chipia* "The standards you're using are what puzzles me. How much of your judgement [sic] of this piece is based on what you knew about it prior to listening to it, and on what you know of the "composer's" intentions?"

Strange, that.

It's as if you have a bias or prejudice or something. Interesting.

Quite honestly, the piece in question may very well have been deserving of the award after all. If I were one of the judges, I may have rated it highly and recommended it for the award. Just due to the following:

1) we do not know the quality of the other pieces submitted (the composer nor chipia does either)
2) we do not know the number of the other pieces submitted (the composer doesn't mention it if he even knows, and chipia doesn't seem to know either)
3) was there contact between judges (this would allow for a less-fair adjudication process)
4) what was the number of judges (the fewer the number, the less-fair)
5) were votes cast independently or together at once, as if they were separate and with a ranking system, it would be more fair. In addition, a control such as omitting the highest and lowest scores from the vote and averaging the rest may help as well.

So the piece may have, in fact, been worthy of the award. We just do not know. It is unfair for the composer (and whoever agrees with his "experiment" to judge as you say "based on what we (only) know of his intentions".


----------



## 59540

Torkelburger said:


> Like I said, it doesn't matter anyway. Just because some standard today may be changed 100 years in the future does not forbid me from using it to judge music of acceptable quality today. I don't care if the standard in 100 years from now is to play upside-down with their instruments filled with water. If sustained dissonance was not a standard 300 years ago, by all means, the judges had every right to dismiss it back then as sub-standard. Doesn't matter if the standard is different now.


But that makes your standard "personal", not "universal".



> Again, that has nothing to do with what I was talking about. And going by that logic, one would use different standards to judge Mozart and Beethoven, and early Beethoven and late Beethoven.


In a way, we do. But they generally remain under the same rubric: "common practice".


----------



## Torkelburger

dissident said:


> But that makes your standard "personal", not "universal".
> 
> In a way, we do. But they generally remain under the same rubric: "common practice".


And when listeners go to an orchestra concert, is it unfair of them to have a universal set of minimum standards of professional performance (which is what they are paying the performers for)? Like you go to a Mozart symphony concert and several players play 80 cents sharp or flat of every note they play, it wouldn't be fair of anyone to say they didn't meet standards of quality performance because standards are never set in stone, right?


----------



## 59540

Torkelburger said:


> And when listeners go to an orchestra concert, is it unfair of them to have a universal set of minimum standards of professional performance (which is what they are paying the performers for)? Like you go to a Mozart symphony concert and several players play 80 cents sharp or flat of every note they play, it wouldn't be fair of anyone to say they didn't meet standards of quality performance because standards are never set in stone, right?


But you're talking about tuning instruments and playing style (and even there, there could be disagreements with HIP). I'm talking about composition. If the composer says several players should play 80 cents flat or sharp, who are you to disagree? They don't CARE if 15 minutes ago you thought that is substandard. That's what "avant garde" or "cutting edge" does.


> Since you seem to not find anything wrong with the piece whatsoever,


By the way, I didn't say that. I'm saying you don't have a firm basis from which to condemn it other than "I don't like it".


> ...Yet, you've haven't one single time asked chipia: "How is it "badly written"?", or "How specifically could it have been "better", if there is such a thing?"


It's been fairly obvious why the OP thinks it's "badly written".


----------



## chipia

Torkelburger said:


> 1) we do not know the quality of the other pieces submitted (the composer nor chipia does either)
> 2) we do not know the number of the other pieces submitted (the composer doesn't mention it if he even knows, and chipia doesn't seem to know either)
> 3) was there contact between judges (this would allow for a less-fair adjudication process)
> 4) what was the number of judges (the fewer the number, the less-fair)
> 5) were votes cast independently or together at once, as if they were separate and with a ranking system, it would be more fair. In addition, a control such as omitting the highest and lowest scores from the vote and averaging the rest may help as well.


ad 4) We know that there were two independent (!) committees, each consisting of 3 judges, a composer, a musicologist and a conductor. Also, both committees acknowledged that the piece is worthy of funding (I read the dutch answer by the panel in the video, among others they called the music "skillfully made")

ad 1) The "composer" of Bubbles remarked that John Borstlap, a colleague of him, did not receive any funding for his music, because the Panel said that it lacks originality.

Hear is a piece by Borstlap:


----------



## Torkelburger

> ad 4) We know that there were two independent (!) committees, each consisting of 3 judges, a composer, a musicologist and a conductor. Also, both committees acknowledged that the piece is worthy of funding (I read the dutch answer by the panel in the video, among others they called the music "skillfully made")
> 
> ad 1) The "composer" of Bubbles remarked that John Borstlap, a colleague of him, did not receive any funding for his music, because the Panel said that it lacks originality.


Thank you, chipia. Seems they could have tweaked it a bit. I would have like to have seen all of the pieces and the exact number of pieces. But more importantly, I think there should have been more than three judges per panel and no communication between each and every judge. I think they should have an anonymous scoring system with no group voting, and throw out the highest and lowest scores, averaging the rest.

And you never know, the "better" piece(s) may have, in fact, won, after all. It's hard to tell.


----------



## Torkelburger

> But you're talking about tuning instruments and playing style (and even there, there could be disagreements with HIP).


If that's bothering you, then say someone got lost and played half a bar behind everyone else for a whole movement. Is it fair to say someone didn't meet standards of quality performance or not?



> I'm talking about composition.


Explain the difference, then. Because we are talking about judging art and music using a set of standards. You're just special pleading. Are you saying musical compositions can't be judged by standards but musical performances are? If so, why?



> If the composer says several players should play 80 cents flat or sharp, who are you to disagree?


Anticipating this far in advance, that's why I said a Mozart symphony, not Cage. Nice try, though, but you are very predictable, dissident.



> They don't CARE if 15 minutes ago you thought that is substandard. That's what "avant garde" or "cutting edge" does.


I would tell them what I told you, if you don't have standards or acknowledge them, then don't be surprised if people don't return the sentiment towards your opinions either, (or in the case of the "avant-garde" composer, their music).



> By the way, I didn't say that. I'm saying you don't have a firm basis from which to condemn it other than "I don't like it".


Did chipia condemn it on a firm basis? I didn't see you mention that to him. For some reason that must not have bothered you for the last 800 posts.

And do you think we should abolish the Olympic games in which certain events have no "firm basis" other than "I don't like it" among experts basing their opinions on standards and power structures? Should we propose to replace expert judges with ignoramuses off the street because their "basis" is no better? Or is musical composition the only form of competition in the world where the judges have "no firm basis"?



> It's been fairly obvious why the OP thinks it's "badly written".


Great, now what you need to do is ask the dissident follow-up question and snarky-remark of: ""How specifically could it have been "better", if there is such a thing?" don't you?


----------



## SanAntone

Ultimately, what difference does this one incident (experiment) make? 

It occurred in one city, affecting a limited number of works and composers, and will not have any effect on the wider group of composers and their work, many of whom I would guess know little about it, and care even less. In my view, the only one who has suffered is the perpetrator of this fraud, Comitas.

To the extent this incident is being used to indict the entire body of serial, atonal, and modern, music is a gross exaggeration, and, at least for me, completely unconvincing.


----------



## 59540

Torkelburger said:


> Anticipating this far in advance, that's why I said a Mozart symphony, not Cage. Nice try, though, but you are very predictable, dissident.


So why Mozart but not Cage? Yes, there are standards of Mozart performance, which we still expect to be met. There was also a compositional standard for Mozart. Which you don't care about anymore, remember? You're not judging through 220 year old eyes or ears, remember? If sustained dissonance was considered substandard 300 years ago you don't care, remember? Good grief you're all over the place.


> Explain the difference, then. Because we are talking about judging art and music using a set of standards. You're just special pleading. Are you saying musical compositions can't be judged by standards but musical performances are? If so, why?


:lol: Good night. See above. "If sustained dissonance was not a standard 300 years ago, by all means, the judges had every right to dismiss it back then as sub-standard. Doesn't matter if the standard is different now." Those standards change. It doesn't matter if it was 300 years ago or the Torkelburger Standard of yesterday. It's there to be broken if "progress" is to be made.


> Did chipia condemn it on a firm basis?


Not really, just based on a dislike of atonality, apparently.


> Great, now what you need to do is ask the dissident follow-up question and snarky-remark of: ""How specifically could it have been "better", if there is such a thing?" don't you?


What would the point be when I know the answer probably would be "compose with more tonality"? I don't see how the question is "snarky", either.


----------



## Forster

SanAntone said:


> Ultimately, what difference does this one incident (experiment) make?
> 
> It occurred in one city, affecting a limited number of works and composers, and will not have any effect on the wider group of composers and their work, many of whom I would guess know little about it, and care even less. In my view, the only one who has suffered is the perpetrator of this fraud, Comitas.
> 
> To the extent this incident is being used to indict the entire body of serial, atonal, and modern, music is a gross exaggeration, and, at least for me, completely unconvincing.


Quite. I made a similar observation earlier, but received only a partial response form the OP.


----------



## Torkelburger

One wonders why indeed dissident has refrained from subjecting chipia to his weak, bargain-basement Socratic Method line of questioning the rest of us have been subjected to. It really would have dwindled the 800 posts down to only a few, given that it supports the rest of what we have been saying all along—mainly that the experiment proves nothing, is pointless, useless, baseless, along with chipia’s criticisms. Yet, we saw nothing from dissident who only comes crawling out of the word-work to feign ambivalence in order to troll the “pro modern” crowd.

You could have mentioned, dissident, right from the beginning to chipia that he had no firm basis from which to say modern music is better or worse for sounding analogous to random notes, he had no firm basis from which to say any of his ideas would improve the music submitted, he had no firm basis from which to say the piece submitted is better or worse than tonal music or any other such music he prefers, he had no firm basis from which to criticize one method of composition as better than any other, etc.

It’s anyone’s guess as to why you failed to mention to chipia that there is no firm basis on which to criticize any judge’s repeated selection of one style over another given that there is no firm basis that he cannot prove that one style is any better or worse than another. There is no firm basis for any losing composer or composer’s unwillingness to submit because of fears of feeling cheated or victimized due to judge’s likes or dislikes since there is no firm basis that the judge’s likes or dislikes are better than their own. There is no firm basis for which to ask any judge to explain him or herself as they may choose a piece for any reason they wish, even if they have no reason at all or are not aware of any reason. Apparently, it must have slipped your mind to have explained this to chipia who seems the Bubbles composer was slighted.

You could have mentioned right from the beginning, dissident, that the composer of Bubbles experiment proves nothing since there is no firm basis on which to determine the piece he submitted is worse or better than any other piece submitted, that there is no firm basis for it to have been improved or worsened, there is no firm basis for it to be compared as better or worse than any piece in the canon no matter the tonality you compare it to, method of composition you compare it to, orchestration you compare it to, etc. That would have saved us all a lot of trouble. As many have said from the start, the whole experiment is baseless, pointless, and the OP’s “criticisms” therefore amount to nothing more than goading of other members.


----------



## 59540

Torkelburger said:


> One wonders why indeed dissident has refrained from subjecting chipia to his weak, bargain-basement Socratic Method line of questioning the rest of us have been subjected to. It really would have dwindled the 800 posts down to only a few, given that it supports the rest of what we have been saying all along-mainly that the experiment proves nothing, is pointless, useless, baseless, along with chipia's criticisms. Yet, we saw nothing from dissident who only comes crawling out of the word-work to feign ambivalence in order to troll the "pro modern" crowd.
> 
> You could have mentioned, dissident, right from the beginning to chipia that he had no firm basis from which to say modern music is better or worse for sounding analogous to random notes, he had no firm basis from which to say any of his ideas would improve the music submitted, he had no firm basis from which to say the piece submitted is better or worse than tonal music or any other such music he prefers, he had no firm basis from which to criticize one method of composition as better than any other, etc.
> 
> It's anyone's guess as to why you failed to mention to chipia that there is no firm basis on which to criticize any judge's repeated selection of one style over another given that there is no firm basis that he cannot prove that one style is any better or worse than another. There is no firm basis for any losing composer or composer's unwillingness to submit because of fears of feeling cheated or victimized due to judge's likes or dislikes since there is no firm basis that the judge's likes or dislikes are better than their own. There is no firm basis for which to ask any judge to explain him or herself as they may choose a piece for any reason they wish, even if they have no reason at all or are not aware of any reason. Apparently, it must have slipped your mind to have explained this to chipia who seems the Bubbles composer was slighted.
> 
> You could have mentioned right from the beginning, dissident, that the composer of Bubbles experiment proves nothing since there is no firm basis on which to determine the piece he submitted is worse or better than any other piece submitted, that there is no firm basis for it to have been improved or worsened, there is no firm basis for it to be compared as better or worse than any piece in the canon no matter the tonality you compare it to, method of composition you compare it to, orchestration you compare it to, etc. That would have saved us all a lot of trouble. As many have said from the start, the whole experiment is baseless, pointless, and the OP's "criticisms" therefore amount to nothing more than goading of other members.


You don't care to address my last comment? "Why didn't you say X to chipia" is irrelevant and a deflection.
(edit) I see you did...


----------



## Torkelburger

> So why Mozart but not Cage?


So you don't get to present a strawman/or change the subject by saying that playing out of tune is considered normal practice just like you did.



> Yes, there are standards of Mozart performance, which we still expect to be met.


From what firm basis do you have from which to condemn it other then? What makes those standards universal ("we"), and not personal?



> There was also a compositional standard for Mozart. Which you don't care about anymore, remember?


Wrong. That's you. Not me. I've been advocating for universal standards that transcend quibbles over STYLE between eras all along. Craft and style and not the same and I've been trying to get that through to you for pages now and you still don't get it.



> You're not judging through 220 year old eyes or ears, remember?


Yes, I am and I've already given two examples in quite extensive detail explaining how. And why the tonality, musical era, composer, etc. doesn't matter.

It was you, not me who said:
"You don't judge Penderecki's Threnody by Bach standards, or Cage's Sonatas and Interludes by Chopin standards…"

You are referring to style, not craft.



> If sustained dissonance was considered substandard 300 years ago you don't care, remember?


Exactly. Because, for the millionth time, that is style, not craft.



> Those standards change.


The style changed.



> Not really, just based on a dislike of atonality, apparently.


You don't seem to know for sure, so one wonders why you don't see the need to point it out to him via incessant Socratic questioning/trolling you subjected others to who you pretend to innocently not understand. You're all over the place.



> What would the point be when I know the answer probably would be "compose with more tonality"?


What was the point of asking all the other posters in the thread a barrage of follow-ups when you know what their answers are as well?


----------



## Torkelburger

dissident said:


> You don't care to address my last comment? "Why didn't you say X to chipia" is irrelevant and a deflection.


You're going to gripe about not answering questions? You've skipped a ton of mine, dude. Don't even start.


----------



## Torkelburger

That post is actually quite relevant. Because the conversation should have been over a long, long time ago. As I explained. All of us and you included, by whatever POV you look at, showed that the whole thing was pointless and baseless--the experiment and the OP.


----------



## EdwardBast

SanAntone said:


> *Ultimately, what difference does this one incident (experiment) make? *
> 
> It occurred in one city, affecting a limited number of works and composers, and will not have any effect on the wider group of composers and their work, many of whom I would guess know little about it, and care even less. In my view, the only one who has suffered is the perpetrator of this fraud, Comitas.
> 
> To the extent this incident is being used to indict the entire body of serial, atonal, and modern, music is a gross exaggeration, and, at least for me, completely unconvincing.


It seems to have conned you and a few others into taking it seriously and giving it oxygen it didn't deserve. It should have been left to die 500 posts ago.


----------



## 59540

Deleted. Not worth it.


----------



## chipia

dissident said:


> Well I really don't want to debate objective/subjective because it goes nowhere. But someone earlier in the thread said that the "stunt" proves nothing. I disagree. *Like it or not, it does show that an atonal piece composed as a "stunt" can be mistaken for something more "serious".* On the other hand I don't think PDQ Bach and the real thing can ever really be mistaken for each other...but if on occasion even that is possible, then big deal. So what. Lighten up.


I agree, and this is the other salient implication of this stunt, the first being that there appears to be an excessive bias towards certain "avantgarde"-aesthetics among various committees.

Apparently arbitrarily striking keys can be mistaken by experts for a legitimate avantgarde composition. And I would argue that such a stunt is impossible in any other musical genre: Imagine mistaking such a piece with a CPT, Impressionist, Rock etc. composition: I think such a stunt would be next to impossible.

Now what does this say about the music? (in particular about avantgarde aesthetics)

I think it shows that the music is very random. Not random in the sense that the notes were randomly assembled, but in the sense that the compositions adopt many characteristics of randomness and are thus by the listener more likely to be perceived as such.

An example is Twelve Tone Serialism: It's music where all 12 tones occur (roughly) equally often. The same could be said of randomly chosen notes, where statistically speaking all 12 tones will occur roughly equally often if the piece is long enough. 
So in that sense Serialism moved music closer towards randomness. It's still no strictly the "same" as randomness, but much closer than prior styles and thus more likely to be mistaken for randomness.

This is in contrast to other styles like CPT and also Impressionism: A section focusing on the 7 notes of the diatonic scale is much more distinct and non-random, because it is statistically unlikely that random music would focus on only 7 notes (or even on scales like whole tone or octatonic in impressionism).

AND even if random music happened to focus on 7 notes, it's unlikely that it is going to be a scale as distinct and non-random sounding as the diatonic:

The Interval vector of the diatonic scale is heavily biased towards perfect fifths, and low in minor seconds. So even the intervallic construction of the scale is clearly distanced from randomness: 
In random scales the intervals tend to be all over the place. 
I know that Elliott Carter didn't make his music randomly, but he composes with *all-interval* chords, i.e. chords where every interval occurs equally often (sometimes even every note or every trichord!). Such pitch sets are indistinct (compared e.g. to diatonics) and more closely resemble the typical results of randomness.

Now, I would argue if you make your music so close to randomness that kids improvising arbitrarily at the piano can be mistaken for a genuine composition, that you've probably gone too far with the "random" characteristics and should reconsider you aesthetic premises.


----------



## mikeh375

chipia said:


> I think it shows that the music is very random. Not random in the sense that the notes were randomly assembled, but in the sense that the compositions adopt many characteristics of randomness and are thus by the listener more likely to be perceived as such.
> 
> An example is Twelve Tone Serialism: It's music where all 12 tones occur (roughly) equally often. The same could be said of randomly chosen notes, where statistically speaking all 12 tones will occur roughly equally often if the piece is long enough.
> So in that sense Serialism moved music closer towards randomness. It's still no strictly the "same" as randomness, but much closer than prior styles and thus more likely to be mistaken for randomness.
> 
> .


Serialism random? Well not to the composer who imposes their aesthetic and artistic will upon the notes to create music, a fact that you seem to be missing. As a listener, you either like it or not and that's fair enough. If you think it sounds random fine, I can see that it would to some especially if regularity in the rhythm is abolished too. But just a reminder, random is the antithesis of the techniques reason for being.


----------



## chipia

mikeh375 said:


> just remember, *random is the antithesis of the techniques reason for being*.


Thank you, because that sums up what I mean. Techniques should indeed have the purpose of *distancing* music from randomness. But what if these techniques actually happen to impose characteristics of randomness on the music? I would say then the techniques have failed their purpose.


----------



## mikeh375

chipia said:


> Thank you, because that sums up what I mean. Techniques should indeed have the purpose of *distancing* music from randomness. But what if these techniques actually happen to impose characteristics of randomness on the music? I would say then the techniques have failed their purpose.


sigh...no, totally wrong. Serialism exists to help in controlling and to artistically manipulate 12 tone equality. There is no randomness or failure of purpose from the techniques pov, that is your subjectivity because your ears don't like it. The techniques are excellent at establishing a foothold in a gravity free total chromatic and they allow a composer to explore and commit without a fear of randomness because generally speaking, the parameters established supply the foundations and the justification for choices made.

I see we are still ignoring the composer in all of this. Perhaps as a composer, you'll at least understand or appreciate what I'm saying one day, even if atonal or anything beyond CPT writing is not for you.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

It's interesting and I have several thoughts. The first was that as an experiment, much like the original Sokol hoax, it's pretty weak given that all it really shows was that he was capable of "fooling" the handful of people judging that particular piece. It's a big leap from that to concluding that all 12-tone music has no audible patterns and the entire endeavor is a case of Emperor's New Clothes. At least the Sokol Squared hoax tried to remedy this problem by reproducing it with several more trials. I actually think such experiments would be good if they were more common as it should help to keep such things/people honest. 

My second thought is that there often IS a fine line between actual randomness/chaos and truly original art. I have no doubt that Wagner sounded like complete chaos to many of his contemporaries and it took time for them to recognize the patterns in Wagner. You might can argue that actually patterned music should creative an intuitive sense that such patterns exist, but I'm not sure this is always the case and if there's any real difference between our initial experience of chaotic music and chaotic-sounding music that is actually patterned. 

My third thought is that I'm also not convinced that such patterns are even necessary for making great art. One of the great experiments of postmodernism has been seeing what can be done artistically and expressively with chaos and pattern-less art that mimics the chaos of our own lives. That trend started with Modernism, but most of the modernists sought unifying, cohering elements that the postmodernists have not. As with most things it seems some efforts have been more successful than others, but to take an example in music I think Schnittke's 1st Symphony, with its chaotic juxtapositions of many genres/styles, is quite impressive. 

As for 12-tone music, I largely agree that the patterns are not audible, but I don't conclude that means all 12-tone music is bad or that it's all equal. There's a lot of 12-tone music I like (Berg's Wozzeck and Violin Concerto), much I don't (most everything by Webern), and much I'm in the middle of (most of Schoenberg). I tend to prefer the composers that were not slaves to 12-tone methods, but also didn't just retreat to pastiches of older styles: composers like Messiaen did this, and Scriabin had done it contemporaneously with the 2nd Viennese School. Even without tonality it is possible to create patterns by other means, such as rhythmically, dynamically, and with note durations. Patterns exist on multiple levels in music and I've never thought tonality had a monopoly on such patterns.


----------



## Torkelburger

Eva Yojimbo said:


> It's interesting and I have several thoughts. The first was that as an experiment, much like the original Sokol hoax, it's pretty weak given that all it really shows was that he was capable of "fooling" the handful of people judging that particular piece. It's a big leap from that to concluding that all 12-tone music has no audible patterns and the entire endeavor is a case of Emperor's New Clothes. At least the Sokol Squared hoax tried to remedy this problem by reproducing it with several more trials. I actually think such experiments would be good if they were more common as it should help to keep such things/people honest.
> 
> My second thought is that there often IS a fine line between actual randomness/chaos and truly original art. I have no doubt that Wagner sounded like complete chaos to many of his contemporaries and it took time for them to recognize the patterns in Wagner. You might can argue that actually patterned music should creative an intuitive sense that such patterns exist, but I'm not sure this is always the case and if there's any real difference between our initial experience of chaotic music and chaotic-sounding music that is actually patterned.
> 
> My third thought is that I'm also not convinced that such patterns are even necessary for making great art. One of the great experiments of postmodernism has been seeing what can be done artistically and expressively with chaos and pattern-less art that mimics the chaos of our own lives. That trend started with Modernism, but most of the modernists sought unifying, cohering elements that the postmodernists have not. As with most things it seems some efforts have been more successful than others, but to take an example in music I think Schnittke's 1st Symphony, with its chaotic juxtapositions of many genres/styles, is quite impressive.
> 
> As for 12-tone music, I largely agree that the patterns are not audible, but I don't conclude that means all 12-tone music is bad or that it's all equal. There's a lot of 12-tone music I like (Berg's Wozzeck and Violin Concerto), much I don't (most everything by Webern), and much I'm in the middle of (most of Schoenberg). I tend to prefer the composers that were not slaves to 12-tone methods, but also didn't just retreat to pastiches of older styles: composers like Messiaen did this, and Scriabin had done it contemporaneously with the 2nd Viennese School. Even without tonality it is possible to create patterns by other means, such as rhythmically, dynamically, and with note durations. Patterns exist on multiple levels in music and I've never thought tonality had a monopoly on such patterns.


I think that is a rather poor example of the point you are trying to make. The Schnittke piece in question is full of patterns, even within in the form. I can go into it if you’d like (I am not referring to what I am going to say below).

The thing is, is that any listener can only comprehend something in a context of a short-term memory. Music unfolds in time, little by little, not all at once. We can only recall how something sounds EXACTLY as it is the very moment it sounds. The further we are from the sound event, the less reliable and less exact we remember it. We are placing what we are currently hearing in the context of what we remember hearing in the past, which is dwindling as time goes on. This means that the juxtapositions of genres that Schnittke is doing in the piece is of very little effect since the “chaos” is on a scale of longer periods of time in which the point of reference for comparison is large. If the “chaos” were happening literally every second or fraction of a second, the effect would be more poignant. The way it is, it is basically no different than a “medley” of multifarious styles, rather than anything truly “chaotic”. And one can develop an expectation of patterns with the frequency of changes over time.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Torkelburger said:


> I think that is a rather poor example of the point you are trying to make. The Schnittke piece in question is full of patterns, even within in the form. I can go into it if you’d like (I am not referring to what I am going to say below).
> 
> The thing is, is that any listener can only comprehend something in a context of a short-term memory. Music unfolds in time, little by little, not all at once. We can only recall how something sounds EXACTLY as it is the very moment it sounds. The further we are from the sound event, the less reliable and less exact we remember it. We are placing what we are currently hearing in the context of what we remember hearing in the past, which is dwindling as time goes on. This means that the juxtapositions of genres that Schnittke is doing in the piece is of very little effect since the “chaos” is on a scale of longer periods of time in which the point of reference for comparison is large. If the “chaos” were happening literally every second or fraction of a second, the effect would be more poignant. The way it is, it is basically no different than a “medley” of multifarious styles, rather than anything truly “chaotic”. And one can develop an expectation of patterns with the frequency of changes over time.


You can explain the patterns in the form of the Schnittke if you want (I'd certainly be interested), but even if you do will it then just be an example of patterns existing in the seemingly-random chaos of such juxtapositions. 

I don't disagree with your point about musical memory, but that's part of the reason why genres, forms and conventions are popular because they provide a kind of intuitive "road map" of what a piece/song is doing, providing immediately recognizable patterns. When original and innovative music eschews these conventions then it can be difficult for people to pick out the patterns, assuming they exist; and even if they do exist if people don't like the music, which many (most?) don't with 12-tone music they aren't going to strive to discover them. As for the Schnittke I'd still argue that such juxtapositions of genres can sound chaotic precisely because they are not expected and I don't think the longer time span matters much here. Hypothetically, even if a piece lasts an hour one wouldn't expect to hear a section of bebop or pop or funk in the middle of an otherwise classical symphony.


----------



## SanAntone

I remember reading an article about modern audiences being unable to "hear" sonata-allegro form. During the 18th century, audiences were very familiar with the style and had expectations of how a work would progress, and could easily follow the key modulations and Exposition - Development - Recapulation structure (although these terms were unknown to them). 

Today's audiences lack that familiarity as well as knowledge of the form itself, and the article argued did not even have the memory skills to recognize the development section and recapitulation, much less the key relationships.

So memory is a factor even in the music of Mozart ,and Haydn, and Beethoven.


----------



## Forster

SanAntone said:


> I remember reading an article about modern audiences being unable to "hear" sonata-allegro form. During the 18th century, audiences were very familiar with the style and had expectations of how a work would progress, and could easily follow the key modulations and Exposition - Development - Recapulation structure (although these terms were unknown to them).
> 
> Today's audiences lack that familiarity as well as knowledge of the form itself, and the article argued did not even have the memory skills to recognize the development section and recapitulation, much less the key relationships.
> 
> So memory is a factor even in the music of Mozart ,and Haydn, and Beethoven.


It's not just memory, it's discrimination. It takes me ages to recognise where a theme has been repeated from one movement to the next but in a different guise. Sometimes within a movement!

I wonder, were the worthies of the 18th/19th C really so well attuned that they could do this from just one hearing? Were they all trained musicians themselves? I get that the aristocracy valued the ability to play piano to be a complete gent, but it seems a stretch to say that contemporary audiences were so familiar with sonata form that they could spot it better than current CM audiences who get to hear LvB, WAM and JH over and over.


----------



## SanAntone

Forster said:


> It's not just memory, it's discrimination. It takes me ages to recognise where a theme has been repeated from one movement to the next but in a different guise. Sometimes within a movement!
> 
> I wonder, were the worthies of the 18th/19th C really so well attuned that they could do this from just one hearing? Were they all trained musicians themselves? I get that the aristocracy valued the ability to play piano to be a complete gent, but it seems a stretch to say that contemporary audiences were so familiar with sonata form that they could spot it better than current CM audiences who get to hear LvB, WAM and JH over and over.


You have to remember that what we call "sonata-allegro" form did not exist in the minds of the composers and the audiences. What existed was an idea of rhetoric between the voices of the musical work, and conventions of thematic development through key shifts connected with arpeggiated and scalar transitional sections. All structured in a series of movements based on the sonata form, as well as old dance forms, theme/variations, and often an episodic form like the rondo.

The 18th century audience knew beforehand what the composer was going to provide, much like we have a good idea what will occur in a James Bond movie: the tropes, the style, the characters.

We've lost that natural understanding and have had to recreate it through music theory which long after the fact codified the sonata form, as well as the other conventions of that time. 

So, we will never be able to experience a Haydn, Mozart, or Beethoven, symphony with the same facility and familiarity as did the audience of that time. And even a basic skill of recognizing the entrance of a secondary theme in the dominant key is a challenge to most listeners, even many trained musicians, since because the form was liquid in their hands composers varied the elements that were later codified in a myriad of ways - but still easily recognizable to their audience.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Also, audiences of the late 18th century knew mostly contemporary and recent music (going back maybe 20-30 years from the present, with very few exceptions), so it was the "natural" style to them. 
They didn't need to adjust their expectations and sensibilities between the styles of e.g. Haydn, Wagner and Prokofiev like modern audiences might have to. 
That's why the common style was "clear" to them, or more precisely it usually provided exactly the mix between conventions and innovations to remain still understandable but not get staid and boring and why deviations or complications that seem very mild to us today (and clearly within the compass of the late 18th century style), like some Mozart (quartets dedicated to Haydn) or even early Beethoven (there is a review of his first violin sonatas op.12 calling them overly dense and learned) were irritating to some of them.


----------



## Forster

^ I get that contemporary audiences were familiar with the tropes and forms and knew what to expect, regardless of whether they knew technical labels (or they yet existed). What I find hard to believe that is that their ability to memorise and discriminate from one listening was so much superior to modern audiences of comparable experience and interest who hear these works so much more often.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Neither audience was homogeneous although the 1780s-1800s one much more so. Of course, not everyone would have had the same abilities of explicit or implicit pattern recognition. But I think it is hard for us to imagine a world without some kind of recorded music playing almost every day. Almost everyone in the 1780s audience would have had some musical instruction and this would often even have included a bit of improvisation/composition. Even the less musically educated ones would have had heard family members or friends play/sing in the contemporary style for home entertainment and been used to the musical language in some way.

While it's not the same, I think it is a bit similar that modern movie watchers are rarely confused by quick cuts between different story lines that seem fairly recent and have become far more frequent and the overall pace has become much faster than it used to be, I think. Many people my mother's age (mid-70s) dislike or are confused/irritated by such features of movies but they are hardly a problem for people 40 or younger.


----------



## Enthusiast

I guess an able musician could make a fake short piece that fools experts in the short term that it is by Shostakovich or Beethoven. The difficulty in producing such music would be boredom - the temptation would be to add something distinctive and personal, perhaps a joke or a shock.


----------



## mikeh375

Enthusiast said:


> *I guess an able musician could make a fake short piece that fools experts *in the short term that it is by Shostakovich or Beethoven. The difficulty in producing such music would be boredom - the temptation would be to add something distinctive and personal, perhaps a joke or a shock.


..it can be frighteningly easy to do, depending on ability. This is largely because it's already been done by past masters who have provided the templates to work with.
Yes, boredom (of the distant past especially) and the willingness to explore beyond the comfortable and the familiar are traits to be encouraged imo.


----------



## SanAntone

Forster said:


> ^ I get that contemporary audiences were familiar with the tropes and forms and knew what to expect, regardless of whether they knew technical labels (or they yet existed). What I find hard to believe that is that their ability to memorise and discriminate from one listening was so much superior to modern audiences of comparable experience and interest who hear these works so much more often.


It is precisely because 18th century audiences only had one shot at a work, in live performance, that their concentration was greater and their powers of memory were more developed. Today, with recordings, we can let them play without any sense of urgency to listen since we can always come back to it, and consequently we don't invest the same kind of concentration as did the 18th century audience who has one opportunity to hear the work.

It has also been demonstrated that oral societies, who had no written traditions, were able to memorize long works as opposed to those with written texts, who had no need to memorize them. We live at a similar time with recordings as opposed to only having live performances.


----------



## Torkelburger

Eva Yojimbo said:


> You can explain the patterns in the form of the Schnittke if you want (I'd certainly be interested), but even if you do will it then just be an example of patterns existing in the seemingly-random chaos of such juxtapositions.
> 
> I don't disagree with your point about musical memory, but that's part of the reason why genres, forms and conventions are popular because they provide a kind of intuitive "road map" of what a piece/song is doing, providing immediately recognizable patterns. When original and innovative music eschews these conventions then it can be difficult for people to pick out the patterns, assuming they exist; and even if they do exist if people don't like the music, which many (most?) don't with 12-tone music they aren't going to strive to discover them. As for the Schnittke I'd still argue that such juxtapositions of genres can sound chaotic precisely because they are not expected and I don't think the longer time span matters much here. Hypothetically, even if a piece lasts an hour one wouldn't expect to hear a section of bebop or pop or funk in the middle of an otherwise classical symphony.


I wrote quite a bit of analysis on just the form for the first section of mvt 1, which I'll post below. I can do the notes themselves from the same section at a later time, either Thursday or Friday perhaps. Thanks for the interest.

I don't think I disagree with anything you've said enough to keep belaboring my point. Thanks for the interest in my analysis.


----------



## Torkelburger

It would take a two-hundred-page book to analyze the whole thing, but maybe I can do the first five and a half minutes (the first section) of the first movement. I have a tendency to be long-winded, but I’ll try and keep it brief (I doubt it).






Looking at the “big picture” form of this opening section, I would personally analyze this as a straightforward additive process, or additive form. If you don’t know what that is, I can try and explain.

Additive forms are usually associated in the modern era with composers of the Stravinskian style, although I don’t think Stravinsky did it that often. And I am not aware of any 12-tone composers using it. In the Contemporary Era it is used quite often in Minimalism as it works extremely well in that style. Jazz/funk and even pop music uses it too.
Anyway, there are two kinds of it. Horizontal/linear, and vertical/contrapuntal. This is what it is. The linear version takes a phrase in a single voice and then repeats it. After it repeats, it adds a new phrase. Then those two phrases repeat one after the other again, in the same order. Then a third phrase appears after that. Then all three repeat (keeping the same order) and the pattern continues: A, AB, ABC, ABCD, or if it were song lyrics it would be:

My name is John….then: My name is John. I like music…then: My name is John. I like music. I am a composer….and so on.
The vertical/contrapuntal version is when there are multiple voices, but they don’t do the horizontal thing above, what happens is this:
Voice 1 plays say, an 8 bar phrase. A.

Voice 1 repeats the same 8-bar phrase A as Voice 2 enters an 8-bar phrase B.

Then Voices 1 and 2 repeat their same phrases assigned to them A and B respectively while Voice 3 comes in with 8-bar phrase C.
And the pattern continues.


A……..A……..A……..
B……..B……..
C……..

The illustration for this would be the Jazz-rock standard Chameleon by Herbie Hancock as covered by a lot of bands. What you’ll often hear is the signature bass line start, then it repeats, but on the repeat, the drums enter, and then those two instruments repeat, but when they repeat, the guitar/keyboard comps the chords, those three repeat their parts together, but then the next time around the cycle, the melody comes in. Sometimes, you’ll hear it do the opposite on the outro. The instruments drop out on all the repeats one at a time until the bass is left on the last repeat.

Three points to keep in mind: this is not a fugue as the parts do not interchange with each other, and also each part must repeat over and over in its own voice (this is not free counterpoint, or a free layering of parts). And when a voice enters, it doesn’t stop and the line doesn’t carry somewhere else. An additive process is a unique thing.
Children’s songs usually use the horizontal version while everyone else, including classical music, usually use the contrapuntal kind. Schnittke is no exception. The section from the piece in question is a vertical/contrapuntal additive process.

So right at bar 1, the chimes at the beginning would be voice 1 playing material A (I will go into actual note analysis at a later time), then as each new voice enters, you see he marks the score with wavy lines of the voices already entered indicating the previous material from the previous section of that instrument is to be repeating/continued over the new material from the new instrument. Then that new instrument gets a wavy line on the repeat, etc., etc. Its an additive process. Note that each line is repeating its own material when each new voice enters and that no lines share material. Also note that when a voice enters, the line doesn’t stop and carry somewhere else. Hallmarks of additive form.

Notice how this was composed with expert craftmanship, if you don’t mind me saying so and shoehorning in my hobbyhorse. What I mean is this. If the goal was to get to the 5 minute texture, because maybe that what he heard in his ear or had in his head, what would have been an audience reaction if you started at the 4:30 or 5:00 mark? It would sound like noise, and wouldn’t make any sense. It’s a mess.

I love how the audience applauds at the end of this section at the beginning of this movement!!! It’s because of what he did. He made it work. What he did was lead up to and progress to the “chaos” or “cacophony” logically and by a pattern, so that a listener can follow it coherently and make audible sense from it. It was the additive form. Each voice did not change, either orchestration-wise (every instrument kept playing to the end), and it repeated its material as each new layer entered. It’s extremely smooth, patterned, with a sense of predictability, yet there’s excitement in what is going on. He is essentially “spoon-feeding” the audience the music so the complexity at the end seems inevitable.
It's like what I always say about taking principles of the past in order to write competent music today. Such as in counterpoint. Counterpoint is similarly used as above. An audience will generally accept almost any kind of harmony, dissonant or otherwise, any kind of tonality (quartal, pandiatonic, even microtonal), if the counterpoint is logical and crafted well (not referring to style). This is what we have learned from the past (i.e., Chopin and others).


----------



## Torkelburger

I knew it...in the post above the formatting is wrong. The illustration is supposed to show an indentation of the B parts indented to where the B starts on the second A and the C part starts on the second B. Hopefully, people will understand. It's not letting me try and fix it. I'm not good with computers.


----------



## Forster

SanAntone said:


> It is precisely because 18th century audiences only had one shot at a work, in live performance, that their concentration was greater and their powers of memory were more developed. Today, with recordings, we can let them play without any sense of urgency to listen since we can always come back to it, and consequently we don't invest the same kind of concentration as did the 18th century audience who has one opportunity to hear the work.
> 
> It has also been demonstrated that oral societies, who had no written traditions, were able to memorize long works as opposed to those with written texts, who had no need to memorize them. We live at a similar time with recordings as opposed to only having live performances.


Thanks. I will briefly make a point here that I have made in the 'profundity' thread about comparing like with like when we compare today's CM audiences with those of, say, Beethoven's time. Are they the same, in terms of their social status, educational background and expereince of CM?


----------



## SanAntone

Forster said:


> Thanks. I will briefly make a point here that I have made in the 'profundity' thread about comparing like with like when we compare today's CM audiences with those of, say, Beethoven's time. Are they the same, in terms of their social status, educational background and expereince of CM?


Generally in the 18th century, but also prior to that period and into the 19th until public concerts became the norm - the CM audience was more musically literate than the CM audience of today, as well as the audience prior to the modern period did not have recordings and their only experience of music was in live performance. These were often among amateurs (this is what chamber music was) whereas today performances are almost always by professionals with a passive audience.

All of this created an audience with more developed memory skills than we have today, simply because without access to recorded music a person had to retain the musical experience from a fleeting live performance by having honed their listening skills and concentration. Modern audiences have lost those skills because they don't need them. (Vernacular societies, i.e. without a written tradition, are able to more easily memorize long texts and recite them because they had to develop strong memory skills in order to transmit their literature since they had no books. The same is true for societies without access to recorded music.)

Memory is a necessary skill in order to fully understand and even follow much of the music of the 18th-19th centuries, and while modern audiences feel that they are "getting" Beethoven or Brahms, the audiences of those earlier times had a much more natural and intuitive understanding of the music.

I've compared this to our intuitive grasp of movie styles: we know what to expect from horror movies, romantic comedies, murder mysteries, etc. and can appreciate creative departures from the stylistic tropes. 

Sonata-Allegro form was to an 18th century audience as familiar and an informed experience as what we experience watching a James Bond movie and recognizing the cliches of and liberties taken with the genre.


----------



## EdwardBast

SanAntone said:


> Generally in the 18th century, but also prior to that period and into the 19th until public concerts became the norm - the CM audience was more musically literate than the CM audience of today, as well as the audience prior to the modern period did not have recordings and their only experience of music was in live performance. These were often among amateurs (this is what chamber music was) whereas today performances are almost always by professionals with a passive audience.


Many also heard orchestral and operatic music in transcriptions for piano or for piano four hands, a form of live performance that entailed considerable training, although not necessarily any special memory capacities. All of the Beethoven symphonies, for example, were readily available in this format.


----------



## Kreisler jr

One does not need special memory capacities to be better than average or typical early 21st century Westerners in all kind of tasks requiring memory or longer attention spans... 
Obviously, the 18th or 19th century were literate cultures both in words and music and not mainly or mostly relying on oral tradition. Nevertheless, memorizing lots of stuff (in church, school, elswhere) was very common even until a generation or two ago, memory capacities were trained more frequently.


----------



## SanAntone

Kreisler jr said:


> One does not need special memory capacities to be better than average or typical early 21st century Westerners in all kind of tasks requiring memory or longer attention spans...
> Obviously, the 18th or 19th century were literate cultures both in words and music and not mainly or mostly relying on oral tradition. Nevertheless, memorizing lots of stuff (in church, school, elswhere) was very common even until a generation or two ago, memory capacities were trained more frequently.


I think you misunderstood my post. I say in the first sentence: "Generally in the 18th century, but also prior to that period and into the 19th until public concerts became the norm - the CM audience was more musically literate than the CM audience of today." They could read music and most knew how to play an instrument, or could sight read to sing. 

The analogy to vernacular societies, who memorized long texts (think Homeric period epics) was an analogy to not having recorded music as we do, which mitigate our need to memorize the music.

We've all heard stories of Mozart's ability to hear a work and then be able to write it out. This feat seems amazing to us, but it would not be as unusual to the people of his time.


----------



## SanAntone

EdwardBast said:


> Many also heard orchestral and operatic music in transcriptions for piano or for piano four hands, a form of live performance that entailed considerable training, although not necessarily any special memory capacities. All of the Beethoven symphonies, for example, were readily available in this format.


The memory skills I refer to had long been developed n these communities prior to these transcriptions appeared. But you are right, these kind of works brought orchestral and operatic material to communities who might not have had ready access to theaters or concert venues.

My point is that forms like the sonata-allegro form rely on an audience remembering the themes and motives as well as recognizing key shifts in order to fully appreciate what the composer is doing. But those audiences did this intuitively, as I said much like we appreciate the genre of a James Bond movie.

I'm done, since I am repeating myself.


----------



## Forster

SanAntone said:


> I'm done, since I am repeating myself.


I'm repeating myself too: "Are they the same (the modern CM audience and the contemporary CM audience), in terms of their social status, educational background and experience of CM?"


----------



## fbjim

Sonata form is something that can be taught, but it does map well to our concepts of dramatic narrative (this has been written about _a lot_, hah). I think there's also quite a bit of it that can be intuited just by listening, even if you don't know the mechanics. I think that a lot of people with reasonable listening experience but little music theory would still be able to tell in standard sonata-form movements when the piece is coming to a climax, or the end.

That said, something like a Haydn symphony which derives wit from how it unexpectedly departs or plays around with the form isn't going to strike most listeners nowadays as a joke. I do wonder sometimes how much things like this are specifically _theoretical_ knowledge that listeners actually had, versus something like film editing where even a viewer who has no idea about cross-cutting, the Kuleshov effect, or the 180-degree rule are still able to appreciate their effects easily.


----------



## SanAntone

Forster said:


> I'm repeating myself too: "Are they the same (the modern CM audience and the contemporary CM audience), in terms of their social status, educational background and experience of CM?"


Probably not. In 18th century Europe class was a much more real thing than 21st century USA. Also, back then only members of a certain class had the wherewithal to attend concerts of music whereas today anyone with the inclination can access any Classical music they wish. Also back then there wasn't the same kind of variety of musical genres as we have today. We can't hear a Beethoven symphony with the kind of ears that never heard Schoenberg, Miles Davis, or Drake.

I am not sure I buy into the idea that mainly educated upper classes are still the predominant audience for Classical music. But even if that were true, it still would not erase the huge discrepancies between the two societies and how music was present their lives.


----------



## chipia

Eva Yojimbo said:


> As for 12-tone music, I largely agree that the patterns are not audible, but I don't conclude that means all 12-tone music is bad or that it's all equal. There's a lot of 12-tone music I like (Berg's Wozzeck and Violin Concerto), much I don't (most everything by Webern), and much I'm in the middle of (most of Schoenberg). I tend to prefer the composers that were not slaves to 12-tone methods, but also didn't just retreat to pastiches of older styles: composers like Messiaen did this, and Scriabin had done it contemporaneously with the 2nd Viennese School. Even without tonality it is possible to create patterns by other means, such as rhythmically, dynamically, and with note durations. Patterns exist on multiple levels in music and I've never thought tonality had a monopoly on such patterns.


Yes, one can also create patterns through rhythms and texture but all significant composers of the CPT-era in fact did this _along _with creating patterns through tones. If you remove (audible) tone patterns, like some modern composers do you are removing an entire dimension of musical expression, which I consider to be a huge loss.

Btw. I also like Scriabin and Messiaen and a reason is that they DO create very salient patterns through tones, and they do it in a similar way as Common-Practice-Tonality does: Through characteristic scales and chords. Traditional tonality uses the major/minor scales and triadic harmonies to create coherence, whereas Scriabin and Messiaen use their own distinct scales (e.g. Acoustic scale or octatonic scale) and their own characteristic harmonies (e.g. the mystic chord) to create patterns. I find that modern composers who follow this kind of approach tend to be the most enjoyable, probably because it lends itself well to salient patterns.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

chipia said:


> Yes, one can also create patterns through rhythms and texture but all significant composers of the CPT-era in fact did this _along _with creating patterns through tones. If you remove (audible) tone patterns, like some modern composers do you are removing an entire dimension of musical expression, which I consider to be a huge loss.
> 
> Btw. I also like Scriabin and Messiaen and a reason is that they DO create very salient patterns through tones, and they do it in a similar way as Common-Practice-Tonality does: Through characteristic scales and chords. Traditional tonality uses the major/minor scales and triadic harmonies to create coherence, whereas Scriabin and Messiaen use their own distinct scales (e.g. Acoustic scale or octatonic scale) and their own characteristic harmonies (e.g. the mystic chord) to create patterns. I find that modern composers who follow this kind of approach tend to be the most enjoyable, probably because it lends itself well to salient patterns.


I think all I'd say regarding the first paragraph is that removing one method of creating patterns (tonality) certainly opens up the door for creating new ways in which other patterns are heard and experienced. Even within tonality it's possible for composers (or even songwriters) to de-emphasize tonal patterns and emphasize others. It's like the oft-repeated criticism that most pop music is harmonically simple and, while true, it rather ignores the fact that pop generally de-emphasizes harmony to focus on other musical patterns. Yes, you can do both simultaneously, but that very much changes the feel of the music, just as removing audible tonal patterns altogether does. All three things (strong & focuses tonal patterns, a lack of audible tonal patterns, de-emphasized tonal patterns) create very different aesthetics. 

I would also agree about Scriabin and Messiaen while simply adding that even though they maintained some elements of tonal patterns they weren't the same as those as CPT. Messiaen especially experimented with a lot of music in which the primary organizational patterns were rhythmic (especially focusing on foreign rhythmic ideas) rather than tonal.


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

chipia said:


> Yes, one can also create patterns through rhythms and texture but all significant composers of the CPT-era in fact did this _along _with creating patterns through tones. If you remove (audible) tone patterns, like some modern composers do you are removing an entire dimension of musical expression, which I consider to be a huge loss.
> 
> Btw. I also like Scriabin and Messiaen and a reason is that they DO create very salient patterns through tones, and they do it in a similar way as Common-Practice-Tonality does: Through characteristic scales and chords. Traditional tonality uses the major/minor scales and triadic harmonies to create coherence, whereas Scriabin and Messiaen use their own distinct scales (e.g. Acoustic scale or octatonic scale) and their own characteristic harmonies (e.g. the mystic chord) to create patterns. I find that modern composers who follow this kind of approach tend to be the most enjoyable, probably because it lends itself well to salient patterns.


An important point I don't see being made often


----------



## Forster

SanAntone said:


> Probably not. In 18th century Europe class was a much more real thing than 21st century USA. Also, back then only members of a certain class had the wherewithal to attend concerts of music whereas today anyone with the inclination can access any Classical music they wish. Also back then there wasn't the same kind of variety of musical genres as we have today. We can't hear a Beethoven symphony with the kind of ears that never heard Schoenberg, Miles Davis, or Drake.
> 
> I am not sure I buy into the idea that mainly educated upper classes are still the predominant audience for Classical music. But even if that were true, it still would not erase the huge discrepancies between the two societies and how music was present their lives.


So any statement about how listening habits of CM audiences have changed over time is undermined by the fact that the audience itself has also changed over time. I can't comment on the US, but in Europe, CM was aimed at the upper classes - folk who had time to study music because they didn't need to work - and the middle classes had barely got going. As the middle class grew wealthier and more widespread, CM's audience spread across the socially advantaged in society. In the UK today, I would guess it still remains predominantly the preserve of the comfortably off, but many will be consumers of music, not creators.


----------



## Enthusiast

Forster said:


> So any statement about how listening habits of CM audiences have changed over time is undermined by the fact that the audience itself has also changed over time. I can't comment on the US, but in Europe, CM was aimed at the upper classes - folk who had time to study music because they didn't need to work - and the middle classes had barely got going. As the middle class grew wealthier and more widespread, CM's audience spread across the socially advantaged in society. In the UK today, I would guess it still remains predominantly the preserve of the comfortably off, but many will be consumers of music, not creators.


It is interesting to consider the Soviet experience, here. CM training for potentially talented musicians and performances by world leading performers were available for all. Knowing and loving CM was, then, not a feature of of social background or status but of inclination. Not everyone is wired to enjoy music but that wiring isn't really derived from class. Early experience might be needed to activate that wiring, however.

I am not sure how much class determines interest in CM in modern capitalist Europe but its ease of access in recorded form (concerts are a different matter) must have opened it up to some who are not so well-healed.


----------



## Torkelburger

Torkelburger said:


> It would take a two-hundred-page book to analyze the whole thing, but maybe I can do the first five and a half minutes (the first section) of the first movement. I have a tendency to be long-winded, but I’ll try and keep it brief (I doubt it).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looking at the “big picture” form of this opening section, I would personally analyze this as a straightforward additive process, or additive form. If you don’t know what that is, I can try and explain.
> 
> Additive forms are usually associated in the modern era with composers of the Stravinskian style, although I don’t think Stravinsky did it that often. And I am not aware of any 12-tone composers using it. In the Contemporary Era it is used quite often in Minimalism as it works extremely well in that style. Jazz/funk and even pop music uses it too.
> Anyway, there are two kinds of it. Horizontal/linear, and vertical/contrapuntal. This is what it is. The linear version takes a phrase in a single voice and then repeats it. After it repeats, it adds a new phrase. Then those two phrases repeat one after the other again, in the same order. Then a third phrase appears after that. Then all three repeat (keeping the same order) and the pattern continues: A, AB, ABC, ABCD, or if it were song lyrics it would be:
> 
> My name is John….then: My name is John. I like music…then: My name is John. I like music. I am a composer….and so on.
> The vertical/contrapuntal version is when there are multiple voices, but they don’t do the horizontal thing above, what happens is this:
> Voice 1 plays say, an 8 bar phrase. A.
> 
> Voice 1 repeats the same 8-bar phrase A as Voice 2 enters an 8-bar phrase B.
> 
> Then Voices 1 and 2 repeat their same phrases assigned to them A and B respectively while Voice 3 comes in with 8-bar phrase C.
> And the pattern continues.
> 
> 
> A……..A……..A……..
> B……..B……..
> C……..
> 
> The illustration for this would be the Jazz-rock standard Chameleon by Herbie Hancock as covered by a lot of bands. What you’ll often hear is the signature bass line start, then it repeats, but on the repeat, the drums enter, and then those two instruments repeat, but when they repeat, the guitar/keyboard comps the chords, those three repeat their parts together, but then the next time around the cycle, the melody comes in. Sometimes, you’ll hear it do the opposite on the outro. The instruments drop out on all the repeats one at a time until the bass is left on the last repeat.
> 
> Three points to keep in mind: this is not a fugue as the parts do not interchange with each other, and also each part must repeat over and over in its own voice (this is not free counterpoint, or a free layering of parts). And when a voice enters, it doesn’t stop and the line doesn’t carry somewhere else. An additive process is a unique thing.
> Children’s songs usually use the horizontal version while everyone else, including classical music, usually use the contrapuntal kind. Schnittke is no exception. The section from the piece in question is a vertical/contrapuntal additive process.
> 
> So right at bar 1, the chimes at the beginning would be voice 1 playing material A (I will go into actual note analysis at a later time), then as each new voice enters, you see he marks the score with wavy lines of the voices already entered indicating the previous material from the previous section of that instrument is to be repeating/continued over the new material from the new instrument. Then that new instrument gets a wavy line on the repeat, etc., etc. Its an additive process. Note that each line is repeating its own material when each new voice enters and that no lines share material. Also note that when a voice enters, the line doesn’t stop and carry somewhere else. Hallmarks of additive form.
> 
> Notice how this was composed with expert craftmanship, if you don’t mind me saying so and shoehorning in my hobbyhorse. What I mean is this. If the goal was to get to the 5 minute texture, because maybe that what he heard in his ear or had in his head, what would have been an audience reaction if you started at the 4:30 or 5:00 mark? It would sound like noise, and wouldn’t make any sense. It’s a mess.
> 
> I love how the audience applauds at the end of this section at the beginning of this movement!!! It’s because of what he did. He made it work. What he did was lead up to and progress to the “chaos” or “cacophony” logically and by a pattern, so that a listener can follow it coherently and make audible sense from it. It was the additive form. Each voice did not change, either orchestration-wise (every instrument kept playing to the end), and it repeated its material as each new layer entered. It’s extremely smooth, patterned, with a sense of predictability, yet there’s excitement in what is going on. He is essentially “spoon-feeding” the audience the music so the complexity at the end seems inevitable.
> It's like what I always say about taking principles of the past in order to write competent music today. Such as in counterpoint. Counterpoint is similarly used as above. An audience will generally accept almost any kind of harmony, dissonant or otherwise, any kind of tonality (quartal, pandiatonic, even microtonal), if the counterpoint is logical and crafted well (not referring to style). This is what we have learned from the past (i.e., Chopin and others).


Patterns in the notes in the Schnittke piece excerpt in question include the following:

Starting in bar one, groups of notes are fragmented/segmented together, mainly in pairs. C and C#. B and D. Bb and Eb. Ab and F. F# and G. These appear in groups of even numbers 2, 4, 6, 8; punctuated (non-cadentially) by fermatas and pauses/rests so that at least visually patterns are determined. The rhythm is consistently patterned with a straight motor rhythm. Notice each pitch is patterned in a “fixed harmonic space”, meaning that each pitch is “frozen” in an assigned octave (every time a note appears it is in the same octave every time).

The next entrance is characterized by a pattern of anabasis/catabasis phrasing somewhat similar to call-and-response, with punctuated pauses (also non-cadential). The notes come from the "pattern" of a D harmonic minor scale (with just an added F#), and emphasize the notes F#, F, Bb, and C# (and their enharmonic spellings of Gb, A#, and Db) at the points of punctuation (half notes, fermatas, etc.). The next entrance after this one is based on the same scale and phrasing (anabasis/catabasis).


----------



## Torkelburger

chipia said:


> Yes, one can also create patterns through rhythms and texture but all significant composers of the CPT-era in fact did this _along _with creating patterns through tones. If you remove (audible) tone patterns, like some modern composers do you are removing an entire dimension of musical expression, which I consider to be a huge loss.
> 
> Btw. I also like Scriabin and Messiaen and a reason is that they DO create very salient patterns through tones, and they do it in a similar way as Common-Practice-Tonality does: Through characteristic scales and chords. Traditional tonality uses the major/minor scales and triadic harmonies to create coherence, whereas Scriabin and Messiaen use their own distinct scales (e.g. Acoustic scale or octatonic scale) and their own characteristic harmonies (e.g. the mystic chord) to create patterns. I find that modern composers who follow this kind of approach tend to be the most enjoyable, probably because it lends itself well to salient patterns.


chipia, I understand that it may seem that way. I admit, it can at times be much harder to see and hear, so I don’t blame you for feeling this way at all. If you don’t mind me saying so, they are there, just like any other music. It is no different. You have to trust me. I can explain, if you’d like (or not, ).

Atonal and 12-tone composers do, in fact, create patterns through tones as well. That’s precisely what many of them are trying to do. Many of Schoenberg’s early atonal pieces were composed with strict patterns that are easily recognizable and audible, and helped form the basis of pitch-class set theory. And look at how just the design of the tone row itself implies how the music created from it will sound. Look at the patterns found in a Berg row, compared to Webern, compared to Schoenberg. They are completely different and completely yield different structures, patterns, and sounds that are audible in the music.

Characteristic chords and scales (you can use a group of pitch classes in atonal or 12-tone music “scalar”, so-to-speak) appear in atonal and 12-tone music all the time. Those styles/techniques are often extremely coherent.

For just one example, take everyone’s favorite serial composer to hate on, the often-called “ultra-serialist” Pierre Boulez. His _Notations_. Here:






I’d like to start out of order, with Notation #4 starting at 2:22. If you’ll bear with me:

This one is very straightforward, and the patterns are easily audible. Firstly, it uses one and only one row transposition. Simple. Not only that, but it splits the row into two sections (a technique called “segmentation”), each hand of the piano getting 6 notes of the row respectively. Even further still, the left hand is in an audible, easily recognizable pattern—an ostinato of five sixteenths followed by a long-held note. Always in the same register and articulation. The meters change and the pattern appears on different beats of the bar each time (this is called “rhythmic displacement”) and is a variation technique even CP composers used in various forms.

What is more, the right hand “melody” right at the start is in an audible pattern of an additive nature* (the linear/horizontal type), in which one new note of the set class is introduced one at a time. The first note D appears (and is punctuated, as are all repetitions), then repeats adding the second note C (so D and C). Then those repeat, adding the third note (D, C, and C#). Then those three notes repeat and add the fourth note, (D, C, C#, and B). Then those four notes repeat and add the fifth note (D, C, C#, B, and Bb), etc. and finally the Eb.

Notice the phrases he is making throughout with the “melody”, in particular the notes D, C, and C# are grouped together after that point. Of particular note is the last line, bars 10-12. In bar 10 we have a phrase that can be compared to the “compound lines” of Bach/Baroque composers. For those not familiar with a compound line, it is a contrapuntal technique in which TWO voices appear in ONE line/the same instrument or voice. How is that done? Mostly by changing of registers and/or motifs.

Here is a video on the technique in Bach:






A very simple example would be Bach’s Invention #4:






The D can be seen as one voice, going to C# while the other notes are the other voice (this happens in both hands).
But the kind that applies here is a pedal-type compound line such as the fugue part in this famous piece (may or may not be by Bach):






The compound line is at 2:38. Again, it is in “pedal form”. One voice is the note A that sounds every other note, and the other voice is the other notes in-between. But these two voices are in the SAME LINE.

Again, this last example is the same exact type that Boulez does in Bar 10. Notice the “pedal” of Bb and B in the upper voice while the aforementioned melody we are used to, the C, D, C#, etc. is the lower voice, but it’s in the SAME LINE. This is literally no different than Bach, technique-wise, just style (the notes) is different. And the sound of it is quite audible and clear of what he is doing. He set it up perfectly so you can understand it and hear it.

This builds to the climax in bar 11 and 12. The highest notes C and C#, which is directly related to/a variation of the B and Bb pairing/structures he’s been using previously. These same structures will also tie into other movements of the piece (i.e., Mvt. 2, 9, 12). Then the final climactic melodic statement at the very end brings the piece to a satisfying, cohesive close.

*(PS: I guess this is one example of 12-tone music with additive process (although I actually meant earlier the vertical/contrapuntal kind), interesting too this is horizontal which is rare in classical music. So, I’m eating crow twice. Although not near as strict hear as in nursery rhymes, of course. Rightfully so, it would be a bit stodgy and too “patterned” that way. Surprising I forgot this, since I’ve known this piece like the back of my hand for decades). If anyone knows of 12-tone music with vertical additive process/form, please let me know.


----------



## Torkelburger

More analyses of other movements from the same piece.






Notation #7, at 3:55:

This one also uses segmentation. The left hand uses 4 notes in two dyad chords, a fifth B and F#, and a fourth C and F. Notice the two chords are coherent in that they are smoothly voice-led (half-step contrary motion in both “voices”). The rest of the notes in the row are used in the right hand, and are arranged as two contrasting/opposing ideas that unfold simultaneously. The first one is the bold, louder fanfare of the descending augmented fourth C# to G. The second idea interspersed with the first is a lyrical one that is also quasi-additive (phrases get longer and longer, more and more intricate, adding notes). Notice the prevalence of augmented fourths/tritones, perfect fourths, and fifths (relating to the accompaniment) and the related sevenths (a distance of two fourths). This cohesively ties the piece together.

The next piece, #8 at 4:55, is related to #7 in that it also exploits the interval of the fourth. The rhythmic ostinato (supposed to mimic ethnic percussion/drumming) is a perfect fourth and the accompanying repeated chord is based on perfect fourth of F#-B and an augmented fifth F and C#. The rest of the notes of the row are added, voiced in characteristic fifths and tritones, no different than Scriabin’s “Mystic Chord” you mentioned earlier.

Notation #1, at 0:00:

An imperfect mirror type form: The first bar is mirrored by the last bar. Bar 8 is mimicking bar 5.

#2, at 0:59:

Bar 2 repeats bar 1. Bar 3 is a variation of the structures in the previous 2 bars. The ostinato in bar 4 comes from the structures in the previous 3 bars. The following 2 phrases are related as an anabasis and catabasis relationship. The next phrase is related to the anabasis phrase as a rhythmic variation (diminution). The next bar is a variation/climactic repeat of bar 3. The last bar is a variation/climactic repeat of bar 1. The structures in this piece are easily audible, given that they are all seconds and clusters. Theses structures as appearing in the opening bars also appear as is in mvts 9 and 12.

Also, rhythms and texture create patterns in 12-tone music in the exact same way they do in CPT. A case in point is much of Stravinsky’s 12-tone music. Stravinsky was extremely fond of counterpoint in old styles (i.e., the Renaissance). Like all sorts of canonic imitation, double canons, etc. 12-tone music lends itself extremely well to contrapuntal styles.

This kind of 12-tone music is VERY easy to hear and grasp and is extremely coherent. It is quite easy to hear the transpositions as well. Especially when it’s slow. It ain’t that difficult to hear a row start with an ascending half-step, ascending tritone, so forth, in a half note, two quarter rhythm, then hear a voice one bar away descend a half step, descend a tritone in the same exact rhythm, even if you can’t follow each and every interval thereafter (can’t tell a minor third from a major third or whatever). You can obviously tell the two are related thematically (inverted and the same rhythm). And so, it’s a “safe bet” the whole thing is coherently related. It’s very, very easy.

It's also worth noting that this type of writing still uses good craftmanship and knowledge of the past (CPT) techniques in order to maintain high quality. For example, we know from the past that line independence is crucial in good counterpoint. You want the lines related, but not exact repetitions all the time. That is extremely boring. Transposed repetitions are better than exact repetitions. Inverted is also preferable. Oblique motion is preferable to parallel. Contrary motion is preferable to oblique (and therefore parallel as well)—which is another pro for invertible repetition.

All of those things apply no matter the style. Even in 12-tone. What is more, this principle applies to 12-tone music in that when the second voice or voices come in, it should introduce new notes not heard in the previous voice of the previous bar. This can be hard to do. In any event, the point is, is that it is NOT a “plug in the numbers”, “paint by numbers” system that “writes itself”. As you can see from my posts today, there is clear-cut craftmanship to it with direct influence and links to the past, including principles from CPT.


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

Thanks for the breakdowns of these pieces Torkelburger. Certainly interesting


----------



## chipia

Torkelburger said:


> For just one example, take everyone’s favorite serial composer to hate on, the often-called “ultra-serialist” Pierre Boulez. His _Notations_. Here:


Thank you very much for analyses. You gave some very interesting insights into these compositions.

But I was honestly not thinking about the Notations when I mentioned Boulez. The notations always seemed very different from most of Boulez output, probably due to their use of literal repetition.

When I was talking about random sounding tone patterns I was thinking about later compositions such as Le Marteau sans Maitre. In this piece Boulez partitions a 12-tone row into multiple sets and multiplies them with each other. The order of the multiplications in the piece is afaik determined by drawing diagonal lines in a matrix.
I have a hard time seeing how this approach relates meaningfully to anything the listeners hears in the piece, especially given that the notes in each multiplication may appear in any order.

But if you could provide a similar analysis for Le Marteau sans Maitre, that may be illuminating!


----------



## Torkelburger

chipia said:


> Thank you very much for analyses. You gave some very interesting insights into these compositions.
> 
> But I was honestly not thinking about the Notations when I mentioned Boulez. The notations always seemed very different from most of Boulez output, probably due to their use of literal repetition.
> 
> When I was talking about random sounding tone patterns I was thinking about later compositions such as Le Marteau sans Maitre. In this piece Boulez partitions a 12-tone row into multiple sets and multiplies them with each other. The order of the multiplications in the piece is afaik determined by drawing diagonal lines in a matrix.
> I have a hard time seeing how this approach relates meaningfully to anything the listeners hears in the piece, especially given that the notes in each multiplication may appear in any order.
> 
> But if you could provide a similar analysis for Le Marteau sans Maitre, that may be illuminating!


Sure, I can give my thoughts on that. I am going on vacation from work and will not have time for about 1 to 2 weeks as I will also be taking care of some medical things as well. But can reply after that.

In the meantime, are you familiar with "free atonality"? In particular, why and how it came about (and led to serialism), and how someone like say, Webern, wrote it it so well? And are you familiar with Boulez being considered in the "Webern School"? (He does not write strictly Webern "pastiche". He has actually expanded on Webern's ideas and techniques). Do you understand Webern's style to begin with and what separates it from the others? These are the starting points and I was just wondering how familiar you are with them.


----------



## Torkelburger

To get started on my "dissertation", I will have to start with the Webern style/school and thought, then compare Boulez to this same style to which he is a direct successor.
This is just the first part.

The first thing to understand is that the Webern school constructs the series in its own unique way. Contrary to popular belief, not all 12-tone rows are created equally. Berg’s rows hint very closely at tonality. I cannot analyze them at this time, due to time and space constraints. Schoenberg’s are sort of a happy medium, mostly. His can span the full gamut depending on what he is going for. Usually they are “blurred tonality”. Webern’s however, are strictly atonal and make no hints whatsoever at any tonal centers, scales, keys, etc. at all.

How does he do this? By mostly sticking to contiguous major and minor seconds that cannot possibly occur in a tonal scale or key together. Take the pitches D, Eb, and Db, for example. These pitches do not occur in any tonal scale or key all at the same time. He will make similar patterns from there on out (sometimes including tritones as well). This helps ensure that the music has no chance at all for being mistaken as tonal.

He actually led up to this line of thinking from his pre-serial, atonal writing, such as his Bagatelles. In that piece, you can witness how meticulous he was in going through and trying to make sure each note was new that was sounding and that it’s relation was in no way related to the previous one or two notes. This was all done without constructing any row (12-tone theory had not been developed yet).

This is the type of goal Boulez attempts to accomplish as well, and I will continue to discuss later…


----------



## Torkelburger

One of the ways in which Schoenberg carried this idea further, was by introducing the idea of permutations. It is important to discuss this now as it is my belief this has something to do with what Boulez is doing with the whole multiplication of pitches (so this is why I'm mentioning this in this Boulez discussion), which is: 1) ensuring that complete chromaticism and cycling of pitches stays consistent and new, and 2) groups of chromatic pitches are easily and quickly accessible; 3) the use of the row and its transpositions have become tiresome either to the ear, to the composer, or 4) the new pitches that are needed need to purposely be unrelated to the row.

A permutation is taking the original form of the row and constructing a completely new 48x48 matrix in the following order:

1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12
1, 5, 9, 2, 6, 10, 3, 7, 11, 4, 8, 12

And so on until you have the new matrix. As you can see, you take the row order and make a new row with odds first, then evens. Then take THAT row and do the same. Then you keep doing that.

If you don't mind me doing so, I am attaching a score for one of my own compositions in which I used permutations and will explain why I did it. This is a short 12-tone piece for Mezzo Soprano and Alto Flute (written for a contest). I knew I was going to use the row and all of its transpositions throughout the piece (1 statement of each transposition) and where they were going to go. I wanted new material in the section in which the musicians play together (just in the middle part). But I purposely did not want the main melody which is based on the original row to be accompanied by a transposition of the same row. So, instead of spending forever and a day picking notes at random, I was able to quickly get notes from a permutation. The rhythms, dynamics, articulations, and where notes repeat and go together must still be decided (it made a triadic outline in the flute part at two points, but I was only looking for pitches to go well with the soprano. The row in its other forms is completely atonal).


----------



## Torkelburger

To really get into the nuts and bolts of what’s going on in _Le Marteau_, we need to move on to understanding how the Webern school looks at the elements of music differently than what came before, and why.

Let’s look at melody and harmony in the past and how atonal music (including 12-tone) compares. In the music of the past, tension and release/drama/emotions/etc. were conveyed through the means of a hierarchy of consonance and dissonance in relation to a tonal center, yes? This carried the listener through the music in whichever direction the composer wanted to take them.

But without tonality, that all went away, right? There is no tonic chord anymore, no tonic pitch, no hierarchy of one note or group of notes above another, no forward or backward direction to move the listener towards and away from any goal.

This didn’t stop composers like Berg, however, from writing in old styles, but with serialization of those styles. Take the Violin Concerto. There is serialization of Baroque homophonic and polyphonic styles. Like a melody in half and quarter notes in a “classical” phrasing accompanied in a “classical” texture. Just the notes are changed (but since the row has tonal implications, it’s not all that jarring).

Schoenberg would most often be the same way (until much, much later). He would have a classical chamber music and symphonic style not at all unlike Mendelsohn, Brahms, Mozart, or even impressionist textures. But the notes are from 12-tone rows.

To reiterate, you might have textures such as the following (as in Schoenberg and his followers, not Webern though): melodies with simple, classically phrased rhythms accompanied by sustained chords; a similar melody as just described over an accompaniment of ostinatos; a similar melody as previously described accompanied by arpeggios. And so on…

Later composers felt that that sort of thing did not always fit well with atonality and serialism (for reasons stated previously). They felt more that in atonal music, what makes the music expressive/dramatic etc. are the interval relationships, the rhythm, silences, dynamics and phrasing, formal design, and most importantly (especially in pieces like we will see in _Le Marteau_) the tone colour and texture.

For interval relationships, you’ve heard me preach here on this site about the difference between the expressive qualities of each of the intervals and their direction (ascending/descending). Also, now when an atonal composer wants to get from say, relaxation to tension in 16 bars or so, since he doesn’t have tonal chord progressions and scales to rely on anymore, he knows now he might try:

Start with tranquil movement, weak pulse (“vague” rhythms), mid registers, weaker intervals, low contrasts, legato articulations, etc. etc. then progress to more rapid movement, stronger pulsations, irregular rhythms, stronger intervals, more extreme registers, contrasting silences (perhaps), staccatos and accents, louder dynamics, etc. etc. etc.
So, the music no longer looks “classically phrased” anymore, however, it CAN’T be or else it wouldn’t be as expressive as it is in this new way of writing.

So, you will see this kind of writing from time to time with Webern and Boulez. However, it is still not the majority of what you see in _Le Marteau_.

Let’s look again at what I mentioned earlier with tone colour and texture. I will not comment on the instrumentation being inspired by ethnic music as that has already been done to death.

_Le Marteau_ is a composition in the Webern school. Not pastiche, of course. As it is completely Boulez’s own, but its core foundation is clearly Webern. Let’s take a look.
Watch and listen to the following video. This is Webern’s _Symphony_, Op. 21. Tomorrow I will analyze it (to a certain degree) and compare it to Boulez's _Le Marteau_.
(More later)…


----------



## Torkelburger

The first thing I wanted to mention about the Webern Op. 21 is the rhythm and the orchestration. Oddly enough, the way he has composed the piece, these features go hand in hand.

The main thing to notice about the rhythm is that Webern is using a very limited number of note and rest values. Notice that the first section only uses half, quarter, and whole note/rest values; then later he moves on to dotted quarters, dotted halves, and eighths.

The pitches, BTW, as the video mentions, are a double canon (although this is not really noticeable on an audible level unless you are extremely familiar with the piece, and it is still extremely hard to tell).

The articulation is also limited. He is restricted to tenuto, staccato, and legato.

What you want to notice about the texture is that there is no harmony/accompaniment. You just have counterpoint in which the single lines are segmented and dispersed between the multiple instruments, each one getting a portion of the “melody” in their turn. Some instruments might play 1 note of the “melody”, some might play 2, some might play 3, etc. In jazz scoring, this technique is called “hocketing”. It’s one line that looks like it’s multiple lines.

In a way, the ensemble sounds like 1 unique instrument where all the tone colors combine in unique ways at different times to state their portion of the texture. It’s like playing a piano, but where the two hands are equal, not where one hand accompanies the other.

You know how in looking at a score, you can always tell which part is the clarinet part, which part is the violin, the tuba, the flute, the horn by HOW it is WRITTEN? The WAY the music LOOKS? Notice how that is obscured here. You can’t tell. All the lines look the same. That is on purpose.

This does not mean he is not writing idiomatically. He is. But he has taken into account what the instruments can do similarly. Like a Vinn Diagram. The instruments are in idiomatic range. But notice how each line, no matter what instrument, usually has wide leaps? He’ll have grace notes in all instruments that can execute them. There is still idiomatic things in the strings like double stops and pizzicato. But if you didn’t see the first page of the score, it would almost be impossible to tell what instrument is playing what line just by how the line is written.

(Keep in mind the reason for why he might be doing this was explained in previous posts).

The lines imitate more around the climax at bar 61. More regular note values with longer phrases.

We will review these points again when we look at _Le Marteau_.

Webern did these things in other pieces too, btw. Like the _Concerto for Nine Instruments_.

More later…


----------



## Torkelburger

The second movement is similar. Limited rhythmic values (quarters, eighths, dotted quarters, eighth rests). And this time utilizing many of the values in pairs.
The variations use similar rhythms in instruments grouped in similar ways as before. And it again, is hard to tell what line is written for what instrument do to their similarities.

I’ll be able to begin looking at the video of the score to _Le Marteau_ (with audio) tomorrow/this week so we can compare with what I’ve been explaining so far. Hopefully it shouldn't take but just a couple of posts...


----------



## Torkelburger

So, here now is the score and audio for _Le Marteau sans maitre_






Notice now the similarities to the aforementioned Webern pieces.

Look at Mvt I. Right from the start we see that there is the restricted use of limited rhythmic values (notes and rests). The first section with quarters, eighths, dotted eighths, dotted quarters, eighth triplets; and the second section utilizing more irregular groupings of 5-tuplets in eighth and quarter groupings and quarter note triplets, as well as a half note here and there. That’s actually not very much. Just compare to a Ferneyhough, or even some Stravinsky for that matter and you’ll see it’s limited.

The articulation is a bit more varied in the first movement, but legato, tenuto, and marcato dominate the majority of it.

The #1 thing to notice about this is that he has maintained Webern’s concept of no foreground, no middle-ground, and no background in the texture. There is no “melody with accompaniment” as in some “classical” forms/textures, Schoenberg and Berg as was mentioned earlier. It’s all “hocketing” mentioned previously with all the lines segmented and dispersed equally among multiple instruments where each one will get 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. of the “melody”/texture.

So, it still holds true that “In a way, the ensemble sounds like 1 unique instrument where all the tone colors combine in unique ways at different times to state their portion of the texture. It’s like playing a piano, but where the two hands are equal, not where one hand accompanies the other.”

Notice that all the lines look practically the same/very similar again. This is of course, on purpose. It’s just like the Webern. Again, all within the instruments’ ranges, and with wide leaps, grace notes, but with some idiomatic things thrown in for each instrument too (like pizzicato and multiple stops for strings, harmonics for flute, and so forth).

Also take note of the great lengths he went to in order to maintain this idea. What I mean is take a look at the vibes and guitar part especially. If I was writing a piece with guitar and vibes, serial or otherwise, I would utilize strumming patterns on the guitar along with arpeggio accompaniments, fingering patterns of chords, and the list goes on. For vibes I would utilize the keyboard qualities like a piano, such as 2 or 3 part writing, rolled chords, sustained chords, the sustain pedal, the motor “on” for vibrato (or “off” when not needed), arpeggio accompaniments, and on and on.

But Boulez doesn’t do any of that, because none of those things would work with what he is doing. But he is still keeping within the instruments’ idioms (like utilizing the open strings in guitar chords, for example, or widely-spaced chords you can only get on mallets).

Look at the following movements and notice similar things. Keep in mind that the note values he works with change, etc. but the concepts are basically the same (they are limited in number). What I find interesting, and this goes for Webern as I believe he got the idea from him, is that he has constructed a longer piece by putting together a succession of short ones. It’s almost as if 12-tone music seems to lend itself best to smaller forms as it seems to be taken in and digested easier this way. Further, I think it works best with this style as these two composers are masters (along with Schoenberg, who is probably the best at it) of creating _disparate_ pieces of musical _character_ in 12-tone technique (look at _Notations_ for these qualities as well (And Schoenberg’s piano pieces especially).

Mvt III starting at 6:26 is also worth mentioning. The first thing to mention about this is the vocal part. Notice that it is NOT sprechstimme, like how Schoenberg and Berg would most often write for the voice. It’s just standard bel canto, like how Webern writes vocal music. The rhythms are freer and in an “atonal”/Webern style of melodic writing, but note how the lines still favor each other? What I mean is that the vocal part is “flute-like” isn’t it? Starting at bar 6, they are practically identically written straight to the end. So much so, that if I were conducting this, I would ask the players to listen very close to each other and match as much as humanly possible. The flute should sound like a vocalist, and the vocalist should sound like a flute, creating one single “flute-voice” sound for the piece.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

I though somebody had revived this awful thread for no reason like always and instead I find an analysis of my favourite piece of all time lol.


----------



## Denerah Bathory

mikeh375 said:


> For me a stunt like this just fuels a fire, one intent on burning down something not fully understood or that doesn't conform to entertainment. I'm the first to admit and accept that music that is more individual is going to sever ties with the norm and isolate itself, but this stunt displays ignorance and is a cheap shot imv. Stuff like this matters to professionals but I will admit that so far as the lay listener is concerned, it's a shot on target, a direct hit at modernity's Achilles heel. It's a difficult one to find a rejoinder to.
> 
> This music can't be considered aleatoric btw because within that genre, there is more often than not an overarching, considered control and a dictating of basic material by the composer. Besides, it is precisely written out fwiw. I couldn't care less for the opinion of a jury btw, nor that of academia.


Good, strike hard, strike well...revolt against the modern world!


----------



## Couchie

"Contemporary" music is garbage. The great majority are not even aware of its existence, let alone if they were to find it, to find it as appetizing as eating a raw sausage. Like nuclear fusion, it's always 10 years away from finding its footing, despite the fact people have been writing this garbage since WWII, and still nobody likes it. Like postmodern literature, where pretentiousness greets the absurd, contemporary composers vomit into the mouths of their (poorly attended) audience, and the audience declare it the greatest delicacy they have ever tasted. No thank you! I'll stick with Wagner.


----------



## Denerah Bathory

Couchie said:


> "Contemporary" music is garbage. The great majority are not even aware of its existence, let alone if they were to find it, to find it as appetizing as eating a raw sausage. Like nuclear fusion, it's always 10 years away from finding its footing, despite the fact people have been writing this garbage since WWII, and still nobody likes it. Like postmodern literature, where pretentiousness greets the absurd, contemporary composers vomit into the mouths of their (poorly attended) audience, and the audience declare it the greatest delicacy they have ever tasted. No thank you! I'll stick with Wagner.


Well said! Modernist composers are basically expecting people to pay serious attention to their musical equivalents of a finnegans wake.


----------



## mikeh375

Denerah Bathory said:


> Good, strike hard, strike well...revolt against the modern world!


....actually Denerah my comment you quoted happens to be supported by me being in favour of modernity in music. There's nothing wrong with music that doesn't have a tune or recognisable pulse imv and there is much to be gained from becoming familiar with compositions in the last 100 years or so, including right up to the present.


----------



## DaveM

mikeh375 said:


> ..There's nothing wrong with music that doesn't have a tune or recognisable pulse imv and there is much to be gained from becoming familiar with compositions in the last 100 years or so, including right up to the present.


There is nothing wrong with people liking music that _doesn’t have a tune or recognizable pulse. _The problem for classical music has been that so relatively few do.


----------



## Simon Moon

Couchie said:


> "Contemporary" music is garbage.


In your opinion, of course.



> The great majority are not even aware of its existence, let alone if they were to find it, to find it as appetizing as eating a raw sausage. Like nuclear fusion, it's always 10 years away from finding its footing, despite the fact people have been writing this garbage since WWII, and still nobody likes it. Like postmodern literature, where pretentiousness greets the absurd, contemporary composers vomit into the mouths of their (poorly attended) audience, and the audience declare it the greatest delicacy they have ever tasted. No thank you! I'll stick with Wagner.


Classical music in general, makes up about 1% of the music listening public. Do you really think the average music listener could be able to tell the difference between Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, other than a few cliché snippets?

So, your appealing to popularity as an argument, really doesn't hold too much weight. It doesn't even hold up as an argument for the eras of classical music you happen to enjoy.


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> There is nothing wrong with people liking music that _doesn’t have a tune or recognizable pulse. _The problem for classical music has been that so relatively few do.


Why do you see it as a "problem" that "relatively few" people enjoy modernist music? When I enjoy a musical work, it makes no difference if I am among millions or the only person who enjoys it.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> Why do you see it as a "problem" that "relatively few" people enjoy modernist music? When I enjoy a musical work, it makes no difference if I am among millions or the only person who enjoys it.


Well, good for you. I can’t count the number the times you’ve responded with that refrain whenever someone has an opinion you don’t like on ‘modernistic music’. Besides, you might want to reread the OP so you won’t be surprised by opinions such as mine in this thread.

Personally, I care about the quality of classical music being composed and music that ‘_doesn’t have a tune or recognizable pulse_’ does it no favors. Not to mention that IMO it represents a dumbing down of the genre and results in CM having to depend even more on music composed prior to 1950-1900.


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> Well, good for you. I can’t count the number the times you’ve responded with that refrain whenever someone has an opinion you don’t like on ‘modernistic music’. Besides, you might want to reread the OP so you won’t be surprised by opinions such as mine in this thread.
> 
> Personally, I care about the quality of classical music being composed and music that ‘_doesn’t have a tune or recognizable pulse_’ does it no favors. Not to mention that IMO it represents a dumbing down of the genre and results in CM having to depend even more on music composed prior to 1950-1900.


I don't dislike your opinion, I just find it odd. Why must you interject your own negative appraisal of modernist music into someone else's enjoyment of it? 

Music that ‘_doesn’t have a tune or recognizable pulse_’ (an inaccurate description since all music has a "tune" - maybe not tonal, but a tune nonetheless) is often evocative, mysterious, and interesting. You lump it all into a monolithic whole, which is reductive and false.


----------



## Bwv 1080

If people don’t like modernist music fine, but there is an atonophobic subset that seems to believe if they can’t ‘get’ the music then no one can. Therefore those who perform or listens to the music must be like the deluded fools admiring the emperor’s new threads.

The only remedy, as I see it, would be forced internment in reeducation camps where a daily diet of Webern and Babbitt could help these poor souls learn to better adjust to society.


----------



## mikeh375

It's also fair to say that music that does have a tune ( as in something easily perceived as familiar or singable - not thematic) , along with a recognisable pulse also has no guarantee of quality and composing as such can be an inexhaustable source of mundanity or irrelevance for some.


----------



## Forster

...and mediocrity.


----------



## mikeh375

DaveM said:


> Personally, I care about the quality of classical music being composed and music that ‘_doesn’t have a tune or recognizable pulse_’ does it no favors. *Not to mention that IMO it represents a dumbing down of the genre and results in CM having to depend even more on music composed prior to 1950-1900.*


Curious that Dave, I'd counter that the expansion of all aspects of modern composing from thematic concepts, vertical liberation from consonance and a a more detailed and surgical yet free approach to rhythm, all represent increased creative complexity along with much expressive opportunity. Far from a dumbing down, for me developments over the last century are an enrichment of music that greatly expands the arts scope and reach.
Remember our talk in the film music thread when you offered up Zimmer's love theme from 'Pearl Harbour' as something to be considered classical? (have I recalled your stance on that piece correctly?). For me, that music is a classic example of what I'd call a dumbing down if it was to be compared to, or placed in the company of the canon in general. But of course it goes without saying (but I will anyway)...ymmv.


----------



## HansZimmer

Simon Moon said:


> Classical music in general, makes up about 1% of the music listening public.


Where did you get your data?

This article says that 80% of british adults ‘have a relationship with’ classical music with 43 per cent listening while relaxing at home.

Survey shows that 8/10 people listen to classical music | Classical Music (classical-music.com)


----------



## HansZimmer

SanAntone said:


> Why do you see it as a "problem" that "relatively few" people enjoy modernist music? When I enjoy a musical work, it makes no difference if I am among millions or the only person who enjoys it.


The problem is that classical music won't be able to compete with popular music if it doesn't revert to tonality and melody. We need new classical music in which the persons of today can find themselves. Something that represents our time and our culture, not something that is alien to them.


----------



## HansZimmer

mikeh375 said:


> Curious that Dave, I'd counter that the expansion of all aspects of modern composing from thematic concepts, vertical liberation from consonance and a a more detailed and surgical yet free approach to rhythm, all represent increased creative complexity along with much expressive opportunity. Far from a dumbing down, for me developments over the last century are an enrichment of music that greatly expands the arts scope and reach.
> Remember our talk in the film music thread when you offered up Zimmer's love theme from 'Pearl Harbour' as something to be considered classical? (have I recalled your stance on that piece correctly?). For me, that music is a classic example of what I'd call a dumbing down if it was to be compared to, or placed in the company of the canon in general. But of course it goes without saying (but I will anyway)...ymmv.


I'm quite sure that if you asked to a group of random persons which of the two examples here below represent "dumbing down" of music, they wouldn't vote the first.
Complexity doesn't make music better. It's basically the opposite: simplicity makes music aesthetically better, pleasant for human ears. Keep in mind that I'm saying "simplicity", not "triviality". They are two different things: a piece that obsessively repeats a rudimental theme is trivial, while a piece which has not a supercomplex texture or harmony is simple. Basically, simple means "singable melody".

The atonal music is basically a war against human nature, because good aesthetic is what most persons search in music.

Hans Zimmer is a succesful composer because he doesn't fight human emotions/ears, but the opposite: he knows very well how to touch them with very lyrical melodies.







Giacinto Scelsi


----------



## SanAntone

HansZimmer said:


> The problem is that classical music won't be able to compete with popular music if it doesn't revert to tonality and melody. We need new classical music in which the persons of today can find themselves. Something that represents our time and our culture, not something that is alien to them.


Music is not a sport in which the different genres are like teams competing against each other. The vast array of musical styles and genres is a good thing since societies and cultures are different and some of each will gravitate to the kind of musical styles they enjoy naturally. Some gravitate to modernist music.

Regarding the OP - a meaningless gimmick which does not define the music nor the audiences who enjoy it.


----------



## HansZimmer

SanAntone said:


> Music is not a sport in which the different genres are like teams competing against each other. The vast array of musical styles and genres is a good thing


You would be right if the different musical styles would belong to equal cultures, but they don't.

In the discussion about film music we concluded that music is not really divided in styles, but it's more divided in cultures/traditions.
Classical music is not a style, but a musical culture/tradition: the style changes with the time.
The same is true for rock and hip hop: they are musical cultures/traditions, the style of the music evolves with the time (the old school rap is very different from modern rap, the modern rock is different from Elvis).

Now, I don't want to be politically correct, so I'll simply say the truth that we all know.
In English a synonymous of classical music is "art music", while in italian (my language) is "musica colta" (which means: "smart music of high culture"). The italian word describes what it really is ("art" is an abstract and debatable word, while the italian language is more direct).

The difference between the culture of classical music and the culture of hip hop is so evident that it would be silly to start a debate about this. I don't despise rap as musical style (unlike many folks in this forum, I even enjoy some rap songs), but hip hop is a low culture, and many rap songs clearily convey it.


Yes, the classical music culture/tradition has also created sophisticated musical languages/styles and compositional practices because smart persons like sophisticated things: it's a consequence.

Finally, we can look at a complete panoramic (we will zoom out) in the table below.
In this table, you can see that "musica colta" (art music) is a component of "cultura alta" (high culture).
I think that we can say that science, philosophy, serious books, serious literature, serious cinema, serious art, and so on... belong to the "cultura alta" along with classical music, while in the popular culture there is the maintream TV, mainstream radios, soccer, fashion, light books, light films, and so on...

What's wrong in saying that we should try attract as many persons as we can in the "cultura alta" (high culture)? Wouldn't the society benefit of it? Classical music is a possible entry point, but you can use also science and philosophy as an entry point, so we should also promote them.
The problem, as I wrote, is that I'm not sure that this new classical music can attract so many persons. Modern rap is catchy (sometimes it even uses themes of the old classical music), so it's more attractive for the teens in respect to the avant-garde music.


----------



## EdwardBast

Simon Moon said:


> In your opinion, of course.
> 
> 
> *
> Classical music in general, makes up about 1% of the music listening public.* Do you really think the average music listener could be able to tell the difference between Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, other than a few cliché snippets?
> 
> So, your appealing to popularity as an argument, really doesn't hold too much weight. It doesn't even hold up as an argument for the eras of classical music you happen to enjoy.


I'm wondering, what is the basis of this statistic?


----------



## Simon Moon

EdwardBast said:


> I'm wondering, what is the basis of this statistic?


Popular Classical Music: How Popular Is Classical Music? (Part II)

"So how popular is classical music in the U.S.? According to billboard/Nielsen, classical music had an overall 1% share of the market in 2019, or 12th out of 12 genres. This is the least popular music genre well behind the top four genres: R&B/hip-hop, rock & roll, pop, country, and even behind children’s music. "


----------



## Simon Moon

"Only 1.4% of total music consumption in the United States is accounted for by jazz and classical music."

The Least Popular Music Genres – BoySetsFire


----------



## Simon Moon

Classical music popularity from 2017 - 2022

20+ Music Genre Statistics: Most Popular Music Genres (2022)



Classical
Music1.1%1.0%1.0%1.1%1.0%


----------



## Bwv 1080

Well at least it’s the top 1%


----------



## eljr

chipia said:


> What do you think about this?


You don't want to know what I think about this.


----------



## SanAntone

HansZimmer said:


> You would be right if the different musical styles would belong to equal cultures, but they don't.
> 
> In the discussion about film music we concluded that music is not really divided in styles, but it's more divided in cultures/traditions.
> Classical music is not a style, but a musical culture/tradition: the style changes with the time.
> The same is true for rock and hip hop: they are musical cultures/traditions, the style of the music evolves with the time (the old school rap is very different from modern rap, the modern rock is different from Elvis).


None of what you wrote addresses my point. IMO it just doesn't make any difference if classical music is as popular as rock or not, or what culture produced the music of any genre. All kinds of music finds an audience of some sort - and usually the music _I find_ most interesting has a smaller audience than the most popular style or genre.

But what bothers me about this thread and others that pit classical music against other genres (classical vs rap) or different periods of classical music against others (romantic vs modern or atonal classical) are arguments that appear like: 1) the zero sum game argument (avant garde/modern music is a danger to classical music), which is bogus and 2) that other styles or genres are in competition with classical music and somehow threaten its existence or undercut its popularity (if only people were exposed more to classical music then pop music would not be so popular).

I just wish people would ignore the music they don't like and focus on the music they do like.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> I don't dislike your opinion, I just find it odd. Why must you interject your own negative appraisal of modernist music into someone else's enjoyment of it?
> 
> Music that ‘_doesn’t have a tune or recognizable pulse_’ (an inaccurate description since all music has a "tune" - maybe not tonal, but a tune nonetheless) is often evocative, mysterious, and interesting. You lump it all into a monolithic whole, which is reductive and false.


I didn’t originate the ‘_doesn’t have a tune or recognizable pulse_’, I responded to it which is perfectly appropriate given the OP which, again, you need to reread because this thread was not started as a ’modernistic’, particularly avant-garde music, love-fest. On the contrary.

All music does not have a ‘tune‘ although I understand that you and a few of your buddies like to redefine the word. The music of Schoenberg and the 2nd Viennese School does have a tune. Avant-garde music does not and is the music particularly referenced in the OP.


----------



## DaveM

mikeh375 said:


> Curious that Dave, I'd counter that the expansion of all aspects of modern composing from thematic concepts, vertical liberation from consonance and a a more detailed and surgical yet free approach to rhythm, all represent increased creative complexity along with much expressive opportunity. Far from a dumbing down, for me developments over the last century are an enrichment of music that greatly expands the arts scope and reach.
> Remember our talk in the film music thread when you offered up Zimmer's love theme from 'Pearl Harbour' as something to be considered classical? (have I recalled your stance on that piece correctly?). For me, that music is a classic example of what I'd call a dumbing down if it was to be compared to, or placed in the company of the canon in general. But of course it goes without saying (but I will anyway)...ymmv.


Given your response and that of others, let us remind of the OP which was addressing a study where the ‘music‘ used was from children playing random notes. The final comment of the OP was:

_I think that such experiments should be performed more often so that it becomes clear that the *avantgarde* mentality is causing damage to modern classical music and hindering the development of new music that actually relates to way humans perceive music._

It is obvious that the OP is about avant-garde. It is also obvious that ‘music without a tune and a pulse’ describes avant-garde music rather than atonal music in general. It should also be apparent by now, since I have expressed it several times elsewhere, that my issue is with avant-garde music, not atonal or ‘modernistic’ classical music in general.

While I grudgingly accept that avant-garde music is classed as CM (only because that train has left the station), if classed under a totally separate avant-garde genre, it might be great music within that genre, but as classical music, without melody or harmony IMO it is a compositional dumbing down.


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> I didn’t originate the ‘_doesn’t have a tune or recognizable pulse_’, I responded to it which is perfectly appropriate given the OP which, again, you need to reread because this thread was not started as a ’modernistic’, particularly avant-garde music, love-fest. On the contrary.
> 
> All music does not have a ‘tune‘ although I understand that you and a few of your buddies like to redefine the word. The music of Schoenberg and the 2nd Viennese School does have a tune. Avant-garde music does not and is the music particularly referenced in the OP.


I accept that for you avant-garde music does not have a "tune" - but so what? There are other musical aspects going on: texture, orchestral color, rhythmic expansion and contraction instead of a "pulse."

I don't need to re-read the OP since I already read it and found the entire "study" to be silly and nothing more than an excuse to attack avant-garde music and composers.

However, their failed IMO, because - if those involved with this event thought the resulting music (no matter where it originated) was worthy of note, then I am fine with that assessment. It doesn't matter if the music came from random sounds generated by children - what the end result amounted to must have had something the jury found interesting and worthwhile. This is in no way an indictment of avant-garde music. If anything it celebrates the variety of forms new music can take and come from.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> ..However, their failed IMO, because - if those involved with this event thought the resulting music (no matter where it originated) was worthy of note, then I am fine with that assessment. * It doesn't matter if the music came from random sounds generated by children* - what the end result amounted to must have had something the jury found interesting and worthwhile. This is in no way an indictment of avant-garde music. If anything it celebrates the variety of forms new music can take and come from.


Well, it does matter that it was ‘_random sounds generated by children_’ because it suggests the fact that in avant-garde one can’t distinguish quality music from the output of a child’s wandering fingers on a keyboard. At least, your comment gives me a sense on how low you set the bar for what is quality music.


----------



## Simon Moon

DaveM said:


> Well, it does matter that it was ‘_random sounds generated by children_’ because it suggests the fact that in avant-garde one can’t distinguish quality music from the output of a child’s wandering fingers on a keyboard. At least, your comment gives me a sense on how low you set the bar for what is quality music.


From what I understand, is, that the piano is a child's wandering fingers, but the orchestrations that accompany them, are composed.


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> Well, it does matter that it was ‘_random sounds generated by children_’ because it suggests the fact that in avant-garde one can’t distinguish quality music from the output of a child’s wandering fingers on a keyboard. At least, your comment gives me a sense on how low you set the bar for what is quality music.


My bar is set to the music I find interesting and fulfilling. I am interested in how the music sounds more than where it came from. The only reason to concern myself with the composer is to follow up with other works. But I often enjoy a work as a one-off and am happy to have had the experience even if I never hear something else by the same composer.

In theory, if random sounds created by children playing around on pianos resulted in music which I found interesting and fulfilling, then that's fine. I prefer to remove ego from the process of creation and critical judgment and simply listen to the music with an open mind.

If that is too low of a bar in your opinion, then so be it.


----------



## mikeh375

...can I just say that when I said 'tune' in my now oft quoted descriptor, I meant tune as it is popularly understood. For atonality one would be better of using the more accurate term 'theme'. There are no tunes in atonality but there is thematic and motivic development.
Anyway now that's cleared up for me at least, Dave, I understood that you might be referring to the more AG kind of music and I have some sympathy with that point of view. Even so, I stand by my post no861 because it also applies to music that still has a tangible or tenuous link to the past (that btw being the last 100 years or so, not 200) of which there is much and I'll also repeat that some of the worst music ever written (imo of course) is and can be tonal.


----------



## DaveM

mikeh375 said:


> ...can I just say that when I said 'tune' in my now oft quoted descriptor, I meant tune as it is popularly understood. For atonality one would be better of using the more accurate term 'theme'. There are no tunes in atonality but there is thematic and motivic development.
> Anyway now that's cleared up for me at least, Dave, I understood that you might be referring to the more AG kind of music and I have some sympathy with that point of view. Even so, I stand by my post no861 because it also applies to music that still has a tangible or tenuous link to the past (that btw being the last 100 years or so, not 200) of which there is much and I'll also repeat that some of the worst music ever written (imo of course) is and can be tonal.


Point taken, except (referring to your post #861) that what you may refer to as ‘dumbing down’ in the composition of the Pearl Harbor soundtrack has IMO absolutely no comparison to the dumbing down going on in avant-garde music in the case where the latter is called classical music. Not to mention that they are two different subjects, one having to do with an entire sub-genre and the other having to do with an opinion of a single work within its genre.


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> In the discussion about film music we concluded that music is not really divided in styles, but it's more divided in cultures/traditions.


Did we? Which "we"? I don't think anything was concluded at all. The same three opinions persisted, voiced by various individuals over time.

"Yes, film music is classical."
"No film music isn't classical."
"Well, maybe some of it under certain conditions resembles what some people classify as classical."

As for the avant-garde, exploring what constitutes "music" seems to me a perfectly legitimate activity, while preserving the boundaries of what some regard as "classical" is also legitimate. What is not legitimate is insisting that the one must triumph over the other when music will do what it wants to do in the hands of the various people who make it.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Couchie said:


> "Contemporary" music is garbage.


Apples and oranges. Try to think of examples of tonal music expressing "feelings of horror" and compare them to examples of contemporary music. There is a reason why European music moved away from voice-leading and tonality. For some, they were too restrictive for expressing such grotesque emotions.




Scenes of horror (Jephta)


----------



## DaveM

Forster said:


> ..As for the avant-garde, exploring what constitutes "music" seems to me a perfectly legitimate activity, while preserving the boundaries of what some regard as "classical" is also legitimate..


As for avant-garde, if you remove the engine, power-train and wheels from an automobile, it is no longer a car. It may be a wonderful chassis, but it’s not a car.


----------



## Forster

DaveM said:


> As for avant-garde, if you remove the engine, power-train and wheels from an automobile, it is no longer a car. It may be a wonderful chassis, but it’s not a car.


If you like. I don't really think music can be compared to a car. 🤷‍♂️


----------



## DaveM

Forster said:


> If you like. I don't really think music can be compared to a car. 🤷‍♂️


It was a metaphor.


----------



## Forster

DaveM said:


> It was a metaphor.


Yes.


----------



## EdwardBast

Simon Moon said:


> Popular Classical Music: How Popular Is Classical Music? (Part II)
> 
> "So how popular is classical music in the U.S.? According to billboard/Nielsen, classical music had an overall 1% share of the market in 2019, or 12th out of 12 genres. This is the least popular music genre well behind the top four genres: R&B/hip-hop, rock & roll, pop, country, and even behind children’s music. "


Market share doesn't measure popularity, it counts income from one arbitrarily chosen source. A tiny bit of mental effort is required to see the difference.


----------



## Simon Moon

DaveM said:


> Well, good for you. I can’t count the number the times you’ve responded with that refrain whenever someone has an opinion you don’t like on ‘modernistic music’. Besides, you might want to reread the OP so you won’t be surprised by opinions such as mine in this thread.
> 
> Personally, I care about the quality of classical music being composed and music that ‘_doesn’t have a tune or recognizable pulse_’ does it no favors. *Not to mention that IMO it represents a dumbing down of the genre* and results in CM having to depend even more on music composed prior to 1950-1900.


The portion of your post the I bolded strikes me as a bit of a unique opinion.

Many of the criticisms that are often leveled at composers of contemporary music, and those of us that listen to it, is that it is aimed at the intellectuals, or those trying portray themselves as such.

In other words, being overly intellectual, is often used to describe contemporary classical music, by its detractors.

What exactly is being dumbed down?


----------



## DaveM

Simon Moon said:


> The portion of your post the I bolded strikes me as a bit of a unique opinion.
> 
> Many of the criticisms that are often leveled at composers of contemporary music, and those of us that listen to it, is that it is aimed at the intellectuals, or those trying portray themselves as such.
> 
> In other words, being overly intellectual, is often used to describe contemporary classical music, by its detractors.
> 
> What exactly is being dumbed down?


Why is it that I keep making it clear that I’m referring to avant-garde music and people continue to respond as if I’m talking about all contemporary music, unless somewhere along the line the definition of contemporary music and avant-garde music is now the same, which I doubt.

Anyway, referring only to avant-garde music, since it has been decried that it is under the CM tent, do I really have to explain how it is compositionally ‘dumbed down’ compared to almost any other classical music? The dirty little secret about the Bubbles experiment is that people can’t distinguish good avant-garde music from bad and therein lies the results of compositional dumbing down. But still, some people like this stuff, so, theoretically, as a genre totally separate from classical music, even if ‘composed’ at the hands of children, perhaps it is all wonderful.


----------



## Simon Moon

DaveM said:


> Why is it that I keep making it clear that I’m referring to avant-garde music and people continue to respond as if I’m talking about all contemporary music, unless somewhere along the line the definition of contemporary music and avant-garde music is now the same, which I doubt.
> 
> Anyway, referring only to avant-garde music, since it has been decried that it is under the CM tent, do I really have to explain how it is compositionally ‘dumbed down’ compared to almost any other classical music? The dirty little secret about the Bubbles experiment is that people can’t distinguish good avant-garde music from bad and therein lies the results of compositional dumbing down. But still, some people like this stuff, so, theoretically, as a genre totally separate from classical music, even if ‘composed’ at the hands of children, perhaps it is all wonderful.


Well, in all honesty, the term avant-garde, as it is often used TC, is quite elastic in its application. 

As just one example, I've seen Elliott Carter lumped in on lists of avant-garde composers.

So, it is a bit difficult on TC, to know where one person's modernist or contemporary list of composers ends, and their lists of avant-garde composer begins.


----------



## DaveM

Simon Moon said:


> Well, in all honesty, the term avant-garde, as it is often used TC, is quite elastic in its application.
> 
> As just one example, I've seen Elliott Carter lumped in on lists of avant-garde composers.
> 
> So, it is a bit difficult on TC, to know where one person's modernist or contemporary list of composers ends, and their lists of avant-garde composer begins.


I don’t think it’s that hard. If it has no melody, no harmony combined with a lot of dissonance and cacophony, it‘s likely what most people are calling avant-gard.


----------



## Bwv 1080

DaveM said:


> I don’t think it’s that hard. If it has no melody, no harmony combined with a lot of dissonance and cacophony, it‘s likely what most people are calling avant-gard.


Examples please


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> The dirty little secret about the Bubbles experiment is that people can’t distinguish good avant-garde music from bad and therein lies the results of compositional dumbing down.


Ever heard of DeepBach? How much better will it get in 100 years? 200? 500?


----------



## DaveM

Bwv 1080 said:


> Examples please


Well, something apparently in your wheelhouse: In a recent thread, when asked about whether there was ‘fundamental style difference between the Webern op5 and Ferneyhough Sonatas for String Quartet’, your response was ‘_don’t think there is a style difference - Ferneyhough uses the same gestural language that Webern more or less invented. It’s like Monteverdi and Bach_’.

I found the mere mention of Bach in the same context as Ferneyhough rather bizarre. In any event, as you request, here is an example:






Just for giggles, for comparison, here’s a little thing for String Quartet by Bach:


----------



## Bwv 1080

DaveM said:


> Well, something apparently in your wheelhouse: In a recent thread, when asked about whether there was ‘fundamental style difference between the Webern op5 and Ferneyhough Sonatas for String Quartet’, your response was ‘_don’t think there is a style difference - Ferneyhough uses the same gestural language that Webern more or less invented. It’s like Monteverdi and Bach_’.
> 
> I found the mere mention of Bach in the same context as Ferneyhough rather bizarre. In any event, as you request, here is an example:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just for giggles, for comparison, here’s a little thing for String Quartet by Bach:


So
A) it’s creepy that you are searching my posts
B) you misunderstood the post which made an analogy that Ferneyhough stands in relation to Webern like Bach does to Monteverdi - i.e. the later master to the early innovator
C) Ferneyhough has several pieces with melodic lines that stick in my head as much as Beethoven or Mozart, namely the opening lines to Terrain, Superscripto or L’Chute D’Icate (and by comparison the Sonatas you posted is a relatively tame piece that does not employ quarter tones like the mature works I listed).


----------



## SanAntone

> The dirty little secret about the Bubbles experiment is that people can’t distinguish good avant-garde music from bad


I don't this is true. In the specific case of the Bubbles experiment, a jury made a decision based on the score and sound of the music, which they judged as "good". They were unaware of how the music was arrived at. Who are you to say the music is not good, just because you think the manner in which it was created is suspect?

When I listen to ANY music, my response is based on what I am hearing, not on what I know about how it was created. Much of the music created during the CP period is not interesting to me, while many avant-garde works are.

When it comes to enjoying music, my opinion is the only one that counts.


----------



## DaveM

Bwv 1080 said:


> So
> A) it’s creepy that you are searching my posts
> B) you misunderstood the post which made an analogy that Ferneyhough stands in relation to Webern like Bach does to Monteverdi - i.e. the later master to the early innovator
> C) Ferneyhough has several pieces with melodic lines that stick in my head as much as Beethoven or Mozart, namely the opening lines to Terrain, Superscripto or L’Chute D’Icate (and by comparison the Sonatas you posted is a relatively tame piece that does not employ quarter tones like the mature works I listed).


A) It’s creepy that you find it creepy. I follow a whole range of subjects. I’m always interested in threads that discuss music I don’t generally like hoping to learn something I may have missed. I read your post in response to Mandryka’s question when you posted it. Since I don’t post anything negative about music in threads that are for those who like the music that is the subject matter, I didn’t respond to your post. If you think that it’s creepy that someone would respond to a post of yours in another thread (as I do here), then maybe you should resort to PMs.

B) I didn’t misunderstand it. I found the analogy totally off-base using Baroque era composers. And, if memory serves, you didn’t say ‘later master to early innovator’ (which might have made at least some sense).

C) You asked for an example of what I was talking about and I gave you one. I have no interest in a discussion of Ferneyhough works and I have yet to hear a melodic line in them. Still, I’m happy for you that you adore his music.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> I don't this is true. In the specific case of the Bubbles experiment, a jury made a decision based on the score and sound of the music, which they judged as "good". They were unaware of how the music was arrived at. Who are you to say the music is not good, just because you think the manner in which it was created is suspect?
> 
> When I listen to ANY music, my response is based on what I am hearing, not on what I know about how it was created. Much of the music created during the CP period is not interesting to me, while many avant-garde works are.
> 
> When it comes to enjoying music, my opinion is the only one that counts.


Okay, you don’t think there’s such a thing as good or bad classical music. Personally, my long experience with classical music informs that there is mostly good to better music in the genre, but, unfortunately there is (IMO) rather bad music when the music is redefined such as to be unrecognizable as CM.

That you don’t care how it is created or who created it would be a disappointment to composers who presumably put a lot of education and effort into trying to produce a quality result. And I would assume, it would be even more frustrating that random output of children could be given an equal grade to music composers have dedicated their lives to. How depressing a perspective.


----------



## Forster

The Fernyhough sounds to my ears like conventional "modern" music (and not avant garde). It's not my cup of tea, but I'm not going to object to the idea that it belongs in the category of CM.

The problem with the term 'avant-garde' is that surely it relates to what is _currently_ at the outer boundary of CM. The Fernyhough can't be avant-garde as it's over 50 years old!


----------



## mikeh375

Forster said:


> The Fernyhough sounds to my ears like conventional "modern" music (and not avant garde). It's not my cup of tea, but I'm not going to object to the idea that it belongs in the category of CM.
> 
> The problem with the term 'avant-garde' is that surely it relates to what is _currently_ at the outer boundary of CM. The Fernyhough can't be avant-garde as it's over 50 years old!


Yes, I think my definition of AG is also more to do with extremes rather than what Dave (@DaveM) perceives as a lack of harmony and melody. Take Fernyhough for example, although his work is complex and difficult, the music is still 'instrumental' in approach and the basic elements of music are present and recognisable even though there is no compromise on his behalf to engage the average listener. My definition of AG although not clearly delimited, tends to incorporate more extreme experimental approaches to instrumental writing and performance that might amount to more novelty than substance, less music more sound design perhaps.

I listened to the Comitas 'Bubbles' again and realised that whatever one may think of it, it is not AG for me because it is recognisably instrumental, even traditional in the individual part writing. The rhythm is by modern standards, quite traditional too. I will say that all of the subtlety potentially hidden in this music has been totally destroyed by the god-awful general midi playback which has robbed the lines and resulting music of all expression. (Btw my definition of traditional is within the last 100 years).
I also wonder if opinions on the music might shift somewhat if the tempo where to be moderated in places by slowing down and generally imparting a sense of ebb and flow via a more flexible approach, all in order to make it more musical and aid comprehension.

In fact the midi playback sucks so much that if I get some time soon, I will render myself a few snippets of it using modern samples which although not perfect, will at least help towards showing that there is potential expression in this music. The version posted has absolutely no ambience around it neither, which can help soften dissonance in real life. Balance and focus is completely lacking in the mix, in fact it is so bad a rendering that it makes me wonder if whoever did the rendering, sabotaged the music on political purpose. Certainly no time was spent on tweaking the midi playback at all.

None of which addresses the central question about the youthful provenance of this piece, but then again composers will know that music doesn't always need emotional input, be it from a cot, juvenile or mature, sometimes just an idea that has potential will do.


----------



## mikeh375

Well I said I would and I have. I've rendered the first movement of 'Bubbles' with some decent samples. I hope those of us interested in the thorny issues raised in this thread will click the link below to download a small folder that contains the original midi as posted on YT and a new version. The clips are only approx. 18" long but are a world apart in terms of actual musical expression. I'll be interested to see what folk think about this because for me at least, the new version brings out some musicality, an overall timbre closer to the reality of the score and enhances the expressionist gestures to give the music a better way of being assessed. I slowed the tempo down too. Give it a few listens with headphones if you can, even one listen to the original and then the new will show you what's missing musically from the original midi, like it or loathe it. The link is valid for a week from time of posting.

Bubbles


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> Okay, you don’t think there’s such a thing as good or bad classical music. Personally, my long experience with classical music informs that there is mostly good to better music in the genre, but, unfortunately there is (IMO) rather bad music when the music is redefined such as to be unrecognizable as CM.
> 
> That you don’t care how it is created or who created it would be a disappointment to composers who presumably put a lot of education and effort into trying to produce a quality result. And I would assume, it would be even more frustrating that random output of children could be given an equal grade to music composers have dedicated their lives to. How depressing a perspective.


No, you misunderstood my post. I never said I don't think there is such a thing as good or bad classical music. I said that this jury found the Bubbles music to be good, irrespective of where it originated. 

Your idea of what constitutes good or bad classical music is your subjective opinion - which is certainly understandable for you to hold and express. But you must account for the fact that others will reject your idea and decide on other grounds, differently than you, about this question.

I am a composer myself (not classical music anymore, but my life has revolved around writing music) and my desire has always been for people to focus and concentrate on the music, not me, not my process, or my biography, etc. 

Determining whether a piece of classical is good or not is a dicey affair, and libraries are full of books which debate which works and, most especially, why a work is considered great. Many audience members have trouble with so-called great composers, still hundreds of years after their deaths. Composers such as Bach, Beethoven, Mahler, Wagner, Schoenberg, Stockhausen and many others have been controversial. On TC there are threads like, "Help Me With Mahler" - and opinions expressed about how someone doesn't like one of these generally considered great composers, and others making the case why they are rightfully considered great.

There is a huge subjective component at work in the appreciation and enjoyment of music. To focus on the details of a work's creation, I think, misses the point - which IMO is to listen to the sound of the music and allow it to work its magic on you.


----------



## Enthusiast

HansZimmer said:


> The problem is that classical music won't be able to compete with popular music if it doesn't revert to tonality and melody. We need new classical music in which the persons of today can find themselves. Something that represents our time and our culture, not something that is alien to them.


Personally I don't want re-warmed Brahms - it would be an insult to a composer I love (i.e. Brahms) - and I want to hear what composers today can come up with that is fresh and new and relevant. Perhaps if (like you?) I saw music genres as competing as if music were an Olympic sport I would want modern music to appeal to people who don't like modern music. But I really don't want people messing with the music I love. I'm not alone in that love - so many records of contemporary music are issued every year and even if they don't stay long in the market they are proof that there are many like me - and feel there is something almost fascistic in wanting to deny it to us.


----------



## Enthusiast

Bwv 1080 said:


> So
> A) it’s creepy that you are searching my posts
> B) you misunderstood the post which made an analogy that Ferneyhough stands in relation to Webern like Bach does to Monteverdi - i.e. the later master to the early innovator
> C) *Ferneyhough has several pieces with melodic lines that stick in my head as much as Beethoven or Mozart*, namely the opening lines to Terrain, Superscripto or L’Chute D’Icate (and by comparison the Sonatas you posted is a relatively tame piece that does not employ quarter tones like the mature works I listed).


Yes, that is the point. I listen once. Then again another time and after that I have those lines going round in my head. The same happens with jazz riffs. It is so limiting to insist that good music must have a big juicy Romantic tune.


----------



## mikeh375

Enthusiast said:


> Yes, that is the point. I listen once. Then again another time and after that I have those lines going round in my head. The same happens with jazz riffs. It is so limiting to insist that good music must have a big juicy Romantic tune.


....having spent an hour this morning re-programming 'Bubbles' above, I'm having to listen to Mahler to get it out of my head. As a general rule if you put the time in the rewards are there to be had.


----------



## Enthusiast

HansZimmer said:


> Complexity doesn't make music better. It's basically the opposite: simplicity makes music aesthetically better, pleasant for human ears. Keep in mind that I'm saying "simplicity", not "triviality". They are two different things: a piece that obsessively repeats a rudimental theme is trivial, while a piece which has not a supercomplex texture or harmony is simple. Basically, simple means "singable melody".


Of course, this is terrible nonsense. There is nothing simple in the music of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Brahms. There is always a lot going on and all those things work together with each other in miraculous ways. But at the end of that para you come clean: you define "simple" and having a "singable melody". There could probably be a debate about which music has such melodies. Does Bach or Mozart? Is it the main feature of Beethoven's style? Brahms does, I will grant you, but much more besides. A most pop music does.



HansZimmer said:


> The atonal music is basically a war against human nature, because good aesthetic is what most persons search in music.
> 
> Hans Zimmer is a succesful composer because he doesn't fight human emotions/ears, but the opposite: he knows very well how to touch them with very lyrical melodies.


I suppose by claiming that Zimmer is successful you mean commercially? Aesthetically I find his music offensive but that is just me. My point is that most people who have spent a lot of time with classical music don't react against atonal music. Certainly, most active members here don't. You are in a sad minority, scared to dip your toe in what came next and opting instead for comfort music. You fear most classical music of the last 120 years as a war. You miss so much.

I wonder if your ears are also closed to renaissance music?


----------



## Enthusiast

mikeh375 said:


> ....having spent an hour this morning re-programming 'Bubbles' above, I'm having to listen to Mahler to get it out of my head. As a general rule if you put the time in the rewards are there to be had.


Yes, I should have said that it goes round my head in a meaningful and appealing way.


----------



## DaveM

Enthusiast said:


> You are in a sad minority, scared to dip your toe in what came next and opting instead for comfort music..


You‘re kidding yourself.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Forster said:


> The problem with the term 'avant-garde' is that surely it relates to what is _currently_ at the outer boundary of CM. The Fernyhough can't be avant-garde as it's over 50 years old!


Even the Beatles could have been seen as avant-garde


----------



## Enthusiast

DaveM said:


> You‘re kidding yourself.


Got anything of substance to say, Dave?


----------



## Luchesi

mikeh375 said:


> Well I said I would and I have. I've rendered the first movement of 'Bubbles' with some decent samples. I hope those of us interested in the thorny issues raised in this thread will click the link below to download a small folder that contains the original midi as posted on YT and a new version. The clips are only approx. 18" long but are a world apart in terms of actual musical expression. I'll be interested to see what folk think about this because for me at least, the new version brings out some musicality, an overall timbre closer to the reality of the score and enhances the expressionist gestures to give the music a better way of being assessed. I slowed the tempo down too. Give it a few listens with headphones if you can, even one listen to the original and then the new will show you what's missing musically from the original midi, like it or loathe it. The link is valid for a week from time of posting.
> 
> Bubbles


Thanks, I'm impressed by what you've envisioned and then realized here. You hear the 'music'.

It sparked an idea (related) about how much performers of new music might be able to act out and otherwise emphasize phrases which are then more easily (more naturally) recognized by attendees during a live performance. This is done to some extent during a few events I've attended. I asked a clarinetist friend in the orchestra at the time, and he said composers he's talked to don't want to be too 'specific' with clues. It would be 'limiting'. ...We disagreed about that.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> No, you misunderstood my post. I never said I don't think there is such a thing as good or bad classical music. I said that this jury found the Bubbles music to be good, irrespective of where it originated.
> 
> Your idea of what constitutes good or bad classical music is your subjective opinion - which is certainly understandable for you to hold and express. But you must account for the fact that others will reject your idea and decide on other grounds, differently than you, about this question.
> 
> I am a composer myself (not classical music anymore, but my life has revolved around writing music) and my desire has always been for people to focus and concentrate on the music, not me, not my process, or my biography, etc.
> 
> Determining whether a piece of classical is good or not is a dicey affair, and libraries are full of books which debate which works and, most especially, why a work is considered great. Many audience members have trouble with so-called great composers, still hundreds of years after their deaths. Composers such as Bach, Beethoven, Mahler, Wagner, Schoenberg, Stockhausen and many others have been controversial. On TC there are threads like, "Help Me With Mahler" - and opinions expressed about how someone doesn't like one of these generally considered great composers, and others making the case why they are rightfully considered great.
> 
> There is a huge subjective component at work in the appreciation and enjoyment of music. To focus on the details of a work's creation, I think, misses the point - which IMO is to listen to the sound of the music and allow it to work its magic on you.


You said, ‘_Who are you to say the music is not good, just because you think the manner in which it was created is suspect? When I listen to ANY music, my response is based on what I am hearing, not on what I know about how it was created.’ _
That can’t be interpreted in any way other than that your position is that there is no collective evidence/opinion that there is good and bad music. It’s all subjective.

Also, while _aspects_ of the music and lives of the household names of classical music will continue to be controversial, what is not controversial is the status of Bach, Beethoven Mahler and Wagner as great composers. Also, while individuals will always express a preference for one composer over the other, the collective jury is in when it comes to the great composers and their works. After 1 to 3 centuries, determining which classical works of the past are good or great is not a ‘dicey affair’. Your position that the source of music does not matter, whether a proven composer or inexperienced young children, is an extreme minority position.

Finally, TC does not represent the cross-section of the outside classical community. I have interacted with the classical music community in many different forms and TC, in some respects, is a different world. That isn’t a bad thing. But the fact that some members here need ‘help with Mahler’ and idolize Stockhausen and Ferneyhough does not mean that outside TC there is controversy over whether Mahler is a great composer or some influential support for amelodic, harmony-less music. The fact is that the classical community as a whole over a long period has objectively evaluated classical music outside individual opinions. So, your position, or so it seems, that subjective opinion trumps everything ignores the fact that there is a strong collective consensus about the core composers and music of CM.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Enthusiast said:


> Of course, this is terrible nonsense. There is nothing simple in the music of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Brahms. There is always a lot going on and all those things work together with each other in miraculous ways. But at the end of that para you come clean: you define "simple" and having a "singable melody". There could probably be a debate about which music has such melodies. Does Bach or Mozart? Is it the main feature of Beethoven's style? Brahms does, I will grant you, but much more besides. A most pop music does.


On the fundamental level, there's no intrinsic difference between the way Pachelbel's canon is popular and the way Mozart's 40th symphony, requiem and Beethoven's 5th, 9th symphonies are. (I'm taking these as examples of classical music extremely popular on the net, youtube, etc). It's only our elitism (self-induced, in our minority circle) that segregates them into different categories in terms of artistic value.
There are people (like Simon Moon) who perceive "(crowd-pleasing) tonal music triviality" in all these. I understand where they're coming from.


----------



## Bwv 1080

DaveM said:


> So, your position, or so it seems, that subjective opinion trumps everything ignores the fact that there is a strong collective consensus about the core composers and music of CM.


So your position is the strong collective consensus among performers and educated listeners that, say Carter and Ferneyhough have created great music, counts as nothing compared to your subjective opinion and that of the less educated listeners you hang out with?


----------



## Bwv 1080

If only @DaveM could have burst in here and told Irvine the emperor was naked, I am sure he would be profusely thanked for opening their eyes to the deception, saving them hours of painstaking work


----------



## DaveM

mikeh375 said:


> ....having spent an hour this morning re-programming 'Bubbles' above, I'm having to listen to Mahler to get it out of my head. As a general rule if you put the time in the rewards are there to be had.


Is that last comment meant to infer that a little reprogramming uncovered a hidden masterpiece?


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> Also, while _aspects_ of the music and lives of the household names of classical music will continue to be controversial, what is not controversial is the status of Bach, Beethoven Mahler and Wagner as great composers. Also, while individuals will always express a preference for one composer over the other, the collective jury is in when it comes to the great composers and their works. After 1 to 3 centuries, determining which classical works of the past are good or great is not a ‘dicey affair’.


With all due respect, take Mozart for example; we don't know how much exposure Brahms (for example) had of the music of Mozart's contemporaries, how much Brahms was educated from childhood to think Mozart is absolutely great compared to them. Brahms famously said he _would have given anything_ to have written like Johann Struass II. Was he an unquestionable authority when it comes to differentiating between sentimentality and profundity, for example? So we don't know how absolutely correct Brahms' assessment of the value of Mozart's music is. (The same can be said of everyone else in history who judged Mozart).


----------



## DaveM

Bwv 1080 said:


> So your position is the strong collective consensus among performers and educated listeners that, say Carter and Ferneyhough have created great music, counts as nothing compared to your subjective option and that of the less educated listeners you hang out with?


My subjective opinion has nothing to do with it. Of course, Ferneyhough and others like him have a following and some followers will call it great music. But when those who fell for the Bubbles Experiment and who are probably among Ferneyhough followers declared the random output of children to be pretty good, the bar seems pretty low for how the music is measured.

As far as objectivity on the subject goes, Ferneyhough‘s music has been around for over half a century. It is not programmed in any concerts of significance. It is not programmed practically at all on the CM radio stations. It is not growing as a significant contribution to CM as a whole. Recordings are not selling in any significant numbers compared to those of long-gone CP era composers.

Ferneyhough’s music is relegated to small ensembles that usually play to relatively small audiences, sometimes for free. As I’ve said, in so many words previously, it may be great music along with similar music in a category of its own, but, IMO (and many others), as classical music not so much. Still, as music in its own category, there’s no reason why the people here who enjoy it shouldn’t continue to do so. No one is saying they shouldn’t.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Why the fu k did I ever decide to look at this forum again


----------



## DaveM

hammeredklavier said:


> With all due respect. Take Mozart for example; we don't know how much exposure Brahms (for example) had of the music of Mozart's contemporaries, how much Brahms was educated from childhood think Mozart is absolutely great compared to them. Brahms famously said he _would have given anything_ to have written like Johann Struass II. Was he an unquestionable authority when it comes to differentiating between sentimentality and profundity, for example? So we don't know how absolutely correct Brahms' assessment of the value of Mozart's music is. (The same can be said of everyone else in history who judged Mozart).


I understand that you continue to slip in, directly or indirectly, references to Michael Haydn however irrelevant to the current discussion, but what Brahms thought about Mozart’s contemporaries has nothing to do with my post. Brahms had respect for a number of composers including Johann Strauss II. And Mozart: ‘_He especially admired Mozart, so much so that in his final years, he reportedly declared Mozart as the greatest composer.’_


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> You said, ‘_Who are you to say the music is not good, just because you think the manner in which it was created is suspect? When I listen to ANY music, my response is based on what I am hearing, not on what I know about how it was created.’ _
> That can’t be interpreted in any way other than that your position is that there is no collective evidence/opinion that there is good and bad music. It’s all subjective.


You re simply wrong with your analysis. I said exactly what I meant, there is no need for your interpret my words beyond what I wrote. The fact is a jury judged the Bubbles music as good, using their collective evidence/opinion. You disagreed. So who is wrong?



> Also, while _aspects_ of the music and lives of the household names of classical music will continue to be controversial, what is not controversial is the status of Bach, Beethoven Mahler and Wagner as great composers. Also, while individuals will always express a preference for one composer over the other, the collective jury is in when it comes to the great composers and their works. After 1 to 3 centuries, determining which classical works of the past are good or great is not a ‘dicey affair’. Your position that the source of music does not matter, whether a proven composer or inexperienced young children, is an extreme minority position.


The status of a number of avant garde composers is also solid: Stockhausen, Boulez, Cage, and others. Personally I am not interested in where the music comes from. That may be a minority opinion, but so what. The bottomline for any music is how it sounds to an audience. If it finds a supportive audience, they must think it is good. And there is an audience for avant garde music. It may be smaller than the audience for Beethoven, but again, so what. In the end, we all experience music as individuals, and in that case, we constitute the same size audience enjoying those composers we have found as the most fulfilling.



> Finally, TC does not represent the cross-section of the outside classical community. I have interacted with the classical music community in many different forms and TC, in some respects, is a different world. That isn’t a bad thing. But the fact that some members here need ‘help with Mahler’ and idolize Stockhausen and Ferneyhough does not mean that outside TC there is controversy over whether Mahler is a great composer or some influential support for amelodic, harmony-less music. The fact is that the classical community as a whole over a long period has objectively evaluated classical music outside individual opinions. So, your position, or so it seems, that subjective opinion trumps everything ignores the fact that there is a strong collective consensus about the core composers and music of CM.


You seem to place a great emphasis on what you perceive of as which classical music has been historically judged as good, or great. That's fine, but again, not really important. What do you hope to gain when you listen to a work? To be struck with greatness or to enjoy the music that fulfills you?


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> You re simply wrong with your analysis. I said exactly what I meant, there is no need for your interpret my words beyond what I wrote. The fact is a jury judged the Bubbles music as good, using their collective evidence/opinion. You disagreed. So who is wrong?


The jury is. If its members value their credibility, they likely were embarrassed.



> The status of a number of avant garde composers is also solid: Stockhausen, Boulez, Cage, and others. Personally I am not interested in where the music comes from. That may be a minority opinion, but so what. The bottomline for any music is how it sounds to an audience. If it finds a supportive audience, they must think it is good. And there is an audience for avant garde music. It may be smaller than the audience for Beethoven, but again, so what. In the end, we all experience music as individuals, and in that case, we constitute the same size audience enjoying those composers we have found as the most fulfilling.


Consistent with my posting above, if one classifies avant-garde as a genre separate from classical music, I pretty much agree with most of the above.



> You seem to place a great emphasis on what you perceive of as which classical music has been historically judged as good, or great.


Given how many people agree with me over the ages, perception is reality.



> What do you hope to gain when you listen to a work? To be struck with greatness or to enjoy the music that fulfills you?


Both.


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> The jury is. If its members value their credibility, they likely were embarrassed.


Do you think you can prove that the Bubbles music is bad music? The jury (presumably trained musicians and classical music experts) must have based their opinion on something about the music, both the score and the performance they heard. And they chose it from among other works. 

I don't know if your've heard the Bubbles work or not, but you seem to base your opinion that the music is bad entirely on the fact of how it was created. That would be like someone saying that because Beethoven was deaf when he wrote his late works, they can't possibly be any good.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> Do you think you can prove that the Bubbles music is bad music? The jury (presumably trained musicians and classical music experts) must have based their opinion on something about the music, both the score and the performance they heard. And they chose it from among other works.


I see composers of classical music, especially during the CP era as having generally followed a set of rules. I view composers of avant-garde music as having thrown out the rule book. I suspect that people who like it enjoy the unexpected, the dissonance and some sort of new definition of a melodic line that maybe even the composer wasn’t aware existed when he/she composed the work. This might explain why the random output of children might be attractive to this jury and maybe the audience of this music in general.

But I have enjoyed classical music that has followed rules over centuries important to the genre. If I put myself out there as a ‘trained musician and classical music expert’ and I picked the Bubbles music as good classical music, I would be hoping that as few people as possible knew that I was a member of that jury.



> I don't know if your've heard the Bubbles work or not, but you seem to base your opinion that the music is bad entirely on the fact of how it was created. That would be like someone saying that because Beethoven was deaf when he wrote his late works, they can't possibly be any good.


Did you give that analogy any thought before posting it? Do you really suggest that the creation of music by children randomly hitting notes is relative to the creation of music by a deaf Beethoven. What Beethoven accomplished as a deaf composer was one of the miracles of a human conquering adversity as was Helen Keller becoming a world-famous speaker and author. Somehow, I don’t equate that with the creation of the Bubbles music.


----------



## Forster

DaveM said:


> Ferneyhough’s music is relegated to small ensembles that usually play to relatively small audiences, sometimes for free.


Well he's not going to top the bill at the Proms, but he has been performed there, last in 2012 (Prometheus, performed by the Britten Sinfonia). But why pick on Fernyhough? There are a number of "avant-garde" composers who are performed more often. Berio's Sinfonia, for example, at the 2018 Proms, performed by the BBC Symphony conducted by Bychkov. Or how about Boulez's Eclat, by the BPO and Rattle? Proms 2016 Prom 64 - BBC Proms - BBC. His works have been more often performed there than Cherubini's, despite Beethoven's opinion that he was the greatest of his contemporaries.


----------



## DaveM

Forster said:


> Well he's not going to top the bill at the Proms, but he has been performed there, last in 2012 (Prometheus, performed by the Britten Sinfonia). But why pick on Fernyhough? There are a number of "avant-garde" composers who are performed more often. Berio's Sinfonia, for example, at the 2018 Proms, performed by the BBC Symphony conducted by Bychkov. Or how about Boulez's Eclat, by the BPO and Rattle? Proms 2016 Prom 64 - BBC Proms - BBC. His works have been more often performed there than Cherubini's, despite Beethoven's opinion that he was the greatest of his contemporaries.


I’m overwhelmed..


----------



## Forster

DaveM said:


> I’m overwhelmed..


I thought you might be 

The fact is that if "avant-garde" music is performed regularly at a prestigious events such as the BBC Proms (and I've offered a mere smidge of evidence that it is - there's plenty more if you want to look for it) then it's a reasonable conclusion to infer that it is widely considered to belong to the family of CM musics, regardless of the opinion of non-entities on the internet.


----------



## DaveM

Forster said:


> I thought you might be
> 
> The fact is that if "avant-garde" music is performed regularly at a prestigious events such as the BBC Proms (and I've offered a mere smidge of evidence that it is - there's plenty more if you want to look for it) then it's a reasonable conclusion to infer that it is widely considered to belong to the family of CM musics, regardless of the opinion of non-entities on the internet.


’Regularly’ remains to be seen. 3 times in 10 years at the Proms, the last time being 5 years ago is not exactly a great intro. For all we know, the Proms programmers are not in a hurry to schedule works in this category anytime soon.


----------



## Forster

DaveM said:


> ’Regularly’ remains to be seen. 3 times in 10 years at the Proms, the last time being 5 years ago is not exactly a great intro. For all we know, the Proms programmers are not in a hurry to schedule works in this category anytime soon.


"Regularly" referred to the avant-garde as a whole, not one single composer.


----------



## mikeh375

Luchesi said:


> Thanks, I'm impressed by what you've envisioned and then realized here. You hear the 'music'.
> 
> It sparked an idea (related) about how much performers of new music might be able to act out and otherwise emphasize phrases which are then more easily (more naturally) recognized by attendees during a live performance. This is done to some extent during a few events I've attended. I asked a clarinetist friend in the orchestra at the time, and he said composers he's talked to don't want to be too 'specific' with clues. It would be 'limiting'. ...We disagreed about that.


Thanks @Luchesi I'm glad you understood what I was attempting. As I understand your post, I might agree with your friend because musicians can bring so much to the notes , quite often surpassing the composers intention. My midi rendering of that section of Comitas' 'Bubbles' shows what interpretation can achieve and in this case, some clarity of sound and sensitivity to tempo made the opening section of 'Bubbles' at least intelligible.


----------



## Forster

^ Sorry, couldn't get it to work on my phone...Will try when I'm next at my PC.


----------



## mikeh375

DaveM said:


> Did you give that analogy any thought before posting it? *Do you really suggest that the creation of music by children randomly hitting notes is relative to the creation of music by a deaf Beethoven.* What Beethoven accomplished as a deaf composer was one of the miracles of a human conquering adversity as was Helen Keller becoming a world-famous speaker and author. Somehow, I don’t equate that with the creation of the Bubbles music.





DaveM said:


> My subjective opinion has nothing to do with it. Of course, Ferneyhough and others like him have a following and some followers will call it great music. But when those who fell for the Bubbles Experiment and who are probably among Ferneyhough followers *declared the random output of children to be pretty good, the bar seems pretty low for how the music is measured.*


I perceive a flaw in this line of thinking Dave, but before I go on, I am now assuming that part of your definition of AG is atonality in general, given your railing against the apparent lack of tune and harmony etc.

So, on the face of the bolded above, then yes it's an absurd notion however you aren't - for obvious reason - taking into account the expansion of techniques in the 20thC and how they have impacted actual composing paradigms. In other words one cannot ignore the 'how' of composition, the actual way composers today approach the manuscript and 'find' their music if one is to tackle with any hint of sensible objectivity, the idea of perceived randomness.

The democratising of all 12 notes and consequent, inevitable widening of the vertical and horizontal musical fields is as it happens, very amenable and suitable to exploring latent relationships in a random selection of notes in order to draw out or 'find' music, much more so than any tonally constrained (by comparison) functional approach. Btw, I'm not dismissing tonal functionality here as inadequate to deal with randomness. It isn't and randomness could certainly be used to generate music within a traditionally functional heirarchy too. But more relevantly, the techniques employed to create a work today, an atonal work, can have a tremendous manipulative, transformative and aural reach, giving a composer many, many creative options for forward progress and imagination within a piece, which incidentally includes serendipity...sometimes a consequence of randomness.

As such then, a composers starting position that uses a few random notes, may believe it or not, not even be that important (certainly for the listener), depending on the composer's approach and intent. This is because of the aforementioned aesthetic reach that modern technical manipulations and paradigmatic approaches have for the composer, when exploring possibilities and options. Add in the potential for them to also fire the imagination and develop the simplest or even the most random ideas into a complex or not so complex relationship and the composer can end up with a cogent piece of music. For example some random notes may be better served as an organising principle below the surface, or perhaps imply harmony, or maybe harmony and synthetic scales can be derived and generated from the random notes, or indeed the random notes could yet be thematic, motivic or part of a serial process. None of which needs to be apparent on the surface, but these imposed 'parameters' if you lke, may be a vital 'engine' and justification of choice for composers as they progress a piece by signalling ways forward and/or supplying coherence, impetus and inevitability. Any initial randomness then can ultimately be incorporated into, or is the genesis of, or transformed into, structured and musical outcomes.

So unfavourable comparison of a random genesis of notes to Beethoven's processes is not entirely appropriate given the more encompassing techniques we have today and doing so is clearly anachronistic given that a few hundred years have elapsed. Composers today have vastly different resources, methods, mindsets and most importantly, very different ears. Much of what Beethoven knew and practised is analgous and even similar to modern approaches and I venture he would recognise them being the man he was. What will never change is the work and instincts required to find the best nuggets.

All of which leads nicely to this...



DaveM said:


> I see composers of classical music, especially during the CP era as having generally followed a set of rules. *I view composers of avant-garde music as having thrown out the rule book. *I suspect that people who like it enjoy the unexpected, the dissonance and some sort of new definition of a melodic line that maybe even the composer wasn’t aware existed when he/she composed the work. This might explain why the random output of children might be attractive to this jury and maybe the audience of this music in general.
> 
> But I have enjoyed classical music that has followed rules over centuries important to the genre. If I put myself out there as a ‘trained musician and classical music expert’ and I picked the Bubbles music as good classical music, I would be hoping that as few people as possible knew that I was a member of that jury.


The bolded is seemingly mis-informed despite what you think, although you might just be dissing in contentious mode. The rule book today is not Beethoven's and the functional constraints he worked within do not dominate as much as they did back then, if at all. It is also nonsensical to hold atonality and todays practitioners to damming, judgemental account using comparisons to CPT just because you don't like the music. The rule book for composers today is culled from the last 100 years, that's their tradition, inherirtance, their immediate canon. Far from being random and without rules, much of todays music with its wider and more encompassing aural reach requires perhaps even more control than CPT in order to re-invent new personal definitions of 'function' and generally avoid randomness, which is the enemy of the composers imposition of will onto music.

Finally (and sorry for the long post),



DaveM said:


> Is that last comment meant to infer that a little reprogramming uncovered a hidden masterpiece?


No, which is why I tried to make it clear by saying "in general" which clearly failed.
I hope you listened to it and I was hoping you'd be able to at least hear more 'music' in the new rendering than the midi playback posted, especially if you A/B (alternate) between the 2 tracks. I was of course gutted to see you didn't even bother to reply negatively....
When programming, one has to concentrate on every note in every part and work with the score in detail for extended periods of time (an hour in this case). It's inevitable given my composery mind, that snippets stick as repeated listens are necessary as the music builds up layer by layer. This aspect of programming and composing for that matter -the obsessive and repetitious side - has always caused problems when trying to switch off and relax and is a problem or annoyance every composer will recognise.
As to my thoughts about the Bubbles I did blow up, well I thought there was a good bit towards the end, but it didn't do for me what Webern does. However, I also failed to detect anything child-like about it.


----------



## mikeh375

Forster said:


> ^ Sorry, couldn't get it to work on my phone...Will try when I'm next at my PC.


Thanks Forster. Nobody need 'like' it, it's just an experiment to draw out with a reasonable performance, any possible music that was utterly buried (perhaps deliberately so) by the terrible midi playback. I thought it might be interesting and perhaps show that music can be generated from many sources. Music for a composer is quite often what they do with it and music for the listener is always what they make of it.


----------



## composingmusic

mikeh375 said:


> The bolded is mis-informed, sorry. The rule book is not Beethoven's and it is absurd to think that the functional constraints he worked with would still apply today, and absurd to hold todays composers to judgemental account with CPT. The rule book for composers today is culled from the last 100 years. You may not like it, but far from being random, todays music with its wider reach requires perhaps even more control than CPT in order to avoid randomness which is the enemy of the composers imposition of will onto music.


This I agree with. Since there isn't a rule book, people make their own rules – and how strictly they adhere to them varies. People often end up creating a world of rules for a single piece, and this also means it can take a lot of time and effort to create a piece. Because there aren't conventions for rules, creating something structurally coherent can be really quite hard, and I'd say most composers who I know are very, very aware of this.


----------



## Enthusiast

hammeredklavier said:


> On the fundamental level, there's no intrinsic difference between the way Pachelbel's canon is popular and the way Mozart's 40th symphony, requiem and Beethoven's 5th, 9th symphonies are. (I'm taking these as examples of classical music extremely popular on the net, youtube, etc). It's only our elitism (self-induced, in our minority circle) that segregates them into different categories in terms of artistic value.
> There are people (like Simon Moon) who perceive "(crowd-pleasing) tonal music triviality" in all these. I understand where they're coming from.


So are you saying that popularity (above the average for major works of their composers) is a signifier of poorer quality? And are you also saying that the reason behind my valuing, say, Mozart 40 or Beethoven 5 above a lot of other music is only down to my elitism? That doesn't chime with my experience. There are very popular classical works that I love and revere and there are others, just as popular, that I don't enjoy so much. I am not aware of my presumably unconscious elitism influencing my valuing of music. I go by what the music does for me and can only read what you have written as confessional (that you find yourself unable to).

I also don't have any problem with tonality and think it is just plain silly to equate it with triviality. But art moves on an for the last 120 years a lot of the music I have found most rewarding happens to be atonal. That doesn't make me despise the music of the past. But I do find that recourse to tonality in contemporary music tends to be (i.e. often, usually but not invariably) a marker of triviality.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Enthusiast said:


> So are you saying that popularity (above the average for major works of their composers) is a signifier of poorer quality? And are you also saying that the reason behind my valuing, say, Mozart 40 or Beethoven 5 above a lot of other music is only down to my elitism?


It's of course up to you what things you value yourself. But let's ask ourselves - why do some people in our minority circles (who hold the popular Mozart, Beethoven works in the highest esteem) consider ways of thinking like the following as "objectively unintelligent":
_"Upon seeing the phenomenon of hundreds of millions of people (even without the knowledge of how a canon works) going onto youtube to listen to Pachelbel's Canon in D (something written for the sensibilities of an age 350 years of the past), -aren't you in AWE, of the power of Western classical music?"_


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> ’Regularly’ remains to be seen. 3 times in 10 years at the Proms, the last time being 5 years ago is not exactly a great intro. For all we know, the Proms programmers are not in a hurry to schedule works in this category anytime soon.


I feel, sometimes, we could look at ourselves in the mirror how much we indulge in double standards, of this sort:
_"Objectively speaking, Schoenberg is not as great as Mozart cause Schoenberg is a niche interest.
Beethoven's late works were innovative, but the fact that Schoenberg was doesn't matter.
Beethoven's 5th, Mozart's 40th (for example) are music for intellectuals. Pachelbel's canon is merely entertainment glorified as high art, even though it has most definitely "survived the test of time". As for the Beethoven and Mozart sounding 'simpler' than Schoenberg, that's because they were writing music for their time."_


----------



## Boychev

Why is it so important to measure music?

Suppose that the bar for "how music is measured" really is very low. So what? What changes?


----------



## DaveM

Forster said:


> "Regularly" referred to the avant-garde as a whole, not one single composer.


Nothing in my post indicated otherwise.


----------



## Forster

DaveM said:


> Nothing in my post indicated otherwise.


Oh. So what were you referring to when you wrote:

"3 times in 10 years at the Proms, the last time being 5 years ago"
?


----------



## HansZimmer

Enthusiast said:


> Of course, this is terrible nonsense. There is nothing simple in the music of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Brahms. There is always a lot going on and all those things work together with each other in miraculous ways. But at the end of that para you come clean: you define "simple" and having a "singable melody". There could probably be a debate about which music has such melodies. Does Bach or Mozart? Is it the main feature of Beethoven's style? Brahms does, I will grant you, but much more besides. A most pop music does.


I read a comment under a youtube video containing a Mozart's sonata which said: "The melody meets a new theme each 4 bars". There is also the video posted by @hammeredklavier which says that in the melodies of Mozart there is a great creativity (they are not self-propagating).
So, in Mozart's music the melody is elaborated, but I would say that the harmony doesn't sound so intricated: the themes are quite easy to follow not only your you ears, but also with your voice. The music of Bach sounds more complicated harmonically.

I've already written that I tend to prefer music with elaborated melodies and simple harmony more than music which elaborates more other components of music and doesn't offer so much from the melodic perspective. I basically share the philosophy of galant music: "Elaborate the melody, but keep other things simple, so that the melody flows very well".



> I suppose by claiming that Zimmer is successful you mean commercially? Aesthetically I find his music offensive but that is just me.


I mean that he's a well regarded composer. Sure he also earns a lot of money (which is the commercial success about which you were speaking), but very often the commercially succesful music is not well regarded. In the case of Hans Zimmer, you can easily find his name in the lists of "best living composers" and a lot of good reviews in the web.

You might say that it's a bit strange that a composer who doesn't conduct his own music (like other soundtrack composers as John Williams, James Horner, Thomas Newman,...) and that he is suspected of not even compose the music autonomously, is nominated in the lists of "best composers", but the people simply evaluate the music which comes out from the Remote Control Production and associate it with Hans Zimmer.
A lot of polemics are basically like: "Yes, the music is good, but how much credits can Zimmer really take for it?".

You can simply change the statement "Hans Zimmer is a good composer" with "Remote Control Production is a good composer" and go on.


Now, the music (whoever really composed/arranged it) is surely aesthetically offensive for someone: it's impossible to satisfacte everyone. I have a friend who says that classical music sucks. So, a composer is not unsuccesful because some persons hate his music, but he's succesful if there are many persons who love it.
Hans Zimmer is promoted by the same western society that also promotes Mozart.



> My point is that most people who have spent a lot of time with classical music don't react against atonal music. Certainly, most active members here don't. You are in a sad minority, scared to dip your toe in what came next and opting instead for comfort music. You fear most classical music of the last 120 years as a war. You miss so much.


In few words, @DaveM and I like soundtracks but not avant-garde music, while you seem to like avant-garde music but not soundtracks. The persons who like both might say that we have both limited tastes.


----------



## composingmusic

DaveM said:


> 3 times in 10 years at the Proms, the last time being 5 years ago


I'm a little confused by this – there's been contemporary works at the Proms with far, far greater frequency than what you've just cited. 

Looking at 2021: 

30.7 – _When Soft Voices Die_ (premiere) by Sir James MacMillan with Dalia Stasevska and BBCSO

2.8 – _Cloudline_ (premiere) by Elizabeth Ogonek with Ryan Bancroft and BBCNOW

5.8 – _The Exterminating Angel Symphony_ (London premiere) by Thomas Adès' with Mirga Gražinytė-Tyla and CBSO

13.8 – _Spring's Shining Wake_ by Anthony Payne with Martin Brabbins and BBCSO

15.8 – _Qhawe_, _As You Are_, and _Lerato_ by Abel Selaocoe with Clark Rundell and BBCNOW
15.8 – _Bambara_ and _Dounia Iafou_ by Simo Lagnawi (same concert)

19.8 – _Many Are the Wonders_ by Ken Burton with the BBC Singers
19.8 – _Birdchant_ (premiere) by Bernard Hughes (same concert)
19.8 – _A New Flame_ (premiere) by Nico Muhly (same concert)
19.8 – _Ave Verum Corpus Re-imagined_ by Roderick Williams (same concert)
19.8 – _Aetherworld_ (premiere) by Shiva Feshareki (same concert)

23.8 – Several works by Ariel Ramírez with Sean Shibe and Adam Walker

27.8 – _Where Icebergs Dance Away_ by Charlotte Bray with Sakari Oramo and BBCSO

31.8 – _The Way to Castle Yonder_ by Oliver Knussen with Sir George Benjamin and Mahler Chamber Orchestra
31.8 – _Concerto for Orchestra_ (premiere) by Sir George Benjamin (same concert)

5.9 – _The Imagined Forest _(premiere) by Grace-Evangeline Mason with Domingo Hindoyan and RLPO

7.9 – _Subito con forza_ (UK premiere) by Unsuk Chin with Sir Mark Elder and Hallé

Source: BBC Proms

Note, too, that I'm mainly focusing on music written within the last 50 years. If I were to include everything written after 1900, the list would be much, much longer.


----------



## composingmusic

And following from my previous comment, we see a similar number of premieres this year, in 2022. I'm not going to break down the list like I just did, but you can check for yourself here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/proms/events/by/date/2022


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> Did you give that analogy any thought before posting it? Do you really suggest that the creation of music by children randomly hitting notes is relative to the creation of music by a deaf Beethoven. What Beethoven accomplished as a deaf composer was one of the miracles of a human conquering adversity as was Helen Keller becoming a world-famous speaker and author. Somehow, I don’t equate that with the creation of the Bubbles music.


I was using the Beethoven example of someone judging the music based on what they know about its creation without having heard it. At the time of the creation of Beethoven's late works, some critics thought it was ugly music, and there are people today who do not enjoy his late works, e.g. Op. 133.

But randomness can produce artistic results. Many people find beauty in sunsets, and beauty in bird song, or other sounds of nature. Why is it hard for you to believe that the random hitting of notes by children could not also create artistic results?


----------



## Boychev

People tend to have a very narrow idea of "art" as something mechanical: someone puts some parts together cleverly and then we admire how well the thing was made the same way we admire the newest model of car, a fancy watch, a figure skater pulling off impressive numbers, the fancy graphics of the newest computer game, etc.

It doesn't matter how it's produced, what matters is engaging with it. Because we're all different, we engage more successfully with some kinds of works and less successfully with others the same way we engage differently with different people. Randomness is just the mechanism for producing the work and it naturally results in a different character of work than carefully and deliberately planing and developing a work by building on an aesthetic tradition such as tonal music. What this experiment proves isn't anything that has to do with talent, it's that some people are now at a stage where they are willing to engage with the free-associative, surreal, abstract, "weird" aesthetic that results from randomness.

Which is not a surprise at all. Culture and society as a whole are nowadays mechanized, predictable, dehumanized. Why wouldn't someone purposefully seek out randomness? Planning and following plans takes up most of our lives nowadays and music has always been to some extent about providing you with something of an escape from everyday life.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> But randomness can produce artistic results. Many people find beauty in sunsets, and beauty in bird song, or other sounds of nature. Why is it hard for you to believe that the random hitting of notes by children could not also create artistic results?


Similarly, a ton of human _creativity and ingenuity_ went into inventing ice cream. Do we all have to acknowledge its value and the inventor's "achievement" in inventing it even if we don't care for its taste? Just cause something was created by rules of good taste and has been appreciated by many, it doesn't mean it has everlasting intrinsic value to be acknowledged by everyone.


----------



## Denerah Bathory

SanAntone said:


> My bar is set to the music I find interesting and fulfilling. I am interested in how the music sounds more than where it came from. The only reason to concern myself with the composer is to follow up with other works. But I often enjoy a work as a one-off and am happy to have had the experience even if I never hear something else by the same composer.
> 
> In theory, if random sounds created by children playing around on pianos resulted in music which I found interesting and fulfilling, then that's fine. I prefer to remove ego from the process of creation and critical judgment and simply listen to the music with an open mind.
> 
> If that is too low of a bar in your opinion, then so be it.


I prefer to remove Ego from the process of inquiry and discernment and objectively recognize your comment as the embodiment of everything that's wrong with western culture today!

(Random content consuming and no sense of dedication to the artists who provide such "content".)


----------



## Denerah Bathory

Boychev said:


> People tend to have a very narrow idea of "art" as something mechanical: someone puts some parts together cleverly and then we admire how well the thing was made the same way we admire the newest model of car, a fancy watch, a figure skater pulling off impressive numbers, the fancy graphics of the newest computer game, etc.
> 
> It doesn't matter how it's produced, what matters is engaging with it. Because we're all different, we engage more successfully with some kinds of works and less successfully with others the same way we engage differently with different people. Randomness is just the mechanism for producing the work and it naturally results in a different character of work than carefully and deliberately planing and developing a work by building on an aesthetic tradition such as tonal music. What this experiment proves isn't anything that has to do with talent, it's that some people are now at a stage where they are willing to engage with the free-associative, surreal, abstract, "weird" aesthetic that results from randomness.
> 
> Which is not a surprise at all. Culture and society as a whole are nowadays mechanized, predictable, dehumanized. Why wouldn't someone purposefully seek out randomness? Planning and following plans takes up most of our lives nowadays and music has always been to some extent about providing you with something of an escape from everyday life.


And allow chaos to infiltrate noble races and corrupt western culture from within? No thanks!


----------



## Denerah Bathory

Denerah Bathory said:


> And allow chaos to infiltrate noble races and corrupt western culture from within? No thanks!


No more of this Bolshevik and Frankfurt school nonsense here!


----------



## DaveM

mikeh375 said:


> I perceive a flaw in this line of thinking Dave, but before I go on, I am now assuming that part of your definition of AG is atonality in general, given your railing against the apparent lack of tune and harmony etc.


I’ve made it clear that I separate avant-garde works from atonal works in general. Parenthetically, a recent poster implied that avant-garde and contemporary music were one and the same; I don’t know where that came from. Anyway, I’m not a big fan of a lot of modern CM, but a few years ago I tried to listen to more Schoenberg and related serial music so that I wasn’t dismissing it along with avant-garde. Having done so, I came to understand that there is a melodic line and some harmony in say, the Schoenberg Piano Concerto. It won’t be on my playlist, but I believe those kind of works belong under the CM tent. IMO, the works of what I consider to be avant-garde (think Ferneyhough, Stockhausen) don’t.



> It is also nonsensical to hold atonality and todays practitioners to damming, judgemental account using comparisons to CPT just because you don't like the music.


Given the number of times that I have specifically not damned atonality and it’s composers in general (as I again express in my response just above) it’s unfortunate that you had to stick that in. You were doing so well until then.



> ..No, which is why I tried to make it clear by saying "in general" which clearly failed.
> I hope you listened to it and I was hoping you'd be able to at least hear more 'music' in the new rendering than the midi playback posted, especially if you A/B (alternate) between the 2 tracks. I was of course gutted to see you didn't even bother to reply negatively....
> When programming, one has to concentrate on every note in every part and work with the score in detail for extended periods of time (an hour in this case). It's inevitable given my composery mind, that snippets stick as repeated listens are necessary as the music builds up layer by layer. This aspect of programming and composing for that matter -the obsessive and repetitious side - has always caused problems when trying to switch off and relax and is a problem or annoyance every composer will recognise.
> As to my thoughts about the Bubbles I did blow up, well I thought there was a good bit towards the end, but it didn't do for me what Webern does. However, I also failed to detect anything child-like about it.


Overall, an interesting post and I appreciate the information, given that it’s coming from an experienced composer. I’ll just say that what you describe resonates _when it comes to a lot of modern/contemporary works_, but not (for me) as applied to avant-garde works where I don’t see any sign of a rule book. Much as those here wish to dismiss out of hand the Bubbles Experiment, IMO, it uncovered an uncomfortable truth. Also, I mention again, I will question any music that people want to call CM when there doesn’t appear any way of telling good music from bad.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> I was using the Beethoven example of someone judging the music based on what they know about its creation without having heard it. At the time of the creation of Beethoven's late works, some critics thought it was ugly music, and there are people today who do not enjoy his late works, e.g. Op. 133.


Exceptions don’t prove the rule especially as applied to Beethoven’s late works which are now held in the highest esteem by anyone who knows their classical music. One may not ‘enjoy’ Op. 133, but show me someone who doesn‘t understand what an accomplishment it is and I’ll show you someone who is a CM newbie or if not, rather uninformed.



> But randomness can produce artistic results. Many people find beauty in sunsets, and beauty in bird song, or other sounds of nature. Why is it hard for you to believe that the random hitting of notes by children could not also create artistic results?


You continue to use analogies that don’t even remotely apply. Besides, the randomness of children tinkering on a keyboard does not apply to sunsets and birdsong which are far more predictable.


----------



## Aries

SanAntone said:


> Why do you see it as a "problem" that "relatively few" people enjoy modernist music? When I enjoy a musical work, it makes no difference if I am among millions or the only person who enjoys it.


Should the taste of other people matter? On the one hand I think its terrible to aim at the taste of the majority. I think the results in popular culture are just bad, shallow and it gets worse and worse. But on the other hand the complete other extrem to ignore the taste of other people entirly might also be not optimal. Composers might end up in a bubble, where they only listen to the opinion of like-minded people, and they lose any attraction and relevance to people outside, simple people. 

Is the avantgarde about a waste of talent or about a aloof-snobbish company? Anyway something is very wrong with it. Classical music is much more niche today than it was in the past, what is unnecessary and many great works that could be written just aren't.



Enthusiast said:


> Personally I don't want re-warmed Brahms - it would be an insult to a composer I love (i.e. Brahms) - and I want to hear what composers today can come up with that is fresh and new and relevant.


What makes a composing style relevant? Objectively relevant? Distant to Brahms? This is some ideological nonsense. There are many ways to develop the old music. The way the avantgarde does it is quite extremist and is not the only way. They may say it is the only way, but that is also some ideological nonsense.


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> You continue to use analogies that don’t even remotely apply. Besides, the randomness of children tinkering on a keyboard does not apply to sunsets and birdsong which are far more predictable.


I was pointing out that randomness by itself does not disqualify a musical work from being appreciated as good music. Randomness, chance, or Aleatoric music has been used by composers for musical composition going back centuries:

*From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*


> Compositions that could be considered a precedent for aleatory composition date back to at least the late 15th century, with the genre of the catholicon, exemplified by the _Missa cuiusvis toni _of *Johannes Ockeghem*. A later genre was the _Musikalisches Würfelspiel _or musical dice game, popular in the late 18th and early 19th century. (One such dice game is attributed to *Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.*) These games consisted of a sequence of musical measures, for which each measure had several possible versions and a procedure for selecting the precise sequence based on the throwing of a number of dice.
> 
> The French artist Marcel Duchamp composed two pieces between 1913 and 1915 based on chance operations. One of these, _Erratum Musical _written with Duchamp's sisters Yvonne and Magdeleine for three voices, was first performed at the Manifestation of Dada on marche 27th 1920 and was eventually published in 1934. Two of his contemporaries, *Francis Picabia* and *Georges Ribemont-Dessaignes*, also experimented with chance composition, these works being performed at a Festival Dada staged at the Salle Gaveau concert hall, Paris, on 26 May 1920. American composer *John Cage*'s Music of Changes (1951) was "the first composition to be largely determined by random procedures", though his indeterminacy is of a different order from Meyer-Eppler's concept.


There is nothing bogus about the technique used in the Bubbles experiment, it isn't unique, nor is it an illegitimate technique for classical musical composition. The only thing bogus about the Bubbles experiment was the intention of the creator to defraud the jury of this event. The fact that they produced a musical work the jury found to be of quality is ironic, to say the least.


----------



## Chat Noir

There is one thing to note in this though; that what the fellow in OP's post was purporting to show is invalid because he's comparing monkeys hitting typewriters with composers who make deliberate choices for reasons.


----------



## SanAntone

Aries said:


> Should the taste of other people matter? On the one hand I think its terrible to aim at the taste of the majority. I think the results in popular culture are just bad, shallow and it gets worse and worse. But on the other hand the complete other extrem to ignore the taste of other people entirly might also be not optimal. Composers might end up in a bubble, where they only listen to the opinion of like-minded people, and they lose any attraction and relevance to people outside, simple people.
> 
> Is the avantgarde about a waste of talent or about a aloof-snobbish company? Anyway something is very wrong with it. Classical music is much more niche today than it was in the past, what is unnecessary and many great works that could be written just aren't.


It is my view that composers are free to use whatever process, techniques, and of course their personal aesthetic philosophy and taste to create their musical works. 

The simple answer is that if you find avant-garde music irrelevant, a waste of talent or about an aloof-snobbish company, and very wrong - then just avoid it, don't listen to it, pay no attention to those composers.


----------



## hammeredklavier

By such reasoning, "composing by rules" isn't infallible by nature either; there's virtually no limit to how much technological advancements "composing machines" will undergo.


----------



## Chat Noir

'Composing machines' are not making the same type of choices. They work merely by statistical input and never seem to value the element of surprise. They're never 'avant-garde'.


----------



## mikeh375

DaveM said:


> Overall, an interesting post and I appreciate the information, given that it’s coming from an experienced composer. I’ll just say that what you describe resonates _when it comes to a lot of modern/contemporary works_, but not (for me) as applied to avant-garde works where I don’t see any sign of a rule book. *Much as those here wish to dismiss out of hand the Bubbles Experiment, IMO, it uncovered an uncomfortable truth. Also, I mention again, I will question any music that people want to call CM when there doesn’t appear any way of telling good music from bad.*


I agree that Bubbles' implications might seem like an uncomfortable revelation, especially to bewildered tonal ears that get no help in the way of compromise from a composer. But tbh it's not news to composers that randomness is a part of the deal when composing, this is most evident when improvising freely - which incidentally can lead to much in the way of promising material. A composer will study and consequently develop a personal instinct that will tend to help in guiding any random thought processes, consciously or subconsciously. Unless pursued on purpose, randomness is antithetical to the composer's imposition of will onto their notes because control and therefore expression is potentially relinquished.

I also agree that the complexity of the language really does make comprehension and assessment that much harder but you have to ask yourself why a composer would study for long, hard years only to be intent on duping us all. The uncompromising language of atonality requires different ears and mindsets from the composer and listener that need to be acquired, thus defining further into esotericism an already obtuse and niche definition of what music is for us all. Still, it's worth the effort imv.

BTW, After a concentrated hour with the opening mvt of 'Bubbles' I found the orchestration to be workable and the part writing intellectually intruiging for the players. These are some of the more objective parameters one can use to discern competence and quality irrespective of language.


----------



## Forster

composingmusic said:


> I'm a little confused by this – there's been contemporary works at the Proms with far, far greater frequency than what you've just cited.
> 
> Looking at 2021:
> 
> 30.7 – _When Soft Voices Die_ (premiere) by Sir James MacMillan with Dalia Stasevska and BBCSO
> 
> 2.8 – _Cloudline_ (premiere) by Elizabeth Ogonek with Ryan Bancroft and BBCNOW
> 
> 5.8 – _The Exterminating Angel Symphony_ (London premiere) by Thomas Adès' with Mirga Gražinytė-Tyla and CBSO
> 
> 13.8 – _Spring's Shining Wake_ by Anthony Payne with Martin Brabbins and BBCSO
> 
> 15.8 – _Qhawe_, _As You Are_, and _Lerato_ by Abel Selaocoe with Clark Rundell and BBCNOW
> 15.8 – _Bambara_ and _Dounia Iafou_ by Simo Lagnawi (same concert)
> 
> 19.8 – _Many Are the Wonders_ by Ken Burton with the BBC Singers
> 19.8 – _Birdchant_ (premiere) by Bernard Hughes (same concert)
> 19.8 – _A New Flame_ (premiere) by Nico Muhly (same concert)
> 19.8 – _Ave Verum Corpus Re-imagined_ by Roderick Williams (same concert)
> 19.8 – _Aetherworld_ (premiere) by Shiva Feshareki (same concert)
> 
> 23.8 – Several works by Ariel Ramírez with Sean Shibe and Adam Walker
> 
> 27.8 – _Where Icebergs Dance Away_ by Charlotte Bray with Sakari Oramo and BBCSO
> 
> 31.8 – _The Way to Castle Yonder_ by Oliver Knussen with Sir George Benjamin and Mahler Chamber Orchestra
> 31.8 – _Concerto for Orchestra_ (premiere) by Sir George Benjamin (same concert)
> 
> 5.9 – _The Imagined Forest _(premiere) by Grace-Evangeline Mason with Domingo Hindoyan and RLPO
> 
> 7.9 – _Subito con forza_ (UK premiere) by Unsuk Chin with Sir Mark Elder and Hallé
> 
> Source: BBC Proms
> 
> Note, too, that I'm mainly focusing on music written within the last 50 years. If I were to include everything written after 1900, the list would be much, much longer.


I'm sure the confusion will be resolved when DaveM returns to answer the question I posed in response this post which you quoted. When we're only offered a single work by a single composer as an example of the avant-garde he objects to, it's a bit difficult to follow his argument.

It also shifts from "music without a melody" to "music where you can't tell the difference between the good and the bad," which is, IMO, even more confusing, since the latter criteria can apply to music of all kinds.

Unless it just boils down to ""music where DaveM can't tell the difference between the good and the bad."


----------



## Forster

mikeh375 said:


> Well I said I would and I have. I've rendered the first movement of 'Bubbles' with some decent samples. I hope those of us interested in the thorny issues raised in this thread will click the link below to download a small folder that contains the original midi as posted on YT and a new version. The clips are only approx. 18" long but are a world apart in terms of actual musical expression. I'll be interested to see what folk think about this because for me at least, the new version brings out some musicality, an overall timbre closer to the reality of the score and enhances the expressionist gestures to give the music a better way of being assessed. I slowed the tempo down too. Give it a few listens with headphones if you can, even one listen to the original and then the new will show you what's missing musically from the original midi, like it or loathe it. The link is valid for a week from time of posting.
> 
> Bubbles


Oddly, I am reminded of some of my brother's compositions, which he has sometimes rendered only using MIDI. Once other "instruments" are substituted to give the work a more textured interpretation, it becomes more attractive, easier to pick out a shape, a rhythm, a dynamic, instead of just hearing random notes. Thanks.


----------



## mikeh375

Forster said:


> Oddly, I am reminded of some of my brother's compositions, which he has sometimes rendered only using MIDI. Once other "instruments" are substituted to give the work a more textured interpretation, it becomes more attractive, easier to pick out a shape, a rhythm, a dynamic, instead of just hearing random notes. Thanks.


Thanks for checking it out Forster. What you experienced is precisely what I was hoping would become apparent in order to give 'Bubbles' a fair if belated hearing in this thread. Honestly, composers do themselves no favours at all by posting raw General Midi playback sometimes because its their music that loses out as it gets buried in a soulless and unmusical binary cacophony.

Just thinking about what Dave (@DaveM ) has written re his definition of AG makes me wonder if rhythm is the worse culprit here for him, even more so than complicated line and harmony. He has given Schoenberg a fair crack of the whip and accepts there is a link in his work to the canon he loves, but not Fernyhough and Stockhausen. Schoenberg's rhythm in the Piano Concerto is rather tame, being somewhat metrically consistent and traditional compared to works by the other two mentioned, who tend to divide time in a more liberal and unpredictable way. I've mentioned elsewhere that John Adams has called rhythm the "great unifier" because the regular pulse and simpler divisions used in earlier periods are easily recognised and 'felt' by the listener. They provide a reassuring sense of consistency compared to disorientating and mercurial flights of imagination encouraged by emancipation from a barline and overt pulse.


----------



## DaveM

Forster said:


> *I'm sure the confusion will be resolved* when DaveM returns to answer the question I posed in response this post which you quoted. When we're only offered a single work by a single composer as an example of the avant-garde he objects to, it's a bit difficult to follow his argument.
> 
> It also shifts from "music without a melody" to "music where you can't tell the difference between the good and the bad," *which is, IMO, even more confusing*, since the latter criteria can apply to music of all kinds.
> 
> Unless it just boils down to ""music where DaveM can't tell the difference between the good and the bad."


You seem to be in a state of confusion. In addition, you might be surprised to find out that you are likely in the minority when it comes to being confused about the kind of music I’m talking about when I refer to avant-garde. That also applies to the likelihood that I’m not the only one around here that sees the connection between music without melody and harmony and an inability to tell good music from bad. In case you missed it, that is the premise of the OP.

(Fwiw, the OP specifically mentions avant-garde. Unfortunately, elsewhere, it uses the word atonal which muddies the water. Avant-garde music is atonal. Atonal music is not necessarily avant-garde.)


----------



## composingmusic

DaveM said:


> That also applies to the likelihood that I’m not the only one around here that sees the connection between music without melody and harmony and an inability to tell good music from bad.


I think this ties into Chat Noir's point of "comparing monkeys hitting typewriters with composers who make deliberate choices for reasons." There are composers who put an incredible amount of time and effort into making sure every single note is what they want it to be, and I think this can definitely be heard in their work. Using the terms "good" and "bad" creates problems because different people define these in different ways, and everyone's got their own stylistic preferences. However, I think that there is quite a lot of contemporary music where there is a very high degree of artistic merit, imagination, skill, and craft. 

Also, different composers have different priorities. Some people will be incredibly meticulous about some elements of their music and use randomness to determine other parameters. Others will use randomness to generate material, and then fine-tune that to what they want it to be. There's so many approaches that it's quite difficult to generalize, imho. 



DaveM said:


> Avant-garde music is atonal. Atonal music is not necessarily avant-garde.


The word "atonal" is a difficult one – by atonal, are you simply referring to pieces that don't conform to common practice tonality, or are you talking about something that deliberately tries to move away from the concept of pitch hierarchy? "Avant-garde" is also a difficult term for me – I've outlined this in more detail in another post, but there are so many stylistic directions one can choose from that picking one that is "forward-looking" doesn't really mean a whole lot, in my opinion. 

Most contemporary classical music that I'm aware of does not use tonality in a strictly common-practice way. However, I think saying that it's atonal in the sense of deliberately moving away from pitch hierarchy, or as something that "lacks melody and harmony" is erroneous. Sure, there is music that focuses on timbre and gesture, and not so much on pitch (this kind of music can be fascinating if it's well-written), but there is a huge range of music where pitch is incredibly important. It's true that one does not typically get melody in the common practice sense, but there is also quite a lot of music that is lyrical.


----------



## Boychev

Denerah Bathory said:


> And allow chaos to infiltrate noble races and corrupt western culture from within? No thanks!


Hahahah, good one! Though I don't know if I would go as far as calling anyone unwilling to accept a wider variety of engagements with art an outright fascist, even if I know where you're coming from, emotionally speaking - the common attitudes against modern art tend to be very frustrating. Most good, normal people I would say engage with art in a rather narrow way... it's not a slight on them in any way, it certainly doesn't make them fascists, it's just something that tends to make communication about art difficult. Few people going into a museum are willing to stand in front of a painting and just contemplate it for awhile, most just look for concepts or history or politics or something else and quickly browse by.


----------



## Sid James

I was last here over a year ago, when I basically argued that love it or loathe it, today anything can qualify as art (link at bottom). I've got my reservations about aspects of that, but at the end of the day, I'm comfortable with the_ anything goes_ ethos of postmodernism.

I think a lot of people are critical of how art can become little more than a gimmick. There's Banksy's shredding of his own painting, the damaged remains of which ironically ended up fetching even more than the original which went for $1.4M. The same theme of pretentiousness in the contemporary art world is explored in a scene from the film _La grande belleza. _A child who is called a genius is merely frustrated by her father forcing her to create splash paintings, and takes it out on the canvas.

While we can question the pretentiousness and inanity of examples like this, it doesn't serve as an argument to try and reverse history and reimpose the ideological restrictions of modernism, let alone something from before then. I think that on the balance of it, its good that the walls and boundaries where demolished, and in a post-industrial world it was probably inevitable that they would be.



















The "Bubbles" experiment - What is...


Honestly the idea, though, that atonal composers are defrauding people is nothing but humorous. If there's one thing society, and the music industry love more than anything else, it's definitely giving people who write music with almost no mass market appeal and popular accessibility lots of money.




www.talkclassical.com


----------



## composingmusic

Sid James said:


> the_ anything goes_ ethos of postmodernism.


This is a really important point to bring up. Postmodernism is a specific philosophy that grew out as a reaction from modernism, and there are specific musical aesthetics that are very influenced by this movement (think Cage, Cardew, late Stockhausen, and others – with the big caveat that there can be various degrees of influence as well). I also think this is a valid artistic direction, and respect it for what it is, although my own aesthetic preferences are different, and I think the music I write is more influenced by modernism, particularly Scandinavian and French modernism (again, it's impossible to summarize all of the influences, but these are some of the most important ones; I also think everything does invariably influence everything around it, whether that's in a positive or negative way, i.e. using material that draws on something, or rejecting it). 

I think it's detrimental to discount other aesthetic directions, however, and I feel this has been happening earlier in this thread, with people lumping together contemporary music as something that is "atonal" and "avant-garde". 



Sid James said:


> While we can question the pretentiousness and inanity of examples like this, it doesn't serve as an argument to try and reverse history and reimpose the ideological restrictions of modernism, let alone something from before then. I think that on the balance of it, its good that the walls and boundaries where demolished, and in a post-industrial world it was probably inevitable that they would be.


Going on ideological restrictions from something before modernism, there's the added historical context that one must also take into account here. The common practice era was an extremely different time in history than the world we live in now, for a number of reasons. This is not to say one can't write music that uses common practice techniques now, but the way we approach this language in the 21st century will invariably be different from how people approached it in the 18th or 19th centuries.


----------



## HansZimmer

SanAntone said:


> Do you think you can prove that the Bubbles music is bad music?


You can enjoy whatever you want, but playing random notes with the piano doesn't require any compositional skills. The music for me sounds good only if there is engineering in the composition and I think that the rules of CPE are correct because they work for the average human's ear.



> That would be like someone saying that because Beethoven was deaf when he wrote his late works, they can't possibly be any good.


Are you really comparing the engineered music of the deaf Beethoven with a music produced by a child who plays random notes with the piano?
The ninth symphony follows the rules of the CPE. Beethoven simply showed that he was able to understand if a melody is good or not by simply reading it on the score.


----------



## HansZimmer

Chat Noir said:


> There is one thing to note in this though; that what the fellow in OP's post was purporting to show is invalid because he's comparing monkeys hitting typewriters with composers who make deliberate choices for reasons.


The argument of the OP is that music composed by monkeys hitting typewriters can win against other engineered avant-garde music. The conclusion of the experiment is that the rules followed by the avant-garde composers don't make sense, so why do they have to bother with them? Why they don't simply play random notes?


----------



## mikeh375

HansZimmer said:


> The argument of the OP is that music composed by monkeys hitting typewriters can win against other engineered avant-garde music. The conclusion of the experiment is that the rules followed by the avant-garde composers don't make sense, so why do they have to bother with them? *Why they don't simply play random notes?*


.....because if they did there'd be no imposition of will, no serious control, no form, no inevitability and not much in the way of a sincere personal expression....no art.


----------



## Aries

SanAntone said:


> It is my view that composers are free to use whatever process, techniques, and of course their personal aesthetic philosophy and taste to create their musical works.


Is their freedom questioned? Assessing developments is something else than dictating developments.



SanAntone said:


> The simple answer is that if you find avant-garde music irrelevant, a waste of talent or about an aloof-snobbish company, and very wrong - then just avoid it, don't listen to it, pay no attention to those composers.


But the more important question is to which composers I should pay attention. I see a lack of a specific type of music, symphonic music based on the developments of Bruckner and Mahler. Is there a successor of Mahler who did not completely broke with the romantic style? Schönberg had the talent but he chose the dark side. Outside Germany there is much less of a problem. Many nations had their musical awakening in the 20th century in a romantic style, but it is a different style than the austro-german style. Another problem is of course the performance practice. Many great romantic works from the 20th-21st century are recorded just very few times. And I am sure many works have yet to be discovered. But the avantgarde department thinks it is not relevant while the saturated bulk of the audience just wants to hear the old works. An unfortunate combination.


----------



## HansZimmer

mikeh375 said:


> .....because if they did there'd be no imposition of will, no serious control, no form, no inevitability and not much in the way of a sincere personal expression....no art.


Not necessarily all forms of musical engineerings produce a sensible result for the ears of humans. This is the point.

The test explained by the OP might not be conclusive, but it suggests an interesting method to use in a serious scientific research.

We can also do a similar test with the soundtracks, if we want. Can a soundtrack composed by a child who plays random notes get a Oscar nomination and win against the major film music composers (John Williams, Thomas Newman, Howard, Remote Control Production, ...)?

We will see which will be the results of the research, but I'd like to place my bets before we begin: unless you use the child in the picture here below, there is no chance to beat John Williams, Thomas Newman, Howard or the Remote Control Production.
On the other hand, I'm not sure that we need this child to beat the engineered avant-garde.


----------



## Chat Noir

HansZimmer said:


> The argument of the OP is that music composed by monkeys hitting typewriters can win against other engineered avant-garde music. The conclusion of the experiment is that the rules followed by the avant-garde composers don't make sense, so why do they have to bother with them? Why they don't simply play random notes?


Then his argument is a resounding failure. Firstly by conceiving of the experiment and overseeing, organising, notating and orchestrating it, Comitas added compositional intent. He also engineered an 'experiment' to serve only a musical prejudice. If what he did and what some other composer chooses to do when employing an aleatoric element in his composition in a work, are the same thing, we only end up at a point of aesthetic judgement. If the outcome is interesting to some listeners it succeeded. 

A composer could be open or not in revealing his process of initiating and using randomised sound production and then say what he did with this afterwards. As was noted early on in this thread the music Comitas ended up with is middling stuff, though might have interest for players or listeners. His conclusion, which is false, is that if anyone judges it as worthy it puts a black mark on legitimate aesthetic judgement, but it doesn't! Maybe he should try to be a better composer, then the results of his kids mucking about wouldn't be judged more interesting that what he has come up with so far.


----------



## mikeh375

HansZimmer said:


> Not necessarily all forms of musical engineerings produce a sensible result for the ears of humans. This is the point.................


I think the point is that you don't like atonality, nothing more than that really Hans. Remember, composers are humans too....well some are...


----------



## HansZimmer

mikeh375 said:


> I think the point is that you don't like atonality, nothing more than that really Hans.
> 
> 
> I think the point is that you don't like atonality, nothing more than that really Hans. Remember, composers are humans too....well some are...


I admit that I don't like this piano concerto...






... as much as I like this one.






However, @DaveM is right about the fact that there is a substantial difference between the second viennese school and the avant-garde music. In few words: I understand why someone can appreciate the work of Schoenberg, although it's not my cup of tea.


----------



## Luchesi

Chat Noir said:


> Then his argument is a resounding failure. Firstly by conceiving of the experiment and overseeing, organising, notating and orchestrating it, Comitas added compositional intent. He also engineered an 'experiment' to serve only a musical prejudice. If what he did and what some other composer chooses to do when employing an aleatoric element in his composition in a work, are the same thing, we only end up at a point of aesthetic judgement. If the outcome is interesting to some listeners it succeeded.
> 
> A composer could be open or not in revealing his process of initiating and using randomised sound production and then say what he did with this afterwards. As was noted early on in this thread the music Comitas ended up with is middling stuff, though might have interest for players or listeners. His conclusion, which is false, is that if anyone judges it as worthy it puts a black mark on legitimate aesthetic judgement, but it doesn't! Maybe he should try to be a better composer, then the results of his kids mucking about wouldn't be judged more interesting that what he has come up with so far.


I think of it as an experiment for the experimenter and the critics. So, everything I can think to say about it is quite banal and has obvious caveats.

What is music (to human beings)? When and what does it come from in our origins? We can even be reminded to ask how did it change our brains? That's a biggie!

What are children doing when they're pounding on a keyboard? What's really random in the universe, I mean compared to children whacking with a playful pulse on a keyboard? And yet we recognize it in ourselves. A child in the highchair, who's supposed to be finishing their dinner, will sometimes smash down on the tray table to see something fall off and break on the floor (we can see that they're not being merely malicious). Is that exploratory impulse what composers are metaphorically engaged in? It is sometimes what I experience when I'm playing the piano, I feel it. It's enlivening. You carry on and get those feelings out and then you do it again more 'properly' (it's difficult to relate this to others). I can remember the images of Beethoven stomping around his apartment and pounding on the piano at times... of course it confirmed to his neighbors that he was a wild man..


----------



## Luchesi

Luchesi said:


> I think of it as an experiment for the experimenter and the critics. So, everything I can think to say about it is quite banal and has obvious caveats.
> 
> What is music (to human beings)? When and what does it come from in our origins? We can even be reminded to ask how did it change our brains? That's a biggie!
> 
> What are children doing when they're pounding on a keyboard? What's really random in the universe, I mean compared to children whacking with a playful pulse on a keyboard? And yet we recognize it in ourselves. A child in the highchair, who's supposed to be finishing their dinner, will sometimes smash down on the tray table to see something fall off and break on the floor (we can see that they're not being merely malicious). Is that exploratory impulse what composers are metaphorically engaged in? It is sometimes what I experience when I'm playing the piano, I feel it. It's enlivening. You carry on and get those feelings out and then you do it again more 'properly' (it's difficult to relate this to others). I can remember the images of Beethoven stomping around his apartment and pounding on the piano at times... of course it confirmed to his neighbors that he was a wild man..


What inspired my post above was the comment that my cousin made about this video. She said it sounded like toddlers pounding on a keyboard. She really can't hear music and it's quite an interesting subject for me. Too many notes and she can't follow what's going on..
Look at how his fingers dance!, and I expect that when he's practicing it will get more 'lively' (kinetic) than this;


----------



## Sid James

composingmusic said:


> This is a really important point to bring up. Postmodernism is a specific philosophy that grew out as a reaction from modernism, and there are specific musical aesthetics that are very influenced by this movement (think Cage, Cardew, late Stockhausen, and others – with the big caveat that there can be various degrees of influence as well). I also think this is a valid artistic direction, and respect it for what it is, although my own aesthetic preferences are different, and I think the music I write is more influenced by modernism, particularly Scandinavian and French modernism (again, it's impossible to summarize all of the influences, but these are some of the most important ones; I also think everything does invariably influence everything around it, whether that's in a positive or negative way, i.e. using material that draws on something, or rejecting it).


I think that one of the best things to come out of the decline of modernism is the breakup of the tendency to form schools. I think that most musicians have for a long time felt no pressure to join some trend or go against another one. They can choose what they want and develop their own art from a variety of aesthetic and technical approaches available. So what you say you're doing sounds typical of this sort of approach.



> I think it's detrimental to discount other aesthetic directions, however, and I feel this has been happening earlier in this thread, with people lumping together contemporary music as something that is "atonal" and "avant-garde".


I think there's too much energy put into building walls and trying to put things into boxes on this forum. It flies against reality, because even if everyone here agreed that certain types of music could be excluded from the umbrella term classical music, so what? Would it change anything going on in the real world on the ground? It's got more to do with tribalism and power struggles on this forum more than anything else.



> Going on ideological restrictions from something before modernism, there's the added historical context that one must also take into account here. The common practice era was an extremely different time in history than the world we live in now, for a number of reasons. This is not to say one can't write music that uses common practice techniques now, but the way we approach this language in the 21st century will invariably be different from how people approached it in the 18th or 19th centuries.


Basically, a composer can do what he or she wants. I'm all for critical thinking about everything, including music. However, if that is part of some sort of agenda or to argue a winding back of the clock, then its no better than what's apparently being argued against. Again, better to try and just do what you want as an artist rather than put energy into what amounts to something like raising the Titanic. It's fruitless and absurd.


----------



## SanAntone

Aries said:


> But the more important question is to which composers I should pay attention. I see a lack of a specific type of music, symphonic music based on the developments of Bruckner and Mahler. Is there a successor of Mahler who did not completely broke with the romantic style? Schönberg had the talent but he chose the dark side. Outside Germany there is much less of a problem. Many nations had their musical awakening in the 20th century in a romantic style, but it is a different style than the austro-german style. Another problem is of course the performance practice. Many great romantic works from the 20th-21st century are recorded just very few times. And I am sure many works have yet to be discovered. But the avantgarde department thinks it is not relevant while the saturated bulk of the audience just wants to hear the old works. An unfortunate combination.


There are plenty of symphonic composers writing orchestral works that extend the tradition of Mahler and Bruckner: *Witold Lutosławski*, *Krzysztof Penderecki*, *Henryk Górecki*, *Hans Werner Henze*, and more recently *Erkki-Sven Tüür.* A well-resected classical music commentator creator of the website *5:4* just completed a survey off Tüür's 10 symphonies. You might take a look at what he wrote.

My guess is that because you have written off most of the music written in the 20th/21st centuries you have missed out on finding exciting new works in the style you describe as not existing.

Also your assumption about the avant-garde is a distortion of the reality. I have interviewed dozens of young composers, many that could be described as working in an avant-garde style, and none have expressed the idea that the music of previous eras is irrelevant. All have completed a traditional music conservatory training, often with doctorates, and many are professors themselves at world class institutions. 

These composers are serious about their work, create performing collectives and ensembles and promote not only their own works but the work of their peers.


----------



## composingmusic

Sid James said:


> I think there's too much energy put into building walls and trying to put things into boxes on this forum.


That's fair. The way I see the evolution of music, especially 20th and 21st century music, because of the many aesthetic and stylistic directions (and this is an ongoing process) is an incredibly complicated web-like structure, where different people connect and interact with each other in various ways. I think it's fascinating to look at the historical context and how people interacted – this is often reflected in the music of the respective composers in a variety of ways. 



Sid James said:


> Basically, a composer can do what he or she wants. I'm all for critical thinking about everything, including music. However, if that is part of some sort of agenda or to argue a winding back of the clock, then its no better than what's apparently being argued against. Again, better to try and just do what you want as an artist rather than put energy into what amounts to something like raising the Titanic. It's fruitless and absurd.


Also, fair enough. I agree with this sentiment, and I'm sorry if my earlier reply came off as me attempting to peddle an agenda or argue a winding back of the clock. I was just trying to say that if someone wants to write music in an older style, there's nothing stopping them, but this will inevitably be a different process than someone writing such music in, say, Mozart's time. There's so much that's happened in both world history at large, and in music history, between then and now, that writing this music will mean something different (at least in my view).


----------



## composingmusic

SanAntone said:


> Also your assumption about the avant-garde is a distortion of the reality. I have interviewed dozens of young composers, many that could be described as working in an avant-garde style, and none have expressed the idea that the music of previous eras is irrelevant. All have completed a traditional music conservatory training, often with doctorates, and many are professors themselves at world class institutions.


This is consistent with my experience as well. Most composers I know have conservatoire training, although there are some who come from other backgrounds as well. I can't think of a single one who would call the music of past eras irrelevant.


----------



## Aries

SanAntone said:


> There are plenty of symphonic composers writing orchestral works that extend the tradition of Mahler and Bruckner: *Witold Lutosławski*, *Krzysztof Penderecki*, *Henryk Górecki*, *Hans Werner Henze*, and more recently *Erkki-Sven Tüür.* A well-resected classical music commentator creator of the website *5:4* just completed a survey off Tüür's 10 symphonies. You might take a look at what he wrote.


I don't know music of Lutosławski and Tüür yet. Penedercki is listenable for me but I am not a huge fan yet. Penderecki, Gorecki and Henze are not similar to Mahler imo. Henze is like free atonalism, better than serialism, but certainly not what I am looking for. Some composed in a similar style like Bruckner, Furtwängler for example, but I really don't see a Mahler successor. He is for sure a special composer but a great one, but it seems like nobody wanted to write music like he did, what doesn't really make sense for me.



SanAntone said:


> My guess is that because you have written off most of the music written in the 20th/21st centuries you have missed out on finding exciting new works in the style you describe as not existing.


This is not the case. On the one hand I miss a continuation of the Wagner-Bruckner-Mahler tradition. On the other hand I see that the classical buisness shows almost no love to the many works of the 20th century I like. Just today I discovered symphonies of the georgian composer Andria Balanchivadze on Youtube. It is good tuneful rhythmical music typical for a composer from the caucasus. But the recording qualitiy is not very good. The number of recordings is low. The english and german wikipedia has almost no information about him. The russian wikipedia has more. There you can read that he wrote 5 symphonies. Russian orchestras seems to be the only ones who recorded him (and georgians orchestras I suppose). This is just the case of one composer, but it is typical.



SanAntone said:


> Also your assumption about the avant-garde is a distortion of the reality. I have interviewed dozens of young composers, many that could be described as working in an avant-garde style, and none have expressed the idea that the music of previous eras is irrelevant.


Of course they say that music of previous eras is not irrelevant. But what about non-avant garde music of the contemporary era? And it is also more about what is actually performed and recorded than about words.

There are some good Youtube channels with tons of recommendable contemporary music often in a rather romantic style:

CollectionCB2: https://www.youtube.com/user/collectionCB2/videos
NiniHampo: https://www.youtube.com/@ninihampo/videos
José Ignacio H.: https://www.youtube.com/@JoseIgnacioHorma/videos

There is certainly not a lack of good contemporary music, but I think there is a lack of performances/recordings and a specific lack in the continuation of the german symphonic tradition, which I like the most.


----------



## Chat Noir

composingmusic said:


> I was just trying to say that if someone wants to write music in an older style, there's nothing stopping them, but this will inevitably be a different process than someone writing such music in, say, Mozart's time. There's so much that's happened in both world history at large, and in music history, between then and now, that writing this music will mean something different (at least in my view).


It's perfectly legitimate to say so. It will often be either pastiche or homage and not written with the same sense of actually being alive and working in e.g. the 1780s. There's no reason for anyone to treat this music differently than any other music and not acknowledge the passage of time and change. If someone now writes a song and sings it like Al Bowlly in the style of 30s we instantly know they are paying homage and we can't simply pretend that it's just something regular. It's true that as Sid James said (do you ever think of a swannee whistle when you say Sid James? 😂) the period now has allowed anything and everything into the culture arena, but there is still acknowledgement that these things are part of some recognised cultural group and often historical revival. Whereas there is an actual contemporary modern culture being continually made as we speak. On YouTube you have people singing French gypsy jazz and dressing like the 30s. People playing 70s funk. Others recreating 80s synthpop. Everything is out there, more subcultures and revivalists than you can shake a stick at.

I wouldn't say Mozart is as obsolete as wearing powdered wigs and satin knee-breeches, but his period is over. If anyone writes like Mozart now they are doing it for the same sort of reason a novelist might write a particular book in the style of Cervantes or Anthony Trollope. For effect and as a homage and the best ones will give it a new spin. This has no bearing upon the actual Anthony Trollope being read in a perfectly serious and 'unironic' way. This goes for most of the contents of culture, not just music so I never understand why in music people tend to hold so fast to certain things. It's not like the output already created disappears from the face of the earth. We can still read and enjoy Ovid, and he still has a great reputation and cultural influence, even though no modern poets write like him.


----------



## HansZimmer

Luchesi said:


> She said it sounded like toddlers pounding on a keyboard.


What??? 
I think it's clear the there is a melody and not random notes.

You might try to play the melody at a lower speed with your piano and ask her if with a slower tempo is she able to hear the melody.

Maybe it's because she is used to low quality pop where the melodies consist of obsessive repetitions of simple motifs and she think that a more complex melody is not a melody.


----------



## SanAntone

Aries said:


> Of course they say that music of previous eras is not irrelevant. But what about non-avant garde music of the contemporary era? And it is also more about what is actually performed and recorded than about words.


Avant-garde composers are writing the kind of music which they need to express because of their inner aesthetic drive. They are not purposely denying the relevance of Mahler or Bruckner, but it has little to do with the kind of music they wish to pursue. In fact, there may few composers in the 21st century wishing to continue the tradition, except only vaguely, of Mahler and Bruckner since their _style_ is fairly obsolete today (this is not to say that their music is obsolete or irrelevant, just that composers write in styles which are current during their lifetimes. Sometimes they will employ pastiche and quote from earlier styles, but that is a post-modern technique itself). Very few serious composers wish to write in an anachronistic style. 

Your attitude is really pretty narrow since you seem to desire 21st century composers to write in the specific styes you like the most from the 19th century, instead of accepting the fact that composers will write what is important to them, today.



> There is certainly not a lack of good contemporary music, but I think there is a lack of performances/recordings and a specific lack in the continuation of the german symphonic tradition, which I like the most.


No serious composer denies the importance of Mahler and Bruckner. The fact that they employ different style than orchestral music from the 19th century is natural and can be expected since as I said before, no serious composer will simply re-write Mahler symphonies and hope to be relevant himself.


----------



## Forster

DaveM said:


> You seem to be in a state of confusion.


I won't pursue this particular point any further, except to say that I am not confused.


----------



## Forster

HansZimmer said:


> The argument of the OP is that music composed by monkeys hitting typewriters can win against other engineered avant-garde music. The conclusion of the experiment is that the rules followed by the avant-garde composers don't make sense, so why do they have to bother with them? Why they don't simply play random notes?


The argument of the OP is patently false. He himself admits that he organised the randomness.



> [The Bubbles] underlying material consisted merely of random notes played by my then young and as yet musically uneducated children, on a keyboard connected to my computer. Using several computerized processes that were entirely mechanical and in no way truly creative, I translated this meaningless material into a score playable by an ensemble of various instruments.


His conclusion is NOT that the rules of the a-g can be ignored, but that the a-g is valueless because it involves no creative or artistic input. But his "experiment" only shows that "music" can be anything we want it to be AND that the business of the critical evaluation of art is fraught with difficulty. Of course there are charlatans in both parts of the industry (the creators and the evaluators), and I might suggest that he is one.


----------



## EdwardBast

Aries said:


> I don't know music of Lutosławski and Tüür yet. Penedercki is listenable for me but I am not a huge fan yet. Penderecki, Gorecki and Henze are not similar to Mahler imo. Henze is like free atonalism, better than serialism, but certainly not what I am looking for. Some composed in a similar style like Bruckner, Furtwängler for example, but I really don't see a Mahler successor. He is for sure a special composer but a great one, but *it seems like nobody wanted to write music like he did, what doesn't really make sense for me.*


So can I assume you don't know the work of Shostakovich and Myaskovsky then? The influence of Mahler on some of their music is pretty obvious.

And why on earth would anyone, including Bruckner, want to write music that sounds like Bruckner?


----------



## Aries

Chat Noir said:


> It's perfectly legitimate to say so. It will often be either pastiche or homage and not written with the same sense of actually being alive and working in e.g. the 1780s. There's no reason for anyone to treat this music differently than any other music and not acknowledge the passage of time and change.


Alma Deutscher's Violin concerto in g minor does not feel like a pastiche or homage. It feels real. Link



Chat Noir said:


> I wouldn't say Mozart is as obsolete as wearing powdered wigs and satin knee-breeches, but his period is over.


 There is a way to look at it, where this is completely wrong. Mozart just got really popular a few decades ago. This is pretty much a period of Mozart. He is overall considered one of the 3 greatest composers if not the No. 1, *right now*.

And it was not always like this. I like to check the number of newspaper mentions per period for this purpose via the site "newspapers.com". Browse Newspapers - Newspapers.com Mozart is mentioned often since the 1980s. Before that composers of the romantic period are dominating compared to those of the classical and earlier periods. For example Richard Wagner. "Richard Wagner" has 18,222 mentions in the 1910s, while "Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart" has 224. Wagner has 30,323 mentions in the 1950s, while Mozart has 2,739. Wagner has 28,540 mentions in the 1990s while Mozart has 22,409. There is overall a swing to composers before the romantic period. So I derive that classical music overall is today more recognized for pre-romantic music than it was in 1900 or 1950. And this may explain why a young composer like Alma Deutscher composes unironically in a very old style (with some changes). This was probably unthinkable in the 1930s.



SanAntone said:


> In fact, there may few composers in the 21st century wishing to continue the tradition, except only vaguely, of Mahler and Bruckner since their _style_ is fairly obsolete today


What exactly is obsolete and why? I feel like the sonata form is seen as obsolet even by many conservative composers. But I think it is pity. It seems like the focus is more on a good and interessting sound than on structure. I like themes and development. But that is not the trend currently it seems. But obsolet? I think it is not sensible to call it obsolet.

Or the rustical sound of Bruckner and Mahler? Since the world is more urbanized now, it is ~somewhat obsolet, but it is just one aspect and does not make their style overall obsolet. Bruckners style is thinkable with an urban sound. Mahlers even more probably since he has often a grotesque mix of sounds.



SanAntone said:


> Sometimes they will employ pastiche and quote from earlier styles, but that is a post-modern technique itself). Very few serious composers wish to write in an anachronistic style.


There is the "epic music" style today. It is really well-sounding melodious "epic" orchestral music. There is no pastiche or quotes of earlier styles in it. It is kind of a reinvention of romantic music without a bound to any tradition. From an avantgarde standpoint this must be stylistically 100% anachronistic. And even from my standpoint I think the structore is really primitive and not nearly developed as the late romantic music of Bruckner, Mahler and Tchaikovski for example.



SanAntone said:


> No serious composer denies the importance of Mahler and Bruckner. The fact that they employ different style than orchestral music from the 19th century is natural and can be expected since as I said before, no serious composer will simply re-write Mahler symphonies and hope to be relevant himself.


Re-writing Mahler symphonies is not what I want. No mentionable composer did re-writing ever.



EdwardBast said:


> So can I assume you don't know the work of Shostakovich and Myaskovsky then? The influence of Mahler on some of their music is pretty obvious.


Shostakovich somewhat yes, it is a big step between them, but I see the connection. Myaskovsky is considered a successor of Mahler? I never found a key for Myaskovsky, it seems pleasing but uninterssting to me (like the complete opposite of Mahler).



EdwardBast said:


> And why on earth would anyone, including Bruckner, want to write music that sounds like Bruckner?


He has the best sound, doesn't he? Maybe more difference between the sounds worlds of his symphonies is reasonable to want. But that is like wanting more Bruckner, Bruckner applied to a greater variety of instrumentations.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Aries said:


> Mozart just got really popular a few decades ago. And it was not always like this. I like to check the number of newspaper mentions per period for this purpose via the site "newspapers.com". Browse Newspapers - Newspapers.com Mozart is mentioned often since the 1980s. Before that composers of the romantic period are dominating compared to those of the classical and earlier periods. For example Richard Wagner. "Richard Wagner" has 18,222 mentions in the 1910s, while "Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart" has 224. Wagner has 30,323 mentions in the 1950s, while Mozart has 2,739. Wagner has 28,540 mentions in the 1990s while Mozart has 22,409. There is overall a swing to composers before the romantic period. So I derive that classical music overall is today more recognized for pre-romantic music than it was in 1900 or 1950. And this may explain why a young composer like Alma Deutscher composes unironically in a very old style (with some changes). This was probably unthinkable in the 1930s.


Good point. If we actually look at the true history, we can see that the reputation of the well-known pre-Classical (such as Palestrina) and Classical period composers in the post-Classical periods wasn't generally good, (contrary to what we may think). Mendelssohn even vented to his teacher Zelter "the denigration of Haydn and Mozart drives me mad". I would recommend the book, "Reviving Haydn: New Appreciations in the Twentieth Century" by Bryan Proksch (it also talks a bit of Mozart, Palestrina, Handel and others as well) to anyone who would like to know more about the topic.


----------



## HansZimmer

Aries said:


> There is the "epic music" style today. It is really well-sounding melodious "epic" orchestral music. There is no pastiche or quotes of earlier styles in it. It is kind of a reinvention of romantic music without a bound to any tradition. From an avantgarde standpoint this must be stylistically 100% anachronistic. And even from my standpoint I think the structore is really primitive and not nearly developed as the late romantic music of Bruckner, Mahler and Tchaikovski for example.


Do you have examples? Who are the composers of this genre?


----------



## mikeh375

Aries said:


> ............There is the "epic music" style today. It is really well-sounding melodious "epic" orchestral music. There is no pastiche or quotes of earlier styles in it. It is kind of a reinvention of romantic music without a bound to any tradition. From an avantgarde standpoint this must be stylistically 100% anachronistic. And even from my standpoint I think the structore is really primitive and not nearly developed as the late romantic music of Bruckner, Mahler and Tchaikovski for example.......


The 'Epic' genre I'm familiar with is a media style mainly used for film trailers and PC games. I personally fail to see any connection, or re-invention relating to the Romantic era. This genre is a child of the DAW with all of the technical and musical limitations that may imply. The requirements for this style demand a lot of bombastic and utterly over the top sound and drama - well maybe that's a 'romantic' trait. The huge compressed 'orchestration' of digital instrument samples is allied to musically limited and readily perceivable commercial ideas. These use melodic and harmonic cliches and ones that are unfortunatley imo, firmly entrenched as 'go to' composing methods. Look at this @HansZimmer and you'll get the idea.....






I would like to hear examples of anything Epic that is "well sounding and melodious" as @Aries has said, but given the reason for the genre and how it is written and used, I'm not hopeful as I'm not a fan of the expectations and constant exploitation of a few musical tricks. Is there one example that doesn't use spiccato string samples and/or heavy percussion? Or does not progress in thirds harmonically? Yes, there is melody, but it is constrained because of the genre's requirements and is subsequently quite narrow in its musical reach for me. The melodic writing often pursues one repeated hook more that aspires to the aspirational or perhaps the heroic and can often sound musically bland to my ears even with the massive crescendos and sampled choirs.

In fact @HansZimmer, you will hear the over-arching influence of Zimmer himself in virtually all Epic music as his more original approach to scoring spawned the Epic trend imo. It is definitely the antidote to AG music as no work is required to understand this music on first hearing and for me any second hearing means I forgot to stop the playback.

The first track below sums this cliched music up as it uses many of the tired, hackneyed musical tricks, compiling them mostly on the arrange page in a DAW.....


----------



## Forster

Aries said:


> He is overall considered one of the 3 greatest composers if not the No. 1, *right now*.


Shakespeare is overall considered one of the 3 greatest writers if not the No 1 "right now"...

But no-one writes like him anymore.


----------



## Chat Noir

Aries said:


> There is a way to look at it, where this is completely wrong. Mozart just got really popular a few decades ago. This is pretty much a period of Mozart. He is overall considered one of the 3 greatest composers if not the No. 1, *right now*.
> 
> And it was not always like this. I like to check the number of newspaper mentions per period for this purpose via the site "newspapers.com". Browse Newspapers - Newspapers.com Mozart is mentioned often since the 1980s. Before that composers of the romantic period are dominating compared to those of the classical and earlier periods. For example Richard Wagner. "Richard Wagner" has 18,222 mentions in the 1910s, while "Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart" has 224. Wagner has 30,323 mentions in the 1950s, while Mozart has 2,739. Wagner has 28,540 mentions in the 1990s while Mozart has 22,409. There is overall a swing to composers before the romantic period. So I derive that classical music overall is today more recognized for pre-romantic music than it was in 1900 or 1950. And this may explain why a young composer like Alma Deutscher composes unironically in a very old style (with some changes). This was probably unthinkable in the 1930s.


So basically the residue of Wagner and the romantics was still lingering on in mainstream listening? What a shocking surprise. This itself contradicts the oft-repeated claim that by the 30s-50s 'tonal' had been edged-out by so-called atonalism/avant-garde music.
Mozart didn't disappear, his era of broad popularity just passed and some music lay fallow. Throughout the 19th century his music was still known by people who wanted to know it. Plenty composers had him as an aesthetic model, notably Tchaikovsky.
Since the advent of the media-heavy society and the ease of access to recordings no period of classical music has been entirely shut out and romantic/classical era music tend to sit side-by-side, surrounded by works which appeal less to the mainstream.


----------



## HansZimmer

mikeh375 said:


> [video with collection of epic soundtracks]


I don't know if @Aries was speaking about videogame music. The music in the collection it's not bad IMO, and the guy of the tutorial video has a succesful channel because he probably knows what he does (how much time does someone have to train to compose music so spontaneously?), but I see what you're saying. The melodies go nowhere, there is almost always a crescendo to create a dramatic arc.
Basically what you want to say is that a creative composer creates a drammatic arc with the development of the melody, and not with cliched tricks, right?

I don't play with american videogames, but I understand that after a while these kind of soundtracks can become boring (although they might be pleasant the first time you hear them) because they all look like each others.
Someone in this forum wrote that in japan videogames there is more musical creativity.

This one (from the japan videogame "The Legend of Zelda") might also be classified as "epic" and it currently has the highest score in the competition Talkclassical best videogame soundtrack award.






The following are also epic.







Dark/epic












However the most creative thing ever composed for a japan videogame is this miniopera.







That said, I think that it's important to study music theory if you want to become a composer, but you should basically forget it while you are listening to a piece, because the real point of the music is the emotional experience and the expressivity: the music theory/technique is subservient.
Many composers/musicians tend to have some sort of fetishism for technical tricks and music theory and can never stop to analyze, but music is not a physics or maths homework: it's art, like a poem.

So, I approach all the music posted here above in the most natural way: I ask myself how much the pieces are good as "poems made with sounds", and IMO the pieces I posted here above are some of the best things you can find in the world of videogames and I don't need to justify my point of view with music theory.


I also think that many users here use music theory only to attack the music that they don't like aesthetically and they totally fail when it comes to see the cliches of the "classical music idols".
There are a lot of cliches for example in Mozart's music. Take for example the concertos: the melody change, but the technical tricks, the aesthetic, the style is always the same. If a soundtrack composer would be so predictable it would be attacked to death, but since he's Mozart his predictability is forgiven.


----------



## HansZimmer

However the genre "epic/dark" is not a modern invention, or an invention of the videogame industry.

A piece like this one (Bach, Passacaglia and Fugue in C minor, BWV 582) has the right mood for the final battle in a videogame.







... and what about the kyrie of this mass of Mozart?


----------



## Aries

HansZimmer said:


> Do you have examples? Who are the composers of this genre?


I'm no expert for this genre but I know Thomas Bergersen by name, his music is very listenable for me from time to time.



mikeh375 said:


> The 'Epic' genre I'm familiar with is a media style mainly used for film trailers and PC games. I personally fail to see any connection, or re-invention relating to the Romantic era. This genre is a child of the DAW with all of the technical and musical limitations that may imply. The requirements for this style demand a lot of bombastic and utterly over the top sound and drama - well maybe that's a 'romantic' trait. The huge compressed 'orchestration' of digital instrument samples is allied to musically limited and readily perceivable commercial ideas.


Imo it is very good sounding but also very primitive music. What makes it romantic is the affirmation and emphasis of beauty and emotionalization. It is orchestral music that is successful among people who have no connection to traditional classical music. It shows that there is a need for new tonal orchestral romantic music today despite what the avantgarde says. It is like a reinvention of romantic orchestral music, because it is emotional orchestral music without connection to the tradition of classical music. I think this music has some points that are good, while missing even more points that make traditional classical music better. Harmony and structure are super primitive, what doesn't make it unlistenable tough. But the epic music proves the "relevance" of tonal orchestral music today. What is missing imo is a link between epic music and traditional classical music, a more serious form of epic music, because epic music is not "serious music", it is light classical music. Writing a symphony in sonata form with this sound and epicness would be interessting.



mikeh375 said:


> I would like to hear examples of anything Epic that is "well sounding and melodious" as @Aries has said


Hm, isn't a good sound one of the foremost points of epic music? And there are melodies. But if you don't like the sound, you don't like it.



mikeh375 said:


> Yes, there is melody, but it is constrained because of the genre's requirements and is subsequently quite narrow in its musical reach for me.


I think the primary point of this music is the sound and the epic-heroic emotion, and melodies are just used for this. In the other hand in the sonata form and classical music overall themes are the primary point, and then things are done with them. The latter classical approach has more depth. You start with the primal cell and you can do indefinite things with it, instead of starting with the end effect. But todays audience is not used to such sophistication, so these composers go the straight way to sound and emotion, things which the audience understands.



Chat Noir said:


> So basically the residue of Wagner and the romantics was still lingering on in mainstream listening? What a shocking surprise. This itself contradicts the oft-repeated claim that by the 30s-50s 'tonal' had been edged-out by so-called atonalism/avant-garde music.


We must distinguish between what is listened to, between what was composed, and between what is seen als important in retrospect by todays historiographers and performers. The tonal music wasn't edged out in the real history. But the avantgarde want to edge it out in todays historical views, for example that tonal music was/is anachronistic/obsolete after Schönberg. The common but wrong equation contemporary music=avantgarde music shows their work.



Chat Noir said:


> Since the advent of the media-heavy society and the ease of access to recordings no period of classical music has been entirely shut out and romantic/classical era music tend to sit side-by-side, surrounded by works which appeal less to the mainstream.


The revive of rennaissance music seems very new. We go back and back more in time, probably because avantgarde music does not do it for the most, so we find new stuff in the past. When we had the romantic period, its was music of the same period that was in the focus. This is a natural state, but it is not the case today. I think their is a big ideological failure in the buisness and the think-tanks, which led to this.


----------



## Chat Noir

Aries said:


> We must distinguish between what is listened to, between what was composed, and between what is seen als important in retrospect by todays historiographers and performers. The tonal music wasn't edged out in the real history. But the avantgarde want to edge it out in todays historical views, for example that tonal music was/is anachronistic/obsolete after Schönberg. The common but wrong equation contemporary music=avantgarde music shows their work.


This is mythology. Anyone who has spent time with modern 'classical' composers (in person or listening/reading what they say) knows they are often not only well-versed in historical musical trends up to now, but have a normal respect for it and that like any historical art movement, the past is part of the present, but isn't itself the leading trend of the present. Not writing in that idiom isn't 'edging out'. Just like cloche hats and balmacaan overcoats weren't 'edged' out; fashions just change. Hats are still hats and still go on heads and coats still get worn, but they change. And still if you want to wear those or write a divertimento which sounds like Mozart, no-one will stop you.


Aries said:


> The revive of rennaissance music seems very new. We go back and back more in time, probably because avantgarde music does not do it for the most, so we find new stuff in the past. When we had the romantic period, its was music of the same period that was in the focus. This is a natural state, but it is not the case today. I think their is a big ideological failure in the buisness and the think-tanks, which led to this.


The bulk of 'new' or avant-garde music after 1900 had more in common with older music than the romantic idiom ever had. Neoclassical, revival of focus on contrapuntal writing and nods to renaissance and baroque dance styles.

Some listeners seem not to understand why very avant-garde music exists, like any cutting-edge art. They are probings into the unknown. They may fall flat or on deaf ears or make a statement, or a breakthrough, but they aren't meant to be the same as settling down to a well-worn Bruckner 7 with tea and cake. They are also mainly for a small audience. Let us get one thing straight: none of the music of the preceding eras is "edged out", neither in concert programming nor in composition. It's easy to find contemporary composers working in tonal or extended tonal ways who are still well-regarded, Lowell Liebermann for example. The Schoenberg turn is over a 100 years old now, this 'battle' is over.


----------



## Aries

Chat Noir said:


> This is mythology. Anyone who spent time with modern 'classical' composers (in person or listening/reading what they say) knows they are often not only well-versed in historical musical trends up to now, but have a normal respect for it and that like any historical art movement, the past is part of the present, but isn't the itself the leading trend of the present. Not writing in that idiom isn't 'edging out'.


Here is a misunderstanding, SanAntone had the same I think and I don't know why. Of course there is respect for the tonal music of the history before the avantgarde. What I am talking about is new tonal or romantic music after Schönberg and especially after WWII. This maybe doesn't even come to your mind. The development of the avantgarde is in the mind, while many people have absolutly no affection for it. Romantic composers like Ottmar Gerster, Otar Taktakishvilli or Joly Braga Santos were successful in the 1950s and important/"relevant" composers for their countries but today they are almost forgotten or are treated neglectfully. The avantgarde rather issues Stockhausen which most people wouldn't even recognize as music.



Chat Noir said:


> Some listeners seem not to understand why very avant-garde music exists, like any cutting-edge art. They are probings into the unknown. They may fall flat or on deaf ears or make a statement, or a breakthrough, but they aren't meant to be the same as settling down to a well-worn Bruckner 7 with tea and cake. They are also mainly for a small audience.


But we need also new music for a big audience. At least I want it. Many like the romantic orchestral music of the 19th century, but they wouldn't like more, new of it with interessting new developments? What? Doesn't make sense.


----------



## Chat Noir

Aries said:


> Here is a misunderstanding, SanAntone had the same I think and I don't know why. Of course there is respect for the tonal music of the history before the avantgarde. What I am talking about is new tonal or romantic music after Schönberg and especially after WWII. This doesn't even come to your mind. The development of the avantegarde is in the mind, while many people have absolutly no affection for it. Romantic composers like Ottmar Gerster, Otar Taktakishvilli or Joly Braga Santos were successful in the 1950s and important/"relevant" composers for their countries but today they are almost forgotten or are treated neglectfully. The avantgarde rather issues Stockhausen which most people wouldn't even recognize as music.


It may be a language barrier thing, but your beginning remarks are presumptuous. There is no misunderstanding. There is no such thing as 'new tonal or romantic music', neither of these things ever went away. It just stopped being the main thrust of musical history. Once upon a time romanticism and strands within it like Wagner were the 'avant-garde', then they weren't, but people still wrote in a similar way. No-one can expect to be fêted like Beethoven when writing similar music 200 years after the fact, or 100 years after. It's an absurd notion. However composers who ignored Schoenberg and wrote extended tonal music are actually the majority. Shostakovich and Prokofiev really existed after Schoenberg!
I go to concerts a lot and I've never seen anything by Stockhausen on the programme. Even at his peak he only turned up on specialist concert programming. You're inventing your own bogeymen.


Aries said:


> But we need also new music for a big audience. At least I want it. Many like the romantic orchestral music of the 19th century, but they wouldn't like more, new of it with interessting new developments? What? Doesn't make sense.


I underlined the key motivation of all these kinds of complaint .


----------



## fbjim

Chat Noir said:


> The bulk of 'new' or avant-garde music after 1900 had more in common with older music than the romantic idiom ever had. Neoclassical, revival of focus on contrapuntal writing and nods to renaissance and baroque dance styles.


Yah. Schoenberg thought he was reviving the German tradition of abstract classical music. So much of it seems like a backlash to Wagner/Strauss/Late romanticism - there's a good reason so much of it was in classical forms.


----------



## Aries

Chat Noir said:


> It may be a language barrier thing, but your beginning remarks are presumptuous. There is no misunderstanding. There is no such thing as 'new tonal or romantic music', neither of these things ever went away.


I didn't meant with "new" that it went away before, but that the time of composition is less long ago. There are many rather new late/neo-romantic works of which not many good recordings exist. There are many works of this kind I like. If others say these works are bad and unworthy to perform because of low quality, I can't really argue againt it. It would be just different tastes. But what I rather hear is that they are "not relevant" or "obsolet" or "composed in the wrong time". And I will say something aginst this. Because if something is good, it should be performed regardless of the time of composition.



Chat Noir said:


> It just stopped being the main thrust of musical history. Once upon a time romanticism and strands within it like Wagner were the 'avant-garde', then they weren't, but people still wrote in a similar way. No-one can expect to be fêted like Beethoven when writing similar music 200 years after the fact, or 100 years after. It's an absurd notion.


I at least don't judge music by their time of composition, but by the music itself. I don't like Beethovens music because it was good for his time, but because it is good.



Chat Noir said:


> However composers who ignored Schoenberg and wrote extended tonal music are actually the majority. Shostakovich and Prokofiev really existed after Schoenberg!


Yes, Shostakovich and Prokofiev pushed trough, but there are much more worth to listen.


----------



## Luchesi

fbjim said:


> Yah. Schoenberg thought he was reviving the German tradition of abstract classical music. So much of it seems like a backlash to Wagner/Strauss/Late romanticism - there's a good reason so much of it was in classical forms.


Arnie worried about what would happen without a rigid system. He couldn't know the details of what extreme trends would develop after him, but he was smart and sensitive and worried (like Mahler) about the future. His huge effort in constructing a safe-guarding system failed, I guess we can say.. I imagine I can see his thinking process in his Op25 (classical pointers), which, for pianists especially, is such an impressive composition.


----------



## Roger Knox

I'm not going to participate in this thread, except to say that the issues discussed here haven't changed much since I decided to be a professional classical musician over 50 years ago. This is not a criticism; they will never be settled. Some will say, "We should have gotten beyond all this by now -- it's the 21st century." Maybe so, but some also say that our societies have deep divisions, and I hold that some of the deepest are cultural. Since around 1900 modernism, the avant-gardes, and post-modernism successively have rocked western classical music even as its reach became worldwide. Meanwhile from jazz, rock, pop, world music, and technology-based media have come strenuous challenges to classical and western hegemonies. And so on. 

As I see it the key thing as listener/musician is to be self-aware enough to find your area(s) of personal resonance amidst the cacophony of division, and develop from there. The big picture (if there is one) I find too chaotic to comprehend. There are dangers of grandiosity and of obsessiveness if you focus on the "need" for "certain things to happen" in accordance with your own particular agenda. There are real opportunities if you're able to use your abilities and steer your efforts to maximum effect.


----------



## Chat Noir

Roger Knox said:


> As I see it the key thing as listener/musician is to be self-aware enough to find your area(s) of personal resonance amidst the cacophony of division, and develop from there.


I never quite understand how listeners can't take in the breadth of music of different styles and periods. Finding both common points and differences worth celebrating. I'm as happy with Rennaissance song as I am with 80s synthpop or rap or bluegrass. I have no time for music snobbery or that mindset which thinks culture is always going to the dogs.


----------



## HansZimmer

Chat Noir said:


> I never quite understand how listeners can't take in the breadth of music of different styles and periods. Finding both common points and differences worth celebrating. I'm as happy with Rennaissance song as I am with 80s synthpop or rap or bluegrass. I have no time for music snobbery or that mindset which thinks culture is always going to the dogs.


It's probably a quite diffuse point of view here: you can not say that Despacito and Gangnam Style are dumb hit songs for kids and that classical music is better, otherwise you are a snob, but when it comes to evaluate classical music and film music there is the WORD OF GOD.

So you can for example say that Jupiter is objectively better than Palladio or than the suite of Star Wars and that if someone think otherwise it means that he doesn't understand music, but you can not say that Jupiter is better than Despacito, although in the formers there are more artistic intents.

You can say that the Canon in D of Pachelbel is bad music although it's still alive after centuries, but you can not say that a summer hit for kids that has been forgot after one year is bad music.


----------



## Chat Noir

HansZimmer said:


> You can say that the Canon in D of Pachelbel is bad music although it's still alive after centuries, but you can not say that a summer hit for kids that has been forgot after one year is bad music.


The point is rather that there are three main issues that have an effect on one other: 

1. A small core of classical music people who think it's the pinnacle of all musical achievement and everything else is inferior.
2. Those who like music from a certain period(s) and are angry and obsessed with the view that 'classical music' didn't stay frozen in this way.
3. Mere taste.

Aside from that it's down to views put forward as arguments. I doubt anyone (whose opinion is worth bothering with) thinks _Canon in D _is necessarily 'bad music'. There are things to say about Canon in D which are legitimate, but ought to have little to no effect upon anyone's actual enjoyment of it, that's a personal thing.

What I find boring and odd is the fixation on the idea that somehow there is a cabal of 'atonalists' and 'avant-gardists' with a nefarious plan to sideline and silence the history of music and 'proper composers who ideally will sound something like Mozart/Schubert/Bruckner/Mahler. It's fake news.

With both 'classical' and pop music there are arguments to be made for the good and the bad, but quite a lot of people home-in on the lowest-common denominator bad and use this as a broad-brush denunciation of especially contemporary music.


----------



## composingmusic

Chat Noir said:


> What I find boring and odd is the fixation on the idea that somehow there is a cabal of 'atonalists' and 'avant-gardists' with a nefarious plan to sideline and silence the history of music and 'proper composers who ideally will sound something like Mozart/Schubert/Bruckner/Mahler. It's fake news.


This I agree with. Most contemporary composers who I know respect the composers of past generations such as Mozart, Schubert, Bruckner, etc. They don't want to write music that sounds like these composers, but that doesn't mean they're not influenced by them, and they're definitely not trying to silence them. 

If anything, I find the idea of "proper" composers today sounding like these past composers to be a very strange concept. As I've said, we live in a completely different time, and there's a lot of music out there that didn't exist in these earlier eras. Not to mention, the instruments are different, instrumental technique has developed since then, ways of listening to music have also evolved and changed, and so on.


----------



## Aries

Chat Noir said:


> 2. Those who like music from a certain period(s) and are angry and obsessed with the view that 'classical music' didn't stay frozen in this way.


Is atonal avant-gardism just another period? Imo no,a different kind of change is involved. The modern art is a different kind of art and a smaller amount of people can recognize it and enjoy it as art. It basically does not fullfill the purpose of art for many people. So imo the request is not about new music of a specific period of the past, but new music just within the classical understanding of art.



Chat Noir said:


> What I find boring and odd is the fixation on the idea that somehow there is a cabal of 'atonalists' and 'avant-gardists' with a nefarious plan to sideline and silence the history of music and 'proper composers who ideally will sound something like Mozart/Schubert/Bruckner/Mahler. It's fake news.


It is not about nefariousness in general (despite most nefarious figures like Adorno). It is about a change of the mindset, a turn away from generally understandable art maybe for personal aesthetic reasons. But many serious artists have basically turn away from the people. It is a good question why it happend, what exactly happened, and why it happened at this point in time. But we should not believe that this was just a normal development like any other.


----------



## fbjim

What developments are "normal"? Developments in art and aesthetics reflect changes in culture which have happened for millenia, though you could argue that they've been accelerating since the industrial revolution or earlier. You can draw a relatively straight line between the rejection of "old" European culture that's characteristic of capital-M Modernism with the two great wars of the 20th century, for instance, but major historical events like the Reformation, French Revolution, or the rise of Enlightenment philosophy had unquestionable impacts on art. I don't see how any is more abnormal than the other.


----------



## Chat Noir

Aries said:


> Is atonal avant-gardism just another period? Imo no,a different kind of change is involved. The modern art is a different kind of art and a smaller amount of people can recognize it and enjoy it as art. It basically does not fullfill the purpose of art for many people. So imo the request is not about new music of a specific period of the past, but new music just within the classical understanding of art.
> 
> It is not about nefariousness in general (despite most nefarious figures like Adorno). It is about a change of the mindset, a turn away from generally understandable art maybe for personal aesthetic reasons. But many serious artists have basically turn away from the people. It is a good question why it happend, what exactly happened, and why it happened at this point in time. But we should not believe that this was just a normal development like any other.


This is just the same complaint restated. As if the general public were fully conversant with 'art music' prior to 'atonal avant-gardism' and then it all became impenetrable and anti-audience.

When I see this complaint there's always a strong element of 'I don't like it' wrapped in a pretence of it being the concerns of 'the general audience' to give the appearance of it being a problem of the 'normal'. When was art really 'understandable' or fully comprehensible? Do we think we even know what J.W.M. Turner was thinking because he (sometimes) exhibited paintings where the boats looked like boats?


----------



## Aries

fbjim said:


> What developments are "normal"? Developments in art and aesthetics reflect changes in culture which have happened for millenia, though you could argue that they've been accelerating since the industrial revolution or earlier. You can draw a relatively straight line between the rejection of "old" European culture that's characteristic of capital-M Modernism with the two great wars of the 20th century, for instance, but major historical events like the Reformation, French Revolution, or the rise of Enlightenment philosophy had unquestionable impacts on art. I don't see how any is more abnormal than the other.


Schönberg wrote atonal pieces before World War I. Impressionalism existed long before. There was something going on in the underlying culture that wasn't triggered by superficial political events.

The style pluralism in modernism is an indicator that a more substantial change happend compared to other periods. I think the bigger the changes the bigger the different opinions about it. In the 20th century we have romanticism, impressionism, expressionism, neo-classicism, twelve tone technique, hyper-serialism, futurism, new complexity, post modernism, the style of film music and much more. Style differences in earlier epochs are rather negligible in comparison. We have the conservatives versus the new german school in the 19th century, but I think this is not much compared to the 20th centrury.

Another indicator that modernism is special is post-modernism. You would not name it like this if modernism was normal. Romanticism is also not named post-classicism. A second weird thing about the name is that since post-modernism is younger than modernism, it is more modern from the standpoint of time. It indicates that modernism rather means "modern by the ideology". Some guys set up the thesis that a specific style is "progressive" and therefore "modern". Normally the time and the mode points out what is modern.


----------



## Simon Moon

Chat Noir said:


> I never quite understand how listeners can't take in the breadth of music of different styles and periods. Finding both common points and differences worth celebrating. I'm as happy with Rennaissance song as I am with 80s synthpop or rap or bluegrass. I have no time for music snobbery or that mindset which thinks culture is always going to the dogs.


I can explain why I have a somewhat narrow taste in music. And I hope this does not come off as music snobbery, but I can only like what I like.

But, if music does not have most or all of the following attributes, it bores me. Not that I necessarily think it is bad, but feel more of an indifference toward it. 

Those attributes are, in no particular order: very high level of musicianship, deep and broad emotional and/or intellectual content, complexity, (usually, but not necessarily) long form, (usually) avoidance of verse>chorus>bridge>repeat format. I did not make a conscious effort to only like music with these attributes, it's just how my tastes evolved over the years.

Once those attributes are met, I am somewhat style or genre agnostic. 

The genres and subgenres that most often meet those attributes, are:
Classical - 20th century, contemporary, serial, avant-garde.
Prog - avant-prog, Zeuhl, symphonic, Canterbury, prog-metal, technical-metal.
Jazz - post bop, fusion, chamber jazz, avant-garde, M-Base.

When I am in a listening session, and go from a recording by tech-metal band Cynic, then to something by Elliott Carter or Berg, then to something in jazz like Steve Coleman or Mahavishnu Orchestra, then to something in the avant-prog subgenre like Thinking Plague or Univers Zero, for me, I am not so much going from one genre to another. I am just listening to a bunch of music that has most or all of those previously mentioned attributes.


----------



## Chat Noir

Aries said:


> Another indicator that modernism is special is post-modernism. You would not name it like this if modernism was normal. Romanticism is also not named post-classicism.


This is like conspiracy thinking. We should now be thinking that 'modern jazz' is earth shattering because it didn't get a different name from 'jazz'. Or if 'nu jazz' is even a thing.

As if naming cultural developments has any rhyme or reason. Good heavens.


----------



## Aries

Chat Noir said:


> This is just the same complaint restated. As if the general public were fully conversant with 'art music' prior to 'atonal avant-gardism' and then it all became impenetrable and anti-audience.
> 
> When I see this complaint there's always a strong element of 'I don't like it' wrapped in a pretence of it being the concerns of 'the general audience' to give the appearance of it being a problem of the 'normal'. When was art really 'understandable' or fully comprehensible? Do we think we even know what J.W.M. Turner was thinking because he (sometimes) exhibited paintings where the boats looked like boats?


I don't think it needs to be fully of conversant, understandable and comprehensibe, it just needs to be on another level. J.W.M. Turners paintings are understandable enough to stimulate the fantasy. On the other hand blob-paintings just irritate and raise question marks for so many.

You said avant-garde works are probings into the unknown. If the experiment is the purpose then the average understandability will be different of course.


> This is like conspiracy thinking. We should now be thinking that 'modern jazz' is earth shattering because it didn't get a different name from 'jazz'. Or if 'nu jazz' is even a thing.
> 
> As if naming cultural developments has any rhyme or reason. Good heavens.


The names tell us something about the thinking behind.

Post-modernism unwinds developments and restrictions of modernism. It is interessting that a style with such a timeless name like "modernism" was reversed so fast.


----------



## Chat Noir

Aries said:


> On the other hand blob-paintings just irritate and raise question marks for so many.


They irritate _you_. That they raise questions marks is good, that's what art is supposed to do.


----------



## Aries

Chat Noir said:


> They irritate _you_. That they raise questions marks is good, that's what art is supposed to do.


This is not the purpose of art normally. The purpose of art is to elevate/erect/edgify humans. Art is useful because whatever else we are doing we can do better after an uplifting, inspiring dispersal.


----------



## fbjim

Late romanticism, a conspiracy theory. 

Much like "romantic", "classical" or "Renaissance", "modern" has different definitions if one is talking about the dictionary definition of "modern", or capital-M Modernism. This isn't a conspiracy, it's just how words work.


----------



## Chat Noir

Aries said:


> This is not the purpose of art normally. The purpose of art is to elevate/erect/edgify humans. Art is useful because whatever else we are doing we can do better after an uplifting, inspiring dispersal.


Says who? Why do you think something you don't happen to like isn't elevating or edifying someone else? This is merely a personalised amalgamation of aesthetic sentiments and vague moral precepts for human improvement. This sort of discussion can easily collapse into the dubious discussion which sometimes raises its head: that classical music generally _makes_ people better people; morally and intellectually. And I'd have to ask: what sort of music does this? Do Schubert quartets achieve it, where Edgard Varèse falls a bit flat? 

What do we consider to be human 'edification' or amelioration? What is 'uplifting'? When I saw my extremely annoying and aggressve neighbour trip on the wet grass and muddy his coat, that was pretty uplifting for me; probably not edifying for him. Then again it wasn't art, or maybe it was?


----------



## Aries

Chat Noir said:


> Why do you think something you don't happen to like isn't elevating or edifying someone else?


I don't think that. We talked about the purpose of art, not which pieces fullfill it for which person. "Raising question marks" is another purpose but for what is it good? The purpose of a crossword puzzle is also not to just raise question marks. The company earns money, and for the user it is a mix of dispersal and education.



Chat Noir said:


> This is merely a personalised amalgamation of aesthetic sentiments and vague moral precepts for human improvement. This sort of discussion can easily collapse into the dubious discussion which sometimes raises its head: that classical music generally _makes_ people better people; morally and intellectually.


Music does not do that in general, maybe as an exception. Overall music helps with many things, so probably also a bit with moral, but there is not special connection with moral I think.



Chat Noir said:


> What do we consider to be human 'edification' or amelioration? What is 'uplifting'?


Keep it simple. Art increase our mental strength in our everydays life and in general. At least this is the purpose I see in it. Art can get become end in itself, but that is not ideal, not its real purpose.



Chat Noir said:


> When I saw my extremely annoying and aggressve neighbour trip on the wet grass and muddy his coat, that was pretty uplifting for me; probably not edifying for him. Then again it wasn't art, or maybe it was?


Other things can be edifying too, but they have another purpose.


----------



## Chat Noir

Aries said:


> I don't think that. We talked about the purpose of art, not which pieces fullfill it for which person. "Raising question marks" is another purpose but for what is it good? The purpose of a crossword puzzle is also not to just raise question marks. The company earns money, and for the user it is a mix of dispersal and education.


Really? Then why would you be making a distinction between 'art that is edifying and uplifting' and some other thing which apparently isn't? Clearly if this other thing (atonal, avant-garde razzamatazz-cha-cha-cha) is objectively devoid of these qualities, then no-one can derive these values from them. In any case people can also earn money and be educated by art you don't like, so this is a non-answer to a non-question.


Aries said:


> Music does not do that in general, maybe as an exception. Overall music helps with many things, so probably also a bit with moral, but there is not special connection with moral I think.





Aries said:


> Keep it simple. Art increase our mental strength in our everydays life and in general. At least this is the purpose I see in it. Art can get become end in itself, but that is not ideal, not its real purpose.


It increases our mental strength? Even when just above you aren't quite sure whether or not there is any special meliorative value to music? Or where and how this might operate? But you also know art's 'real purpose'? Then you tell me to 'keep it simple'? 

This is teetering towards a sort of pseudo-philosophical gibberish to prop up personal taste. No-one can argue with taste, but I can point to dubious attempts to prop it up with made-up theory.


----------



## HansZimmer

Chat Noir said:


> 1. A small core of classical music people who think it's the pinnacle of all musical achievement and everything else is inferior.


I'm not among of them. I'm just one of the people who would insert the piece in the list of "recommended works" together with many others, and I'm speaking about the modern version, not about the original version.

Some persons say that it's not a good piece because the chord progressions are trivial (one of them is @Luchesi ) but they forget that the orchestration of Jean-François Paillard (author of the modern version, who relaunched the piece) is not trivial: IMO it's an example of a brilliant orchestration.






I think that many persons in the classical music community don't understand that the compositional art is not only in the chord progressions or things like that, but also in the orchestration/arrangement.

A melody that would become soon boring if played in a flat way, can become really exciting if it's played by an orchestra with a lot of expressiveness and instrumental variations.


I still remember when you wrote that the melodies of Hans Zimmer are not so good in the paper and that he's not better than other composers only because he uses orchestras. The point is that Hans Zimmer precisely uses orchestras, while other composers don't, and you completely failed to recognize that the orchestration is a part of the compositional art. I think that at least of 50% of the expressiveness in the score of the Lion King can be attributed to the orchestration technique (the melody and the orchestration do a team work in creating the drammatic arcs, so if you remove the orchestration you lose the effectiveness of drammatic arcs: you can not play the Lion King with the piano, you have to compose a new version if you want a piano version), and the same is probably true for the modern version of the Canon in D of Pachelbel.

The orchestral arrangement doesn't write itself. Who says that a composer can not focus mostly on the orchestration to reach the expressive goals? Who says that the variations must be in the chord progressions and not in the instrumentation? The variations in the instrumentation are also variations, and when you have them a repetitive melody doesn't sound repetitive.
The original version of the Canon in D might be trivial, but the modern version is not. The enhanced/romanticized orchestration adds a lot of emotionality, drammatic arcs, expressiveness. Today, thanks to Jean-François Paillard, the piece is no more trivial.



> 2. Those who like music from a certain period(s) and are angry and obsessed with the view that 'classical music' didn't stay frozen in this way.


Frozen??? No!!!

Maybe we simply think that there were other possible evolutions of modern classical music. It doesn't make any sense to say that the removal of tonality and melody was the inevitable evolution of classical music: you can think about other hundreds of possible evolutions.

There are infact modern composers who have showed other possible roads.


----------



## Sid James

composingmusic said:


> That's fair. The way I see the evolution of music, especially 20th and 21st century music, because of the many aesthetic and stylistic directions (and this is an ongoing process) is an incredibly complicated web-like structure, where different people connect and interact with each other in various ways. I think it's fascinating to look at the historical context and how people interacted – this is often reflected in the music of the respective composers in a variety of ways.


Artistic expression can be likened to matter, which constantly changes but is never destroyed. The way in which artists express themselves changes over time, their visions shaped by what's going on around them and informed by (and informing) history.



> I was just trying to say that if someone wants to write music in an older style, there's nothing stopping them, but this will inevitably be a different process than someone writing such music in, say, Mozart's time. There's so much that's happened in both world history at large, and in music history, between then and now, that writing this music will mean something different (at least in my view).


Pastiche or anachronistic music is one thing. I can think of a few examples of these which are widely considered to be masterpieces, or at least have have remained in the core performance repertoire (or have been recorded many times). On the other hand, using music like this as part of an agenda to counter modernism or postmodernism is to my way of thinking, absurd.

Talking about aesthetics is interesting because it encompasses so many things - a combination of art, history, philosophy, technology, ideology and so on. On this forum, what should be a rich and varied conversation inevitably ends up in people trying to convince eachother that they're right and the other side wrong. Its easier to discuss things like repertoire and recordings, which is why those areas are better served here.


----------



## SanAntone

composingmusic said:


> That's fair. The way I see the evolution of music, especially 20th and 21st century music, because of the many aesthetic and stylistic directions (and this is an ongoing process) is an incredibly complicated web-like structure, where different people connect and interact with each other in various ways. I think it's fascinating to look at the historical context and how people interacted – this is often reflected in the music of the respective composers in a variety of ways.


I agree with you, and is what keeps music alive from period to period. It is a futile desire to wish to stop musical styles from evolving/changing, or to limit the progression from style to style from previous periods. Composers follow their artistic goals with or without referencing prior styles, or referencing them as indirectly or overtly as makes sense to them.

But of course the solution for those people who desire the above is to simply listen to the period they like above others.



> Also, fair enough. I agree with this sentiment, and I'm sorry if my earlier reply came off as me attempting to peddle an agenda or argue a winding back of the clock. I was just trying to say that if someone wants to write music in an older style, there's nothing stopping them, but this will inevitably be a different process than someone writing such music in, say, Mozart's time. There's so much that's happened in both world history at large, and in music history, between then and now, that writing this music will mean something different (at least in my view).


We can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. Which is why living composers naturally write music of their time which is framed by everything around them.


----------



## Aries

Chat Noir said:


> Really? Then why would you be making a distinction between 'art that is edifying and uplifting' and some other thing which apparently isn't? Clearly if this other thing (atonal, avant-garde razzamatazz-cha-cha-cha) is objectively devoid of these qualities, then no-one can derive these values from them.


There is a difference between the purpose of art and the properties of an art piece. Art that was made for a purpose can still fail to fullfill it. And art that was made for a different purpose could still fullfill the former purpose. So if an avant-gardist writes a piece just for the purpose of experimenting, it can still have an edifying and uplifting effect for some listeners. Its probably overall less likely, but I think some have expressed this. 

What the purpose of art should be is a different discussion than what art is good or bad art.



Chat Noir said:


> It increases our mental strength? Even when just above you aren't quite sure whether or not there is any special meliorative value to music?


There are different types of moral. National anthems increse the "morale" for sure for most people, that is why it is used before sporting events for example or in some countries before school lessions. But it is just one type of moral. Nietzsche distinguishes between master morality and slave morality. Imo there is not really a connection between music and slave moraility. But since music makes someone feel overall better the likelyhood that he displays a "share with the poor"-mentality may still be increased. But that would be just a side effect. It is about the vigor.



Chat Noir said:


> Or where and how this might operate? But you also know art's 'real purpose'? Then you tell me to 'keep it simple'?


I mean it is not complicated. We don't need to overthink it. Listening to music should be uplifting/should increase our vigor/should increse our mental strength. It is a simple thing.



Chat Noir said:


> This is teetering towards a sort of pseudo-philosophical gibberish to prop up personal taste.


At the moment it is not about personal taste. But if it would turn out that avant-gardists see another purpose in art, for example making people question the meaning of life or their opinions and beliefs, this for sure would be important for the overall discussion. In the case of some works like 4'33 it is clear that it has another purpose than most other art.


----------



## composingmusic

Sid James said:


> Talking about aesthetics is interesting because it encompasses so many things - a combination of art, history, philosophy, technology, ideology and so on. On this forum, what should be a rich and varied conversation inevitably ends up in people trying to convince eachother that they're right and the other side wrong. Its easier to discuss things like repertoire and recordings, which is why those areas are better served here.


It does seem to be this way, which is unfortunate. Talking about aesthetics without it being a question of right or wrong is such a fascinating topic. I find it particularly interesting to discuss post-1900 aesthetics, because of how rich and varied that landscape is. It's an incredibly complex web of influences, with people borrowing from each other, learning from one type of aesthetic and incorporating that into something completely different, and more. For instance, you can trace certain influences in how composers think about time from Ligeti to Messiaen, Scelsi, Murail, Grisey, and other French Spectral composers – but a parallel influence can also be found in composers like Feldman, Tenney, and Lucier, even if their approach is quite different in some other ways. 



SanAntone said:


> I agree with you, and is what keeps music alive from period to period. It is a futile desire to wish to stop musical styles from evolving/changing, or to limit the progression from style to style from previous periods. Composers follow their artistic goals with or without referencing prior styles, or referencing them as indirectly or overtly as makes sense to them.


Indeed, and this freedom is an incredible thing. It means composers can take things they like and recombine them in all sorts of imaginative and incredible ways. However, it does create a challenge for composers too: there isn't a set of rules to follow, such as the conventions of common practice tonality (this is not to say that composers can't use these parameters if they want to). Composers now often choose to create restrictions or their own sets of rules in order to help them find a sense of coherence in their work.


----------



## Chat Noir

Aries said:


> I mean it is not complicated. We don't need to overthink it. Listening to music should be uplifting/should increase our vigor/should increse our mental strength. It is a simple thing.


Isn't 'overthnking it' what you've been doing for several pages? However the musical conservatives masquerading as alternative historians lamenting that 'music took a wrong turn...IMO', would do well to take their own advice: to just listen, or to just not listen. According to taste or desire or what one wants to get from one's listening.


----------



## Aries

Chat Noir said:


> Isn't 'overthnking it' what you've been doing for several pages?


I don't think so. But communicating with you seems just a bit complicated.



Chat Noir said:


> the musical conservatives masquerading as alternative historians lamenting that 'music took a wrong turn...IMO', would do well to take their own advice: to just listen, or to just not listen. According to taste or desire or what one wants to get from one's listening.


I am surprised, that you are getting salty. It is an interessting thread and there is no reason not to discuss the history of music and its turns.


----------



## Chat Noir

Aries said:


> I don't think so. But communicating with you seems just a bit complicated.


I know so. Probably because you don't have a proper grasp of the matter at hand?


Aries said:


> I am surprised, that you are getting salty. It is an interessting thread and there is no reason not to discuss the history of music and its turns.


I think you might have been watching too much American television. I'm not 'salty', this is reserved for bodies of sea water, savoury foods and tears (incidentally like those of people waving their fists at 'avant-gardism'). Like a true goalpost shifter you are now pretending that it's a carefree discussion of 'history of music'. Anyone with half a brain who looks at this can see it is the usual suspects of the classical listening world who are upset with everything after about 1906, insisting that 'things could/should have been different'. Which upon closer analysis turns out to be 'I don't like it'.


----------



## fbjim

If the purpose of music is to "uplift" (which is debatable) I don't see how you could come to any conclusion other than it being a restatement of personal taste. You could argue that "changing your way of thinking about the world" is uplifting. For all the stick he gets, I can't tell you how many 20th century composers I admire either worked under John Cage, or stated that his work had a profoundly inspiring effect on them. 

And even then - what's "uplifting"? Is tragic music uplifting? The Greeks certainly thought feel-bad art could be good for the soul - that's where the concept of catharsis comes from, the purging of negative emotions through art.


----------



## Aries

Chat Noir said:


> I know so. Probably because you don't have a proper grasp of the matter at hand?


The ideas in my mind is clear, and you don't even make it difficult. Sorry, if translating it to english brings up some confusion. But where are your arguments? You confuse different questions again and again and after I point it out, it is too complicated for you?



Chat Noir said:


> I don't see how you could come to any conclusion other than it being a restatement of personal taste.


Again, in the last couple of posts the subject was the purpose of art, not which style matches a personal taste.

You started it by stating that art is supposed to raise question marks. But where are your arguments for this?



Chat Noir said:


> I think you might have been watching too much American television.


I watch almost no television at all.



Chat Noir said:


> Like a true goalpost shifter you are now pretending that it's a carefree discussion of 'history of music'. Anyone with half a brain who looks at this can see it is the usual suspects of the classical listening world who are upset with everything after about 1906, insisting that 'things could/should have been different'. Which upon closer analysis turns out to be 'I don't like it'.


I don't know what you expect from such a discussion in a internet forum and about this topic. The assessment of music depends on the taste of course. The reason for such threads is of course that many people don't like avantgarde music. And it is not like that just I don't like it. I talked to people who dislike it much more than I do. I don't like most of it, but I am still interessted in it, and I try to like it more from time to time. And I like some pieces which for others are already way to avantgarde. Anyway if you expect, that people just shout their mouth about developments in culture, you are wrong.

So and you call my a "goalpost"? I didn't hear that before. If I translate it into my language it sound kinda rude. That is why I call you salty. What about comming up with arguments indead of this kind of stuff?


----------



## Luchesi

Aries said:


> The ideas in my mind is clear, and you don't even make it difficult. Sorry, if translating it to english brings up some confusion. But where are your arguments? You confuse different questions again and again and after I point it out, it is too complicated for you?
> 
> 
> Again, in the last couple of posts the subject was the purpose of art, not which style matches a personal taste.
> 
> You started it by stating that art is supposed to raise question marks. But where are your arguments for this?
> 
> 
> I watch almost no television at all.
> 
> I don't know what you expect from such a discussion in a internet forum and about this topic. The assessment of music depends on the taste of course. The reason for such threads is of course that many people don't like avantgarde music. And it is not like that just I don't like it. I talked to people who dislike it much more than I do. I don't like most of it, but I am still interessted in it, and I try to like it more from time to time. And I like some pieces which for others are already way to avantgarde. Anyway if you expect, that people just shout their mouth about developments in culture, you are wrong.
> 
> So and you call my a "goalpost"? I didn't hear that before. If I translate it into my language it sound kinda rude. That is why I call you salty. What about comming up with arguments indead of this kind of stuff?


I agree with you.
It's fascinating to me that we can use translators well enough to have these exchanges.

My idea about modern music is that some of it isn't music. It's an experience, it's an exploration, maybe an experiment. And I'm all in favor of those categories. For me, the intriguing aspect is that most all of the musicians and composers that will get performed are far more educated and experienced - and I would say insightful than I am. And this is really what fascinates me pulls me in to any field not just in music but in other fields, that someone is so far above me in a field I've worked in and has produced something that I can explore and try to appreciate (when I gain the knowledge and experience). There are similar situations in science that I've experienced in person with climatologists and their work. Amazing.


----------



## Roger Knox

Luchesi said:


> My idea about modern music is that some of it isn't music. It's an experience, it's an exploration, maybe an experiment. And I'm all in favor of those categories. For me, the intriguing aspect is that most all of the musicians and composers that will get performed are far more educated and experienced - and I would say insightful than I am. And this is really what fascinates me pulls me in to any field not just in music but in other fields, that someone is so far above me in a field I've worked in and has produced something that I can explore and try to appreciate (when I gain the knowledge and experience). There are similar situations in science that I've experienced in person with climatologists and their work. Amazing.


I think you are being too modest and that you have a lot to offer. Yes, there are contemporary composers whose abilities and insights are stunning, and we live in a world of 8 billion people so there ought to be quite a few outstanding ones. In good recordings you hear these composers at their best. Others are so-so at best IMHO. Some of us have specialties but our field is vast. On TalkClassical we show up warts and all, I'm afraid, making spontaneous remarks of all sorts. Anyway it's good that you recognize a lot that's positive about contemporary composers.

I've thought a lot about whether music is "all one thing" (and actually don't believe it is, but that's for another time). 30-40 years ago with the increased recognition of world music, we used to talk about "musics," to better recognize the plurality in music and culture. I haven't noticed that usage more recently. Some creators call their work sound art, others prefer to remain within the much expanded framework of music.


----------



## fbjim

People can talk all they want about developments in aesthetics and culture, and they're within their rights to do so, and express dislike for the art of a certain period. The objection isn't from that, it's the attempt to use special pleading to claim some kind of objective position that every development in art up until World War I was "normal" but after that it was "abnormal", when the reality is that it's simply a position of "I don't like that music much" dressed up as a historical argument.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Chat Noir said:


> Isn't 'overthnking it' what you've been doing for several pages? However the musical conservatives masquerading as alternative historians lamenting that 'music took a wrong turn...IMO', would do well to take their own advice: to just listen, or to just not listen. According to taste or desire or what one wants to get from one's listening.


Regardless of whether we "like" it or not. It's an integral part of modern culture now, (even in areas such as film industry). There's a limitation to how much grotesqueness, mysteriousness, horror, etc, of this age a composer can express with common practice tonal methods, which can be argued to be too "restrictive".


----------



## Chat Noir

Aries said:


> The ideas in my mind is clear, and you don't even make it difficult. Sorry, if translating it to english brings up some confusion. But where are your arguments? You confuse different questions again and again and after I point it out, it is too complicated for you?


Very clearly you are the one confusing things my dear fellow, because you don't really have any operational idea of what you're talking about. It's either moaning about new music or making vague, pseudo-philosophical claims about what music is supposed to be doing. Merely extrapolating your own personal view into some universal theory. Whether it was German, English, French, Spanish or whatever it would make no sense. If it's clear in your mind, there must be not much else there to obscure it.



Aries said:


> Again, in the last couple of posts the subject was the purpose of art, not which style matches a personal taste.
> 
> You started it by stating that art is supposed to raise question marks. But where are your arguments for this?


Actually I didn't. You initially raised it post: #1,020. In any case if you don't think a purpose of art is to raise question marks, which is another way of saying 'make you think', then you might well be better off watching cartoons.



Aries said:


> I watch almost no television at all.


Perhaps you should start. Comedy perhaps.



Aries said:


> I don't know what you expect from such a discussion in a internet forum and about this topic. The assessment of music depends on the taste of course. The reason for such threads is of course that *many people* don't like avantgarde music. And it is not like that just I don't like it. I talked to people who dislike it much more than I do. I don't like most of it, but I am still interessted in it, and I try to like it more from time to time. And I like some pieces which for others are already way to avantgarde. Anyway if you expect, that people just shout their mouth about developments in culture, you are wrong.


You rather reveal yourself here. It's a balancing act of: avant-garde etc is is disliked (because you've talked to people who dislike it), but you do your level best to appreciate it. I think you're actually a minority by now; especially on this forum where I've actually read quite a lot of posts regarding new and some avant-garde music, both of which are very different from the run-of-the-mill fare.
Also don't try and turn it around as if you're waiting there with all the answers and I'm trying to get something out of you 'on the internet'. I'm not asking for your opinion I've heard it and it's trivial, I'm simply telling you you are wrong with your assertions.


Aries said:


> So and you call my a "goalpost"? I didn't hear that before. If I translate it into my language it sound kinda rude. That is why I call you salty. What about comming up with arguments indead of this kind of stuff?


Goalpost-shifting is what people do when they keep moving the target about to suit the moment so they are never caught. Read every post I've written in this thread and it answers everything you've come up with so far.


----------



## Sid James

composingmusic said:


> It does seem to be this way, which is unfortunate. Talking about aesthetics without it being a question of right or wrong is such a fascinating topic.


It's just the way it is. I guess this thread has the advantage of a common departure point, the experiment in question. Nowadays, I don't touch threads which are more vague and lack focus from the start. They inevitably end up like a gordian knot, as it increasingly becomes impossible to figure out what the actual topic is.



> I find it particularly interesting to discuss post-1900 aesthetics, because of how rich and varied that landscape is. It's an incredibly complex web of influences, with people borrowing from each other, learning from one type of aesthetic and incorporating that into something completely different, and more.


I've also found the 20th century interesting, both the modern and postmodern. There are certain strands which come out of the 19th century and still have some relevance today. I think Baudelaire's understanding of modernity and the different perceptions it brings is one. We can also look at the way modernism impacts on mass culture, and on everyday life. In terms of postmodernism, you've got an attempt to understand what happened by taking in different viewpoints, looking at it from different angles, and also context.


----------



## HansZimmer

hammeredklavier said:


> Regardless of whether we "like" it or not. It's an integral part of modern culture now, (even in areas such as film industry). There's a limitation to how much grotesqueness, mysteriousness, horror, etc, of this age a composer can express with common practice tonal methods, which can be argued to be too "restrictive".


A film music composer uses atonality only for horror moments. If he has to compose a love theme he will use tonality. If he has to compose a sad/melanchonic theme he will probably use a minor key, if he has to compose happy music he will probably use a major key.

Do I have to conclude that many modern composers ONLY want to compose horror music? If it's so, then they are limiting their expressivity. Where are the love themes, like the famous ones of Tchaikovsky? Where are the sad/melanchonic themes? Where is the happyness of Mozart? Do you want to say that our era deserves only horror?

If the horror would be alternated with the many other emotions I woldn't have anything to say. I simply wonder why is practically considered a disgrace to compose BEATIFUL classical music today.


----------



## mikeh375

oh good grief.


----------



## HansZimmer

Chat Noir said:


> You rather reveal yourself here. It's a balancing act of: avant-garde etc is is disliked (because you've talked to people who dislike it), but you do your level best to appreciate it. I think you're actually a minority by now; especially on this forum where I've actually read quite a lot of posts regarding new and some avant-garde music, both of which are very different from the run-of-the-mill fare.


Sorry, but the world is much bigger than this forum.

We can do an experiment, if you want.
We will select 1'000 random persons from the general population and we will ask them if they prefer this piece...






... or this one.







Before to begin the experiment, if you want we can make a bet about the results. Are you ready to bet 1'000 dollars on the second piece? I can tell you that I'm ready to bet 1'000 dollars on the first one.

Now if you want we can discuss about our personal tastes, but it's not difficult to understand that @Aries is right when he says that the modernism makes people turn aways from classical music. You might say that it's not a problem, that it's fine if it's music for a niche, but then you can't complain for the fact that orchestras who make a revenue thanks to classical music disappear or they convert their business to other things.

Now you will probably say that they won't never disappear because they will get money from public funds. Right: it's easier to force people to give their money for things they don't like, instead to convince them to open the wallet voluntarily.


----------



## composingmusic

HansZimmer said:


> Do I have to conclude that many modern composers ONLY want to compose horror music? If it's so, then they are limiting their expressivity. Where are the love themes, like the famous ones of Tchaikovsky? Where are the sad/melanchonic themes? Where is the happyness of Mozart? Do you want to say that our era deserves only horror?
> 
> If the horror would be alternated with the many other emotions I woldn't have anything to say. I simply wonder why is practically considered a disgrace to compose BEATIFUL classical music today.


No, modern composers don't only want to compose horror music, and this is incredibly reductive. And it's certainly not a disgrace to compose beautiful classical music today – there's plenty of music being composed today that is beautiful, at least in my view (and I know a lot of people agree with me on this). Yes, aesthetics are subjective, but again, there's a huge range in the various styles and aesthetics people are writing in today. 

From personal experience, how people view modernism and various strains of contemporary music often does have quite a lot to do with how it's marketed. If it's framed as "this is a difficult piece of new music that you're probably not going to understand," then that's what audiences will take away from it. However, if a new piece isn't framed in that light, and audiences are offered some insight to certain aspects of the piece, i.e. it explores these kinds of textures and this type of harmony, I find they are often much more receptive.


----------



## Aries

Chat Noir said:


> Very clearly you are the one confusing things my dear fellow, because you don't really have any operational idea of what you're talking about. It's either moaning about new music or making vague, pseudo-philosophical claims about what music is supposed to be doing.


Deeper thoughts are not preserved for "professional" philosphers. People should not shy away from it. And if there is a misconception, others can bring up arguments against it on a forum, on the subject level. Calling it pseudo-philosphical is just a cheap and misplaced.



Chat Noir said:


> Whether it was German, English, French, Spanish or whatever it would make no sense. If it's clear in your mind, there must be not much else there to obscure it.


This is just unworthy.



Chat Noir said:


> In any case if you don't think a purpose of art is to raise question marks, which is another way of saying 'make you think', then you might well be better off watching cartoons.


You know the difference between a mean and a purpose?

"To make someone think" can be used as a mean but it is not required for art because it is not its purpose. Questions are either a mean to entertain or to promote some kind of answers (like in propaganda or educational art for example).



Chat Noir said:


> Perhaps you should start. Comedy perhaps.


You watch that? Comedy in television is so ******. But objectively it is still art. Pathetic art most of the time today I would say. It was better in the past like so many things.



Chat Noir said:


> I think you're actually a minority by now; especially on this forum


Forums are not representative at all.


----------



## Denerah Bathory

"to falsify, to mock, to demonstrate illusory and unjust whatever...had the value of ideal, tendentiously bringing to the foreground whatever of the sensual, inferior, dirty, and bestial hides itself, or resists, in human nature. To sully every sacredness, to make every point of stability and every certainty oscillate, to instill a sense of spiritual dismay such as to favor abandonment to the lower forces" This is the ultimate covert purpose of "avant-garde", progressivist, modernist art and literature. The source of the quote is taken from Julius Evola's Myth of the Blood, and similar ideas are echoed by Hans-Jurgen Syberberg about "art" in post-war germany, how it glorifies "all that is ugly" and depraved.

The issue with Modern art, and avant-garde nonsense, is that not only does it seek to desacralize and demoralize the western world, there is erected around its presence an "intellectual immunity" whereby anyone who dares criticize or expose its falsehood is gaslit into being "uncultured, idiotic, simple, illiterate, plebeian" for not being able to appreciate or understand the alleged "sublime sophistication" (i.e. slick sophistry) of random noise, or blobs on a canvas.

Modern and post-modern art is meaningless, or the "meaning" is never understood without some fancy explanation or essay...which means that it is bad art because it cannot speak for itself! The purpose of Art, emerging in the distant past from purely religious symbolic expression, is to communicate something specific, an idea, or serve as a mnemonic device whose immediate subconscious and conscious impact is more effective than other forms of communication--in other words, Art is Communication, a transmission of wisdom or knowledge as the most "effective means" for that message in question...if a work of art remains "inscrutable" with reference to itself, then it fails in its ultimate aim. Why bother creating something that depends on its meaning coming from elsewhere? Just make the "elsewhere" the focus and be done with it!

One doesn't need to be a historian or professor of religious studies to appreciate and enjoy Wagner's Ring Cycle--Wagner imbued the work with self-contained depth, beauty, and meaning so that mythically-derived elements achieve a life of their own in his monumental work. Likewise, classic works such as The Iliad, Wuthering Heights, and Anna Karenina are enjoyed generally, universally, and do not require specialized study of Greek myth or Victorian customs, because their essential meaning is itself timeless.

Amongst proponents of today's "social nonsense" movement, borrowing Frankfurt critical "delusion" methods, it is encouraged to rip apart classic works on the sole grounds that maybe Mozart was slightly misogynistic, or that some guy was "racist" (despite everybody else sharing similar sentiments at that time, which were socially acceptable then and thus fostered)...while it is absolutely forbidden to criticize any of today's degenerate works, because you will be branded "fascist" for doing so, and possibly cancelled for merely-instigating a debate of what is, often, groundless "feelings" of identity with something a biological organism cannot possibly be.

Modern art fosters meaningless chaos, cultural decline, and the overall "confusion" whose expression finds a better home sitting on a psychiatrist's couch than exhibited in an art gallery, or performed on a musical stage.


----------



## Aries

fbjim said:


> People can talk all they want about developments in aesthetics and culture, and they're within their rights to do so, and express dislike for the art of a certain period. The objection isn't from that, it's the attempt to use special pleading to claim some kind of objective position that every development in art up until World War I was "normal" but after that it was "abnormal", when the reality is that it's simply a position of "I don't like that music much" dressed up as a historical argument.


There might be systematic reasons why many people don't like something. Take blob paintings as example an compare it to all other kinds of styles. "Blob paintings" and styles in general are not per se "normal". They could be normal or "abnormal". Both is possible. It makes sense to discuss it.


----------



## Aries

HansZimmer said:


> A film music composer uses atonality only for horror moments. If he has to compose a love theme he will use tonality. If he has to compose a sad/melanchonic theme he will probably use a minor key, if he has to compose happy music he will probably use a major key.


We should lead it back to consonance and dissonance (Consonance defined by accordance of overtones). Most atonal music is dissonant, but it is not necessarily dissonant. And tonal music can be dissonant too.

There may be a physical reason why consonant harmonies are associated by humans with relaxed feelings, and dissonances are associated with tense feelings. And why extrem dissonances are indeed associated with extrem tense feelings (like in a situation where one could die).

If a composer writes an extremely dissonant section and pretends it respresents a pieceful flower meadow, this might be just against the physical nature of our ear and brain. What do biologists say about this?


----------



## Denerah Bathory

Aries said:


> There might be systematic reasons why many people don't like something. Take blob paintings as example an compare it to all other kinds of styles. "Blob paintings" and styles in general are not per se "normal". They could be normal or "abnormal". Both is possible. It makes sense to discuss it.


And there are systematic methods by a handful of elites to subvert all meaning to reduce everyone to a homogenous mass of laborers and slave workers. There are valid reasons to oppose such insidious brainwashing, fed by the same media that sexualizes children in fashion ads by posing them with inappropriate teddy bears. Balenciaga, Epstein, Wokeism, all manufactured by elite globalist.


----------



## Aries

Denerah Bathory said:


> And there are systematic methods by a handful of elites to subvert all meaning to reduce everyone to a homogenous mass of laborers and slave workers. There are valid reasons to oppose such insidious brainwashing, fed by the same media that sexualizes children in fashion ads by posing them with inappropriate teddy bears. Balenciaga, Epstein, Wokeism, all manufactured by elite globalist.


I think some ideologues do some work there indeed, but it also doesn't explain everything. There is also an inner drive in many artists without evil plans. But we must not discuss straight out politics here. It would expand, and is not allowed in this forum outside the political subforum. And even there a connection to music must be there. So a well-meaning advise: Don't enter politics too much here.


----------



## composingmusic

I'm honestly baffled at this idea of there being some sort of conspiracy to brainwash people into thinking that contemporary music is art. Modern artists (and this includes composers) aren't creating to try to "reduce everyone to a homogenous mass of laborers and slave workers" – they are creating art that they feel is meaningful, and contributing to a greater, ongoing artistic discussion. Again, this is such an incredibly reductive viewpoint and completely discounts both contemporary art and the huge range of art being created in this day and age.


----------



## DaveM

duplicate


----------



## Chat Noir

Aries said:


> Deeper thoughts are not preserved for "professional" philosphers. People should not shy away from it. And if there is a misconception, others can bring up arguments against it on a forum, on the subject level. Calling it pseudo-philosphical is just a cheap and misplaced.


The problem here is that you believe you are having such thoughts, but aren't. Misplaced? Maybe, and yet so true.


Denerah Bathory said:


> The issue with Modern art, and avant-garde nonsense, is that not only does it seek to desacralize and demoralize the western world, there is erected around its presence an "intellectual immunity" whereby anyone who dares criticize or expose its falsehood is gaslit into being "uncultured, idiotic, simple, illiterate, plebeian" for not being able to appreciate or understand the alleged "sublime sophistication" (i.e. slick sophistry) of random noise, or blobs on a canvas.


I don't think this is at all what occurs. You may have noticed that modern/post-modern/avant-garde (call it what you will) artists don't go about looking for people to force to listen to their music or look at their art. What actually happens is groups of the famous _Disgusted from Tunbridge Wells_ choose to be offended and annoyed by it. So completely the other way around.
As for 'desacrilise' and demoralise, this is just a random moral judgement, no more and no less. Apparently modern art is unfathomable, has no messages, yet its critics seem to know exactly what it seeks to do and what it is saying. Then go about telling creators and listeners alike that they are frauds, debased, intellectually and artistically vacuous etc.

Other way around.


----------



## fbjim

I find it ironic that one would reject ambiguity in a forum about classical music, when many of the most revered composers made music in abstract forms. 

If anything, explicitly programmatic music is more associated with Modernism and Post-Modernism than classical forms, which tend to be more abstracted.


----------



## composingmusic

fbjim said:


> I find it ironic that one would reject ambiguity in a forum about classical music, when many of the most revered composers made music in abstract forms.
> 
> If anything, explicitly programmatic music is more associated with Modernism and Post-Modernism than classical forms, which tend to be more abstracted.


Indeed, there is a lot of programmatic music in post 1900 music. However, there is also lots of music that isn't programmatic, and there is a huge range of abstraction. I'd say there is an incredible range in the types of music that have been written since 1900 and in the types of music being written now.


----------



## fbjim




----------



## DaveM

composingmusic said:


> No, modern composers don't only want to compose horror music, and this is incredibly reductive. And it's certainly not a disgrace to compose beautiful classical music today – there's plenty of music being composed today that is beautiful, at least in my view (and I know a lot of people agree with me on this). Yes, aesthetics are subjective, but again, there's a huge range in the various styles and aesthetics people are writing in today.
> 
> From personal experience, how people view modernism and various strains of contemporary music often does have quite a lot to do with how it's marketed. If it's framed as "this is a difficult piece of new music that you're probably not going to understand," then that's what audiences will take away from it. However, if a new piece isn't framed in that light, and audiences are offered some insight to certain aspects of the piece, i.e. it explores these kinds of textures and this type of harmony, I find they are often much more receptive.


IMO, in this instance, the problem lies in the fact that the Stockhausen work is being lumped in with all modern, contemporary classical music when, as I see it, it is an entirely different form of music (which until a better word comes along, I refer to as avant-garde) outside of classical music. If this concept was accepted, it would remove a lot of the conflict over whether it is good or bad CM. It could be considered fine music within its separate category.

As it is, it will continue to be like trying to force a square peg in a round hole.


----------



## Aries

DaveM said:


> IMO, in this instance, the problem lies in the fact that the Stockhausen work is being lumped in with all modern, contemporary classical music when, as I see it, it is an entirely different form of music (which until a better word comes along, I refer to as avant-garde) outside of classical music. If this concept was accepted, it would remove a lot of the conflict over whether it is good or bad CM. It could be considered fine music within its separate category.


Yes, but the problem is that there are fluit transitions that are also historically relevant. Maybe a some kind of sub-category of classical music could do it. But this category should not claim to be the main direction if classical music. Despite some acknowledgments here that most composers didn't adopt the avantgarde style, you can sense the equation of contemporary music and avantegarde music in this thread again and again.


----------



## composingmusic

Both contemporary music and avant-garde music are contentious terms. The term avant-garde has been continuously rehashed in several threads, but it is a difficult term to define at best, and different people seem to have different definitions for it. If I speak of contemporary music, I'm typically speaking about music written within the last few decades or so. However, I think putting post 1900 music into boxes is a somewhat impossible task – I've said this before, and I'll say it again, there's such a web of influences across this period that trying to separate things out ends up missing the context of the ongoing conversation.


----------



## Sid James

composingmusic said:


> Both contemporary music and avant-garde music are contentious terms. The term avant-garde has been continuously rehashed in several threads, but it is a difficult term to define at best, and different people seem to have different definitions for it.


There's been an interesting discussion recently about avant-garde (link at bottom). My view is that in terms of the 1950's avant-garde, there's different aspects to it, although the main strands of serial, aleatoric and electronic music had some common points of departure (Webern was one of them).

I basically see it as a historical term, aspects of it are institutionalised (I went into detail on that thread) although its impacts are still being felt - including beyond classical. That's why I came to the conclusion there that today better terms for cutting edge music (including outside classical) might be fringe, alternative or DIY.

I think its obvious that avant-garde - even contemporary classical - exist as a parallel sort of category under the broad umbrella of classical music. If you live in a city with a large enough population, you'll not only have a symphony orchestra but various smaller groups, including chamber groups and perhaps even new music ensembles, which tend to include more music from the modern period and after. It's just part of the diversity of music out there, how music has changed since the 1950's and '60's.

Although the exact meaning of avant-garde can be debated, it doesn't mean that it has no general meaning. Let's not let this forum be held hostage to extremism, which happened with atonal music around ten years ago. Then, there where even calls by some members to stop using the word atonal, because some members (their opponents) where rubbishing that sort of music.

Categories can be useful in some limited way, but what's been done here is using history and aesthetics as sources of power, weapons in an ongoing ideological war. That's anathema to me, but I don't really see it as much more than just the usual shenanigans of the net.









What constitutes "avant-garde" classical music?


Is it a matter of personal choice, or is there an established catalogue of work that we can accept as being, or having been "avant-garde"? And if part of the definition of the term implies being at the forefront of development, even beyond what is currently acceptable, does that rule out the...




www.talkclassical.com


----------



## Denerah Bathory

Aries said:


> I think some ideologues do some work there indeed, but it also doesn't explain everything. There is also an inner drive in many artists without evil plans. But we must not discuss straight out politics here. It would expand, and is not allowed in this forum outside the political subforum. And even there a connection to music must be there. So a well-meaning advise: Don't enter politics too much here.


I am leaving valuable clues, and those who know may easily piece together the puzzle for themselves. I'm glad you picked up on such hints. Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible to avoid politics, when certain factions will stop at nothing to censor, revise and corrupt some of our favorite works (especially when it comes to German Opera works). Sadly, by limiting discussions of such elements we prevent a greater understanding of the true conflict playing itself out. I intend to ride the tiger, as Evola wrote, and see where it goes.


----------



## composingmusic

Sid James said:


> There's been an interesting discussion recently about avant-garde (link at bottom). My view is that in terms of the 1950's avant-garde, there's different aspects to it, although the main strands of serial, aleatoric and electronic music had some common points of departure (Webern was one of them).


I suppose I should clarify: labels can definitely be useful. And yes, there is a very particular movement (or set of movements) that could be classified as 1950s avant-garde. As you've said, there's a strong link to serialism: you see composers such as Boulez, Babbitt, Stravinsky, Stockhausen, Carter, Xenakis, Berio, Nono... all of these composers are individual, and all have different characteristics, but they were around at the same time and did influence each other to a greater or lesser degree. The thing with labels is that having a discussion about them can be difficult if different people have different definitions for the same label, and then use that to try and make broad generalizations... again, labels can be useful for describing things or seeing the relationships between different types of (potentially related) music. 

And yes, I am familiar with that discussion – I've posted a few replies there as well! 



Denerah Bathory said:


> Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible to avoid politics, when certain factions will stop at nothing to censor, revise and corrupt some of our favorite works (especially when it comes to German Opera works).


Where do we have people here looking to censor or corrupt older works? All I have said (and I think the others arguing the case of contemporary music being a valid art form would agree) is that our current time period is different from the time periods of the past, and classical music has evolved alongside the evolution of our larger culture. This is not the same as invalidating the music of the past, and I enjoy a good deal of older music as well.


----------



## Sid James

composingmusic said:


> The thing with labels is that having a discussion about them can be difficult if different people have different definitions for the same label, and then use that to try and make broad generalizations...


Added to that, definitions which go back too long to have current application. What has passed for debate around here is often more related to aesthetic debates of the 1950's, or even the latter half of the 19th century (e.g. the role and nature of art as expressed by Wagner and Hanslick). In this context, some of the broad generalisations do make anything amounting to normal conversation almost impossible.


----------



## Aries

composingmusic said:


> Both contemporary music and avant-garde music are contentious terms. The term avant-garde has been continuously rehashed in several threads, but it is a difficult term to define at best, and different people seem to have different definitions for it. If I speak of contemporary music, I'm typically speaking about music written within the last few decades or so.





composingmusic said:


> All I have said (and I think the others arguing the case of contemporary music being a valid art form would agree)


"Contemporary" says something about the time of composition, like in the first quote. It is bad to use for an art form like in your second quote. Romantic music is still composed, here as example the second movement of my favorite symphony of the 21st century I discovered so far:






This is not avantgarde, this is neoromantic. Avantgarde is also a difficult term, and it seems like all possible terms are difficult in this regard. The style I want to describe includes an aversion from consonance or pulse or even melody. Maybe these composers like to call themself avantgarde, I just want to have a term, and we need to have a term.



composingmusic said:


> is that our current time period is different from the time periods of the past, and classical music has evolved alongside the evolution of our larger culture.


But it is primarily about diversification. We have a great style pluralism and it matches the less uniform life we have to day compared to the 19th century. And the internet well accelerate the scattering even more.



composingmusic said:


> Where do we have people here looking to censor or corrupt older works?


The performanace practice of operas in Germany is nonsense, ideologic nonsense. Do we all agree? Even Dave Hurwitz agrees: Link

I think they performed Wagners Parsifal with everyone wearing a Nazi uniform. It is corruption.


----------



## Sid James

Whatever amounts to avant-garde music now, I don't think it is pushing neo-romantic (or other more conventional) music out of the concert halls. New music, especially that which is cutting edge, is more likely to be played by specialist ensembles rather than symphony orchestras. The repertoire of orchestras is mainly 1750 to 1950. The performance canon is virtually a closed shop. The competition would come from established composers (e.g. Glass, Part, Ades), or perhaps film music, which has been increasingly played by orchestras in an attempt to attract new audiences, make cash and update the old 19th century concert format.


----------



## Luchesi

HansZimmer said:


> I'm not among of them. I'm just one of the people who would insert the piece in the list of "recommended works" together with many others, and I'm speaking about the modern version, not about the original version.
> 
> Some persons say that it's not a good piece because the chord progressions are trivial (one of them is @Luchesi ) but they forget that the orchestration of Jean-François Paillard (author of the modern version, who relaunched the piece) is not trivial: IMO it's an example of a brilliant orchestration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that many persons in the classical music community don't understand that the compositional art is not only in the chord progressions or things like that, but also in the orchestration/arrangement.
> 
> A melody that would become soon boring if played in a flat way, can become really exciting if it's played by an orchestra with a lot of expressiveness and instrumental variations.
> 
> 
> I still remember when you wrote that the melodies of Hans Zimmer are not so good in the paper and that he's not better than other composers only because he uses orchestras. The point is that Hans Zimmer precisely uses orchestras, while other composers don't, and you completely failed to recognize that the orchestration is a part of the compositional art. I think that at least of 50% of the expressiveness in the score of the Lion King can be attributed to the orchestration technique (the melody and the orchestration do a team work in creating the drammatic arcs, so if you remove the orchestration you lose the effectiveness of drammatic arcs: you can not play the Lion King with the piano, you have to compose a new version if you want a piano version), and the same is probably true for the modern version of the Canon in D of Pachelbel.
> 
> The orchestral arrangement doesn't write itself. Who says that a composer can not focus mostly on the orchestration to reach the expressive goals? Who says that the variations must be in the chord progressions and not in the instrumentation? The variations in the instrumentation are also variations, and when you have them a repetitive melody doesn't sound repetitive.
> The original version of the Canon in D might be trivial, but the modern version is not. The enhanced/romanticized orchestration adds a lot of emotionality, drammatic arcs, expressiveness. Today, thanks to Jean-François Paillard, the piece is no more trivial.
> 
> 
> 
> Frozen??? No!!!
> 
> Maybe we simply think that there were other possible evolutions of modern classical music. It doesn't make any sense to say that the removal of tonality and melody was the inevitable evolution of classical music: you can think about other hundreds of possible evolutions.
> 
> There are infact modern composers who have showed other possible roads.


"Some persons say that it's not a good piece because the chord progressions are trivial (one of them is @Luchesi )"

I don't think a progression is trivial, but it's repeated without other changes. The Mariage piece of Senneville is similar to the Pachebel with its repeating chord progression. People like them without knowing what's going on. We understand why.. 

Children like the predictability in nursery songs, it's a human thing, but grownups can predict more than children.


----------



## composingmusic

Sid James said:


> Added to that, definitions which go back too long to have current application. What has passed for debate around here is often more related to aesthetic debates of the 1950's, or even the latter half of the 19th century (e.g. the role and nature of art as expressed by Wagner and Hanslick). In this context, some of the broad generalisations do make anything amounting to normal conversation almost impossible.


Somehow I missed this earlier. This is exactly the problem I have with the label "avant-garde" – people use it to generalize a wide range of different philosophies into the same category, claiming that these composers have an aversion to consonance, pulse, and melody. Yes, these composers are often thinking about these terms in a different sense than how common practice composers approached these terms, but I don't think they have an aversion to these things at all. 

It is true that there was a time in the 1950s where composers were trying to deliberately distance themselves from earlier music to a degree, and there were a number of historical and social reasons for this (including WWII). I think the attitude has changed quite a lot now, however.


----------



## HansZimmer

composingmusic said:


> No, modern composers don't only want to compose horror music, and this is incredibly reductive. And it's certainly not a disgrace to compose beautiful classical music today – there's plenty of music being composed today that is beautiful, at least in my view (and I know a lot of people agree with me on this). Yes, aesthetics are subjective, but again, there's a huge range in the various styles and aesthetics people are writing in today.


Can you give an example of a modern piece that you think it's beatiful in the same way as Mozart's music?


----------



## HansZimmer

Chat Noir said:


> I don't think this is at all what occurs. You may have noticed that modern/post-modern/avant-garde (call it what you will) artists don't go about looking for people to force to listen to their music or look at their art. What actually happens is groups of the famous _Disgusted from Tunbridge Wells_ choose to be offended and annoyed by it. So completely the other way around.


When there will be practically no one who listens to classical music because it has abandoned any connection with the general public, the avant-garde composers will change job, or will the ask for public funds so that the people who don't like their music will be forced to pay for it? In that case, you are not forced to listen to it, but to pay for a service that you don't want.

Some users here have already said that instead to try to persuade the folks that classical music is great, so that they will voluntarily open their wallets, the classical musicians have to take money from public funds.


----------



## composingmusic

HansZimmer said:


> Can you give an example of a modern piece that you think it's beatiful in the same way as Mozart's music?


I can give plenty of examples of contemporary and modernist-influenced music that I think is beautiful for a number of reasons. This music is all quite different from Mozart's – some of the reasons I think these pieces are beautiful are the same as why I enjoy my favorite works of Mozart, and other reasons are different. The easiest way for me to sum this up is that Mozart's music is very much music of its time, and these composers prefer to write in a different idiom. 

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to say that other people have to like this music – I appreciate that these are my own tastes, and everyone has a right to their own aesthetic preferences. However, a good deal of thought and care has gone in to writing this music, and to discount it as something where harmony, pulse, and melody don't matter is short-sighted in my opinion. This is a dismissal I've seen earlier on this thread regarding modernist-influenced and contemporary work. I'm using this term (contemporary) because I think it's more suitable than terms like avant-garde, and I don't really have a better umbrella term to try and encompass a range of music with such broad stylistic margins. 

Anyway, here is some music:


























Ophelia's Last Dance

Kaija Saariaho - Fall - for harp and live electronics

Messiaen: Vingt Regards - X. Regard de l'Esprit de joie - Pierre-Laurent Aimard

O. Messiaen: Regards sur l'Enfant-Jésus (no. 15: Le Baiser de l'Enfant-Jésus) - Aimard

Alban Berg - Altenberg Lieder (Audio + Full Score)

Alban Berg - Lulu Suite [With score]

Olivier Messiaen - Poèmes pour Mi, orchestra (1937)

Luigi Dallapiccola - Piccola Musica Notturna

Henri Dutilleux - Métaboles (Audio + Full Score)

Henri Dutilleux - Cello Concerto (Tout un monde lointain...)

In Ictu Oculi - Three Meditations

I could keep going, but this is a good start at least. And I think you can see my aesthetic preferences for sparkly and precise things 😄


----------



## fbjim

The Barber PC (1962) is famous and maybe more well known for its incredibly difficult outer movements but I adore the Canzone


----------



## mikeh375

Mention of Barber reminded me of this beauty, a modern day equivalent of Barber's Adagio perhaps...


----------



## HansZimmer

composingmusic said:


> I can give plenty of examples of contemporary and modernist-influenced music that I think is beautiful for a number of reasons. This music is all quite different from Mozart's – some of the reasons I think these pieces are beautiful are the same as why I enjoy my favorite works of Mozart, and other reasons are different. The easiest way for me to sum this up is that Mozart's music is very much music of its time, and these composers prefer to write in a different idiom.
> 
> Just to be clear, I'm not trying to say that other people have to like this music – I appreciate that these are my own tastes, and everyone has a right to their own aesthetic preferences. However, a good deal of thought and care has gone in to writing this music, and to discount it as something where harmony, pulse, and melody don't matter is short-sighted in my opinion. This is a dismissal I've seen earlier on this thread regarding modernist-influenced and contemporary work. I'm using this term (contemporary) because I think it's more suitable than terms like avant-garde, and I don't really have a better umbrella term to try and encompass a range of music with such broad stylistic margins.
> 
> Anyway, here is some music:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ophelia's Last Dance
> 
> Kaija Saariaho - Fall - for harp and live electronics
> 
> Messiaen: Vingt Regards - X. Regard de l'Esprit de joie - Pierre-Laurent Aimard
> 
> O. Messiaen: Regards sur l'Enfant-Jésus (no. 15: Le Baiser de l'Enfant-Jésus) - Aimard
> 
> Alban Berg - Altenberg Lieder (Audio + Full Score)
> 
> Alban Berg - Lulu Suite [With score]
> 
> Olivier Messiaen - Poèmes pour Mi, orchestra (1937)
> 
> Luigi Dallapiccola - Piccola Musica Notturna
> 
> Henri Dutilleux - Métaboles (Audio + Full Score)
> 
> Henri Dutilleux - Cello Concerto (Tout un monde lointain...)
> 
> In Ictu Oculi - Three Meditations
> 
> I could keep going, but this is a good start at least. And I think you can see my aesthetic preferences for sparkly and precise things 😄


I asked you to give examples of modern classical music that you think is beatiful and you gave me examples of pieces which have melodies. Yes, there's a bit of dissonance, but there is also a pleasant melody.
Doesn't this prove that @DaveM and I are right? Maybe you are missing the point: we never said that the modern classical music is necessarily bad in itself, but that music without melodies is not pleasant (in some cases is even "horror") and that this kind of music is a large part of modernism.


----------



## composingmusic

HansZimmer said:


> I asked you to give examples of modern classical music that you think is beatiful and you gave me examples of pieces which have melodies. Yes, there's a bit of dissonance, but there is also a pleasant melody.
> Doesn't this prove that @DaveM and I are right? Maybe you are missing the point: we never said that the modern classical music is necessarily bad in itself, but that music without melodies is not pleasant (in some cases is even "horror") and that this kind of music is a large part of modernism.


No, it doesn't mean that music without melody is unpleasant. You specifically asked me "Can you give an example of a modern piece that you think it's beautiful in the same way as Mozart's music?" which is a different question from "Can you give me an example of a modern piece that you enjoy?"


----------



## HansZimmer

mikeh375 said:


> Mention of Barber reminded me of this beauty, a modern day equivalent of Barber's Adagio perhaps...


This is supermelodic. Thanks, but this is not the kind of music that you can use to prove that music can be beatiful without pleasant melodies.


----------



## HansZimmer

composingmusic said:


> No, it doesn't mean that music without melody is unpleasant. You specifically asked me "Can you give an example of a modern piece that you think it's beautiful in the same way as Mozart's music?" which is a different question from "Can you give me an example of a modern piece that you enjoy?"


Right, however my real question was: can the most revolutionary modern music be pleasant like Mozart's music? Not for you (and the niche audience that like the avant-garde music), but for the folks outside of this forum.


----------



## composingmusic

HansZimmer said:


> Right, however my real question was: can the most revolutionary modern music be pleasant like Mozart's music? Not for you (and the niche audience that like the avant-garde music), but for the folks outside of this forum.


Again, this is more of a mentality from the 1950s avant-garde movement or the experimentalists from the latter half of the 20th century rather than now. Also, I think there is a bit of a false dichotomy here. It's not like there is only either fully melodic and consonant music, or fully dissonant and difficult music. Most music (including music being written now) falls somewhere in the middle of this on a spectrum. Some of the examples I provided have clearer melodic content than others – some are quite melodic indeed, others are less so and focus more on elements like texture and gesture (this can also be extremely compelling if done well). 

As I have already said, I think trying to say whether or not this music is pleasant in the same way as Mozart's is a bit of an unfair question, as these types of music are completely different. Looking at other examples from across music history: Wagner is going to be beautiful for different reasons than Mozart, Monteverdi, Bach, Chopin, Debussy, or Purcell. And yes, I do think this type of music can speak to larger audiences. As with any music, some people will end up liking it, and others won't. I won't claim that everyone will enjoy it, but we all have our own aesthetic preferences, no?


----------



## fbjim

frankly for "folks outside this forum" a great deal of mainstream music is mostly not melodic. in fact this has kind of been the trend in popular music due to hip-hop and dance outpacing the growth of rock music


----------



## Chat Noir

HansZimmer said:


> When there will be practically no one who listens to classical music because it has abandoned any connection with the general public, the avant-garde composers will change job, or will the ask for public funds so that the people who don't like their music will be forced to pay for it? In that case, you are not forced to listen to it, but to pay for a service that you don't want.
> 
> Some users here have already said that instead to try to persuade the folks that classical music is great, so that they will voluntarily open their wallets, the classical musicians have to take money from public funds.


I think I already mentioned before that public funding isn't sourced from your pocket (or anyone's). That's a different discussion even if relevant. In any case the scenario you sketch is rather far-fetched, because as has been reiterated umpteen times now, the music you like hasn't gone away or been displaced or removed from concert programming. Indeed it is still the bulk of concert programming. New music generally makes its way into the mainstream (if at all) slowly and by a sort of selection. Whatever becomes accepted tends to remain and the rest falls by the wayside.

No-one is forcing you to listen to anything. You've been told this now about 100 times.


----------



## HansZimmer

fbjim said:


> frankly for "folks outside this forum" a great deal of mainstream music is mostly not melodic. in fact this has kind of been the trend in popular music due to hip-hop and dance outpacing the growth of rock music


False.

Rap music is melodic.
Two of the great successes of hip-hop.











The idea that there is no harmony is false: the voice of the singer is harmonized with the beat. It's not true that they are simply speaking on the beat.

The fact that the rap beats usually contain hooks and not elaborated melodies doesn't mean that they are not melodic. Simple melodies are still melodies.


----------



## Chat Noir

HansZimmer said:


> False.
> 
> Rap music is melodic.
> Two of the great successes oh hip-hop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that there is no harmony is falsed: the voice of the singer is harmonized with the beat. It's not true that they are simply speaking on the beat.
> 
> The fact that the rap beats usually contains hooks and not complex melodies doesn't mean that the beat are not melodic. Simple melodies are still melodies.


Both of those are based upon pre-existing music. The 2Pac is a sample from Bruce Hornsby and the Range.

So this is a false example. It would be like a song based upon Mozart's Symphony 41, then used to 'prove' pop music is as good as Mozart.


----------



## composingmusic

Chat Noir said:


> I think I already mentioned before that public funding isn't sourced from your pocket (or anyone's). That's a different discussion even if relevant. In any case the scenario you sketch is rather far-fetched, because as has been reiterated umpteen times now, the music you like hasn't gone away or been displaced or removed from concert programming. Indeed it is still the bulk of concert programming. New music generally makes its way into the mainstream (if at all) slowly and by a sort of selection. Whatever becomes accepted tends to remain and the rest falls by the wayside.
> 
> No-one is forcing you to listen to anything. You've been told this now about 100 times.


Seconding this. Also, on the note of funding: what funding does is that it makes classical (including, but certainly not limited to contemporary classical) music more accessible. Looking at prices for concerts in the city of the east coast US, where I've lived, and comparing that to Finland, where I have also lived: the concert tickets on average for said east-coast city are far, far greater than the ticket prices for comparable concerts in Finland. This goes for opera, orchestral, and chamber music concerts – and do keep in mind that I'm saying this on a level of statistics, not that every single concert in said east-coast US city will be more expensive than any single concert in Finland. 

Public funding also tends to make music education much, much more accessible, and I do think that ties into this. From my personal experience, when speaking with non-musicians in Finland vs. non-musicians in the aforementioned east-coast city, non-musicians in Finland were far, far more likely to have an interest in (and sometimes surprisingly in-depth knowledge of) contemporary classical music.


----------



## Chat Noir

composingmusic said:


> Public funding also tends to make music education much, much more accessible, and I do think that ties into this.


I completely agree, the key point (which I didn't make explicitly) is that the notion of 'public funding' being used by HansZimmer, to make it seem like it is an 'unfair cost' is not even a coherent understanding of how public spending operates; so it should really have no viable place in this discussion. The view that some people unwillingly 'pay for' things (anything) from which other people benefit via public spending, is an unfounded view.


----------



## HansZimmer

Chat Noir said:


> Both of those are based upon pre-existing music. The 2Pac is a sample from Bruce Hornsby and the Range.
> 
> So this is a false example. It would be like a song based upon Mozart's Symphony 41, then used to 'prove' pop music is as good as Mozart.


What's the point? We are not discussing if the rap producers are good melody makers, but if in rap there are melodies or not.

However there also original melodies in rap. I think that the melody of this song of eminem for example is original. It's not?


----------



## fbjim

to be honest its more of a discussion dating from like the 80s/90s or before when there was a big backlash against public arts funding and stuff like "P*ss Christ" and NEA grants became fodder for newspaper pundits and late night TV hosts

if your orchestra has public funding it's almost certainly being funded to just play orchestral repertoire like any other given orchestra.


----------



## fbjim

HansZimmer said:


> What's the point? We are not discussing if the rap producers are good melody makers, but if in rap there are melodies or not.
> 
> However there also original melodies in rap. I think that the melody of this song of eminem for example is original. It's not?


there is definitely hip-hop which has verse-chorus formats which is more melodic along the lines of R+B or a pop song. it's just not really an inherent aspect of the genre the way that it is in, say, lieder.


----------



## Chat Noir

HansZimmer said:


> What's the point? We are not discussing if the rap producers are good melody makers, but if in rap there are melodies or not.
> 
> However there also original melodies in rap. I think that the melody of this song of eminem for example is original. It's not?


No, this is incorrect. We have to discount samples because they refer to something else. If a song uses something else with a known melody it is only melodious by dint of 2nd-hand use. 

If Eminem chooses to employ what you refer to as melody it means only that Eminem's choice tallies with your opinion, not that you and Eminem have a correct view of what constitues melody in music.


----------



## composingmusic

fbjim said:


> if your orchestra has public funding it's almost certainly being funded to just play orchestral repertoire like any other given orchestra.


Yes, and one thing that funding is going towards is making the price of ticket sales more reasonable! If anything, it means that concert-goes who want to see any kind of classical music concert have to pay less for a ticket than if all of the funding for the orchestra was coming from box office sales.


----------



## HansZimmer

Chat Noir said:


> No, this is incorrect. We have to discount samples because they refer to something else. If a song uses something else with a known melody it is only melodious by dint of 2nd-hand use.
> 
> If Eminem chooses to employ what you refer to as melody it means only that Eminem's choice tallies with your opinion, not that you and Eminem have a correct view of what constitues melody in music.


I don't understand what you are saying. The point is simple: if there is a melody in the beat, then the song is melodic. I don't get how exactly the hook in the song of Eminem wouldn't be melodic. Only because it's rudimental doesn't mean that it's not melodic.


----------



## Chat Noir

composingmusic said:


> Yes, and one thing that funding is going towards is making the price of ticket sales more reasonable! If anything, it means that concert-goes who want to see any kind of classical music concert have to pay less for a ticket than if all of the funding for the orchestra was coming from box office sales.


And in any case, since classical music is a fairly niche area - in comparison to popular music at any rate - it is the difference between concert venues closing down or staying open. The view that 'they must be self-financing' is short-sighted. Farming isn't financially viable, but if it wasn't subsidised we'd starve. Perhaps classical music isn't quite as urgent as food, but if we were to enumerate all the things supported by subsidy which actually aren't much of a contribution to public well-being and advancement, supporting orchestras would start to look very benign.


----------



## Chat Noir

HansZimmer said:


> I don't understand what you are saying. The point is simple: if there is a melody in the beat, then the song is melodic. I don't get how exactly the hook in the song of Eminem wouldn't be melodic. Only because it's rudimental doesn't mean that it's not melodic.


I didn't say Eminem's song couldn't be considered melodious. I said you have a fixed and limited conception of what 'melodic' means. So you post examples and then compare them to things you think don't qualify as 'melodic' or having harmony you have decided doesn't qualify as harmony.


----------



## composingmusic

Chat Noir said:


> I didn't say Eminem's song couldn't be considered melodious. I said you have a fixed and limited conception of what 'melodic' means. So you post examples and then compare them to things you think don't qualify as 'melodic' or having harmony you have decided doesn't qualify as harmony.


Yes, and going off of this, they seem to decide things are either 'melodic' or 'not melodic' in quite a black and white way. Based on what I posted earlier, I suppose Takemitsu's _Spirit Garden_, Messiaen's _Vingt Regards_ no. 10, Dutilleux's _Métaboles_, Saariaho's _Fall_, and Dallapiccola's _Piccolo Musica Notturna_ would all be classified as melodic, I suppose...?


----------



## DaveM

composingmusic said:


> Yes, and going off of this, they seem to decide things are either 'melodic' or 'not melodic' in quite a black and white way. Based on what I posted earlier, I suppose Takemitsu's _Spirit Garden_, Messiaen's _Vingt Regards_ no. 10, Dutilleux's _Métaboles_, Saariaho's _Fall_, and Dallapiccola's _Piccolo Musica Notturna_ would all be classified as melodic, I suppose...?


You and others here are being disingenuous and evading the subject. The Bubbles experiment was clearly referring to amelodic, harmony-less music that sounds like it was randomly composed and is what has often been called avant-garde. That’s what the actual Bubbles work was presented as an example. It was not presented as an example of other modern works that don’t have these characteristics:

_I think that such experiments should be performed more often so that it becomes clear that the *avantgarde* mentality is causing damage to modern classical music and hindering the development of new music that actually relates to way humans perceive music._

Referring to the subject matter of recent posts:

The repeated references to the fact that the music in question was more a subject of the 1950s is irrelevant. That kind of music has continued to be composed since then. Besides the subject of the OP and the Bubbles experiment is specific and the repeated defensive attempts to change the subject to music that is being composed that isn‘t like it is also irrelevant.

The fact that a few have tried to find some value in the Bubbles Experiment music itself is also irrelevant. Ridiculous exceptions don’t prove the rule.

Finally, while it is interesting to see what a little juicing of the Bubbles music will do by an experienced composer, in the end all the lipstick on the original pig is not going to change what were the results of the experiment.


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> You and others here are being disingenuous and evading the subject. The Bubbles experiment was clearly referring to amelodic, harmony-less music that sounds like it was randomly composed and is what has often been called avant-garde. That’s what the actual Bubbles work was presented as an example. It was not presented as an example of other modern works that don’t have these characteristics:
> 
> _I think that such experiments should be performed more often so that it becomes clear that the *avantgarde* mentality is causing damage to modern classical music and hindering the development of new music that actually relates to way humans perceive music._


Since there are people, myself among them, who find the kind of music described above as worthwhile, interesting, enjoyable, and often beautiful, any claim that this kind of music is doing damage to modern classical music is absurd. 

The Bubbles experiment has proved nothing, to me, except that its perpetrator has a problem with avant-garde classical music, and is the only person (along with other like-minded people) trying to hinder the development of modern classical music.


----------



## Chat Noir

DaveM said:


> You and others here are being disingenuous and evading the subject. The Bubbles experiment was clearly referring to amelodic, harmony-less music that sounds like it was randomly composed and is what has often been called avant-garde. That’s what the actual Bubbles work was presented as an example.


Okay, but as such the parameters of the 'experiment' don't warrant or support the conclusions drawn, which are far beyond those parameters.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> Since there are people, myself among them, who find the kind of music described above as worthwhile, interesting, enjoyable, and often beautiful, any claim that this kind of music is doing damage to modern classical music is absurd.


It may be wonderful music in its own category and people are free to love it as such, but the attempt to redefine it as a category of music that it isn‘t is what is absurd. Personally, I think this kind of music caused a distraction to the development of modern CM in the mid 20th century. Composers were coming out of academia with the idea that creating CM that dispensed with melody, harmony and structure was a great idea.



> The Bubbles experiment has proved nothing, to me, except that its perpetrator has a problem with avant-garde classical music, and is the only person (along with other like-minded people) *trying to hinder the development of modern classical music.*


You may be the only one posting here that thinks the Bubbles Experiment music was an attempt to hinder the development of modern classical music, unless, of course, you think that all modern music has the characteristics of the Bubbles music.


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> _I think that such experiments should be performed more often so that it becomes clear that the *avantgarde* mentality is causing damage to modern classical music and hindering the development of new music that actually relates to way humans perceive music._


But it's something the Beatles also had. How is it hindering the development of new music? Anyone today can compose in any way they want to (even in common practice tonal methods). No one's stopping them. Has it hindered John Williams from composing in his way?


----------



## composingmusic

DaveM said:


> You and others here are being disingenuous and evading the subject. The Bubbles experiment was clearly referring to amelodic, harmony-less music that sounds like it was randomly composed and is what has often been called avant-garde. That’s what the actual Bubbles work was presented as an example. It was not presented as an example of other modern works that don’t have these characteristics:


I disagree with this assessment. This quote follows from a different question within the thread that I was answering: "Can you give an example of a modern piece that you think it's beatiful in the same way as Mozart's music?" I tried to supply a few pieces that I enjoy, and some of the reasons I enjoy these pieces are similar to reasons I enjoy Mozart. However, I did my best to make it clear that I was not saying these pieces are similar, even if they share some characteristics. The poster who asked the earlier question then replied, claiming my argument was invalid because the pieces I supplied are 'melodic'. Again, I do not think this distinction is as clear as you or others seem to think it is; yes, there are pieces that clearly have melody, and there are some pieces that don't use pitch, but there is a huge range of music in between these two extremes. 

The same goes for harmony: if we look at spectral music, for instance, one of the things this type of music examines is the movement between what they term _harmonicity_ and_ inharmonicity_. Harmonicity, loosely speaking, refers to something that aligns with the overtone series, and inharmonicity refers to something that moves away from this. At the extreme end of inharmonicity, you have sound that does not have a clear fundamental. Sometimes there are lines that could be termed melodic, and other times there are not. I'm not saying that these labels cannot be useful; rather, I caution against using these labels in a reductive way. 



DaveM said:


> I think that such experiments should be performed more often so that it becomes clear that the *avantgarde* mentality is causing damage to modern classical music and hindering the development of new music that actually relates to way humans perceive music.


Again, I disagree with the mentality that avant-garde music (whatever this term even means in this day and age) is causing damage to modern music – this is not the case. And if anything, this kind of music explores different ways that humans can think of and perceive music. It broadens how people listen instead of hindering the development of how people listen. 



DaveM said:


> The repeated references to the fact that the music in question was more a subject of the 1950s is irrelevant. That kind of music has continued to be composed since then. Besides the subject of the OP and the Bubbles experiment is specific and the repeated defensive attempts to change the subject to music that is being composed that isn‘t like it is also irrelevant.


The reason people keep bringing up the 1950s is because there was a certain mentality then in avant-garde circles, and it seems to me as though a number of people here think composers still have this mentality today. As for bringing up different music, this is because again, I don't think these categories are as clear-cut as you seem to think they are, and this music is both influencing and being influenced by the music around it to a great degree.


----------



## Chat Noir

DaveM said:


> You may be the only one posting here that thinks the Bubbles Experiment music was an attempt to hinder the development of modern classical music, unless, of course, you think that all modern music has the characteristics of the Bubbles music.


How so? I don't think that at all. It was a failed experiment, which very few serious composers or musicians would have taken seriously precisely because it bears little resemblance to any seriously written music. It was an attempt to discredit 'modern music', according to that fellow's view (and that of a minority of conservatives). More than that though, to discredit music critics, but he should have known that music critics are like all other critics and not the last word.

Nothing the fellow did hindered any music, except for perhaps his own and his reputation.


----------



## Chat Noir

composingmusic said:


> I disagree with this assessment. This quote follows from a different question within the thread that I was answering: "Can you give an example of a modern piece that you think it's beatiful in the same way as Mozart's music?" I tried to supply a few pieces that I enjoy, and some of the reasons I enjoy these pieces are similar to reasons I enjoy Mozart. However, I did my best to make it clear that I was not saying these pieces are similar, even if they share some characteristics. The poster who asked the earlier question then replied, claiming my argument was invalid because the pieces I supplied are 'melodic'. Again, I do not think this distinction is as clear as you or others seem to think it is; yes, there are pieces that clearly have melody, and there are some pieces that don't use pitch, but there is a huge range of music in between these two extremes.
> 
> The same goes for harmony: if we look at spectral music, for instance, one of the things this type of music examines is the movement between what they term _harmonicity_ and_ inharmonicity_. Harmonicity, loosely speaking, refers to something that aligns with the overtone series, and inharmonicity refers to something that moves away from this. At the extreme end of inharmonicity, you have sound that does not have a clear fundamental. Sometimes there are lines that could be termed melodic, and other times there are not. I'm not saying that these labels cannot be useful; rather, I caution against using these labels in a reductive way.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I disagree with the mentality that avant-garde music (whatever this term even means in this day and age) is causing damage to modern music – this is not the case. And if anything, this kind of music explores different ways that humans can think of and perceive music. It broadens how people listen instead of hindering the development of how people listen.
> 
> 
> 
> The reason people keep bringing up the 1950s is because there was a certain mentality then in avant-garde circles, and it seems to me as though a number of people here think composers still have this mentality today. As for bringing up different music, this is because again, I don't think these categories are as clear-cut as you seem to think they are, and this music is both influencing and being influenced by the music around it to a great degree.


Brilliant post. I agree with every word.


----------



## composingmusic

Chat Noir said:


> Brilliant post. I agree with every word.


Thank you!


----------



## DaveM

composingmusic said:


> ..Again, I do not think this distinction is as clear as you or others seem to think it is; yes, there are pieces that clearly have melody, and there are some pieces that don't use pitch, but there is a huge range of music in between these two extremes.
> 
> The same goes for harmony: if we look at spectral music, for instance, one of the things this type of music examines is the movement between what they term _harmonicity_ and_ inharmonicity_. Harmonicity, loosely speaking, refers to something that aligns with the overtone series, and inharmonicity refers to something that moves away from this. At the extreme end of inharmonicity, you have sound that does not have a clear fundamental. Sometimes there are lines that could be termed melodic, and other times there are not. I'm not saying that these labels cannot be useful; rather, I caution against using these labels in a reductive way.
> 
> Again, I disagree with the mentality that avant-garde music (whatever this term even means in this day and age) is causing damage to modern music – this is not the case. And if anything, this kind of music explores different ways that humans can think of and perceive music. It broadens how people listen instead of hindering the development of how people listen.
> 
> The reason people keep bringing up the 1950s is because there was a certain mentality then in avant-garde circles, and it seems to me as though a number of people here think composers still have this mentality today. As for bringing up different music, this is because again, I don't think these categories are as clear-cut as you seem to think they are, and this music is both influencing and being influenced by the music around it to a great degree.


There is no mystery about the music that the Bubbles Experiment was aimed at and there is no mystery or confusion about what kind of music, the term ‘avant-garde’ as used here is referring to, however much some people think a better term is necessary. Btw, you’re the one that brought up the 1950s and the one who is claiming that composers have moved on from the music under discussion. Well, they all haven’t and we’ve had a couple of ‘new’ composers (who no longer post) on this forum that prove it.

Btw, it would be nice if you would address the music that the Bubbles Experiment was referring to instead of trying to change the subject by referring to other modern/contemporary music, as if music without melody, harmony and structure is no longer being composed as classical music.


----------



## composingmusic

DaveM said:


> Btw, you’re the one that brought up the 1950s and the one who is claiming that composers have moved on from the music under discussion. Well, they all haven’t and we’ve had a couple of ‘new’ composers (who no longer post) on this forum that prove it.


Actually, I'm not the first person to have brought up the 1950s as a time of a specific type of aesthetic philosophy:


Sid James said:


> Added to that, definitions which go back too long to have current application. What has passed for debate around here is often more related to aesthetic debates of the 1950's, or even the latter half of the 19th century (e.g. the role and nature of art as expressed by Wagner and Hanslick). In this context, some of the broad generalisations do make anything amounting to normal conversation almost impossible.


And I never said that nobody writes this type of music anymore. What I was saying is that the philosophy of aesthetics has shifted since the 1950s, and thus the realm of aesthetic possibilities has opened up. As a result, the breadth of different types of aesthetics has expanded greatly. 



DaveM said:


> Btw, it would be nice if you would address the music that the Bubbles Experiment was referring to instead of trying to change the subject by referring to other modern/contemporary music, as if music without melody, harmony and structure is no longer being composed.


As I said, I was addressing other replies on this forum. I think the claim that I was "trying to change the subject" is misleading – again, I don't think these categories are nearly as clear-cut as you seem to think they are. In any case, the music I posted earlier is not tonal, at least not strictly in the common practice sense, even if it refers to tonal idioms sometimes. This is also music that was very much influenced by composers like Stockhausen, Ligeti, and many others.


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> You may be the only one posting here that thinks the Bubbles Experiment music was an attempt to hinder the development of modern classical music, unless, of course, you think that all modern music has the characteristics of the Bubbles music.


He would like to hinder the development of the modern music he calls non-melodic, lacking a pulse, and employing randomness. I never said "all" modern music.


----------



## DaveM

Chat Noir said:


> How so? I don't think that at all. It was a failed experiment, which very few serious composers or musicians would have taken seriously precisely because it bears little resemblance to any seriously written music. It was an attempt to discredit 'modern music', according to that fellow's view (and that of a minority of conservatives).


Unfortunately, the OP poster made some unreasonable general comments about ‘modern’ and ‘atonal’ music, but still, it was clear what kind of music the Experiment was aimed at.

Having said that, you and others have seemed to have lost track of the specifics of the Bubbles Experiment. The composers involved were those on the the board of the FST (Netherlands Fund for the Creation of Music) or its advisory committees. There is no evidence that these weren’t ‘serious’ composers. If one thinks they weren’t serious composers, then that would seem to include a fair number of composers in the Netherlands that hold responsible positions.

The author refers more than once to specifically ‘*avant-garde*’ music as if it is assumed that the reader knows what music he’s talking about (contrary to those here who think the term is vague). He is claiming that music like that has the sort of originality that is required to be funded by the FST. The following is directly quoted from the author (the bolding is mine):

‘_That conception of originality, which has prevailed for decades, is utterly misguided in my view. …it discourages craftsmanship and ignores what makes a work of art truly valuable in a timeless sense. *As I see it, this misconception is at the very core of the gigantic rift between what critics tell us is great contemporary music, on one hand, and what classical music audiences actually love to hear, on the other.*

That is what led me to "compose" ‘Bubbles’ my one and only "*avant-garde" work *in 2005.*. [Its] underlying material consisted merely of random notes played by my then young and as yet musically uneducated children, on a keyboard connected to my computer.* Using several computerized processes that were entirely mechanical and in no way truly creative, I translated this meaningless material into a score playable by an ensemble of various instruments [Bubbles (Five Miniatures for Ten Players]

In 2006, I submitted the result to the FST with a request for a "commission in retrospect." *My aim was to test the presumably "expert" response to a composition that I judged to be worthless non-music but that conformed to their idea of originality.* Within a few months, a letter from the FST arrived, informing me of its favorable decision. *Not only was I granted the requested commission for the piece but, topping that, I was told that both advisory committees regarded Bubbles as "surpassing my regular output" with respect to its idiom!* Understandably elated at having proved my point, I told the story to a few friends.’_

Now, one may choose to dismiss this as a ’failed experiment’, but I don’t see any evidence that it failed. The music was not composed by a composer with any experience and the music was accepted by a board and advisors (consisting of a number of composers) as having enough substance to merit funding and it addition the music was complimented as having surpassed the author‘s usual music.


----------



## Aries

Sid James said:


> Whatever amounts to avant-garde music now, I don't think it is pushing neo-romantic (or other more conventional) music out of the concert halls.





SanAntone said:


> Since there are people, myself among them, who find the kind of music described above as worthwhile, interesting, enjoyable, and often beautiful, any claim that this kind of music is doing damage to modern classical music is absurd.


This is a point. If something declines, there is often a reflex to accuse something else that looks strong in some way. But most of the time the real reason of the decline is inner weakness. 

The problem is that the concert audience is saturated, and doesn't even want new works. Audiences of film and video game music are superficial without high demands. The societies overall and especially the elites are oblivious and rejecting towards history and tradition maintainance. The requirments are not there for a cultural heyday anymore. And this Problem goes way beyond classical music.

Avantegarde music has a special aestheitic, and it is no issue if some people like it. But it can not have the same function for the overall society as traditional classical music because of the special aesthetic. But in order to bring back the classical aesthetic to greatness, the overall culture needs to be cured, what for themselve is obviously way more important than classical music. I don't see this without a collapse before which is predictable and seems inevitable. What is interessting is that the development of arts may be an early indicator for a cultural collapse. As if we lost our soul already long time ago.


----------



## Chat Noir

DaveM said:


> ‘_That conception of originality, which has prevailed for decades, is utterly misguided in my view. …it discourages craftsmanship and ignores what makes a work of art truly valuable in a timeless sense. *As I see it, this misconception is at the very core of the gigantic rift between what critics tell us is great contemporary music, on one hand, and what classical music audiences actually love to hear, on the other.*_


That above paragraph is problematic. It's just opinion. He ought to know that in the Netherlands (where I spend some of my time when I cross the border, and I'm there now until after Christmas) there are many sorts of audiences. For baroque/classical, for romantic, for modern music. Some straddling more than one or all. If you were to believe him, there is a situation where ALL newly-commissioned works are as he describes, but it's not true. He is, in fact, being dishonest, and probably has an axe to grind. His 'classical music audiences' is not a homogeneous group. There are numerous outlets for all types of composition. In any case I don't think he can ever have an argument based upon the complaint of: _'they_ won't accept and fund my music as representing modern music, because they're biased against me.' The idea there are gatekeepers keeping him out of everything is fictional. If this were true he would be working in a supermarket or something.


DaveM said:


> The music was not composed by a composer with any experience and the music was accepted by a board and advisors (consisting of a number of composers) as having enough substance to merit funding and it addition the music was complimented as having surpassed the author‘s usual music


It actually did have a composer's organisational hand in it. We know this already. He may reject the aleatoric approach which is then organised by the composer's hand, but it's what he did and he chose that method himself. That other people rated it as decent enough is perhaps a slap in the face for him, but there we are. Tant pis pour lui.


----------



## Denerah Bathory

Aries said:


> This is a point. If something declines, there is often a reflex to accuse something else that looks strong in some way. But most of the time the real reason of the decline is inner weakness.
> 
> The problem is that the concert audience is saturated, and doesn't even want new works. Audiences of film and video game music are superficial without high demands. The societies overall and especially the elites are oblivious and rejecting towards history and tradition maintainance. The requirments are not there for a cultural heyday anymore. And this Problem goes way beyond classical music.
> 
> Avantegarde music has a special aestheitic, and it is no issue if some people like it. But it can not have the same function for the overall society as traditional classical music because of the special aesthetic. But in order to bring back the classical aesthetic to greatness, the overall culture needs to be cured, what for themselve is obviously way more important than classical music. I don't see this without a collapse before which is predictable and seems inevitable. What is interessting is that the development of arts may be an early indicator for a cultural collapse. As if we lost our soul already long time ago.


 I find solace in the writings of Julius Evola. Revolt Against the Modern World


----------



## DaveM

Chat Noir said:


> That above paragraph is problematic. It's just opinion. He ought to know that in the Netherlands (where I spend some of my time when I cross the border, and I'm there now until after Christmas) there are many sorts of audiences. For baroque/classical, for romantic, for modern music. Some straddling more than one or all. If you were to believe him, there is a situation where ALL newly-commissioned works are as he describes, but it's not true. He is, in fact, being dishonest, and probably has an axe to grind. His 'classical music audiences' is not a homogeneous group. There are numerous outlets for all types of composition. In any case I don't think he can ever have an argument based upon the complaint of: _'they_ won't accept and fund my music as representing modern music, because they're biased against me.' The idea there are gatekeepers keeping him out of everything is fictional. If this were true he would be working in a supermarket or something.


Some of this may or may not be true. But it is, after all, your opinion, particularly the parts suggesting he is being dishonest and that a restriction of a substantial amount of his funding was fictional. (And he didn’t say he was kept out of everything.)



> It actually did have a composer's organisational hand in it. We know this already. He may reject the aleatoric approach which is then organised by the composer's hand, but it's what he did and he chose that method himself. That other people rated it as decent enough is perhaps a slap in the face for him, but there we are. Tant pis pour lui.


There is no evidence that the end result was in the category of value-added. It is obvious that, considering the source of the music, some sort of stringing together of the random output had to be necessary. The slap in the face was to those who found the music decent.


----------



## Chat Noir

DaveM said:


> Some of this may or may not be true. But it is, after all, your opinion, particularly the parts suggesting he is being dishonest and that a restriction of a substantial amount of his funding was fictional. (And he didn’t say he was kept out of everything.)


The only ways to test it are to investigate what sorts of music have been commissioned in the Netherlands, by whom and for what; and to investigate the composers currently active and what they write. Possibly a bit of an effort and time time-consuming perhaps. Otherwise you have to accept his view because it is congenial to you, or my view. Or to just suspend judgement.


DaveM said:


> There is no evidence that the end result was in the category of value-added. It is obvious that, considering the source of the music, some sort of stringing together of the random output had to be necessary. The slap in the face was to those who found the music decent.


Clearly there was 'value-added' because he made choices about what to place where (since there is apparently no beat/rhythm, yet he scored it with a time signature and he also made subsequent orchestration choices.

The point missed in all of this is that he is trying to equate what he did with the working methods and output of every composer he thinks might be a fraud. Using the fact that some judges thought it might have merit.
The additional claim is that this is the sort of music which gets most funding and most attention, but this is also fake news.

Dave you seem like a decent fellow to me so I don't want you to thnk I'm trying to be rude or insult your intelligence. From reading around I understand that you just don't like or haven't come to agree with music which strays from tonal centres and which was the standard before roughly 1900. I have no problem with that because your tastes are none of my business. What I can't fathom is why you are on a crusade to find reasons to justify your tastes? They don't need any outside justifications. There seems to be sort of insecurity among some listeners who know that different music exists and is considered part of the 'classical music' canon, but to which they can't or won't listen. The problem being that this seems to make them feel shut out or old-fashioned or something.I don't know what. So the approach seems to be to find reasons to discredit it and thereby devalue it and hopefully make it go away to remove the perceived threat.

You may well disagree with that as a 'diagnosis', but this is what is has always looked like to me, and I have been around music a long time. These debates are 50 years old or more. Yet times have moved on and as someone else said in this thread or another one, it's now at a point where there practically are no 'schools' in the sense of the post-belle epochand the 50s/60s and in a spotty fashion throughout the remaining period to now. Composing with a freer hand, yet a foot in the established practise, already began a long time ago.


----------



## DaveM

Chat Noir said:


> Dave you seem like a decent fellow to me so I don't want you to thnk I'm trying to be rude or insult your intelligence. From reading around I understand that you just don't like or haven't come to agree with music which strays from tonal centres and which was the standard before roughly 1900. I have no problem with that because your tastes are none of my business. *What I can't fathom is why you are on a crusade to find reasons to justify your tastes? They don't need any outside justifications. There seems to be sort of insecurity among some listeners who know that different music exists and is considered part of the 'classical music' canon, but to which they can't or won't listen.* The problem being that this seems to make them feel shut out or old-fashioned or something.I don't know what. So the approach seems to be to find reasons to discredit it and thereby devalue it and hopefully make it go away to remove the perceived threat.
> 
> You may well disagree with that as a 'diagnosis', but this is what is has always looked like to me, and I have been around music a long time..


While I appreciate the thought behind the beginning above (after all, none of this is supposed to be personal) it is unfortunate that you have missed the numerous times I have made it clear that while I am known to prefer pre-1900 CM I have no issue with atonal and other modern contemporary music in general. My issue is when music without melody, harmony or structure, generally called avant-garde music, is defined as simply some sort of progression of modern classical music.

Even then I don’t have some agenda to remove that music from the classical music tent because that is a bell that can’t be unrung. I don’t start threads to rail against it and I don’t intrude in threads that were meant for posters who like it. What I do sometimes is take part in threads like this that were started to discuss the subject at hand, especially when IMO some posters try to misrepresent the subject matter of the OP.

As for the insinuation of ‘insecurity’, I’ve been around music a long time also and have had my own success in it, so I hardly need to discuss these subjects other than for interest sake. Besides, I could easily suggest that there are those who feel threatened to the point of insecurity that someone might suggest that their avant-garde music bears so little resemblance to most other classical music that it deserves its own category.

Finally, it occurs to me that perhaps the most important take-away from the Bubbles Experiment is that the promotion of avant-garde music by other composers apparently had troubling consequences for a composer trying to make a living composing non-avant-garde classical music. So, this general subject is not just some contrivance by someone posting on a classical music forum.


----------



## mikeh375

DaveM said:


> While I appreciate the thought behind the beginning above (after all, none of this is supposed to be personal) it is unfortunate that you have missed the numerous times I have made it clear that while I am known to prefer pre-1900 CM I have no issue with atonal and other modern contemporary music in general. My issue is when music without melody, harmony or structure, generally called avant-garde music, is defined as simply some sort of progression of modern classical music..................
> 
> .............Finally, it occurs to me that perhaps the most important take-away from the Bubbles Experiment is that the promotion of avant-garde music by other composers apparently had troubling consequences for a composer trying to make a living composing non-avant-garde classical music. So, this general subject is not just some contrivance by someone posting on a classical music forum.



Dave, based on previous chats, I think I'm right in saying that your aversion to what you call AG seems to be at it's most vehemently opposed when rhythm obscures regular pulse. I infer this because you have said that although it's not your go to music, you do acknowledge that you can hear in Schoenberg (his Piano Concerto), the essence of common practice roots. Added to the fact that your go to example of all that's wrong in AG is quite often Fernyhough, I'm of the opinion that rhythm is the main culprit for you when trying to comprehend some music as being a development of the canon. Is that a reasonable asumption, even if only in part?

Whatever your specific dislikes, there is, believe it or not, a clear connection to and yet a logical development away, from the canon's norms that is observable from around the beginning of the 20thC, developments that expanded all the individual elements of music. Even music with fully emancipated rhythm has a clear line of inheritance back to the late 19thC. The 20thC merely supercharged what was already being inferred regarding rhythm and its flexibility from the likes of Debussy's apparent free form 'Prelude' in 1894 and onwards with Stravinsky, Varese and Webern opening the floodgates further. It was inevitable, given rhythmic notations ability to dissect and divide time on more quantum like levels, that composers would be lured by the freedom gained.

As to a perceived lack of form or structure in AG, well Varese has something interesting to say on this which composers certainly understand but perhaps lay listeners not so much...

_‘… Busoni once wrote: “Is it not singular to demand of a composer originality in all things and to forbid it as regards form? No wonder that once he becomes original, he is accused of formlessness.” The misunderstanding has come from thinking of form as a point of departure, a pattern to be followed, a mold to be filled. Form is a result - the result of a process. Each of my works discovers its own form._

Any resulting music from the "process" might bewilder the listener at first but that does not imply that structure is absent. Generally speaking, control of atonality (the AG type I've surmised you mean above), and its structure and logic, both internally and externally as a 'work', is paramount for true self expression. Indeed the idea of the composer's self expression is often missing from conversations like this because listener expectations are predicated on other factors and expectations such as entertainment and/or immediacy. There's always been a tension between the composer's and the listeners intention for and perception of music, one that has actually brought forth great art and continues to explore uncharted and fertile domains as a way of avoiding stagnation.

Your last paragraph I've quoted above just doesn't tally with reality for me. If a composer is tonally conscious and willing to give the listener lots of familiar signposts in their work, then success is more likely these days imv. There are plenty of composers today who prove this, even some who are making a great living solely from composing thanks to the smorgasbord of styles acceptable to them that blend function and tonality in newer individual ways.


----------



## Sid James

composingmusic said:


> Somehow I missed this earlier. This is exactly the problem I have with the label "avant-garde" – people use it to generalize a wide range of different philosophies into the same category, claiming that these composers have an aversion to consonance, pulse, and melody. Yes, these composers are often thinking about these terms in a different sense than how common practice composers approached these terms, but I don't think they have an aversion to these things at all.
> 
> It is true that there was a time in the 1950s where composers were trying to deliberately distance themselves from earlier music to a degree, and there were a number of historical and social reasons for this (including WWII). I think the attitude has changed quite a lot now, however.


I think there was something resembling a zero hour in music at the time, with various pieces like Boulez's Notations, Stockhausen's Gesange and Cage's 4'33." These can be compared with what happened in visual art during the 1910's, the movement towards complete abstraction by Malevich, Mondrian and Kandinsky. But one thing that's interesting is that the zero hour didn't simply lead to more of the same, even in the output of those three composers. It lead to other directions in their own music, as it did in those of others who chose to follow these paths.



fbjim said:


> to be honest its more of a discussion dating from like the 80s/90s or before when there was a big backlash against public arts funding and stuff like "P*ss Christ" and NEA grants became fodder for newspaper pundits and late night TV hosts
> 
> if your orchestra has public funding it's almost certainly being funded to just play orchestral repertoire like any other given orchestra.


It made me think about that too (e.g. Senator Jesse Helms energizing the conservatives in the area of arts policy). Its not surprising that the journal which published the article about this experiment is basically an Ayn Rand mouthpiece.



Aries said:


> The problem is that the concert audience is saturated, and doesn't even want new works. Audiences of film and video game music are superficial without high demands. The societies overall and especially the elites are oblivious and rejecting towards history and tradition maintainance. The requirments are not there for a cultural heyday anymore. And this Problem goes way beyond classical music.


I think that the core orchestral performance repertoire (not to speak of opera) is pretty much built out. New works are obviously still performed, but less likely to be repeated. This isn't a problem in itself, it just shows how much of a revivalist gig concerts have become. There's a danger in that because it's not sustainable, which is where the introduction of film, video game, crossover and so on come in.

This brings up the problem with a concept of the canon. Its filling out coincides with the decline of modernism, so by its very nature it is fixed in a certain point in time, yet everything has changed around it. Chamber ensembles have economies of scale in their favour and can perform more new music, or even just old but non-canonical music. Specialist ensembles, not only of contemporary music but other niches like HIP, have developed their own repertoire.

So basically the question is, how does this instability of the canon impact on orchestras? If the canon becomes museum piece, do orchestras have to as well? Can they survive in a state of near atrophy?



> Avantegarde music has a special aestheitic, and it is no issue if some people like it. But it can not have the same function for the overall society as traditional classical music because of the special aesthetic.


I think that avant-garde, or its offshoots, are just a piece of the pie. I think that fringe art or music will still reference what's popular or traditional, and in turn these might absorb a bit of what's happening on the cutting edge. It's not so much a battle as it was under modernism, just different scenes doing their own thing within a wider sphere.


----------



## Chat Noir

DaveM said:


> While I appreciate the thought behind the beginning above (after all, none of this is supposed to be personal) it is unfortunate that you have missed the numerous times I have made it clear that while I am known to prefer pre-1900 CM I have no issue with atonal and other modern contemporary music in general. My issue is when music without melody, harmony or structure, generally called avant-garde music, is defined as simply some sort of progression of modern classical music.


I did see that you said this previously, but I find it difficult to square with what you've said here and in that film music thread. Since you have "no issue with atonal and other modern contemporary music in general", then surely this can only be seen as a tiny drop in the ocean? It can't possibly be that the music with which you are taking issue outweighs all music up to 1900 plus all the other 'atonal' and contemporary music which _isn't_ in question?

I've regularly been to the city concert halls here. Mostly the ones nearer the border, but I've been to the Concertgebouw in Amsterdam numerous times and also Utrecht's refurbished concert hall. They programme 99.9% common practice music. There are new commissions, but they are never of the type you describe. At least I've never seen them. The more 'adventurous' music is found in the concerts held by the conservatories, which aren't usually attended by the general public. These are often the ones that get little grants for some composer-in-residence or the like. Or there will be a sort of 'new music workshop' and they just run with ordinary university funding. These are places where experimentation is going on. Sometimes a work will transfer to a concert hall or even a cathedral church for a few performances. Or it will get a slot in a festival. It's minor exposure.

I'm still baffled though by this:



> My issue is when music without melody, harmony or structure, generally called avant-garde music, is defined as simply some sort of progression of modern classical music.


Why would it be the case that people trained in the same musical theory and traditions as past composers (plus all further developments), having put thousands of hours of their lives into learning an instrument, plus harmony/orchestration study, who then compose in a certain way, *can't* be considered as working in the continuation of the same musical trajectory?

Does music always have to have harmony? Or a certain sort of harmony you recognise and define as harmony? Must the 'melody' be of a certain structure and style? Mike quoted Varèse above and another thing he said was that music is just organised sound. There's a famous quote (it's on his wiki page):



> "to stubbornly conditioned ears, anything new in music has always been called _noise_", and he posed the question, "what is music but organized noises?"


His work _Ionisation _has no real 'melody' as commonly considered, though he employs tuned percussion, only sound and rhythm and conforms to his view that 'music' is sound organisation. Yet this is the same man who wrote _Density 21.5_ for flute (which I performed for an exam) which isn't 'melody' like Brahms or even Debussy, but it is melody and a great work. You have to take each work as it comes on its perceived merits or otherwise and according to your tastes. It gives you the power to say: 'yes I like that' or 'no I don't like that'. This idea that there is a deliberately-organised, conscious movement of people pursuing a specific type of 'non music' in order to hijack classical music and be frauds, is not a real thing.

For everyone's delectation:


----------



## SanAntone

Some on this thread appear to be opposed to musical experimentation in the classical music tradition. There is so-called avant-garde music in rock, jazz, even pop musics, as well as classical tradition. Artists experiment; it is in their nature.

I often find this music the most interesting and exciting. I will admit that this music has a small niche in the entire musical landscape, but I think it is necessary and unavoidable since it is in the nature of some artists to develop their aesthetic philosophy with these kinds of works. 

This has been true throughout the history of classical music, e.g. Beethoven, Liszt, Wagner, Schoenberg, Stravinsky, etc., all of whom were criticized for writing music some contemporaneous critics called "noise."

I don't expect all or even most new experimental classical music to enter the standard repertory, most new music of any style only rarely does. But these experimental works are necessary in order to move the music along and for important new styles to appear, develop, and ferment.

To argue that they threaten classical music in general is false. To call for a different genre classification is unnecessary since these composers are usually classified outside of their own control. Label are unimportant, anyway.


----------



## mikeh375

^^ Listening to Density 21.5 reminds me that composers develop a heightened sense for the expressive reach of intervals as well as other approaches that could be considered melodic. Add in dynamics and an expressive performance and the intervals can be highly charged and/or very moving. This intervallic appreciation, its useage and influence on modernity is another way composers can diverge from their potential audience's expectations because it opens the composer's ears to a more disjunct linear flow in a theme, as opposed to a more conjunct and therefore more memorable, or user friendly line. Atonality thrives on intervallic relationships.
(I trust you passed the exam @Chat Noir... )


----------



## Chat Noir

mikeh375 said:


> I trust you passed the exam @Chat Noir...


Skin of the teeth. Though of course I enjoyed myself enormously, critics be damned!

This is the core of it though, that there's no real way of quantifying examinations like those outside of meeting technical demands. It could be that you enter just after someone has done a fantastic performance of _Syrinx _or something by Harald Genzmer and quite frankly it excited the judges so much that it put them in a mood for that sort of sound. They're only people after all. Or that you come on before that performance and set the tone yourself with something very different, so they're in _that_ mood.

In a similar way I wonder if whatever preceded _Bubbles_ was so dull that it paled in comparison and _Bubble_s started to look good.


----------



## composingmusic

Chat Noir said:


> Skin of the teeth. Though of course I enjoyed myself enormously, critics be damned!


Congrats – amazing! That's quite the piece! (On a completely unrelated note, I'm finishing up a set of flute pieces so I've looked at quite a bit of repertoire for reference re. techniques, ways of dealing with the solo instrument, and so forth – Sciarrino has some really amazing things too)

And yes, context is critical. This is part of what makes programming so fun and so tricky.


----------



## Chat Noir

composingmusic said:


> Congrats – amazing! That's quite the piece! (On a completely unrelated note, I'm finishing up a set of flute pieces so I've looked at quite a bit of repertoire for reference re. techniques, ways of dealing with the solo instrument, and so forth – Sciarrino has some really amazing things too)
> 
> And yes, context is critical. This is part of what makes programming so fun and so tricky.


Do you know Finn Mortensen's flute sonata for solo flute (1952/3)? There's quite a lot of buried repertoire. This dates from around the time he was writing in a neoclassical style, but on the cusp of moving towards a hybrid 12-tone approach. Be careful if you use earphones, a lot is played rather _forte_ on this recording!


----------



## DaveM

Chat Noir said:


> ..I've regularly been to the city concert halls here. Mostly the ones nearer the border, but I've been to the Concertgebouw in Amsterdam numerous times and also Utrecht's refurbished concert hall. They programme 99.9% common practice music. There are new commissions, but they are never of the type you describe. At least I've never seen them. *The more 'adventurous' music is found in the concerts held by the conservatories, which aren't usually attended by the general public.* These are often the ones that get little grants for some composer-in-residence or the like. *Or there will be a sort of 'new music workshop' and they just run with ordinary university funding. These are places where experimentation is going on.* Sometimes a work will transfer to a concert hall or even a cathedral church for a few performances. Or it will get a slot in a festival. It's minor exposure.


So, it sounds to me like what you are calling ‘adventurous’ music and music that is the result of ‘experimentation’ is in the realm of what I am calling ‘avant-garde’. It occurs to me that the fact that it is restricted to specific small audiences supports the premise that it is a very different listening experience from even atonal and other modern/contemporary CM.


> I'm still baffled though by this:
> Why would it be the case that people trained in the same musical theory and traditions as past composers (plus all further developments), having put thousands of hours of their lives into learning an instrument, plus harmony/orchestration study, who then compose in a certain way, *can't* be considered as working in the continuation of the same musical trajectory?


Assuming that the thousands of hours of ‘musical theory’, ‘traditions’ and ‘learning an instrument’ involved music with melody, harmony and structure, then IMO ending up composing without those elements is not ‘the same musical trajectory’. In the most extreme form, it becomes an experimentation in drawing out previously unexpected sounds from instruments.



> Does music always have to have harmony? Or a certain sort of harmony you recognise and define as harmony? Must the 'melody' be of a certain structure and style? Mike quoted Varèse above and another thing he said was that music is just organised sound.


That is not the point. Music, in general, can consist anything one wants it to be which includes music without melody or harmony and one can enjoy any form of music they wish, but one doesn’t get to decide what category of music it is just based on where their formative education originated from. Fwiw, those with traditional academic music education have changed their trajectories to jazz and rock music in the past.



> This idea that there is a deliberately-organised, conscious movement of people pursuing a specific type of 'non music' in order to hijack classical music and be frauds, is not a real thing.


Then why mention it. Nobody else has.



> For everyone's delectation:


That is a very nice and very much a classical music work by Varese. (Congratulations for passing the test playing it.) Now let me take the opportunity, since the subject of another composer’s (Sciarrino) works with flute was mentioned by another poster above, to compare the Varese work with one that I consider to be what I am calling avant-garde and which sounds to me more an attempt to draw out unexpected sounds from a flute. Enjoy this music under whatever name you want; IMO ‘classical music’ doesn’t fit.


----------



## Aries

Chat Noir said:


> Why would it be the case that people trained in the same musical theory and traditions as past composers (plus all further developments), having put thousands of hours of their lives into learning an instrument, plus harmony/orchestration study, who then compose in a certain way, *can't* be considered as working in the continuation of the same musical trajectory?


Isn't it true for most styles and genres, that the composers learned the musical theory of an underlying style?

For the classification of a style it is also a factor how the style is perceived. But avantegarde music is not perceived as mainstream classical music by the general public. It is perceived maybe as a substyle of classical music.


----------



## Chat Noir

DaveM said:


> Assuming that the thousands of hours of ‘musical theory’, ‘traditions’ and ‘learning an instrument’ involved music with melody, harmony and structure, then IMO ending up composing without those elements is not ‘the same musical trajectory’.


This is absolutely not right. There are plenty of e.g. painters who trained in a very traditional way and then used the same training and materials to create things which look different. What you are saying is if you learn CP harmony or some extended version of it, you must either write using that or you are not part of the continuum. There may be people who declare that such painters aren't 'painters', but they are wrong.


DaveM said:


> That is not the point. Music, in general, can consist anything one wants it to be which includes music without melody or harmony and one can enjoy any form of music they wish, but one doesn’t get to decide what category of music it is just based on where their formative education originated from.


The way the paragraph begins is already declaring what harmony is and what melody is, and whether it must be included or not to qualify. Art music doesn't have these rules. One 'not getting to decide what category of music it is' might equally apply to yourself. No?


DaveM said:


> Then why mention it. Nobody else has.


Well they have. It's in black and white in posts above. Sometimes couched in terms of a 'modernist culture' trying to undermine goodness and light.


DaveM said:


> That is a very nice and very much a classical music work by Varese. (Congratulations for passing the test playing it.) Now let me take the opportunity, since the subject of another composer’s (Sciarrino) works with flute was mentioned by another poster above, to compare the Varese work with one that I consider to be what I am calling avant-garde and which sounds to me more an attempt to draw out unexpected sounds from a flute. Enjoy this music under whatever name you want; IMO ‘classical music’ doesn’t fit.


I posted this specifically to show that Varèse worked with a single philosophy, but produced different things. Attention was deliberately drawn to the fact that many compositions of his have no melody as you define it, nor harmony, which would disqualify it as so-called 'classical music'.


----------



## Chat Noir

Aries said:


> Isn't it true for most styles and genres, that the composers learned the musical theory of an underlying style?
> 
> For the classification of a style it is also a factor how the style is perceived. But avantegarde music is not perceived as mainstream classical music by the general public. It is perceived maybe as a substyle of classical music.


This entire post means nothing at all. It's a proxy for: 'I and the murky shape-shifting 'general public' think "classical music" means this; and since that doesn't conform, it is therefore not classical music.'

To be frank, I don't care what the 'general public' thinks. They can like what they want and pay to go and listen to what they want, but they don't stand-in as arbiters of what belongs to what and how artists think and work.


----------



## DaveM

mikeh375 said:


> Whatever your specific dislikes, there is, believe it or not, a clear connection to and yet a logical development away, from the canon's norms that is observable from around the beginning of the 20thC, developments that expanded all the individual elements of music. Even music with fully emancipated rhythm has a clear line of inheritance back to the late 19thC. The 20thC merely supercharged what was already being inferred regarding rhythm and its flexibility from the likes of Debussy's apparent free form 'Prelude' in 1894 and onwards with Stravinsky, Varese and Webern opening the floodgates further. It was inevitable, given rhythmic notations ability to dissect and divide time on more quantum like levels, that composers would be lured by the freedom gained.
> 
> As to a perceived lack of form or structure in AG, well Varese has something interesting to say on this which composers certainly understand but perhaps lay listeners not so much...
> 
> _‘… Busoni once wrote: “Is it not singular to demand of a composer originality in all things and to forbid it as regards form? No wonder that once he becomes original, he is accused of formlessness.” The misunderstanding has come from thinking of form as a point of departure, a pattern to be followed, a mold to be filled. Form is a result - the result of a process. Each of my works discovers its own form._
> 
> Any resulting music from the "process" might bewilder the listener at first but that does not imply that structure is absent. Generally speaking, control of atonality (the AG type I've surmised you mean above), and its structure and logic, both internally and externally as a 'work', is paramount for true self expression. Indeed the idea of the composer's self expression is often missing from conversations like this because listener expectations are predicated on other factors and expectations such as entertainment and/or immediacy. There's always been a tension between the composer's and the listeners intention for and perception of music, one that has actually brought forth great art and continues to explore uncharted and fertile domains as a way of avoiding stagnation.
> 
> Your last paragraph I've quoted above just doesn't tally with reality for me. If a composer is tonally conscious and willing to give the listener lots of familiar signposts in their work, then success is more likely these days imv. There are plenty of composers today who prove this, even some who are making a great living solely from composing thanks to the smorgasbord of styles acceptable to them that blend function and tonality in newer individual ways.


An interesting post. I would just reiterate that this not about music I like or dislike. There is a general consistency in the characteristics of categories of music. It’s not hard to recognize jazz, rock and rap music. I would like to think that classical music has characteristics that are unique and recognizable to the genre.


----------



## composingmusic

DaveM said:


> An interesting post. I would just reiterate that this not about music I like or dislike. There is a general consistency in the characteristics of categories of music. It’s not hard to recognize jazz, rock and rap music. I would like to think that classical music has characteristics that are unique and recognizable to the genre.


You speak as if these categories are immutable and absolute, which is not the case. It feels you're trying to argue as if the Bubbles experiment is somehow proving that music that doesn't (to you) have a clear sense of melody and harmony is somehow objectively not valid, and when people respond to this by saying that this is not the case, you double down and say this is not about preferences.


----------



## Chat Noir

DaveM said:


> I would like to think that classical music has characteristics that are unique and recognizable to the genre.


Oh? Among all the changing 'rules' of harmonic correctness over time and altered tuning systems and introductions of new instruments, ways of orchestrating, ways of constructing works in forms and 'no forms' (much of which occurred between eras)? The breaking into categories is artificial. By making a category it immediately puts up a fence around it. There's also that some will decide categorisations based upon tastes and expectations.

I know what the aim is: to separate this hated music made up of 'noise and sounds' into some newly created genre of music which shifts it entirely out of the arena of classical art music. What is achieved though?



DaveM said:


> It’s not hard to recognize jazz.


Have you heard Eric Dolphy (now fairly mainstream)? What was his music? Why isn't it considered as 'using the instruments of jazz to make something else which isn't jazz'? It's laughable now to think that some people thought bebop wasn't jazz. It even has it's own name whilst being jazz. Like swing music does and 'hot jazz'. And you can trace it back through stride piano and honky tonk and back to ragtime, which inconveniently has influence from European art music.


----------



## composingmusic

Chat Noir said:


> Do you know Finn Mortensen's flute sonata for solo flute (1952/3)? There's quite a lot of buried repertoire. This dates from around the time he was writing in a neoclassical style, but on the cusp of moving towards a hybrid 12-tone approach. Be careful if you use earphones, a lot is played rather _forte_ on this recording!


Thanks for sharing this! I wasn't familiar with this piece, no – and it's got a lot of fascinating things going on. Lots of really interesting high flute passagework, trills, and all sorts of cool textural things.


----------



## DaveM

composingmusic said:


> You speak as if these categories are immutable and absolute, which is not the case. It feels you're trying to argue as if the Bubbles experiment is somehow proving that music that doesn't (to you) have a clear sense of melody and harmony *is somehow objectively not valid*, and when people respond to this by saying that this is not the case, you double down and say this is not about preferences.


I didn’t say anything of the sort. It is this kind of misquoting that is nothing more than a (futile) attempt at gaslighting.


----------



## composingmusic

DaveM said:


> I didn’t say anything of the sort. It is this kind of misquoting that is nothing more than a (futile) attempt at gaslighting.


I'm certainly not trying to gaslight; I'm trying to understand the argument you're trying to make. What are you trying to say about this kind of music?


----------



## Chat Noir

I's pretty much exactly what you said here:



DaveM said:


> My issue is when music without melody, harmony or structure, generally called avant-garde music





DaveM said:


> Assuming that the thousands of hours of ‘musical theory’, ‘traditions’ and ‘learning an instrument’ involved music with melody, harmony and structure, then IMO ending up composing without those elements is not ‘the same musical trajectory’. In the most extreme form, it becomes an experimentation in drawing out previously unexpected sounds from instruments.





DaveM said:


> Music, in general, can consist anything one wants it to be which includes music without melody or harmony and one can enjoy any form of music they wish, but one doesn’t get to decide what category of music it is


There's also goalpost shifting going on. Which Mike noted earlier.


----------



## Bwv 1080

DaveM said:


> Now let me take the opportunity, since the subject of another composer’s (Sciarrino) works with flute was mentioned by another poster above, to compare the Varese work with one that I consider to be what I am calling avant-garde and which sounds to me more an attempt to draw out unexpected sounds from a flute. Enjoy this music under whatever name you want; IMO ‘classical music’ doesn’t fit.


So lets read the bio of the performer, and think about what his answer to this music not belonging to the same tradition as Beethoven or Brahms

*Mario Caroli*
begun his musical training at the age of 14 and got his soloist diploma at the age of 19. He studied with Annamaria Morini in Bologna and Manuela Wiesler in Vienna. At the age of 22, he won in Darmstadt the coveted Kranichsteiner International Prize and started a very highly successful career as a solo flutist. His activity starts, as a logical prosecution of the Prize of Darmstadt, as an advocate of contemporary music: his fame has grown very fast and he quickly became the preferred interpreters of the many of the biggest living composers. Salvatore Sciarrino, György Kurtag, Doina Rotaru, Toshio Hosokawa, Ivan Fedele, Olga Neuwirth, Philippe Hurel, Wolfgang Rihm and many others wrote for him some beautiful soloflute works as well as new flute concertos, which contribute to wide the flute litterature. Some years later, his career turns back to the whole repertoire, without any distinction of styles and historical periods. An unique figure among the flutists of today, Mario is one of the very rare artists capable of passing from the most classical composition to the most extreme contemporary piece, witht the same vivd virtuosity, vibrant personality and rigorous both analytic and aesthetical approach.
The critics didn’t hesitate to call him a “phenomenon” for his refreshing interpretations of Bach, Schubert or Debussy and the “New York Times” wrote that “he has a sound you want to drink in”. Mario has appeared as a invited soloist with many prestigious orchestras, such as Philharmonia Orchestra in London, Orchestre Philharmonique de Radio France in Paris, Tokyo Philharmonic in Tokyo, SWR and WDR Radiosinfonieorchester of Stuttgart and Cologne, National Orchestra of Belgium in Brussels, Italian Radio National Orchestra in Torino, the Greek Radio Symphony Orchestra, in Athens, Basel Sinfonietta, Icelandic Symphony Orchestra in Reykyavik, Sofia Soloists, Mozart Kammerphilharmonie, the Orchestras of the Opera Houses of Stuttgart, Verona, Rouen, Bari, Cagliari, the Philharmonic Orchestras of Strasbourg, Nice, Montecarlo, Les Percussions de Strasbourg, the Ensemble Contrechamps of Geneva, the Neue Vocalsolisten Stuttgart...
















Present in the biggest festivals, Mario has performed at the Berliner and Kolner Philharmonie, at the Concertgebouw in Amsterdam, at the Royal Festival Hall in London, at the Suntory Hall in Tokyo, at the Linclon Center in New York, the Scala in Milano, the Palais des Beaux Arts in Brussels, the Megaron in Athens, the Herkulessaal in Münich, at the Théâtre du Châtelet in Paris, at the Cié de la Musique in Strasbourg. He has recorded mre than 40 Cds, including many important world premiere as well as the big classical of the repertoire. Very much in demand as a teacher, he has been teaching masterclass all over the world. A cosmopolitan and polyglot artist,
Mario lives in Strasbourg and he teaches in Germany, at the Musikhochschule in Freiburg i.B.
Mario plays a platinum Miyazawa flute.


Miyazawa Flöten: Mario Caroli



So looks like a classical musician playing music written by a composer who has also composed operas and symphonic works, so looks like classical music to me


----------



## Aries

Chat Noir said:


> This entire post means nothing at all. It's a proxy for: 'I and the murky shape-shifting 'general public' think "classical music" means this; and since that doesn't conform, it is therefore not classical music.'


No, it is classical music, I said this multiple times, it is just not the mainline of classical music since it does apply a very abnormal aesthetics for classical music. If it is not recognized as normal classical music, why insist on it? This attitude is ursupation because it puts the development of classical music overall in a bad light for most people. We can't let this go.


----------



## DaveM

Chat Noir said:


> I's pretty much exactly what you said here:


No it isn’t. And there is no such thing as ‘pretty much exactly’.


----------



## composingmusic

Bwv 1080 said:


> So lets read the bio of the performer, and think about what his answer to this music not belonging to the same tradition as Beethoven or Brahms
> 
> *Mario Caroli*
> begun his musical training at the age of 14 and got his soloist diploma at the age of 19. He studied with Annamaria Morini in Bologna and Manuela Wiesler in Vienna. At the age of 22, he won in Darmstadt the coveted Kranichsteiner International Prize and started a very highly successful career as a solo flutist. His activity starts, as a logical prosecution of the Prize of Darmstadt, as an advocate of contemporary music: his fame has grown very fast and he quickly became the preferred interpreters of the many of the biggest living composers. Salvatore Sciarrino, György Kurtag, Doina Rotaru, Toshio Hosokawa, Ivan Fedele, Olga Neuwirth, Philippe Hurel, Wolfgang Rihm and many others wrote for him some beautiful soloflute works as well as new flute concertos, which contribute to wide the flute litterature. Some years later, his career turns back to the whole repertoire, without any distinction of styles and historical periods. An unique figure among the flutists of today, Mario is one of the very rare artists capable of passing from the most classical composition to the most extreme contemporary piece, witht the same vivd virtuosity, vibrant personality and rigorous both analytic and aesthetical approach.
> The critics didn’t hesitate to call him a “phenomenon” for his refreshing interpretations of Bach, Schubert or Debussy and the “New York Times” wrote that “he has a sound you want to drink in”. Mario has appeared as a invited soloist with many prestigious orchestras, such as Philharmonia Orchestra in London, Orchestre Philharmonique de Radio France in Paris, Tokyo Philharmonic in Tokyo, SWR and WDR Radiosinfonieorchester of Stuttgart and Cologne, National Orchestra of Belgium in Brussels, Italian Radio National Orchestra in Torino, the Greek Radio Symphony Orchestra, in Athens, Basel Sinfonietta, Icelandic Symphony Orchestra in Reykyavik, Sofia Soloists, Mozart Kammerphilharmonie, the Orchestras of the Opera Houses of Stuttgart, Verona, Rouen, Bari, Cagliari, the Philharmonic Orchestras of Strasbourg, Nice, Montecarlo, Les Percussions de Strasbourg, the Ensemble Contrechamps of Geneva, the Neue Vocalsolisten Stuttgart...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Present in the biggest festivals, Mario has performed at the Berliner and Kolner Philharmonie, at the Concertgebouw in Amsterdam, at the Royal Festival Hall in London, at the Suntory Hall in Tokyo, at the Linclon Center in New York, the Scala in Milano, the Palais des Beaux Arts in Brussels, the Megaron in Athens, the Herkulessaal in Münich, at the Théâtre du Châtelet in Paris, at the Cié de la Musique in Strasbourg. He has recorded mre than 40 Cds, including many important world premiere as well as the big classical of the repertoire. Very much in demand as a teacher, he has been teaching masterclass all over the world. A cosmopolitan and polyglot artist,
> Mario lives in Strasbourg and he teaches in Germany, at the Musikhochschule in Freiburg i.B.
> Mario plays a platinum Miyazawa flute.
> 
> 
> Miyazawa Flöten: Mario Caroli
> 
> 
> 
> So looks like a classical musician playing music written by a composer who has also composed operas and symphonic works, so looks like classical music to me


Side note: Mario Caroli is amazing!


----------



## Chat Noir

DaveM said:


> No it isn’t. And there is no such thing as ‘pretty much exactly’.


Well it is. I quoted it.


----------



## DaveM

Duplicate


----------



## Chat Noir

Aries said:


> No, it is classical music, I said this multiple times, it is just not the mainline of classical music since it does apply a very abnormal aesthetics for classical music. If it is not recognized as normal classical music, why insist on it? This attitude is ursupation because it puts the development of classical music overall in a bad light for most people. We can't let this go.


An amusing and yet also sinister post. 

It is classical music, but yet it isn't because classical music has different aesthetics? It either is or isn't. It is recognised as part of the same continuum. By composers and performers. 

I don't know who 'we' is, but someone should probably keep an eye on you.


----------



## composingmusic

Chat Noir said:


> An amusing and yet also sinister post.
> 
> It is classical music, but yet it isn't because classical music has different aesthetics? It either is or isn't. It is recognised as part of the same continuum. By composers and performers.
> 
> I don't know who 'we' is, but someone should probably keep an eye on you.


This. I'm similarly not convinced by the arguments that the music being discussed here is not classical music just because it has some different aesthetic characteristics from other forms of classical music. Again, these aren't necessarily features that are or aren't; they can exist on a continuum.


----------



## DaveM

Chat Noir said:


> Well it is. I quoted it.


If that’s what you call someone saying ‘the music isn’t valid’, then it’s no wonder your responses to my posts have contained so many misquotes and misleading interpretations. No music is ’invalid’ and I’ve never said that it is. Don’t bother responding to my posts. You’re just looking for trouble.


----------



## Luchesi

Chat Noir said:


> The only ways to test it are to investigate what sorts of music have been commissioned in the Netherlands, by whom and for what; and to investigate the composers currently active and what they write. Possibly a bit of an effort and time time-consuming perhaps. Otherwise you have to accept his view because it is congenial to you, or my view. Or to just suspend judgement.
> 
> Clearly there was 'value-added' because he made choices about what to place where (since there is apparently no beat/rhythm, yet he scored it with a time signature and he also made subsequent orchestration choices.
> 
> The point missed in all of this is that he is trying to equate what he did with the working methods and output of every composer he thinks might be a fraud. Using the fact that some judges thought it might have merit.
> The additional claim is that this is the sort of music which gets most funding and most attention, but this is also fake news.
> 
> Dave you seem like a decent fellow to me so I don't want you to thnk I'm trying to be rude or insult your intelligence. From reading around I understand that you just don't like or haven't come to agree with music which strays from tonal centres and which was the standard before roughly 1900. I have no problem with that because your tastes are none of my business. What I can't fathom is why you are on a crusade to find reasons to justify your tastes? They don't need any outside justifications. There seems to be sort of insecurity among some listeners who know that different music exists and is considered part of the 'classical music' canon, but to which they can't or won't listen. The problem being that this seems to make them feel shut out or old-fashioned or something.I don't know what. So the approach seems to be to find reasons to discredit it and thereby devalue it and hopefully make it go away to remove the perceived threat.
> 
> You may well disagree with that as a 'diagnosis', but this is what is has always looked like to me, and I have been around music a long time. These debates are 50 years old or more. Yet times have moved on and as someone else said in this thread or another one, it's now at a point where there practically are no 'schools' in the sense of the post-belle epochand the 50s/60s and in a spotty fashion throughout the remaining period to now. Composing with a freer hand, yet a foot in the established practise, already began a long time ago.


The fear I have is that fewer ingenious new tonal works will be composed, for the variety of reasons that we probably can agree about.

That's a small fear I have, because I don't know enough about the current environment.

Of course, we as musicians know we're not going to be involved with something that doesn't agree with us. So, especially for composers, they won't be composing in a tonal manner if that's not how they see things.


----------



## Chat Noir

DaveM said:


> If that’s what you call someone saying ‘the music isn’t valid’, then it’s no wonder your responses to my posts have contained so many misquotes and misleading interpretations. No music is ’invalid’ and I’ve never said that it is. Don’t bother responding to my posts. You’re just looking for trouble.


This is not true. I never said you said the music is invalid _in itself_ (though the implication is strong), but that you are seeking to disqualify it from what you want to decide is 'classical music'. Myself and others say you have no argument for this.


----------



## composingmusic

Chat Noir said:


> This is not true. I never said you said the music is invalid _in itself_ (though the implication is strong), but that you are seeking to disqualify it from what you want to decide is 'classical music'. Myself and others say you have no argument for this.


Further on this:



DaveM said:


> There is nothing wrong with people liking music that _doesn’t have a tune or recognizable pulse. _The problem for classical music has been that so relatively few do.





DaveM said:


> Personally, I care about the quality of classical music being composed and music that ‘_doesn’t have a tune or recognizable pulse_’ does it no favors. Not to mention that IMO it represents a dumbing down of the genre and results in CM having to depend even more on music composed prior to 1950-1900.





DaveM said:


> As for avant-garde, if you remove the engine, power-train and wheels from an automobile, it is no longer a car. It may be a wonderful chassis, but it’s not a car.





DaveM said:


> My subjective opinion has nothing to do with it. Of course, Ferneyhough and others like him have a following and some followers will call it great music. But when those who fell for the Bubbles Experiment and who are probably among Ferneyhough followers declared the random output of children to be pretty good, the bar seems pretty low for how the music is measured.


----------



## composingmusic

Luchesi said:


> The fear I have is that fewer ingenious new tonal works will be composed, for the variety of reasons that we probably can agree about.
> 
> That's a small fear I have, because I don't know enough about the current environment.
> 
> Of course, we as musicians know we're not going to be involved with something that doesn't agree with us. So, especially for composers, they won't be composing in a tonal manner if that's not how they see things.


Do you mean tonal in a common practice sense, or tonal as in using a pitch centre and/or some form of pitch hierarchy?


----------



## Chat Noir

Luchesi said:


> The fear I have is that fewer ingenious new tonal works will be composed, for the variety of reasons that we probably can agree about.


I can see that concern. They are composed though. Even the fellow the thread is about composes them. Lots of other composers make what might be termed 'accessible music'. On the other hand it's somewhat like wanting new examples of big band music. These do get written and performed, but they are not at the forefront of jazz as a living thing. Way back in this thread someone (Sid James? I keep forgetting) pointed out that not only is there a massive, almost endless. back catalogue of work the like of which is so large people only know a fraction of it. And that the modern mentality is not concerned if people write and perform in styles that were once at the forefront. It's levelled off, but still there is always a forefront.

The music at the root of the complaint in this thread isn't even the bulk of new art music though; just a small fraction.


----------



## Luchesi

composingmusic said:


> Do you mean tonal in a common practice sense, or tonal as in using a pitch centre and/or some form of pitch hierarchy?


Compositions which would sound tonal here and there, to a general audience.


----------



## Chat Noir

Luchesi said:


> Compositions which would sound tonal here and there, to a general audience.


This itself alters over time though. I watched Stravinsky works at the concert hall where it is full of pensioners who love it. Pensioners at the premières were largely disgusted by it. I've been to watch/listen works by Jolivet which are praised now, but thought masses of horrible noise previously.

I don't see tonal music disappearing, no matter who experiments on the sidelines.


----------



## composingmusic

Luchesi said:


> Compositions which would sound tonal here and there, to a general audience.


Again, I think this is a continuum, and it's a really interesting space to examine imo. If we look at music from 1900 onwards on a more general level, I can think of loads of music that would fit this definition in a variety of ways, to a greater or lesser extent. I'll post just a couple of examples to show what I mean: 





















The latter two are perhaps further away from common practice tonality, but there is definitely pitch hierarchy of some sort here, and there are moments and sections where this is quite clear imo.


----------



## Aries

Chat Noir said:


> It is classical music, but yet it isn't because classical music has different aesthetics? It either is or isn't. It is recognised as part of the same continuum. By composers and performers.


The concept of a substyle should not be difficult to understand. But its not the first time, you did not understand something. Maybe you just pretend to don't understand it or it is intentional?

Classical music has a wide spectrum of aesthetics, but avantegarde music is still an extrem expression, and it is difficult to believe that someone would seriously questions this. Avantgard music is a classical substyle like military music is an other for example (Avantgarde more because of the expression, military music more because of the form).

Edit: Additional comment removed out of piety.


----------



## Chat Noir

Aries said:


> The concept of a substyle should not be difficult to understand. But its not the first time, you did not understand something.


I'll let readers and posterity judge who is having trouble with all this.


Aries said:


> And you call my post amusing? I mean this is amusing. Maybe you want to call your mom?


Not really. My mother died in 2012. She lived thousands miles away at the time. I don't know what it is you want to say, but it seems to be in rather poor taste.


----------



## Aries

Chat Noir said:


> Not really. My mother died in 2012. She lived thousands miles away at the time. I don't know what it is you want to say, but it seems to be in rather poor taste.


Sorry for that. My comment is inappropriate then. Let me just remove it.


----------



## composingmusic

Chat Noir said:


> I'll let readers and posterity judge who is having trouble with all this.
> 
> Not really. My mother died in 2012. She lived thousands miles away at the time. I don't know what it is you want to say, but it seems to be in rather poor taste.


Very sorry to hear this. My condolences.


----------



## DaveM

composingmusic said:


> Further on this:


Well good for you. You painstakingly found quotes that indicate why I don’t think music such as the Sciarrino work is what I consider to be classical music. And yes, I don’t like it, but that doesn’t mean others shouldn’t like it. I don’t like a number of works that are modern/contempory, but I’m not arguing that they don’t have characteristics of classical music. This isn’t about what I like or dislike.

If you are composing music that I am calling avant-garde, then all the more power to you. May you have a welcoming audience for your music.


----------



## DaveM

I always get a kick out of responses that include ‘myself and others say‘ or ‘We’ or ‘Us’ as if there is an obvious consensus on the issue.


----------



## composingmusic

DaveM said:


> Well good for you. You painstakingly found quotes that indicate why I don’t think music such as the Sciarrino work is what I consider to be classical music. And yes, I don’t like it, but that doesn’t mean others shouldn’t like it. I don’t like a number of works that are modern/contempory, but I’m not arguing that they don’t have characteristics of classical music. This isn’t about what I like or dislike.
> 
> If you are composing music that I am calling avant-garde, then all the more power to you. May you have a welcoming audience for your music.


Again, these boundaries seem extremely strange to me: you could consider Takemitsu, Dutilleux, and Messiaen to be classical music, but not Sciarrino, Stockhausen, or Xenakis? To me, and to many others, these figures all inhabit the world of modern and/or contemporary classical music. I am saying "to many others" as I know a number of people in my field would agree with me on this point.


----------



## Aries

composingmusic said:


> Again, these boundaries seem extremely strange to me: you could consider Takemitsu, Dutilleux, and Messiaen to be classical music, but not Sciarrino, Stockhausen, or Xenakis? To me, and to many others, these figures all inhabit the world of modern and/or contemporary classical music.


The problem reminds me of ring species in biology and dialect continua in linguistics.

In biology there are races which interbreed with neighboring races, but not with all races the neighboring race interpreds with. For example: A interbreds with B, B interbreds with A and C, but A does not interbred with C. So B forms one species with A and C, but A does not form a species with C.

In linguistics there is the same with languages and dialects. A understands B, B understands A and C, but A does not understand C.

So looking at it top down, it is not always possible to determine clear boarders between specieses or languages. But the concepts of specieses and languages are nonetheless used and important.

And it can be the same with music genres, subgenres or styles. Like for example: For Takemitsu both Mahler and Stockhausen could be in his subgenre, but for Mahler Stockhausen could be outside his subgenre at the same time.

Long story short: The impossibility to determine clear boarders of (sub-)genres does not mean that everything has to be within the same (sub-)genre.


----------



## Luchesi

Chat Noir said:


> This itself alters over time though. I watched Stravinsky works at the concert hall where it is full of pensioners who love it. Pensioners at the premières were largely disgusted by it. I've been to watch/listen works by Jolivet which are praised now, but thought masses of horrible noise previously.
> 
> I don't see tonal music disappearing, no matter who experiments on the sidelines.


Yes, I'm trying to think of a category (like for instance the nebulous, compositions which would sound tonal here and there) that doesn't 'alter' or waver in its appeal over time. A category that stops involving more and more ambiguity, and yet satisfies the modern mind. 

IMV, back in Mozart's day, and before, composers and audiences all had the same view of reality. The individuals like Beethoven, Liszt, Wagner, had their own individual views of reality (reality is what art can describe/represent while remaining abstract). Views of reality (composers and audiences) have really diverged much more ever since Wagner and Mahler. Now everyone's view is more unique to themselves. This is a large challenge, ...and there are others with advanced music.


----------



## mikeh375

DaveM said:


> ..........Assuming that the thousands of hours of ‘musical theory’, ‘traditions’ and ‘learning an instrument’ involved music with melody, harmony and structure, then IMO ending up composing without those elements is not ‘the same musical trajectory’. In the most extreme form, it becomes an experimentation in drawing out previously unexpected sounds from instruments.


Nice try Dave and I do understand your perspective and how one might conclude as you have, however....
Like many other disciplines that require much in the way of study and dedication, the study of music is in itself a journey of exploration for a composer. From the composer's p.o.v, said study _is_ a consistent and logical musical trajectory, one of self discovery and a burgeoning awareness of what is important to a composer as they seek to find their own way. The journey and introspection progresses as the composer begins to reject or assimilate new (and old) aesthetic experiences and techniques. The ultimate destination for the trajectory is ideally acquisition of a fluent or even unique voice, no matter the style.

This is pretty much how it has always been and imo, there's no better way.

(@composingmusic , did you know you can read Saariaho's 'Orion' here ? It's such a brilliantly evocative work.)


----------



## composingmusic

Aries said:


> The problem reminds me of ring species in biology and dialect continua in linguistics.
> 
> In biology there are races which interbreed with neighboring races, but not with all races the neighboring race interpreds with. For example: A interbreds with B, B interbreds with A and C, but A does not interbred with C. So B forms one species with A and C, but A does not form a species with C.
> 
> In linguistics there is the same with languages and dialects. A understands B, B understands A and C, but A does not understand C.
> 
> So looking at it top down, it is not always possible to determine clear boarders between specieses or languages. But the concepts of specieses and languages are nonetheless used and important.
> 
> And it can be the same with music genres, subgenres or styles. Like for example: For Takemitsu both Mahler and Stockhausen could be in his subgenre, but for Mahler Stockhausen could be outside his subgenre at the same time.
> 
> Long story short: The impossibility to determine clear boarders of (sub-)genres does not mean that everything has to be within the same (sub-)genre.


Ok, something you might find worth looking into is the concept of different aesthetic directions. Historically, what tends to happen is that composers write music, after which musicologists and theorists come by a bit later to theorize and analyze this music. Composers come by and participate in this conversation too sometimes (and this is more common now than it has been at many points in the past). We can see this labelling process already happening for much of 20th and 21st century music: there are labels such as minimalism, spectralism, Darmstadt school, new complexity, new simplicity, and many others. I don't disagree that these labels are useful – I do think it is important to acknowledge their limits, however. I also think all these subcategories fall under the label of modern and/or contemporary classical music, and to argue otherwise is misleading.


----------



## composingmusic

mikeh375 said:


> Nice try Dave and I do understand your perspective and how one might conclude as you have, however....
> Like many other disciplines that require much in the way of study and dedication, the study of music is in itself a journey of exploration for a composer. From the composer's p.o.v, said study _is_ a consistent and logical musical trajectory, one of self discovery and a burgeoning awareness of what is important to a composer as they seek to find their own way. The journey and introspection progresses as the composer begins to reject or assimilate new (and old) aesthetic experiences and techniques. The ultimate destination for the trajectory is ideally acquisition of a fluent or even unique voice, no matter the style.
> 
> This is pretty much how it has always been and imo, there's no better way.


Very well said, Mike.



mikeh375 said:


> (@composingmusic , did you know you can read Saariaho's 'Orion' here ? It's such a brilliantly evocative work.)


Thank you! Yes, I have seen this – and there are a number of other excellent scores available by ScoresOnDemand! Faber and Universal also have a number of scores available on their websites as perusal scores, and these have been really useful to me for the purposes of score study too. 

Orion is such an excellent piece, isn't it? A few other favourites include Lichtbogen, L'Amour de Loin, Nocturne, and Nymphéa – Reflection. Innocence is coming to London this spring and I really look forward to seeing it!


----------



## mikeh375

composingmusic said:


> Very well said, Mike.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you! Yes, I have seen this – and there are a number of other excellent scores available by ScoresOnDemand! Faber and Universal also have a number of scores available on their websites as perusal scores, and these have been really useful to me for the purposes of score study too.
> 
> Orion is such an excellent piece, isn't it? A few other favourites include Lichtbogen, L'Amour de Loin, Nocturne, and Nymphéa – Reflection. Innocence is coming to London this spring and I really look forward to seeing it!


...ohh if only it wasn't such a chore to get into London these days, I do miss the concert scene in particular. My favourite mvt in Saariaho's 'Orion' is the 3rd. I love the driving excitement of it and the generally sparser scoring feels needed after the density of the other 2 mvt. imo. Another 'Orion' fave of mine is Takemitsu's 3 movement work 'Orion and Pleiades'. It's always amused me to note the 2nd mvt is called 'and' although I'm sure he had good reason to call it as such.


----------



## composingmusic

mikeh375 said:


> ...ohh if only it wasn't such a chore to get into London these days, I do miss the concert scene in particular. My favourite mvt in Saariaho's 'Orion' is the 3rd. I love the driving excitement of it and the generally sparser scoring feels needed after the density of the other 2 mvt. imo. Another 'Orion' fave of mine is Takemitsu's 3 movement work 'Orion and Pleiades'. It's always amused me to note the 2nd mvt is called 'and' although I'm sure he had good reason to call it as such.


Indeed, I do enjoy the concert scene here even if I’d prefer to live somewhere more remote! It’s a great city to be a student, especially to study music. So much going on all the time!

I do love that Takemitsu piece as well!


----------



## HansZimmer

Chat Noir said:


> Clearly there was 'value-added' because he made choices about what to place where (since there is apparently no beat/rhythm, yet he scored it with a time signature and he also made subsequent orchestration choices.


The text says that there wasn't any real artistic process. He wasn't try to do good music, only music that can be played.

I understand that the fact that a piece with no artistic intent was considered better than other of his pieces with artistic intent is offensive and that it can give the impression that classical music is becoming a circus.


----------



## HansZimmer

SanAntone said:


> Some on this thread appear to be opposed to musical experimentation in the classical music tradition. There is so-called avant-garde music in rock, jazz, even pop musics, as well as classical tradition. Artists experiment; it is in their nature.
> 
> I often find this music the most interesting and exciting. I will admit that this music has a small niche in the entire musical landscape, but I think it is necessary and unavoidable since it is in the nature of some artists to develop their aesthetic philosophy with these kinds of works.
> 
> This has been true throughout the history of classical music, e.g. Beethoven, Liszt, Wagner, Schoenberg, Stravinsky, etc., all of whom were criticized for writing music some contemporaneous critics called "noise."
> 
> I don't expect all or even most new experimental classical music to enter the standard repertory, most new music of any style only rarely does. But these experimental works are necessary in order to move the music along and for important new styles to appear, develop, and ferment.
> 
> To argue that they threaten classical music in general is false. To call for a different genre classification is unnecessary since these composers are usually classified outside of their own control. Label are unimportant, anyway.


You are right, but the problem is that we are free to say that the works X, Y and Z are failed experiments. The music of Beethoven might have been an experiment, as you put it, but a sucessful experiment. I have the sensation that while Beethoven was putting effort in successful experiments, some other modern composers are putting effort in failed experiments.

Beethoven was not ignoring the fundamental nature of the human ears. He did not pretend that the screech of a chalk on the blackboard had to be considered "music".


----------



## SanAntone

HansZimmer said:


> The text says that there wasn't any real artistic process. He wasn't try to do good music, only music that can be played.
> 
> I understand that the fact that a piece with no artistic intent was considered better than other of his pieces with artistic intent is offensive and that it can give the impression that classical music is becoming a circus.


Or maybe his intentional music is uninteresting and mediocre, and this experiment produced something the jury found fresh and more exciting.

This whole incident reminds me of an article by the composer Daniel Asia in which he dismissed the music of John Cage, specifically the Sonatas and Interludes for Prepared Piano - generally considered a landmark work:

_"music sadly lacking in any directionality, a music that is essentially rudderless. The music is emotionally bland and lackluster, its contours in this regard terribly narrow. Lastly, rather than engaging the mind, this is a music that purposely demands the mind be held at a distance, in abeyance. Ultimately, the music is simply downright sophomoric and boring. In Cage's latter and final chance period, by the way, matters only got much, much worse in regards to all of the above."_

Of course anyone can dislike any composer's music. But Asia presents himself as an "expert" dismissing Cage as a worthless "put-on." My take-away was a fairly unknown minor composer trying to grab some attention, and clicks, by attacking a major composer of the 20th century.

So I searched and found some of Asia's music.

Pleasant sounding, non-challenging, but ultimately unimportant music - all IMHO.


----------



## Chat Noir

HansZimmer said:


> The text says that there wasn't any real artistic process. He wasn't try to do good music, only music that can be played.
> 
> I understand that the fact that a piece with no artistic intent was considered better than other of his pieces with artistic intent is offensive and that it can give the impression that classical music is becoming a circus.


Then you actually misunderstood. Whatever he says, he had his hand in the process. Even worse is the suggestion:


> "He wasn't try to do good music"


Really? Was he trying to make it as bad as possible? That would be convenient for him wouldn't it?

There's no such thing as 'no artistic intent' when an artist is involved. Things with no artistic intent are things which happen with no-one initiating, causing, guiding, ordering after-the-fact, presenting and publishing for judgement and consumption. Things like impressive waterfalls, light falling in a certain way, or a pile of objects which fell from a collapsed shelf into an interesting arrangement; which just are what they are and might be found aesthetically pleasing as such,

What is "offensive" is the self-appointed music police rolling up with their declarations about what is and isn't correct classical music. And that either as a symptom or a cause this represents the descent into hell in a handcart. Art is pretty much the natural history of sticking up two fingers to and ignoring conservative dullards who make art ossify and die.


----------



## DaveM

mikeh375 said:


> Nice try Dave and I do understand your perspective and how one might conclude as you have, however....
> Like many other disciplines that require much in the way of study and dedication, the study of music is in itself a journey of exploration for a composer. From the composer's p.o.v, said study _is_ a consistent and logical musical trajectory, one of self discovery and a burgeoning awareness of what is important to a composer as they seek to find their own way. The journey and introspection progresses as the composer begins to reject or assimilate new (and old) aesthetic experiences and techniques. The ultimate destination for the trajectory is ideally acquisition of a fluent or even unique voice, no matter the style.
> 
> This is pretty much how it has always been and imo, there's no better way.


That may be true, but in the 20th century, there are examples of creators of other music forms where the ’destination of the trajectory’ eventually resulted in a new music form having a different category/name.


----------



## Forster

I notice the system stops sending alerts after a while, and I've been away, so I've missed out on the most edifying of discussions about the 'purpose' of art.

Obviously, art has no purpose except that the artist declares what its purpose is for them, an audience declares what its purpose is for them and self-appointed important bodies (eg Greek philosophers, the Church) declare what its purpose should be for everyone else. None of these amounts to much of significance beyond historical interest.

'Purpose' is different from 'effect'. Music may have the effect of 'uplifting' me or depressing me, prompting me to tears or tapping my feet, to thinking about higher things or about a witches sabbat. None of this defines some overall purpose of music. Music just does what it does and sometimes, that is what the artist intended and what the audience wanted.

I'm sure I'm just echoing what's already been said, as I've skimmed rather than absorbed the last 4-5 pages in detail.


----------



## SanAntone

I just wanted to post this clip here to give some idea of how young composers work. *Ellen Reid* does not mention many of the things some members think define classical music. She won the 2019 Pulitzer Prize for her work _p r i s m_, and has been commissioned by the NY Philharmonic.


----------



## SanAntone

This is just one of a number of initiatives I've read about created by classical music institutions which are designed to broaden the repertory offered at concerts and commissioning priorities. They are aimed at increasing inclusion of historically ignored or marginalized composers and styles.

NY Philharmonic:

*Project 19* was born of the conviction that an orchestra can participate in conversations about social imperatives and even change the status quo. Through Project 19, the Philharmonic can mark a “tectonic shift in American culture,” says Linda and Mitch Hart President and CEO Deborah Borda, by giving women composers a platform and catalyzing representation in classical music and beyond. Project 19 launched in February 2020 with the first six World Premieres.

The 2022–23 features commissions by Tania León, Caroline Shaw, Angélica Negrón, and Anna Thorvaldsdottir. Remaining works will be unveiled in 2023–24 and beyond.


----------



## Aries

Forster said:


> Obviously, art has no purpose except that the artist declares what its purpose is for them


But what should be the purpose? Or does it all just don't matter?

Also what is the definition of art? It has to be somewhat flexible, but whateverism is also not the solution.



Forster said:


> 'Purpose' is different from 'effect'. Music may have the effect of 'uplifting' me or depressing me


What is the task of art? Just whatever? Is it just a decandent gimmick, or should it be actually useful for people? Imo it is not rational to endorse decadence, so it should be actually useful. But if a piece is generally depressing, it is anti-useful. However, a piece that depresses most could still be uplifting for some people. To look at the purpose instead of the effect is an elegant way to solve this. An composer who writes a piece that should depress has missed the purpose art should have. But I don't think that this is common. Most music in minor for example can be uplifting. But I'm not sure about avantegarde composers. Since they disregard most conventional rules of music, it is possible that they write some music that should depress people, and that should do damage to people. Maybe just as "an experiment" (what actually would be valueable as science instead of art: Which kind of music is suitable to harm people?).


----------



## SanAntone

I have been contributing comments in an "in theory" capacity: music can be written using randomness and producing artistic results. But I had not actually listened to the work _Bubbles_. I have done so, now. But the original clip using crude MIDI samples was so bad as to not produce a performance worthy of any music.

Thankfully, there was another, later, video with better sound - which I have posted below.






I listened to this performance and I thought it was a quite interesting and enjoyable work.

YMMV but there is nothing about the work that calls into question the validity of avant-garde music or the methods AG composers use to create their music.

But I wouldn't even call _Bubbles_ an avant-garde work. It sounded like any work from the 1950s Darmstadt school, and my main criticism would be that it was somewhat dated.

Composers are writing much more adventuresome works these days.


----------



## fbjim

Aries said:


> But what should be the purpose? Or does it all just don't matter?
> 
> Also what is the definition of art? It has to be somewhat flexible, but whateverism is also not the solution.
> 
> 
> What is the task of art? Just whatever? Is it just a decandent gimmick, or should it be actually useful for people? Imo it is not rational to endorse decadence, so it should be actually useful. But if a piece is generally depressing, it is anti-useful. However, a piece that depresses most could still be uplifting for some people. To look at the purpose instead of the effect is an elegant way to solve this. An composer who writes a piece that should depress has missed the purpose art should have. But I don't think that this is common. Most music in minor for example can be uplifting. But I'm not sure about avantegarde composers. Since they disregard most conventional rules of music, it is possible that they write some music that should depress people, and that should do damage to people. Maybe just as "an experiment" (what actually would be valueable as science instead of art: Which kind of music is suitable to harm people?).



Setting aside whether the purpose of art "should" be to be useful or to "uplift", capital-C Classiciam, as in, the Greeks, and those who study the history of art have written reams about the paradoxical effect where "depressing" art can produce positive emotions in people. 

As far as "decadence" goes - what would that say about the reams of music written by the likes of classical-period composers which were written for the purpose of, say, entertaining a dinner party of aristocrats (e.g. tafelmusick)? "Decadent" as a pejorative was sometimes thrown at the late-romantic composers like Strauss and Mahler, and even may have been a reason for why music by early Modernists can sometimes sound very ascetic.


----------



## Denerah Bathory

SanAntone said:


> This is just one of a number of initiatives I've read about created by classical music institutions which are designed to broaden the repertory offered at concerts and commissioning priorities. They are aimed at increasing inclusion of historically ignored or marginalized composers and styles.
> 
> NY Philharmonic:
> 
> *Project 19* was born of the conviction that an orchestra can participate in conversations about social imperatives and even change the status quo. Through Project 19, the Philharmonic can mark a “tectonic shift in American culture,” says Linda and Mitch Hart President and CEO Deborah Borda, by giving women composers a platform and catalyzing representation in classical music and beyond. Project 19 launched in February 2020 with the first six World Premieres.
> 
> The 2022–23 features commissions by Tania León, Caroline Shaw, Angélica Negrón, and Anna Thorvaldsdottir. Remaining works will be unveiled in 2023–24 and beyond.


Here we go again with the social snowflake movement and critical nonsense theories...ugh. This is the problem right here, there is no talk about music but "diversity", "inclusion", basically this is just propaganda


----------



## SanAntone

Denerah Bathory said:


> Here we go again with the social snowflake movement and critical nonsense theories...ugh. This is the problem right here, there is no talk about music but "diversity", "inclusion", basically this is just propaganda


I don't agree. These are all talented women composers and I applaud the NY Phil for presenting this concert series of newly commissioned works. For far too long minorities and women composers have been shut out of concert programming and to have the sea shift a little in their direction is cause for celebration.

The works I have heard are of high quality, lest you suspect the NY Phil is compromising quality for diversity and inclusion.


----------



## Denerah Bathory

SanAntone said:


> I don't agree. These are all talented women composers and I applaud the NY Phil for presenting this concert series of newly commissioned works. For far too long minorities and women composers have been shut out of concert programming and to have the sea shift a little in their direction is cause for celebration.
> 
> The works I have heard are of high quality, lest you suspect the NY Phil is compromising quality for diversity and inclusion.


I am not making a judgement of the quality of these works, and honestly the fact that these composers are women means nothing to me in a well-meaning manner...in other words, I do not grant special favor nor harsh criticism due to whatever they may be. I only look at "composer" and "Music" in my assessment thereof.

Now, historically there was suppression and challenges, but let's face it, the playing field is even now, so why not just let Meritocracy do its thing, fulfill itself normally, without "affirmative action"--which I see as Aggressive Attack, or trying too hard to force oneself on others. 

All I hear are people talk about everything peripheral to the music itself...I don't care that this composer is a woman with feelings (don't we all have feelings!!!), I want her to talk about her orchestration, tonality, rhythm, all that nice nerdy technical stuff about what makes music well, music


----------



## SanAntone

Denerah Bathory said:


> All I hear are people talk about everything peripheral to the music itself...I don't care that this composer is a woman with feelings (don't we all have feelings!!!), I want her to talk about her orchestration, tonality, rhythm, all that nice nerdy technical stuff about what makes music well, music


With respect I think you missed the point of Ellen Reid's five minute video describing one of her works, i.e. how she began getting the ideas for it (really only about half was a discussion of her work). The idea of an arrow flying I found very intriguing as a formal idea for the work. More interesting than say, an A-B-A sonata type of movement. 

The things you listed, orchestration, tonality, etc. are labels for various sounds that make up a piece of music. I find them blander than discussing something more organic, such as images that the composer brings to mind as inspiration for a wolk which then s/he realizes in sound.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> I have been contributing comments in an "in theory" capacity: music can be written using randomness and producing artistic results. But I had not actually listened to the work _Bubbles_.


You've been doing more than contributing ‘in theory’ comments and I’ve been directly or indirectly on the receiving end of some of them. And you mean to tell me you had never listened to the work that is the subject of the thread? That takes a lot of nerve.


> I listened to this performance and I thought it was a quite interesting and enjoyable work.


There‘s no accounting for taste. 



> ..there is nothing about the work that calls into question the validity of avant-garde music or the methods AG composers use to create their music.


Well, yes there is. I’ve done a little bit of composing, enough to know that I don't have the skill to compose conventional classical music. However, after having the experience of a Yamaha Disklavier piano, it‘s reassuring to know that I could put together a work consisting of random notes, add some connecting musical ‘tissue’ and a little ambience and listeners such as Mr. SanAntone _might_ find it ’interesting and enjoyable’.



> But I wouldn't even call _Bubbles_ an avant-garde work. It sounded like any work from the 1950s Darmstadt school, and my main criticism would be that it was somewhat dated. Composers are writing much more adventuresome works these days.


That the Bubbles music is being given credibility as any category of contemporary music does not speak well of some of what is being composed these days.


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> You've been doing more than contributing ‘in theory’ comments and I’ve been directly or indirectly on the receiving end of some of them. And you mean to tell me you had never listened to the work that is the subject of the thread? That takes a lot of nerve.


That's right. I have been defending the right of composers to choose whatever tools, methods, and aesthetic impetus, in the creation of their music. You and others have argued that to use randomness as part of their process invalidates their music. I said "in theory" meaning I was defending the idea or theory that using randomness is a valid approach to composing classical music.

I didn't need to listen to this specific work to defend the use of random processes in composition since I respect John Cage and others who have used chance in their work.



> There‘s no accounting for taste.


That's right. It wasn't music I will preserve and listen to repeatedly, but it was better than I thought it would be. It certainly wasn't the drivel it has been dismissed as in this thread.



> Well, yes there is. I’ve done a little bit of composing, enough to know that I don't have the skill to compose conventional classical music. However, after having the experience of a Yamaha Disklavier piano, it‘s reassuring to know that I could put together a work consisting of random notes, add some connecting musical ‘tissue’ and a little ambience and listeners such as Mr. SanAntone might find it ’interesting and enjoyable’.


Sure, if you had enough of a creative imagination, and truly believed in that process, it is a valid approach, and you might produce something interesting. But then again you have spent most of your time in this thread arguing that the Bubbles process was invalid, and expressing your opinion that "avant-garde" music is not even classical music. 

Did it ever occur to you that it is the music that counts, not the label used to describe it? Whether avant-garde music is considered classical is irrelevant, but you seem to think it is important.


----------



## Aries

fbjim said:


> Setting aside whether the purpose of art "should" be to be useful or to "uplift", capital-C Classiciam, as in, the Greeks, and those who study the history of art have written reams about the paradoxical effect where "depressing" art can produce positive emotions in people.


Can you give an example for such an depressing piece of classical music, because I don't really have the experience to get depressed by classical music, not even by heavy, problem rolling pieces in minor. For example a piece like Shostakovichs 8th symphony, it is not depressing for me, and it gives positive emotion. But this is not paradoxical for me. Sure it is about the suffer in the 2nd world war, but dealing with and processing with bad things has a positive effect like a therapy. And since such pieces solve bad feelings, they rather have an even more positive effect compared to happy major pieces for me. Unless we are talkiing about something different here, I don't see the paradox.



fbjim said:


> As far as "decadence" goes - what would that say about the reams of music written by the likes of classical-period composers which were written for the purpose of, say, entertaining a dinner party of aristocrats (e.g. tafelmusick)?


The music is suitable to vitalize the mind. This a useful thing overall. You could argue that these aristocrats were useless, or that their dinner parties were useless. But overall these aristocrats had probably important decisions to make in their life, so to vitalize their minds is overall useful. But maybe their dinner party were nothing but decadent, but I don't think we should transfer this to the music, because it can be used in different situations.

I heard music is forbidden in Islam. Maybe it is seen as a decadent thing there per se. But I don't think that extrem. I recognize the simple value of music to vitalize the mind.



fbjim said:


> "Decadent" as a pejorative was sometimes thrown at the late-romantic composers like Strauss and Mahler, and even may have been a reason for why music by early Modernists can sometimes sound very ascetic.


Mahlers music for example is so complicated that it can become an end in itself to study it. But that is even more true for less accessible music like avantgarde music imo. Exaggeration can become a problem. Like kids should still do their homework maybe (assuming daringly that public education is still useful today).


----------



## Forster

Aries said:


> But what should be the purpose? Or does it all just don't matter?


Of course it matters. It's not all one thing or nothing. Anyway, why must there be a purpose? That is to say, why must "we" declare a purpose" for all? There was a reason I said that there is no purpose but that composers, audiences and people like you declare one: the purpose of music is that which the composer wants it to be.



Aries said:


> Also what is the definition of art? It has to be somewhat flexible, but whateverism is also not the solution.


Let's stick with music, rather than generalise to all art-forms - the question can be complicated enough as it is.



Aries said:


> What is the task of art? Just whatever? Is it just a decandent gimmick, or should it be actually useful for people? [etc]


I just don't recognise or have any time for the notion of "decadence" in music (or art).


----------



## Aries

Forster said:


> Anyway, why must there be a purpose?





Forster said:


> I just don't recognise or have any time for the notion of "decadence" in music (or art).


Decadence is about the listener. Decadence is basically doing useless things on purpose, so it is a very common thing today in a time of abundance. What can be decadent is to busy oneself with music without useful effect. For example if someone listens to an avantgarde piece of music just because it was composed by a woman to assure himself that he is a do-gooder, it is decadence, because the purpose is not useful (Please don't argue that assuring to be a do-gooder is a useful thing!). Instead listening to a piece to vitalize or relax yourself or something like that is useful.

To have no purpose is like having a useless purpose.


----------



## EdwardBast

SanAntone said:


> That's right. It wasn't music I will preserve and listen to repeatedly, but it was better than I thought it would be. It certainly wasn't the drivel it has been dismissed as in this thread.


I agree with your general arguments "in theory," but the new orchestration of the piece itself hasn't altered my evaluation. It still sounds like a reeking POS to me. My assessment of the "experiment" hasn't changed either. I conclude that whoever judged it was incompetent or otherwise defective and that there is nothing else to learn from it.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> But then again you have spent most of your time in this thread arguing that the Bubbles process was invalid..


That doesn’t make any sense. The Bubbles Experiment had validly in raising questions about the skill required to compose that musical work and the substance of the evaluation of said music by people who are supposed to have some expertise on the subject. It suggests that there is litte educated thought necessary to create certain works and still have someone, somewhere evaluate the result as being interesting and having credibility.



> ..and expressing your opinion that "avant-garde" music is not even classical music.
> 
> Did it ever occur to you that it is the music that counts, not the label used to describe it?


I like to think that classical music has always had special/unique qualities and which is distinguished by being the result of skilled composers and musicians. That has been what has been behind ‘the label that describes it’ for 3 centuries. Any music, including what I am calling ‘avant-garde’, that has an audience, however small, has its own validity. But IMO people don’t get to call music something it isn’t. If the music in question consists of often random sounding notes and an experiment in drawing out new sounds of instruments with little structure behind it, then it may be something new and interesting to some (however relatively few) listeners, but IMO it isn’t CM.



> Whether avant-garde music is considered classical is irrelevant, but you seem to think it is important.


Whether avant-garde is considered classical music seems to be very relevant based on the kerfuffle my suggestion that it isn’t CM has created among you and others. If it isn’t relevant what do you (and others) care?


----------



## Forster

Aries said:


> Decadence is about the listener. Decadence is basically doing useless things on purpose, so it is a very common thing today in a time of abundance. What can be decadent is to busy oneself with music without useful effect. For example if someone listens to an avantgarde piece of music just because it was composed by a woman to assure himself that he is a do-gooder, it is decadence, because the purpose is not useful (Please don't argue that assuring to be a do-gooder is a useful thing!). Instead listening to a piece to vitalize or relax yourself or something like that is useful.
> 
> To have no purpose is like having a useless purpose.


You're still hung up on the idea that we must declare what is and isn't a legitimate purpose.

I don't believe it is for me or for you to decide.


----------



## Andrew Kenneth

Aries said:


> Decadence is about the listener. Decadence is basically doing useless things on purpose, so it is a very common thing today in a time of abundance. What can be decadent is to busy oneself with music without useful effect. For example if someone listens to an avantgarde piece of music just because it was composed by a woman to assure himself that he is a do-gooder, it is decadence, because the purpose is not useful (Please don't argue that assuring to be a do-gooder is a useful thing!). Instead listening to a piece to vitalize or relax yourself or something like that is useful.
> 
> To have no purpose is like having a useless purpose.


I guess I'm very decadent then, since I prefer listening to this









rather than to these


----------



## composingmusic

Andrew Kenneth said:


> I guess I'm very decadent then, since I prefer listening to this
> View attachment 179395
> 
> 
> rather than to these
> View attachment 179396
> View attachment 179397


Just listening to Space – truly some really fascinating orchestral colours there!


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> That doesn’t make any sense. The Bubbles Experiment had validly in raising questions about the skill required to compose that musical work and the substance of the evaluation of said music by people who are supposed to have some expertise on the subject. It suggests that there is litte educated thought necessary to create certain works and still have someone, somewhere evaluate the result as being interesting and having credibility.


What I meant was that the method that created the music, i.e. randomness, you argued was invalid as a technique for composing classical music. Not the experiment itself.



> I like to think that classical music has always had special/unique qualities and which is distinguished by being the result of skilled composers and musicians. That has been what has been behind ‘the label that describes it’ for 3 centuries. Any music, including what I am calling ‘avant-garde’, that has an audience, however small, has its own validity. But IMO people don’t get to call music something it isn’t. If the music in question consists of often random sounding notes and an experiment in drawing out new sounds of instruments with little structure behind it, then it may be something new and interesting to some (however relatively few) listeners, but IMO it isn’t CM.


Classical music has evolved significantly from what was done in the 14th, 16th, 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries ... up to today, the 21st century. While I think labels are mainly for organizational use, and can be very useful for that purpose, they don't tell us much about the actual music since they usually embrace huge repertories, containing a plethora of styles. One classical fan may love Mozart, but not Wagner, and vice versa. And others are bored by both Mozart and Wagner, but love Boulez. 

For you to arbitrarily draw a line that excludes avant-garde from classical music I think is unnecessary and only reflects something about you as line-drawer, and nothing about the intrinsic qualities of the music. It also segregates a huge body of music which contains many classical music lovers of all stripes, as well as, folks who enjoy other genres but who might delve further into classical music, if they learned that classical music embraced more than Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven - i.e. their grandfather's stuffy music. 

Like it or not many young composers write what you probably would call avant-garde music - but they mostly think they are classical composers.



> Whether avant-garde is considered classical music seems to be very relevant based on the kerfuffle my suggestion that it isn’t CM has created among you and others. If it isn’t relevant what do you (and others) care?


I was trained as a musician and librarian and so I have a healthy respect for taxonomic concerns and a broad knowledge about composing and classical music history, and specifically how a large music library is organized and what it holds, and why. 

As a musician I recognize the training, intended audience, and overall priorities for composition that avant-garde composers share with "conventional" classical music composers. Styles change but over time the classical music composer persona remains largely the same across the centuries.

So while I do not really care if you or others reject avant-garde music as a kind of classical music, I do care about the deterioration of useful taxonomic classifications. and the disrespect shown to classical musicians who write experimental (or avant-garde) music.


----------



## Aries

Forster said:


> You're still hung up on the idea that we must declare what is and isn't a legitimate purpose.
> 
> I don't believe it is for me or for you to decide.


We don't have to, but we can. Humans have a will. I think it is sensible to say something about a sensible purpose, and since I have a will, I do it.



Andrew Kenneth said:


> I guess I'm very decadent then, since I prefer listening to this
> 
> rather than to these


It depends on *why* you do it.


----------



## composingmusic

Aries said:


> We don't have to, but we can. Humans have a will. I think it is sensible to say something about a sensible purpose, and since I have a will, I do it.


I do find it strange how you consider your purpose in this to be more valid than the purpose of others here who think this type of music belongs in the subcategory of classical music?


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> I notice the system stops sending alerts after a while, and I've been away, so I've missed out on the most edifying of discussions about the 'purpose' of art.
> 
> Obviously, art has no purpose except that the artist declares what its purpose is for them, an audience declares what its purpose is for them and self-appointed important bodies (eg Greek philosophers, the Church) declare what its purpose should be for everyone else. None of these amounts to much of significance beyond historical interest.
> 
> 'Purpose' is different from 'effect'. Music may have the effect of 'uplifting' me or depressing me, prompting me to tears or tapping my feet, to thinking about higher things or about a witches sabbat. None of this defines some overall purpose of music. Music just does what it does and sometimes, that is what the artist intended and what the audience wanted.
> 
> I'm sure I'm just echoing what's already been said, as I've skimmed rather than absorbed the last 4-5 pages in detail.


This de-mystifies art and I don't think we should do that. We should help the art process along with a childlike receptiveness. I mean, that's the ideal.


----------



## SanAntone

Luchesi said:


> This de-mystifies art and I don't think we should do that. We should help the art process along with a childlike receptiveness. I mean, that's the ideal.


Then the Bubbles experiment was ideal since it involved child play to create a musical work.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> For you to arbitrarily draw a line that excludes avant-garde from classical music I think is unnecessary *and only reflects something about you as line-drawer*, and nothing about the intrinsic qualities of the music.


That‘s just another one of those self-righteous statements you like to come out with as if you ride with the angels. Well you can get off your high horse. Don’t mistake the 5 to 1 piling on in this thread as reflecting a majority of your belief system outside this forum (and possibly outside this thread).



> *It also segregates a huge body of music *which contains many classical music lovers of all stripes, as well as, folks who enjoy other genres but who might delve further into classical music, if they learned that classical music embraced more than Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven - i.e. their grandfather's stuffy music.


You mean that little old me suggesting that works such as the Sciarrino flute work mentioned earlier are part of a genre outside classical music has the power to segregate a huge body of music from a potential audience? Do you really think that there is an untapped gold mine of listeners presently familiar with Bach, Mozart and Beethoven where all that is necessary to mine that ore is that they be exposed to music without melody, harmony or structure?



> So while I do not really care if you or others reject avant-garde music as a kind of classical music, I do care about the deterioration of useful taxonomic classifications. and the disrespect shown to classical musicians who write experimental (or avant-garde) music.


If the avant-garde music has value and a following that enjoys it then there should be no disrespect in the suggestion that it is a form of music with its own genre. As for ‘_the deterioration of useful taxonomic classifications_’, I think you can rest easy that dire consequences are unlikely. Besides, avant-garde music is presently considered to be classical music by the powers that be and the opinion of little old me isn’t going to change it.


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> That‘s just another one of those self-righteous statements you like to come out with as if you ride with the angels. Well you can get off your high horse. Don’t mistake the 5 to 1 piling on in this thread as reflecting a majority of your belief system outside this forum (and possibly outside this thread).


I noticed that you chose to ignore most of my comment before choosing this one to attack. I don't think I have been "self-righteous" or on a "high horse," I am just expressing my opinion, just like you.

So we disagree. I am not counting "votes" since I believe that everyone has the freedom to find the music which is meaningful to them, no matter how it is labelled. I also encourage the freedom for composers to pursue their aesthetic bliss unencumbered by philistine minds about what is or what is not "classical music."



> You mean that little old me suggesting that works such as the Sciarrino flute work mentioned earlier are part of a genre outside classical music has the power to segregate a huge body of music from a potential audience? Do you really think that there is an untapped gold mine of listeners presently familiar with Bach, Mozart and Beethoven where all that is necessary to mine that ore is that they be exposed to music without melody, harmony or structure?


Well, fine, if you admit that your opinion is inconsequential, okay. I don't hypothesize about audiences for classical music. I assume there are more people who listen to Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart. But it doesn't matter since there are also people who listen to avant-garde music. In a nutshell, I am for absolute freedom, both for listeners and composers to follow their bliss.



> If the avant-garde music has value and a following that enjoys it then there should be no disrespect in the suggestion that it is a form of music with its own genre. As for ‘_the deterioration of useful taxonomic classifications_’, I think you can rest easy that dire consequences are unlikely. Besides, avant-garde music is presently considered to be classical music by the powers that be and the opinion of little old me isn’t going to change it.


All true, which begs the question why do you belabor the question? You have made a point of suggesting that avant-garde music should be excluded from the classical music fold. Personally, I would like to exclude Bruckner. But I realize that is absurd, and a product of the fact that I find nothing worthwhile in his music. I suggest that you come to the same realization regarding avant-garde music.


----------



## Aries

composingmusic said:


> I do find it strange how you consider your purpose in this to be more valid than the purpose of others here who think this type of music belongs in the subcategory of classical music?


Well, others did not really mention a tangible alternative purpose, so I could not really compare it yet, except for the exchange with Chat noir, which was an exchange I can't take serious in retrospect in this regard.

But I think it is valid that music has a purpose and that it should not be whatever. And I made an argument for an purpose. Is this strange?

It is not necessary for classical music to pursue my suggested purpose. Imo classical music is music with classical instruments, classical sound generation. The definition of classical music should be wide. I think that avantgarde is a substyle of classical music but not the main style. I said this already.


----------



## SanAntone

Aries said:


> Well, others did not really mention a tangible alternative purpose, so I could not really compare it yet, except for the exchange with Chat noir, which was an exchange I can't take serious in retrospect in this regard.
> 
> But I think it is valid that music has a purpose and that it should not be whatever. And I made an argument for an purpose. Is this strange?
> 
> It is not necessary for classical music to pursue my suggested purpose. Imo classical music is music with classical instruments, classical sound generation. The definition of classical music should be wide. I think that avantgarde is a substyle of classical music but not the main style. I said this already.


For me the purpose of any music is to engage my mind and ideally my soul. To enoble my spirit and stimulate beauty in my mind. When I listen to any music, no matter the genre, this is what I am hoping for. I don't know nor do I care what the composer intended.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> All true, which begs the question why do you belabor the question?


What really begs the question is why, given the OP, you and a few of your buddies arrive on the attack as if someone kicked your dog. As for why I expressed my opinion, well, the OP raised a question that opened the door to questioning how far music can be changed before it becomes more difficult to judge the quality and skill of the origin. It is not too far a segue from that to suggesting that the parameters of one form of music can be changed to the point that it is now another. Besides, for me, the following resonates: ‘Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining.’


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> What really begs the question is why, given the OP, you and a few of your buddies arrive on the attack as if someone kicked your dog. As for why I expressed my opinion, well, the OP raised a question that opened the door to questioning how far music can be changed before it becomes more difficult to judge the quality and skill of the origin. It is not too far a segue from that to suggesting that the parameters of one form of music can be changed to the point that it is now another. Besides, for me, the following resonates: ‘Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining.’


We all decide which music is valuable (for us) and which is simply note-spinning. But only some of us go on to advocate excluding certain kinds of works from the classical music repertory. This, despite the fact, that a number of institutions such as the NY Phil have commissioned these works, performed them, and validate them as part of the classical music genre.

Only one of us is occupying territory outside of reality.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> We all decide which music is valuable (for us) and which is simply note-spinning. But only some of us go on to advocate excluding certain kinds of works from the classical music repertory. This, despite the fact, that a number of institutions such as the NY Phil have commissioned these works, performed them, and validate them as part of the classical music genre.
> 
> Only one of us is occupying territory outside of reality.


LA Phil has also tried commissioning some in the past and they’ve never been heard again and from what I can tell they may still commission atonal works, but you’re not likely to hear again what I am referring to as avant-garde. People come expecting to hear classical music. As such, some atonal works, in general, can be well-received, but program Sciarrino’s Morte Tamburo for Flute and members of the audience may head to the lobby for a drink.

On the other hand, if they had bought tickets specifically for a genre that includes the Sciarrino work or works like it, they would probably be well entertained.

That‘s the reality.


----------



## Forster

Aries said:


> We don't have to, but we can. Humans have a will. I think it is sensible to say something about a sensible purpose, and since I have a will, I do it.


You may do as you will. It's willing for other people I object to.



Luchesi said:


> This de-mystifies art and I don't think we should do that. We should help the art process along with a childlike receptiveness. I mean, that's the ideal.


Why does it demystify art? And why must art be 'mysterious'?



Aries said:


> But I think it is valid that music has a purpose and that *it should not be whatever. *And I made an argument for an purpose. Is this strange?


I don't think anyone is saying it should be 'whatever'. I'm saying that the purpose of creating art is up to the artist, since they are the creators, and the purpose of consuming art must be up to the audience. And then, my guess is that not all artists pursue their art for the same reason, but many will. There will be substantial overlap between purposes, and doubtless some will do it for the kind of 'ennobling' purposes you believe in. But I don't think there is an infinite number of purposes (your 'whatever').


----------



## composingmusic

Aries said:


> The definition of classical music should be wide. I think that avantgarde is a substyle of classical music but not the main style.


I do agree that the definition of classical music should be wide. And who is to say that any style of classical music is the "main" style? Again, avant-garde is a tricky term here, because even within this conversation, it seems to me that there are a number of people who have different opinions about what this term means. 

Yes, most people will think of the older works that are the most played works in the concert hall. As for classical music being written today, I don't think there is a single main style for this, and the aesthetics will vary greatly depending on what country you're in. 



Aries said:


> But I think it is valid that music has a purpose and that it should not be whatever. And I made an argument for an purpose. Is this strange?


And who exactly would choose what is and what isn't a valid purpose? Sometimes music will have a purpose, but other times it will exist simply for the sake of existing.


----------



## composingmusic

DaveM said:


> LA Phil has also tried commissioning some in the past and they’ve never been heard again and from what I can tell they may still commission atonal works, but you’re not likely to hear again what I am referring to as avant-garde. People come expecting to hear classical music. As such, some atonal works, in general, can be well-received, but program Sciarrino’s Morte Tamburo for Flute and members of the audience may head to the lobby for a drink.


As I've said before, I think it's really strange that you are so set on this music not being considered classical music. Pretty much any composer I can think of who I know in person would disagree on that point – they see the 20th and 21st century landscape as an interconnected web of influences, and trying to classify some of it as classical music while leaving some of it out would paint a false picture of the musical evolution within this time. The LA Phil do commission a wide variety of music, and I'd imagine you could consider some of it to fit your parameters of avant-garde. Regarding the Sciarrino, again, that's a matter of personal preferences. Some people may not like it, but I'd imagine others would find it captivating. There is also cultural aspect to this: from personal experience, I've found audiences in a lot of European countries to be much more open to this type of music than in the US – I think this may have to do with a preconception that this type of music is difficult, which is more commonly found in the US (and this does affect the listening experience).


----------



## mikeh375

composingmusic said:


> And who exactly would choose what is and what isn't a valid purpose? Sometimes music will have a purpose, but other times it will exist simply for the sake of existing.


Quite. Music is also self expression as you and I know, a fact that seems to be getting lost or ignored as listeners pursue their own definitions.


----------



## composingmusic

mikeh375 said:


> Quite. Music is also self expression as you and I know, a fact that seems to be getting lost or ignored as listeners pursue their own definitions.


Yes. This goes down a dangerous road of what is or isn't a valid reason for music to exist.


----------



## mikeh375

SanAntone said:


> .........As a musician I recognize the training, intended audience, and overall priorities for composition that avant-garde composers share with "conventional" classical music composers. *Styles change but over time the classical music composer persona remains largely the same across the centuries.*


yes, SA is right. It really does exist. The composer's sense of belonging and contributing to, the great turning, journeying, developing wheel of artistic excellence in music that is concert hall driven, is a definite thing. Even the romantic notion of 'genius' still applies as one might expect in a profession where individuality and excellence are sought after and are admired virtues, probably moreso by peers than listeners.


----------



## EdwardBast

DaveM said:


> You mean that little old me suggesting that works such as the Sciarrino flute work mentioned earlier are part of *a genre outside classical music* has the power to segregate a huge body of music from a potential audience? Do you really think that there is an untapped gold mine of listeners presently familiar with Bach, Mozart and Beethoven where all that is necessary to mine that ore is that they be exposed to music without melody, harmony or structure?
> 
> If the avant-garde music has value and a following that enjoys it then there should be no disrespect in the suggestion that it is *a form of music with its own genre*.


Genre has nothing to do with it. Nor does style. The reason AG music is classical music is that the category is defined institutionally. Always has been. Its composers were educated in the same institutions as the performers for whom they write. They all studied CP theory and later theory in those institutions. Their music is intended for the same demographic, the same publishers, and the same recording industry. Get over it. Your argument is misguided and beside any useful point.


----------



## DaveM

EdwardBast said:


> Genre has nothing to do with it. Nor does style. The reason AG music is classical music is that the category is defined institutionally. Always has been. Its composers were educated in the same institutions as the performers for whom they write. *They all studied CP theory* and later theory in those institutions. *Their music is intended for the same demographic*, the same publishers, and the same recording industry.


I understand your point. You’ve expressed it before. I accept that, for the most part, it’s composers came from the same institutions. However, you know that the agenda and direction of the academic institutions have been called into question at various times since earlier in the 20th century.

As for the ‘_Their music is intended for the same demographic_’, really? How is that working out? It is for a particular demographic that is drawn to the AG music, not the CP demographic or even necessarily the demographic that accepts atonal/serial music as CM.



> Get over it. Your argument is misguided and beside any useful point.


As I’ve said before, the AG I am referring to that falls into the category of an experimentation in previously unexplored sounds from instruments without melody, harmony or structure and often random-sounding notes has been deemed by the powers that be to be classical music. Anything I say isn’t going to change that.

But, the OP/Bubbles Experiment opened the door to the expression of my opinion. The response of those disturbed by (IMO) the uncomfortable truth of the experiment was to first, completely dismiss the validity of it and second, try to shut down anybody suggesting it does raise serious questions and discussing closely related corollaries (such as whether music that strays into territory of random sounds is classical music or something else).

When the ’shutdown’ hasn’t worked, the responses have become in the realm of (unfortunately) yours above which is easily interpreted as ‘Shut up, your argument is useless.’ As long as people keep responding to my posts with demeaning content, I’ll choose to respond..or not.


----------



## DaveM

composingmusic said:


> ..Regarding the Sciarrino, again, that's a matter of personal preferences. Some people may not like it, but I'd imagine others would find it captivating. There is also cultural aspect to this: from personal experience, I've found audiences in a lot of European countries to be much more open to this type of music than in the US – I think this may have to do with a preconception that this type of music is difficult, which is more commonly found in the US (and this does affect the listening experience).


I agree that there is likely a cultural aspect that is different. However, I would also say that there is an audience for this music in both the U.S. and European countries. I’ve never said otherwise.


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> As I’ve said before, the AG I am referring to that falls into the category of an experimentation in previously unexplored sounds from instruments without melody, harmony or structure and often random-sounding notes has been deemed to be classical music.


Seen from the perspective of functional harmony, this Perotin work sounds disordered, with no sense of direction.




What do you think?


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> But, the OP/Bubbles Experiment opened the door to the expression of my opinion. The response of those disturbed by (IMO) the uncomfortable truth of the experiment was to first, completely dismiss the validity of it and second, try to shut down anybody suggesting it does raise serious questions and discussing closely related corollaries (such as whether music that strays into territory of random sounds is classical music or something else).


The truth of the Bubbles experiment is that despite trying to sabotage the competition by submitting a work the composer "judged to be worthless non-music but that conformed to their idea of originality," the jury, which consisted of a composer, a musicologist and a conductor, found the work to be of high quality choosing it as the winning work. 

So there are two ways of interpreting the outcome: 1) the jury of these classical music professionals are idiots or 2) the work was of high quality despite the intentions of its composer. You think the "truth" is described by option #1 - I think the "truth" is described by option #2.

The composer ended up receiving a grant of 3000 € for this composition. Pretty good day of work if you ask me. And if he were not so biased against avant-garde methods and music, he might realize that his previous style was not nearly as lucrative as this new way of composing has proved to be.


----------



## EdwardBast

DaveM said:


> I understand your point. You’ve expressed it before. I accept that, for the most part, it’s composers came from the same institutions. However, you know that the agenda and direction of the academic institutions have been called into question at various times since earlier in the 20th century.
> 
> As for the ‘_Their music is intended for the same demographic_’, really? How is that working out?* It is for a particular demographic that is drawn to the AG music, not the CP demographic or even necessarily the demographic that accepts atonal/serial music as CM.*


As has been pointed out abundantly above, there is no reason to think these are distinct groups. Those drawn to AG music also enjoy CP music.



DaveM said:


> As I’ve said before, the AG I am referring to that falls into the category of an experimentation in previously unexplored sounds from instruments without melody, harmony or structure and often random-sounding notes has been deemed by the powers that be to be classical music. Anything I say isn’t going to change that.


Powers that be? Be specific, otherwise it sounds like conspiracy mongering.



DaveM said:


> But, the OP/Bubbles Experiment opened the door to the expression of my opinion. The response of those disturbed by (IMO) the uncomfortable truth of the experiment was to first, completely dismiss the validity of it and second, try to shut down anybody suggesting it does raise serious questions and discussing closely related corollaries (such as whether music that strays into territory of random sounds is classical music or something else).


Alas, neither you nor your opponents in this thread have considered all the likely interpretations of the data. To wit:



SanAntone said:


> The truth of the Bubbles experiment is that despite trying to sabotage the competition by submitting a work the composer "judged to be worthless non-music but that conformed to their idea of originality," the jury, which consisted of a composer, a musicologist and a conductor, found the work to be of high quality choosing it as the winning work.
> 
> *So there are two ways of interpreting the outcome: 1) the jury of these classical music professionals are idiots or 2) the work was of high quality despite the intentions of its composer. You think the "truth" is described by option #1 - I think the "truth" is described by option #2.*


I think there are other options you haven't considered. Is it possible that all of the submissions sucked and the jury picked the least offensive because the rules required that commissions be granted? Or that only two out of three jurors were idiots?  Or that two of them were intelligent but out of their depth or competency in this part of the literature? Or that the designation "work of high quality" is boilerplate automatically attached to any work funded through FST?

If the names of the jurors are known, we might be able to assess their competence based on other publicly available information. I personally am loathe to accept at face valued the competence of alleged experts. I've met and read the works of too many of them.


----------



## EdwardBast

-----------------------


----------



## fbjim

does the existence of Fritz Kreisler negate the entire practice of neoromanticism and neoclassicism? after all, if one can successfully pass off their own ordinary work as a Vivaldi or a Dittersdorf, doesn't it mean that all classical music is a fraud?


or can we just pass that off as a silly occurrence and not a strike against an entire practice of music


----------



## Aries

Forster said:


> I don't think anyone is saying it should be 'whatever'. I'm saying that the purpose of creating art is up to the artist, since they are the creators, and the purpose of consuming art must be up to the audience. And then, my guess is that not all artists pursue their art for the same reason, but many will. There will be substantial overlap between purposes, and doubtless some will do it for the kind of 'ennobling' purposes you believe in. But I don't think there is an infinite number of purposes (your 'whatever').


For example experimentation was suggested as purpose. Well, I think experimentation is a good mean for science but not good as final purpose for art. Experimentation serves progress, but experimantation is no end in itself and therefore not a sensible final purpose for anything. And as others already said, there were indeed experiments in modernism, that kinda failed. But if you acknowledge the experiment as a final purpose, no experiment can ever fail. And this seems indeed to be the attitude of some towards avantgarde music. But with this approach music loses its attraction to most people. Experimentation as end in itself is not what most want from music. They want an successful effect on themselves. And I think composers overall should take this more up again.



composingmusic said:


> I do agree that the definition of classical music should be wide. And who is to say that any style of classical music is the "main" style?


The common practise is the main style as the name suggests. Who is to say it?? What do I know? I just said it. I guess everyone can.



composingmusic said:


> As for classical music being written today, I don't think there is a single main style for this, and the aesthetics will vary greatly depending on what country you're in.


Two possible interpretations: The common practise main style of classical music split after the common practise period into multiple styles, so that there are only substyles today. Or: Multiple new styles developed after the common practise period next to the common practise main style which is still developed.



composingmusic said:


> And who exactly would choose what is and what isn't a valid purpose?


I am opposed to making an law enactment in this regard.


----------



## DaveM

EdwardBast said:


> Powers that be? Be specific, otherwise it sounds like conspiracy mongering.


Oh, for Heaven’s Sake!



> I think there are other options you haven't considered. Is it possible that all of the submissions sucked and the jury picked the least offensive because the rules required that commissions be granted? Or that only two out of three jurors were idiots?  Or that two of them were intelligent but out of their depth or competency in this part of the literature? Or that the designation "work of high quality" is boilerplate automatically attached to any work funded through FST?
> 
> If the names of the jurors are known, we might be able to assess their competence based on other publicly available information. I personally am loathe to accept at face valued the competence of alleged experts. I've met and read the works of too many of them.


What is your and SA’s source that there were just 3 individuals judging the music involved? The author Comitas said _’Within a few months, a letter arrived, informing me of a favorable decision. Not only was I granted the requested commission for the piece, but topping that, I was told that *both advisory committees* regarded Bubbles as ‘surpassing my regular output’...‘ _There was also a lawsuit (not brought by Comitas) in which ‘_*the NFPK‘s [the successor to the FST] spokesman* in the court proceeding..maintained that Bubbles was a fine work.’_
That sounds like more than 3 to me.

Btw, there other options you haven’t mentioned. No, I don’t think I’ll go into them.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> So there are two ways of interpreting the outcome: 1) the jury of these classical music professionals are idiots or 2) the work was of high quality despite the intentions of its composer.


There’s also a third way of interpreting the outcome.



> You think the "truth" is described by option #1


I do?



> The composer ended up receiving a grant of 3000 € for this composition. Pretty good day of work if you ask me. And if he were not so biased against avant-garde methods and music, he might realize that his previous style was not nearly as lucrative as this new way of composing has proved to be.


Nice spin!


----------



## SanAntone

I got the information about the jury directly from the composer's description of the competition and jury, and the quote from the letter he received notifying him that his work had won. Also, the announced ruling criterion of "originality" might indicate a preference for more experimental or avant-garde styles. All of this info came from the link posted in the OP.

I tend to take this incident at face value. i.e. the jury of competent experts judged Bubbles to have been the work that best satisfied the criteria of the competition. Also, as I posted previously, I listened to the work and found it fairly interesting. But without hearing the other works it is impossible to appreciate the jury's judgment.


----------



## Forster

Aries said:


> For example experimentation was suggested as purpose. Well, I think experimentation is a good mean for science but not good as final purpose for art. Experimentation serves progress, but experimantation is no end in itself and therefore not a sensible final purpose for anything. And as others already said, there were indeed experiments in modernism, that kinda failed. But if you acknowledge the experiment as a final purpose, no experiment can ever fail. And this seems indeed to be the attitude of some towards avantgarde music. But with this approach music loses its attraction to most people. Experimentation as end in itself is not what most want from music. They want an successful effect on themselves. And I think composers overall should take this more up again.
> [...]


You are welcome to your views, based as they obviously are on an extensive survey of the opinions of "most people". I still prefer my own, based on an extensive survey of mine!

I'm not sure what "experimentation as an end in itself" looks like. All the recognised greats indulged in "experimentation" - it's one of the things that made them great.

Stadtler: "Mr Haydn says that all symphonies should last only about 30 minutes. He set the pattern. It's what most people want."
Waldorf: "But Mr Beethoven's 3rd at 50 minutes - it has been warmly welcomed by most people."
Stadtler: "Absurd. Mr Beethoven will bring about the downfall of classical music with his experimentation. What next? A symphony of six movements...or even just one, I suppose. Pah!"


----------



## DaveM

Aries said:


> ..But if you acknowledge the experiment as a final purpose, no experiment can ever fail. And this seems indeed to be the attitude of some towards avantgarde music. But with this approach music loses its attraction to most people. Experimentation as end in itself is not what most want from music. They want an successful effect on themselves. And I think composers overall should take this more up again.


An interesting perspective. The process you are describing also can have the consequence that the experimentation at the extreme, has now become, all about the composer. While the ‘traditional’ composers of the past ‘indulged in experimentation’, while doing so, they recognized the importance of composing music accessible to the listener. In fact, they had to.


----------



## Forster

So, some composers take a greater account of the alleged needs of their audience, and some take lesser account. Some composers are interested in novelty, originality, variation and/or "experimentation" while others are more interested in the security of the familiar, the known, the retread, the obviously commercially popular.

More significantly, we no longer live at the beginning of the 19thC and music has, inevitably, changed in wholly predictable ways, given 200 years of musical evolution. We are where we are.

Who knew!?


----------



## mikeh375

DaveM said:


> An interesting perspective. The process you are describing also can have the consequence that the experimentation at the extreme, has now become, *all about the composer. *While the ‘traditional’ composers of the past ‘indulged in experimentation’, while doing so, they recognized the importance of composing music accessible to the listener. In fact, they had to.


Composer's motives are various and multi-faceted. Britten for example, vowed his allegiance to listeners..
_"....it is the composer's duty, as a member of society, to speak to or for his fellow human beings.
(part of his acceptance speech on receiving an Aspen Award)._

Other composers have different attitudes. Some will (did) compose for posterity, others like Britten composed in the moment, time and place for performers, orchestras and events, rooting the music firmly in a purposeful and useful category.
Honneger, when stuck during composing would try to listen with audience ears to find a way through to a musical solution the audience might want to hear.
Britten's nemesis Stravinsky also espoused the joys of "sharing" his efforts with his fellow men although with the 'Symphonies of Wind Instruments', he wrote that the work was intended for "_those in whom a purely musical receptivity outweighed the desire to satisfy emotional cravings"._

The danger in too much 'crowd pleasing' however lies in a loss of personal and subjective aesthetic integrity, often suppressed whilst pursuing outrightly popularity. Schumann was aware of the dangers and even the benefits of pushing boundaries..
_"The public must sometimes be imposed upon, for it considers itself the composers equal as soon as things are made too easy for it. But if a composer from time to time throws a stone in the way, and even at its head, all will simultaneously duck, feel terror and in the end, loudly praise him."_

For Tippett, the impulse and resulting process of composing was an inner artistic need. Although 'aware' of his listeners, he felt no need to cater to and satisfy their every wish and expectation..
_"I know of no absolute in this matter...than the power of such creative energies as I possess. My passion is to project into our mean world music which is rich and generous."_

And especially for you Dave, Fernyhough admitting his work wont achieve a mass lay-audience and it being pointless to factor-in audience consideration whilst composing..

_"There is little use in imagining some ideal listener ..........There is no such thing as the new music audience, but rather a chaotic mesh of special interests.....In the last analysis every composer works for himself, since only he can gather and maintain the impetus necessary for the creative act. Otherwise I suppose one writes for the dozen or so individuals whose personal opinion and esteem has importance."_

Finally and somewhat tangenital but still related to an audience, Boulez...

_(to break down the walls) - that separate the artist from the public...We need today to achieve more fluid relations between our various activities and this means that the watertight compartments in which we have kept chamber music, symphonic music, opera and concert hall - each with its own equally watertight public - must be broken down if music is to be made free and available to the majority."...(my emphasis)._

The belief amongst some like Boulez, Stockhausen and Xenakis was that the way forward for music was to change the audience, to encourage the listener to rethink their relationship with the music they experience.



(..culled from Jonathan Harvey's excellent book 'Music and Inspiration'. It's a non-technical read and highly recommended).


----------



## composingmusic

mikeh375 said:


> Composer's motives are various and multi-faceted. Britten for example, vowed his allegiance to listeners..
> _"....it is the composer's duty, as a member of society, to speak to or for his fellow human beings.
> (part of his acceptance speech on receiving an Aspen Award)._
> 
> Other composers have different attitudes. Some will (did) compose for posterity, others like Britten composed in the moment, time and place for performers, orchestras and events, rooting the music firmly in a purposeful and useful category.
> Honneger, when stuck during composing would try to listen with audience ears to find a way through to a musical solution the audience might want to hear.
> Britten's nemesis Stravinsky also espoused the joys of "sharing" his efforts with his fellow men although with the 'Symphonies of Wind Instruments', he wrote that the work was intended for "_those in whom a purely musical receptivity outweighed the desire to satisfy emotional cravings"._
> 
> The danger in too much 'crowd pleasing' however lies in a loss of personal and subjective aesthetic integrity, often suppressed whilst pursuing outrightly popularity. Schumann was aware of the dangers and even the benefits of pushing boundaries..
> _"The public must sometimes be imposed upon, for it considers itself the composers equal as soon as things are made too easy for it. But if a composer from time to time throws a stone in the way, and even at its head, all will simultaneously duck, feel terror and in the end, loudly praise him."_
> 
> For Tippett, the impulse and resulting process of composing was an inner artistic need. Although 'aware' of his listeners, he felt no need to cater to and satisfy their every wish and expectation..
> _"I know of no absolute in this matter...than the power of such creative energies as I possess. My passion is to project into our mean world music which is rich and generous."_
> 
> And especially for you Dave, Fernyhough admitting his work wont achieve a mass lay-audience and it being pointless to factor-in audience consideration whilst composing..
> 
> _"There is little use in imagining some ideal listener ..........There is no such thing as the new music audience, but rather a chaotic mesh of special interests.....In the last analysis every composer works for himself, since only he can gather and maintain the impetus necessary for the creative act. Otherwise I suppose one writes for the dozen or so individuals whose personal opinion and esteem has importance."_
> 
> Finally and somewhat tangenital but still related to an audience, Boulez...
> 
> _(to break down the walls) - that separate the artist from the public...We need today to achieve more fluid relations between our various activities and this means that the watertight compartments in which we have kept chamber music, symphonic music, opera and concert hall - each with its own equally watertight public - must be broken down if music is to be made free and available to the majority."...(my emphasis)._
> 
> The belief amongst some like Boulez, Stockhausen and Xenakis was that the way forward for music was to change the audience, to encourage the listener to rethink their relationship with the music they experience.
> 
> 
> 
> (..culled from Jonathan Harvey's excellent book 'Music and Inspiration'. It's a non-technical read and highly recommended).


Yes. It's fascinating to see the breakdown of different composers' approaches here – and that Britten speech is quite an interesting one. 

Every composer has a different relationship with the audience, and it's fascinating to see how that relationship can evolve throughout a composer's life as well. Something that makes this even more difficult is that audiences are not a homogenous thing – every person has their own preferences, and every person hears and appreciates music differently. As with what you've said in that last paragraph, Boulez, Stockhausen, and Xenakis encourage the listener to rethink their relationship with the music they experience. 

Another somewhat audience-related thing that does come to mind is the dynamic between Berg and Schoenberg, which I've read about and heard about from various sources. Schoenberg taught Berg, and I've heard he was quite a difficult teacher; he was incredibly mean to Berg at times. The dynamic did become more strained when Berg received a huge amount of acclaim from Wozzeck. Schoenberg himself had never seen any success of this scale, and it's possible he was quite jealous of Berg's success, even if he didn't aesthetically agree with some of the more overly lyrical things Berg was doing.


----------



## composingmusic

Aries said:


> The common practise is the main style as the name suggests. Who is to say it?? What do I know? I just said it. I guess everyone can.


Common practice refers to music that uses specific types of functional tonal structures and often dates from the common practice period (baroque, classical, romantic periods) – usually in musical academia, which is where I've picked up this term, it is taken to mean pre-1900 music. I was simply using this term rather than the more ambiguous "tonal" and "atonal" terms. It is misleading to say this is the main style people are writing in now, at least in the contemporary classical world. 



Aries said:


> Two possible interpretations: The common practise main style of classical music split after the common practise period into multiple styles, so that there are only substyles today. Or: Multiple new styles developed after the common practise period next to the common practise main style which is still developed.


I don't understand why you're making this into a dichotomy, as I don't think either of these is sufficient to explain what is happening today. There are a number of different aesthetic directions; some of them have influenced more people than others.


----------



## mikeh375

composingmusic said:


> Yes. It's fascinating to see the breakdown of different composers' approaches here – and that Britten speech is quite an interesting one.
> 
> Every composer has a different relationship with the audience, and it's fascinating to see how that relationship can evolve throughout a composer's life as well. Something that makes this even more difficult is that audiences are not a homogenous thing – every person has their own preferences, and every person hears and appreciates music differently. As with what you've said in that last paragraph, Boulez, Stockhausen, and Xenakis encourage the listener to rethink their relationship with the music they experience.
> 
> Another somewhat audience-related thing that does come to mind is the dynamic between Berg and Schoenberg, which I've read about and heard about from various sources. Schoenberg taught Berg, and I've heard he was quite a difficult teacher; he was incredibly mean to Berg at times. The dynamic did become more strained when Berg received a huge amount of acclaim from Wozzeck. Schoenberg himself had never seen any success of this scale, and it's possible he was quite jealous of Berg's success, even if he didn't aesthetically agree with some of the more overly lyrical things Berg was doing.



Yes you are right about how the relationship will change beteween a composer and audience. A composer's attitude to comprehensibility can harden as they age, becoming more willing to push further out into uncharted and new territory. It's always been so, witness Wagner for example.
Schoenberg surely couldn't have failed to see the irony and perhaps the injustice of Berg's success, given it was he who wished for his Method to continue the great tradition. Mind you Berg 'cheated' by incorporating more than a whiff of tonality into the structure of his row for the Violin Concerto....


----------



## composingmusic

mikeh375 said:


> Yes you are right about how the relationship will change beteween a composer and audience. A composer's attitude to comprehensibility can harden as they age, becoming more willing to push further out into uncharted and new territory. It's always been so, witness Wagner for example.


For sure! Look at late Beethoven, late Stravinsky, or Grisey's final works, just for a start. 



mikeh375 said:


> Schoenberg surely couldn't have failed to see the irony and perhaps the injustice of Berg's success, given it was he who wished for his Method to continue the great tradition. Mind you Berg 'cheated' by incorporating more than a whiff of tonality into the structure of his row for the Violin Concerto....


Berg bends the rules all the time! It is largely through bending these rules that he can create these amazing large-scale harmonic structures that teeter on the edge of functional tonality and other times really quite dense harmony. He does this in quite an extraordinary way, really.


----------



## EdwardBast

DaveM said:


> What is your and SA’s source that there were just 3 individuals judging the music involved? The author Comitas said _’Within a few months, a letter arrived, informing me of a favorable decision. Not only was I granted the requested commission for the piece, but topping that, I was told that *both advisory committees* regarded Bubbles as ‘surpassing my regular output’...‘ _There was also a lawsuit (not brought by Comitas) in which ‘_*the NFPK‘s [the successor to the FST] spokesman* in the court proceeding..maintained that Bubbles was a fine work.’_
> That sounds like more than 3 to me.
> 
> Btw, there other options you haven’t mentioned. No, I don’t think I’ll go into them.


As St. Anthony noted, the information about jurists, their number, and their area of expertise was in the info linked in the OP.

It occurs to me that both you, Dave, and Anthony might be talking out of the proverbial alternative orifice.  Neither of you knows the qualifications of the judges, their track records, their level of interest, probity, or competence in AG musical literature (or anything else), or how and why they got this dismal gig. Yet you, Dave, are ready to presume that their decision about Bubbles can be generalized to the whole category of AG music — that the Bubbles award can't be merely the result of the characteristics or defects of the individuals involved and the process of this jury. Anthony assumes the opposite with the same dearth of information — that the judge's decision was a rational one based on sound critical judgment. Neither of you has asked why the FST was apparently disbanded and replaced, something that might well be of interest, to say the least.

I don't have an opinion in this matter, except that Bubbles sounds like utter crap to me and, given that I trust my own aesthetic judgment, makes me skeptical of those who judged it to be of high quality. But both your (Dave's) generalization and Anthony's trust in the judges are without any credible basis I can see.


----------



## SanAntone

I have posted previously that we don't know what other works were submitted, nor do we know anything about the judges other than their job descriptions. After listening to the work I thought a jury could reasonably choose it among other works which either did not fit the stylistic criteria of the competition or were not judged as good for some reason.

But the difference between my response and Dave's is that I don't assume this experiment says anything about AG music in general, which seems to have been what the composer of _Bubbles_ thinks, or tried to prove: i.e. avant-garde music is so random and unnatural that no one can tell if a work is any good or not.

I also trust my aesthetic judgment and thought that _Bubbles_ wasn't garbage but sounded generally like much of the music from the 1950s serial camp. 

Now, I am sure if someone did a rigorous analysis of the work, they might discover structural flaws which would indicate the work is not well-written. But just listening it sounded superficially like many serial works.

I've thought that a random work such as John Cage's _Music of Changes_ sounds similar to Boulez's _Structures_: whereas one used a random methodology taken from the I Ching and the other serial procedures controlling pitch, rhythm, dynamics (volume levels), and attack.


----------



## DaveM

mikeh375 said:


> Composer's motives are various and multi-faceted. Britten for example, vowed his allegiance to listeners..
> _"....it is the composer's duty, as a member of society, to speak to or for his fellow human beings.
> (part of his acceptance speech on receiving an Aspen Award)._
> 
> Other composers have different attitudes. Some will (did) compose for posterity, others like Britten composed in the moment, time and place for performers, orchestras and events, rooting the music firmly in a purposeful and useful category.
> Honneger, when stuck during composing would try to listen with audience ears to find a way through to a musical solution the audience might want to hear.
> Britten's nemesis Stravinsky also espoused the joys of "sharing" his efforts with his fellow men although with the 'Symphonies of Wind Instruments', he wrote that the work was intended for "_those in whom a purely musical receptivity outweighed the desire to satisfy emotional cravings"._
> 
> The danger in too much 'crowd pleasing' however lies in a loss of personal and subjective aesthetic integrity, often suppressed whilst pursuing outrightly popularity. Schumann was aware of the dangers and even the benefits of pushing boundaries..
> _"The public must sometimes be imposed upon, for it considers itself the composers equal as soon as things are made too easy for it. But if a composer from time to time throws a stone in the way, and even at its head, all will simultaneously duck, feel terror and in the end, loudly praise him."_
> 
> For Tippett, the impulse and resulting process of composing was an inner artistic need. Although 'aware' of his listeners, he felt no need to cater to and satisfy their every wish and expectation..
> _"I know of no absolute in this matter...than the power of such creative energies as I possess. My passion is to project into our mean world music which is rich and generous."_
> 
> And especially for you Dave, Fernyhough admitting his work wont achieve a mass lay-audience and it being pointless to factor-in audience consideration whilst composing..
> 
> _"There is little use in imagining some ideal listener ..........There is no such thing as the new music audience, but rather a chaotic mesh of special interests.....In the last analysis every composer works for himself, since only he can gather and maintain the impetus necessary for the creative act. Otherwise I suppose one writes for the dozen or so individuals whose personal opinion and esteem has importance."_
> 
> Finally and somewhat tangenital but still related to an audience, Boulez...
> 
> _(to break down the walls) - that separate the artist from the public...We need today to achieve more fluid relations between our various activities and this means that the watertight compartments in which we have kept chamber music, symphonic music, opera and concert hall - each with its own equally watertight public - must be broken down if music is to be made free and available to the majority."...(my emphasis)._
> 
> The belief amongst some like Boulez, Stockhausen and Xenakis was that the way forward for music was to change the audience, to encourage the listener to rethink their relationship with the music they experience.
> 
> (..culled from Jonathan Harvey's excellent book 'Music and Inspiration'. It's a non-technical read and highly recommended).


An interesting survey. Having listened to a wide range of composers, I think I understand the need for composers to be adventurous and, particularly, feel as if they have created something truly original. The amazing thing to me is how many composers during the CP era were distinctly different, but still composed music that had a substantial audience.

The attitude of Ferneyhough is what I would have expected. If one voices little concern for any target audience, the inevitable result becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> The attitude of Ferneyhough is what I would have expected. If one voices little concern for any target audience, the inevitable result becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.


Brian Ferneyhough is a successful and well-known composer, with a sizable audience, who enjoys widespread support and respect from both the layperson audience as well as the professional classical music community.

I am not sure what you think the self-fulfilling prophecy is since by any measure he has succeeded at his desired goal.


----------



## DaveM

EdwardBast said:


> As St. Anthony noted, the information about jurists, their number, and their area of expertise was in the info linked in the OP. It occurs to me that both you, Dave, and Anthony might be talking out of the proverbial alternative orifice.


You are going on the basis that there were only 3 individuals, based on the OP. I quoted what Comitas actually said which was that 2 advisory committees and a separate representative of the NFPK spoke positively of the work. Based on that there were more than just 3 jurists. Maybe you should pay more attention to the facts before drawing conclusions about out of what physical part I am talking.



> Neither of you knows the qualifications of the judges, their track records, their level of interest, probity, or competence in AG musical literature (or anything else), or how and why they got this dismal gig.


Well, apparently, neither do you, yet, in more than one comment, you appear to be assuming that all involved were incompetent and coming to critical conclusions about my opinions based on it.



> Yet you, Dave, are ready to presume that their decision about Bubbles can be generalized to the whole category of AG music — that the Bubbles award can't be merely the result of the characteristics or defects of the individuals involved and the process of this jury.


Your opinion appears to be that the conclusion here is that everyone judging this work is incompetent. What was Comitas trying to show, that the people evaluating his music were incompetent or that there are serious limitations about (what he is calling) avant-garde music? His words make this clear:

‘_That conception of originality, which has prevailed for decades, is utterly misguided in my view. As I've argued.
it discourages craftsmanship and ignores what makes a work of art truly valuable in a timeless sense. As I see it, this misconception is at the very core of the gigantic rift between what critics tell us is great contemporary music, on one hand, and what classical music audiences actually love to hear, on the other. 
..That is what led me to "compose" Bubbles --my one and only "avant-garde" work--in 2005.’_

I have said that the Experiment raises questions about music Comitas was referring to which was music based on random notes and presumably (since this was random tapping on a keyboard) no melody, harmony or structure. If you have issues with what this says, or not, about what he is calling avant-garde music, take your apparent anger up with him rather than shooting the messenger.

Btw, Comitas doesn’t come across as a flake, yet if the results of the Experiment were totally due to incompetent people judging it, then your comments suggest he must be, given that that would mean that he published the story of Bubbles based on a totally wrong premise.



> Neither of you has asked why the FST was apparently disbanded and replaced, something that might well be of interest, to say the least.


If you think the reason is of interest, then why not find out before raising the hypothetical of its importance.



> I don't have an opinion in this matter, except that Bubbles sounds like utter crap to me and, given that I trust my own aesthetic judgment, makes me skeptical of those who judged it to be of high quality. But both your (Dave's) generalization and Anthony's trust in the judges are without any credible basis I can see.


You have a right to your opinion. Others will judge the subject of credibility. I haven’t read (and I have looked) anything that proves incompetence of those involved, have you? Comitas didn’t appear to claim that, since his quote above was about the music. In fact, I am surprised by how little commentary is available. Perhaps, all involved wanted as little further discussion as possible.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> I have posted previously that we don't know what other works were submitted, nor do we know anything about the judges other than their job descriptions. *After listening to the work I thought a jury could reasonably choose it among other works which either did not fit the stylistic criteria of the competition or were not judged as good for some reason.*
> 
> But the difference between my response and Dave's is that I don't assume this experiment says anything about AG music in general, which seems to have been what the composer of _Bubbles_ thinks, or tried to prove: i.e. avant-garde music is so random and unnatural that no one can tell if a work is any good or not.
> 
> *I also trust my aesthetic judgment and thought that Bubbles wasn't garbage but sounded generally like much of the music from the 1950s serial camp.*
> 
> Now, I am sure if someone did a rigorous analysis of the work, they might discover structural flaws which would indicate the work is not well-written. *But just listening it sounded superficially like many serial works.*


I am encouraged by your comments that, given the original ’composers’ of ’Bubbles’, whereas I have lived my life assuming I had negligible skills as a composer, it appears that there is yet hope for me depending on the kind of music I choose to compose.


----------



## Waehnen

My attitude is this: it doesn´t really matter how a piece of music is constructed and what the technique is as long as it brings _something_ new, original, unigue and expressive to the table. Not all and not even much of it has to be new, but _something_.

I have problems only with music that is not original enough, and which doesn´t seem to have anything new to them. Pieces of music that are predictable are boring, no matter what the style.

If I was to compose 9 technically masterful symphonies, which always started with a funeral march in C-minor, continued with a dance-like scherzo with walzes, followed by a slow movement with similar chord progressions, and then ending in a celebratory choral finale in Eb major, I would be repeating myself and making the music boring even if I knew the craft well.

If the piece of music is good, I do not care if it is put together by children. And it proves nothing about a musical genre. How could it?

But if a modernist piece of music becomes predictable and the listeners are bored, then there´s some trouble. But that applies to all the musical genres.

(I listened to some of the Bubbles music. It was obviously utter crap. ********. The predictability was maximum. End of story.)


----------



## Roger Knox

My conclusion about the trouble people have in appreciating modernist and post-modern music is this: they notice that something seems to be lacking, or missing altogether, in the music. That is what I experience often. Does anyone else feel that way?


----------



## Bwv 1080

Letting OpenAI chime in:

Modernist classical music is a misguided and unnecessary movement in the history of classical music. It is characterized by its rejection of traditional tonality and its embrace of dissonance, abstraction, and complexity.
The fundamental flaw with modernist classical music is that it has lost sight of the fundamental purpose of music: to provide emotional and aesthetic pleasure to the listener. By abandoning traditional tonality and the principles of harmony and melody, modernist classical music has become alienating and difficult to listen to for most people. It has become the domain of a small group of elitist musicians and composers who are more concerned with intellectual complexity and abstraction than with creating beautiful and engaging music.
Furthermore, the modernist movement in classical music has led to a fragmentation and splintering of the genre. As modernist composers have pushed the boundaries of what is considered "classical" music, they have created a bewildering array of styles and sub-genres, each with its own set of rules and conventions. This has made it difficult for listeners to appreciate and understand classical music as a whole, and has contributed to its decline in popularity in recent decades.
In short, modernist classical music is a misguided and unnecessary movement that has done more harm than good to the genre. It has alienated listeners, fragmented the genre, and contributed to the decline of classical music in popular culture. It is time for classical musicians and composers to rediscover the beauty and emotional power of traditional tonality and harmony, and to create music that is accessible and enjoyable for a wide audience.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Open AI responds:


Modernist classical music is a form of artistic expression that has been unfairly maligned and misunderstood. Its bold and daring experiments with form, harmony, and melody have pushed the boundaries of what is possible in music and have paved the way for many of the great musical innovations of the 20th and 21st centuries.
Unlike the more conservative and traditional forms of classical music, modernist classical music is not afraid to challenge the listener and to demand their full attention and engagement. Its complex and often dissonant harmonies and structures may take some time to fully appreciate, but the rewards for doing so are well worth the effort.
In a world that is increasingly dominated by over-simplified and superficial forms of entertainment, modernist classical music offers a refreshing and stimulating alternative. It is a form of music that demands to be listened to and understood, rather than merely heard.
Furthermore, modernist classical music is not just the preserve of a small and elite group of intellectuals and aesthetes. Its relevance and appeal are universal, and it has the power to move and inspire listeners of all backgrounds and ages.
In conclusion, modernist classical music is a vital and important form of artistic expression that deserves to be celebrated and supported. Its challenges and innovations are a testament to the enduring power and creativity of classical music, and it is an essential part of our cultural heritage.


----------



## DaveM

Bwv 1080 said:


> Open AI responds:
> 
> 
> Modernist classical music is a form of artistic expression that has been unfairly maligned and misunderstood. Its bold and daring experiments with form, harmony, and melody have pushed the boundaries of what is possible in music and have paved the way for many of the great musical innovations of the 20th and 21st centuries.
> Unlike the more conservative and traditional forms of classical music, modernist classical music is not afraid to challenge the listener and to demand their full attention and engagement. Its complex and often dissonant harmonies and structures may take some time to fully appreciate, but the rewards for doing so are well worth the effort.
> In a world that is increasingly dominated by over-simplified and superficial forms of entertainment, modernist classical music offers a refreshing and stimulating alternative. It is a form of music that demands to be listened to and understood, rather than merely heard.
> Furthermore, modernist classical music is not just the preserve of a small and elite group of intellectuals and aesthetes. Its relevance and appeal are universal, and it has the power to move and inspire listeners of all backgrounds and ages.
> In conclusion, modernist classical music is a vital and important form of artistic expression that deserves to be celebrated and supported. Its challenges and innovations are a testament to the enduring power and creativity of classical music, and it is an essential part of our cultural heritage.


Here is something just for you Open AI:


----------



## DaveM

Bwv 1080 said:


> Letting OpenAI chime in:
> 
> Modernist classical music is a misguided and unnecessary movement in the history of classical music. It is characterized by its rejection of traditional tonality and its embrace of dissonance, abstraction, and complexity.
> The fundamental flaw with modernist classical music is that it has lost sight of the fundamental purpose of music: to provide emotional and aesthetic pleasure to the listener. By abandoning traditional tonality and the principles of harmony and melody, modernist classical music has become alienating and difficult to listen to for most people. It has become the domain of a small group of elitist musicians and composers who are more concerned with intellectual complexity and abstraction than with creating beautiful and engaging music.
> Furthermore, the modernist movement in classical music has led to a fragmentation and splintering of the genre. As modernist composers have pushed the boundaries of what is considered "classical" music, they have created a bewildering array of styles and sub-genres, each with its own set of rules and conventions. This has made it difficult for listeners to appreciate and understand classical music as a whole, and has contributed to its decline in popularity in recent decades.
> In short, modernist classical music is a misguided and unnecessary movement that has done more harm than good to the genre. It has alienated listeners, fragmented the genre, and contributed to the decline of classical music in popular culture. It is time for classical musicians and composers to rediscover the beauty and emotional power of traditional tonality and harmony, and to create music that is accessible and enjoyable for a wide audience.


Here’s something for you Letting Open AI:


----------



## Roger Knox

Roger Knox said:


> My conclusion about the trouble people have in appreciating modernist and post-modern music is this: they notice that something seems to be lacking, or missing altogether, in the music. ...


Let me add that I'm thinking here of people with a background in classical music. Also that the issue of "something missing" is not necessarily a criticism of the music or the listener. Suppose we take the aspects of musical style one might expect to find in an 18th-19th century work: melody, harmony, rhythm and meter, form, dynamics, texture, timbre, extra-musical aspects (e.g. text -- song; drama -- opera; choreography -- ballet). In a modernist or post-modern work any of the first four might be lacking, or at the very least be imperceptible. So it may be as important to discuss the lack of "expected" factors as to talk about the factors that are present.


----------



## Forster

What's this "OpenAI" thing?



Bwv 1080 said:


> Modernist classical music is a misguided and unnecessary movement in the history of classical music


It was neither misguided, nor necessary, nor unnecessary. The history of (anything) is what it is. Making it sound like it was a deliberate act on someone's part misunderstands the "inevitable chaos" and complexity that is history.


----------



## Forster

Roger Knox said:


> My conclusion about the trouble people have in appreciating modernist and post-modern music is this: they notice that something seems to be lacking, or missing altogether, in the music. That is what I experience often. Does anyone else feel that way?


Couldn't this apply to any music that we might not appreciate, regardless of the extent of atonality, modernity, dissonance etc?


----------



## Waehnen

Roger Knox said:


> My conclusion about the trouble people have in appreciating modernist and post-modern music is this: they notice that something seems to be lacking, or missing altogether, in the music. That is what I experience often. Does anyone else feel that way?


Like I have said before, often it is not enough for me, if the music first strongly focuses on what is not allowed: _tonal and harmonic hierarchies, pulse, melodies, traditional chords, high profile rhythms_ -- and then tries to convince the listeners that everything we need can be found (decade after decade) from the few parameters that are left: _tone colours and timbre, post-serialist or spectral chords/clusters and textures_.

Of course, a lot can be achieved also through the aforementioned parameters that even the strict modernists have always allowed. But in music I want to experience artistic freedom. If I get the feeling that the composer´s spirit is not free, I am not happy -- no matter what the technique or style.

For example, I sense total artistic and spiritual freedom in the works of Ligeti and Saariaho which results in me being convinced and interested in the music, and not focused on what was not technically allowed in the composition process.



Forster said:


> Couldn't this apply to any music that we might not appreciate, regardless of the extent of atonality, modernity, dissonance etc?


You beat me to it.


----------



## Enthusiast

HansZimmer said:


> Beethoven was not ignoring the fundamental nature of the human ears. He did not pretend that the screech of a chalk on the blackboard had to be considered "music".


So those who like music that crosses the line that you avoid - the line that forces you back to pastiche and playing around with old ideas - lack ears or are not human?


----------



## Bwv 1080

Forster said:


> What's this "OpenAI" thing?
> 
> 
> 
> It was neither misguided, nor necessary, nor unnecessary. The history of (anything) is what it is. Making it sound like it was a deliberate act on someone's part misunderstands the "inevitable chaos" and complexity that is history.


You miss my point. OpenAI is a chatbot who wrote that post in response to my command ‘write a diatribe against modernist classical music’. I could just as easily tell it ‘write a diatribe against modernist classical music in the form of a country song, in which case 

Verse 1:
I used to love classical music, it was the sound of my soul
But now it's just a bunch of noise, no melody or goal
It's like they took our beautiful melodies and turned them upside down
Now I can't even tell what's a chord or just a frown

Chorus:
Modernist classical music, it's a travesty
Ain't got no heart or soul, just a bunch of cacophony
I miss the days of Bach and Beethoven, they knew how to compose
Now it's just a mess of dissonance and no one knows

Verse 2:
I try to listen to the radio, but I can't take it anymore
All I hear is dissonance and noise, no melody to adore
It's like they've thrown away all the rules, they don't care about the sound
All they want is to be edgy and avant-garde, but they've lost the ground

Chorus:
Modernist classical music, it's a travesty
Ain't got no heart or soul, just a bunch of cacophony
I miss the days of Bach and Beethoven, they knew how to compose
Now it's just a mess of dissonance and no one knows

Bridge:
I don't understand these composers, what are they trying to say
All I hear is noise and chaos, no beauty in their way
I'll stick to the classics, the ones that touch my heart
I'll leave the modernists to their noise, I'll never be a part

Chorus:
Modernist classical music, it's a travesty
Ain't got no heart or soul, just a bunch of cacophony
I miss the days of Bach and Beethoven, they knew how to compose
Now it's just a mess of dissonance and no one knows.

So we can just automate this thread and go listen to some Beethoven or Stockhausen


----------



## mikeh375

^^^...ohh I wish I had time to set that to music.....


----------



## Bwv 1080

Or maybe you would prefer Donald Trump rapping

Verse 1:
I'm the Donald, the king of the deal
I don't need your modernist classical, it's just not real
It's all noise, no substance, no feeling inside
Your music's just a fad, it's time to take a side

Chorus:
Against modernist classical, I stand tall
It's time to bring back the classics, y'all
No more dissonance, no more atonality
Just melodies and harmonies, that's the way it should be

Verse 2:
Your music is just pretentious and elitist
It's not for the masses, it's only for the snobbish
It's not for the people, it's only for the few
It's time to bring back the classics, that's what I'm gonna do

Chorus:
Against modernist classical, I stand tall
It's time to bring back the classics, y'all
No more dissonance, no more atonality
Just melodies and harmonies, that's the way it should be

Verse 3:
I'll bring back the symphonies, the operas, the sonatas
The music that's timeless, that will never go outta
Fashion, because it's the best, it's the real deal
I'll make classical great again, I'll make it appeal

Chorus:
Against modernist classical, I stand tall
It's time to bring back the classics, y'all
No more dissonance, no more atonality
Just melodies and harmonies, that's the way it should be.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Finally, as it is Sunday, let’s listen to what the preachers are saying 

My dear brothers and sisters,

I come to you today with a heavy heart, for I must speak out against the evil of modernist classical music. This so-called "music" is not of God, but is instead a product of the devil and his minions.

Modernist classical music is a rebellion against the traditional forms of music that have been handed down to us by our forefathers. It is a rejection of the beautiful melodies and harmonies that have been used for centuries to praise the Lord and bring people closer to Him. Instead, it is a chaotic jumble of sounds that seeks only to stir up confusion and division.

This music is not just a deviation from the norm, but is a direct attack on the foundations of our faith. It is a rebellion against the authority of God's Word and the teachings of the Bible. It is a rejection of the truth of the gospel, and an attempt to lead people away from the path of righteousness.

My dear friends, we must not be deceived by this evil music. We must not let it into our homes or our hearts. We must stand firm in our faith and reject this music, lest it lead us away from the Lord and into the darkness of sin and rebellion.

Let us instead seek out the music that is pleasing to God and that brings us closer to Him. Let us fill our homes and our hearts with the sweet melodies of praise and worship, and let us lift up our voices in song to the glory of our God.

May the Lord bless us and keep us in His grace, and may we always stand firm against the evil of modernist classical music. Amen.


----------



## Forster

Bwv 1080 said:


> You miss my point


What _was_ your point?


----------



## Bwv 1080

Forster said:


> What _was_ your point?


Making fun of anti-modernist diatribes


----------

